It's not necessarily that it's written at a 9th grade reading level. Believe me, I prefer to be spared legal terms written in Latin.


It's that it is not specific in many ways, allowing them to attach strings. It is also vague meaning that people will get screwed over, BJ will exploit the vagueness, and you're left to file a grievance which may never result in anything. At the end of the day, you're screwed. No one cares more about you than you. Don't think someone at ALPA will jump on the grenade for you. They'll do the best job they can within their limited constraints.



The language is very open ended. Take for example how they establish "positive communication" via JETCRW. They just added a sentence mentioning it which is completely vague in interpretation. In fact, it nullifies the language of having positive *verbal* communication because if they send you things via JETCRW, the mere act of sending it to you may be considered positive comms. They've played this game with many people.

Oh yes, and don't forget the TA legitimizes the Dependability Policy, which has not been improved one iota. In fact, it's WORSE now with the TA because now it's a contractual obligation. Read the language carefully.. it's very explicit in that you must make all these considerations for commuting, but it lets BJ decide *after the fact* what was sufficient or insufficient consideration. For example, if you had 2 commuting reservations made (commuter policy) but you didn't make it, it will go against your Dependability. Even if you follow the policy, it STILL goes against your Dependability. Don't believe me... READ IT. Read the DP in the FOM.... you are always guilty. Instead, the TA should immunize you from the Dependability Policy if you had 2 flights. It still doesn't.





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.

 

Well, your words are an inspiration to a book I'm writing about why the profession is where it is. Maybe in 10 yrs you'll wake up after you gain some knowledge. Then you can read your words because the Internet is forever, even if this forum goes away. Then I get to remind you how this was a perfectly predictable and correctable mistake that you chose not to be responsible for.



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 read the same posts at my regional too. Voted No. it passed. It was a much much better QOL (at the regional, JB still way better than there) and that contract was pathetic. So maybe in 10yrs you’ll be where I’m at now! Seen worse and got better! Here’s hoping!

 

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the people at your regional made countless mistakes? Maybe voting No was the best thing they ever did, but they probably messed up everything else along the way. I don't hide that I think B6 ALPA has made huge mistakes, which is why TA 1.0 is so substandard. For example, they should have never retreated from the informational picket. They waived the white flag even before we won Hill 659. Also, their expectations were way too low. They caved in calling any improvement "market rate". We're never going to fix things by continuing to make the same predictable mistakes over and over. I'm where you'll be in 20 yrs... I've really studied how things fail and I've learned from them. The problem is that we don't fight - we just agree to any offer we get and then continue on with our boundless complacency and apathy.

We're myopically greedy, but not even good at being greedy. People will keep on trying to milk the system based on some barely incremental contract but in the end, a pilot working 70 hrs at SWA, DL, UA, AA will make considerably more, with far better work rules, than a BJ pilot doing 100 hrs and still not making as much or enjoying better rules. This mentality is the cause of our defeat and we must break the viscous cycle of failure.

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 think you can split your Vaca now and fly in the middle. Not sure because I take Vaca and actually travel and FORGET about this place.

 

Split all you like, you still can't fly on vacation days.

 

A viscous cycle can be pretty vicious. On that we can agree.

 

I voted "No". There are issues that are not acceptable such as implementation schedule and we need better health insurance just to name a few. While I am eager for improvement, I know it is best to wait and make it count. We will be happier in the long run. In unity, there is strength.

 

A no vote doesn't affect implementation. It just doesn't. All you'll do is hand the company a giant pile of money and an expanded timeline with no deadlines to get the changes complete (if they start now).

So in your scenario, we get another TA in 18 months, and the company (which has been working all along on the implementation) agrees to a year implementation timeline. A win! Yay, we showed them! They shortened it by 6 months!

Meanwhile in reality the implementation actually got extended by 12 months for a total of 30 months from today.

 

Back to skool.

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.