really hope the reasonable offer was no rjs on fc-fc flying... that is a hard no. No matter what else is in there

AA is going to help cover it with the West Coast Alliance.

The company’s entire proposal for LOA 13 hinged on furlough protection. Now that this negotiating chip has zero value, the company would need to substantially increase their 2% pay offer to push the next LOA past the 50% threshold.

Same as if Jetblue were in negotiations to sell ALPA a house on a lot - but before a deal is reached, to everyone’s surprise the house burns down. Now Jetblue only has an empty lot to sell - the value on the deal just changed, and Jetblue has to chip in something else if they want to keep the original price tag.

Besides, it’s not the arbitrators job to determine how sweet a deal LOA 13 was for either party. The arbitrators sole job is to determine if any part of the NEA violates 1.F.7 and/or 1.F.8.

The company and ALPA both agree that it violates our CBA, so arbitration can really only go one way.

Except that the union made a proposal based off data collected from pilots at a time when furlough was still a real threat.

I really want to think the MEC is smarter enough to know the situation has drastically changed but they couldn’t even see the situation was rapidly changing from the he time they started negotiating loa13(in October and November) to when we voted on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ask CK how he’d vote right at this moment on the previous LOA 13….if he could do it all over again right now. His answer will shock you. Or maybe it won’t.

I’d say that the same applies to a significant portion of the pilot group. Throw a few bucks at ‘em (2%, once, to be precise) and they’ll fold like a cheap card table. I’d like to think that things would be different the second time around, but history speaks for itself. Maybe a lesson was learned? Time will tell…

* funny part is, I’ve yet to meet an acknowledged yes voter on the line. They’re there, they just don’t speak up. Maybe that bodes well for the future.

I’ve run into a few. They seem well intentioned for the most part…just brainwashed by the MEC sell job. I can forgive that. It’s our elected reps (outside of the current 191) that I’m having a hard time with. Especially the Chairman. I’ll reserve complete judgement until I see the next proposal.

New arbitration update says that while the union is committed to enforcing our contract, they are also following membership direction to obtain career protection.

It sounds like the MEC is merely using the data obtained from pilots which was collected before the recovery. That was a time when furlough was still a threat which makes that data irrelevant as the situation has changed.

It does not sound like they have adjusted their playbook to match reality which would be unfortunate. Perhaps I am reading too much into that one sentence, and I hope I am wrong.

Outsider looking in, but wouldn't "career protection" be synonymous with "scope protection"?