Bang up job by the MEC
 

Great job guys. Who wanted VILs anyway for September?

Only a select few. Doesn’t help the grid out and what else are we gaining from it?

Great job on what? I think the union are a bunch of clowns but I agree with this: do not give them an inch, even if it means layoffs. This company is a complete embarrassment, even before the dancing bear app and FLICAgeddon.

Wont be layoffs, it’ll be bankruptcy. They have a big payment in I think it’s month and half or so, give or take??? They don’t have the money for it and they know it.

I’ve been down this road, twice. It’s a very easy way to void and rewrite labor contracts by crying to the judge and having them shove it down our throat. The judges care very little about the labor force over the lien and shareholders

New bankrupty laws make it difficult to do that…

speaking of…I got a good chuckle out of reading both WC and CL’s emails in succession today.

one says help the operation and go on there and pick up trips, the other says we know Flica is basically useless and we’ll get to it next year.

Exactly.

Some seats rarely got a chance to bid for them. VILs weren’t distributed evenly. Poorly written LOA.

The VESP should’ve been the first bandage, not the second.

Im sure they’ll find an excuse as to not having the flexibility of VILs to why the System bid shows no growth or movement.

[QUOTE=PeakEGT;[url=tel:3929103]3929103[/url]]Im sure they’ll find an excuse as to not having the flexibility of VILs to why the System bid shows no growth or movement.[/QUOTE

The unfortunate aspect of this is that 74% of the pilot group would believe it.

Spirit just went through CH 11. No contracts were terminated. Its because this is more difficult now that a lot of other hurdles have to be crossed by management before a judge will sign off on amending union labor agreements.

Far less than the ones trying to swap or drop their schedules around. How can the company say they want to issue Vils and at the same time say they don’t have coverage for someone that wants to swap a trip.

The way management handled involuntary/advanced displacements was enough for me to not buy into them being the good guys while ALPA are the crooks.

ill stand by ALPA’s decision to deny VILs even though I want 1.

VILs whether allowed or not will not save or force the company into/from bankruptcy.

I suppose I'll be the dissenting voice here and say I think they should allow the VILs.

I haven't heard a compelling argument contrary to that opinion other than a version of "screw the company, it's their mess up," which I don't think is productive and akin to biting off your nose to spite your face.

Secondary to this I haven't heard the union articulate the risk of withholding the LOAs from the company which was alluded to in the last company email. Maybe it is nothing, maybe its something, but union has been pretty quiet about it. At least in the mass communications.

I'd venture to guess no one here has talked to their reps about the vote?

I support the LEC's vote, but I do think its a win/win and we should allow VIL's.

Email your reps, dont post it on the internet.

VIL’s were negotiators for the purpose of reducing staffing during an extremely difficult period. The intent was to reduce staffing at ALL bases.

jetblue is now trying to use VIL’s to adjust random staffing at random bases to recover from their own inept scheduling, displacement and downgrades. This was not the intent.

If the company wants to offer VIL’s to all bases in the same manner as AVL’s then the union would agree.

Agreed the union needs to communicate this concept better but F- - k jetblue. This staffing issue is solely of their own doing and it’s not the unions job to randomly fix it when the VIL is not a benefit OR available
to all pilots in seniority order.

Might be the fastest way to new management, some Private Equity firm can't do much worse.

Thank you for using logic.

look even if that big payment idea is true, pilot vils have NOTHING to do with it.

It’s true that JetBlue has a big payment coming up, about $376 million due this year. But as of the last reports, they had approximately $3.7–3.8 billion in cash, plus access to a $600 million credit line. So they appear to have more than enough liquidity to cover the payment.

It seems the union believes the partnership shouldn’t move forward because we aren't growing isn’t growing.
What came first, chicken or the egg type scenario here.

Where the heck did you get that from? Thats not what the MEC email eluded to at all. They mentioned we havent grown in a year, yes. But didn't say anything about not wanting the agreement to move forward.

Either way, even if it's not CBA compliant, which I imagine it is, the company will fly now, grieve later. Nothing to see here....

Out of curiosity...If someone does that and doesn't agree with the response they get, then what? Remain silent? Don't try to build a consensus to affect change? What forum is then appropriate?

You don't remain silent. You tell them you don't agree then when voting comes use your vote if you're that displeased. The voter turnout for any election throughout the bases is horrendous. Not saying you don't vote and this remark is not meant towards you but many pilots here complain about the union but don't actively participate in elections etc.

I want to second that. I understand both sides of the VIL argument, but to those who are the most vocal; have you reached out to your union reps? Did you even vote in the elections? No disrespect to our reps, but some were elected with shockingly low turnout.

Calling for a recall on an open forum shows a complete lack of understanding of how our union system actually works. I’m not opposing or defending the system, it is what it is. We elect LEC members, and they form the MEC. It’s unrealistic to expect the MEC to function if every decision has to be put to a vote or a poll. Do our elected government leaders poll the public on every single decision?

First for clarity, I'm not calling for a recall or anything. But I do want to understand this decision fully. As an example...not to be an alarmist at all...but let's say a judge finds we are being unreasonable for withholding the VIL. Could he then rule the MOA is invalid so our pay rates go down and everything else that was negotiated in the MOA? Might be a slim chance but if it's non 0% than there is a risk there. Is everyone convinced that that risk has been articulated properly and voted accordingly?

I understand the larger point of voting for reps (and representative governments). However the odds anyone's rep for anything is 100% aligned with their interests is 0%. Secondly, that would assume I knew my reps position on all known and unknown/future issues while in the election cycle. Also unrealistic. I could make a case about politicians listening to polling, etc, but I'll skip going down that rabbit hole.

I suppose what I'm musing about is with a pilot group that is relatively small (ours), and the technological ability, I don't see any reason we couldn't have a snap poll (behind the ALPA firewall) that lays out our union's case and then asks for a vote on this one specific issue. Do you? What's the downside?

It seems that this would be the best way to gauge everyone's true feelings on this particular issue, without the noise of the most vocal, influential, dilution of other issues, etc. This, to me, would be the best way to stay in alignment with the majority of the membership's interests. Otherwise, you get perceived "unity fractures" and spillage (if that's what you want to call this) when people feel their interests are not being represented. Food for thought.

Alright Lum thanks for the input .

Can you elaborate? I believe what you’re saying, but it’s the internet, so I gotta ask.

Is it something to do with labor under the RLA specifically, or more so that companies in general can’t just tear up their contracts with labor?

A non-public one that the company can’t read, preferably?

Nothing to do with RLA which hasn't changed. This is because Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code changed in the mid 2000s that required companies to negotiate in good faith and prove that their modifications to union agreements are necessary to keep the company operating. Unions also can't just reject any proposals. Process must now be "fair and equitable". Also a judge has to agree to the final outcome.

Speaking of, starting at that person and above are the ones that need to be recalled or replaced.

In this case the devil you know is not better than the devil you don’t.