queue

But he should not automatically be open to saying YES until the contract language proves itself to meet minimum requirements. Yes and No are on the table, with NO being a safer, more conservative answer since you have everything to gain by renegotiating. BJ wants this done quickly. You can always revert to AIP 1. We KNOW that BJ is willing to accept AIP 1.





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

No answer, without thorough info, is ever safe Q. This could go either way- the yes leaning guys seem to be more calm, and less adamant than the hard NO guys. That indicates a more measured response until information is complete. Measured is the safer way to proceed Q.

queue

Since when do facts care about your feelings? Who cares how something seems? Does being "calm" or the perception of it across written words even matter? Do you really evaluate a situation like that?


The hard NO guys are more adamant in your perception because it's far more logical to have a NO posture until there is reason to say Yes.


You can loosely throw around words like "measured", and I can tell you it's exactly what MacNamera said as our Vietnam strategy, but in the end it's not a logical argument. The only truly logical argument is to have a default NO position until proven otherwise.


Think of it this way, if you're developing a new drug, isn't it safer to disallow sales to the public until it is proven to be safe? Why be so emotionally open to saying Yes until the facts sell it for you? Right now all we know are the negative arguments because they are known facts - in other words, we don't have knowledge to believe otherwise. However they chose to release a vague AIP with lots of things missing.





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

My point is that the open-minded voter is using more intellect than the emotional NO voter. I explained that, but you missed it.
Anger, frustration, and unrealistic entitlement are clouding your view Q.
Lets wait and see what the language states- Does that make any sense to you, or any hard NO guy?
Dont be the Emotion/Intellect person- Be the inverse Q.
I gotta go- Sleep well Q.

queue

You really must learn to govern your emotions. You haven't presented any logical arguments beyond pure speculation. Who in their right mind would present the opposing party verification of your group's low morale to make them believe their weak offer will be accepted? Don't you see that you are simply being the voice of Tokyo Rose?



I realize that you must have extreme insecurities about your marketability as a professional pilot. This is why BJ hires so many unhireable pilots - they ALL talk just like you.



Are you too old? Are you too toxic to other airlines? Did you drink too much and get caught? Did you beat your wife too many times? Are you a brown-nosing CP or CP-in-training? There has to be some deeper underlying reason why your calculations make it too expensive for you to fight. You must have some kind of personal or professional weakness that makes you a liability to the team. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to turn tail without fighting what a professional pilot is really worth.





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.

dontsurf

i don't know why this is even a thread, as the bullet points do not even use the phrase "industry leading scope". it says "industry standard language" on some scope issues.

P-3Bubba

Ummm, last time I checked we feed our code shares thousands of customers on our gates with our AO and GO. So, what scope do we have now? NOTHING!!!!!!!!! No CBA = Who the F knows?

Where does the code share fly? ALL the transatlantic international routes that management dangles like carrots at EVERY job fair and interview session.

Vote YES. Any scope is better than no scope. And if you think we have a scope or codeshare clause today (DR) you’re wrong.

-Bubs

queue

Don't vote Yes UNTIL you see Scope plus better terms than the entrails of the AIP. We can re-negotiate better.


Vote NO until you get a good reason to vote yes.


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

And you know this is true because he is a yes voter, thus more rational and less emotional. The ONLY reason one wouldn't want to vote in a sub standard AIP would be because of emotions.

Just ask any yes voter.

pilotpayne

I guess they hired you to balance things out. Lucky for us.