View Single Post
Old 09-09-2019 | 08:43 AM
  #4  
jamesholzhauer
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ParrotBay031
Yes this is absolute bull****... but even more so trying to swap a trip for the same number of day trip and having it get denied for the same reason. Ex. (swapping a 2 day for a 2 day over the same footprint) but not having more then required in the 2 day bucket. This is a huge issue and the union better address it because this was not communicated to us during the road shows and they appear to have gotten taken advantage of during implementation of language.
What is the union going to do? They voted to approve it. They also sold it as “market rate” and a great first contract. They can’t go back on that. 74% of you voted yes for it, and now people want a redo because they didn’t read or understand it? No. Not how it works. Classic case of buyers remorse once you start living it and seeing what’s actually in it, and seeing all the QOL gives that 7/12 reps and 74% agreed to. Frankly, quality of life under the direct relationship was better for most.

Even more frustrating is that we will be fighting not only in the areas we knew we were lacking, we will be fighting for a whole new set of unforeseen (to most) issues, using negotiating capital on many different fronts...not just a few. This is why so many of us (even the union until they got to an AIP and changed to a sell job tone) were adamant we had to get it right the first time, quality over speed, etc. Oh well. We earned it. This is the contract this pilot group deserves. For better or worse. We will get em next time though right?

Hope you guys are all contacting your LEC reps and voting for a change in direction (ie urging your reps to vote for Rocky and Burt). Keeping the status quo good ol boy B6ALPA will be very bad for this pilot group. The only hope that exists for jetblue pilots is a change in direction. We got what we got. Time to learn from it, and turn things around. That starts with ousting the status quo.
Reply