Yeah a merger (maybe that CBA language is important) that will give us a pilot group that fights (EVEN MORE AMONGST ITSELF)

At least we'd have a contract to be proud of.

And the language in our current TA would be part of getting that. But who needs merger language when we have PEAs.

I also think there is stuff in this TA that you can be proud of. This we suck stuff and we can’t be proud is getting old. I’m pretty sure you did a bunch of ALPA stuff there is no reason to walk around like eeyore, but it is fun for many here a ”bluejet”

We have some merger protection in our PEA right now, especially if it's with another ALPA carrier, but I guess it's better to be scared of the boogie man and hurry up and sign a sub par TA just in case we get bought/oil hits $150 a barrel/economy tanks/etc etc.


There's nothing in this TA that I can look at and say that affects me in a positive way either $, QOL, or just peace of mind. I'd rather live under the PEA for another 1 or 2 than accept this POS for the next 5-7.

Some merger protection...Sounds Good!

Throw the word "scared' around all you like, I get it...It's language you're using for a reason, trying to persuade. I'd rather be called informed and scared than woefully optimistic.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Calling a spade a spade. This TA is going to pass, I have zero doubts about that so I'm not wasting my time counting votes or changing minds. Informed does not equal smart or translate into intelligent decisions.

You lose a lot of credibility in my eyes with that second paragraph. You can’t pick out one thing in the TA that you think is positive? Time to take the blinders off. That’s just as reasonable as someone who can’t pick out one bad thing in the TA.

Rvr......I don't type that paragraph lightly. I have said before that there are a lot of good things in this TA. A lot of them. 90% are for middle to lower seniority guys. With my position, in my seat with my background, there's literally nothing that I find worthy of voting for this over what we operate under now. If you want to know why, I'll gladly outline it in a PM, but it's really that bad--for me and my situation.

No we do not. The legal interpretation from ALPA in the beginning made it clear we could not force another carrier to abide by a Pilot Employment Agreement. You are referring to the provisions under McKaskill/Bond.

Should we be purchased, acquired, merged or however you want to term it Jetblue ensured that Section 15 of the PEA would only cover you in the Bluethisfere fantasy land.

The TA scope is what we've always needed. Please do not confuse the two.

I'm not confusing the two. Is the language in the TA more definitive? Yes. Are we without any merger protection right now? No.

I hate to pick on you, sir, but you have to at least try and make a cogent argument. You are correct with the UTS, PS and COLA. We will always trail our peers because we negotiate for today and our cycle will always be behind. As far as "precedent" with a mediator there is no such thing and any suggestion is ludicrous.

All that aside, VOTE NO!

We can do better.

Agreed but our "protections" would come from McKaskill's "fair and equitable" and not from the bullsheet PEA.

Many, but not all. Send Russ Pomarico an email and ask him about it (M&A Chairman). He'll give you a little more background (as much as he can) as to what protections we currently have and where they come from.


I think we're getting in the weeds a bit. Is our protection better with the TA? Yes, but we are not without protection now. I think we can agree on that.

So you agree that we will always trail our peers because of this TA though, right? When I say precedent, my point is that we will have to convince a mediator why we shouldn't ask for our current slot next time as well and why it will be incrementally more difficult to as for a near-Legacy contract. I'm not talking precedent in the legal term, or something that an arbitrator would use for legal decision making. I only use that term in reference to where we are slotting ourselves, and most likely for future negotiations.

Rather live under the PEA.
I’m done, good luck bunker.

Me too. Same to you, brother.

Just think.......

In 2 weeks we can all be friends again talking about what type of beer is best.

We're not friends now? :(

You and I are still besties (even though we voted differently).

POG and Queue aren't happy with me. POG called our pilot group wannabe scabs. So no, we aren’t besties at the moment.

Maybe we can all hash our differences on Dr. Phil after all?

P.S. up until this vote and POG's comment, we both had nearly identical views. Pro union, wear the lanyard, hold the line, etc. Hope we can get back to that and have beers.

Again, for the 12th time. I called the wannabe scabs in our group wannabe scabs. Not All.

Fair enough. And I agree that these "anonymous" message boards allow the worst of us to come out sometimes. Say things we'd never say in person, and maybe not even really believe but emotions are high right now, no doubt about it. Personal attacks are dumb. Categorizing people are dumb (Guilty). I'm sure I'd enjoy sitting down and having beers with each and every one of you. Except you Joe Payne. I doubt I'd like you very much. ;)

Not anonymous for all of us.

True. Even more so on BPs. anonymous or illusion of anonymity. Same thing.

Some do some don’t
Hell I wouldn’t like to have beers with me either.

Just your decision to support a substandard TA, nothing more.


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.

Just so we are clear, like it or not this is actually our first contract. First one, we can use tricky language about how we've been negotiating for 18 years and all that.....but simple reality is this is our first contract. A contract that not only had to be bargained from zero, but also had to address many pitfalls and schemes utilized by this company to propagate more schemes that were used to facilitate wage suppression, lack of QOL, open-architecture of health care plans to change at will, language that the intent was 100% owned by the company. I could go on and on.


In this "POS" TA, we have finally secured language that the intent is shared, bargained and precisely noted in order to combat this company when they decide, and they will, to purposely break the rules.
We have finally obtained pay rates within 2% of Southwest, 14% was the closest we have ever been before. With the VEBA and the 16% in 2021 we are 1.4% from Southwest.
ADG
INT override and per diem
Contractual guard rails on a health care plan that is largely mirrored by the industry, and the country for that matter.
VEBA, which SWA and DAL are already discussing how to get included to protect 415(c) spill money to produce more tax-free dollars.
SCOPE that is top of the industry, DAL and UAL told us to our faces we would never prohibit CPA.
Maintaining night override, 30% of all pairings trigger this, only other airline is SWA and theirs is half.
Industry leading pairing footprint pay protections.,....by a long shot!
RSV rules that are top of the industry.
Pairing construction rules unseen in the industry.
Hours of service rules that are better than industry standard, and we don't have anything today for 'day-of-ops' protections.



We absolutely know the 2% is shy of what it should be compared to the industry.
We absolutely HATE the cliff, but you show me where any airline has bargained for a better PS formula while not in concessions or a JCBA. AA is your only example and it's the same as our junk PS.


I get it, there are things that I wanted....and bad. It's not perfect, but I would love to have a conversation with anyone that can explain to me how this is such a POS and we are somehow hurting the industry. You are off your freakin rocker to think that.

So what if it's our first contract? This isn't the maiden voyage of the USS Nautilus or the first time getting to the moon.

Airline contracts are not complex. This is a false argument. We are doing nothing that hasn't been done hundreds of times before. Our current TA was written with Crayola crayons with the amount of amateur level language it contains. Just wait till BJ gets us in years long grievances because of all the legal loopholes in it. This is why I am critical of BJ pilots. They are far too eager to accept ANY contract because many have literally never read a contract nor written one. As a result, they have no idea what a bad contract is. People are being misled by the one sided ALPA sales shows. This could be a drag and drop contract with hundreds of examples to copy from, plus millions of contracts found in the rest of corporate America. The only argument of the Yes voters is "it's better than what we had before", which is a form of defeatism through complacency. The complacency is the lack of will to educate oneself on what proper contracts ought to be like, in order to discriminate against bad ones like TA 1. TA 1 contains dangerous language in it. Look no further than BJs email today vs. ALPAs email today about duty time. Study carefully JBs legal deception. Expect this kind of thing with a contract because unlike a PEA, a contract is under contract law. Every word matters. This isnt some smoke and mirrors PEA where they can rewrite it whenever they want. There is a huge, insurmountable cost to getting it wrong, and TA1 has it wrong.

The only ones "off their rocker" are the ones who haven't educated themselves on contracts in general (sorry, ALPA propaganda is nowhere near enough knowledge). Have you even bothered to ask why this TA contains an arbitration clause? Are you under the impression that it is required?

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.

How about you fill us in the last time ALPA had a carrier that bargained a new contract from zero. Think really hard and get back to us.


After that please educate me on your vast contract knowledge, because I just spent 3.5 years educating myself. By your reference to "drag and drop" and then stating JB's legal deception are your asserting that this process should have been easy?



You obviously know zero on how any of this works, and that's ok. Keep screaming nonsense from the roof tops and knock yourself out. Every airline has a grievance committee, every airline has a crooked corporate culture that will try and exploit everything to their advantage. And every airline has guys like you hiding behind screen names acting like they know so much when it is very apparent they know very little. Crayola crayons and "airline contracts are not complex" gave you away.

Vote yes
 

I did vote yes for the TA

Correction

I meant to say I didn’t vote yes for the TA

Once you get a couple more posts, you'll figure out how this thing works...or you work part time in the White House?:D

I really feel this will be a close vote.

Either way there will be a lot of butthurt.

T-6 days.......

Typically, if everyone claims to hate the TA, it'll pass by 58%

If sone even claim to like a TA, it'll pass with more than 70%

I'm still going with my original prediction....65% yes. Maybe the A220, which essentially null and voids the awful E2 rates will bring it up to 68%.

“Null and voids” them by meaningful numbers in 2022-2023. Right on time for this contract.