Nooo! It's gotta be Delta or American. I can't drive to EWR.

 

The exact lame surface numbers I was talking about. I wonder if the union has line-item veto powers?

 

I completely agree with you both. We need to send this thing back. So many are saying they don’t want to say no because they will require a new negotiating committee. That’s not true. They really aren’t that far but there are a few things that must be fixed.

 

Even a small detail with “Call in Well” clause is something that was promised with the “new” FSM like 5 years ago. Just another empty promise and now used as a bargaining chip. Hope all lose the beaten wife syndrome. I’ve waited a long time for a quality CBA I can wait even more

 

Here are all the bad reasons to vote yes that I keep hearing:
It's better than what we have
We need scope protection now
We need merger protection now
We are leaving too much on the table if we drag it out
This is the best we can get
We don't have any negotiating capital left...summer will be over
We can't get much more; it isn't worth it.
We will have to start over from scratch
We will need a new NC
We will need a new MEC
The company doesn't need this, they will drag it out longer
If we ratify this now, we will get a big airplane order
The MEC unanimously approved it

Good reason to vote yes:
The totality of the TA, with full language (TBD), is market rate and satisfactory to one's expectations and self-worth as a major airline pilot.

 

Looking at the Delta and SWA rejections of the TA we have to recall they ALREADY were working under a CBA. That’s a foundation of what’s right and wrong in both compensation and work rules. Both TA’s had a glaring flaw that the entire work group could identify and relate as a negative impact.

The proposed AIP/TA is a lightning flash into the present for JB pilots. So, yeah there’s going to be aspects of:”well, that could be better”. You have to look at the short limitation of this agreement and ability to go forward in 2 and 1/2 years when we open things up again. If we send it back, then we just delay the 2.5 years by another 6-12 months. That’s delayed incentive pay, increased per diem pay rate raises and oh by the way the most important 401k.

Q- Your use of a fictional character from a fictional TV series is compelling. But this is reality and Q games of infinite circuitous rebutted argumetns steeped in legal and emotional factoids will cloud the need for clear and positive thinking as we move towards what is the foundation of a brighter future. A CBA

-Bubs

 

Let me add another bad reason to vote yes to my list above that you reminded me of:
This is our first contract, so we should accept some shortfalls here and there. We'll get 'em next time!

Nope.

 

There's something else that I haven't seen mentioned here, and that's the upcoming economic downturn. And that's not to say that there are obvious indicators for the next recession happening tomorrow, but the longest period of economic growth since 1854 is 120 months, and we're presently at 107 months of growth. It's POSSIBLE for this economy to beat the previous best, but I tend to think it's unlikely by more than a de minimis amount.

What we DON'T want to be doing is trying to negotiate during a recession. Signing a contract now and punting it through the next recession would be preferable.

 

Really? It sure seems like people are finally seeing the light. It seems the cloud already existed at BJ. My function is to bring truth to the matter and to let people know that all options are on the table, not the pre-manufactured ones presented to us.



This is an easy choice. Accept no compromise against requirements. I was not happy with the way the ALPA surveys gave us one choice on every requirement... that is... a compromise. I don't like that some MEC/NC person made the choice of what is a requirement and what is not. I elected someone to delegate *some* functions but not to let them have full reign over the process. We are ALPA's masters, not the other way around. They need to let US make a list of requirements and let US draw the line, not them. Instead, each survey we got forced us to assign weights to each cause, leading us to believe we had to pick one or the other, but not both. We went to the table with compromises and got further compromises - that is unacceptable. The MEC/NC chose that survey methodology but they didn't have to. They don't know any better, just like most BJ pilots.



I want a take-it-or-leave-it approach to BJ. If they don't take it, we strike till we get what we want. Their Vietnam style tactics lost that war, and these same tactics already let BJ win Round 1 of the AIP.



I think we both advocate clear thinking. Here's how to get a good CBA for a clear and brighter future (not directed at you):

• All options are on the table. Any limitations are self-imposed.
• Stop thinking we must accept the false premises of past contracts or relativistic "race to the bottom" comparisons to other airlines.
• We do not need to accept any compromises against requirements.

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.

 

Isn't that pure speculation?



Obviously market corrections are cyclical but the foundations of the American economy are finally respectable. As long as another leftist regime doesn't gain power again, the economy should do at least as well as it is now.



What we know for sure is that BJ is on a timeline. Market timelines are speculation.



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.