PasserOGas

I read the FAQ. Then I read the contract. If the company agreed that the call was positive contact why isnt that in the contract? Why did the language change?

Are you going to trust your job based on an ALPA FAQ, that will be removed from the web once this is passed or the actual wording of the contract?

When has, "But the company promised!" been worth anything? If they meant it, it would be in the TA.

Why are you guys doing mental gymnastics to pass this thing? I honestly don't get it. The pay increase is basically a COLA adjustment from what we have now. What is the huge motivator to accept all these loopholes and crappy pay?

CaptCoolHand

work rules: what loopholes are you talking about? 14hr max duty, 6hr auto rls on last day rsv with 1100 carve out, there's a commuter clause in there nothing below average... every one has a dependability policy whats your issue? Night override, ADG the list goes on. whos contract will have better work rules for extensions and disruptions? no one.

retirement raised from fuzzy13% to 15% going to 16%? massively? you're delusional.

Pay, no argument there, it's short. but not that short. Considering the massive improvements across the board, locking in scope and work rules I'm willing to pick up the fight again in 3.5yrs. I've been fighting this fight here at jb for over 10 how much did you help our union besides paying dues?

vote how you want, but your reasoning isn't there.

cmesoar

Great post Capt!
One thing you did not mention is his dumb comment saying the TA Scope = Market rate... WHAT? Lets see, Delta, United, American, Alaska all allow their flying to be farmed out, outsourced and flown by pilots not on their list. Alaska simply does not have any scope. The only one we are below is SWA. Hey passer, what scope do we have now? Again, I am tired of lies. My number one item was scope in my surveys and the NC hit the target for me.

queue

If it requires interpretation, you will lose. BJ will simply call it positive contact, you will get suspended for a month (or whatever), then you will "grieve" it through some B.S. "arbitration" process (remember 3A), years later you may recover a week's pay all during which BJ will continue to "interpret" the language and accomplishing their goals of exploitation.



Only the legal language matters. If it's not in the contract, it doesn't exist. I agree with you. It doesn't matter what notes of intent ALPA has. Whenever you go to arbitration (even with some notes), it's NO GUARANTEE of victory. Besides, even victory doesn't mean victory (3A). [Incidentally, we should not be agreeing to ANY contract that has binding arbitration - it takes away your right to a fair trial - it replaces it with a kangaroo court always beneficial to the corporation]


Binding arbitration allows a corporation to *get away with an infraction* then use a bureaucratic kangaroo court process to reduce the harm of the infraction on the corporation to a "cost of doing business". Remember when 3A stole your money and what happened? -- BJ got away with it despite being ruled in violation of the PEA.



The only solution is to VOTE NO to TA 1 and make darn sure TA 2 has no legal loopholes (and better pay). Don't count on ALPA MEC/NC to tell you these things. They are doing roadshows to sell you a lemon.



This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

PasserOGas

True express flying is banned, but as usual you ignore all the give backs. Unlimited code sharing. And let's not forget the huge giveaway in Brazilian JVs. Overall it is market rate though. Pluses and minuses. It is not SWA, it is not DAL, its Jetblue market rate. It's what the whole contract should look like, not just 1 section.

PasserOGas

No other commuter policy has a whole paragraph dedicated to how you can be disciplined even if you follow it. They have a paragraph explaining that if you follow it you are protected. Period. Dot.

Again, retirement is ok IF YOU RETIRE AT 65. If you retire early pleas do some math on how much the company saves by providing ZERO HEALTH INSURANCE to a married couple aged 55-64. Literally ALL our peers get coverage during this period. We do not. Below standard.

queue

Vote how you want but if you wait for 3.5 years to fix these gross deficiencies, you will have considerably less leverage to do so because you are sabotaging your long term efforts today. It's all about precedent. Once you allow something to happen, it will be virtually impossible to undo it. You are being uninformed and naive if you think you can fix this 3.5 yrs later rather than now. They will have a considerably stronger argument to keep something that works (for them) rather than give into a negotiation.

The language in this TA is so weak that it's effectively no better than a PEA because virtually everything in it requires interpretation. That means that BJ will violate "your interpretation" of a clause in the contract, then you will be stuck in arbitration forever getting it fixed. Oh yes, and good luck getting ALPA to actually help you, much less win. Remember 3A.

Who benefits from vague legal language?

• BlueJet - they'll violate the contract under their "interpretation" of it and accept the results of arbitration as the "cost of doing business".
• Lawyers - they love ambiguity because they get paid just for spending time on something. Vagueness keeps them employed.
• ALPA - it gives them a "victory" (in their eyes) and keeps them as the monopoly in town. ALPA is already pretty excited to claim another "victory".

Who loses?

• You

Vote NO... Fix TA 1 and get a TA 2 that has no loopholes.

F&H is a law firm - not a "union buster" in the literal sense. Their job is triage. Their job is to contain the effects of unionization by presenting controlled opposition and vague legal language that benefits the company. With TA 1, F&H wins. We'll be stuck in "arbitration" forever just like with 3A, meanwhile BJ reaps the benefits from the "cost of doing business" (breaking the contract through interpretation).

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

queue

That is very eloquent and spot on. Even if you follow the "commuter policy", it is NOT protecting you in any way whatsoever. It says you are always guilty. The TA does not change it... it makes it worse by making it contractual.



What the contract needs to say is:
"YOU ARE NOT LIABLE *IF* (1) you have 1 flight on BJ, (2) you have 2 flights on OAL". It does not say this.



This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

CaptCoolHand

A commuting Pilot who complies with the requirements of this Section shall not be subject to discipline based on missed commute unless there is evidence that the miscommutes are the result of inadequate planning by the Pilot.

Personally, I'm glad the spelled out what could happen in the event your plans have gone poorly. That way there are no surprises should you have to deal with this.

But that said, it's simple. comply and you shall not be disciplined.

Youre right there's no early retirement benefit. This is not market rate. however, I suppose if you want to retire early that's on you. If you've planned that well to retire at 55, you've probably planned for your health care as well. Not worth voting no on imo. There are more benefits to lock in than this in this TA.

queue

Inadequate planning is not defined. BJ can simply say "you knew the crosswinds would be out of limits based on the TAF. You could have come in 2 days early, you didn't." This type of argument has been used by BJ in the past.

It does NOT say that 1 BJ flight or 2 OAL are enough. The TA has an escape clause ("inadequate planning") in the language that makes the commuting guidelines nothing more than guidelines. That's also the problem with the PEA - no solid lines are drawn.


This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.