Answer D: all of the above, now what slide of the SPV was that on?

 

The contract may seem long but in reality it's pretty short. I mention this because there's a lot of stuff not in there. For example, in the healthcare section, the company doctor gets contract power to do things but there aren't 10 pages worth of healthcare information protection clauses. Also, rather than spelling out hard boundaries for the Dependability Policy, it 100% outsources externally to a document BJ can still change at whim. Also, since it doesn't say how many infractions are too many, so they can hang you whenever they want or based on who you are - there are no constraints so it's entirely subjective. It's unequal treatment. The apologists will say that it won't affect you (same thing the chief pilots say) unless you're a bad guy but it doesn't change the fact that it's in the contract, and a contract is a contract. There is no negotiation after it's signed - it won't be like the current FSM, BlueBook, or PEA where there is negotiation involved in application.

Also, things like positive contact are still not sufficiently and explicitly defined. In the past, BJ has gotten a pilot in trouble for standing firm on their position that leaving voicemail is positive contact. Apologists will defend BJ saying that it hardly ever happens but it doesn't change that it DID happen.

Lastly, notice how they vaguely allude to JETCRW as a means of positive contact but they don't get specific. BJ can simply push the notification to JETCRW but there are too many plausible scenarios where you don't get the message, yet you're now legally liable under the power of contract law.

I've only cherry picked the easiest examples but almost every section has some large weaknesses. Flow chart things out... diagram them... "what if" every sentence. A good contract will not have loopholes or holes. If we allow this, it will be 100% OUR fault.

Lastly, there's no language that limits BJ in most sections. The contract draws out pathways but it doesn't limit them whenever the contract has nothing to say about an issue. For example, it doesn't say something like "pilots shall not be assigned any duties not inherent to FAA certified Airmen. Currently this only includes: preflight duties, navigation, emergency procedures, informing passengers, maintaining safety of flight, following applicable 14 CFR, ICAO, regulations, etc......." It's open ended so that tomorrow they could attach more strings to commuting or even getting your "crew meals" by simply putting out another training CBT that has you put your initials that you agree (a contract). So tomorrow there's nothing stopping them from making you cleaning toilets or push wheelchairs or even driving a jetbridge. TA 1.0 draws a pathway, but doesn't really limit them in any way.

If it's not explicitly written in the contract, it doesn't exist.


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.

 

What's the hijacking code? I hear the next SPV will have that across 5 questions, and there's a new sim scenario where you have to choose between Mayday, Pan, 7700, 7600, 7500, 2200, 1200, and 0000.




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.

 

ALPA has stated that a dependability policy falls outside of the specifics of a CBA , which is why it wasnt negotiated. Do you have confirmation that other airlines have included this in their CBA?

 

Why does it fall outside the specifics of a CBA? Is there a law preventing it from being included? Why should I just accept ALPA's word for it without a reference to a law, and not just some ALPA preference?

Also, does it matter if any other airline has it or doesn't have it? Are we negotiating our contract, or theirs? Is there again some law saying that we can only negotiate what someone else has done?

You see, there are a lot of false choices......


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 don't know, and I am not familiar with law enough to know if it's restricted or open for inclusion. The simplest answer would be if another carrier has it, then for sure we should have negotiated it as well. I dont mind being the first, but I would need to know if it's even possible. And in one hand, that's why I pay someone 1.9% to know for me.

 

I think they will be hard pressed to find an actual law that says it can't be in a contract :-) In fact, I'm pretty sure they are just are unknowning about it as the average pilot. The company told them "no" and they won't press it further. They will always delude the truth by saying things like "no other airline has it", "its not in the scope of the CBA", and "look, there's Elvis!". You can put anything in a contract, even if it's illegal (however, if challenged in court that contract will be found null and invalidated). In this case, it was merely a preference or lack of knowledge to not include it.



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.

 

Can you tell me when and where that was stated?
My intent is not to be a d!ck, I honestly want to know?
I'm under a DP review now and minding my P's&Q's

I'm under the impression that if there is no defined limit then it is totally subjective. Definitely a major drawback.
Was this discussed at all in the informational conference?

 

Dude you have gone completely off the rails. No wonder you are worried about the jb doctor provision.

 

Copied from the ALPA FAQ, added within the last few days but not sure exactly when:

Why wasn’t the dependability review addressed?

The Pilot Dependability Policy falls outside the bounds of the TA and is not considered a mandatory subject of bargaining under the Railway Labor Act.