AACUN From Mexico, joined Jan 2004, 431 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4364 times:
YEAH,
Thay want to be able to occupy our cabin jumpseats!!!!!!!!!!!! In your dreams!!!!!! Unless it´s only after every AA and AE flight attendant has been accomodated first............. And I cant beleive they are asking for this, something sooo unrelated to the route case...... Just negotiate the items that need negotiating so the route can start if awarded, then worry about your selfish requests.............
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 62 Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4325 times:
AA's pilots' union calculated that they could threaten AA management into giving them what they wanted because they knew management badly wanted the D/FW-Beijing route and the two have just recently traded contract openers for their contract which is not actually up for another year or two.
The pilots' union miscalculated, however, as they thought AA would give in to their demands because of how much they want the Beijing route. Turns out AA management is not quite that myopic -- they're not going to give the APA an inch just so they can get a single route.
The pilots have asked for things like being able to use cabin jumpseats currently used by flight attendants on full flights, and get the privelege of being able to walk up to the gate for a flight 20 minutes before departure and get on the flight before all the other non-pilot nonrevs who were there from hours before. As these are no-cost items to the company, but could be used by management as leverage to get monetary savings out of the union, what will probably end up happening is AA will give the pilots what they want in terms of jumpseats and deadheading priority, royally pissing off all the other workgroups -- especially the ever-militant flight attendants -- in the process. So much for union unity.
The ironic thing is that AA's pilots had a very big interest in AA getting the Beijing route, as it would have given their member some great high-paying long-haul flying and brought hundreds of millions to AA's bottom line, which helps everyone.
Quoting UAL777UK (Thread starter): This very public spat must be undermining AA chance of getting the China route.
Personally, I think that AA was in an excellent position to potentially get the 2007 route authority for D/FW-Beijing. Now, this little stunt by the APA has all but killed that.
WorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4262 times:
this isn't the first time that a union has caused a company to lose revenue. in fact, it's rather typical in the airline industry.
I still don't believe this little spat will affect the DOT's decision unless either AA or the pilots say they are at an impasse. The DOT awards backup authority on all major route awards so if AA can't perform the services awarded to it, it goes to another carrier.
This kind of spat shows what AA is up against in the future as its labor contracts come up for renewal... and demonstrates why it is difficult to be at the beginning of a contract cycle. AA will not grow until its costs are competitive w/ other carriers - right now AA's labor costs are the highest in the industry - and it has assurances that its investment in new equipment will not be ruined by labor groups.
AJMIA From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 708 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4203 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 2): The pilots have asked for things like being able to use cabin jumpseats currently used by flight attendants on full flights, and get the privelege of being able to walk up to the gate for a flight 20 minutes before departure and get on the flight before all the other non-pilot nonrevs who were there from hours before.
Shame on the pilots for asking and shame on management for even considering it!
They already have unlimited D6 cabin seat agreements with quite a few other airlines which means as long as their is an empty seat on the other airline they can fly free in a cabin seat that any other employee (except flight attendants who have unlimited D7 priviledges on a couple airlines) has to pay a ZED or an ID90 ticket to use.
As a ground employee I can not use flight deck or cabin jump seat, but my butt fits just as easily in a cabin seat as theirs does.
Stupid, stupid, stupid... we can all point fingers at each other when someone else is awarded the route authority.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4007 times:
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. IMHO its game over for them and this route, I think CO will get it, although I would love to see UA awarded the "Capital to Capital" route.
Qqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2198 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3838 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 2): AA will give the pilots what they want in terms of jumpseats and deadheading priority
The first won't happen, and the second likely won't either. First off, the APFA (flight attendant union) owns the cabin jumpseat. What I mean by that is the APFA contract with AA specifically states pilots cannot occupy the cabin jumpseat. An issue one union "owns" cannot be negotiated by another union. The fact the pilots are even attempting to push the cabin jumpseat issue is sad because it pits one union against another, and that is never productive for either work group.
Second, giving pilots nonrev priority over the company's 70-thousand other employees will do far more harm than good, and will go a long way in pitting all work groups against the pilots. D2 has always been first come, first served and should stay that way. I doubt the company is willing to change that, seeing how they've worked to amend relationships with the various union and non union work groups on the property.
For the pilot's to call their wish list a proposal is a joke. I always try to remain optimistic, look at the big picture and not get wrapped up in propaganda from the company or the union. However, in this case, I am deeply disappointed with the pilot's move. Having the right to fly to Beijing should be enough for pilots to work out an agreement. As the company stated in their response to the APA, the items they've requested are better suited to contract negotiations and not the sort of agreement their looking for to fly a particular route.
Isn't the right to fly a lucrative, high-time trip that will fly no more than nine days a month enough? I can't imagine anything better. And the sad thing is, when I talk to pilots on the line, they don't understand why the union is taking a hard line. Of course, precedence is precedence, but come on, this isn't contract negotiations. You're negotiating a side agreement to fly what will easily become the highest time trip in the system and most productive. It just frustrates the hell out of me.
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 62 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3781 times:
Quoting Qqflyboy (Reply 6): The first won't happen, and the second likely won't either.
I'm not so sure, unfortunately for all the rest of you hard-working AA people.
Quoting Qqflyboy (Reply 6): Second, giving pilots nonrev priority over the company's 70-thousand other employees will do far more harm than good, and will go a long way in pitting all work groups against the pilots.
Like I said, the APA just threw union unity out the window. They have sufficiently pissed off every other work group now, not least of which the flight attendants, with these ridiculous demands.
Quoting Qqflyboy (Reply 6): I doubt the company is willing to change that, seeing how they've worked to amend relationships with the various union and non union work groups on the property.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the company give pilots improved jumpseat space and/or better nonrev priority, as it's a non-cost item to the company. It costs American precisely $0 to give this to the pilots, and it obviously means a lot to them, so management might then demand something monetary in return that might make it a net positive for the company's bottom line. Of course, as you rightly said, it would absolutely infuriate everyone else, though.
Charlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1077 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3634 times:
I might be missing somthing,I don't see in this article where the APA wants to bump anyone out of a CJS,I also do not see where they are trying to take priority in boarding, D2 travel is different than deadheading..on the other issues correct me if I'm wrong...(and believe me,if they are trying to take D2 priority over everyone else,they are dead wrong)
AAgent From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 560 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3612 times:
Surely the company wouldn't even consider playing games with the D2 travel rules. The remaining union groups would riot and the non-union work groups would likely reconsider unionization. Fiddling with the D2 rules for the benefit of a single work group would be managerial suicide! Don't do it!
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 62 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3558 times:
Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 8): I might be missing somthing,I don't see in this article where the APA wants to bump anyone out of a CJS
It may not be in this article, but that's what the APA wants. It was all over the news in the D/FW Metroplex earlier this week and late last. Just ask any APFA flight attendant -- the ones I've talked to are fuming. The pilots want to be able to take open cabin jumpseats when flying.
Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 8): I also do not see where they are trying to take priority in boarding, D2 travel is different than deadheading
Again, that is what they want, regardless of whether it made it into this article. Pilots want to be able to get top nonrev priority when deadheading, regardless of whether other nonrevs flying on regular nonrev travel checked in before them or not.
DualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 638 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3528 times:
Not taking sides here but how does Nonrev priority work at AA? When I was growing up in a DL family, non-rev priorty was based of off seniority. How long you had been sitting at the airport had nothing to do with it.
Charlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1077 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3510 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 11): Again, that is what they want, regardless of whether it made it into this article. Pilots want to be able to get top nonrev priority when deadheading, regardless of whether other nonrevs flying on regular nonrev travel checked in before them or not.
If they want priority for personal travel,then yes that is a bunch of happy horses&^% and I hope AA doesn't buy into it.
IAHERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 677 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
What's wrong with the pilots being able to occupy the cabin jump seats after all flight attendants have been accommodated? They would not be bumping anybody at all. I discussed this with several Flight Attendants here at Continental and they said they would be game with the idea if they(flight attendants) could occupy the pilot jump seats after all pilots have been accommodated. Some airlines already do this. Heck pilots and flight attendants already have access to each other's areas during flight what's wrong with letting each other get to and from work this way.
Pilots have priority for the cockpit jumpseat and flight attendants have priority on the cabin seat. Easy as that. Everyone wins.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1831 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
I doubt that the DOT would be particularly concerned about some disagreement with the pilots. They will answer to larger political concerns and presumed economic benefit.
Quoting Commavia (Reply 2): I think that AA was in an excellent position to potentially get the 2007 route authority for D/FW-Beijing.
I thought that DFW-PEK was rather weak since most of the passengers would be connecting. They would have even fewer O&D passengers than DET. My money would be with CO and the huge O&D market out of NYC or UA with the second largest O&D and political angle of IAD. The only thing AA has going for it is that it is the largest airline but has only one daily flight to China.
NikonDFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3451 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 11): Again, that is what they want, regardless of whether it made it into this article. Pilots want to be able to get top nonrev priority when deadheading, regardless of whether other nonrevs flying on regular nonrev travel checked in before them or not.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue..First, when a pilot or fa is deadheading they are positive space A10/11, etc..The pilots are asking for first class priority when there are other deadheaders on the same flight.
Example: Lets say the first DFW-ORD flight in the morning has 20 deadheading crew members, 10 pilots and 10 f/as they are all positive space, but they are not guaranted a first class seat. It's whomever gets on the priority list first among the crew members deadheading, and since they are A class travelers they will get first before any D1/2/3 traveler anyways. The pilots are wanting first class over the f/a's reguardless of who gets on the priority list first.
If a pilot is based at DFW but lives somewhere else then they are on their own, they travel D1/2 like everybody else. The pilots are not trying to get any priority for personal travel, AA would never let that happen.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3451 times:
If the cabin jumpseat would otherwise go empty, what is the big deal?
Quoting Qqflyboy (Reply 6): An issue one union "owns" cannot be negotiated by another union.
Just ask Delta and Comair/ASA/Delta Connection pilots how that idea has worked out for them. If the company wants it bad enough, it will find away to molify the flight attendants.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3375 times:
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 17): If the cabin jumpseat would otherwise go empty, what is the big deal?
The big deal is that an empty pilot/cockpit jumpseat going empty would never be used for AA inflight. If AA inflight had the opportunity to get cockpit jumpseat (I can't see AA's pilots agreeing to that one), then that may change things, till then, it's a no-go deal.
Personally, a seat is a seat and if it gets a non-rev employee on, let's do it. But red tape is just that. Long and never ending.
Wingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3349 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 3): This kind of spat shows what AA is up against in the future as its labor contracts come up for renewal... and demonstrates why it is difficult to be at the beginning of a contract cycle. AA will not grow until its costs are competitive w/ other carriers - right now AA's labor costs are the highest in the industry - and it has assurances that its investment in new equipment will not be ruined by labor groups.
Southwests A @ P's make five dollar's an hour more than American's. As for the Pilot's once again they show the attitude that they are bigger than the company.
WorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3290 times:
yes, but how does AA's maintenance costs compare with other network carriers? Some carriers, we know, don't even have maintenance depts. for all practical purposes other than to change lightbulbs at night. (slightly sarcastic).
Does the FAA not require that FA jumpseat occupants be capable of performing emergency duties. I'm not sure I want a pilot or any other employee occupying a jumpseat if they can't perform the duties if necessary. I also do not see FAs getting access to the cockpit jumpseats by any of the major carriers.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3264 times:
Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 18): The big deal is that an empty pilot/cockpit jumpseat going empty would never be used for AA inflight. If AA inflight had the opportunity to get cockpit jumpseat (I can't see AA's pilots agreeing to that one), then that may change things, till then, it's a no-go deal.
The pilots don't have much say in that. Cockpit observer seat access is regulated first by the Feds, second by the company, and third by the union. If the situation were different, then I might agree with you.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3261 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 20): Does the FAA not require that FA jumpseat occupants be capable of performing emergency duties. I'm not sure I want a pilot or any other employee occupying a jumpseat if they can't perform the duties if necessary. I also do not see FAs getting access to the cockpit jumpseats by any of the major carriers.
Exactly. Similar to my sentiment two posts ago. Where are some AA a.netters here to add to this?
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 26 Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3228 times:
It's all for naught. The route will no doubt go to a carrier that is ailing. The government in the past awards lucrative routes to carriers that are not finacially well off as others.
I would think the route will go to either UA or NW.
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3216 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 20): I'm not sure I want a pilot or any other employee occupying a jumpseat if they can't perform the duties if necessary.
What leads you to believe that a pilot would be unable to perform or assist in emergency duties? In some emergencies, help may be solcitied from other airline employees, regardless of the seat they occupy and regardless of training.
Proud OOTSK member
25 A330323X: The TWU has it in their contract to let the mechanics use the cockpit jumpseat, but APA doesn't let them, even though APA theoretically isn't allowed
26 HikesWithEyes: Then can you explain the govt. awarding DCA slots to AS ?
27 QQflyboy: I totally agree. The problem in this case is the pilot's know cabin jumpseat access is strictly governed by the flight attendant contract. With them
28 EWRCabincrew: I wish more people thought like we did. We are all in the same tent dealing with the same circus, let's make the most of it and just transition it sm
29 Isitsafenow: It's called politics and AS isn't as healthy as you think its been the past few quarters. They never served the DC area. It's a little different now.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Jan 2004, 431 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
