![]() |
Originally Posted by Rabid Seagull
(Post 2623967)
Did you forget the:rolleyes:?
The above plus a possible merger has me leaning yes. The TA is a known known and it's not that great, but the fear of the unknown is a strong force. Do you marry the first girl you meet because you fear being alone for the rest of your life? No. Fear arguments are not logical. This is business and there are gambles. Anything significant in life is not easy. If you want instant gratification, you will further turn BJ into a Regional where we perpetually compromise. The current TA is a HUGE compromise. A merger or sale is just as likely or unlikely as a meteor strike ending all life tomorrow morning. 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. |
Originally Posted by Bozo the pilot
(Post 2624019)
But the one bit of leverage we DO NOT have is the pilot group and while B6 in raking in Billions, why will they do anything?
Theyll delay their plans and we'll probably only get a bigger signing bonus. Look, this is conjecture from both sides, but if you're comparing resolve, B6 management has and will win EVERY time. Thats billion with a B. You're over-estimating our leverage. I wish you were right. You under-estimate our abilities, but then you are a textbook case of a defeatist. BJ is not a particularly difficult adversary. They have known vulnerabilities. It's just ALPA doesn't want to engage *at all*. Instead of trying to sell us short because you're accustomed to being in last place, try instead to raise your standards and demand better. 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. |
I would love to vote yes but... the abysmal pay rates for the C series and 190, terrible health care, PTO sell back, 2% COLA raise per year and horrible language implementation have me leaning NO! But wait!!!... we have sh!tty scope so I should go to a union meeting! Guess what, I do attend meetings and I’m not impressed. I’m paying my bills just fine with our terrible PEA... I want to back the NC but they need to go back and try a Little harder. Cheers. 11B
|
Originally Posted by 11Bravo
(Post 2624084)
I would love to vote yes but... the abysmal pay rates for the C series and 190
Originally Posted by 11Bravo
(Post 2624084)
I would love to vote yes but... terrible health care
Originally Posted by 11Bravo
(Post 2624084)
I would love to vote yes but... 2% COLA raise per year
Originally Posted by 11Bravo
(Post 2624084)
I would love to vote yes but...horrible language implementation
Originally Posted by 11Bravo
(Post 2624084)
But wait!!!... we have sh!tty scope so I should go to a union meeting! Guess what, I do attend meetings and I’m not impressed. I’m paying my bills just fine with our terrible PEA...
Originally Posted by 11Bravo
(Post 2624084)
I want to back the NC but they need to go back and try a Little harder. Cheers. 11B
|
Originally Posted by 11Bravo
(Post 2624084)
I would love to vote yes but... the abysmal pay rates for the C series and 190, terrible health care, PTO sell back, 2% COLA raise per year and horrible language implementation have me leaning NO! But wait!!!... we have sh!tty scope so I should go to a union meeting! Guess what, I do attend meetings and I’m not impressed. I’m paying my bills just fine with our terrible PEA... I want to back the NC but they need to go back and try a Little harder. Cheers. 11B
It has no RJ's. It has already engaged in code share choke, a place the legacy carriers haven't even gotten to yet, and parts of the scope section are industry leading. You may not think that's good enough, but you can either back your union or back the company. I stand behind the union. |
Originally Posted by expectholding
(Post 2624281)
190/195 is top for the type. credibility points off for "abysmal."
Also...I know this is a shocker...but it is possible to raise e190 rates well above the industry standard, especially when no one else flies them. We aren’t bound by anything to accept garbage rates just because ghost rates everywhere else suck after they patterned off of our b scale rates when we were the launch customer. |
Originally Posted by jtrain609
(Post 2624308)
How is the scope bad?
It has no RJ's. It has already engaged in code share choke, a place the legacy carriers haven't even gotten to yet, and parts of the scope section are industry leading. You may not think that's good enough, but you can either back your union or back the company. I stand behind the union. And as for the codeshare choke comment...we haven’t even started engaging in real domestic codesharing yet. If the company was at a codeshare choke point and didn’t care about the ability to expand them significantly, we would have more limits to it in this TA. They have a reason they insisted on almost limitless codesharing, so long as we have a block hour, one pilot, and/or one percent growth. |
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
(Post 2624364)
I stand behind the union. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they say or do, or with this TA. 5 MEC members, who obviously support the union, voted no. Don’t think you are bound to vote yes just bc it (barely) passed the MEC vote...and don’t think you are required to support everything in it for the same reason. You don’t have to like it, or not like it...just decide whether or not it’s meets your expectations.
And as for the codeshare choke comment...we haven’t even started engaging in real domestic codesharing yet. If the company was at a codeshare choke point and didn’t care about the ability to expand them significantly, we would have more limits to it in this TA. They have a reason they insisted on almost limitless codesharing, so long as we have a block hour, one pilot, and/or one percent growth. I don't hear that anymore. Actually it seems like the yes crowd would rather not bring them up at all. Does anyone really believe we aren't lowering the bar with this TA? |
Originally Posted by PasserOGas
(Post 2624389)
Remember when everyone said "Don't worry about the terrible payrates! The work rules will make up for them!"?
I don't hear that anymore. Actually it seems like the yes crowd would rather not bring them up at all. Does anyone really believe we aren't lowering the bar with this TA? |
Originally Posted by hilltopflyer
(Post 2624398)
I’ve been wondering the same thing. The work rules were going to blow us away. The language was going to be amazing.
Aug 20XX Sched to fly the CS300, but the company changes it to a CS100. What pay rate do I get? 3.b pay rate for the actual aircraft flown. Please tell me I'm wrong or this is industry standard? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands