Originally Posted by
Mattio
A common thing posted by yes voters, those leaning yes and some in union leadership is that we can't vote no and expose ourselves to scope issues, jetblue express etc. If we can't go another 12 months without scope, why did we go this long without scope since voting in a union? If we can vote a TA in based on scope provisions at the expense of other sections.... Then why, 4.5 years ago, did we not we just cut and paste a scope section and have it in writing that no changes will be made to the FSM, PEA, or benefits without mutual agreement (with a short time before we can return to the table)? Seems like that would've been a very quick process. We could be voting on our second contract right now and had scope protections this whole time. Or could we? Am I missing something? I very likely could be as I'm not an expert on contract negotiations.
I'm not asking from the standpoint of a no voter, I'm asking from the standpoint of a confused union member.
Why did we take this long? Why did JetBlue pilots reject union drives multiple times? Why does management not see how to fix a problem until they do?
We have the chance to protect our jobs in the future, and saying that this has no value is likely coming from the same people who voted against ALPA; those who are short sighted and didn't spend any time at the regionals.
The first ten years of my career were ruined by RJ's, I don't want the next ten years ruined by RJ's ending up here.
So to put the answer in TEM terms; a positive outcome is not a measure of safety. We were flying unstable approaches for years, and it isn't a problem until it is, and then it's catastrophic.