LOA17 is out
03-29-2022 | 04:25 PM
#321
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
You're correct, it's a grievance settlement with relief for 1.F.7 and 1.F.8 and not a full in admission that an MGIA is a direct violation of 1.F.7. I'm sorry I spoke inaccurately. This is a complex issue and I'm clearly no lawyer, but as I understand it from our own, the company asking for relief from that language in this settlement sets a precedent should it happen again. That gives 1.F.7 some teeth and forces the company to consider the consequences of any further attempts to establish a similar commercial agreement. Legalese is difficult to decipher, so I'm listening to those reps and lawyers who we pay plenty of money to represent and inform us. If anyone believes there's a problem with the integrity of their conduct, then there's deeper issues here requiring remedial actions, but I'm not seeing that right now.
This is a murky situation without a clear path after either a 'Yes' or 'No' vote. Each one has its own unknown risks and uncertainties. But there are people here who are claiming the only way to protect scope is to vote 'No' and that's just not true for the reasons I explained in my original post. It is possible, should LOA 17 be voted down, the arbitrator gives us a clean sweep. If that happens I'll gladly eat crow and admit I was wrong. But even in that best case scenario there's an associated risk with potentially very serious negative implications should he rule in favor of the company on 1.F.7.
To reiterate, I feel the potential downside of voting 'Yes' on LOA 17 is mitigated by the collars and kill switch in B.3.b enough to outweigh the potential negative downsides of letting the arbitrator neuter a critical part of our scope language.
Looking at the upside of the equation, I see a 3% raise that's insufficient, but is an improvement that not only brings us up to, but above many similar rates at the big 3, that frees up negotiating capital to bargain for more gains in other areas of the CBA (perhaps stronger 1.F.7 language among other areas) and gives the pilot group a strong standing to fight for and earn a CBA in the upper echelon of all airlines, not just being tethered near the peer set group of Alaska, Hawaiian, etc., allowing us to see long term contractual gains as a result. This is the first round of that fight. We can fight that battle more effectively with LOA 17 and an NEA with an expiration date much better than we can if an arbitrator undercuts 1.F.7 and allows an MGIA to be rubberstamped into our other codeshare agreements.
Contract language matters because we make it matter. The company ignored parts of our CBA and we called them out on it and went through the process to rectify it. We've done it before and we'll do it again.
Arbitration is a process stacked in favor of the wealthy and powerful. 3A illustrated that for many of our pilots. Kasher did that for Alaska's. There's a reason many companies are forcing people to sign away class action lawsuit rights in favor of forced arbitration. It needs to be reformed and I'm all for fighting that fight, but LOA 17 isn't it. Unfortunately it's an imperfect system but we have no choice but to fight the hardest we can within the framework as it currently is, take the wins where we can, and get back up after a loss to fight again.
This is a murky situation without a clear path after either a 'Yes' or 'No' vote. Each one has its own unknown risks and uncertainties. But there are people here who are claiming the only way to protect scope is to vote 'No' and that's just not true for the reasons I explained in my original post. It is possible, should LOA 17 be voted down, the arbitrator gives us a clean sweep. If that happens I'll gladly eat crow and admit I was wrong. But even in that best case scenario there's an associated risk with potentially very serious negative implications should he rule in favor of the company on 1.F.7.
To reiterate, I feel the potential downside of voting 'Yes' on LOA 17 is mitigated by the collars and kill switch in B.3.b enough to outweigh the potential negative downsides of letting the arbitrator neuter a critical part of our scope language.
Looking at the upside of the equation, I see a 3% raise that's insufficient, but is an improvement that not only brings us up to, but above many similar rates at the big 3, that frees up negotiating capital to bargain for more gains in other areas of the CBA (perhaps stronger 1.F.7 language among other areas) and gives the pilot group a strong standing to fight for and earn a CBA in the upper echelon of all airlines, not just being tethered near the peer set group of Alaska, Hawaiian, etc., allowing us to see long term contractual gains as a result. This is the first round of that fight. We can fight that battle more effectively with LOA 17 and an NEA with an expiration date much better than we can if an arbitrator undercuts 1.F.7 and allows an MGIA to be rubberstamped into our other codeshare agreements.
Contract language matters because we make it matter. The company ignored parts of our CBA and we called them out on it and went through the process to rectify it. We've done it before and we'll do it again.
Arbitration is a process stacked in favor of the wealthy and powerful. 3A illustrated that for many of our pilots. Kasher did that for Alaska's. There's a reason many companies are forcing people to sign away class action lawsuit rights in favor of forced arbitration. It needs to be reformed and I'm all for fighting that fight, but LOA 17 isn't it. Unfortunately it's an imperfect system but we have no choice but to fight the hardest we can within the framework as it currently is, take the wins where we can, and get back up after a loss to fight again.
03-29-2022 | 04:35 PM
#322
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 430
Likes: 13
During voting for LOA 13 there was a huge amount of communication from B6ALPA and the company trying to push a yes vote as they could tell it was going down in flames. Its been crickets on this one. I think they must like what they are seeing.
Not good.
Last edited by MainlineFlyer; 03-29-2022 at 05:15 PM.
03-29-2022 | 04:54 PM
#323
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 729
Likes: 21
check your email
03-29-2022 | 05:34 PM
#325
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
These answers should solidify a no from every pilot. Does this Loa strengthen our position, per the email, no it does not and we are beholden to the same b.s treatment from the company. This makes us weak. The possibility of a cease and desist, which is very possible, is more than a statement, it reaffirms the value of contract language and sets a precedence for future non-compliance. If this was a 100% slam dunk, which when talking about scope it has to be, then why aren’t these answers definitive in why this amount of money should satisfy nullifying our scope language. This is so absurd I can’t believe I’m even reading and repeating this nonsense. What monetary gain is sufficient to throw away possibly all future European flying? We have lost it.
03-29-2022 | 07:21 PM
#326
On Reserve
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
It’s interesting how we’re being told in said e-mail the protections we’d be afforded should we as a pilot group agree to settle our grievance by accepting the terms spelled out in LOA 17. When the company is willing to violate our present CBA, what’s to stop them from doing the same thing once LOA 17 is passed? Apparently nothing.
03-29-2022 | 09:09 PM
#327
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 8
03-30-2022 | 07:01 AM
#328
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
03-30-2022 | 07:11 AM
#329
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 8
No the other stuff where there’s ASM restrictions. To say that Jetblue won’t need planes or pilots anywhere really is a little strong on the hyperbole front. I know they don’t believe that, but I still don’t think it helps the discussion. Anyway that’s my opinion, I’ll see myself out.
03-30-2022 | 07:44 AM
#330
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
No the other stuff where there’s ASM restrictions. To say that Jetblue won’t need planes or pilots anywhere really is a little strong on the hyperbole front. I know they don’t believe that, but I still don’t think it helps the discussion. Anyway that’s my opinion, I’ll see myself out.
