Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Yes vs. no


GuppyPuppy
07-16-2018, 05:55 PM
The way I see it is that "NO" voters believe it's worth the risk to send this back. While "YES" voters don't think it's worth the risk. Nobody knows how long it would take to get a new TA. I've read 2 weeks to 2 years. And nobody knows what we may, or may not get in a new TA.

I can't say that I've come across anyone yet who is excited about this TA.

Nobody can argue that it falls short in many areas.

Good luck to all.

Gup


Xtreme87
07-16-2018, 06:10 PM
The way I see it is that "NO" voters believe it's worth the risk to send this back. While "YES" voters don't think it's worth the risk. Nobody knows how long it would take to get a new TA. I've read 2 weeks to 2 years. And nobody knows what we may, or may not get in a new TA.

I can't say that I've come across anyone yet who is excited about this TA.

Nobody can argue that it falls short in many areas.

Good luck to all.

Gup

It should have never been sent to the pilots for a vote. Now that we are where we are, throwing away the gains that ARE in this contract would be stupid for an unknown outcome. I voted yes, not because I endorse this contract, but because I do think this company will try to keep it cost neutral one way or another with TA 2.

hilltopflyer
07-16-2018, 06:12 PM
It should have never been sent to the pilots for a vote. Now that we are where we are, throwing away the gains that ARE in this contract would be stupid for an unknown outcome. I voted yes, not because I endorse this contract, but because I do think this company will try to keep it cost neutral one way or another with TA 2.

I agree with the first part completely. Very disappointed in the mec/nc for sendingnthis our to vote.


capt707
07-17-2018, 05:51 AM
The way I see it is that "NO" voters believe it's worth the risk to send this back. While "YES" voters don't think it's worth the risk. Nobody knows how long it would take to get a new TA. I've read 2 weeks to 2 years. And nobody knows what we may, or may not get in a new TA.

I can't say that I've come across anyone yet who is excited about this TA.

Nobody can argue that it falls short in many areas.

Good luck to all.

Gup

We are suppose to vote on the contents of the TA, not on a risk/fear factor like so many are doing. :rolleyes:

expectholding
07-17-2018, 06:05 AM
I would've been ****ed if the mec withheld this from my vote and didnt give me and my wife the opportunity to look at it. not only gains in all cornerstones, but top of the industry in job protection, more time off, etc. meanwhile im making less than our fellow pilots at spirit and hanging out with frontier at the bottom of the industry. no thanks. not voting out of fear here.

GuppyPuppy
07-17-2018, 06:15 AM
We are suppose to vote on the contents of the TA, not on a risk/fear factor like so many are doing. :rolleyes:

So, if we vote no on the TA content, which I totally get, then what?

We can speculate all day, but nobody knows.

If we had a contract to fall back on this would be more clear.

Gup

hilltopflyer
07-17-2018, 07:47 AM
I would've been ****ed if the mec withheld this from my vote and didnt give me and my wife the opportunity to look at it. not only gains in all cornerstones, but top of the industry in job protection, more time off, etc. meanwhile im making less than our fellow pilots at spirit and hanging out with frontier at the bottom of the industry. no thanks. not voting out of fear here.

So instead we are still at the bottom below Alaska (after a few months on their arbitrated contract) and the big 4 and just hanging with spirit and frontier.

Bluedriver
07-17-2018, 08:08 AM
So instead we are still at the bottom below Alaska (after a few months on their arbitrated contract) and the big 4 and just hanging with spirit and frontier.

"We're an LCC" (Low COMPENSATION Carrier).




"We're not Delta"...






And we never will be with that attitude...

SmitteyB
07-17-2018, 08:48 AM
I agree with the first part completely. Very disappointed in the mec/nc for sendingnthis our to vote.

Ha! When you have the mediator saying to your face-

“The Company moved a lot and you’re not budging. Either negotiate in good faith or I will put you on ice for 6 months - your call”

You don’t have a lot of options. This is clearly the most money the NC thought they could reasonably grab without delaying this thing another year.

I don’t believe the contract is perfect or great by any means. There are GAPING holes in healthcare and workrules. But in the end it’s a negotiation, not a Delta or bust demand.

For the record, I haven’t voted yet.

hilltopflyer
07-17-2018, 10:23 AM
Ha! When you have the mediator saying to your face-

ďThe Company moved a lot and youíre not budging. Either negotiate in good faith or I will put you on ice for 6 months - your callĒ

You donít have a lot of options. This is clearly the most money the NC thought they could reasonably grab without delaying this thing another year.

I donít believe the contract is perfect or great by any means. There are GAPING holes in healthcare and workrules. But in the end itís a negotiation, not a Delta or bust demand.

For the record, I havenít voted yet.

Itís the gaping holes Iím comcerned about. Not even pay rates. I could have lived with pay rates if the holes and especially healthcare were better. Healthcare alone is atrocious.

SmitteyB
07-17-2018, 11:39 AM
Itís the gaping holes Iím comcerned about. Not even pay rates. I could have lived with pay rates if the holes and especially healthcare were better. Healthcare alone is atrocious.

The implementation LOA alone is really scary, honestly. 12/31/2019 for some of the best provisions is concerning.

There should have been financial penalties associated with the Company not delivering an acceptable schedule for adhering to this contract.

BUT....BUT

We have to judge this document on its merits and compare it to what the alternate outcome is. I don't believe in any possible way that we would achieve another AIP for at least a year. Are the holes worth holding up for a year at the earliest? I haven't decided yet.

PasserOGas
07-17-2018, 04:11 PM
The implementation LOA alone is really scary, honestly. 12/31/2019 for some of the best provisions is concerning.

There should have been financial penalties associated with the Company not delivering an acceptable schedule for adhering to this contract.

BUT....BUT

We have to judge this document on its merits and compare it to what the alternate outcome is. I don't believe in any possible way that we would achieve another AIP for at least a year. Are the holes worth holding up for a year at the earliest? I haven't decided yet.

How about a whole career? If we vote this in, we set our bar. Next go round will be no different and there is zero doubt when our NC asks for more the mediator will laugh and point at these results.

seekingblue
07-17-2018, 05:05 PM
The implementation LOA alone is really scary, honestly. 12/31/2019 for some of the best provisions is concerning.

There should have been financial penalties associated with the Company not delivering an acceptable schedule for adhering to this contract.

BUT....BUT

We have to judge this document on its merits and compare it to what the alternate outcome is. I don't believe in any possible way that we would achieve another AIP for at least a year. Are the holes worth holding up for a year at the earliest? I haven't decided yet.

Exactly right.

The implementation LOA sucks. Period. But either we can wait until 12/31/19 to get some of the best pieces of the LOA or we can vote down the TA and wait until 12/31/19 to get a contract and have a have 2.5 years of 10hr 3 days, no scope protections, and making 18.5% less than Iíd be making with the TA.

IMHO. Sign it now. Codify no scope, work rules and fight to live another day in 2022.

expectholding
07-17-2018, 08:51 PM
How about a whole career? If we vote this in, we set our bar. Next go round will be no different and there is zero doubt when our NC asks for more the mediator will laugh and point at these results.

Instead of dealing in facts, this is a false talking point created to boost your own initiative. Are you saying the pilot group that has top pay rates today will always be on top? Has that always been the case? Markets and environments change, and you have no way of predicting what those would look like in the future any better than you could have 20 years ago.

expectholding
07-17-2018, 08:56 PM
The implementation LOA alone is really scary, honestly. 12/31/2019 for some of the best provisions is concerning.

There should have been financial penalties associated with the Company not delivering an acceptable schedule for adhering to this contract.

BUT....BUT

We have to judge this document on its merits and compare it to what the alternate outcome is. I don't believe in any possible way that we would achieve another AIP for at least a year. Are the holes worth holding up for a year at the earliest? I haven't decided yet.

Financial penalties remove the grievance process (jetblue is complying with the "fine", therefore meeting terms of agreement and nothing to grieve) and that fine would likely be distributed to the whole pilot group instead of the pilot impacted by the non-implemented item. That doesn't work as well as you think.

As a reserve guy, I am most impacted by implementation. I'd prefer to start implementing rather than kick the can down the road. How'd that work for us when we voted no to a union...twice?

likeitis
07-18-2018, 08:26 AM
Exactly right.

The implementation LOA sucks. Period. But either we can wait until 12/31/19 to get some of the best pieces of the LOA or we can vote down the TA and wait until 12/31/19 to get a contract and have a have 2.5 years of 10hr 3 days, no scope protections, and making 18.5% less than Iíd be making with the TA.

IMHO. Sign it now. Codify no scope, work rules and fight to live another day in 2022.

This is my third first TA and the same ďlive to fight another dayĒ worked out horribly for the other two. That mentality never works. 2022 will become 2025, 26. So we start negotiations with blowing our wad with things that should have been in the contract now? Mind blowingly retarded. The ELT will be spending what would be TA2 on champagne, caviar and tears of joy at our pilot groupís epidemic case of pilot battered syndrome.

PasserOGas
07-18-2018, 09:24 AM
Instead of dealing in facts, this is a false talking point created to boost your own initiative. Are you saying the pilot group that has top pay rates today will always be on top? Has that always been the case? Markets and environments change, and you have no way of predicting what those would look like in the future any better than you could have 20 years ago.

Name one time settling for less has worked out to higher pay/better work rules.

I'll wait.

queue
07-19-2018, 08:15 AM
Financial penalties remove the grievance process (jetblue is complying with the "fine", therefore meeting terms of agreement and nothing to grieve) and that fine would likely be distributed to the whole pilot group instead of the pilot impacted by the non-implemented item. That doesn't work as well as you think.

As a reserve guy, I am most impacted by implementation. I'd prefer to start implementing rather than kick the can down the road. How'd that work for us when we voted no to a union...twice?

Reserve people aren't well covered by this TA.

Consider this legal scenario:


You just signed up with a new cell phone service provider (or your existing one has temporary outtages).
BJ pushes an assignment to you via JETCRW.
You fail to acknowledge it and you don't see it on your phone until you get the notification and realize report time was 15 minutes ago.
Now you have a "missed trip" on your Dependability Policy.

Now read the TA. Find me the language that defines positive contact in the context of JETCRW. Sure, it talks about it in regards to voice communications, but that isn't explicitly extended to JETCRW. Where is the language that defines what positive contact is in the context of JETCRW? Is it merely enough for BJ to push the data? What if an isolated technological fault occurs? Will they believe you or will you be treated as a liar?

Either way, if it's not in the contract, it doesn't exist. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise because that is the legal standard. The alternative argument is: why bother having a contract if we could simply use assumptions & expectations to litigate everything?

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Mattio
07-19-2018, 08:24 AM
Wow, I've already found a lot of "gotchas" in the TA but I missed that one, Q. The Definitions include a description of Positive Contact and two-way communications over Jetcrw are one form of positive contact. In the reserve section it says they have to make a "positive contact attempt" so if they attempt to notify you through jetcrw it seems like your scenario could actually happen. I also turn off notifications on my phone sometimes but leave the ringer on so I only get woken up by something important... on the flip side I don't know if anyone has a long enough notification chime option to wake them up from a deep slumber...

queue
07-19-2018, 09:28 AM
Wow, I've already found a lot of "gotchas" in the TA but I missed that one, Q. The Definitions include a description of Positive Contact and two-way communications over Jetcrw are one form of positive contact. In the reserve section it says they have to make a "positive contact attempt" so if they attempt to notify you through jetcrw it seems like your scenario could actually happen. I also turn off notifications on my phone sometimes but leave the ringer on so I only get woken up by something important... on the flip side I don't know if anyone has a long enough notification chime option to wake them up from a deep slumber...


If I were a BJ lawyer, F&H, a corrupt arbitrator (all of them), or Bozo, I would have a field day finding loopholes in EVERY section of the TA to exploit to benefit my bottom line. Even the commuter policy that says "no discipline will be...." has an escape clause where the pilot is responsible for "adequate planning" yet again doesn't define "adequate planning". By their reasoning, you should've shown up 3 days in advance of your reserve pairing because you should have been planning for that freak snowstorm or line of thunderstorms. Again... a legal weakness for the lawyers to exploit.



I mention this example because similar scenarios have already happened in real life. BJ exploited the lack of definition of positive contact to the detriment of the pilot, who was royally punished.





This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Curtaindriver
07-19-2018, 07:52 PM
Reserve people aren't well covered by this TA.

Consider this legal scenario:


You just signed up with a new cell phone service provider (or your existing one has temporary outtages).
BJ pushes an assignment to you via JETCRW.
You fail to acknowledge it and you don't see it on your phone until you get the notification and realize report time was 15 minutes ago.
Now you have a "missed trip" on your Dependability Policy.

Now read the TA. Find me the language that defines positive contact in the context of JETCRW. Sure, it talks about it in regards to voice communications, but that isn't explicitly extended to JETCRW. Where is the language that defines what positive contact is in the context of JETCRW? Is it merely enough for BJ to push the data? What if an isolated technological fault occurs? Will they believe you or will you be treated as a liar?

Either way, if it's not in the contract, it doesn't exist. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise because that is the legal standard. The alternative argument is: why bother having a contract if we could simply use assumptions & expectations to litigate everything?

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.


Positive Contact: When a Pilot and Crew Services speak on a recorded line or when two-way communication occurs between a Pilot and Crew Services via JETCRW.



The Pilot has to acknowledge the assignment on JETCRW, scheduling can't just push it to JETCRW and say good enough.....must be acknowledged.

Curtaindriver
07-19-2018, 07:58 PM
The implementation LOA alone is really scary, honestly. 12/31/2019 for some of the best provisions is concerning.

There should have been financial penalties associated with the Company not delivering an acceptable schedule for adhering to this contract.

BUT....BUT

We have to judge this document on its merits and compare it to what the alternate outcome is. I don't believe in any possible way that we would achieve another AIP for at least a year. Are the holes worth holding up for a year at the earliest? I haven't decided yet.


Please explain in detail what's so "scary" about the LOA. I'd love to hear it. Two of the biggest desires of the company are held back until basically LCR and redeye protections in Section 12 are implemented. For the record, Sabre was given a laundry list of items and requests of how long to turn on, they gave us times on almost all but could not reasonably pinpoint a few.....hence the backstop date of Dec 2019.


The company fought for years to lessen the grip of the Return to OSP language, which is by far industry leading. Also, the company has a strong desire to fly to Europe, so Section 14 is extremely important to them. Both of those items are restricted until ALL of our stuff we want is turned on.

O2pilot
07-19-2018, 08:40 PM
I would've been ****ed if the mec withheld this from my vote and didnt give me and my wife the opportunity to look at it. not only gains in all cornerstones, but top of the industry in job protection, more time off, etc. meanwhile im making less than our fellow pilots at spirit and hanging out with frontier at the bottom of the industry. no thanks. not voting out of fear here.

Top of the industry job protection? Then why are all the other majors hiring so rapidly if their job protection is so lousy?

queue
07-19-2018, 09:14 PM
Positive Contact: When a Pilot and Crew Services speak on a recorded line or when two-way communication occurs between a Pilot and Crew Services via JETCRW.



The Pilot has to acknowledge the assignment on JETCRW, scheduling can't just push it to JETCRW and say good enough.....must be acknowledged.

Great, but you didn't get the last part from the text of the TA. You inserted assumption. The 2 way paradigm is irrelevant to the mechanism of the technology. You are interpreting it through the eyes of assumption, not through contractual precision.


The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

queue
07-19-2018, 09:16 PM
Please explain in detail what's so "scary" about the LOA. I'd love to hear it. Two of the biggest desires of the company are held back until basically LCR and redeye protections in Section 12 are implemented. For the record, Sabre was given a laundry list of items and requests of how long to turn on, they gave us times on almost all but could not reasonably pinpoint a few.....hence the backstop date of Dec 2019.


The company fought for years to lessen the grip of the Return to OSP language, which is by far industry leading. Also, the company has a strong desire to fly to Europe, so Section 14 is extremely important to them. Both of those items are restricted until ALL of our stuff we want is turned on.

Which is why we have the leverage to bargain for a far better TA 2, besides the fact of a historical record breaking economy, pilot shortage, etc...

Now is the time to demand treatment as a professional.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

PasserOGas
07-20-2018, 03:48 AM
Positive Contact: When a Pilot and Crew Services speak on a recorded line or when two-way communication occurs between a Pilot and Crew Services via JETCRW.



The Pilot has to acknowledge the assignment on JETCRW, scheduling can't just push it to JETCRW and say good enough.....must be acknowledged.

Exept when on reserve. The clock starts when your phone chimes. *Ding* at 3 am.

Missed it? Sleeping? Dropped by cell network? Jet crew app misbehaving?

TOO BAD. The clock is now ticking on your report. They attempted PC.

Read. The. Contract.

The call-out period for a Short Call Reserve shall be no less than two
hours and thirty minutes (2:30) from the initial Positive Contact attempt.

PSU Flyer
07-20-2018, 05:05 AM
Positive Contact is actually defined in the TA. Itís in Section 2 - Definitions.

Bluedriver
07-20-2018, 05:17 AM
Exept when on reserve. The clock starts when your phone chimes. *Ding* at 3 am.

Missed it? Sleeping? Dropped by cell network? Jet crew app misbehaving?

TOO BAD. The clock is now ticking on your report. They attempted PC.

Read. The. Contract.

The call-out period for a Short Call Reserve shall be no less than two
hours and thirty minutes (2:30) from the initial Positive Contact attempt.

I think he KNOWS the contract Passer. But I'm interested in your last point. Hopefully a JC notification for your reserve assignment isn't enough. Hopefully in the case of a short-callout they need to actually call you because you are correct, a single JetCrew ding (mine is silent) isn't going to wake me up.

PSU Flyer
07-20-2018, 05:38 AM
Notification of Assignment
a. The Company shall notify a Reserve Pilot of a Pairing assignment via
JETCRW at the time the Pairing is placed on the Pilotís schedule. For Pairing assignments made after the DRO has been published, if a Pilot has not acknowledged the assignment at the applicable Reserve callout time,
the Company shall establish Positive Contact.

I think the positive contact ďattemptĒ only comes into play if you donít answer your phone, like it is today. That being said, itís not crystal clear and I wouldnít be surprised by anything this company tries.

queue
07-20-2018, 05:49 AM
Positive Contact is actually defined in the TA. Itís in Section 2 - Definitions.

It doesn't explicitly define positive contact for software. The advertised definition doesn't work with software.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

queue
07-20-2018, 05:57 AM
Notification of Assignment
a. The Company shall notify a Reserve Pilot of a Pairing assignment via
JETCRW at the time the Pairing is placed on the Pilotís schedule. For Pairing assignments made after the DRO has been published, if a Pilot has not acknowledged the assignment at the applicable Reserve callout time,
the Company shall establish Positive Contact.

I think the positive contact ďattemptĒ only comes into play if you donít answer your phone, like it is today. That being said, itís not crystal clear and I wouldnít be surprised by anything this company tries.

They have, in the past, left a voicemail and passed that off as positive contact. In rare instances, voicemails are not instantly delivered. Sometimes it takes hours, days, or never. It is not a guaranteed service, just like SMS text messages, and email. You have to write extra software protocol on top of them to make it the equivalent of old fashioned 'certified mail'.

Also, when you read the TA, you have to turn off your existing knowledge of the operation. Don't allow yourself to insert assumption. You have to constrain yourself to only what is written. I am aware that ALPA people are inserting assumption into it in order to sell this lemon, but that is dishonest.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Mattio
07-20-2018, 06:23 AM
Notification of Assignment
a. The Company shall notify a Reserve Pilot of a Pairing assignment via
JETCRW at the time the Pairing is placed on the Pilotís schedule. For Pairing assignments made after the DRO has been published, if a Pilot has not acknowledged the assignment at the applicable Reserve callout time,
the Company shall establish Positive Contact.

I think the positive contact ďattemptĒ only comes into play if you donít answer your phone, like it is today. That being said, itís not crystal clear and I wouldnít be surprised by anything this company tries.

The next bullet contains this:

"b. A Reserve Pilot has fifteen (15) minutes from the initial Positive Contact attempt to initiate a responding call to Crew Services"

"Positive Contact" includes two-way jetcrw communications, therefore, any reasonable lawyer would think a "Positive Contact Attempt" includes them sending a notification via jetcrw. They've done their part of the two-way communication and they're waiting on yours. They "attempted".

hilltopflyer
07-20-2018, 06:24 AM
The next bullet contains this:

"b. A Reserve Pilot has fifteen (15) minutes from the initial Positive Contact attempt to initiate a responding call to Crew Services"

"Positive Contact" includes two-way jetcrw communications, therefore, any reasonable lawyer would think a "Positive Contact Attempt" includes them sending a notification via jetcrw. They've done their part of the two-way communication and their waiting on yours. They "attempted".

Itís the way I read it. So sorry if you are working out. Looks like you going to be running with the iPad on the arm now.

Gordie H
07-20-2018, 08:54 AM
This Jetcrew / positive contact thing is nothing new (as far as I can tell)…they’ve been doing it for awhile now and it works fine for me.

While on short call, present time, if they push you an assignment that starts a few hours or more out (and it’s correct…i.e. you’re the guy that should get it, etc.) you acknowledge via Jetcrew, no need to talk to CS, good to go. If it’s a short call out situation usually the way it goes down is you get the first call and you don’t answer it (assuming you want the 15 extra minutes). The assignment is then pushed to you via Jetcrew and you see the report inside of 2 hours, so you don’t acknowledge it, but wait for them to call you again to establish a proper report time (i.e. 2 hours from then).

With the new contract nothing really changes except with the short call out situation you can just answer the phone the first time and establish a report time 2+30 from then. It’s better (for us and CS) and I don’t see any problems here….but then again I’m not a black helicopters are following me around kinda guy.

queue
07-20-2018, 09:35 AM
The next bullet contains this:

"b. A Reserve Pilot has fifteen (15) minutes from the initial Positive Contact attempt to initiate a responding call to Crew Services"

"Positive Contact" includes two-way jetcrw communications, therefore, any reasonable lawyer would think a "Positive Contact Attempt" includes them sending a notification via jetcrw. They've done their part of the two-way communication and they're waiting on yours. They "attempted".

We must ensure they can never interpret using the layman definition of reasonable. That is how they will screw us. A good contract will draw solid lines, not outsource to some variable definition of reasonable. TA 1 needs to be rewritten. TA1 lets BJ make legal definitions and we would be complicit by signing TA 1.

Maybe one day BJ pilots will wake up and realize that only the legal stuff matters.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

queue
07-20-2018, 09:39 AM
This Jetcrew / positive contact thing is nothing new (as far as I can tell)…they’ve been doing it for awhile now and it works fine for me. .

So you are throwing out all the legal language they will use against you? Since when is your anecdotal experience a solid basis for logical decision making? It's thinking like that which allows the CP to send out deceptive emails like the one they just sent out.

Are you totally ignorant of contracts in general? Are you totally ignorant of what BJ has done in the past?

I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying that your statements as a low information voter are negligent and dangerous.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

expectholding
07-20-2018, 09:56 AM
We must ensure they can never interpret using the layman definition of reasonable. That is how they will screw us. A good contract will draw solid lines, not outsource to some variable definition of reasonable.

The Delta contract has the word "reasonable" in it 74 times.

Is that a good contract? Should that be re-written too? Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about...

Gordie H
07-20-2018, 10:01 AM
Hey Q, take another look at that black chopper flying around your houseÖ.is it actually unmarked and black??? OrÖ.perhaps the sun angle was obscuring and itís actually the WBZ Action News chopper doing their midday traffic report? Itís the WBZ guys, right? YupÖ.they do a good traffic reportÖ.

say again
07-20-2018, 10:57 AM
Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about...


Ding, ding, ding! :D

queue
07-20-2018, 11:16 AM
Hey Q, take another look at that black chopper flying around your houseÖ.is it actually unmarked and black??? OrÖ.perhaps the sun angle was obscuring and itís actually the WBZ Action News chopper doing their midday traffic report? Itís the WBZ guys, right? YupÖ.they do a good traffic reportÖ.


Typical response from someone with a limited mindset stuck in the Regional Mentality.



Ignorance is bliss.



The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

queue
07-20-2018, 11:19 AM
The Delta contract has the word "reasonable" in it 74 times.

Is that a good contract? Should that be re-written too? Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about...


Yes, it should be rewritten. Airline contracts aren't exactly the pinnacle of contracts that other industry sectors look up to, unless you're a union buster. Have you ever actually written a contract or are you just being a useful pawn for someone?





The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

MGMTiswatchingU
07-20-2018, 12:48 PM
Great, but you didn't get the last part from the text of the TA. You inserted assumption. The 2 way paradigm is irrelevant to the mechanism of the technology. You are interpreting it through the eyes of assumption, not through contractual precision.


The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Im sorry but this is stupid and pointless. No matter how much a scenario is answered with TA language there is always something else you guys want to complain about. The sky is ******ing falling, Godzilla is 10 miles east of the BOS coast. RUN.

It's getting old. If you think your going to get everything you want in a TA, just get a molly and jumpstart the hallucination.

Imma need to get waayyyy higher if I'm gonna continue reading these.

symbian simian
07-20-2018, 03:05 PM
The Delta contract has the word "reasonable" in it 74 times.

Is that a good contract? Should that be re-written too? Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about...

I havenít seen it, but if sounds too high. But maybe in the delta contract it is followed by a solution if it doesnít happen. Just giving me the number 74 means nothing. If the contract has 74 times things like ďthe company will make a reasonable attempt at having the van pick up the crew within half an hour of on blockĒ without ďthe crew can take a taxi and expense if the van isnít there on timeĒ then it is a bad contract. Either it needs to be rewritten or, more likely, there are sustained grievances already that limit the amount of interpretation the company has for ďreasonableĒ.

PasserOGas
07-20-2018, 04:09 PM
The Delta contract has the word "reasonable" in it 74 times.

Is that a good contract? Should that be re-written too? Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about...

If you aren't full of sh!t (which I think you are) then you have read Delta's contract very closely and know how much better it is in almost every section. Funny haw when we want to compare ourselves to DAL for pay it's "We will never be Delta.", however when it suits your low ball argument it's fine to use as a benchmark.

Also, you are completely making the 74 reasonable thing up.

The fact remains, the company negotiated to get "attempt" instead of "positive contact" for a reason. It is a loss for the pilot group. It was given away by the NC in exchange for something, or, more likely they just caved because they lack a spine.

Bozo the pilot
07-20-2018, 04:51 PM
If you aren't full of sh!t (which I think you are) then you have read Delta's contract very closely and know how much better it is in almost every section. Funny haw when we want to compare ourselves to DAL for pay it's "We will never be Delta.", however when it suits your low ball argument it's fine to use as a benchmark.

Also, you are completely making the 74 reasonable thing up.

The fact remains, the company negotiated to get "attempt" instead of "positive contact" for a reason. It is a loss for the pilot group. It was given away by the NC in exchange for something, or, more likely they just caved because they lack a spine.

I hope you negotiate our next contract Pog. You seem to know everything. ;)

Gordie H
07-20-2018, 05:24 PM
The fact remains, the company negotiated to get "attempt" instead of "positive contact" for a reason. It is a loss for the pilot group. It was given away by the NC in exchange for something, or, more likely they just caved because they lack a spine.

On a short call out (or anything after DRO is published) I don’t think they’re going to push an assignment via Jetcrew and call that a positive contact attempt. They’re not now (and they could), why would they if this passes? Makes no sense….I could be wrong. But, if this passes, I bet a case of your favorite beverage this isn't an issue.

There is legit reasons to vote no (particularly if you’re very senior)…..but this sure isn’t one of them. I really like what our negotiators got here. I actually can’t believe they got us another 15mins….. “Thank You” NC! I say this because half of my call outs are “how fast can you get here” situations and I was sure the company would fight tooth and nail to keep the 2 hour window or maybe even tighten it up a bit. I also didn’t like playing the let it go to voicemail game.

Btw, you do realize you’re aligning yourself with a certain poster whom, at best, is a charlatan / worst case a total whack job?

hyperboy
07-20-2018, 05:24 PM
I hope you negotiate our next contract Pog. You seem to know everything. ;)

You would swear POS actually did something for this pilot group....yet he knows best for all of us.

seekingblue
07-20-2018, 06:47 PM
July 27th....

That is all.

PasserOGas
07-20-2018, 07:45 PM
On a short call out (or anything after DRO is published) I donít think theyíre going to push an assignment via Jetcrew and call that a positive contact attempt. Theyíre not now (and they could), why would they if this passes? Makes no senseÖ.I could be wrong. But, if this passes, I bet a case of your favorite beverage this isn't an issue.

There is legit reasons to vote no (particularly if youíre very senior)Ö..but this sure isnít one of them. I really like what our negotiators got here. I actually canít believe they got us another 15minsÖ.. ďThank YouĒ NC! I say this because half of my call outs are ďhow fast can you get hereĒ situations and I was sure the company would fight tooth and nail to keep the 2 hour window or maybe even tighten it up a bit. I also didnít like playing the let it go to voicemail game.

Btw, you do realize youíre aligning yourself with a certain poster whom, at best, is a charlatan / worst case a total whack job?


No, no, no. Hyperboy is a yes voter.

Rabid Seagull
07-20-2018, 07:49 PM
[QUOTE=Gordie H;263905 While on short call, present time, if they push you an assignment that starts a few hours or more out (and itís correctÖi.e. youíre the guy that should get it, etc.) you acknowledge via Jetcrew, no need to talk to CS, good to go. If itís a short call out situation usually the way it goes down is you get the first call and you donít answer it (assuming you want the 15 extra minutes). The assignment is then pushed to you via Jetcrew and you see the report inside of 2 hours, so you donít acknowledge it, but wait for them to call you again to establish a proper report time (i.e. 2 hours from then).
[/QUOTE]

I was in agreement with you up until the last bit, " but wait for them to call you again".

There's no "call you again" In that 15 minutes from their call, you're calling them.

Anyways, the notification in the TA is the same as it is today. The company gave up 15 minutes so that many of us wouldn't call back and bother the one overwhelmed CS employee.

As for POG and Q, I too am worried how this TA is vaguely written.

So what do you folks think about:
25.R.5.d The company shall notify a sc reserve before the end of the current day's RAP, regarding any modifications to the Pilot's RAP for the following day...

So now when the co figures out they don't have reserves for tomorrow, they'll call you today and CHANGE your RAP for tomorrow. No need for an accurate DRO...whenever that f'n thing gets published.

PasserOGas
07-20-2018, 08:13 PM
I was in agreement with you up until the last bit, " but wait for them to call you again".

There's no "call you again" In that 15 minutes from their call, you're calling them.

Anyways, the notification in the TA is the same as it is today. The company gave up 15 minutes so that many of us wouldn't call back and bother the one overwhelmed CS employee.

As for POG and Q, I too am worried how this TA is vaguely written.

So what do you folks think about:
25.R.5.d The company shall notify a sc reserve before the end of the current day's RAP, regarding any modifications to the Pilot's RAP for the following day...

So now when the co figures out they don't have reserves for tomorrow, they'll call you today and CHANGE your RAP for tomorrow. No need for an accurate DRO...whenever that f'n thing gets published.


It requires positive contact. This is definitely an issue, but you would most likely already be sitting reserve. Unless you make a habit of answering calls for CS on your days off. :p

Gordie H
07-20-2018, 09:22 PM
I was in agreement with you up until the last bit, " but wait for them to call you again".

There's no "call you again" In that 15 minutes from their call, you're calling them.

Anyways, the notification in the TA is the same as it is today. The company gave up 15 minutes so that many of us wouldn't call back and bother the one overwhelmed CS employee.

As for POG and Q, I too am worried how this TA is vaguely written.

So what do you folks think about:
25.R.5.d The company shall notify a sc reserve before the end of the current day's RAP, regarding any modifications to the Pilot's RAP for the following day...

So now when the co figures out they don't have reserves for tomorrow, they'll call you today and CHANGE your RAP for tomorrow. No need for an accurate DRO...whenever that f'n thing gets published.Yes, agreed, in the TA if you donít answer when they first call, YOU have to call back and the clock starts from when THEY initially called you (I was talking about how things are right nowÖ.sorry if confusing).

What other guys are worried about (as I understand) is that the company wonít call your phone at all but instead use Jetcrew as the sole means to notify. So the situation, as others have written, is youíre sitting short call and happen to be sleeping or working out or whatever (playing with yourself) and you get an assignment. Instead of calling, CS sends the assignment via Jetcrew only and that will start the clock and itís incumbent on you to either acknowledge it (by Jetcrew or by calling them back). You miss the Jetcrew ping and then you get in trouble. Iím saying this isnít going to happen and that they will still call your phone.

queue
07-20-2018, 09:22 PM
I was in agreement with you up until the last bit, " but wait for them to call you again".

There's no "call you again" In that 15 minutes from their call, you're calling them.

Anyways, the notification in the TA is the same as it is today. The company gave up 15 minutes so that many of us wouldn't call back and bother the one overwhelmed CS employee.

As for POG and Q, I too am worried how this TA is vaguely written.

So what do you folks think about:
25.R.5.d The company shall notify a sc reserve before the end of the current day's RAP, regarding any modifications to the Pilot's RAP for the following day...

So now when the co figures out they don't have reserves for tomorrow, they'll call you today and CHANGE your RAP for tomorrow. No need for an accurate DRO...whenever that f'n thing gets published.

I think it's more dangerously vague language to keep you on the hook as long as possible without reprocussions to them. Mark my words, they WILL exploit it to make changes. There is no language preventing them from going right up to the required rest minimum. I think it's really that simple. I know on normal pairings they've given us 10 hrs min rest, of course 30 mins of that is eaten up going to the hotel, then 30 mins the other way. Even knowing at 10 hrs we would be 1.5 hrs late to report the next day, they just delayed the flight 1.5 hrs but still crewed it with us. This was not an IROP. So, CS will do whatever the text says to the letter. They rely on you to call out fatigued but will not hesitate to put you into a fatiguing situation.


The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Gordie H
07-20-2018, 09:24 PM
No, no, no. Hyperboy is a yes voter.Lol, okÖcute. Iím glad you accepted my bet for a case though. If this thing passes weíll see how it goesÖ.Iíll be bidding reserve this fall and Iím confident weíll still get phone calls. Just feel lucky that Iím a cheap dateÖ.a Coors Lite kind of girl.

Rabid Seagull
07-21-2018, 03:12 AM
Yes, agreed, in the TA if you donít answer when they first call, YOU have to call back and the clock starts from when THEY initially called you (I was talking about how things are right nowÖ.sorry if confusing).

What other guys are worried about (as I understand) is that the company wonít call your phone at all but instead use Jetcrew as the sole means to notify. So the situation, as others have written, is youíre sitting short call and happen to be sleeping or working out or whatever (playing with yourself) and you get an assignment. Instead of calling, CS sends the assignment via Jetcrew only and that will start the clock and itís incumbent on you to either acknowledge it (by Jetcrew or by calling them back). You miss the Jetcrew ping and then you get in trouble. Iím saying this isnít going to happen and that they will still call your phone.

I'm with you now.

Oh, and how do you know that's what I do on rsv? Are you in that black helicopter?

July 27th ...and then until Dec 31, 2019

HAPPYY
07-21-2018, 03:26 AM
Jetblue is a dump. Vote NO like our real peers at delta did. Time to put on your big boy paints and do some big boy stuff here. For once.

Bozo the pilot
07-21-2018, 07:35 AM
Jetblue is a dump. Vote NO like our real peers at delta did. Time to put on your big boy paints and do some big boy stuff here. For once.

For what? An extra 50 mill signing bonus in 9-12 months?
ptosb is gone forever and B6 has shown that they dont need us to give a crap about performance by their profit sharing model.

SOP until retirement here at jetblew, but take the immediate protections and retirement offered in this TA.
Voting no is a bad gamble.
Flame away ladies... :D

queue
07-21-2018, 07:40 AM
Jetblue is a dump. Vote NO like our real peers at delta did. Time to put on your big boy paints and do some big boy stuff here. For once.

I wish the seniors at Delta would educate the Freshmen at BJ on how to fight substandard contracts. We are dragging down the industry and the profession. We largely have a blind (ALPA) leading the blind situation.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

queue
07-21-2018, 07:46 AM
For what? An extra 50 mill signing bonus in 9-12 months?
ptosb is gone forever and B6 has shown that they dont need us to give a crap about performance by their profit sharing model.

SOP until retirement here at jetblew, but take the immediate protections and retirement offered in this TA.
Voting no is a bad gamble.
Flame away ladies... :D

Voting yes is a certain disaster. Read the TA. It is a known quantity.... we KNOW BJ will exploit every single legal loophole from past accomplished fact and from their recent words. Just look at the brainwashing they made in their recent email about cleaning. Notice how they cited their lawyers' advice... F&H are their council in charge.

F&H's role is to contain the union through legal means, specifically through bad, vague, weak contracts like TA 1.


The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

MGMTiswatchingU
07-21-2018, 07:58 AM
Yes, agreed, in the TA if you donít answer when they first call, YOU have to call back and the clock starts from when THEY initially called you (I was talking about how things are right nowÖ.sorry if confusing).

What other guys are worried about (as I understand) is that the company wonít call your phone at all but instead use Jetcrew as the sole means to notify. So the situation, as others have written, is youíre sitting short call and happen to be sleeping or working out or whatever (playing with yourself) and you get an assignment. Instead of calling, CS sends the assignment via Jetcrew only and that will start the clock and itís incumbent on you to either acknowledge it (by Jetcrew or by calling them back). You miss the Jetcrew ping and then you get in trouble. Iím saying this isnít going to happen and that they will still call your phone.

But the crew has to acknowledge it (two way comms established, is it not so?

queue
07-21-2018, 12:15 PM
But the crew has to acknowledge it (two way comms established, is it not so?

It is an assumption that with JETCRW, acknowledging it is a prerequisite to 2-way communication. Your conventional wisdom does not apply when technology is involved. This is precisely the problem being debated in courts with technology companies every day. People are bringing in their layman understanding but coming to incorrect conclusions because they do not have the benefit of knowing the technology platform.

If you want a lesson on assumption vs. fact, look no further than the FAA paper that ALPA distributed regarding cleaning vs. the chief pilot response. The CP response is a mindjob leading you to fill in the blanks with assumption in order to extract work from you (for free). They know they are in a legal bind so they could only say "look over there, squirrel!". [incidentally, make sure you read the WHOLE thing...there's 20 pages, not just the first 2 or 3]

As the language stands in the TA, they could interpret positive communication in JETCRW however they want. It's one of dozens of dangerous deficiencies in the TA.

If it's not explicitly written, it doesn't exist. That's just how legal stuff works because otherwise we would live in a world of assumption, innuendo, and expectation. Law was set up to provide a fair, organized way of thinking social contracts.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Gordie H
07-21-2018, 12:42 PM
But the crew has to acknowledge it (two way comms established, is it not so?

Right now they will call you if u donít acknowledge...I donít think that will change if the TA passes

Gordie H
07-21-2018, 12:43 PM
I'm with you now.

Oh, and how do you know that's what I do on rsv? Are you in that black helicopter?

July 27th ...and then until Dec 31, 2019
Lol...whoop, whoop, whoop...

queue
07-21-2018, 03:52 PM
Right now they will call you if u donít acknowledge...I donít think that will change if the TA passes


An assumption again.


What if they don't call? What is your legal defense then?




The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

MGMTiswatchingU
07-21-2018, 04:19 PM
And its an assumption that you think you'll get better stuff in TA2, an assumption that you'll get a Delta contract.

Its an assumption that what is read in any contract is what is understood between both parties.

Its an assumption that voting NO will be worth it.

Its an assumption that you'll get release on a strike.

It's an assumption that JBLU will exhaust any and all loopholes.

Plz, get over it. Everything you say Q has somewhat of assumptions eating away in it. Sorry but you're not a reasonable person.

queue
07-21-2018, 04:40 PM
And its an assumption that you think you'll get better stuff in TA2, an assumption that you'll get a Delta contract.

Its an assumption that what is read in any contract is what is understood between both parties.

Its an assumption that voting NO will be worth it.

Its an assumption that you'll get release on a strike.

It's an assumption that JBLU will exhaust any and all loopholes.

Plz, get over it. Everything you say Q has somewhat of assumptions eating away in it. Sorry but you're not a reasonable person.

There's one fundamental difference which allows me to use assumption, or more accurately, uncertainty. All of the arguments you just made against my position are in the context of negotiation. I accept uncertainty in negotiation just like you can't predict the outcome of a war.

On the other hand, a contract is not a negotiation. A contract is a take it or leave it proposition in it's entirety (unless you go back to renegotiate). If the contract is vague, it invites assumption where it should be virtually non-existent. Why even bother to have a contract if it leaves so much assumption?

So you see, one domain inherently allows assumption (uncertainty) whereas the other domain should have virtually no assumption (uncertainty).

Isn't it unreasonable to have a contract with so many loopholes? As someone who has worked many contracts (not limited to aviation), I can tell you this contract has too many holes and is dangerous now, and in the future. It is an assumption that we can get TA2 done in a month, but it's better than the absolute certainty of defeat that is guaranteed with TA1.

Perhaps you need to stop allowing yourself to "get over it" and take a stand on principles rather than allow yourself and your profession to be walked on. All of the yes vote talking points are precisely what F&H engineered the general population to say and think. They own you.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Bozo the pilot
07-21-2018, 06:49 PM
And its an assumption that you think you'll get better stuff in TA2, an assumption that you'll get a Delta contract.

Its an assumption that what is read in any contract is what is understood between both parties.

Its an assumption that voting NO will be worth it.

Its an assumption that you'll get release on a strike.

It's an assumption that JBLU will exhaust any and all loopholes.

Plz, get over it. Everything you say Q has somewhat of assumptions eating away in it. Sorry but you're not a reasonable person.
The ignore list is the gift that keeps on giving.:D

BeatNavy
07-21-2018, 07:07 PM
The ignore list is the gift that keeps on giving.:D

Couldnít logically debate him so you resorted to ignoring him?

MGMTiswatchingU
07-21-2018, 08:27 PM
Couldnít logically debate him so you resorted to ignoring him?

I dont think that's why many ppl ignore Q, and you know that. I am close to putting the first person on ignore (several times I just scroll past what Q says). And its not cause of any stupid debate, it's just getting old and APC is the wrong place to accomplish Q's agenda. I'd rather see him/her swing into action with union work (even possibly MEC role) and make a change.

APC is for chit chat and reasoning. Debating? Make it reasonable. It's not a war ground here.

Burton78
07-22-2018, 05:17 AM
The ignore list is the gift that keeps on giving.:D

https://media.giphy.com/media/6yHBCa0zrrTUs/giphy-downsized.gif

Gordie H
07-22-2018, 09:26 AM
An assumption again.


What if they don't call? What is your legal defense then?




The Railway Labor Act Simplified (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114169-railway-labor-act-simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.
.....Thats when I'll call Saul

Gordie H
07-22-2018, 09:29 AM
Couldnít logically debate him so you resorted to ignoring him?

I'm interested in different opinions (including yours)..but sooo many red flags with this guy....

queue
07-22-2018, 02:24 PM
.....Thats when I'll call Saul


hahahahahahaaaa


I don't know if he'll work for both sides at the same time... or perhaps he will.



This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

antbar01
07-24-2018, 07:28 AM
While nitpicking language is important and a totally valid pastime on the flight deck or in the forums, itís not sufficient reason to pull the ďnoĒlever, IMO. One thing that I havenít heard mentioned is that once a CBA is signed, who gives a crap what the dependability policy is, or what defines positive contact?

As an ALPA-protected pilot, it takes an absolutely callous and intentional indifference to safety or a drug bust (sometimes more than one) to get fired. Your job is safe under the vast majority of circumstances. Donít clean, donít make positive contact... you might get harassed if you stand still long enough for it, but your career isnít in jeopardy.

Yes, exercising vigilance against language failings or abuse on the companyís part is important, but it isnít make-or-break in most circumstances.

This is my observation from years of ALPA membership and watching the dumbest yahoos on the planet continue their careers alongside their elite peers without fail. Unless they buzz the beach in Mexico at 300 knots.

CaptCoolHand
07-24-2018, 09:08 AM
While nitpicking language is important and a totally valid pastime on the flight deck or in the forums, it’s not sufficient reason to pull the “no”lever, IMO. One thing that I haven’t heard mentioned is that once a CBA is signed, who gives a crap what the dependability policy is, or what defines positive contact?

As an ALPA-protected pilot, it takes an absolutely callous and intentional indifference to safety or a drug bust (sometimes more than one) to get fired. Your job is safe under the vast majority of circumstances. Don’t clean, don’t make positive contact... you might get harassed if you stand still long enough for it, but your career isn’t in jeopardy.

Yes, exercising vigilance against language failings or abuse on the company’s part is important, but it isn’t make-or-break in most circumstances.

This is my observation from years of ALPA membership and watching the dumbest yahoos on the planet continue their careers alongside their elite peers without fail. Unless they buzz the beach in Mexico at 300 knots.

But hey man, if you show with a nose full of coke, you end up at United.

I don't think you get canned for a flyby either.... but you will get a cursory call from your friendly pro stans volunteer.

BeatNavy
07-24-2018, 09:18 AM
While nitpicking language is important and a totally valid pastime on the flight deck or in the forums, itís not sufficient reason to pull the ďnoĒlever, IMO. One thing that I havenít heard mentioned is that once a CBA is signed, who gives a crap what the dependability policy is, or what defines positive contact?

As an ALPA-protected pilot, it takes an absolutely callous and intentional indifference to safety or a drug bust (sometimes more than one) to get fired. Your job is safe under the vast majority of circumstances. Donít clean, donít make positive contact... you might get harassed if you stand still long enough for it, but your career isnít in jeopardy.

Yes, exercising vigilance against language failings or abuse on the companyís part is important, but it isnít make-or-break in most circumstances.

This is my observation from years of ALPA membership and watching the dumbest yahoos on the planet continue their careers alongside their elite peers without fail. Unless they buzz the beach in Mexico at 300 knots.

I could have sworn we are already ďALPA protected pilots.Ē

Southerner
07-24-2018, 09:25 AM
While nitpicking language is important and a totally valid pastime on the flight deck or in the forums, itís not sufficient reason to pull the ďnoĒlever, IMO. One thing that I havenít heard mentioned is that once a CBA is signed, who gives a crap what the dependability policy is, or what defines positive contact?

As an ALPA-protected pilot, it takes an absolutely callous and intentional indifference to safety or a drug bust (sometimes more than one) to get fired. Your job is safe under the vast majority of circumstances. Donít clean, donít make positive contact... you might get harassed if you stand still long enough for it, but your career isnít in jeopardy.

Yes, exercising vigilance against language failings or abuse on the companyís part is important, but it isnít make-or-break in most circumstances.

This is my observation from years of ALPA membership and watching the dumbest yahoos on the planet continue their careers alongside their elite peers without fail. Unless they buzz the beach in Mexico at 300 knots.

Ah the Veracruz Air Show...

antbar01
07-24-2018, 09:32 AM
I could have sworn we are already ďALPA protected pilots.Ē

Valid. But reps have to have something to lean against while pushing back.

Bozo the pilot
07-24-2018, 09:58 AM
https://media.giphy.com/media/6yHBCa0zrrTUs/giphy-downsized.gif
Eggsactly. :D
Take a look at whos doing the talkin- An angry, emotional NO voter.

Bozo the pilot
07-24-2018, 10:00 AM
Couldnít logically debate him so you resorted to ignoring him?

Oh- does Joanie love Chachi? :D

Airwillystyle
07-25-2018, 06:33 AM
After listening to about :40 of today's call I didn't hear much mention of the pilot contract. There was significant talk about CASM going forward and their focus on controlling it. Given that, I tend to agree with the union's stance that we reached our TA at the right time.
couldn't agree with >>>>>>>>>(softpayman) more
I changed to YES vote

Runningscared
07-25-2018, 09:57 AM
After listening to about :40 of today's call I didn't hear much mention of the pilot contract. There was significant talk about CASM going forward and their focus on controlling it. Given that, I tend to agree with the union's stance that we reached our TA at the right time.
couldn't agree with >>>>>>>>>(softpayman) more
I changed to YES vote
Still voting no, because the TA merits a no vote, not out of fear or scare tactics, only the merits of the TA.

BeatNavy
07-25-2018, 10:00 AM
After listening to about :40 of today's call I didn't hear much mention of the pilot contract. There was significant talk about CASM going forward and their focus on controlling it. Given that, I tend to agree with the union's stance that we reached our TA at the right time.
couldn't agree with >>>>>>>>>(softpayman) more
I changed to YES vote

Steve Priest was asked directly if the pilot contract was accounted for in their guidance, and he said it was, so thereís that.

IrishNJ
07-26-2018, 03:06 AM
And its an assumption that you think you'll get better stuff in TA2, an assumption that you'll get a Delta contract.
....

This TA has SCOPE which is a 1000% better than the Delta contract.

But the senior guys don't care about scope. .. or reserve rules ... or no more 10 hour 3 day trips ... or 14 hour max day .... or more summer vacation which more pilots can hold ..... all of which is the huge disconnect between yes/no voters.

Bluedriver
07-26-2018, 05:44 AM
This TA has SCOPE which is a 1000% better than the Delta contract.

But the senior guys don't care about scope. .. or reserve rules ... or no more 10 hour 3 day trips ... or 14 hour max day .... or more summer vacation which more pilots can hold ..... all of which is the huge disconnect between yes/no voters.

This TA has SOME scope. The scope prevents all the things this company has no intentions of doing in the foreseeable future, which is the only reason the agreed to it. The scope also allows the things the company DOES intend to use, and that's why they required it to be allowed.

Our RJ scope, which the company had no interest in, is gone with a merger with Alaska (we will have negotiated limits, but we will lose the outright ban), so don't get too excited.

Glad the TA has more protections than the PEA, but understand it's not SWA scope and we haven't yet won a permanent victory.

expectholding
07-26-2018, 08:45 AM
This TA has SOME scope. The scope prevents all the things this company has no intentions of doing in the foreseeable future, which is the only reason the agreed to it. The scope also allows the things the company DOES intend to use, and that's why they required it to be allowed.

Our RJ scope, which the company had no interest in, is gone with a merger with Alaska (we will have negotiated limits, but we will lose the outright ban), so don't get too excited.

Glad the TA has more protections than the PEA, but understand it's not SWA scope and we haven't yet won a permanent victory.


You really donít know what you are talking about. As was pointed out at the roadshow the BJ has had ďno interestĒ in many things and then turned around and pursued those things. No doubt that United would love our scope and, in fact, they have said so.

What is really ridiculous though is the statement that if there is a merger with Alaska we will lose our protections, including the RJ protection.

If there is a merger with Alaska (or anyone else) our contract and its scope remain in place until there is both a JCBA and an agreement or arbitration award on seniority integration. Base on all this deal being better than Alaskaís in most key issues (have you seen their RJs flying around or their lack of an ADG or their vacation distro dropping to 3% in summer?) Iím pretty sure their pilot group would work to keep our scope as well as the bulk of our agreement.

Or we could, as you suggest, go into a merger with no CBA and no scope, and deprive ourselves of any leverage in the JCBA negotiations and completely prejudice ourselves in a seniority integration arbitration. That doesnít sound like much of a plan to me.

Mattio
07-26-2018, 08:53 AM
Well played, JB. As a pilot, I'm not too happy but, as a stock market watcher, I'm impressed. They manipulate the books to make it look like a rough quarter. Tomorrow, when the TA passes, I think wall street will like it and the stock price will head back up. Great time to buy!

SmitteyB
07-26-2018, 09:46 AM
Our RJ scope, which the company had no interest in, is gone with a merger with Alaska (we will have negotiated limits, but we will lose the outright ban), so don't get too excited.



Why do you think we couldn't hold onto this? Or at least negotiate a JCBA with wind down provisions?

Depends on the negotiating environment. It's not necessarily a shoe-in that ALK scope (or lack thereof) would prevail.

expectholding
07-26-2018, 09:59 AM
Well played, JB. As a pilot, I'm not too happy but, as a stock market watcher, I'm impressed. They manipulate the books to make it look like a rough quarter. Tomorrow, when the TA passes, I think wall street will like it and the stock price will head back up. Great time to buy!

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/30/jetblue-airways-is-finally-fixing-its-cost-structu.aspx

Wall St estimated in Jan a contract that was an additional $100m/yr. Not so sure theyíll be happy.

Mattio
07-26-2018, 10:09 AM
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/30/jetblue-airways-is-finally-fixing-its-cost-structu.aspx

Wall St estimated in Jan a contract that was an additional $100m/yr. Not so sure theyíll be happy.

Sure, that has the potential to make for a bad headline but another headline is that the labor dispute is over and the company negotiated a relatively favorable contract compared to other airlines. The big players who really know the industry will know what an angry pilot group can do to a company during a labor dispute. The small players might sell but I think the big players will buy.

BeatNavy
07-26-2018, 10:12 AM
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/30/jetblue-airways-is-finally-fixing-its-cost-structu.aspx

Wall St estimated in Jan a contract that was an additional $100m/yr. Not so sure they’ll be happy.

First of all, that is Adam Levine Weinberg...he’s not exactly Wall st. He’s a writer at MF, not an analyst at any WS firm. Secondly, and more to the point, his last paragraph still holds true. Priest has said twice now, in this last earnings call and the previous one (I think it was then) that our ex fuel CASM will be mostly flat (0-1%) thru 2020, inclusive of a pilot deal being offset by cost cutting measures. They wouldn’t give guidance like that if they know the pilot contract will cause their ex fuel casm to rise...that’d be fraud. So either they’ve cut significantly more than $100mil a year, or will as this TA is implemented, or this contract won’t cost them more than that.

pilotpayne
07-26-2018, 10:35 AM
First of all, that is Adam Levine Weinberg...heís not exactly Wall st. Heís a writer at MF, not an analyst at any WS firm. Secondly, and more to the point, his last paragraph still holds true. Priest has said twice now, in this last earnings call and the previous one (I think it was then) that our ex fuel CASM will be mostly flat (0-1%) thru 2020, inclusive of a pilot deal being offset by cost cutting measures. They wouldnít give guidance like that if they know the pilot contract will cause their ex fuel casm to rise...thatíd be fraud. So either theyíve cut significantly more than $100mil a year, or will as this TA is implemented, or this contract wonít cost them more than that.


I have a feeling that was one of the reasons for this cost cutting program. I also think they want to go over the pond and expand jetblue and if they donít control costs Wall St will freak. We already saw Jamie Baker question the point of growth.

They kind of get stuck if you donít grow someone will...Bos could be a major SWA hub now or FLL could be a major Frontier hub, if we hadnít taken advantage of it. Also growth almost always means costs.

We are sitting on great geography for Europe if that 321lr or XLR works. But that would be growth and jetblue will have to defend that idea. Wall St wasnít a fan of mint either but it has really helped our transcon stuff.

I guess we will see. God knows we will be the last to know with this ELT.

expectholding
07-26-2018, 12:47 PM
Point is, youíre speculating instead of dealing in facts.

Bluedriver
07-26-2018, 01:17 PM
You really donít know what you are talking about. As was pointed out at the roadshow the BJ has had ďno interestĒ in many things and then turned around and pursued those things. No doubt that United would love our scope and, in fact, they have said so.

What is really ridiculous though is the statement that if there is a merger with Alaska we will lose our protections, including the RJ protection.

If there is a merger with Alaska (or anyone else) our contract and its scope remain in place until there is both a JCBA and an agreement or arbitration award on seniority integration. Base on all this deal being better than Alaskaís in most key issues (have you seen their RJs flying around or their lack of an ADG or their vacation distro dropping to 3% in summer?) Iím pretty sure their pilot group would work to keep our scope as well as the bulk of our agreement.

Or we could, as you suggest, go into a merger with no CBA and no scope, and deprive ourselves of any leverage in the JCBA negotiations and completely prejudice ourselves in a seniority integration arbitration. That doesnít sound like much of a plan to me.

Where did I suggest, as you say, that we go into a merger with no CBA?

The company has no interest in using RJs because there literally is no business case for us to do so. Literally none whatsoever. They would NOT have agreed to it if they did.

As for our scope in a merger situation, Continental had the best scope of any legacy airline. They had an outright ban on any Regional Jet over 50 seats. Period. How did that scope fair in the united merger? I'll give you a hint, look across the ramp at Newark.

Do you have any more stupid things to say?

Bluedriver
07-26-2018, 01:24 PM
Why do you think we couldn't hold onto this? Or at least negotiate a JCBA with wind down provisions?

Depends on the negotiating environment. It's not necessarily a shoe-in that ALK scope (or lack thereof) would prevail.

Wow, at least you asked in a respectful intelligent way.

Continental had the best scope language of any legacy airline. They had an outright ban on any Regional Jet with more than 50 seats. Continental pilots were very proud of that scope and fought hard to keep it that way while Delta and United were giving up 76 seats. In the JCBA negotiations, they tried to keep their 50 seat RJ scope limit, but as you can see next time you land in EWR, that didn't happen.

I do not think we would lose all scope in a JCBA with Alaska. I think it's very likely our scope section survives mostly intact, but would probably allow the current fleet of Alaska RJs to continue. That is my opinion.

Bluedriver
07-26-2018, 01:27 PM
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/30/jetblue-airways-is-finally-fixing-its-cost-structu.aspx

Wall St estimated in Jan a contract that was an additional $100m/yr. Not so sure theyíll be happy.

This agreement almost certainly doesn't cost more than 100m in the first year. Probably doesn't exceed 100m by much the second year. The 750m is largely backend loaded due to COLA increases.

Bluedriver
07-26-2018, 01:36 PM
Point is, youíre speculating instead of dealing in facts.

It's not speculation to say Adam Levine Wienberg is NOT a Wall Street analyst. He's an opinion writer for the motley fool.

And, as Navy said, it is NOT speculation that our CFO has said flat'ish CASM through 2020 inclusive of a pilot deal.

You have a serious attitude problem and agenda.

IrishNJ
07-27-2018, 06:44 AM
This TA has SOME scope. The scope prevents all the things this company has no intentions of doing in the foreseeable future, which is the only reason the agreed to it. The scope also allows the things the company DOES intend to use, and that's why they required it to be allowed.

Our RJ scope, which the company had no interest in, is gone with a merger with Alaska (we will have negotiated limits, but we will lose the outright ban), so don't get too excited.

Glad the TA has more protections than the PEA, but understand it's not SWA scope and we haven't yet won a permanent victory.

I don't disagree with you.

The point I was making is for the guys that say "I just want the Delta contract".

That implies that you want tons of our flying to be wh0red out to every regional out there like the Delta/UAL pilots agreed to.

Bluedriver
07-27-2018, 07:43 AM
I don't disagree with you.

The point I was making is for the guys that say "I just want the Delta contract".

That implies that you want tons of our flying to be wh0red out to every regional out there like the Delta/UAL pilots agreed to.

I just don't think that's what "they" mean when they say that. They want compensation and benefits on par with our premium CBA peers, but that doesn't mean they want or will accept RJs in the fleet. And I don't think, SWA as the example, that you need to have RJs to have a great W2 contract.

Doesn't matter though, contract is settled for the next 7-8 years or until a JCBA...

Now the fight to get JB to abide and implement the CBA begins.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1