What it would take to be a yes to LOA13
02-03-2021, 03:01 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,236
Originally Posted by Docskoli
If you listened carefully today, they are basically saying we are going down without this. Robins email yesterday flat out said we can’t continue the cash burn. It’s not sustainable. Also. - Scott mentioned some of the hard things they had to look at in the fall, like getting rid of the 190’s and all the bad things that come with that but JB wanted to grow out of this unlike other airlines that are furloughing and shedding airplanes. Its a smart move. AA is struggling and probably will have more problems. This is a chance to snag slots we otherwise could never get (he said we cant win that bidding war) and increase our flying and dig out of this hole. Take flip side of this is dumping the 190’s early, shrinking our company and furloughing a **** load of us. I’m not thrilled with the language, but try to look at this from this perspective - the company is against the wall. It has a shot of getting out of this in a way that could make us stronger. Or we can say the hell with it and shoot the golden goose.
Originally Posted by Docskoli
QOL here is awful. Just awful.
02-03-2021, 03:33 PM
#32
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 55
Many commented on the fact that they didn’t answer the question directly. As in what are ya gonna do if it fails. They are actually not allowed to do that. It would violate the railroad act to publicly announce a contingency. It would unfairly influence our due process as a union. The company is unable to comment on that question specifically and they did not. The flip of that is that our MEC was told for sure across the table what was at stake and what the company may of may not do if this doesn’t pass. Our guys are bound by NDA’s and cannot comment either. I’ve been at that table. There is WAY more going on than we know and I would bet paychecks that the company is in a really bad spot and might take their toys and go home leaving us screwed. Don’t bet on them coming back to the table.This might be all they have.
02-03-2021, 03:52 PM
#33
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,881
Originally Posted by Docskoli
Many commented on the fact that they didn’t answer the question directly. As in what are ya gonna do if it fails. They are actually not allowed to do that. It would violate the railroad act to publicly announce a contingency. It would unfairly influence our due process as a union. The company is unable to comment on that question specifically and they did not. The flip of that is that our MEC was told for sure across the table what was at stake and what the company may of may not do if this doesn’t pass. Our guys are bound by NDA’s and cannot comment either. I’ve been at that table. There is WAY more going on than we know and I would bet paychecks that the company is in a really bad spot and might take their toys and go home leaving us screwed. Don’t bet on them coming back to the table.This might be all they have.
1. LOA 12 allows a significant codeshare between JB+AA. It just doesn't allow a wide open free-for-all.
2. If they want to have a deeper relationship with AA, they may need more relief, so they can reengage with ALPA to obtain a mutually agreeable agreement. If it's that critical to the company, they will do that.
3. You said "this might be all they have". Most pilots are VERY interested in an industry competitive Profit Sharing plan. The best part of PS, is that it is the PERFECT solution to the monetary part of this LOA. An industry competitive Profit Sharing plan is just language, it doesn't pay ANYTHING, or cost ANYTHING for as long as the company is losing money! But it ensures we all share in JB's prosperity WHEN JB is once again profitable, and it's cost to the company is a small proportion of profits, so it is scaled to how well they are doing. If not doing well, it costs them nothing. It's basically a free/no cost/IOU that has value at some point on the far off future. Done. Easy button.
Any company can afford free. And they can definitely afford free if it gets them this "critical" LOA.
If this fails, they WILL continue the codeshare with AA based on the limits of LOA 12. The cash burn isn't sustainable, but it also isn't permanent. I would expect they reengage discussions on LOA 13 V2.0. But that's up to them.
02-03-2021, 04:08 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Docskoli
If you listened carefully today, they are basically saying we are going down without this. Robins email yesterday flat out said we can’t continue the cash burn. It’s not sustainable. Also. - Scott mentioned some of the hard things they had to look at in the fall, like getting rid of the 190’s and all the bad things that come with that but JB wanted to grow out of this unlike other airlines that are furloughing and shedding airplanes. Its a smart move. AA is struggling and probably will have more problems. This is a chance to snag slots we otherwise could never get (he said we cant win that bidding war) and increase our flying and dig out of this hole. Take flip side of this is dumping the 190’s early, shrinking our company and furloughing a **** load of us. I’m not thrilled with the language, but try to look at this from this perspective - the company is against the wall. It has a shot of getting out of this in a way that could make us stronger. Or we can say the hell with it and shoot the golden goose.
Maybe management should have done some research to know they didn’t get what they thought they got.
We aren’t shooting anything down don’t act so scared. Do you really really think they told wall st their plans about how they will pull though and if we say no they go oh well F it lets go BK.
Come on.
02-03-2021, 04:13 PM
#36
Layover Master
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Seated
Posts: 4,311
Originally Posted by Docskoli
Calm yourself. It’s my opinion. Try to behave in your response. Exhausted by forum keyboard bs.
Lol. That was a pretty calm response considering you just suggested that if we don’t vote yes the company is going to “take their toys and leave us screwed”.
02-03-2021, 04:14 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Docskoli
Many commented on the fact that they didn’t answer the question directly. As in what are ya gonna do if it fails. They are actually not allowed to do that. It would violate the railroad act to publicly announce a contingency. It would unfairly influence our due process as a union. The company is unable to comment on that question specifically and they did not. The flip of that is that our MEC was told for sure across the table what was at stake and what the company may of may not do if this doesn’t pass. Our guys are bound by NDA’s and cannot comment either. I’ve been at that table. There is WAY more going on than we know and I would bet paychecks that the company is in a really bad spot and might take their toys and go home leaving us screwed. Don’t bet on them coming back to the table.This might be all they have.
I just find it hard to believe that the company lets go of this “once in a generation” deal over this. It’s so great and will catapult us into profitability but if we vote no well it’s all over. Now that is not looking out for the shareholders I don’t think Wall St would be very happy.
02-03-2021, 04:22 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by rvr1800
Just because the opinions don’t align with yours doesn’t make it “forum keyboard bs”.
oh no oh no the company will just call off the best deal (they said it) in a generation.
It’s actually easy to fix just work with us what a concept. Nobody wants jetblue to not do well we just want to make sure we are protected and part of the deal. What a big ask 🤦♂️
02-03-2021, 04:22 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 55
U Don’t get it. I made a post. You came back being snarky which is why I generally don’t go on these ****ed up forums. Just thought this was important. You wouldn’t talk to my face like that so why here with the snark? Don’t you see that? You think it’s pretty calm response bc you apparently can’t communicate without the snark. Instead - try to actually comment on the substance instead of snark. Awful.
