JetBlue Latest and Greatest
01-29-2021, 06:18 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 123
Bit off topic but...
I’d like to say it’s bullshjt that we can’t get dependency relief for an initial Covid vaccine dose...I’ve been acting like a Flica-tard on the vaccine appointment websites and finally got a slot...during a trip. Let’s make safety third here at jb!
I’d like to say it’s bullshjt that we can’t get dependency relief for an initial Covid vaccine dose...I’ve been acting like a Flica-tard on the vaccine appointment websites and finally got a slot...during a trip. Let’s make safety third here at jb!
01-29-2021, 06:32 PM
Layover Master
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Seated
Posts: 4,311
Originally Posted by Cirrusly
Bit off topic but...
I’d like to say it’s bullshjt that we can’t get dependency relief for an initial Covid vaccine dose...I’ve been acting like a Flica-tard on the vaccine appointment websites and finally got a slot...during a trip. Let’s make safety third here at jb!
I’d like to say it’s bullshjt that we can’t get dependency relief for an initial Covid vaccine dose...I’ve been acting like a Flica-tard on the vaccine appointment websites and finally got a slot...during a trip. Let’s make safety third here at jb!
Google it
01-29-2021, 06:42 PM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 17
My question is that if you were presented with this LOA, without any of the furlough protections, COLA increase or EILs how would you vote? Would you voluntarily give this to the company? I thought that originally this was an agreement that was in the works for years and would have proceeded if it wasn’t for covid (i.e. the reduced block hours). Why are we now giving concessions all over section 1? The company can do just fine with the relief already given.
Section 1 of our CBA is there for a very good reason, specifically for times like these. The history of short term gains for scope relief has been proven. Aside from everything else, my issue with this LOA is that the furlough protection is a fallacy. It’s actually a concession, given up for very short term relief. Here’s my argument:
Our CBA States: “The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company on the effective date of the Commercial Agreement has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed 365 days prior to the effective date.” (O.K. fine, we gave relief on this already.)
“The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement provided:
In each one-year period commencing first with the calendar month that includes the effective date of the Commercial Agreement and then commencing with the anniversary month of the first such period, the Company operates at least 1% more aircraft block hours than in the previous one-year period.”
The key word here is to MAINTAIN this agreement. We must have year over year growth (block hours and active pilots are synonymous).
LOA 13 changes this. According to the new agreement:
(Sec B.2.a) “Using the 2021 Calendar Year as the base period”, (and we all know how many block hours are being flown currently)
b. “The number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2024 Calendar Year must be at least the greater of the following amounts:
i. Three (3) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2021 Calendar Year;
ii. Two (2) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in 2022 Calendar Year; OR
iii. One (1) block hour greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2023 Calendar Year.”
Again, the key word is OR.
This means that to MAINTAIN this agreement, instead of increasing the block hours year over year (current CBA), the company only has to increase the block hours for calendar year 2023. Anyone can see where this is going. Farm the flying out… furlough, and recall if needed in a few years. But wait… the company won’t do that, we have protection right?
J. “Early Termination of Certain Temporary Provisions Beginning with September 2021, if the Company’s total operating revenues (using total operating revenues as calculated for the Company’s Form 10-K and 10-Q), for any two consecutive months (e.g., September-October, October-November)is less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the total operating revenues for the corresponding two months in 2019, the Company may terminate Paragraph H here in on or after November 1, 2021”
I think everyone familiar with profit sharing knows how revenues work.
I’m on the bottom. If there is a furlough, I will be on the list. Please don’t vote yes for the reason that you are doing me a favor. The way I’m reading this is that you are not. In fact you will be doing me a disservice. I am satisfied with section 1 currently in our CBA. There is no reason that the company cannot provide furlough protection for the duration of this agreement. Only that would EVER make me consider a reason to give any concessions in section 1.
Section 1 of our CBA is there for a very good reason, specifically for times like these. The history of short term gains for scope relief has been proven. Aside from everything else, my issue with this LOA is that the furlough protection is a fallacy. It’s actually a concession, given up for very short term relief. Here’s my argument:
Our CBA States: “The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company on the effective date of the Commercial Agreement has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed 365 days prior to the effective date.” (O.K. fine, we gave relief on this already.)
“The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement provided:
In each one-year period commencing first with the calendar month that includes the effective date of the Commercial Agreement and then commencing with the anniversary month of the first such period, the Company operates at least 1% more aircraft block hours than in the previous one-year period.”
The key word here is to MAINTAIN this agreement. We must have year over year growth (block hours and active pilots are synonymous).
LOA 13 changes this. According to the new agreement:
(Sec B.2.a) “Using the 2021 Calendar Year as the base period”, (and we all know how many block hours are being flown currently)
b. “The number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2024 Calendar Year must be at least the greater of the following amounts:
i. Three (3) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2021 Calendar Year;
ii. Two (2) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in 2022 Calendar Year; OR
iii. One (1) block hour greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2023 Calendar Year.”
Again, the key word is OR.
This means that to MAINTAIN this agreement, instead of increasing the block hours year over year (current CBA), the company only has to increase the block hours for calendar year 2023. Anyone can see where this is going. Farm the flying out… furlough, and recall if needed in a few years. But wait… the company won’t do that, we have protection right?
J. “Early Termination of Certain Temporary Provisions Beginning with September 2021, if the Company’s total operating revenues (using total operating revenues as calculated for the Company’s Form 10-K and 10-Q), for any two consecutive months (e.g., September-October, October-November)is less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the total operating revenues for the corresponding two months in 2019, the Company may terminate Paragraph H here in on or after November 1, 2021”
I think everyone familiar with profit sharing knows how revenues work.
I’m on the bottom. If there is a furlough, I will be on the list. Please don’t vote yes for the reason that you are doing me a favor. The way I’m reading this is that you are not. In fact you will be doing me a disservice. I am satisfied with section 1 currently in our CBA. There is no reason that the company cannot provide furlough protection for the duration of this agreement. Only that would EVER make me consider a reason to give any concessions in section 1.
01-30-2021, 03:33 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by Atl320
Loa 12 was asking if American could spend the night. Loa 13 is asking if we can sleep in the same bed.
They get the benefit of code sharing already. Allowing them to disarm us of our strongest contract section is too much.
What position are we in when AAL goes into CH11 then exits and announces a merger.
how do we argue career expectations, longevity, and category when we have already given them the opportunity to take the most valuable parts? How will that seniority integration go?
Then what leverage will the combined group have for a joint CBA when neither side has any scope to fall back on?
American has a 4:1 debt to equity ratio. They aren’t getting out of it without CH11.
it can all be accomplished before 2027 which would be when they have to unwind it.
Looking at this as job protection for a year ignores the that the downside could be career suicide.
They get the benefit of code sharing already. Allowing them to disarm us of our strongest contract section is too much.
What position are we in when AAL goes into CH11 then exits and announces a merger.
how do we argue career expectations, longevity, and category when we have already given them the opportunity to take the most valuable parts? How will that seniority integration go?
Then what leverage will the combined group have for a joint CBA when neither side has any scope to fall back on?
American has a 4:1 debt to equity ratio. They aren’t getting out of it without CH11.
it can all be accomplished before 2027 which would be when they have to unwind it.
Looking at this as job protection for a year ignores the that the downside could be career suicide.
Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t understand how it would change career expectations, longevity, and category. We don’t and maybe won’t do Europe or deep South America and aren’t getting wide bodies either way so how would yes change our career expectations or category when compared to a no?
While we are giving up important sections I scope I don’t agree with (blue city to blue city in particular) it’s not like we’re allowing a JetBlue regional cpa or anything of the like. I don’t like Eagle flying our code but that’s happening either way. I do think doing it blue city to blue city is probably more harmful in that merger scenario.
The term of the agreement and minimal growth requirements are two very good reasons to vote no.
01-30-2021, 03:42 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: B6
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by PotatoChip
"For the purposes of this LOA...
- 'American' shall mean American Airlines, Inc. or ANY carrier(s) operating as American
Eagle."
CAPS mine for emphasis. Seems straight forward. Any RJ under the AA umbrella can now fly on JB code. I bet our customers will be loving that.
Yes a B6 codeshare operated by Mesa..............so sad.
01-30-2021, 03:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: B6
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by Shorts
New guy here, less than two years. I couldn’t have imagined a worse TA. Recall is an understatement, we need actual negotiators. I’m offended.
Negotiators are given a task from the MEC. I think your blame should lie elsewhere?
01-30-2021, 03:51 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 985
Originally Posted by hyperboy
Yes a B6 codeshare operated by Mesa..............so sad.
Last edited by Roy Biggins; 01-30-2021 at 04:21 AM.
01-30-2021, 03:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: B6
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by PotatoChip
Alright, I recently talked to a rep.
My biggest takeaway was that they are NOT selling this LOA correctly. I mean, look how pretty much all of us have reacted to it, myself included. Even some of us who never agree are in agreement. I read the email, the bullet points, and the LOA. No where in any of it did it provide business reasons why this is good for JetBlue, and thusly, us lowly pilots.
Bottom line from the rep, the business reasons are where to meat of this LOA's worth is at.
Fine. Explain that to us.
Until they do that, and do that convincingly, this won't pass. All any of us see is what we are losing, and all for 2%.
Here's the rub, a lot of the business reasons are under NDA's and therefore there isn't an appropriate way of transmitting that information to the group.
I'm not writing this to sway anyone, or put me down as a yes voter, just passing along what small amount of information I can.
I also got that PS was a complete non-starter despite several reps pushing for it, and it's zero cost to the company.
My biggest takeaway was that they are NOT selling this LOA correctly. I mean, look how pretty much all of us have reacted to it, myself included. Even some of us who never agree are in agreement. I read the email, the bullet points, and the LOA. No where in any of it did it provide business reasons why this is good for JetBlue, and thusly, us lowly pilots.
Bottom line from the rep, the business reasons are where to meat of this LOA's worth is at.
Fine. Explain that to us.
Until they do that, and do that convincingly, this won't pass. All any of us see is what we are losing, and all for 2%.
Here's the rub, a lot of the business reasons are under NDA's and therefore there isn't an appropriate way of transmitting that information to the group.
I'm not writing this to sway anyone, or put me down as a yes voter, just passing along what small amount of information I can.
I also got that PS was a complete non-starter despite several reps pushing for it, and it's zero cost to the company.
This is not the job of ALPA to sell. It is the companies. We no nothing about the depth, worth or vision of this joint venture.
Interesting enough lets say there is a merger down the road. And we have given up all international flying out of the focus cities minus the 65% into the Caribbean does that change our CAREER EXPECTATIONS? This is one of the 4 bench marks for the merging of a seniority list and one probably weighted the most.
ORGANIC, CONTRARIAN......F7 and F8 are not for sale!
01-30-2021, 04:17 AM
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2021
Position: NO! LOA 13
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by hyperboy
Negotiators are given a task from the MEC. I think your blame should lie elsewhere?
01-30-2021, 04:19 AM
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,887
Originally Posted by seekingblue
New Q & A out. Thought the first Q&A was garbage—confusing and misleading.
talked to a NC member at length and went from NO to YES.
Hopefully they can better address the concerns of the pilot group.
talked to a NC member at length and went from NO to YES.
Hopefully they can better address the concerns of the pilot group.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
