Jumpseat with Porter

Terminator · Post by **Terminator** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:56 am

Howdy,
I just found out that Air Canada canceled it's reciprocal jumpseat with Porter. I was wondering if the ACPA can do something about it and try to get it back?
Cheers

365TAS · Post by **365TAS** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:06 am

Yes...it is too bad....apparently AC cancelled it because of the various lawsuits etc going on. Of course they've been going on for the past 3 years etc and AC just realized it now...or perhaps the fact that Porter wasn't charging AC and Jazz pilots for the ride, or the beer and wine either, and didn't like losing the revenue they were making...who knows? It's ok though...Westjet is happy to give us a ride and I've had several WJ-ers on board to Chicago as well.

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:56 am

so to clarify......Jazz and Air Canada pilots are no longer allowed to utilize the Recip JS Agreement on PD?

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:19 pm

Man, that sucks.

April 11 seems to be the magical day where the AC/Porter recip agreement is rescinded.

The latest memo indicates the termination of the AC agreement, but not Jazz. But to list on Jazz you've got to call the AC -800 number

TyrellCorp · Post by **TyrellCorp** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:34 pm

Too bad politics had to come into this. The jump seat is for pilots from pilots regardless of whether their respective companies like each other or not.

Pourdu_fun · Post by **Pourdu_fun** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:43 pm

So far its still on with JAZZ.

Pourdu

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:36 am

thanks bud

i just got off the phone with Kim at PD and she confirmed this as well

unfortunately the agreement with mainline AC pilots ends April 10th

V1RotateV2 · Post by **V1RotateV2** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:08 pm

I was talking to some friends at Porter and they mentioned that the Jump Seat agreement with Air Canada was to end in a few days.
The reason being that Air Canada management opposed the agreement due to ongoing disputes and legal scuffles between the companies.

Got me thinking: This is a benefit for the pilots, not the companies. So how canceling a benefit for commuting and traveling pilots will help resolve any issues?
These agreements exist between airlines that otherwise compete for passengers, routes, service or price. The companies compete, the pilots are employees and use one of the few perks they have. We cannot and should not be hostages of the company's policies, politics or perceived enemies.

I fail to see how Air Canada, by making pilot's travel more complicated, will help their cause in any way.

AC pilots: please get your voice out and overturn this decision. It is a very bad precedent for the industry. It is up to you guys & gals to make things right.

Thanks!

IBPilot · Post by **IBPilot** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:19 pm

V1RotateV2 wrote:]AC pilots: please get your voice out and overturn this decision. It is a very bad precedent for the industry. It is up to you guys & gals to make things right.

Honastly, I don't think the company will change their minds. I'm sorry for bringing down the rain, but in the condition that the AC management is in right now, a few pilots isn't going to make a difference. Unless they adopt the BA method of solving problems... GO ON STRIKE!! ... which wont happen anyway because Porter is another airline.

AC has got enough to worry about (including their pilots) and although this is a concern, some peoples hopes on this issue just might fall short on this one...

crass-tampson · Post by **crass-tampson** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:25 pm

V1RotateV2 I Agree! Very bad precedent.

Suspending the agreement is bad for all the pilots from AC and Porter. There is no winner here.

Troubleshot · Post by **Troubleshot** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:15 pm

Maybe if the pilots paid for the aircraft I would agree with you but the company owns the toys so you play by their rules.

IBPilot · Post by **IBPilot** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:43 pm

Troubleshot wrote:the company owns the toys so you play by their rules.

Correct!! Unfortunately, even though their rules may not be completely justified and worthy for debate, it's their choice and i really don't think anyone is going to change their minds..... at least not in these economic times... they got bigger things to worry about

Troubleshot · Post by **Troubleshot** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:42 pm

it's like loaning your car to your buddy so he can take your girl friend on a date, I mean it's nice and all for you to loan your car but the reward is just a kick in the balls really...

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:02 pm

i respectfully disagree with you

it's like having an extra seat of the cab of your fedex truck and being allowed to offer UPS drivers a free ride anywhere as a professional courtesy

now how does that have any affect on the on time delivery of the customers packages or the profitability of Fedex?

tellmemore · Post by **tellmemore** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:02 pm

"AC pilots: please get your voice out and overturn this decision. It is a very bad precedent for the industry. It is up to you guys & gals to make things right."

aaaaahhhhh.......bad precedent? isnt it Porter that allows Cabin Crew in the jump seat program. last time i checked it was for pilots as a professional courtesy to other PILOTS.

either way its too bad a jumpseat agreement couldnt be achieved, as Im all for them. who knows why it was cancelled.

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:17 pm

As an Air Canada pilot I am glad it is gone, for one reason only.

We will only carry a Porter pilot, NOT a porter FA. Getting bumped off a Porter flight by a Flight Attendant under a recip JS program is BS.

When Porter restricts it to pilots only, then I could possibly encourage a return to an agreement.

IMHO.

thrust set · Post by **thrust set** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:55 am

Disco,

I agree with you 110% let's get back to the intent of the program "developed by pilots for pilots".

Call us when it's fixed.

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:10 am

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?

Dockjock · Post by **Dockjock** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:38 am

Who cares? Porter doesn't go anywhere we don't.

I love how you guys think we should be lobbying transport so that you can ride our flight deck. Most of the industry hates us (AC pilots), transport included. Until you want something that is, then we are the "leaders" with "influence". How about you lobby transport, get it solved and then we'll piggyback on something GOOD somebody else has done instead of the usual- having to defend a leading, hard won position or benefit (like a free reciproal jumpseat agreement) against newcomers who see fit to reinvent the business as a big equality hugfest where the licensed and unlicensed are treated as equals. get bent!

Views not representative of other AC pilots...just me.

BLZD1 · Post by **BLZD1** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:35 am

Well said Dockjock!!

Alot of AC pilots wanted the J/S agreement with Porter CX due to the FA part. Because of WestJet and others, AC will now be charging a fee for the use of the jumpseat. AC managements response was other airlines do it, so shall we!!

Alot pilots do not seem to understand the difference between a pilot and a FA.

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:30 am

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

CD · Post by CD » Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:09 pm

mattedfred wrote: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 · Post by **Disco Stu** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:56 am

Why would AC cx the agreement with WJ?

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:58 am

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

Why?

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:02 pm

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?

Jumpseat with Porter

Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Porter - Air Canada Jump seat agreement to end

Re: Porter - Air Canada Jump seat agreement to end

Re: Porter - Air Canada Jump seat agreement to end

Re: Porter - Air Canada Jump seat agreement to end

Re: Porter - Air Canada Jump seat agreement to end

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter

Re: Jumpseat with Porter