Originally Posted by antbar01

Just to collect a couple of things that are rattling around into one place:

1. The long term of the agreement makes sense. The seven year timeline is probably a necessity to justify the whole mess from a business standpoint. Assuming this is true, we should not expect it to change in future iterations. Rather, the size of the carrot will change OR the hand waving language will change.

2. The scope clause is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect jobs. I still haven’t figured out if this does that in any meaningful way, but that’s the point of Section 1. If your objections to the TA as written are along the lines of “where is the profit sharing,” or “hold on to scope for future bargaining,” I get it. But the only appropriate use of scope from a negotiating standpoint is: does altering the section improve the job security of Jetblue pilots in a short, intermediate, or long term capacity? If the answer is “no,” it must be rejected, no matter what the economic benefit is to the company or the pilots.

I would encourage everyone to consider their vote and the questions they ask of their reps from a job security perspective. If the TA is rejected, I would urge pilots to seek improvements in language that secure jobs, rather than carrots. These cost the company little and are of huge impact on us.

My 2¢.