I am not totally sure that is the point of some here. I don't think everyone is agaist people that are not flight attendants posting here, just that the conversation is specifically about the details of the flight attendant agreement. Of course as pointed out there is provisions that will change the rules for the flight attendant junpseat. It is fair game for sure as it does affect half of the pilots in a negative way. Unfortunately this conversation has once again become a personal pilot argument that has taken away from the meat of the subject which it how this total agreement affects the flight attendant group. It is not just about the jumpseat issue, although it should be figured into the equation as it could affect them in unintended ways as evident by the conversation the last couple of pages.
I posted in a parallel thread to this I think, (hard to keep track) that my personal opinion is that I believe jump seate jumpseat opend be opent to pilots as long as it does not bump a flight attendant. Oh I actually found it. I hate to post myself but I also hate to write another book on the subject, so here it is:
A quote from Admiral James Stockdale in the 92 vice presidential debate about sums up the last couple pages of this thread. " I feel I am an observer at a ping pong game"! It has once again become a pilot argument over an issue, while I am sure is important (jump seat) should not be the main focus of conversation here. I don't know how all your rules work here. It appears the east coast folks had it as a contractual provision for a long time. The west folks allowed other folks to occupy this seat if it did not affect a flight attendant. My personal opinion for what it is worth would be as long as you do not bump a flight attendant it makes no sense to leave someone behind. Perhaps limiting to only US Airways pilots. That being said you as a flight attendant should be allowed in the cockpit as long as it does not take away from a pilot. Someone mentioned about DHS rules or whatever agency with three letter acronyms may be involved. IF the parties really wanted (company/union) I am sure after lots of lobbying it could accomplished. I think that is the key though. Probably not much interest with either party to spend the time and money on trying to make it happen. Maybe someday who knows. Also of note here. I would think that after almost seven years of negotiating that nobody should have been blind sided on this issue. I would certainly think that the west negotiators could have somehow thrown smoke signals or something to the folks that might loose this benefit. It could have actually been a moment where the pilots might have come together for a brief moment to work with the flight attendant union on this issue. It just seems like this could have been one shining moment that could have benefited all parties.
Alas, that is not what this thread is about though. It is about the ENTIRE AFA tentative agreement."
So, while hypocrisy does exsist here, there is a faint message from some about the real issues. Hopefully people will be able to distinguish the two.