Yes voters. Honest question.
02-03-2021, 03:43 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,511
If we were reading the Scope concessions incorrectly, that’s one thing. ALPA or management would have immediately pointed out where we were wrong. They would be able to point to the document and show us. This hasn’t happened.
However, whenever someone asks about the TA giving away our Scope, all we’ve heard from them is “Yup, you’re reading that right. That’s exactly what it says. But don’t worry, we don’t plan on them doing what the contract says.”
However, whenever someone asks about the TA giving away our Scope, all we’ve heard from them is “Yup, you’re reading that right. That’s exactly what it says. But don’t worry, we don’t plan on them doing what the contract says.”
02-03-2021, 05:00 PM
#12
On Reserve
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 14
"It just wouldn't make sense to put that route on a RJ" So why did they write that language in there?
We all want a bright future for B6 but we can't be assured of that when the entire deal is based on "they won't do that or it wouldn't make sense". If it didn't make sense to anyone, no one would have written the language.
We all want a bright future for B6 but we can't be assured of that when the entire deal is based on "they won't do that or it wouldn't make sense". If it didn't make sense to anyone, no one would have written the language.
02-03-2021, 05:03 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: B6
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by 31LatKE
"It just wouldn't make sense to put that route on a RJ" So why did they write that language in there?
We all want a bright future for B6 but we can't be assured of that when the entire deal is based on "they won't do that or it wouldn't make sense". If it didn't make sense to anyone, no one would have written the language.
We all want a bright future for B6 but we can't be assured of that when the entire deal is based on "they won't do that or it wouldn't make sense". If it didn't make sense to anyone, no one would have written the language.
IMHO a bright future for B6 pilots would be enjoying this code sharing via LOA12 and continue protecting our JetBlue jobs and progression would be by voting NO to LOA 13 and ANY scope relief.
02-05-2021, 05:55 PM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by GT4JB96
When you go to a car dealership are you the type that just pays the sticker price? or accept the first offer from the dealer?? or even when the salesman comes to you and says... "we have two others customers that really want this car..this is the best my boss is going to do!!!!
This is EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW !!!!!
read the e-mails from the company and listen to what they are saying in the pocket sessions.
All i'm asking everyone to do is open your eyes just a little. Look around at the industry for a sec.
Southwest has said no furloughs, Spirit is going to be hiring soon. Frontier already is!!!
Why give up something you will never get back??
There isn't one single pilot group in history that gave relief on any form of scope that didn't later regret it!!!
Please think this one through.
This is EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW !!!!!
read the e-mails from the company and listen to what they are saying in the pocket sessions.
All i'm asking everyone to do is open your eyes just a little. Look around at the industry for a sec.
Southwest has said no furloughs, Spirit is going to be hiring soon. Frontier already is!!!
Why give up something you will never get back??
There isn't one single pilot group in history that gave relief on any form of scope that didn't later regret it!!!
Please think this one through.
Honest question: do you really think voting on a TA that’s been filtered through trained negotiators whom are being advised by highly skilled attorneys and subject matter experts, and then considered by elected union representatives in any way analogous to haggling over a car?
02-05-2021, 06:06 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 537
Originally Posted by M0derator
Honest question: do you really think voting on a TA that’s been filtered through trained negotiators whom are being advised by highly skilled attorneys and subject matter experts, and then considered by elected union representatives in any way analogous to haggling over a car?
02-05-2021, 06:11 PM
#16
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by copy
honest question, are you familiar with delta’s failed TA in 2015, and all the highly skilled attorneys and negotiators who said they couldn’t get anymore?
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
02-05-2021, 06:21 PM
#17
Layover Master
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Seated
Posts: 4,310
Originally Posted by M0derator
I am. Are you familiar with the dozens of examples of no votes that have resulted in companies essentially taking their ball and going home?
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
02-05-2021, 06:22 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,511
Originally Posted by M0derator
I am. Are you familiar with the dozens of examples of no votes that have resulted in companies essentially taking their ball and going home?
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
They sure seem to want this to pass real bad. They should have added more carrot.
02-05-2021, 06:22 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 537
Originally Posted by M0derator
I am. Are you familiar with the dozens of examples of no votes that have resulted in companies essentially taking their ball and going home?
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
02-05-2021, 06:25 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 202
Originally Posted by M0derator
I am. Are you familiar with the dozens of examples of no votes that have resulted in companies essentially taking their ball and going home?
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
Point is: this isn’t the opening position. It’s been haggled already. It’s offensive (or ignorant) of the OP to allude otherwise.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
