UAL wants to change jumpseating to ID90

[Rez O. Lewshun]

.....

 

[JoeMerchant]

.....

Best thing you've ever said!

 

[Flyer2000]

It was resolved by having our CEO not sign a contract until it was agreed upon to have it in writing that there will be "no change" to OMC travel for all UAX pilots.

Now we are working on getting something we can show the agents so that any confusion will be cleared up right then instead of after the fact.

 

[trip]

Hmmmm, not ALPA?

 

[PCL_128]

This isn't an issue that stems from UAX management. This is a United management issue and only the United pilots can peacefully influence United management.

Should the UAL pilots use their own bargaining leverage to negotiate for non-ALPA pilots at UAX carriers? Republic, GoJet, and Skywest are flying most of UAL's feed, and all are non-ALPA. I certainly wouldn't waste a drop of negotiating grease to pay for their jumpseat access. If the TSA, MAG, and CJC MECs come to the UAL MEC and "use honey instead of vinegar," as Rez said, then I would certainly see some value to helping out their ALPA brothers, but I couldn't give a rat's ass if GoJet pilots get free jumpseat access.

Oh well....I'm sure that in the mean time the United MEC can keep themselves busy with the childish pranks they are famous for. Whats next? "Glenn's Got To Go" beer mugs?

Well, no disagreement there.

Hardball works!

I find it curious that you only favor "hardball" tactics against your fellow ALPA pilots and never against the management team that has continuously underpaid you for your entire career. Direct your anger and "hardball" where it belongs: at management.

Hey Rez....the vinegar worked....The policy was changed when the UAX pilots banded together...That pi$$es you off for 2 reasons:

1. It was done outside of ALPA by UAX pilots who were ALPA, Teamsters, and non-union...It was more unity than I have ever seen amongst ALPA groups.

2. It was lowly regional pilots standing up to the mainline pilots...something that just isn't acceptable within ALPA.

Your "facts" are anything but. The issue last summer was resolved by a member of the CJC ALPA organizing committee, and the current CJC MEC Chairman, suggesting on an ALPA conference call the solution that was ultimately used. Your "hardball" tactics were producing the opposite results. The UAL pilots were gearing up for all-out jumpseat war with the UAX carriers that were issuing threats against them. They weren't going to cave to your barbarian tactics. It was only making them more resolute. It took some diplomacy and political acumen from a dedicated ALPA volunteer at CJC to resolve the issue without going to battle.

So, is the new policy going to effect off-line JS'ers like the origional post said?

I don't believe that was ever the case. Bad information from SAPA. What a surprise.

Best thing you've ever said!

You should follow his example.

 

[Bringupthebird]

I would think there is a liability issue for a revenue pilot being charged for occupying a jumpseat.

 

[Flyer2000]

Your "facts" are anything but. The issue last summer was resolved by a member of the CJC ALPA organizing committee, and the current CJC MEC Chairman, suggesting on an ALPA conference call the solution that was ultimately used. Your "hardball" tactics were producing the opposite results. The UAL pilots were gearing up for all-out jumpseat war with the UAX carriers that were issuing threats against them. They weren't going to cave to your barbarian tactics. It was only making them more resolute. It took some diplomacy and political acumen from a dedicated ALPA volunteer at CJC to resolve the issue without going to battle.

Hmmm, were you on that call? I was, and can tell you that you are flat out wrong. The solution came from the hard work, and combined effort of ALL the Jumpseat Committees, UAL, MAG, SkyW, RAH, GoJet (Trans States JSC was non participatory), and Colgan.

As to SAPA getting it wrong.....Well then UAL got it wrong as well as that is where the info came from.

Get your facts straight.