Most posters here can handle opposing opinions. When those opinions seem to not be based in fact, or are carrying water for management, many posters have a rightfully negative reaction to them. As I tried to say earlier (apparently less eloquently) in a moderator-deleted post, this board is certainly more "blue juicy" than BP and that gets some push back from those of us who are more pro-pilot.

Anyhow, you can post numbers as much as you want, but you can't argue with the fact that many, many guys are taking home less money now than they were before. All pilots should be aware that pay rates are not a direct function of take home pay, and that is why such an emphasis is placed on other sections of the contract in addition to Section 3.

Personally, I received--on paper--a significant pay raise, however my take home income is flat.

With respect to the earlier debate among you and other posters, consider how your pro-company cheerleading may be taken by someone who has taken a very real pay cut under the CBA. Their frustration is warranted.

Not sure what you're trying to say in the edit, but:

It was a de facto increase of 2%. De minimis.

3+5+5. Anyone not contributing 5% to get the match was leaving money on the table. So, the company's contribution went from 13 to 15. Definitely an improvement, but not one to boost contrails' argument that we are now swimming in cash.

I’m pro pilot. Just not pro 5 sandwich’s.

Not cheerleading for the company. More like sticking up for the NC and the 75% of the group that found the CBA decent enough to vote yes.

You’re in Lala land with this chicken little routine

I think that's where a lot of people are going off the rails.

Who cares about sticking up for someone for how they voted? Why are people's egos the focus here? Who cares? The focus should be on the very real impact of the CBA, and highlighting the drawbacks so they may hopefully be fixed or mitigated next time around.

Making excuses for management, the NC, yes voters etc etc etc does nothing to further our goals. Neither does trying to tell someone they received a 30% raise when they actually didn't. That is in fact detrimental to our goals for CBA 2.0.

When people bring up legitimate criticisms, they are labeled as malcontents or chicken littles by those who are furthering management's agenda, whether intentionally or not. Why can't we get over our egos and focus on what needs to be improved instead of attacking those who are shining the light on these issues?

Just because 75% voted yes doesn’t mean those 75% thought it was good.

He went from 30% increase in Pilot CASM to 30% increase in total pilot cost by the amendable date.

Two different numbers.

Sure total pilot costs will increase but largely driven by fleet numbers and complexity (essentially 4 fleets) and conveniently attributed to the pilot contract.

Total operating CASM less fuel has increased 1% since the contract was implemented.

Exactly right.

Wait a minute. Aren’t you the guard guy who left the company for several years while you accumulated seniority, and picked up VDAs and additional flying during negotiations? Forgive me if I am wrong, but if this is true, then perhaps your vision for this company is a tad skewed compared to those who have worked here the last 10 years or more.

The 74% thought it was BETTER. Please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT be the guy you were before & during your time at EDV. Silence is a virtue at many levels.

So that's the bar? Better? We were so far down below our peers ANYTHING would have been better.

When you play leap frog (pattern bargaining), you're suppose to leap the frog in front of you, not to the back of the line, only to quickly watch all the other frogs hop away from you into the distance.

No, I don’t agree.

Many pilots believed it wasn’t that great, but it wasn’t worth the time spent renegotiating for the next iteration of the CBA. Voting yes doesn’t mean you like something or that you think it’s better all the time. It’s a mathematical analysis. For some, that led to a yes vote. Is it worth waiting another 6-18 months for the next offer under current conditions? Is the next offer actually going to be better? Do I just want ANY contract in writing?

Sorry if you don’t agree, but I have spoken with many JB pilots and this is a common theme.

When you’ve been here more than a few months, you may change your thought processes. Or not. You are young, and there is hope.

NOBODY has said, here on APC or in the cockpit, that the CBA is great. But it’s a start. And certainly better than you had at EDV. And since you didn’t get to vote one way or the other, perhaps you might be well served to wait until the next one you ARE able to vote on. Just a thought. But you do you... I have enjoyed reading your posts for several years now. I am sure that will continue.

It is not “certainly better than I had at Endeavor”.

In fact, many sections were much better at Endeavor (And other regionals for that matter.). I have been surprised by some of what is lacking. The pay is better due to the equipment, but relatively it’s actually worse. Retirement is better.

Anyway, I’m not here to even begin arguing any of that, nor do I want to. I was simply saying 75% voting yes doesn’t mean 75% thought it was good. I’m happy it’s a four year contract and that went into my decision to come on board. Folks here have been awesome, and it’s been a good time thus far.

There you have it. Life IS better. I loved EDV, don’t get me wrong. Would not have left for JB were it not for what DAL and SKW did to my friends at ASA. THAT is what drove me to JB. And likely you. Company name on the plane as well as the ticket, AMIRITE?

74% voted yes because they believed it was better than what they had prior. Only the senior guys lost out, and in all my time at JB, NONE of the CAs are bitter about it in the cockpit. Not One. Might be different on the 190 side, but I opted to avoid that for many reasons.

I had things I liked at EDV, but to say “many sections were better at EDV”... perhaps you and I should take that to PMs to discuss. Neither of us were there very long, and both of us are here now, so perhaps it’s moot? IDK. “Relatively it’s actually worse”??? Prove it.

We’ll agree to disagree on most, but to the last point...

Our pay at 9E was top of the industry for the equipment, at B6 we are far below our peers. That’s the “relative” part.

Oh yeah? How does your pay compare to say... SWA?

Cool. You choose one airline. Hope that’s not how you vote.

And considering we have a fleet of 60 190’s, and less soft pay provisions and less profit sharing, and worse health insurance benefits, I’d say our overall compensation is quite lacking when compared to SWA.

So what was your motivation to apply to JB?

I’m not entertaining this any longer.

SWA seems to be the airline we are usually compared to. What’s your issue with SWA? It’s a a great airline!

Your clear lack of knowledge of JetBlue history and compensation is evident. Ask anyone who has been at JetBlue more than 10 years who are peers are. Arguing with you is useless.

I understand. I give you kudos for not resorting to the “you’re racist” default argument.

At least you know where you stand. As does the rest of APC.

*our

Yes, it IS useless, because your argument is weak and full of holes. You left three other airlines to come to JB. You must have done that for a reason.

That would be the first time I’ve heard it argued that Jetblue lacks soft time provisions. There’s guys out crediting 3 times their block on a pretty consistent bases. Can’t argue with the other points.

Only comparatively to SWA in this case. For instance, their ability to pick up open time for second year pay as first year pilots, all above guarantee.
Or any time a reserve gets called out, they will credit above guarantee.
Or their trip touching vacations through line bidding, which enable more time off to pick up more credit hours.
There others as well, but that is top of my head.
We certainly have opportunities here, but of course they could be improved.

Why are you giving the company credit for our 5%?

Correct me if I'm wrong....


Pre-CBA

Pilot contribution was 5% (to get the match).

Pilot TOTAL = 5%

Company match of 5% + RetirementPlus of 3%

Company TOTAL = 8%

GRAND TOTAL= 13%

If as a pilot you contributed 0% the company would only contribute 3%.
__________________________________________________ _______

Today we get a direct contribution of 15%. So, if you reduce your contribution to 0, the company now has to put in an additional 7% (8% in 2021), not 2% as you would like to believe.

Regardless of how much you contribute, your compensation package increased 7-8% just as a result of the direct contribution.

Yes, you are wrong. Retirement Plus was 5% and Retirement Advantage was 3%. So, assuming you contributed 5%, the company did, in fact, contribute 13%. If you didn’t contribute any, the company contributed 8%. Obviously, there are multiple ways to look at those numbers and draw conclusions. If someone used to contribute 5% and still contributes 5%, the company contribution only went up 2%.

Thats where I was confused then - apologies to those I attempted to correct.