3 of 4 voted for no profit sharing.

That that mean they okay with this too!

Probably not.

What does that mean to you?

Are you saying the 74% liked having 2 weeks Vaca for 0-10 years?

Are you saying 74% liked getting 0.2% profit sharing?

I'm just saying that a Yes vote doesn't mean what you think it means bud.

There's lots of grey in the real world. That 74% was primarily a vote against the terrible status quo that existed and not an enthusiastic vote for a disappointing TA.

This........

Read into nothing I am merely stating a fact of how the vote went. To have an opinion on why and how each pilot voted one would have call each of them up and ask them. The rest of the opinions on here about that 74% is nothing more than a guessing game right?

Each pilot has reason or a combination of reasons they voted YES or NO. Profit Sharing may or may not have been one of them.

Historically many of the big companies that have had massive profit sharing have also had massive furloughs (in the blink of an eye) in the past.....

Whoa wait a sec. It appears you are implying companies that have large profit sharing programs are more prone to furlough? Is that correct?

Do I really need to point out to you that when times are bad, ie when there’s no profit, profit sharing costs the company nothing? If companies aren’t making profit, and therefore aren’t giving out profit sharing, how can you possibly imply that profit sharing leads to furloughs?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Also, delta started in what, 1924? They had proudly never furloughed. Until they did. In what was it, 91 or so?

To imply jetblue is somehow superior, immune from, or less prone to furlough (and link it to industry lagging PS) is simply ignoring the cyclical nature of this industry, and ignoring where jetblue falls on the growth/maturation scale of any company, much less an airline, as well as the fact that businesses change, the economy changes, as do a whole other multitude of factors that affect furloughs. Profit sharing isn’t really one of those factors. So, to link them is ignorant at best.

Profits cause furloughs.

That is a new one.

That guy’s posts are based only in emotion, not reality. They’re good for a good facepalm or eye rolling moment but not for an honest debate.

It’s so sad that some people here take any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of JB or the CBA as a personal attack. I suppose we should just be happy with whatever we get and if we want to make it better we should LEAVE! :p

Profits do not cause furloughs...
Not at all.
And i think you know that’s not what he’s saying.

Delta. The “gold standard” of PS has a profit sharing model that was negotiated in BK. During a time of many furloughs. They were able to maintain that PS in the last round of negotiations due to a no vote and renegotiation.

Times are different. Companies are different. We could have voted no until we got every single thing we wanted. Every one. We’d never leave negotiations.

He is absolutely linking PS to furloughs. And they are absolutely not related.

AA/US furloughed a lot: bad PS.
SWA hasn’t furloughed: decent PS
JB hasn’t furloughed: used to have good PS

PS has zero to do with furloughs. And HB said they do. I called him out.

I see you changed your post, but you are still somewhat conflating my statement that PS/furloughs aren’t related with a yes/no/74%/negotiations argument. My stance on my post you replied to is purely debunking a PS-furlough correlation/causation argument that HB made. And if you don’t see he clearly said that...well...sorry for ya, but a back and forth about something unrelated won’t be productive. If you want to start a separate thread on yes vs no or 74% or how we got shafted with our PS and how DL got theirs, then fine. But this has already gotten off topic, I just wanted to set the record straight for ol hyper that us getting PS is in no way related to us getting furloughed, as he implied in his post.