Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 19 of 20
« First
9
15
16
17
18
19
20
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   JetBlue (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/)
-   -   Scope (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/114641-scope.html)

Bozo the pilot 07-03-2018 08:52 AM
Originally Posted by PasserOGas (Post 2626775)
Have you considered what our next round of negotiations looks like with a yes vote? Do all the math you want on this one. We will have shown we are willing to work for less, and given up any say on payrates for future aircraft. What cards will we have given the NC when in they are sitting across from Hyperboy at the negotiating table?

Please show your math.
Hey Pog, Which roadshow will you be attending?
I want to see you hit the NC/MEC with these comments. Will you have questions?

BeatNavy 07-03-2018 09:22 AM
Originally Posted by hyperboy (Post 2626947)
I guess you misunderstood me. All that goes for all Pilots. Union meetings at JetBlue are so badly attended, yet so informative at least in BOS. Its called accountablity, this is where it starts.

If you like what you see that would fall in line with the surveys .I disagree that is a blanket statement. BOS REPs are responsible to BOS pilots..if not you are recalled. IMHO they are doing an outstanding job.

We will know on July 27th if that is true. Until now it is all speculation. Does not matter what they voted.......We all get a vote. That is what matters. My Reps have explained their vote and I am fine with their explanation.The vote on the contract was really 9-3. The two Reps in LGB voted No because of the implementation. They explained that in an email to their pilots.
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they don’t like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, it’s a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a “No, but...”

queue 07-03-2018 11:24 AM
Originally Posted by BeatNavy (Post 2626978)
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they don’t like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, it’s a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a “No, but...”

That was a disturbing email.


I love how they claim "due diligence" yet the evil Dependability Policy is now encoded in the contract! Sure, they can spin it with corporate double speak such as "do your professional duty and you won't get in trouble" but it doesn't change the fact that it's in the legalese. There's no way to spin that!


The Railway Labor Act Simplified


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.

queue 07-03-2018 11:42 AM
Originally Posted by BeatNavy (Post 2626978)
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they don’t like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, it’s a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a “No, but...”

Let's see... what are all the other excuses I claimed months ago would be said.


  • "due diligence: thoroughly reading, evaluating and deliberating over the TA prior to their vote"
    • I guess they didn't print out every page then. The Dependability Policy is now made contractual! The company doctor can screw you over. If these guys claim "due diligence", then these guys are grossly negligent.
  • Hiding behind a survey to accept less in a contract ("we had record participation in our surveys").
  • They tell you to inform yourself with roadshows, watch videos, and attend infosessions.
    • Ok... but you need to also tell people about the RLA... I placed a convenient link below. We can Vote NO now, fix all the problems, then vote Yes to TA 2.0.
  • "The MEC and Negotiating Committee are confident that this TA achieves the vast majority of goals identified by our pilots."
    • What a politician... "vast majority" huh? Dependability policy is still in there. We still wear blue gloves and clean. Doctor can be weaponized by the company. Arbitration is alive in well in the contract. Our pay rates are still below Southwest.
  • " our goal was to achieve a market rate agreement as quickly as possible."
    • Fail and Fail. 3+ years to get a TA and still below Southwest. We're only looked up to by Cubana and Great Lakes Airlines.
  • "This TA isn't perfect but neither is any other pilot agreement."
    • Good job lowering expectations after the fact and softening the blow. Great use of the "race to the bottom" to justify the failure of TA 1.0. I have hopes for TA 2.0.
  • "It was a long hard fight to achieve this agreement with management, and no one knows how much longer it would take to make any substantial improvements."
    • No one stood in front of a tank in Tiennemen Square. First world sacrifices of attending air conditioned meetings are hardly sacrifices.
    • Right... no one knows. We do know that we plenty of leverage to affect the timeline in our favor. There's a reason BJ allowed TA 1.0, causing us to cancel the investor meeting protest.
  • " this is our first CBA and we had to bargain over and develop full language on all 31 sections."
    • This is our first CBA... didn't I call this month ago? This whole affair can be read like a book. It doesn't matter if it's our first CBA. This contract is not rocket science. It's essentially a drag-and-drop contract from hundreds of airlines as a template. I've read the entire thing and I find it overly simplistic and deficient in key logical constructs (e.g. it doesn't really limit BJ from inventing new policies that effectively nullify aspects of the contract).
  • "Even still the MEC rightfully insisted that every section of this agreement be on par with, or better than, our peers."
    • Well they failed.
  • "Our unity and professionalism were our best weapons in our fight to reach this agreement and regardless the outcome of the ratification, we will still need these effective weapons."
    • Yes. Unity will be demonstrated by fighting for a better TA 2.0. We have many weapons in our arsenal. Let's not let the company apologists, defeatists, and the ignorant scare us into accepting a second-tier regional level contract.





The Railway Labor Act Simplified


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.

blueballs 07-03-2018 11:48 AM
I get it now
Queue is barney’
Barney’ is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job

hyperboy 07-03-2018 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by BeatNavy (Post 2626978)
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they don’t like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, it’s a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a “No, but...”
OK thats why I said I don't care how they vote as far as influencing my vote.

say again 07-03-2018 12:08 PM
Originally Posted by blueballs (Post 2627096)
I get it now
Queue is barney’
Barney’ is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job
Who's Barney?

queue 07-03-2018 12:09 PM
Originally Posted by blueballs (Post 2627096)
I get it now
Queue is barney’
Barney’ is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job

I thought you guys already figured out that I'm not "Barney". I don't even know him in real life. If that is his real name, I don't like that he's called out by name.



I don't care about the personalities - I care about the ideas. You say whatever you want, but the ideas are what matters. You can't beat an idea by stating it's said by someone you claim is unpopular.





The Railway Labor Act Simplified

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 07-03-2018 01:01 PM
Originally Posted by blueballs (Post 2627096)
I get it now
Queue is barney’
Barney’ is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job
I never put that together BB. Nice work and it does make sense, although Barney seems to be a more pathetic version of "the Ignored Qne". :)

Bozo the pilot 07-03-2018 01:04 PM
Originally Posted by BeatNavy (Post 2626978)
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they don’t like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, it’s a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a “No, but...”
So you dont know that they voted no due to the implementation?
I actually agree with them. 18 months for some provisions is my least favorite part of the process.
That and not getting Delta +5% and 20% profit sharing. ;)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:21 PM.
Page 19 of 20
« First
9
15
16
17
18
19
20
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands