Originally Posted by todd1200

Doesn’t seem anywhere close to ironclad. The pilot count and block hour requirements can be violated for $5M, barely a speed bump. And the renewal terms say “if each of these requirements are not met” instead of “if any of these requirements are not met” meaning they can meet one requirement, violate the others and still renew. Also, the international requirements aren’t broken down by region, like Caribbean, EU, etc.

Originally Posted by ReachHeavy

Or just vote Yes, pocket 3% and change now and put this behind us and focus on the new contract.

Originally Posted by Just

This what baffles me in regards to anyone voting yes, what exactly does this strengthen in the future? Not a damn thing to a company that plays fast and loose with language or in this case just blatantly violates sections of our contract, open your eyes and don’t screw us in the future with a yes vote

Originally Posted by todd1200

I should backtrack and say, I don’t really know what the legal interpretations of “each” or “any” are, just in my layman’s opinion, the way it’s written seems more open to exploitation.

Originally Posted by ReachHeavy

Or just vote Yes, pocket 3% and change now and put this behind us and focus on the new contract.

Originally Posted by pilotpayne

But but they wouldn’t do that. Except for the fact that because they did do that we are here and still have people saying they wouldn’t do that. Think about that

Originally Posted by todd1200

Voting Yes could put plans for significant growth behind us. According to government attorneys,

“JetBlue will share revenues that American earns on transatlantic service to and from Boston and New York City. Thus, any effort by JetBlue to undercut American on price would reduce the revenues JetBlue earns under the revenue-sharing arrangement. As a consequence, JetBlue will have less incentive to compete aggressively with American in those markets, whether by lowering fares or improving service. JetBlue will also have less incentive to enter new transatlantic markets where it would compete with American.” (emphasis added)

Originally Posted by DontCallMeCindy

Which fits with AA’s publicly stated plans to start 321XLR services to Europe out of JFK & BOS

Originally Posted by The701Express

We could ask that same question of why did we decided to negotiate an LOA with the company to settle this if an arbitrator's ruling in our favor is a lock and our leverage only improves?

I'm not happy with the MGIA and it's attempt to circumvent 1.F.7, but the risk of letting one person determine it's not a JV as defined by the CBA and therefore free from the other 1.F.7 restrictions is opening a pandoras box of pain especially at an airline like jetblue that has codeshare agreements with numerous airlines, big and small, domestic and international and is always on the lookout for more partners.

What does the LAX base look like with an Alaska codeshare that includes an MGIA? FLL and MCO with an Azul codeshare and accompanying MGIA? Both of those airlines, in the case of Alaska, or their country, in the case of Azul, are mentioned in our CBA. Allowing an MGIA with Azul would steer clear of 1.F.7.d protections. I don't want to see how jetblue's greed exploits a MGIA loophole across the rest of our network.

There's potential for a very consequential loophole to be opened up if the arbitrator rules in favor of the company for 1.F.7. A 'No Vote' doesn't guarantee us protection of our scope language. A 'Yes Vote' at least sets the precedent that the MGIA in the NEA is a JV because the company negotiated a settlement with us. The LOA also keeps Javitz as the arbitrator for any further related grievances, which he surely won't look at too keenly since his reputation is on the line.

The camel got its nose in the tent with LOA 12 and the creation of the NEA. The company's greed and disregard for us pilots tried to wiggle it in farther. While far from perfect, LOA 17 stops it from going any further, ties the company's hands more with the new collars for the whole NEA, and gives us pilots the ability to kill the NEA in eight years just by withholding consent for it to continue. That's an eternity from now, but it's an expiration date for temporary scope relief that could give us a huge amount of leverage should the company need it to continue. That's no guarantee, but neither was Delta's profit sharing when it began.

At the core of this issue is the integrity of our scope language. The purpose of our strong scope language is to protect our jobs by ensuring the company can only generate the overwhelming portion of its revenue from our own flying by our own pilots. That's something we all want, have fought for and continue to fight for. While our CBA has limited exceptions, it ensures an environment where the company can't earn the lion's share of the revenue unless it's a Jetblue plane flown by Jetblue pilots. No matter how much I want to tell the company 'No' a second time, I see that as counter-productive to the ultimate goal of our scope language with too much downside risk in the future by letting the arbitrator rule unilaterally. Voting ​​​​​'Yes' means strengthening the current CBA language through this process, except for the limited relief, has ensured Jetblue pilot growth throughout this decade, while also earning the ability to kill the whole agreement at the end of the decade if its not to our liking or use that threat to bargain even greater benefits for the pilot group should that leverage exist.
​​​​​​
I havent mentioned compensation, UTS, or c91 because, while those are important to me and can be argued on their own merits, this is a scope grievance and the integrity of our section 1 language has been and remains paramount to me, so I felt my reasoning needed to be stated.
​​​