Originally Posted by
antbar01
You have to think that undermining our scope language would be a significant benefit to the company if they pursued an Alaska merger. We would have almost no ability as a group to stop them from bringing regional flying to Jetblue in that case (I welcome corrections if I am wrong). Best case scenario we impose something between our (pretty good) scope and Alaska’s (no scope) scope.
The merger and successorship section of our contract (1.E) is pretty strong:
"...until a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement is ratified the status quo as specified in the agreement(s) of the impacted pilot group(s) will apply. Each pre-merger carrier shall keep separate flight operations of the carriers and will not transfer or interchange pilots or aircraft between the carriers unless otherwise negotiated and agreed to by the Association, and shall ensure that all Company aircraft on hand or on order at the time of the transaction are operated only by JetBlue Pilots."
So unless the collective group votes in a joint contract with weaker scope language, they can't farm out any of our flying.
Or maybe they could just violate our scope and we could file a grievance and spend a couple years meeting every so often to talk about possible solutions.