Jetblue and the PVC
 

The latest email from the PVC is exactly why a CBA and a strong bargaining unit is required.

Jetblue used the previous PVC, known as the "fab 4", to push through the very language they are arguing against. Jetblue is trying to circumvent your ability to vote on scope and code share provisions, prevent the PVC from having legal representation, and change your work rules without your consent to negate any raises. If this doesnt wake you up to the reality of what Jetblue management is about then nothing will.

Also, pay increase that will require givebacks in work rules, and scope. This in a time, where workrules and scope are actually improving with pay. Jetblue is different though.

Direct quote from Joanna L. Geraghty.
Below is jetblues perspective on your pay and benefits.


"We're very mindful of ensuring we don't pay simply for longevity but that we pay for performance."

"And if you're at the top end of the pay scale, you have an opportunity to earn more if you're performing better. So really trying to do things differently and not fall into the same pitfalls that our competition has fallen into."


"Right. We're currently in the midst of meeting with our pilots, so it's not reflected in the 2013 costs. What we'd be looking at is 2014 costs. But again, we're literally day 2 into collaborating with our pilots around what those numbers should look like and we're going to ask for things in return so that we can try to offset some of the costs, those R&A [ph] cost but also the revenue front."

If we go to a performance based pay scale, I want in my PEA that if my performance causes the company to go bankrupt, I can leave and take a $1 million severance. I mean, it works for upper managment, why not us, too?

Paying your crews shouldn't be called a "pitfall" that your competition fell into any more than buying gas for the planes should. It's part of the cost of flying airplanes.

Waiting for the anti-union and pro-managment dipsh**s to chime in and say, "If you're miserable, go some place else. ALPA did this to me at <insert regional carrier>."

Wake up everybody. Your organic growth is that A330-200 painted in Hawaiian Airlines colors...and quite possibly American Airlines colors, if the AMR/LCC merger doesn't go through!

Any hopes pilots have with the PVC sound like a pipe dream.

Uhh, more like any hopes pilots have with Management giving us a pay raise sound like a pipe dream. Recently the PVC told management "no" to giving in on scope.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwllig8Yhe1qhwaxg.png

:)

Jetblue and the PVC
 

It is a simple equations pay the pilots or we start leaving in groves. I for one will not sign anything that gives any scope away and if they don't pay better I will leave as soon as practicable. However, we need a CBA to move forward as a pilot group.

RRRiiiiigghht.:rolleyes:

Seriously.

http://www.tayloranderson.net/rocket...h_pvc_pipe.jpg

MMMkay:rolleyes:

There is no way this happens. You want to pay pilots more for higher productivity, I have no problem with that as long as it is safe and complies with the rules.

You want to pay people more based on some kind of net promotion score for the best PA or on-time performance now your getting too subjective or the company is promoting an unsafe environment. Before you know it people will be doing a song and dance while taxiing faster than the SWA guys (kidding).

This is ridiculous and if they truly want to try performance based pay, say hello to the ALPA cards.

Jetblue and the PVC
 

So do you guys think that the pilot group would cave on scope, given the example/history of the existing regional carriers?

Of course it would be stupid to cave about on scope, but 53% of Jetblue pilots are slow learners.

This is certainly a viable option, given the current pilot shortage.

Is not about caving. Much the like the FSM we don't really have a say. Absent a CBA all we can do us request individual arbitration and start the "3A" process all over which has taken over 3 years.

Scope isn't as large an issue, right now, as the domestic code share and premium time give back. JetBlue is keen on raising your pay provided you allow them to domestically code share and limit your ability to make extra money. Cost neutral is the goal.

JetBlue has no intent on giving you any say on scope or code sharing. Again, call your PVC and find out for yourself.

They already do. It's called "premium pay." The more hours you fly in a month (thus making you more productive) the more you get paid. If they start performance based pay, well, there are a LOT of things outside of our control that can affect that. I, for one, don't want to see my pay affected because we get ground stopped by ATC, the AO doesn't board us on time or a ramper is too slow loading bags.

Now, if they want to make it a BONUS program based on our performance numbers, sure. In fact, lots of other airlines have that.

The company has yet to show its cards in what they're offering. The drums are beating. I can see the ALPA smoke signals rising. We have to see what the offer and changes are first. If ALPA rolls in it will be post this negotiation and a CBA is still at least 3 years away. Not to mention 3 years of management v. Pilot pleasentries during the negotiation. I'm not saying this is a deterrent to ALPA, and if the company puts a steaming turd on the table in a few weeks its time to formally organize. It will be ugly that's for sure.

Exactly. After hearing the very vague Jeff Martin report from yesterday, management knows the next few months are going to be trying.

P3

If they put the giant turd on the table its too late. Get the cards and get in lab conditions now before they have the chance to take it all away.

Take what away? I thought we didn't have anything worth having in the first place?

What is all this code share talk? ALPA doesn't prevent codeshares. Delta, united, AA, Hawaiian, Alaska ALL have significant domestic and international codesharing.

I agree we need a CBA, but you are talking nonsense.

Incorrect. The last Delta contract put a limit on codesharing at least on international routes. I think they saw the writing on the wall when they realized the Delta 767 going from JFK-CDG were becoming Air France 777s via a code share. Hawaiian doesn't restrict code shares because most of them benefit THEM. Ours is a prime example. Why fly JFK-RDU or JFK-CLT when you can code share with jetBlue to do it and still just fly JFK-HNL? Your costs don't increase, but your revenue does. Alaska is more or less in the same situation.

Honestly, codeshare restrictions should be the next scope battle or we're all going to see a lot of the routes "American Carrier Airlines, operated by European Codeshare." We need code share resrictions here to keep us from going into an "alliance" type agreement with another domestic carrier(s) rather than "growing organically."

I disagree w/Eagle. It doesn't matter if the vote is tomorrow for ALPA. This PEA negotiation is already in motion. It's better to leverage the drive as a question mark, and not just say well, we're going union anyways so chop away at us.

That's a good point. DB has openly said he wants to code share with anyone for anything.

You need to read the 5 documents. Code sharing on international routes is allowed for a 2 year period at which the pilot group, via the PVC, is supposed to poll the pilots and gauge in continuing the code share.
Domestic there is no limit hence Hawaiian.

Lastly unions by name don't prevent code shares. Pilot groups with bargaining power do. JBPA won't have the resources to negotiate it. ALPA will have the resources made available to the JetBlue pilot group.
Talking nonsense? Seriously!

You need to read the 5 documents. Code sharing on international routes is allowed for a 2 year period at which the pilot group, via the PVC, is supposed to poll the pilots and gauge in continuing the code share.
Domestic there is no limit hence Hawaiian.

Lastly unions by name don't prevent code shares. Pilot groups with bargaining power do. JBPA won't have the resources to negotiate it. ALPA will have the resources made available to the JetBlue pilot group.
Talking nonsense? Seriously!

The only nonsense is JetBlue pilots who think management is protecting anything other than the bottom line at any cost.

Thanks for telling me nothing of any importance.

I said DL, UAL, AA, Alaska and Hawaiian all have significant codesharing. I also said ALPA doesn't prevent codesharing (read the first sentence again).

How are EITHER of those statements incorrect???

I want a CBA, but we WILL have codesharing in a CBA, just as EVERY other carrier (all union, most ALPA) that I named above.

You say "prevent code shares". You mean like DL, AA, UAL, Alaska and Hawaiian?

Yes, nonsense.

Limit it, maybe. Prevent it, NO WAY. You are full of SHI%%%%

No one's talking about PREVENTING them except you. We're talking about putting the handcuffs on them so we don't get hosed out of jobs in the name of revenue and profits. I have no problem code sharing with most of our international partners as I don't see us ever flying from JFK or BOS to Dubai. It's the domestic routes that have me concerned. I COULD see us doing LGB-HNL if we got bigger aircraft. But it's cheaper to codeshare with Hawaiian. We COULD start service into Midwestern markets, but it's cheaper to codeshare with American. Hence the reason we need to keep restrictions in place.

You are arguing semantics.

Can we agree right now you have NO protection at all? That with a stroke of an email key everything can change? That they probably already have the code share agreement in place by whats been said during the investor call in and quarterly reports? That they expect you to pay for your raise with give backs?

How about this? Can we agree that through a union the american pilots were able to protect themsevles down from imposed unlimited domestic codeshare to 50% and then down to 5% in the combined UsAirways LOA? That without their union they like us would have been at the mercy of thier management? That they wihout thier union would have unlimited codehare right now?

Unions can prevent codeshare as well. SWAPA has done it for years.

It is notably inferred by benz and his goons that a union would prevent codesharing. Read one of his last posts. He says a union couldn't prevent codeshares, but then says that ALPA could give us the resources to prevent codeshares (at least that is what he seems to infer).

The problem with both your arguments is history.

I am not saying that it wouldn't help, but it will not be our codeshare savior.

We are going to grow, even with the codeshares. You mention American. They want to codeshare with us. We can either codeshare with them, get the revenue from it, and continue to expand into OTHER cities. Or, we could say NO, and be forced to start those new routes ourselves, while competing in a fare war with the new AA on those routes. And those new routes that we have to do battle on, are planes that can't be used to start other routes that could have been more profitable...

You guys that think that we should just deny any codesharing because it would force us to fly to Hawaii, or Dublin, or wherever are delusional. It won't. All it will do is limit our revenue that could be used to start flying other places. It WON'T make them order 100 more new planes so that we can fly those routes ourselves.... If we aren't ready yet, we aren't ready yet.

Personally, I would rather codeshare with AA on routes that we don't have to start an all-out war, and use those revenues to start new routes to other places where we don't have to have a fare war.

Would that leverage of massive shortfalls somehow disapear if the union vote was tomorrow? Is there a better time to have the negotiation than when we are so far behind people will be leaving unless the company moves quickly?


Ill leave what I posted but let me take another stab at this.

You are right. The threat of a union is extremely useful. However scope is very rarely put back in the bottle. Once gone it is usually gone(the American negotiation all happened in a matter of months and they were able to negotiate it down because it was never fully implemented).

Scope is so very important to me personally and I think so undervalued by pilots at large. I for one will forgo this "raise" temporarily, to make sure we dont lose massively on scope/codeshare now. One thing has been perfectly clear from management so far during this "negotiation," they do expect us to pay for it somehow.

quote from the PVC email
"Communications from Flight Operations, the PAR Team, and from Senior Leadership all continue to narrowly set pilot expectations of this year’s “contract review” to a wage rate change that is paid for by work rule concessions and scope relief."

There is a quote mirroring this from investor day that im looking for currently.

I agree it can help. And, it could possibly give us some leverage. More reasons I am, and have been pro CBA.

But it is always suggested by Benz and his buddies that if we had a CBA, we wouldn't have these codeshares or interline agreements... If you had been watching this whole industry, you would know that isn't the case.

You know what, I just can't stand the OVER selling or false promises.

Otherwise, carry on.

You are looking at this from the benfit of us being the cheaper carrier. Yes right now the AA codeshare would be great for us. What happens when it becomes cheaper for management to outsource all the 190s? Or the codeshare dynamics shift in favor of the other company? Its about 2 way protection upguage and down guage.

Ok great! I dont think anyones over promising on purpose. They just see the huge risk that having ZERO SAY is.

I have those concerns, and think we need a CBA. I do think that would fall under a different part of the scope section, but yes, we need it.

Every pilot group negotiates their own terms. Pilot groups can and do prevent code shares if it is beneficial. They also approve others. Its called negotiating, something JetBlue pilots can't do. Stop being part of the problem and try being a solution.

Then please explain why both Delta and American tightened their codeshare language in their new contracts. If history says they're good, then why are they tightening control?

Which is why I'm arguing for codeshare CONTROL. If the markets are profitable, why not start them and get a greater share of the revenue rather than a percentage through a code share? If they're not (or won't work in our system), that's when a code share becomes a valid point. I don't see us ever flying Allentown-Philadelphia, but we might be able to pick up some customers that live in Allentown that want to get to Boston that way.

Negative. I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm arguing for RESTRICTIONS on code sharing, not denying them. If you'll re-read my post, I even point that out in regards to international flying. Not sure where you're getting that I'm saying deny all code shares.

But no control over the codeshares leads to us potentially NOT growing. If we can garner revenues hand over fist via a code share, where's the incentive to enter another market. We've got tons of places we could fly domestically that are tripping over each other to bring us in. CLE and CVG have both expressed interest, and I think we could do well. By your argument, however, we should just let AA (or even Delta) operate out of BOS to those cities while we concentrate elsewhere. What happens when it comes to the point where we make more money by NOT doing anything? With code share controls, we could start the market ourselves and generate revenue that way. Does it hurt the bottom line? Not much, but what it DOES do is protect jobs at jetBlue rather than further growth at American (likely dba American Eagle). This all ties back into the scope that you're supporting in a later post. Scope isn't just about protecting our flying from the regionals anymore.