JetBlue Latest and Greatest
#8821
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 503
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'll wager my preferential interview at Mr. Softee that it'll be a pay freeze, both annual and equipment, until May 1st.
Why else the specific date of May 1st? That way the company can boast " no rediction in hourly rates". Displaced? Keep the lower rate until May 1st.
Of course back pay will happen with a $100 gift certificate to JB Getaways.
Why else the specific date of May 1st? That way the company can boast " no rediction in hourly rates". Displaced? Keep the lower rate until May 1st.
Of course back pay will happen with a $100 gift certificate to JB Getaways.
![](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/clear.gif)
#8822
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 706
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'll wager my preferential interview at Mr. Softee that it'll be a pay freeze, both annual and equipment, until May 1st.
Why else the specific date of May 1st? That way the company can boast " no rediction in hourly rates". Displaced? Keep the lower rate until May 1st.
Of course back pay will happen with a $100 gift certificate to JB Getaways.
Why else the specific date of May 1st? That way the company can boast " no rediction in hourly rates". Displaced? Keep the lower rate until May 1st.
Of course back pay will happen with a $100 gift certificate to JB Getaways.
#8823
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 503
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It's just a WAG, but I'm working on combining vanilla AND chocolate on the same cone.
#8825
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 706
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
why when it’d be far less controversial to allow the company to lower the ALV Below the 74 hr limit, impose credit caps (let’s say sub 90 hrs), then do a massive displacement of excess pilots onto the 190, beyond the # needed for actual staffing the fleet, just to get them on a lower paying rate without even training or qualifying on the plane (similar to what DL is doing).... ready to retrain and plug into the system via a few supplemental bids as needed once things get revved up again. Anyone displaced to 190/FO without classdate a would just be happy cause the alternative would be the furlough, the company wins cause they took a huge chunk out of payroll (Lower payrates at min guarantee while not needing to pay out massive amounts of PTO/VPTO as required by the CBA) all with the ability to spool back up at short notice with many In that category pool requiring reduced requalification costs. Win Win
#8826
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
why when it’d be far less controversial to allow the company to lower the ALV Below the 74 hr limit, impose credit caps (let’s say sub 90 hrs), then do a massive displacement of excess pilots onto the 190, beyond the # needed for actual staffing the fleet, just to get them on a lower paying rate without even training or qualifying on the plane (similar to what DL is doing).... ready to retrain and plug into the system via a few supplemental bids as needed once things get revved up again. Anyone displaced to 190/FO without classdate a would just be happy cause the alternative would be the furlough, the company wins cause they took a huge chunk out of payroll (Lower payrates at min guarantee while not needing to pay out massive amounts of PTO/VPTO as required by the CBA) all with the ability to spool back up at short notice with many In that category pool requiring reduced requalification costs. Win Win
A Pilot who is displaced to a lower paying Status shall receive the pay
for his new Status beginning on the day he completes his required train-
ing (OE/Line Check).
for his new Status beginning on the day he completes his required train-
ing (OE/Line Check).
#8827
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 537
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
“the MEC will seek membership ratification of other proposed agreements or Letters of Agreement which modify contractual pay or that significantly modify work rules.”
My pay rate, my guarantee, my 2% COLA bump, and my annual pay scale step increase are all contractual pay items and cannot be unilaterally changed by the MEC without membership vote without violating the jetblue alpa policy manual. They would be opening themselves up to recall and potential lawsuits, not to mention causing a bunch of ****ed off members voting to decertify ALPA and vote in a different union if that happened. The 14 voting members don’t have that power, shouldn’t have that power, and that is why it is in black and white in their own policy manual that they can’t do that.
#8828
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 706
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hence an LOA, an LOA modifies the CBA and the language you cite. Same as mgt can’t reduce the ALV below 74, nor impose credit caps.... all REQUIRE an LOA! If the alternative for a large swell of those potentially displaced to E190 would be a furlough would they really be feeling slighted?! Notice the attention dedicated to displacements on the MEC Chair’s video, also realize if they were planning on keeping all the pilots on the list would there really be a need for ant displacements....especially considering as is the 190s will be over staffed for the foreseeable future!
Last edited by Desdi; 07-05-2020 at 03:58 PM.
#8829
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 537
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hence an LOA, an LOA modifies the CBA and the language you cite. If the alternative of anyone in that predicament would be a furlough otherwise would they really be feeling slighted?! Notice the attention dedicated to displacements on the MEC Chair’s video, also realize if they were planning on keeping all the pilots on the list there would really be no need for a large displacement now would there?
It makes no sense to carry a bunch of extra people in a dying fleet...especially if a bunch of $200+/hr 190 CAs would be displaced to 320 FO making less hourly (assuming the next bid is 220/320 FO heavy).
It makes a lot more sense to use the overstaffed time period (the whole next year) to transition everyone over to the 320/220. Artificially keeping a bunch of people on the 190 for a short time to lower pay rates, then creating a massive training need after demand comes back to the fleets that are actually sticking around, doesn’t make much sense to me.
#8830
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 706
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Well, imagine a scenario where the 190 was retired over the next year. That would be 900 displacements (minus the bid outs to vacancies created by new positions). 60 airplanes gone with 25 deliveries between last Jan and end of 2021...that’s about 35 planes worth of pilots we don’t need (which is 550ish assuming each plane flew the same block hours as previous staffing required).
It makes no sense to carry a bunch of extra people in a dying fleet...especially if a bunch of $200+/hr 190 CAs would be displaced to 320 FO making less hourly (assuming the next bid is 220/320 FO heavy).
It makes a lot more sense to use the overstaffed time period (the whole next year) to transition everyone over to the 320/220. Artificially keeping a bunch of people on the 190 for a short time to lower pay rates, then creating a massive training need after demand comes back to the fleets that are actually sticking around, doesn’t make much sense to me.
It makes no sense to carry a bunch of extra people in a dying fleet...especially if a bunch of $200+/hr 190 CAs would be displaced to 320 FO making less hourly (assuming the next bid is 220/320 FO heavy).
It makes a lot more sense to use the overstaffed time period (the whole next year) to transition everyone over to the 320/220. Artificially keeping a bunch of people on the 190 for a short time to lower pay rates, then creating a massive training need after demand comes back to the fleets that are actually sticking around, doesn’t make much sense to me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post