A common thing posted by yes voters, those leaning yes and some in union leadership is that we can't vote no and expose ourselves to scope issues, jetblue express etc. If we can't go another 12 months without scope, why did we go this long without scope since voting in a union? If we can vote a TA in based on scope provisions at the expense of other sections.... Then why, 4.5 years ago, did we not we just cut and paste a scope section and have it in writing that no changes will be made to the FSM, PEA, or benefits without mutual agreement (with a short time before we can return to the table)? Seems like that would've been a very quick process. We could be voting on our second contract right now and had scope protections this whole time. Or could we? Am I missing something? I very likely could be as I'm not an expert on contract negotiations.

I'm not asking from the standpoint of a no voter, I'm asking from the standpoint of a confused union member.

 

Would you be willing to give up scope for improvements in other sections? I wouldn't.

Why 4 years ago did they not just cut and paste a scope section into our PEA? Probably because if that was our first contract it would have had an amendable date 4 years out and made impossible getting a contract before then. In the end the timeframe didn't work out that well but I doubt they would have just accepted the current PEA with scope as our CBA for 4 years. No way the union would have been voted in with that as ALPA's platform.

I can't speak to why the company hasn't explored farmed out JB flying in the past. I can only say that every day we exist as a pilot group without something firm in writing in the form of a CBA, we're exposed. 12 months may sound too short for them to ramp something up but I wouldn't put it past them.

 

They basically DID just copy paste our old PEA with some scope provisions.

 

Definitely not and sorry if I implied that. I think scope is a part of a complete contract. I was speaking more to the timeline and voting it in because it has the scope even though it doesn't have other things that we want yet.

 

There are no experts in this game. No one can foretell the future. It doesn't matter if they're ALPA or a lawyer.

We do know that outsourcing our personal responsibility of making ourselves aware leads to a false sense of trust in people who are also making guesses. If you have a good reason based on your research, you are the expert.

Your question is precisely the kind of scrutiny that every ALPA member ought to have of their servant union. Otherwise, we'll get a sub-performance contract with permanent multi-year legal ramifications.

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.

 

Why did we take this long? Why did JetBlue pilots reject union drives multiple times? Why does management not see how to fix a problem until they do?

We have the chance to protect our jobs in the future, and saying that this has no value is likely coming from the same people who voted against ALPA; those who are short sighted and didn't spend any time at the regionals.

The first ten years of my career were ruined by RJ's, I don't want the next ten years ruined by RJ's ending up here.

So to put the answer in TEM terms; a positive outcome is not a measure of safety. We were flying unstable approaches for years, and it isn't a problem until it is, and then it's catastrophic.

 

The current TA 1.0 is like an unstable approach... it won't be catastrophic until it is. TA 2.0 will be like putting in protections against unstable approaches.


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 haven't heard anyone say that it has no value. I have only heard people question whether it has enough value to not go back to the table. It's kind of like insurance. Most people lose money on insurance (that's how the insurance companies stay in business) but having it puts your mind at ease. However, I wasn't questioning whether we need to lock in this "insurance" now or not, I was asking if it is so important why didn't we get the policy 4.5 years ago? With your TEM argument, are you saying that we made a mistake by not voting in a quick TA with scope early on and now we're realizing that we made a mistake?

 

I'm saying this pilot group made a mistake by not voting in a union sooner.

The TA was done about when it should have been. 3 years to do a full contract is about right.

 

Jtrain, softpay and the other experts that think Skywest is about to be painted blue any day now, why did the company roll over on RJ scope but build a fortress around domestic codesharing?