31LatKE

What does the TA allow?

If the TA is ratified, at any point up to the year 2030, JB is only required to fly 65% of focus-to-focus city flying and 65% of our Caribbean markets. 100% of our international destinations except the aforementioned 65% of Caribbean flying could be off-loaded to American and/or their carriers.
So, what does this mean for the JB pilot group? Well, it truly depends on the market and how it shapes the way you read it. As leadership states currently, this agreement brings growth. Access to LGA that would have otherwise been impossible and brand-recognition through American’s brand to bring relevancy to the Midwest. All things that are possible but at what cost to our pilot group. Up to 35% of our focus-to-focus city flying and all international except 65% of our Caribbean markets could be given away at any point up till 2030. Does that sentence excite you? Maybe, maybe not. That in itself is the problem. It depends on how you are reading it and who is reading it.
For something that is supposed to bring greatness to our brand and our pilot group, they sure have kept it hidden behind door #2. How can we vote on intent or hope, while recognizing how dangerous relief could be? So, I ask what’s the point of a CBA if we just trust the other party to work for our best interests’? That’s a good transition to why we have CBA language in the first place.

Why do we write CBA language?

Contractual language should always be written for the worst of times and with the worst intentions in mind. Let me ask you, have you ever asked scheduling for a favor but were denied because the CBA language doesn’t specifically say that? It’s funny how airlines will follow the CBA language to the T when it benefits them but loosely interpret where they can to allow an extension etc.
Now you may say well the Union assured us that the 65% is a FLOOR. My counter to that is, the last time you fell on hardwood floors did it hurt or you bounced right off and it felt great? I think it hurts and so in this scenario, we could fall down to 65% and they would be perfectly in compliance. That part concerns me.
I recognize that they may have the best of intentions and this may be the best deal in the world. However, if that ever changes, I want to know that we are protected. That’s what CBAs are for, to protect us from job deterioration. Generally, CBAs don’t promote good behavior, they enforce good behavior. This is why we don’t enter deals on hope and promise. Things change, intentions change.

So what do we get in return?

We get CBA furlough protection until 11/21 and conditional protection until 5/22. That alone may sound great but is 6 months protection really worth a 10-year deal that may go south or not play out because “we didn’t think they would do that”? Personally, I don’t think so. We have been fortunate to all be employed for a year while mostly not going to work and while everyone’s situation is different, all pilots in the industry should be preparing to be furloughed. This isn’t March 2020; this is February 2021.
For now, let’s say we all can use another 6 months of having a job, that of course is true. Now let me ask you, have we had to truly rely on LOA 12 language to not be furloughed? Not really. Except for October to December and for now beyond March, otherwise we have had the Cares Act in place prohibiting airlines to furlough. Now of course having that language and assurance before some of our other pilot groups allowed us to sleep at night and I applaud our MEC for gaining that security. I’m just saying, recognize that the Cares Act has been there and I’m sure that the airlines will continue to lobby for payroll support this summer regardless if we sign this deal. Of course, we cannot predict the future and I’m not saying if there should or shouldn’t be another round of support, all I am saying is to recognize, that the support was there.
Moving on, we are protected till November and then possibly up till May 2022, and will get a 2% pay raise in May of 2022 (inflation) to the pilots that have not be furloughed from November 2021 to May 2022. We were also given FLICA waiting rooms to help address the bot concerns. Particularly, I feel that has already been addressed by the emails from the chief pilot and Sabre working together to limit access to those who rely dependently on an external program to snag trips. They also changed some of the leave programs which I personally feel they could’ve have been addressed in a separate LOA.

Where does the industry stand?

As we all keep up with the headlines and the latest earnings reports, we can say that IF the world is in the same place as it is now, come end of summer or year-end, the airline industry that we know today, does not exist. Regardless, if you have the best or the worst CBA, the CBA is gone because bankruptcies have occurred. So, is there light at the end of the tunnel? I think so, given we hit our optimistic goals for having a vaccine by end of 2020 and are starting to deploy them. While snags occur and new variants happen, we will eventually get out of this. Maybe not in the same shape or size but we will come out the other side. So, I ask, if you see light at the end of the tunnel, do you really want to sign and lock this in for 10 years? Or could we just wait a few more months and know whether the business or industry exists in its present state? Just seems a little late to be selling when regardless of what happens within the CBA, we are either on our feet or in bankruptcy court. If we do give in to survive and the world returns to normal as they project, we are left with having sold 35% up till 2030.

Closing thoughts

I’ve seen people say that if we don’t sign this, we won’t go to Europe. Where do you get that in the TA language? Nothing in the TA suggests London or Europe is secured if we vote yes. If anything, quite the opposite is true given now we have allowed 100% of our international flying to be given to American. Now management is saying we won’t do that but the question should be, can they? They can if the relief is given. Let’s not forget that there is a reason we wrote the current language in the CBA. It’s to protect JB jobs and to promote JB job growth when they want to reap the benefits of flying into a new market. Of course, there is codeshare but as we know, it’s a finder’s fee and not revenue sharing. So even with codeshare in place there is still a revenue incentive to collect our own operating carrier fee by operating our own metal and pilots. With a joint venture, that line starts to blur a little bit since they are sharing more of the revenue than just getting a finder’s fee. With the relief, they’re not as incentivized to spend billions of dollars to purchase aircraft, provide the training and recruit more pilots to earn that extra dollar. There will be snags with the London flying and there will be costs they did not expect. This may push them to rerun the figures and go “this more than we expected and we prefer to just run up and down the east coast”. If that occurs, and relief is given, I’m sure they recognize that they can cancel the LR and XLR order, shave a few billion off CAPEX during times of cost-cutting while still earning a decent share from the joint-venture. Ask any other airline with a joint-venture on how tough it is to get flying back on their own metal. It’s next to impossible.

All that being said, I recognize that they may have the best intentions and this deal could transform the airline for the better and hopefully that’s the case. We just have to recognize that the markets change and their interpretation may as well. It’s not about what they WANT to do, it’s about what they CAN do. The TA allows a significant portion of our flying to be given up at any point. Just as the 190 was set to be a dying dinosaur, it is now going to the be the star of this new agreement. Just recognize that things change, management changes, the NEA agreement could change, and the only thing we can put our hand on is the CBA that is there to protect us from a change of interpretation.

seekingblue

Thanks for the well throughout reply.

You are indeed correct. However, I'd push back on 2 ponts.

I think it is likely this will cause us to grow (admittedly not guaranteed by the LOA) and we have some pilot staffing protections (LOA 13.B.2.D and initial body of intent)

seekingblue

Funny enough, I had the same question. So I asked. It turns out, that every code share is traditionally 5 years. This is why it needed to be 5 years, with 24 months for them to wind down. Don't think the 5 years and 24months is going away (even if voted down and renegotiated). Think that is worth keeping in mind, if the main objection is length of contract.

Boomer

Consider that the 65% number is only a floor if Jetblue and American want an automatic renewal in 5 years. They can miss that metric by any amount and still come back to the MEC for more relief.

We go back into contract negotiations next year, so everything will be up for grabs again. They could say our new floor is 35% and in exchange we get a 2% raise each year starting in 2023. Winning!

Boomer

Also consider that American is not signing LOA13 - and Jetblue ALPA is not a signatory to the NEA.

I am not a contract lawyer, but logically the 35/65 ratio places the limitation on American flying, not Jetblue flying.

How can we contractually limit another company’s flying if they are not party to our contract?

How can the MEC refuse the 5-year renewal when they don’t even have a seat at the NEA table?

ClncClarence

I think you’re kind of looking at this backwards. It can’t limit the amount of AA flying, but it can force JB to increase flying.

Boomer

Another contradiction between LOA13 and the NEA -

LOA13 sets a maximum of two 5-year terms. However, the NEA automatically renews in year 10 for another 5-year term. See NEA section 5.1.

Clearly, the deal Jetblue signed with American will require additional relief from us. LOA13 is not the last time the company will come to us looking for concessions.

PSU Flyer

Sweet! Another 2% raise in 2031!

seekingblue

So, we tell them no? We will be negotiating our new CBA. We use that is leverage. I don't understand how that is bad.

31LatKE

Couldn't we just say no now and not wait five or ten years?