JETBLUE furlough protection LOA reached
07-02-2020 | 11:20 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,773
Likes: 63
You could be correct. I don’t have access to your sec 23.a language right now. I see copy mentioned “significant” change was in some policy manual? I was on an Alpa grievance committee for years and worked with one of your attorneys right before he came over to b6.
07-02-2020 | 11:25 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
From: 190 FO
Proposed collective bargaining agreements that result from negotiations undertaken pursuant to Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act and the duration clause of the current collective bargaining agreement or if no such collective bargaining agreement exists, that resolve all Section 6 issues, and that have been approved by the MEC, shall be subject to member ratification. In addition, the MEC will seek membership ratification of other proposed agreements or Letters of Agreement which modify contractual pay or that significantly modify work rules.
modify contractual pay. Not just pay rates. And it doesn’t have to be significant. Any pay to contractual pay.
07-02-2020 | 11:37 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,773
Likes: 63
SECTION 3: RATIFICATION
Proposed collective bargaining agreements that result from negotiations undertaken pursuant to Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act and the duration clause of the current collective bargaining agreement or if no such collective bargaining agreement exists, that resolve all Section 6 issues, and that have been approved by the MEC, shall be subject to member ratification. In addition, the MEC will seek membership ratification of other proposed agreements or Letters of Agreement which modify contractual pay or that significantly modify work rules.
modify contractual pay. Not just pay rates. And it doesn’t have to be significant. Any pay to contractual pay.
Proposed collective bargaining agreements that result from negotiations undertaken pursuant to Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act and the duration clause of the current collective bargaining agreement or if no such collective bargaining agreement exists, that resolve all Section 6 issues, and that have been approved by the MEC, shall be subject to member ratification. In addition, the MEC will seek membership ratification of other proposed agreements or Letters of Agreement which modify contractual pay or that significantly modify work rules.
modify contractual pay. Not just pay rates. And it doesn’t have to be significant. Any pay to contractual pay.
Last edited by fcoolaiddrinker; 07-02-2020 at 11:49 AM.
07-02-2020 | 11:57 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: 320B
I don't think I'll ever understand UNA pilots pleading to be furloughed instead of the rest of us taking ALV cuts. And I don't understand the same pilots that were wailing about how high ALVs were going to be this summer because of bEiNg gUmMeD now saying that ALV reductions are a concession because, like, that same Delta wants to have 17,000 pilots on the seniority list when this is over? Or something?
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
07-02-2020 | 12:05 PM
#96
Banned
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 0
From: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
I don't think I'll ever understand UNA pilots pleading to be furloughed instead of the rest of us taking ALV cuts. And I don't understand the same pilots that were wailing about how high ALVs were going to be this summer because of bEiNg gUmMeD now saying that ALV reductions are a concession because, like, that same Delta wants to have 17,000 pilots on the seniority list when this is over? Or something?
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
We know you are going to green slip when we are on the street. Fine. It's already happening with the first round of folks on UNA. We don't want you to pork away what we have right now in the PWA. It's really that simple.
3 other airlines managed to work out cost saving methods without giving or asking for concessions. Why are we even talking about it? Savvy?
07-02-2020 | 12:12 PM
#97
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,347
Likes: 1,352
I don't think I'll ever understand UNA pilots pleading to be furloughed instead of the rest of us taking ALV cuts. And I don't understand the same pilots that were wailing about how high ALVs were going to be this summer because of bEiNg gUmMeD now saying that ALV reductions are a concession because, like, that same Delta wants to have 17,000 pilots on the seniority list when this is over? Or something?
If the company wants something from us, it's a concession. Otherwise they would just give it to us as a gift. When times are good, they want max productivity and thus want high ALV's (fewer pilots to keep current/pay benefits/etc). In times like now, they have too many of us contractually, and want to pay us way less than contractually mandated, thus wanting a lower ALV. Think of it as we have something of value that they want. It just depends on the economy for which 'side' of ALV management wants, but in either case it's a concession for us to give our thing of value up.
07-02-2020 | 12:14 PM
#98
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 725
Likes: 1
No false equivalency. We just are looking 5-15 years down the road not 2 feet in front of our face. You have a history of giving concessions. We don't want it. Simple.
We know you are going to green slip when we are on the street. Fine. It's already happening with the first round of folks on UNA. We don't want you to pork away what we have right now in the PWA. It's really that simple.
3 other airlines managed to work out cost saving methods without giving or asking for concessions. Why are we even talking about it? Savvy?
We know you are going to green slip when we are on the street. Fine. It's already happening with the first round of folks on UNA. We don't want you to pork away what we have right now in the PWA. It's really that simple.
3 other airlines managed to work out cost saving methods without giving or asking for concessions. Why are we even talking about it? Savvy?
07-02-2020 | 12:15 PM
#99
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 939
Likes: 28
From: 320A
I don't think I'll ever understand UNA pilots pleading to be furloughed instead of the rest of us taking ALV cuts. And I don't understand the same pilots that were wailing about how high ALVs were going to be this summer because of bEiNg gUmMeD now saying that ALV reductions are a concession because, like, that same Delta wants to have 17,000 pilots on the seniority list when this is over? Or something?
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
Also yes the ALV was absurdly high last summer. In short they want us to help them out when they dont hire enough people and then also want us to help them lower the costs. I'm done helping them.
07-02-2020 | 12:18 PM
#100
Coverage Award...
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 127
I don't think I'll ever understand UNA pilots pleading to be furloughed instead of the rest of us taking ALV cuts. And I don't understand the same pilots that were wailing about how high ALVs were going to be this summer because of bEiNg gUmMeD now saying that ALV reductions are a concession because, like, that same Delta wants to have 17,000 pilots on the seniority list when this is over? Or something?
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
The only rationale that makes sense is that pilots are making a false equivalence between [pay rates + work rules ca. 2003] and [ALVs ca. 2020]. Since the former were taken on the road to bankruptcy and then taken again after, then necessarily since DL is asking for the latter now, they MUST also be planning to take more later, possibly in bankruptcy again. But this is not how history works!
If working three days a week instead of four means everyone keeps their job, I'm all for it. ALV reductions are a GIVE from the company. They get less productive pilots which means they need more pilots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
