Jumpseat with Porter

[mattedfred]

logically one would presume that AC would also be canceling the Recip JS Agreement with WestJet

[CD]

do any of you AC folk know whether ACPA is actively lobbying TC to allow non-AC pilots to occupy the actual JS on AC flights?

There is already an exemption available for any Canadian company to permit commuting pilots from other companies to use the actual jump seat:

The purpose of this exemption is to permit Canadian air operators who wish to offer their flight deck jump seat to commuting pilots and their pilots-in-command to grant admission to the flight deck of their aeroplane on domestic flights to pilots employed by other Canadian air operators commuting to or from their flight assignments, subject to the conditions below.

If a company chooses to make the seat available to a commuting pilot, they must then comply with the conditions of the exemption as well. However, as yycflyguy has indicated in the other thread, Air Canada has apparently chosen not to make use of the exemption from the regulatory limitations of 705.27. It appears from the exemptions database that it was first made available in 2008.

[Disco Stu]

Why would AC cx the agreement with WJ?

[Disco Stu]

logically one would presume that AC would also be canceling the Recip JS Agreement with WestJet

Why?

[mattedfred]

because some are reporting that AC canceled the Recip JS Agreement with PD due to the inclusion of FA's but even though some are reporting that AC is not happy with the fee that WJ charges, AC is has yet to cancel that agreement.

why the contradiction?

why agree if you don't like the conditions of the agreement?

perhaps it has more to do with the fact that AC relies heavily on commuters being able to take WJ to work while they do not rely on PD

has anyone confirmed which side canceled the PD Recip JS Agreement with AC?

was it PD or AC?

[arsenal]

At PD we were told that it was AC who gave 30 days notice to cancel due to on-going court action.

[mattedfred]

thanks

i wonder what those at AC were told

the truth often lies somewhere in the middle

[Disco Stu]

mattedfred,

I spoke with a flight ops manager at AC shortly after the agreement was signed, who said that unless the policy was changed to pilots only the agreement wasn't going to last long. Infact it wasn't noticed until AFTER it was signed that Porter was including FAs.

There are many other airlines that we at AC have agreements with that charge fees for jumpseaters. There is no contradiction here. Reciprical Jump Seat agreements are between pilot groups, not pilot and fa groups. Fees have no bearing on this discussion at all.

[mattedfred]

why did AC sign the agreement if they didn't like the conditions in the first place?

so AC is fine with paying WJ but not fine with PD allowing FA's to get in line?

[Disco Stu]

why did AC sign the agreement if they didn't like the conditions in the first place?

so AC is fine with paying WJ but not fine with PD allowing FA's to get in line?

The signing of the agreement despite the FA rules was an oversight. Unfortunately the MLO who signed it off noticed the FA inclusion after he had already signed on.

And as for your second point, the answer is yes. Why is that so obviously difficult for you to understand?

[mattedfred]

it seems odd to me that AC would accept an agreement that contains a fee and object to one that includes FA's

one would think that neither would be acceptable as AC does not charge a fee or include FA's

[mattedfred]

do any of you AC folk know whether ACPA is actively lobbying TC to allow non-AC pilots to occupy the actual JS on AC flights?

There is already an exemption available for any Canadian company to permit commuting pilots from other companies to use the actual jump seat:

The purpose of this exemption is to permit Canadian air operators who wish to offer their flight deck jump seat to commuting pilots and their pilots-in-command to grant admission to the flight deck of their aeroplane on domestic flights to pilots employed by other Canadian air operators commuting to or from their flight assignments, subject to the conditions below.

If a company chooses to make the seat available to a commuting pilot, they must then comply with the conditions of the exemption as well. However, as yycflyguy has indicated in the other thread, Air Canada has apparently chosen not to make use of the exemption from the regulatory limitations of 705.27. It appears from the exemptions database that it was first made available in 2008.

CD,

My understanding is that carriers such as AC have refused to pay for any requirements of the identity screening regulations. The sticking point is the ability to confirm that the pilot requesting the jumpseat is a pilot actively employed by the company indicated on their RAIC at the time they request the jumpseat. in the US they have CASS which satisfies their identity screening regulations. I have been told that US carriers were not required to pay for all or even part of CASS.

Perhaps you or someone else could shed some light on this?

thanks again

[CD]

I'm not overly famliar with CASS but it seems that any US airline that wants to permit the use of their physical jumpseat on the flight deck must buy into the software and service, which appears to be managed by ARINC. Here are a few links with info:

ARINC to Roll Out a Permanent Cockpit Access Security System for Airlines
ARINC and Airlines Deploying Web-Based Cockpit Access System
ARINC: Cockpit Access Security System (CASS)

The ARINC site also implies that CASS is used by airlines outside the US as well so, theoretically, I would think that it could be considered for use by Canadian airlines as a means to comply with the identity verification requirements of the exemption. In the US, it appears that the TSA has regulatory oversight for security access to the flight deck so I'm not certain if it would be TC Aviation Security or CATSA here in Canada that the company would have to talk to. It might even have to include all of the airports as I seem to recall they are the ones that issue the RAIC and maintain their individual databases... That's really all just a guess on my part though.

[Disco Stu]

it seems odd to me that AC would accept an agreement that contains a fee and object to one that includes FA's

Then there is no point continuing this discussion.

[mattedfred]

[Jaques Strappe]

Mattedfred

Don't take this the wrong way because I ask legitimately. Does Jazz have its own jumpseat committee which negotiates jumpseat reciprocal agreements with other airlines or do they just piggy back on what Air Canada negotiates?

[Bajan Pilot]

We have our own JS Committee which negots. independently of AC.

[Jaques Strappe]

We have our own JS Committee which negots. independently of AC.

Thanks Bajan

So is there still an agreement in effect between Jazz and Porter? It was only the Porter- Air Canada agreement that was terminated?

JS

[mattedfred]

that is what i was told by porter last week

[Pourdu_fun]

that is what i was told by porter last week

And I can confirm that also. Jazz agreement with Porter is still ON.

Pourdu