Poahi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
- Posts
- 3,766
I'll let the MEC speak for itself, but I've been told by the powers that be that MAG is not part of this.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
To ALL UNITED pilots courtesy of ALL UAX carriers and their pilots
- Thread starter bmpilot2003
- Start date
- Watchers 58
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
I'll let the MEC speak for itself, but I've been told by the powers that be that MAG is not part of this.
I thought that MECs represented the "rank and file" pilots. Isn't that the point of them even existing? What is the point of having unions at all if efforts can fail with them and have to be taken to the "rank and file"? What the heck are we paying for?
Theoretically, yes. In practice, it doesn't always work that way.
This problem has been going on for some time now. I was the victim of it a couple of times. There is one clown at mainline, in their MEC, that has really been pushing for the UAL guys to have priority on all the express carriers. There have been multiple phone calls to my past CP on this....trying to get us to agree to letting mainline guys having first priority, and he basically told them to go F-off. I had this discussion with the CP personally. I wasn't proud of him very many times....but this was certainly one of them.
When I say I was the victim of the problem, I generally fixed it by talking to the captain of the flight, or by talking to dispatch. I had a gate agent do this to one of our jumpseating FO's one morning and I was captain. She was going to put the mainline guy on the only available seat...the jumpseat. I told her that our FO had priority...no question. Then the gate agent tried to tell me that since the jumping FO didn't have on their uniform, she couldn't go...of course, not our policy. I simply told the gate agent that the plane was going nowhere until the problem was resolved, and that I was calling my dispatch to explain why the plane was going to be late. Argument over! I won in two seconds flat.
When I say I was the victim of the problem, I generally fixed it by talking to the captain of the flight, or by talking to dispatch. I had a gate agent do this to one of our jumpseating FO's one morning and I was captain. She was going to put the mainline guy on the only available seat...the jumpseat. I told her that our FO had priority...no question. Then the gate agent tried to tell me that since the jumping FO didn't have on their uniform, she couldn't go...of course, not our policy. I simply told the gate agent that the plane was going nowhere until the problem was resolved, and that I was calling my dispatch to explain why the plane was going to be late. Argument over! I won in two seconds flat.
dispatchguy
Dad is my favorite title
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 1,569
The Letter
From a few other places I hit...
June 30, 2008
TO: United Air Lines Pilot Association MEC
FROM: United Express Carriers Pilots Associations
RE: Jumpseat Impasse
In 2005, United Airlines management and pilots reached a welcomed agreement under which “offline” pilots were granted unlimited jumpseat privileges. To implement this change, United Airlines (UAL) added a new Boarding Priority system [BP-11] to the already existing priority sorting software. However, it soon became apparent that the BP-11 sorting program had a critical flaw, one which UAL now appears unwilling to fix.
It is important that the scope of this problem be understood. Prior to the 2005 software change, UAL limited the number of jumpseats available on each flight to the actual number of jumpseats in the cockpit. However, once offline pilots were granted unlimited jumpseat privileges, a new computer software system was needed in order to sort jumpseat requests. That new computer system was BP-11.
BP-11 works properly for all pilots on UA mainline flights, only. On UAL flights, BP-11 properly gives UAL pilot jumpseat requests priority, and the system sorts United Airline pilots’ requests on the basis of seniority. United Airline Express [UAX] pilots are then given next priority, with the system sorting UAX requests in order of the UAX pilots’ check-in time. All other carriers’ pilots are then sorted next, also in order of those pilots’ check-in time. However, the BP-11 sorting system does not work for any pilots on express carriers. On express carriers, the BP-11 system continues to sort jumpseat requests as if the flight was an UAL mainlineflight. Under the current system, BP-11 not only gives UAL pilots jumpseat priority over express carrier pilots, on express carrier flights, but the BP-11 system also fails to honor the express carriers’ rules of seniority on express carrier flights. This was (and still is) an untenable situation.
In an effort to address these concerns, a “work-around” was implemented by all UAX carriers. Express carrier pilots who wanted to “jumpseat” onboard any UAX flight agreed to list themselves as “non-revenue” passengers. The pilots would then tell the Customer Service Representative (CSR) that they would be willing to sit in the cockpit jumpseat, if needed, in order to ensure making the flight (the CSR would
simply add “Jump Seat Authorized” next to the pilots’ names.) This “solution” around the BP-11 system flaw worked until the Fall of 2007.
In the Fall of 2007, UAL implemented another software change that negatively and financially impacted UAX pilots. Now, while coach seats remained free of charge to “jumpseating” pilots, all upgraded seat assignments would now cost “jumpseating” UAX pilots a fee. This fee applies to all UAX pilots on any upgraded seat, no matter whether that seat is on a UAL mainline or express carrier flight. As a result, the BP-11 “work-around” that was being used to maintain and honor the jumpseat rules and seniority preferences is now costing UAX pilots money. And, if a UAX pilot tries to avoid the upgrade fee (say, for example, by asking the CSR for an “Offline Member of the Crew” card to be issued), that pilot is now subject to the improper sorting problems still inherent in the BP-11 system. UAX pilots, therefore, are again faced with an untenable situation.
In an effort to address jumpseat issues and concerns, UALPA attempted to bring together representatives from both UAL and UAX in a series of “Jumpseat Process Improvement Team” meetings (JPIT). For the past nine (9) months, UAX representatives have repeatedly explained to UAL the jumpseating problems continuing to face all UAX pilots. Finally, in May, 2008, UAL told the UAX carriers that UAL was unwilling to invest any money to fix the ongoing sorting problems with the BP-11 system, since that investment would not generate any revenue for UAL.
UAX carriers believe that UAL’s unwillingness to address the inequities in the current jumpseating software, and UAL’s stated reason of lack of revenue generation, is belied by UAL’s recent investment in non-revenue generating software upgrades. For example, in April, 2008, UAL pilots successfully petitioned UAL to change the “K-Priorities” on all UAL and UAX flights. As of May, 2008, all UAX carriers are now divided into two separate jumpseating categories, “K-1” and “K-2.” UAX carriers (and their pilots) that agree to give UAL pilots a higher jumpseat priority on that carrier’s flight are now assigned the higher and preferred “K-1” designation when that carrier’s pilots turn around and attempt to jumpseat onboard any UAL or UAX flight. Those UAX carriers who refuse to give UAL pilots a higher jumpseating priority on UAX flights are then assigned the lower “K-2” priority when those UAX pilots turn around and attempt to jumpseat on any UAL or UAX flight. (Therefore, pilots from Go Jets and Trans States Airlines now have “K-1” jumpseat priority throughout the UAL and UAX system, while pilots from SkyWest Airlines, Chautauqua, Republic Airlines and Shuttle America have been lowered to a “K-2” jumpseat priority.) During this same time period, yet another software change was implemented by UAL. Now, pilots of Mesa Airlines and Colgan Airlines have been dropped to an “L” jumpseat priority system, which is even lower than the “K-1” and “K-2” jumpseat priorities. Not only has UAL been willing to spend money on this new priority system, but this new system (which is simply a software subset of the already flawed BP-11 computer sorting system) creates yet another wholly untenable situation: Go Jet, Trans States and UAL pilots now have higher jumpseat priority than SkyWest, Chautauqua, Republic and Shuttle America pilots on their own flights. And, all UAL and UAX pilots have higher jumpseat priority than Mesa and Colgan pilots on their own flights.
To say that the “respective agreement tables” or the “captain’s jumpseat authority” has not been changed misses these points entirely. Jumpseat requests are made by the pilots at the gate, and therefore, it is the CSRs who process all jumpseat requests. The CSRs, in turn, rely upon the computer software to sort priorities and make jumpseat assignments. Because the BP-11 computer software used by the CSRs is inherently flawed (with respect to all UAX carriers), it is the BP-11 software that must be fixed.
THEREFORE, all of the Pilot Associations flying for United Airlines as United Airline Express carriers now formally request that the software be changed to recognize our respective flight numbers and sort jumpseat requests in accordance with our respective seniority and priority agreements. Recently, on behalf of UALPA, UAL has repeatedly demonstrated that rapid software changes can be made, even when those changes did not generate any revenue and adversely impacted all of the pilots flying for UAX carriers. Now, the pilots flying for the UAX carriers respectfully request that UALPA seek to rectify this situation. The UAX pilots believe that thirty (30) days is a reasonable amount of time for UALPA and UAL to fix the unpalatable and unworkable BP-11 jumpseat sorting system. Unfortunately and regrettably, if UALPA will not honor the UAX pilots’ request, then the UAX pilots will have no other choice but to deny all United Airline pilots any available jumpseat, regardless of aircraft colors. And, while we realize that this is a drastic measure, it must be understood that the degradation of our jumpseats on our own aircraft must be changed. For, although it is not our intention to create animosity between our respective pilot groups, the UAX pilots’ concerns have simply been overlooked and disrespected for too long. Ultimately, we seek nothing more than to honor the jumpseat seniority, priority and dignity for ALL of our respective pilot groups.
Any questions or comments should be directed to the UAX Jumpseat Committees by way of the UALPA Jumpseat Committee. We look forward
to your timely response, and hope that these issues can be resolved in an amicable and professional manner.
Signed,
The Pilots of Colgan Air
GoJet MEC/Jumpseat Committee
MAG MEC/Jumpseat Committee
Republic Airways Holdings (representing Chautauqua Airlines and Shuttle America) Pilot Group Executive Council
SAPA Executive Board/Jumpseat Committee
From a few other places I hit...
June 30, 2008
TO: United Air Lines Pilot Association MEC
FROM: United Express Carriers Pilots Associations
RE: Jumpseat Impasse
In 2005, United Airlines management and pilots reached a welcomed agreement under which “offline” pilots were granted unlimited jumpseat privileges. To implement this change, United Airlines (UAL) added a new Boarding Priority system [BP-11] to the already existing priority sorting software. However, it soon became apparent that the BP-11 sorting program had a critical flaw, one which UAL now appears unwilling to fix.
It is important that the scope of this problem be understood. Prior to the 2005 software change, UAL limited the number of jumpseats available on each flight to the actual number of jumpseats in the cockpit. However, once offline pilots were granted unlimited jumpseat privileges, a new computer software system was needed in order to sort jumpseat requests. That new computer system was BP-11.
BP-11 works properly for all pilots on UA mainline flights, only. On UAL flights, BP-11 properly gives UAL pilot jumpseat requests priority, and the system sorts United Airline pilots’ requests on the basis of seniority. United Airline Express [UAX] pilots are then given next priority, with the system sorting UAX requests in order of the UAX pilots’ check-in time. All other carriers’ pilots are then sorted next, also in order of those pilots’ check-in time. However, the BP-11 sorting system does not work for any pilots on express carriers. On express carriers, the BP-11 system continues to sort jumpseat requests as if the flight was an UAL mainlineflight. Under the current system, BP-11 not only gives UAL pilots jumpseat priority over express carrier pilots, on express carrier flights, but the BP-11 system also fails to honor the express carriers’ rules of seniority on express carrier flights. This was (and still is) an untenable situation.
In an effort to address these concerns, a “work-around” was implemented by all UAX carriers. Express carrier pilots who wanted to “jumpseat” onboard any UAX flight agreed to list themselves as “non-revenue” passengers. The pilots would then tell the Customer Service Representative (CSR) that they would be willing to sit in the cockpit jumpseat, if needed, in order to ensure making the flight (the CSR would
simply add “Jump Seat Authorized” next to the pilots’ names.) This “solution” around the BP-11 system flaw worked until the Fall of 2007.
In the Fall of 2007, UAL implemented another software change that negatively and financially impacted UAX pilots. Now, while coach seats remained free of charge to “jumpseating” pilots, all upgraded seat assignments would now cost “jumpseating” UAX pilots a fee. This fee applies to all UAX pilots on any upgraded seat, no matter whether that seat is on a UAL mainline or express carrier flight. As a result, the BP-11 “work-around” that was being used to maintain and honor the jumpseat rules and seniority preferences is now costing UAX pilots money. And, if a UAX pilot tries to avoid the upgrade fee (say, for example, by asking the CSR for an “Offline Member of the Crew” card to be issued), that pilot is now subject to the improper sorting problems still inherent in the BP-11 system. UAX pilots, therefore, are again faced with an untenable situation.
In an effort to address jumpseat issues and concerns, UALPA attempted to bring together representatives from both UAL and UAX in a series of “Jumpseat Process Improvement Team” meetings (JPIT). For the past nine (9) months, UAX representatives have repeatedly explained to UAL the jumpseating problems continuing to face all UAX pilots. Finally, in May, 2008, UAL told the UAX carriers that UAL was unwilling to invest any money to fix the ongoing sorting problems with the BP-11 system, since that investment would not generate any revenue for UAL.
UAX carriers believe that UAL’s unwillingness to address the inequities in the current jumpseating software, and UAL’s stated reason of lack of revenue generation, is belied by UAL’s recent investment in non-revenue generating software upgrades. For example, in April, 2008, UAL pilots successfully petitioned UAL to change the “K-Priorities” on all UAL and UAX flights. As of May, 2008, all UAX carriers are now divided into two separate jumpseating categories, “K-1” and “K-2.” UAX carriers (and their pilots) that agree to give UAL pilots a higher jumpseat priority on that carrier’s flight are now assigned the higher and preferred “K-1” designation when that carrier’s pilots turn around and attempt to jumpseat onboard any UAL or UAX flight. Those UAX carriers who refuse to give UAL pilots a higher jumpseating priority on UAX flights are then assigned the lower “K-2” priority when those UAX pilots turn around and attempt to jumpseat on any UAL or UAX flight. (Therefore, pilots from Go Jets and Trans States Airlines now have “K-1” jumpseat priority throughout the UAL and UAX system, while pilots from SkyWest Airlines, Chautauqua, Republic Airlines and Shuttle America have been lowered to a “K-2” jumpseat priority.) During this same time period, yet another software change was implemented by UAL. Now, pilots of Mesa Airlines and Colgan Airlines have been dropped to an “L” jumpseat priority system, which is even lower than the “K-1” and “K-2” jumpseat priorities. Not only has UAL been willing to spend money on this new priority system, but this new system (which is simply a software subset of the already flawed BP-11 computer sorting system) creates yet another wholly untenable situation: Go Jet, Trans States and UAL pilots now have higher jumpseat priority than SkyWest, Chautauqua, Republic and Shuttle America pilots on their own flights. And, all UAL and UAX pilots have higher jumpseat priority than Mesa and Colgan pilots on their own flights.
To say that the “respective agreement tables” or the “captain’s jumpseat authority” has not been changed misses these points entirely. Jumpseat requests are made by the pilots at the gate, and therefore, it is the CSRs who process all jumpseat requests. The CSRs, in turn, rely upon the computer software to sort priorities and make jumpseat assignments. Because the BP-11 computer software used by the CSRs is inherently flawed (with respect to all UAX carriers), it is the BP-11 software that must be fixed.
THEREFORE, all of the Pilot Associations flying for United Airlines as United Airline Express carriers now formally request that the software be changed to recognize our respective flight numbers and sort jumpseat requests in accordance with our respective seniority and priority agreements. Recently, on behalf of UALPA, UAL has repeatedly demonstrated that rapid software changes can be made, even when those changes did not generate any revenue and adversely impacted all of the pilots flying for UAX carriers. Now, the pilots flying for the UAX carriers respectfully request that UALPA seek to rectify this situation. The UAX pilots believe that thirty (30) days is a reasonable amount of time for UALPA and UAL to fix the unpalatable and unworkable BP-11 jumpseat sorting system. Unfortunately and regrettably, if UALPA will not honor the UAX pilots’ request, then the UAX pilots will have no other choice but to deny all United Airline pilots any available jumpseat, regardless of aircraft colors. And, while we realize that this is a drastic measure, it must be understood that the degradation of our jumpseats on our own aircraft must be changed. For, although it is not our intention to create animosity between our respective pilot groups, the UAX pilots’ concerns have simply been overlooked and disrespected for too long. Ultimately, we seek nothing more than to honor the jumpseat seniority, priority and dignity for ALL of our respective pilot groups.
Any questions or comments should be directed to the UAX Jumpseat Committees by way of the UALPA Jumpseat Committee. We look forward
to your timely response, and hope that these issues can be resolved in an amicable and professional manner.
Signed,
The Pilots of Colgan Air
GoJet MEC/Jumpseat Committee
MAG MEC/Jumpseat Committee
Republic Airways Holdings (representing Chautauqua Airlines and Shuttle America) Pilot Group Executive Council
SAPA Executive Board/Jumpseat Committee
METARzan
Fellow Aviator
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Posts
- 33
A few thoughts from another SKYW pilot.
When I was a newhire, a UAL pilot gave up the jumpseat on a UAL plane to little old newhire me so I could get to work and not miss my show (he was heading home and could catch the next one). I was impressed with his professional courtesy and genuine care for others. Then I was almost blown away when I found out that he was about to get furloughed in two weeks and I was on my way to go fly UAX flying. (man did I ever feel small)
The rest of my short career I have been looking for an oportunity to pay back another UAL pilot like that.
I want to welcome all UAL (and all other airlines for that matter) into my jumpseat, any time I can.
The situation that is going on right now with Jumpseat priority at UAL did not happen over night. SkyWest flights are now continually leaving the gate with a SkyWest jumpseater at the gate because the UAL agent sent down another carrier's pilot because the computer told them to. I think we can all agree that this is not right and it should be corrected.
The SKW jumpseat chair has been working tirelessly for months to rectify the problem with UAL and the United MEC to no avail. The decision to send out the letter was not taken lightly and it was not made alone.
I have no desire to "threaten" any pilot with a jumpseat war, but I will enlist every UAL pilot I come across to encourage UAL and their MEC to live up to the agreements that they have made.
Respectfully, Just another SkyWest Pilot
(P.S. I like the UAL pilots so much, I married one of their daughters.)
When I was a newhire, a UAL pilot gave up the jumpseat on a UAL plane to little old newhire me so I could get to work and not miss my show (he was heading home and could catch the next one). I was impressed with his professional courtesy and genuine care for others. Then I was almost blown away when I found out that he was about to get furloughed in two weeks and I was on my way to go fly UAX flying. (man did I ever feel small)
The rest of my short career I have been looking for an oportunity to pay back another UAL pilot like that.
I want to welcome all UAL (and all other airlines for that matter) into my jumpseat, any time I can.
The situation that is going on right now with Jumpseat priority at UAL did not happen over night. SkyWest flights are now continually leaving the gate with a SkyWest jumpseater at the gate because the UAL agent sent down another carrier's pilot because the computer told them to. I think we can all agree that this is not right and it should be corrected.
The SKW jumpseat chair has been working tirelessly for months to rectify the problem with UAL and the United MEC to no avail. The decision to send out the letter was not taken lightly and it was not made alone.
I have no desire to "threaten" any pilot with a jumpseat war, but I will enlist every UAL pilot I come across to encourage UAL and their MEC to live up to the agreements that they have made.
Respectfully, Just another SkyWest Pilot
(P.S. I like the UAL pilots so much, I married one of their daughters.)
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
Funny to read Joe Merchant and PCL 128 fight about a jumpseat skirmish when PCL has no express carriers and the airlines are Joe's competitors.
Captains should be checking the gate house, observing who needs a ride and making it happen. We had our little J/S battles and when I had the fourth stripe - I got folks on MY jumpseat. (moved lots of bags, filed higher altitudes, even took a few 135 guys in back).
If our employers are this big on outsourcing, displacements and other disruptions to destroy our longevity then we need to make positive space to work a priority, just like the factionals have. Sure it messes up crew rest and costs money, but that is just the price of doing business. Use some of that money saved by replacing a DC9 with an RJ.
Again, it is a cost of doing business. Try the J/S, if taken, give me a pass to work.
Captains should be checking the gate house, observing who needs a ride and making it happen. We had our little J/S battles and when I had the fourth stripe - I got folks on MY jumpseat. (moved lots of bags, filed higher altitudes, even took a few 135 guys in back).
If our employers are this big on outsourcing, displacements and other disruptions to destroy our longevity then we need to make positive space to work a priority, just like the factionals have. Sure it messes up crew rest and costs money, but that is just the price of doing business. Use some of that money saved by replacing a DC9 with an RJ.
Again, it is a cost of doing business. Try the J/S, if taken, give me a pass to work.
Fine. My answer is "No". Its easy. Let them get to work/parties on their RJs.
imacdog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Posts
- 4,196
Can a little copilot make that decision?
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
