|
New reserve grids
Need to rant a bit about this and I’d like it to be in everyone’s mind for the next CBA. Our new reserve grid is something that should never have been allowed to sneak into our contract. And I use the term sneak into because here’s the language:
PTO/UTO and Swap requests are authorized provided the applicable one (1)-day, two (2)-day, three (3)-day, and four (4)-day reserve grids are above their respective minimum for each Position. Pretty vague. Here’s the application: https://youtu.be/tohtvZfsmLU https://youtu.be/_njcqbG9CP8 A very complicated and restrictive reserve grid that seemingly came out of thin air based on one sentence in our CBA. Very few saw this coming and I’ve already experienced the consequences of such poor language. Here’s my example from a lineholder perspective. I’m a local and hate four days so I’ll fly anything else I can but I’m a junior lineholder so that’s what I get. No problem, I understand seniority and that’s how it shakes out in the monthly bid. Now the Sunday comes around before that trip and two 2 day trips pop in to Flica over the same footprint. Perfect! Extra night at home. I’ll lose some credit but I don’t care. I put the request in and it’s denied?! For what? Same footprint, a trade I’ve done a hundred times here at Jetblue in the past. Well not anymore. The LCR4 grid is below minimums so I’m stuck on the four day trip. One less night at home with the family because of a vague sentence in the CBA. Full disclosure I voted yes for this CBA. If this sentence was made clear to me that this was how the reserve grids were going to work I would’ve taken a page out in the New York Times campaigning for a no vote. To me it negates almost all the positives of this CBA. Extra nights at home are priceless. And before someone tries to blame the company for poor staffing, yes that would help. But same footprint trades didn’t even look at the reserve grid prior to the cba so staffing isn’t the issue here. This post is long enough but the SCL reserve day swaps are a whole other disaster that deserve their own thread. /rant |
That was one reason I voted no. The new and improved reserve rules that were best in the business are terrible except for the extra day we get off. May everyone remember the Alamo, I mean contract 2018.
|
Originally Posted by rvr1800
(Post 2883733)
Need to rant a bit about this and I’d like it to be in everyone’s mind for the next CBA. Our new reserve grid is something that should never have been allowed to sneak into our contract. And I use the term sneak into because here’s the language:
PTO/UTO and Swap requests are authorized provided the applicable one (1)-day, two (2)-day, three (3)-day, and four (4)-day reserve grids are above their respective minimum for each Position. Pretty vague. Here’s the application: https://youtu.be/tohtvZfsmLU https://youtu.be/_njcqbG9CP8 A very complicated and restrictive reserve grid that seemingly came out of thin air based on one sentence in our CBA. Very few saw this coming and I’ve already experienced the consequences of such poor language. Here’s my example from a lineholder perspective. I’m a local and hate four days so I’ll fly anything else I can but I’m a junior lineholder so that’s what I get. No problem, I understand seniority and that’s how it shakes out in the monthly bid. Now the Sunday comes around before that trip and two 2 day trips pop in to Flica over the same footprint. Perfect! Extra night at home. I’ll lose some credit but I don’t care. I put the request in and it’s denied?! For what? Same footprint, a trade I’ve done a hundred times here at Jetblue in the past. Well not anymore. The LCR4 grid is below minimums so I’m stuck on the four day trip. One less night at home with the family because of a vague sentence in the CBA. Full disclosure I voted yes for this CBA. If this sentence was made clear to me that this was how the reserve grids were going to work I would’ve taken a page out in the New York Times campaigning for a no vote. To me it negates almost all the positives of this CBA. Extra nights at home are priceless. And before someone tries to blame the company for poor staffing, yes that would help. But same footprint trades didn’t even look at the reserve grid prior to the cba so staffing isn’t the issue here. This post is long enough but the SCL reserve day swaps are a whole other disaster that deserve their own thread. /rant |
Originally Posted by ParrotBay031
(Post 2883821)
Yes this is absolute bull****... but even more so trying to swap a trip for the same number of day trip and having it get denied for the same reason. Ex. (swapping a 2 day for a 2 day over the same footprint) but not having more then required in the 2 day bucket. This is a huge issue and the union better address it because this was not communicated to us during the road shows and they appear to have gotten taken advantage of during implementation of language.
Even more frustrating is that we will be fighting not only in the areas we knew we were lacking, we will be fighting for a whole new set of unforeseen (to most) issues, using negotiating capital on many different fronts...not just a few. This is why so many of us (even the union until they got to an AIP and changed to a sell job tone) were adamant we had to get it right the first time, quality over speed, etc. Oh well. We earned it. This is the contract this pilot group deserves. For better or worse. We will get em next time though right? Hope you guys are all contacting your LEC reps and voting for a change in direction (ie urging your reps to vote for Rocky and Burt). Keeping the status quo good ol boy B6ALPA will be very bad for this pilot group. The only hope that exists for jetblue pilots is a change in direction. We got what we got. Time to learn from it, and turn things around. That starts with ousting the status quo. |
SCL reserve day swaps are a full blown tragedy.
|
Originally Posted by rvr1800
(Post 2883733)
Need to rant a bit about this and I’d like it to be in everyone’s mind for the next CBA. Our new reserve grid is something that should never have been allowed to sneak into our contract. And I use the term sneak into because here’s the language:
PTO/UTO and Swap requests are authorized provided the applicable one (1)-day, two (2)-day, three (3)-day, and four (4)-day reserve grids are above their respective minimum for each Position. Pretty vague. Here’s the application: https://youtu.be/tohtvZfsmLU https://youtu.be/_njcqbG9CP8 A very complicated and restrictive reserve grid that seemingly came out of thin air based on one sentence in our CBA. Very few saw this coming and I’ve already experienced the consequences of such poor language. Here’s my example from a lineholder perspective. I’m a local and hate four days so I’ll fly anything else I can but I’m a junior lineholder so that’s what I get. No problem, I understand seniority and that’s how it shakes out in the monthly bid. Now the Sunday comes around before that trip and two 2 day trips pop in to Flica over the same footprint. Perfect! Extra night at home. I’ll lose some credit but I don’t care. I put the request in and it’s denied?! For what? Same footprint, a trade I’ve done a hundred times here at Jetblue in the past. Well not anymore. The LCR4 grid is below minimums so I’m stuck on the four day trip. One less night at home with the family because of a vague sentence in the CBA. Full disclosure I voted yes for this CBA. If this sentence was made clear to me that this was how the reserve grids were going to work I would’ve taken a page out in the New York Times campaigning for a no vote. To me it negates almost all the positives of this CBA. Extra nights at home are priceless. And before someone tries to blame the company for poor staffing, yes that would help. But same footprint trades didn’t even look at the reserve grid prior to the cba so staffing isn’t the issue here. This post is long enough but the SCL reserve day swaps are a whole other disaster that deserve their own thread. /rant I almost ran into the same issue this month but luckily I got the swap. This is indeed bull****!t. Who's the @ssclown that agreed to this? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
The negotiators didn't knowingly agree to this swap fiasco. The company is intentionally misinterpreting language that is unfortunately not very specific. They are intentionally using the worst possible interpretation of the language to F with this group. Requiring a SWAP to be treated as a two step DROP , then ADD (same footprint), does not serve the company's needs in any way. They are being petty and vindictive, there is no other explanation.
You can blame the negotiators for writing loose language, but they certainly didn't knowingly agree to have SWAPs be treated as DROPs. Make sure your displeasure is pointed at the correct party. |
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
(Post 2884443)
The negotiators didn't knowingly agree to this swap fiasco. The company is intentionally misinterpreting language that is unfortunately not very specific. They are intentionally using the worst possible interpretation of the language to F with this group. Requiring a SWAP to be treated as a two step DROP , then ADD (same footprint), does not serve the company's needs in any way. They are being petty and vindictive, there is no other explanation.
You can blame the negotiators for writing loose language, but they certainly didn't knowingly agree to have SWAPs be treated as DROPs. Make sure your displeasure is pointed at the correct party. |
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
(Post 2884443)
The negotiators didn't knowingly agree to this swap fiasco. The company is intentionally misinterpreting language that is unfortunately not very specific. They are intentionally using the worst possible interpretation of the language to F with this group. Requiring a SWAP to be treated as a two step DROP , then ADD (same footprint), does not serve the company's needs in any way. They are being petty and vindictive, there is no other explanation.
You can blame the negotiators for writing loose language, but they certainly didn't knowingly agree to have SWAPs be treated as DROPs. Make sure your displeasure is pointed at the correct party. |
We'll see how the grievance goes before we blame the union entirely, and I agree the language is loose and not good enough.
However, the language does not REQUIRE the company to interpret it this way, and it doesn't REQUIRE the company treat a SWAP as a DROP. The company is CHOOSING to do that intentionally. Think about that and remember who ultimately is CHOOSING to ruin your QOL. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands