Originally Posted by RamRod

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.

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.

Originally Posted by hyperboy

I will bite please see below to your comments. Some of it is misinformation and it's all in the language not whet you may have been told.

LOA 12 has already been approved by our MEC apparently for 10 years without pilot ratification (I can't believe i just said that). This is in Section F.1. It deal with CODESHARE It involves codesharing that they already have and has some metrics in there for why they needed our approval in this case. They can do all of this just like the code share with Silver Airways Please read.


LOA 13 deal with F.7 and F.8. It DEALS with a JOINT VENTURE. IT IS A MUST READ!!!!!!!This language (in our CBA) is in there to PROTECT us, It PREVENTS us from having to look the other way while others do our flying, deal with focus city to focus city. regional flying, , bypasses OUR international growth, and it ignores the idea we have the iron to fly that route. .....I am gonna stop there because I can't believe its ON the table. It is there for a reason and any change EVER for this requires PILOT RATIFICATION. This is why its in there.

Its terrifying that this temporary relief is for ONE DAY or what could be up 10 years.
Why do we have it in there? To prevent it and NEVERt allow it and PROTECT our jobs.
Remember they still have codesharing. They have flexibility from F.1. Like it or not form LOA 12
I LOVE this company and want this company to survive. OUR BRAND, ORGANIC, CONTRARIAN!
SCOPE IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE MY #!! This is what is under attack.

Here are my questions? Answers must be from the language we are voting on and nothing else........

Where are the details to this deal?
What is this deal worth?
How much for B6 to get out of this agreement?
How much for AA to get out of this agreement?
What happens if AA goes to BK?
What are the JETBLUE aircraft requirements for this agreement?
What are the AA, American Eagle, MESA aircraft requirements for this agreement?
Why could they still furlough in this agreement? see above questions.

MY SCOPE is not for sale. What we are voting on next week is a JOINT VENTURE. It is also is NEVER for Sale.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

It is NOT addressed unless it's WRITTEN *IN* the TA.

Originally Posted by Margaritaville

Did you all ever think that ALPA isn't on your side with this? ALPA has always followed the money, and they have wanted the AA pilots on board for many years. ALPA is gaining popularity over there, and a merger would trigger a referendum. ALPA will throw your small group and comparatively small union dues under the bus in a heartbeat to use you to get AA on board. So of course they are trying to give you a hard sell on this TA.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

Okay, noted.

Now why would the JETBLUE ALPA MEC/LEC and NC agree to these things or push an agenda that favors ALPA National or AA?

That is where you lose me.