ok, answer me this.... what is the problem with voting this one down and take a look at the next offer??

The only thing i can 100% guarantee is that JB and AA are not going to just walk away if we vote this down .. there will be another offer for sure!!!!

 

You should PDR this question.

I think it deserves an answer from someone more knowledgeable than me.

1). I'm not sure there will be another offer. They can still run the codeshare with LOA 15. Granted, it is more limited than with LOA 16, but It can be done.

2). from and MBA prospective, you don't want to always "sweeten the deal " after turning down the first offer. It sets an expectation among employees that you can always say no and get something better on the second try.

3). I'm sure they have a plan in place for a no vote. Maybe it is a merger, maybe it is a reduction in force, etc. But I have no idea what that plan would or could be.

Don't think for one minute that they need us for this code share. They need us for some enhanced aspects of the code share, but they can and will run it without our sign-off.

 

That is FACTUALLY untrue. There vote only signifies that they want membership to choose, it is not vote in FAVOR of passage. And read the unions initial comms, they said themselves they are NEUTRAL on the LOA.

 

This right here ^^^

So far all I'm hearing from the yes voters above is the NEA is good for us without realizing the NEA will happen even if LOA 13 fails. So why the hell give up more scope??? To give them the option to put codeshare on Eagles flights between our Focus cities and Focus to Int'l within OUR aircraft capabilities? How the hell does that make sense?

I would think that if we want more flying out of this then we keep our FC to FC protections so WE can do those flyings on top of whatever extra flights happen in the codeshare. Isn't that MORE flying??? We will still get those "once in a generation" slots (not wishing bad for AA guys here just what they say will happen) and I'm voicing this opinion based on what the MEC told me, and all the emails from the MEC. Not conspiracy, not "the world might end" pocket session from damn mgmt. When did we as pilots get to the point of considering mgmt thoughts of whether we should buy a car THEY are selling?? I can't believe I'm seeing opinions of this TA and folks mentioning the car salesman thoughts of whether we should buy the car. Smh

Vote on what you see in front of you and NOT what they say they don't intend to do. If they wouldn't do it then put it in writing

/rant over

 

The problem is, they might not intend to do it now but what about later? It's 10 years. What about a new ELT who decides to exploit this LOA 13? We are not here to sign based on promises, we have to sign based on what's the worse that can happen in this TA that would be perfectly allowed if signed. Sh** might hit the fan 4 years from now and these same ELT have already moved on and we are stuck with the sh** fan.

 

You do understand most of this is happening under LOA 12 anyways.

LOA 13 is not a take it or leave it for the NEA.

I’m not against the NEA. I am against LOA 13!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This. The company got NEA thanks to LOA 12.

Now they’re asking for 10 years of Scope concessions - but assuring us they won’t use them. That doesn’t pass the sniff test.

 

I think this argument is likely valid in this case, but I’d suggest that it may inspire a little PTSD reaction in many. When we were voting on the CBA, many folks said the same thing—“never take the first offer.” IF we had sent that contract back, I think the odds are better than even that we would be at a very, very different airline now and it would be a whole lot uglier.

 

I've been reading LOA 12, LOA 13, and the CBA. I've been trying to make a case for both sides (I've already decided for myself for personal reasons). I'm trying to be objective and factual.
Basically, grey and poor language notwithstanding,
LOA 12 allows the commercial agreement (NEA) and schedule coordination. It adds some protections specific to the relief given in 1.F.1 and 1.F.3. Basically, it allows codesharing for the purpose of network feed. The NEA can be accomplished to an extent with the relief/within the confines of LOA 12.
LOA 13 allows for focus city to focus city flying on AA/AE. Allows up to 35% of Caribbean flying on AA code. It further allows up to 100% of international flying (Caribbean excluded) to have AA code. (Specifically, all of this from BOS, EWR, JFK and LGA only). There are protections within the relief, specifically related to growth metrics which are basically summarized best by saying "we can't shrink while under the NEA".

In return for all of this, we get slots at LGA, JFK and EWR we otherwise would likely never have access to. This provides avenues for growth (long term). In the short term, it provides us slots to feed AA's network where we can replace 50 seat CRJs with more ASM and a better product. What part of the slots, the most coveted part in all of this as I understand it, can't we get with just LOA 12?

Finally, reading through LOA 13, one finds deliberately written non-concrete language. A few examples:
The MEC, through emails and podcast, have done a strong job assuring the union that the NEA agreement can/WILL be cancelled by the MEC if the growth metrics/restrictions they have placed are not met. Yet, they added this line in B.3.a., "unless the Association consents to renewal of the JB-AA Commercial Agreement." Why would they add that? We could have a much different MEC in five years. The company could miss ALL the metrics, yet come to us with a sob story about how they are going to make them this time, and it was only due to COVID-22 they didn't. That line needs to be deleted.

Or how about B.4.d., "Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." That is to "material changes" to the entire agreement. How did the company convince them to put that in there? What's the definition of "unreasonable"? How will that hold in front of an arbitrator when JB is trying to grow yet it only hurts pilots?

That's it for now.
Fire away. Missing anything??

 

I disagree. I think CBA2 would’ve been done prior to COVID if that’s what you’re getting at. The CBA was different because without a CBA, any CBA, the pilot group had NO protections and the company could unilaterally change stuff (PS anyone?). I just can’t personally fathom how people could’ve voted yes for the CBA, almost exclusively for the scope section, and then will vote yes to LOA 13.

All that being said, if the vote ends up being no, who knows what will happen. In my mind, worst case is the codeshares allowed by LOA12 will still happen and the scope protections will still be in place.