Boarding Priority
 

Can anyone decipher the following code:

SA0X-11 on employee res?

Flight is a United flight, now being flown by CAL metal. I see the usual suspects commuting. The one at the top is a vacation pass, then there is this SA0X-11, which is a 2011 hire, followed by a bunch of standard passes SA1P-87 etc.

I thought perhaps the SA0X was a CAL employee, therefore ahead of the UAL employees as its CAL metal, but a search showed its not.

I suspect this is a United Express employee that is being bumped to the top by the glitch where they list outbound on Express and the return on mainline and they end up ahead of us on mainline metal. I want to file an FDR (or whatever the form is) with ALPA, but want to make sure that is whats happening before I do.

Tried to pull up the boarding priority document, but it says "no file".

Thanks!

It means Stand By, 0 is highest priority and X is Regional carrier(eXpress jet)

Oh and to shed more light on the situation. They (ALPA) sent an email saying they were fixing the problem with switching to a mainline flight and going over other people. So I think it is all getting sorted out.

Thanks for the info. Hmmm..... Well he's above about 15 UAL guys on the list so hasn't been fixed yet. I'll go file my report.

Honestly , time to turn off the jump seat for UAX if they're going to keep exploiting a glitch in the system.

Seriously? How about its honestly not exploiting a glitch in the system, but we just happen to list outbound on our own metal, but then the return flight is on mainline and due to NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, our priority is messed up. Stop being so paranoid and thinking all regional guys are out to get you. :rolleyes:

How about stepping forward when a glitch in the system puts you at the top of the SA list and telling the CSR that you should board after all the mainline SA's ?

An SA showing up at the gate knows that how?

While I agree that Jumpseat threats are not the way to go, it should be noted that a few years back there was a computer glitch where a few UAL pilots were put ahead of UAX pilots for the Jumpseat on UAX airplanes. For about a month I had to endure constant threats by Skywest pilots that they would not take me until we got it fixed.... Like we had any control over UAL's computer system. There were documents I was presented outlining the threat of no UAL pilots on UAX jumpseats. My standard response was "Dont take me to work, I don't care. But how do you think it's going to go for you when I don't make a trip because I was denied a Jumpseat on an airplane my company paid to have you operate?"

I remember these things.

Seeing that they are ahead of SA1's with much greater seniority.

FWIW... Once you get to the gate all you see are a bunch of names (tv screen). When I list on Skynet I see where I am with all the codes, but unless I print off the list each and every time I have absolutely no clue who all the other people are once at the gate. So I wouldn't have any idea if I was going ahead of someone I shouldn't be.

The gates used to print off paper with all the standby/PS travelers on it that DID show the codes if I remember correctly, but I haven't seen them do that in a while.

Edit: and of course as I type that the 3 gates near me all put up the piece of paper with names AND codes. Go figure.

All I'm saying is don't lump us all in together. For some it's an honest mistake and speaking for me I would gladly approach the gate and let them know what priority should be if I were made aware of a problem.

And this will all be a moot point when y'all take back scope and hire us all anyway (I can still dream, right?)

X just means UAX, not necessarily ExpressJet.

It's real easy UAX'ers. List ONE WAY on your metal (SA0X). Then make a separate ONE WAY listing on our metal (SA5X). For my fellow UA'ers...When you see this happen on a mainline flight, politely explain to the UAX'er that there is no way that he/she is boarding ahead of you/your family on a mainline flight. I have brought this to the attention of our union several times now. Two weeks ago a Mesa pilot traveling as an SA0X was number 2 ahead of 20 UAL employees on my "going home" A320. I noticed that one of our Council 12 union reps was also passriding on the flight as well. I printed the "pass rider list" and handed it the the union rep. It was the first that he had heard of this. Until this gets fixed, ALL United Airlines employees need to be aware of this and CONFRONT & EDUCATE these guys when they see this so called "glitch" occuring with OUR TRAVEL BENEFITS!!!

And they know the boarding priority, employing company, and seniority how?

This is a UNICAL IT problem that highlites the recent PSS changeover "success". Placing blame or responsibility on individual pass riders is as misplaced as trying to start a jumpseat war.

No offense gettinbumped, but there's a few more things you should remember about that as well. There was A LOT more to that whole thing. It went on for quite some time that UAL pilots were processed ahead of UAX pilots on their own metal, with a fair share of UAL pilots taking full advantage of it. And it was happening on ALL UAX carriers, not jut OO. It was the worst where it's UAL gate agents, the UAX plane is out at the hardstand on a quick turn, the CA may not have time to walk to the gate, and the agent is processing the UAL pilot and not even letting the UAX pilot down to talk to the CA. YES, it happened, repeatedly, hence all the reports to the JS chairs.

For months, the respective UAX JS chairs would inform the UAL JS committee, and NOTHING was being done. The usual response was "it's a glitch in the system, the company says it's too expensive to fix, so we can't do anything about it". In other words, pi$$ off.

AGAIN, this went of for months and months. Then all but one of UAX carriers (at the time) decided to draft the letter you have been shown. Well, wasn't it a freaking coincidence that when that happened, the UAL JS committee actually put pressure on the company to fix the issue? It wasn't about starting a "jumpseat war". It was about going through proper channels and procedures for an extended period of time and constantly banging your head on an wall because the system wasn't being fixed.

There were PLENTY of threads on here about it back then, and PLENTY of UAL pilots that thought it was their god given right to have JS priority on UAX airplanes. These guys also thought that the "tail shouldn't try to wag the dog". It wasn't about that, it was about getting YOUR JS committee to get something fixed that they didn't see as a priority. UAL buys the seats in the back, but the JS is STILL the respective carrier's, and ANY mainline partner is retarded if they think they own that too. DALALPA tried it a few years back on their DelCon carriers, ehhhh, didn't work out so good for them.

So it sucks that maybe an OO pilot (or any other pilot) "threatened you". And for the record, there's been multiple times when UAX pilots have been denied the JS on mainline metal. You know, those guys that say they don't let RJ guys on their JS. Happened at BOTH the carriers I've worked at. I encourage those guys to tell the CA just what you said above;

"Dont take me to work, I don't care. But how do you think it's going to go for you when I don't make a trip because I was denied a Jumpseat on an airplane with a united paint job on it?"

Now, as far as this whole SA0X or whatever it is. Are all you guys sure that it's NOT a deadheading crew member? UAL will PS one to get them INTO position, as far as DH'ing them BACK to domicile, ehhhhh, UAL doesn't really do that for UAX crew members so much. IOW, the ONLY time it's positive space back to domicile is the LAST flight.

Your right xjt sometimes the only wasy to get the js committee's attention is to deny the jumpseat. Never bothered me to have a little war to wake someone up.

Aww this thread is cute. The old pilots are arguing about young pilots TUUUKIINN YERRRRRRR PRAAOORRRIIITTTTEEERRRRRSSSS.

Well, sadly, if that's what it takes JUST concerning the jumpseat and reciprocity issues.

Reference SOME (not ALL) NYC based UAL crews circa late 2004 early 2005. Ask how that little Jumpseat jihad they decided to engage in with JetBlue went for them. Sad what the then UAL JS chair had to tell his own allegedly professional pilots to get it to stop.

Safe to say that IF JetBlue has responded in kind, well, it woulda' been pretty funny to watch.

Don't know anything about that xjt with nyc and all, my point is sometimes you have to do something like that to get alpa'a attention. Funny with alpa you can call them and try to get a resonse about something and hardly a response, but deny the jumpseat and you get called the same day, then they listen.

Have no idea what you are talking about.

This thread is about the "SA0X" boarding priority being erroneously applied to UAX personnel on mainline UAL flights. It has nothing to do with anyone's jumpseat. It has everything to do with United Airlines employees and their families being left behind at the gate. There is no "jumpseat war" going on here. Until this gets fixed, IF YOU ARE A UAX EMPLOYEE TRAVELING ON YOUR OWN METAL AND SUBSEQUENTIALLY RETURNING ON A UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT, YOU SHOULD LIST ONE WAY, EACH WAY! Otherwise you will likely be boarding the United Airlines flight on a bogus priority. There's the temporary fix guys. Now just show some INTEGRITY!!!

Understand and agree with your point. But it's probably along the lines of Pro-stans. Like the jumpseat, pro-stans is something that a majority of the time stays at the pilot level. Combined with the fact that JS committee members commute themselves so they have a vested interest in getting matter resolved ASAP. As opposed to trying to deal with a rep on a contract issue or negotiating item, and other things come into play such as senior vs. junior, line holder vs. reserve, etc etc etc and the rep simply doesn't care about a specific concern.

Now, trying to get this thing back on track;

I'll ask the question again, since you overlooked/ignored it. Are you absolutely sure the SA0X UAX person is NOT on a deadhead? Because, again, not all UAX deadheads are positive space, you're simply at the top of the non-rev list. It's ONLY if it's getting into position that it becomes a positive space, OR the last flight back to domicile that's positive space. Otherwise, again, it's just top priority SA travel. Now, if UAL wants to treat the UAX carrier's crew members that way, that's cool. UAL buys the seats after all. Sucks for the guys that live in base, or you are supposed to DH back and catch a commute home, ect. But it gets better. If the DH involves getting back to domicile, and it's a reserve pilot and more flying was tacked on their schedule, well, that just means that pilot may miss they're flight. Which means a flight, or whole string of flights may cancel. Which means that UAL passengers that bought tickets from UAL to ride on airplanes that UAL management decided to outsource to for the lowest price just got seriously inconvenienced. Isn't that just awesome!!!!! I've witnessed it happen more times than I can count.

You mean like the integrity that gets exercised when a pilot (regardless of carrier) gets denied a JS because a CA who's nothing more than an overgrown child suffering from small manhood syndrome thinks he's "really gonna show these guys and stick it to em by denying them a ride", all while trying to masquerade around as a "professional pilot". Seriously, have you ever seen the email comm that takes place between JS committee members? It can be pretty comical to hear the how and why a CA denied a pilot.

I guess we could also talk about the integrity (lack thereof) that a very small minority of mainline pilots exercised by taking full advantage of improper JS priority. BTW, that problem went on for well over a year. Let's hope this boarding issue thing (if it is a SA issue and NOT a deadhead issue) gets resolved to for UAL mainline employees in less time than the JS fiasco did.

Now just imagine, if scope wasn't given away on the ESOP midterm vote or on contract 2000, all these little boarding priority, jumpseat, and other silly peeing contests WOULDN'T be happening, would they?

Yes I'm sure. SA is not a Positive Space code. It was a 2011 hire United Express employees and kid who got the first two standby seats on the airplane. I was delayed in arrival so I didn't have a chance to rectify it before they were already on board. All the UAL employees got on anyway, so it was a moot point THIS TIME.

You didn't need to type all that. I know exactly what happened. And I know exactly what is happening now. We are over a month into this problem, and United has ZERO intention of fixing it anytime soon even though its just a "quick change to the program". Same as your little Jumpseat fit. But somehow, you wanted THAT problem resolved IMMEDIATELY by our JS committee (who has NO control over the situation), but now its no big deal. I don't expect a resolution for several months. Why? For the same reason I told you guys that it would take awhile for the Jumpseat problem to be fixed. Because United Airlines, you know, the ones who actually control the system, DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EMPLOYEES. I also remember that at the time of that little Jumpseat snafu we were reeling from the fallout of a Ch 11 filing, a 50% pay cut, parking an additional 100 airplanes, furloughing thousands of pilots, and getting our work rules gutted. In other words, we were a little busy. Personally, I think UAL should have priority on UAX jumpseats anyway as we paid for the airplane. My company doesn't care enough about us to set it up that way, so the system is as it is, and I accept that. For your at-risk flying, I firmly agree all UAX pilots and employees should go behind UAL employees. As my spouse is a UAX employee, I have the "privilege" of seeing what is being said on some of the UAX employee boards. The sense of entitlement is astonishing for a company with someone else's paint job on the side of the plane, someone else's name in their announcements, sells no tickets, and doesn't pay for their own fuel. Just my .02c

Wait, explain this further please. In this particular case, it was a UAX employee traveling with their kid, and it wasn't flight crew, so it was definitely not a deadhead. What kind of DH are you talking about? The only DH we have is traveling to cover an assignment, or returning from that assignment. We can deviate from a DH on another flight, but that too is positive space, just at a different priority. There is no such thing as a "space available DH". How is it that your company can just put you at the top of a UAL standby list but not make it positive space? That is something else I need to make sure we grieve.

In fairness to the xjet poster, I'm the one who brought the jumpseat up. I was simply trying to remind the UAX pilots how stupid it was that they threatened a jumpseat action against UAL pilots over a computer glitch.

The same way that I knew that I was getting aced by a 2011 hire Express employee. I looked at the codes when I listed and asked.

I fully agree that this is a UNICAL problem, and not the responsibility of Express employees. Perhaps we should remind the UAX pilots the same next time there is a glitch in the system that goofs up their jumpseat priority.

Here's the rub. I'm PRAYING that I don't make it to work soon because I get left behind while a bunch of United Express employees waltz on to our jets. It would be SOOO sweet to call the Chief Pilot and explain why I didn't make my trip, followed by a grievance to make sure I was paid for it due to it being a UAL induced failure. HOWEVER, when I don't make it home to my family on one of my 9-10 nights at home a month for the same reason, my sense of humor dims considerably.

I know, I was simply interjecting the facts of what went down, as they are OFTEN left out.

Just to clarify. I WASN'T flying UAX at that time, so it's not my "little jumpseat fit". Just as the JetBlue pilots that were having problems in JFK years ago wasn't my "little fit" either. But it sure was a reflection of how some legacy pilots tend to behave.

Sigh.......As stated, the problem went on for well over a year, closer to 2. The UAX JS chairs were going through proper channels and were running into a brick wall EVERY SINGLE TIME. So as far as "immediately" goes, it's all relative.

Yep, sucks. And just like I told you last week before and after you went to the dentist. I've been there, I've done that. A bunch of children exercising their own little agendas on other pilots gets them NOWHERE! So the fact that management just got done handing you guys you aresholes via BK concession is NO excuse to treat other pilots badly, is it?

Have to agree to disagree on this one. Your company DIDN'T pay for the airplane. They're leased. In the case of the ERJ's, they are leased by UNICAL, then subleased to ExpressJet. Now, if UNICAL wanted to buy the airplanes, bring ALL the RJ flying back in house, then I could see a priority. But UAL DIDN'T buy the airplane, they ONLY bought the revenue seats in the back, NOT the jumpseat

As stated, when a UAX crewmember needs to get to an outstation or other hub other than they're domicile, UAX positive spaces them. Or rather, the UAX carrier buys the seat on mainline to get them there. And it costs the UAX carrier a decent chunk of change to do so. However, when it's to return them to domicile, that DH is NOT positive space unless it's the last flight of the day. IOW, a crew member that is supposed to be DH'd back to domicile ISN'T positive space, yet is on a deadhead. But that deadhead priority is ONLY on a SA basis, unless the last flight of the day. Does that make sense? What are you going to grieve, that a crewmember that is supposed to be on a positive space/deadhead isn't really on a positive space and that they're OLNY on the top of the non-rev pile? Again, it's a deadhead, the crew member is working and on a duty period, yet isn't positive space. But back to my point, sure. Put all deadheading UAX crewmembers behind ALL non revenue ALL the time. Let a bunch UAX flights cancel, let a buch of UAL passengers that bought tickets from UAL be inconvenienced and cost even MORE money that gets to come out of BOTH our paychecks.

And I agree with your point. Seriously, if I don't get to work because of a lack of boarding priority or some little CA's personal agenda of denying express pilots the jumpseat, I'm a honeybadger. I don't care. I call my CP and tell them what happened and that's that. When it comes to getting home, lack of boarding priority doesn't concern me. Because AGAIN, just like I told you last week, the regional ISN'T my career destination.

Read on another forum that a new software upload tonight will fix this.

Put your assault rifles away !!

Thank goodness!....See there, the squeaky wheel does get greased on occasion!

We need to start from scratch on the whole boarding priority system. The fact that an employee who has been with the company for 6 months working on the ramp goes ahead of a person who gave 30 years of service to the company and is retired is completely ridiculous.

Years of service = boarding priority. PERIOD.

Jeff saved us again - are you now proud!

Maybe he is positive space on a DH? But fire away and cut off the jumpseat tiger.

Nah, I prefer the old CAL way myself. Retiree's behind all active employees.

I don't recall Jeff ever saving us previously, do you?

Gotta agree.............too many already ahead of active employees. Hell, just get on our BOD and you don't even have to work here to bump anyone out of first class........................

Glad to see you like the ilks of Titlon and others who robbed you of everything having PRIORITY over active employees. No wonder UAL was such a mess. BTW, someone working for six months doesn't have all the time in the world to sit standby and wait for a seat. With the airplanes as full as they are someone with five years might NEVER make it on. You're okay with that? :confused:

If there is someone who has given 25 years of service to the company ahead of them, then hell yes.

Can you name an industry/job where the retirement benefits/perks are better than an active employee? I can't.

iahflyr - I wouldn't waste much time with these guys. You have got to understand that they have always looked out for themselves - it's the culture. No respect for anything! I bet a few would take Social Security away from their own parents if they thought it would save them a buck. Let 'em rant on how good it was to not give their retirees a priority - I think CAL retirees even had to pay even the guys with more that 25 years.