You know what's crazier, it ain't just him/her that think that way.

Fact that he/she states they wouldn't come back from the 2 years off tells me "soon to retire" also. The other fact is, they wouldn't get that 2 years off. The very most would be 2 or 3 months then come right back to live in the dog pile LOA 13 for the next 21 months, while we are stuck with that LOA for 120 months. So the very reason the person voted yes, they didn't even get it. As they say, leave the place better than how you found it.

You exude “you above all”! Congrats!

The fact is, pilots have a long history of stabbing each other in the back for selfish reasons. Management knows this. I blame ALPA and our reps specifically (most of them) for running that pile of sh!t out for a vote. It was demoralizing to see 47% of us willingly hand over scope for essentially nothing. Oh wait....more flying. Outside of the 191, this MEC is a joke.

lots to unpack here….

I think it’s safe to say you and I are on very different sides of this vote. Not trying to change your mind or your viewpoint, but rather give you insight into the mind of a yes voter. Despite 47% of us voting yes, very few of us actually are willing to be public about it.

My few points to give everyone insight into my thought process-

1) why do you consider this LOA a back stabbing for selfish reasons? Aren’t all our gains selfish? Isn’t it selfish that I want the highest pay possible? Look— I wanted this LOA to pass for one specific reason: growth. More airplanes, more pilots, more block hours— with added protections to not roll back numbers. Selfish or not, this is good for us as a pilot group. More upgrades, more new hires, and more VDA’s if that is your thing.

2) several of you have stated we are handing over scope “for essentially nothing.” First off, it was a limited agreement that the union can still quash after 5 years. Still no RJ’s in JetBlue paint. I respect your position, but I think scope is a trigger word for many of you. I’d invite you to look at the risks given the wording, the extent scope is being given away, and the union’s ability to take back said scope.

3)I’m sorry you felt “demoralized” by my voting yes. I assure you, I voted yes for the same reason you voted no— I want what is best for the pilot group.

I disagree, the arbitrator can't just disregard black and white contract language. The scope says what it says. The company can't codeshare focus city to focus city or focus city to international. This isn't subject to interpretation, it's black and white. He can and in the absence of a negotiated agreement likely would issue a decision requiring them to stop the parts of the NEA that clearly violate the agreement. That doesn't kill the whole NEA, only parts of it.

I still believe the company knows/knew it would have to come to an agreement with JBALPA but wanted to get the NEA started ASAP and wanted to show strength to temper pilot expectations.

I guess we will all know sooner or a little later.

I might know this guy, and he's not lying when he says he doesn't care about you.

interesting take on the arbitrator. I hope you are right.

I am cautiously optimistic that the JBalpa can get the company to offer the pilot group sometime that makes 75% of the pilots happy. This 50-50 stuff is no good for the pilot group.

so much is wrong in this post.

I hope so as well. My understanding is this isn't mediation, where the mediator guides the two parties through a mutually agreeable solution and at the end issues a compromise. This is scope arbitration where he simply decides if the CBA scope section is being violated, per the actual language, or not.

I wouldn't be surprised if the company ASKED the arbitrator, through back channels if need be, to tell the pilots/company to go back and try to reach an agreement before risking an adverse decision (even if bluffing).

I also hope for a decisive outcome in the pilots favor.