Upgrade times will drop to 1 month with this in place...

Distributing books in San Francisco.

Absolutely nothing to do with an airline.

Gup

I know! Get your apps in dudes!

Yay books.
It’s cool to do stuff like that AFTER you figure out how to run an operation.

Exactly. I love the do-gooder stuff, but come on!

The sad part is they only do stuff that gets good press. If you ask them to give a flight to a person that is dealing with devastation but isn't in the news, they won't help.

My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.

Im a Spirit pilot so clearly too dumb to do your math problem. Can you show me the answer? I’d like to see it, seriously. There are many things in the Jetblue TA I wish we could’ve gotten and some I’m glad we didn’t. I’d like to see your analysis of gong back to the table.

I’m interested to hear what we got (if it passes) you are glad you didn’t get?

That's easy, JB box meals. Gross.

AND.....At least we have the finest PET POLICY in the industry. Until we get protections from Merger and Scope...Looks like Fido and Rover are much safer than we are....for now?

I love carpet.

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.

So that’s what the math portion of the Delta interview looks like.

My question as well

Wait, I thought JB wasn't for sale? Organic growth?

FUNNY POG! Sorry your life is sad that you must make false accusations about me. You checked out, have done nothing for the cause, and now you complain about the actions of others without looking at yourself in the mirror.

Survey represents all not just you. Vote accordingly.

When the video comes out with the scope part. Great explanation...IMHO. Let me know what you think?

I know I’m stating the obvious, but the MEC also “represents all,” and 5 of them voted no. A no vote, or being displeased with this TA, is not a jab at the NC, MEC, ALPA, etc. It also does not mean that people who vote no, or even those who vote yes who don’t like this TA, don’t go to meetings, read union emails, volunteer for ALPA, and stay informed. Not sure if it’s just a personal thing between you and POG, but plenty of people who do put a lot of time and effort into ALPA and this pilot group do not like this TA.

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.

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

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.

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.

I get it now
Queue is barney’
Barney’ is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job

OK thats why I said I don't care how they vote as far as influencing my vote.

Who's Barney?

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.

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". :)

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. ;)

I clearly said I know what the LGB guys said. I also know they voted No. Regardless of the reason, they voted no. They could have voted yes, and said they don’t agree with the implementation, but they didn’t. They voted no. 7-5. Not 9-3. Don’t know how that’s so difficult to comprehend for some of you.

Delta + 5 and 20%...see you bring these things that we know to be impossible into the argument, yet dismiss anyone who wants actual reasonable things in our contract. The more you do this, the less credibility you have.

Yes I comprehend that they voted NO. Can you comprehend their reason?
Oh and Madison Ave- lighten up. You're wound so tight, you're losing track of sarcasm. I hear whiskey helps.

You going to any roadshows Mr. Credible? :rolleyes:

Or Delta - 5% for that matter.

Yea or that. :D
You will do better than you think POG even though you'll never admit it.
Ask a rep to explain some things.

Nobody is being called out by name. That’s your handle on bluepilots but good try

I prefer the moniker "Dumblop," personally.

Well, I'm not Barney, whoever he is by name or handle. If you want to think that, be my guest. It won't help a weak argument.



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.