To ALL UNITED pilots courtesy of ALL UAX carriers and their pilots

[MountainFreak]

They will fill the regional flying needs of whatever carrier swoops in to pick up the scraps if United fails. They have the ability to switch brand loyalties, you do not.

Wrong. If United fails, it will be because market conditions at current oil prices can't support the current level of traffic. Whoever steps in, there won't be nearly as much traffic for a while.

 

[MountainFreak]

We care, really! Tell us!

Well, my work is about done here, for the day. As a final thought, I leave you with this brief video message:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd-MpXCMcIs

You are nothing but a petulant brat.

When you graduate from middle school, will you invite us to the ceremony?

 

[Fly2AK]

McNugget- If your so bitter about aviation then why don't you do everyone a favor and go back to Mc Donalds and work, I'm sure there are some high school students looking for an english tutor.

 

[Fly2AK]

deleted

 

[Freeze_gopher]

Mcnugget,

You are truly sad. You spew whatever crap in response you feel appropriate, it won't change anything. Whatever your issues are good luck.

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

What Res system do the UAX carriers use? How about ground handling? Marketing? Oh yeah, who pays for their gas? Remember how well ACA/Indy did when they had to pay for their gas, and it was about 75% cheaper then.

 

[getnverted]

4332 Flights (not all UA) to CLE MDT ABE TYS ect

1550 Flights to SAN HNL SJU SEA GEG ect.

According to ALPA as of 7/17 won't be a problem for either of us.

So your point is mainline flies to big airports that are served by all other airlines and us little guys fly to the podunk airports that are only served by regionals? Your commuter out of podunk is going to be awful disappointed when he walks down to US Airways operated by Mesa, then Delta operated by Skywest, then American operated by Chautauqua, then Continental operated by Colgan. See how that works? Chances are he will get on one of them, because the little guys are much more compassionate. Pilots have such big egos. How about both sides drop the crap, UAL fix the problem, and we go on secretly hating each other....but at least act nicey nicey while allowing each other to mooch a ride?

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

I have a super idea: Why don't you UAX guys, instead of asking UAL pilots to fix a computer system in which we have no control over, from a management we have no influence with, pressure your management that unless this is fixed, you will no longer operate UAX flights in the service of United Airlines. Park your aircraft. Write up everything. Call in sick. Run late. Leave your logo lights off. Carry your hats. Do SOMETHING. Instead, you write a lame letter asking others to do your dirty work.

C'mon Shuttle America! Park those guppy killers! That'll show UAL management! Gojet....just don't go!

Remember the summer of love, 2000? UAL pilots got their point across, now why don't you UAX guys take out your frustrations on the evil doers who program the computers (hint: it isn't pilots).

 

[Freeze_gopher]

Mike,

UAX pilots were not consulted before this letter went out. I knew the issue existed but thought that talks were ongoing. We had no idea that this situation had escalated to this point. Had we been consulted I doubt there would've been much if any support. This letter is a tunnel vision emotional response by JSCs to a small inconvenient problem. I can"t believe that anyone would thinks that this came from UAX line pilots, it didn't.

 

[eaglesview]

So your point is mainline flies to big airports that are served by all other airlines and us little guys fly to the podunk airports that are only served by regionals? Your commuter out of podunk is going to be awful disappointed when he walks down to US Airways operated by Mesa, then Delta operated by Skywest, then American operated by Chautauqua, then Continental operated by Colgan. See how that works? Chances are he will get on one of them, because the little guys are much more compassionate. Pilots have such big egos. How about both sides drop the crap, UAL fix the problem, and we go on secretly hating each other....but at least act nicey nicey while allowing each other to mooch a ride?

See the very next post after that rocket scientist.

 

[Afraid to Fly]

From what I heard great strides where made today on some type of meeting with all involved. I have been told to stay tuned for more info.

 

[Weasil]

They reached an agreement today. Going to revert to paper jumpseat forms.

 

[eaglesview]

They reached an agreement today. Going to revert to paper jumpseat forms.

Good ole UAL leaping into the 21st century with......PAPER jumpseat forms. Makes us so proud.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Good ole UAL leaping into the 21st century with......PAPER jumpseat forms. Makes us so proud.

It was that or fix the problem.

Either way, I'm glad there was a solution.

 

[Flyerdan]

Good ole UAL leaping into the 21st century with......PAPER jumpseat forms. Makes us so proud.

This is probably just a face saving solution. After all, the UAX JSC's were asking for the software to be fixed and that didn't happen as part of this solution. I would be willing to bet that the software gets fixed almost immediately as well but that it will happen quietly once all the heat is off. It's kind of silly how things happen when egos, status, and hard feelings about unrelated issues are involved.

I guess the bottom line is that the problem will be fixed and the commuters QOL won't be made worse than it already is.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

 

[§kyye Candy]

Actually we do take as many jumpseaters as we have empty seats. As I have said before the vast majority of pilots understand any pilot on their own carrier should have priority.

While that may be true enough now and the common sense approach seems like it would be in use, this has NOT always been the case.

My significant other spent 6 years of his life commuting out of DEN, and has quite a collection of stories - and none of them very complimentary - about United and their jumpseat policies. And no, he was never rude or inconsiderate in any way, or had problems with anyone IRT jumpseat ettiquette. As a matter of fact he has always been grateful for any ride received. I can't speak for him, but here's what I do know -

UA used to only take as many jumpseaters as there were jumpseats installed in the cockpit of the plane - regardless of how many open seats there were in the back. If memory serves, that was finally changed in about 2005. Prior to that, even if the cabin was wide open and a CA insisted on taking an extra jumpseater to sit in back, the gate agents often would not allow it.

There was one time that he wasn't able to get home at all during a 48-hour break because of their crappy J/S policies. There was an outgoing UA flight with about 10 open seats in the back (the last one of the day out of DEN) - but he was unable to get a ride due to their policies. He had to stay in DEN instead after a 10-day trip instead of coming home to see his newborn baby boy.

Then there was the time the UA CA authorized it, but his authority vetoed by the gate agent! (Can you even imagine this happening 20 years ago?!!) Unreal. He (the UA CA) was good and pi$$ed off over that. I appreciated that at least he had tried - He was one of the few.

Another time I recall he was unable to get home because a UA mainline flight attendant refused to take the jumpseat up front - too uncomfortable!! No lie. I should also add that my boyfriend was operating as a UAX codeshare CA at the time for all of these lovely commuting experiences.

The only thing that finally changed things was when some of the regional carriers started denying jumpseats to the mainline guys. All of a sudden, the jumpseat issues just seemed to disappear. Imagine that! PFM!!

Too bad it has to come to that.

 

[§kyye Candy]

I'll just say that j/s's worked a LOT better when the PIC handled it. Gate agents have had way too much authority in this issue.

Well said. I could not agree more.

 

[§kyye Candy]

I know if I were in a position to help effect the change that you want, I would delay and resist, simply based on your attitude and the ultimatum Letter. Many UAL pilots are commenting on the Letter and when Skywest comes up, they state that OO aren't even unionize and that they rejected ALPA.

Right or wrong, these are the realities that you are facing... based on in part by the choices you have made....

In addition, what obligation or binding agreement does UAL or U-ALPA have to allow OO pilots priority on OO aircraft.

Of course it makes common sense that OO pilots have j/s priority on their own airplane, but since Skywest has tied its dingy to the UAL monolith, it does come with certain conditions. ie Skywest serves UAL. OO flies where UAL says, when, what to put into its cargo bins, etc...

You know, I don't even have a dog in this fight, but... with all due respect, this is pretty interesting criticism coming from a UAL guy. You are UAL, correct? It doesn't really matter - either way, this is a typical UA pilot attitude. They seem to think they are just a little better than the rest of us. It must be that "industry leading attitude." Which is really quite funny in a way, when you think about it.

No disrespect intended to those guys out there at UA who DON'T act like 5 year olds with panties that are 2 sizes too small.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You know, I don't even have a dog in this fight, but... with all due respect, this is pretty interesting criticism coming from a UAL guy. You are UAL, correct? It doesn't really matter - either way, this is a typical UA pilot attitude. They seem to think they are just a little better than the rest of us. It must be that "industry leading attitude." Which is really quite funny in a way, when you think about it.

No disrespect intended to those guys out there at UA who DON'T act like 5 year olds with panties that are 2 sizes too small.

Why is this a poor attitude? I tried to be as neutral and realistic as I could...

Question: What is your take on the Letter? Was the ultimatum just and righteous? I've worked for two feeders.. one of them UAX... and I've done ALPA work at both of them... so I've seen what it is like to be the feeder trying to get the mother company to do something...

Face it... that letter was in poor form. It was unprofessional. It screamed frustration and a lack of control. The problem is the UAX guys are now gloating at their success indicating that the letter was a valid way to do business. Do you think it is?

Instead of using the UAL pilots as advocates for their cause they turned them into adversaries. UAL is one of the most heavily stacked ex-feeder pilot groups.

Let's use a little CRM here and debrief...

I think the UAL MEC could have been more "work with" the UAX guys on the issue. I think the UAL MEC could've sent out a message to all UAL pilots explaining the situation and to ensure that UAL pilots didn't bump a pilot off his own metal.

What do you think the UAX pilots could've done differently?

 

[eaglesview]

While that may be true enough now and the common sense approach seems like it would be in use, this has NOT always been the case.

My significant other spent 6 years of his life commuting out of DEN, and has quite a collection of stories - and none of them very complimentary - about United and their jumpseat policies. And no, he was never rude or inconsiderate in any way, or had problems with anyone IRT jumpseat ettiquette. As a matter of fact he has always been grateful for any ride received. I can't speak for him, but here's what I do know -

UA used to only take as many jumpseaters as there were jumpseats installed in the cockpit of the plane - regardless of how many open seats there were in the back. If memory serves, that was finally changed in about 2005. Prior to that, even if the cabin was wide open and a CA insisted on taking an extra jumpseater to sit in back, the gate agents often would not allow it.

There was one time that he wasn't able to get home at all during a 48-hour break because of their crappy J/S policies. There was an outgoing UA flight with about 10 open seats in the back (the last one of the day out of DEN) - but he was unable to get a ride due to their policies. He had to stay in DEN instead after a 10-day trip instead of coming home to see his newborn baby boy.

Then there was the time the UA CA authorized it, but his authority vetoed by the gate agent! (Can you even imagine this happening 20 years ago?!!) Unreal. He (the UA CA) was good and pi$$ed off over that. I appreciated that at least he had tried - He was one of the few.

Another time I recall he was unable to get home because a UA mainline flight attendant refused to take the jumpseat up front - too uncomfortable!! No lie. I should also add that my boyfriend was operating as a UAX codeshare CA at the time for all of these lovely commuting experiences.

The only thing that finally changed things was when some of the regional carriers started denying jumpseats to the mainline guys. All of a sudden, the jumpseat issues just seemed to disappear. Imagine that! PFM!!

Too bad it has to come to that.

Excuse me if I don't go with you down memory lane. Fact is we today have a very good Jumpseat policy that accomidates as many folks as there are seats. If you think we wait for the regionals to show us the way as your last paragragh suggests then go ahead and enjoy your fantasy. Looking forward, I am glad we will continue to offer rides to our UAX partners.