oz jump seats

[tornspar]

Anyone got any info about a new rule saying that spouses/wives etc.Not allowed on jumpseats on flights originating and terminating in oz...Thanks

[Mr Seatback 2]

Department of Transport and Regional Services ruling...

Only ASIC holders are permitted to use the jumpseat of commercial airlines for staff travel purposes. Non ASIC holders, including beneficiaries, are no longer permitted.

[Dehavillanddriver]

I don't believe that this is the case.

As far as I am aware the jump seat is not limited to ASIC holders.

It certainly isn't in our company - we need photo ID and the Captain needs to positively identify the person, and they need to be the usual official people or people eligible for staff travel

[Chimbu chuckles]

In my company only 'staff'....so my daughter who I have, naturally enough, known since she was born cannot....but a staff member who I have never met can...to his credit even our boss thinks that is bizarre but there you go....another gem from DOTARS.

[Keg]

DHD, this was the subject of some discussion on Qrewroom.

We have been informed that ASIC holder only. Parents, brothers, sisters and children now can NOT ride in the jump seat unless they are employed by QF group and hold ASIC. QF claims that this is what the regulation states. Most crew reckon that the regulation means one the aircraft is airborne.

Can you confirm for me that DJ is still allowing 'eligible beneficiaries' on the jump? We have heard it rumoured thus but I've never heard it direct from a DJ source.

Like Chimbu, we all recognise the stupidity that Bilal Kalzai (or however the baggage handler on terrorism charges spells his name) was eligible for jump seat ride whilst my kids aren't however we've been warned that if we push the issue with the government, the flight deck may become off limits to everyone except the operating crew. That creates major hassles for commuters and those of us who get the jump seat occasionally.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Keg I wonder if a GA pilot travelling as a pax with his shiny new ATSIC card can occupy a jumpseat if no other seat available...and if not why not?

They couldn't suggest their new ATSIC is not good enough surely?

[Razor]

Not sure if a Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community (ATSIC) card will help but an Aviation Security Identification Card(ASIC) still won't help unless you are an employee(of QF at least)

[Chimbu chuckles]

smart arse:}

[Dizzy Armand]

Geez if you are gonna flog someone, at least get it right son FFS!

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

[56P]

QF claims that this is what the regulation states.
-------------------------------------------------

Keg,

QF has chosen, for whatever reason, to interpret the regulation in that manner. To the best of my knowledge, not many other carriers (if any, other than Australian & Jet* ??) do likewise. You'd have to try to obtain a clarification of policy from DOTARS. Good luck!

[Keg]

56P, that much I'm clear on. What I was after from DHD or other DJ crew is that they definitely are applying the very same legislation in a very different way and the logic that they are using to do that.

At the moment, no one is taking responsibility for sorting this out. DOTARS say the reg is the reg and so comply, Qf security interpret it one way and force a very restrictive set of rules on Flight Ops that mean my seven year old daughter is not allowed on the flight deck with me- very hard to take her anywhere now! DJ take a different line and appear to be able to still do this. Flight Ops blame security, security blame DOTARS, DOTARS shrug their soldiers and say the reg is the reg so just comply.....it's not a concern to any of them about whether my wife and kids can join me on the flight deck or not. It is a concern to me. :* :mad:

[Octane]

My brother has told me that I can no longer ride in the jump seat (Virgin Blue).
Last had the pleasure in November 2005, Perth-Melb. Apparently applies to flight attendants and other non-tech crew also. :{

[Deejay 1]

At least mother - in - laws won't have to worry too much.

They've still have FOC travel on their broom!

[56P]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the red rat is simply being bloody-minded about ithe issue and blaming it on DOTARS. Certainly, other operators apply it differently.

[greybeard]

What a sad place the world has become where our own kids are considered to be "unsuitable" to travel in our cockpits, the sodding sysem couldn't find it's arse in the dark with both hands.
Captains used to be CAPTAINS and had the authority to do that job in all its glory and RESPONSIBILITY and earned that respect.
Some knuckle dragging low life people have beaten us all to be pushed around, disadvantaged, frisked by thugs at the gate, prevented from enjoying most things aviation as pilots.

BUT WE HAVE LET IT HAPPEN!!!!!!

All too busy being busy and let the dills run us ragged.

I am sure I had the best times 1960s to 2003 as an operator/pilot.

Simulators are a lot more fun.

siu generous

:ok: :ok:

[Propstop]

I recall back in the good old days when I was an apprentice with TAA I used to ride in the jump seat all the time. My wife and kids have all done the same. Those days the captain was the commander and with the rare exception were all top guys. Later in PX it was the same too.
I think this crass stupidity by the lawmakers, and being hassled by security goons with a collective IQ of ??? has taken all the fun and enjoyment of travel.
I certainly do not enjoy the industry as I used to.

[I Love This Show]

This seems a bit rich.
Back in the day I was a bag chucker, not employed by the airline (contractor, with NoPulse). Often I'd wonder up to Dispatch at the end of my shift and score a jump ride up or down the coast. 90% of the time this was fine with them, providing no C&T was going on, pending captain's approval. Never had one turn me down.
It was a great way to make friends and network - being a student at the time, it was very helpful and a great motivator. Sad to see this opportunity go through paranoia :ugh:

[Don Esson]

There are two aspects to staff in jump seats: 'security' and 'staff travel'. It's easy to understand why jump seating is verbotim fort security reasons, no matter who the jump seat rider is. As to Staff Travel, why should a dependent of a pilot get a ride ahead of anyone else in the pecking order just because he or she is somehow connected to the :mad: pilot?? Is any pilot able to justify with a straight face and with fairness why their kith and kin should get a ride ahead of a more senior colleague?

[Keg]

Is any pilot able to justify with a straight face and with fairness why their kith and kin should get a ride ahead of a more senior colleague?

Two reasons, first of all, it's 'my' office (OK, it's the skippers office but you get my drift) and therefore I get to choose who I allow in the office to watch me work for the next 1-10 hours. It's for that reason that I've been part of the decision making process that has declined certain people to ride on the jump seat (staff on standby duty travel for example) whilst I've accepted other people with a much lower priority for onload on staff travel- . Second, if my family is travelling on my flight then they are travelling with me on a trip and that has priority over everyone elses staff travel. If I was allowed, my seven year old will beat the most senior staff traveller in the company to the jump seat every day of the week.

To extend the thought though, I've got no problems with the most junior F/O/ Captain in the airline promising the jump to his travel partner, kids, another crew member, whoever no matter how junior to me. I do that because I understand that the jump seat is a privilege that belongs to the operating crew to bestow. It is not mine to demand because I'm the next most senior person on the flight. :rolleyes:

[milbud]

Some years back pre 9/11 there was a fairly major incident at a US freight airline, I think it was UPS(?) a disgruntled employee fired one day, came back the next day, as the crews all knew him they gladly let him hop into the jump to hitch a lift somewhere. Shortly after take off he took to the operating crew with a fireaxe, fortunately the CAPT was able to subdue him despite his serious injuries. A very sketchy report I know, but proves the point that an operating crew can not just automatically assume that an airline employee is a safe bet...
I have also been advised at work (DJ) that only staff with ASIC and technically meant to be in uniform, can be allocated the jump, and strictly with CAPT permission.

[Don Esson]

therefore I get to choose who I allow in the office to watch me work for the next 1-10 hours. It's for that reason that I've been part of the decision making process that has declined certain people to ride on the jump seat (staff on standby duty travel for example) whilst I've accepted other people with a much lower priority for onload on staff travel- Second, if my family is travelling on my flight then they are travelling with me on a trip and that has priority over everyone elses staff travel. If I was allowed, my seven year old will beat the most senior staff traveller in the company to the jump seat every day of the week.::uhoh: :uhoh: :eek:

You precious people just don't get it and that's why most of your colleagues on the ground and even in the air despise the pilot group as a whole, but generally not as individuals. Who says the jump seat is the Captain's to do as he or she wishes? I thought it was for the carriage of supernumerary crew - nothing more, nothing less and certainly not the plaything of a pilot for him or her to bestow to his or her family members who can't manage a seat in the cabin based on their travel priority. What a mob of self-serving greedy individuals you are to assume that the property of the company is your personal fiefdom.

And, dear Keg, if you want the proof of what I am suggesting, just ask any ground staff for his or her views. I know the truth can hurt and that this will alienate many pilots but they should try to look at the bigger picture or, better still, join the ground staff and learn how an airline really functions. Airlines and the benefits they offer staff are for all - on a fair, even-handed and equitable basis..that is what Staff Travel and priorities are all about, and not for the pilots to "pull rank".

[Dehavillanddriver]

Actually the flight deck IS our personal fiefdom, and it is enshrined in the regulations.

As for ground staff hating us - tough - that is their problem not ours.

There are a lot of people with petty jealousies. Personally, I reckon if they treat us well we should treat them well. I accept that there some of us that don't, but similarly there are ground staff that treat us like crap too, that is not an excuse to treat all pilots like we are dirt.

The thing that most gound staff seem to forget, or choose to forget, is that we, in particular the Captains, have a responsibility that covers a number of areas, including the lives of those on board the aircraft. The ground crew these days seem to be only too keen to get you loaded and the door shut and out of their hair.

Sometimes that is not what is in the best interests of all parties and captains sometimes make decisions that are not popular, but they don't make decisions just to piss people off....

[Keg]

And, dear Keg, if you want the proof of what I am suggesting, just ask any ground staff for his or her views.

It says a lot about a person when they're effectively saying ''stuff your seven year old daughter, she should stay in [insert city here] on her own because I'm more senior'. If that truely IS the attitude expoused by ground staff then I'm more than comfortable with being held in disdain by them. However, I've got to admit that the times I've interacted with ground staff (and probably more frequently then you may realise) that they've never been as bitter, twisted, narrow minded and myopic as you Don.

Then again, perhaps it's just as simple as the fact that they too recognise the privilege of riding on the jump seat if there are no other seats in the cabin and are grateful for the offer of it. We can say 'no' but strangely, we mostly never do. We put up with the inconvenience (and there is a degree of disruption having a non pilot on the deck) in order to get as many staff away as possible. Perhaps I need to rethink that stance and just say 'no' to everyone except pilots from now on because according to you, most ground staff hate our guts. :rolleyes:

There is no way could I ever think about demanding one of the jump seats because I happened to have a higher priority than say the wife and/or children (or even other relative) of the operating crew just because I'm 'senior'. The seat may be 'owned' by QF, but once they assign the aeroplane to the crew, the jump seat 'belongs' to the Captain.

I can lend you the hammer and nails if you need them but you're going to have to source your own wood in order to build that bridge and get over it. :rolleyes:

[Don Esson]

I'm sorry Keg but you still don't get it! Staff Travel has been designed in such a way that staff can travel in accord with the protocols based on position in the airline and seniority (date of joining) so that it's applied in an equitable fashion. That said, how is it fair that an "out-of-order" flight crew beneficiary can get away, albeit in a jump seat, when an actual staff member without connection to the crew gets left behind?

You have said "It says a lot about a person when they're effectively saying ''stuff your seven year old daughter, she should stay in [insert city here] on her own because I'm more senior'." This statement I think says more about you than me! As a pilot you must know about the vagaries and uncertainties of Staff Travel - as a responsible parent and pilot, I'd be very surprised that you'd put any seven year old in the position you portray. In other words, if Staff Travel looks problematical, leave the kids at home. After all, most of us did not take our kids to work to the office or to far flung places when on Duty Travel.

deHD...no the ground staff don't hate your guts. As individuals go, you'll not find animosity. It's the behaviour of the group as a whole that annoys people as it acts in a very greedy, self-serving way with little regard for others.. You only have to read some of the comments posted here to see how these descriptors fit to the pilot group as a whole, especially when one reads the bile directed at the JetStar guys who are trying to make the best of their opportunities in the most difficult of circumstances. They have been caught in the 'real world' - something from which Qantas Longhaul have long been insulated.

You have written " The thing that most gound staff seem to forget, or choose to forget, is that we, in particular the Captains, have a responsibility that covers a number of areas, including the lives of those on board the aircraft. The ground crew these days seem to be only too keen to get you loaded and the door shut and out of their hair." Your education is sadly lacking as there are a lot more ground staff to get you flying than the airports staff who worry about the SLF. Your responsibilities and skills are always acknowledged but to suggest that ground staff just want you out of the place is hardly fair comment.

Reverting to Staff Travel and jump seats, Keg suggested that "The seat may be 'owned' by QF, but once they assign the aeroplane to the crew, the jump seat 'belongs' to the Captain. " Judging by the way in which people are mysteriously moved to the forward parts of aircraft after departure, maybe they think they also 'own' the premium cabins as well!

This is one matter on which we'll never agree so why don't we declare a truce? The robust debate however is enjoyable.

Cheers.

[king oath]

Don Esson.

You are wrong old son.

The jumpseat IS my personal feifdom .Its my office. Who else would allow strangers to come into their office and sit watching them work? What a bloody cheek.

Since my wife and kids have been banned by QF, because they choose to "interpret" regulations such, nobody sits on my jumpseat, except for one exception.

As a professional courtesy to my fellow pilots they are most welcome at any time. And I'm sure they would reciprocate.

Don baby, if that sounds elite to you so be it. Guess I'll just have to live with it and try not to lose any sleep.

[Keg]

...most of us did not take our kids to work to the office or to far flung places when on Duty Travel.


'most of you' don't spend 50-60% of your life away from home ON duty travel. I certainly know the vagaries of staff travel which is why I knew that I could always rely on 'my' seats on the flight deck to get my family to wherever it was we were going for whatever reason it was.

I will admit one thing though Don, you do have me in two minds now on whether I should ever bother offering the jump seat to a ground staff member ever again. Despite your protestations and beliefs to the contray, it still is 'ours' to offer!

I wonder if your ground crew mates realise the disservice you are doing them!

[Capt Basil Brush]

Don, you dont work in DJ management by any chance?

If not, you would fit right in!

Your attitude towards pilots sounds very familiar.

BB

[Johhny Utah]

Don Esson - from my (limited) understanding of the staff travel priority ranking system, family members of the operating crew actually are the highest priority. As such, they should be allocated seats first, before any other staff travellers. If the sole remaining seat happens to be the jumpseat, then I guess that's what they will get.

I'm pretty sure that Keg isn't implying that he regularly turfs higher ranking staff travellers out of the way 'just because he can' - that would be completely out of order (unless you happen to have the surname of Dixon or Jackson). Not too mention completely unrealistic - operating crews have better things to do than peruse lists of staff travellers pre-flight, and I can honestly say that I've only ever heard a Captain/FO ask "Did we get all the staff travellers on?" to the ground crew, as opposed to "did you make sure XXX XXX didn't get on...?"

You seem to have a strange slant on things - on one hand you're criticising Keg with regards to the vagaries of staff travel, when it would appear that the very same vagaries are the things that you seem to be so worked up about...:confused:

As an aside, if there are employees on standby duty travel, then I guess the company has decided that when they get back to work is actually second to any cost savings that come from booking a standby ticket instead of a space confirmed seat.... problem solved.

[Yon Garde]

Capt Basil B

You took the words out of my mouth. Amen Brother!

Yon:ok:

[Deejay 1]

Hey Woomera

Why isn't this thread showing under D&G Reporting points.
Jump seats in GA & Charter, aren't all 1B seats in bug bashers "jump seats"?

I would like to say that from a PR perspective, putting agents or VIP/CIP intp jumps was brilliant, making for very very loyal pax, having been involved with this on numerous occasions.

[Animalclub]

'most of you' don't spend 50-60% of your life away from home ON duty travel.!

Keg I'm not a pilot hater!!!... but it was/is your choice of lifestyle.

[404 Titan]

Animalclub

but it was/is your choice of lifestyle.
Most of us have chosen this lifestyle and field of aviation because the remuneration does properly compensate us for the inconvenience it causes in our lives. Just as a deep sea diver is properly compensated for the dangers in his job, long haul pilots are compensated for the endless disruption caused to their family lives. So yes we accepted the lifestyle, but your point is?? :yuk:

[Animalclub]

My point - Don't use personal choice as a basis of an argument or debate.

When I was based in USA in a non-flying capacity, but with an airline, I spent at least 40% of my time out of town doing my job. My choice (I wanted the job and enjoyed it) so I can't blame anyone else... or use it in an argument or debate.

[Don Esson]

Johnny U just don't what you're talking about when you say "from my (limited) understanding of the staff travel priority ranking system, family members of the operating crew actually are the highest priority. As such, they should be allocated seats first, before any other staff travellers." Proof again that you just don't get it, and that your knowledge is indeed limited. Hope you can fly an aeroplane better than you can apply staff travel regulations. In fact I'd say you're incapble of getting it. Since when did Qantas pilot family members (of operating crew) have the highest staff onload priority? What a load of unaldulterated bullschizer? You have to be living in fantasy land, or if you're not, tell us where it is written. How do family members of operating cabin crew fare?

Have any of you thought that the pilots' attitude on this issue is causing grief with ground staff in that the former's family members receive an unfair advantage and that is why Management has chosen to interpret the regulations the way they have? Better to do that than to have an industrial confrontation.

Animal Club - spot on buddy!

[tinpis]

"You want the seat?"

"SHOW ME THE MONEY!"




http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/tinpis/airlinecapt.jpg

[Keg]

Geez, this is way too easy. When you focus on the minutae Don, you tend to miss the big picture. JU is actually talking about the 'accompanied' trip that is part of our award and is an entitlement for Captains. He is correct about the higher priority that comes with this trip. Whether it is the highest priority, I don't know and don't care.

As for the discussion about lifestyle, I'm entirely happy with my choice and it's impacts on my family. That was never the point of my statement. Don brings up the fact that he or she doesn't take his or her family on duty travel so why should we AND expect to get the flight deck when he or she may be senior to me (and my family). My point was that if Don spent 50-60% of his or her time away from home on duty travel then he or she would probably consider how they could take their family away with them on the occasional trip. That was the end of the point.

The interesting flow on effect though is that if the aircraft was full and the old system still existed, Don would be BEGGING for the flight deck seat to get his kith and kin to where he needed them to be. :rolleyes:


... the pilots' attitude on this issue is causing grief with ground staff in that the former's family members receive an unfair advantage and that is why Management has chosen to interpret the regulations the way they have? Better to do that than to have an industrial confrontation.

You're kidding me. Now you really have shown your paranoia! What industrial confrontation. It's MY office and it's my RIGHT and requirement as a crew member to voice my opinion to the Captain. It is his RIGHT (as enshrined in the company documentation called the Flight Administration Manual) to determine what staff sit in OUR office. so there goes your 'unfair advantage'....and there goes your basis for industrial confrontation. Now you're just an angry idiot with a chip on your shoulder!

The really sad thing in all of this is that most of the time, we do go with the staff priority- we even tend to give priority to those on 'real' staff travel trips rather than the stand by duty travellers. The only rule is generally colleagues and family first. This doesn't happen that often. Still, it's a shame I don't know your real name Don. That way I could tell all the ground staff who get knocked back from my jump seat now and in the future who they have to blame- especially considering you have stuck yourself forward as the spokesperson for their opinions. :yuk:

Let me know where I should post the hammer and nails to Don. :E

[Johhny Utah]

Don - why don't you try to calm down. I'm basing that on the fact that when my wife travels with me on a trip that I'm rostered to operate, I fax a copy of my roster to staff travel then they change her staff travel priority (their words, not mine). I had been told that it was to the highest priority, but then again, maybe someone was p1ss1ng in my pocket - I don't really care, as (touch wood) she has always made it onboard on those flights.

As for not understanding the staff travel priority - I'll cop that one, but really - honestly, who does? The way things are these days, most crew are flat out trying to keep up with the never ending procedural changes that appear with monotonous regularity in our mailboxes, let alone wasting time trying to understand the vagaries of the staff travel system. Mostly the decision on who gets on is made by the ground staff anyway - like I said before, the crew are busy doing more important things.

As a suggestion, perhaps you could post how it actually works, so then we'll ALL know - what do you say? As far as I can see, that would go a long way to resolving any differences of opinion that are causing everyone grief (apparently). And if it is as simple as you say, then it shouldn't take too long. So - how about it...?

p.s

[Capt Fathom]

I wouldn't be too concerned about ground staff being left behind Don. Their mates at checkin look after them very well!

[tinpis]

Have they ever thought of a paintball competition between all levels of staff in kwantas?
Id pay to watch that.

[Woomera]

I'd pay to participate :ok: :}

Woomera (Eastern States)