JetBlue Latest and Greatest
03-15-2022, 07:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,511
Originally Posted by todd1200
I voted “No” on the last one and was leaning “Yes” on this one based on my understanding of the process from here, particularly the memo from the arbitrator. Doing my best to read between the lines, he seems to be saying, if we put it back in his lap, he will find the company did violate our CBA and order a cease and desist on all FC to FC and FC to international codeshares. Then he will determine the amount of monetary damages due to the pilot group based on the harm that was caused. Since the NEA has led to growth, it’s been a net positive for the pilot group, therefore no harm and no damages. I believe his comments about the pilots sharing in the revenue are based on our relaxing 1.F.7 and 1.F.8. I see no way that he would issue a cease and desist and then give us a share in the revenue that we made allowance for—because that revenue would have ceased.
At the same time, the apparent inability of ALPA leadership to communicate any downside to the LOA makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what risks are being overlooked? I wouldn’t invest in a company that put “None” in the Risk Factors section of their 10k. There are always negatives and the important thing is to recognize and mitigate them, not pretend they’re not there. This pushes me back closer to a “No” vote.
At the same time, the apparent inability of ALPA leadership to communicate any downside to the LOA makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what risks are being overlooked? I wouldn’t invest in a company that put “None” in the Risk Factors section of their 10k. There are always negatives and the important thing is to recognize and mitigate them, not pretend they’re not there. This pushes me back closer to a “No” vote.
However, what the arbitrator’s decision will show is that our CBA (specifically Section 1 - Scope) preempts and supersedes any agreements the company makes with other airlines. That decision should have been forced within the 60-day contractual timeframe, but it was not.
I’m willing to turn down a 3% raise in order to force the arbitrator to actually rule on our scope grievance. This is the long game. Maybe the company comes back with a new offer, maybe they don’t. In either case ALPA has the leverage again.
The MEC memo urges us to make this a business decision, not an emotional one. That’s exactly what I am doing. Ignoring the shiny objects (3%) and holding out for a stronger position in Section 6 contract negotiations.
03-15-2022, 07:47 AM
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,879
Originally Posted by todd1200
I voted “No” on the last one and was leaning “Yes” on this one based on my understanding of the process from here, particularly the memo from the arbitrator. Doing my best to read between the lines, he seems to be saying, if we put it back in his lap, he will find the company did violate our CBA and order a cease and desist on all FC to FC and FC to international codeshares. Then he will determine the amount of monetary damages due to the pilot group based on the harm that was caused. Since the NEA has led to growth, it’s been a net positive for the pilot group, therefore no harm and no damages. I believe his comments about the pilots sharing in the revenue are based on our relaxing 1.F.7 and 1.F.8. I see no way that he would issue a cease and desist and then give us a share in the revenue that we made allowance for—because that revenue would have ceased.
At the same time, the apparent inability of ALPA leadership to communicate any downside to the LOA makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what risks are being overlooked? I wouldn’t invest in a company that put “None” in the Risk Factors section of their 10k. There are always negatives and the important thing is to recognize and mitigate them, not pretend they’re not there. This pushes me back closer to a “No” vote.
At the same time, the apparent inability of ALPA leadership to communicate any downside to the LOA makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what risks are being overlooked? I wouldn’t invest in a company that put “None” in the Risk Factors section of their 10k. There are always negatives and the important thing is to recognize and mitigate them, not pretend they’re not there. This pushes me back closer to a “No” vote.
Personally I think the most likely outcome of a ruling is a cease and desist, but with almost no monetary damages, or minimal. Then JB pilots take F7 and F8 into CBA 2 negotiations, knowing the company wants something from us. Or... The company comes back very quickly to the table with a better offer, because, unlike a year ago, time is no longer on their side. They knew a year ago they could start the full NEA, which they DESPERATELY wanted to do and that the arbitration process would take a long time. They knew that at any time before an adverse ruling, they could finally offer terms that were better than the first offer.
I said all that 1 year ago, and it came to pass. What is different right now? They do NOT want to go into court defending the NEA against the feds and 6 states with it's most important work group in an open arbitration against the NEA... Time is no longer on their side.
Is it possible that the arbitrator doesn't issue a cease and desist? Yep. I don't think it's likely, or the company wouldn't have put $30 million donuts on the table plus the other minor improvements. But it is possible. I think I'd be willing to take that risk because what is being offered is a 12-24 month 3% raise, and a few other crumbs, while the scope relief (and revenue) they seek will live on for a decade, or more. The failure to offer, or obtain profit sharing, which is language that would also live beyond the the NEA is absurd, and shows that NY does not value or respect the pilots. Just. My. Opinion.
03-15-2022, 07:48 AM
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,879
Originally Posted by Boomer
I share your read of the arbitrator’s letter. I have no false impression that the arbitrator’s decision will net us the 3% raise that the company/MEC is offering.
However, what the arbitrator’s decision will show is that our CBA (specifically Section 1 - Scope) preempts and supersedes any agreements the company makes with other airlines. That decision should have been forced within the 60-day contractual timeframe, but it was not.
I’m willing to turn down a 3% raise in order to force the arbitrator to actually rule on our scope grievance. This is the long game. Maybe the company comes back with a new offer, maybe they don’t. In either case ALPA has the leverage again.
The MEC memo urges us to make this a business decision, not an emotional one. That’s exactly what I am doing. Ignoring the shiny objects (3%) and holding out for a stronger position in Section 6 contract negotiations.
However, what the arbitrator’s decision will show is that our CBA (specifically Section 1 - Scope) preempts and supersedes any agreements the company makes with other airlines. That decision should have been forced within the 60-day contractual timeframe, but it was not.
I’m willing to turn down a 3% raise in order to force the arbitrator to actually rule on our scope grievance. This is the long game. Maybe the company comes back with a new offer, maybe they don’t. In either case ALPA has the leverage again.
The MEC memo urges us to make this a business decision, not an emotional one. That’s exactly what I am doing. Ignoring the shiny objects (3%) and holding out for a stronger position in Section 6 contract negotiations.
03-15-2022, 08:06 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,187
Originally Posted by todd1200
I voted “No” on the last one and was leaning “Yes” on this one based on my understanding of the process from here, particularly the memo from the arbitrator. Doing my best to read between the lines, he seems to be saying, if we put it back in his lap, he will find the company did violate our CBA and order a cease and desist on all FC to FC and FC to international codeshares. Then he will determine the amount of monetary damages due to the pilot group based on the harm that was caused. Since the NEA has led to growth, it’s been a net positive for the pilot group, therefore no harm and no damages. I believe his comments about the pilots sharing in the revenue are based on our relaxing 1.F.7 and 1.F.8. I see no way that he would issue a cease and desist and then give us a share in the revenue that we made allowance for—because that revenue would have ceased.
At the same time, the apparent inability of ALPA leadership to communicate any downside to the LOA makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what risks are being overlooked? I wouldn’t invest in a company that put “None” in the Risk Factors section of their 10k. There are always negatives and the important thing is to recognize and mitigate them, not pretend they’re not there. This pushes me back closer to a “No” vote.
At the same time, the apparent inability of ALPA leadership to communicate any downside to the LOA makes me uncomfortable and I wonder what risks are being overlooked? I wouldn’t invest in a company that put “None” in the Risk Factors section of their 10k. There are always negatives and the important thing is to recognize and mitigate them, not pretend they’re not there. This pushes me back closer to a “No” vote.
03-15-2022, 09:30 AM
New Hire
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 2
Might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the lack of furlough protection is disturbing. My memory is fuzzy but I’m pretty sure it was in the last one. The idea that the company could furlough, pay the measly $5 mil penalty for missing the growth metric and still use the NEA is nauseating.
I also don’t know why b6alpa hasn’t specified what “alpa policy” is in regards to distribution of the 3%.
I also don’t know why b6alpa hasn’t specified what “alpa policy” is in regards to distribution of the 3%.
03-15-2022, 09:39 AM
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,879
Originally Posted by Softpayman
Are people confusing this arbitration with Section 6? The amount is tied to NEA or is it not?
03-15-2022, 09:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,511
Originally Posted by Essayons92
The idea that the company could furlough, pay the measly $5 mil penalty for missing the growth metric and still use the NEA is nauseating...
Still, I can see ALPA going to the company after they fail to make one of the metrics and Robin saying “How do you want your $5 million, check, cash, or PayPal?”
03-15-2022, 05:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Posts: 2,918
I was a no the first time started to lean yes, but I’m going with no again. I know the game and we might net nothing but I’m fine with that. I’m just to going to vote for something that violates/changes scope on the contract no matter how “small” or “limited” it is.
Having said that I’m pretty sure it will pass.
Having said that I’m pretty sure it will pass.
03-15-2022, 05:48 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
I think your observations are very good. None of us know the outcome of the ruling, his letter is DESIGNED to scare all sides into a mutual agreement. He does NOT want to issue a final ruling. He would much prefer an agreement between both sides.
Personally I think the most likely outcome of a ruling is a cease and desist, but with almost no monetary damages, or minimal. Then JB pilots take F7 and F8 into CBA 2 negotiations, knowing the company wants something from us. Or... The company comes back very quickly to the table with a better offer, because, unlike a year ago, time is no longer on their side. They knew a year ago they could start the full NEA, which they DESPERATELY wanted to do and that the arbitration process would take a long time. They knew that at any time before an adverse ruling, they could finally offer terms that were better than the first offer.
I said all that 1 year ago, and it came to pass. What is different right now? They do NOT want to go into court defending the NEA against the feds and 6 states with it's most important work group in an open arbitration against the NEA... Time is no longer on their side.
Is it possible that the arbitrator doesn't issue a cease and desist? Yep. I don't think it's likely, or the company wouldn't have put $30 million donuts on the table plus the other minor improvements. But it is possible. I think I'd be willing to take that risk because what is being offered is a 12-24 month 3% raise, and a few other crumbs, while the scope relief (and revenue) they seek will live on for a decade, or more. The failure to offer, or obtain profit sharing, which is language that would also live beyond the the NEA is absurd, and shows that NY does not value or respect the pilots. Just. My. Opinion.
Personally I think the most likely outcome of a ruling is a cease and desist, but with almost no monetary damages, or minimal. Then JB pilots take F7 and F8 into CBA 2 negotiations, knowing the company wants something from us. Or... The company comes back very quickly to the table with a better offer, because, unlike a year ago, time is no longer on their side. They knew a year ago they could start the full NEA, which they DESPERATELY wanted to do and that the arbitration process would take a long time. They knew that at any time before an adverse ruling, they could finally offer terms that were better than the first offer.
I said all that 1 year ago, and it came to pass. What is different right now? They do NOT want to go into court defending the NEA against the feds and 6 states with it's most important work group in an open arbitration against the NEA... Time is no longer on their side.
Is it possible that the arbitrator doesn't issue a cease and desist? Yep. I don't think it's likely, or the company wouldn't have put $30 million donuts on the table plus the other minor improvements. But it is possible. I think I'd be willing to take that risk because what is being offered is a 12-24 month 3% raise, and a few other crumbs, while the scope relief (and revenue) they seek will live on for a decade, or more. The failure to offer, or obtain profit sharing, which is language that would also live beyond the the NEA is absurd, and shows that NY does not value or respect the pilots. Just. My. Opinion.
Yes they certainly wouldn’t offer ANYTHING out of the goodness of their heart. Obviously there is some worry. Some
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
