JetBlue Latest and Greatest
02-02-2021 | 10:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
I love seeing this from hyper. Helps me know im leaning the right way.
02-02-2021 | 10:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Just to collect a couple of things that are rattling around into one place:
1. The long term of the agreement makes sense. The seven year timeline is probably a necessity to justify the whole mess from a business standpoint. Assuming this is true, we should not expect it to change in future iterations. Rather, the size of the carrot will change OR the hand waving language will change.
2. The scope clause is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect jobs. I still haven’t figured out if this does that in any meaningful way, but that’s the point of Section 1. If your objections to the TA as written are along the lines of “where is the profit sharing,” or “hold on to scope for future bargaining,” I get it. But the only appropriate use of scope from a negotiating standpoint is: does altering the section improve the job security of Jetblue pilots in a short, intermediate, or long term capacity? If the answer is “no,” it must be rejected, no matter what the economic benefit is to the company or the pilots.
I would encourage everyone to consider their vote and the questions they ask of their reps from a job security perspective. If the TA is rejected, I would urge pilots to seek improvements in language that secure jobs, rather than carrots. These cost the company little and are of huge impact on us.
My 2¢.
1. The long term of the agreement makes sense. The seven year timeline is probably a necessity to justify the whole mess from a business standpoint. Assuming this is true, we should not expect it to change in future iterations. Rather, the size of the carrot will change OR the hand waving language will change.
2. The scope clause is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect jobs. I still haven’t figured out if this does that in any meaningful way, but that’s the point of Section 1. If your objections to the TA as written are along the lines of “where is the profit sharing,” or “hold on to scope for future bargaining,” I get it. But the only appropriate use of scope from a negotiating standpoint is: does altering the section improve the job security of Jetblue pilots in a short, intermediate, or long term capacity? If the answer is “no,” it must be rejected, no matter what the economic benefit is to the company or the pilots.
I would encourage everyone to consider their vote and the questions they ask of their reps from a job security perspective. If the TA is rejected, I would urge pilots to seek improvements in language that secure jobs, rather than carrots. These cost the company little and are of huge impact on us.
My 2¢.
02-02-2021 | 10:49 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,295
Likes: 4
From: CA
Just to collect a couple of things that are rattling around into one place:
I would encourage everyone to consider their vote and the questions they ask of their reps from a job security perspective. If the TA is rejected, I would urge pilots to seek improvements in language that secure jobs, rather than carrots. These cost the company little and are of huge impact on us.
My 2¢.
I would encourage everyone to consider their vote and the questions they ask of their reps from a job security perspective. If the TA is rejected, I would urge pilots to seek improvements in language that secure jobs, rather than carrots. These cost the company little and are of huge impact on us.
My 2¢.
02-02-2021 | 11:06 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
For those of you that believe this is a good deal because the union said it is....
Please remember that these are the same people that promised "industry leading pairing construction" and when the company manipulated the language to benefit them, the same union said "we never thought they would do that"..
Also this was brought to you by the same people that said "we asked, they said no"
I voted YES to bring the union on property and stand by that always. (don't trust the DR)
but I also voted NO on the CBA and NO on this LOA.
Name ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in history that gave away ANY FORM of scope and never regretted it...
i'll wait
Please remember that these are the same people that promised "industry leading pairing construction" and when the company manipulated the language to benefit them, the same union said "we never thought they would do that"..
Also this was brought to you by the same people that said "we asked, they said no"
I voted YES to bring the union on property and stand by that always. (don't trust the DR)
but I also voted NO on the CBA and NO on this LOA.
Name ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in history that gave away ANY FORM of scope and never regretted it...
i'll wait
02-02-2021 | 11:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
From: B6
Just to collect a couple of things that are rattling around into one place:
1. The long term of the agreement makes sense. The seven year timeline is probably a necessity to justify the whole mess from a business standpoint. Assuming this is true, we should not expect it to change in future iterations. Rather, the size of the carrot will change OR the hand waving language will change.
2. The scope clause is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect jobs. I still haven’t figured out if this does that in any meaningful way, but that’s the point of Section 1. If your objections to the TA as written are along the lines of “where is the profit sharing,” or “hold on to scope for future bargaining,” I get it. But the only appropriate use of scope from a negotiating standpoint is: does altering the section improve the job security of Jetblue pilots in a short, intermediate, or long term capacity? If the answer is “no,” it must be rejected, no matter what the economic benefit is to the company or the pilots.
I would encourage everyone to consider their vote and the questions they ask of their reps from a job security perspective. If the TA is rejected, I would urge pilots to seek improvements in language that secure jobs, rather than carrots. These cost the company little and are of huge impact on us.
My 2¢.
1. The long term of the agreement makes sense. The seven year timeline is probably a necessity to justify the whole mess from a business standpoint. Assuming this is true, we should not expect it to change in future iterations. Rather, the size of the carrot will change OR the hand waving language will change.
2. The scope clause is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect jobs. I still haven’t figured out if this does that in any meaningful way, but that’s the point of Section 1. If your objections to the TA as written are along the lines of “where is the profit sharing,” or “hold on to scope for future bargaining,” I get it. But the only appropriate use of scope from a negotiating standpoint is: does altering the section improve the job security of Jetblue pilots in a short, intermediate, or long term capacity? If the answer is “no,” it must be rejected, no matter what the economic benefit is to the company or the pilots.
I would encourage everyone to consider their vote and the questions they ask of their reps from a job security perspective. If the TA is rejected, I would urge pilots to seek improvements in language that secure jobs, rather than carrots. These cost the company little and are of huge impact on us.
My 2¢.
Here is the most simple argument and stresses the importance for SCOPE that I have found"
"Anything related to SCOPE is significant as it correlates to job security and progression"
02-02-2021 | 12:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,690
Likes: 29
02-02-2021 | 12:37 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Could it be because their (lack of) scope protection already allows it? That pretty much sums it all up, doesn’t it?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
