90s diverted to Skywest

[Gobi Gred]

Dubya, A union is funded by the labor group it represents not by management. That's just one of the many differences.

 

[rtmcfi]

Hey Peter Griffen,
Does the company ask or require that you sit in the Cockpit jumpseat when you are NRPS in order to get one more person aboard? If a pilot from a different carrier, or hell for that matter SkyWest shows up to catch a ride to work, and the plane is full, and you are a NRPS passenger on a deadhead, will that pilot be in the actual, or waving at the plane as it leaves the gate? If they require you to sit in the actual seat if asked, how is it worded in your manual? To say your manual is not interpreted at managements whim is dishonest.

 

[Peter Griffin]

From the SKYW policy manual:

3. Deadheading To A Work Assignment​

A. When reporting for duty, a crewmember will:
1) Be provided positive space on-line.
2) At the discretion of the Company, be provided positive or space available
interline tickets.
3) Be asked to occupy a jumpseat if his/her boarding would result in denied
boarding of a revenue passenger (Pilot only).
4) Cancel a seat that has been reserved by crew support for the purpose of
deadheading if he/she does not plan to use the seat.

"Asked" is just like you said. We recieved a memo a while ago saying this was more along the lines of "required." I dont quite understand the second part of the question. If a pilot from a different carrier shows up to jumpseat to get to work, he can sit in the jumpseat his/herself (CASS, and, due to sheer cockpit area, not recommended on the Bro). Are you asking will a deadheading SKYW pilot be required to move for a SA passenger? No. Only for revenue passengers. Would the SKYW pilot voluantairly move so that a SA can have a seat in the back? I guess thats up to the pilot.

I never said that they stick to the manual 100%. This is one of those examples. The situtation of moving to the cockpit to accomodate another space positive passenger, obviously, a sticky situtation at best. I think thats why they came out and said that we sould move to the cockpit to get another paying passenger on. Is that right? I dunno. Its not an issue on the bro due to weight, and I would almost rather sit in the front of a CRJ than in the back next with 49 others. But I get the point and see both sides of the argument. I, personally, dont think its a big deal, but some others do, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I try not to forget that the passengers are reason why I get a paycheck.​

 

[Dave Benjamin]

I've been bumped from a UAL jumpseat. They have the same policy.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but you need to realize it's not a unique policy.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I just figured out what you were trying to say. Since a DH pilot is supposed to have a NRPS space in the back, would we "take" a jumpseaters only ride to accomodate another paying passenger? Frankly, it shouldnt matter whether a jumpseater is there or not - the paying passengers in the back win. What if that passenger is trying to get home to see a sick family member? I would NOT like to look a customer in the eye and say "Well, although I could sit in the cockpit, my buddy is trying to get to work, so you are just going to have to stay here. Sorry bout that. That will teach you to buy a ticket." And like Dave said, its definately not unique. I commute, I'd be pissed if it happened to be, but the jumpseat is a privildge, not a right. Plus, hopefully that deadheader isnt trying to specifically screw you, but trying to HELP the passenger. Unfortunately, the jumpseater gets screwed in the process.

 

[rickair7777]

I have and will give up a NRSP seat and sit up front to accomodate a NRSA, a jumpseater, or even a paying pax.

HOWEVER, I have also declined to do that on a 3 hour deadhead on the front-end of a 14 hour duty day. The jumpseat is tiring and uncomfortable on long legs, basically if I need the rest I won't do it.

 

[atrdriver]

They have proven they can still be profitable while treating their employees well. Ill get off my soapbox now :erm:

ASA proved that for a while as well. Then they brought in a management "team" that didn't have the same philosophy. That is the main reason we are where we are now. I hope for your sake that the same never happens to you,

 

[Erlanger]

As a non-union carrier SkyWest pilots are "at will" employees, have no contract, have no grievance process, have no safety committee, do not have legal help or advice, and the list goes on.

The Skywest pilots, while may be "at will" employees, do have a contract, do have a grievance process, do have a safety commitee and do have legal help and advice. Say what you will about the company taking those things away when it wants because there is no union. Hasn't been a problem in 35 years. Skywest simply doesn't just fire people because we're "at will" employees. Inspite of what you all my hear about someone getting fired at Skywest, the really did deserve to be.

 

[XPOO]

Erlanger...shush, dude! You weren't supposed to tell anyone we get all that stuff for free. Now those ALPA guys have got to find a new platform to try and stand on.

 

[Crash Pad]

ASA proved that for a while as well. Then they brought in a management "team" that didn't have the same philosophy. That is the main reason we are where we are now. I hope for your sake that the same never happens to you,

Just curious... George and John are the management team that cared about the pilots?