jetBlue Hiring
11-13-2013, 05:26 AM
#402
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Le'Bus de L'Air
Posts: 392
11-13-2013, 05:52 AM
#405
Otto
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: Turkish Pile Driver
Posts: 1,806
Here you go. Got this from a buddy......
The Pilot agrees that he/she will not, for a period of two (2) years after the first day of the
Pilot’s initial training class, for any reason accept re-employment with his/her most recent Part
121 air carrier employer, including its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions or groups, and
their respective successors and assigns (collectively, “Part 121 carrier”). For example, if the
Pilot’s first day of initial training is January 3, 2002 and the Pilot voluntarily separates from
employment with the Airline on June 3, 2002, the Pilot cannot accept employment with his most
recent Part 121 carrier until January 4, 2004. This Non-compete will be null and void two (2)
years after the first day of the Pilot’s initial training class.
The Pilot agrees that he/she will not, for a period of two (2) years after the first day of the
Pilot’s initial training class, for any reason accept re-employment with his/her most recent Part
121 air carrier employer, including its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions or groups, and
their respective successors and assigns (collectively, “Part 121 carrier”). For example, if the
Pilot’s first day of initial training is January 3, 2002 and the Pilot voluntarily separates from
employment with the Airline on June 3, 2002, the Pilot cannot accept employment with his most
recent Part 121 carrier until January 4, 2004. This Non-compete will be null and void two (2)
years after the first day of the Pilot’s initial training class.
Example 1: Guy who has never had an airline job is hired by JB. 6 months later he is subsequently hired by any part 121 carrier. The non-compete does not apply.
Example 2: A furloughed Delta pilot is hired by JB. 6 months after training he is subsequently hired by UAL. The non-compete does not apply. If it was Delta recalling then the clause would apply.
Example 3: A captain from Comair is hired by JB. 6 months after training Delta offers him a job. The non-compete applies to this situation. It is my guess this is the specific situation it was written to prevent.
The clause really seems to be aiming at regional guys going back to their old carrier's Legacy parent, although it could potentially apply to pilots who are furloughed. Am I reading this correctly?
11-13-2013, 05:55 AM
#406
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,258
What exactly are these interest cards?? Does it have to be ALPA?? I hope not, Alpa has been hosing us at the regional level, I would expect they would do the same to JB.
11-13-2013, 06:01 AM
#407
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: 190 FO
Posts: 406
I majored in common sense; not law, so please correct me if I'm wrong (I know you would even if I didn't caveat...). I read this as applying only to pilots who formerly worked at a part 121 carrier, and it only applies to their old company. I think best by example so here they are:
Example 1: Guy who has never had an airline job is hired by JB. 6 months later he is subsequently hired by any part 121 carrier. The non-compete does not apply.
Example 2: A furloughed Delta pilot is hired by JB. 6 months after training he is subsequently hired by UAL. The non-compete does not apply. If it was Delta recalling then the clause would apply.
Example 3: A captain from Comair is hired by JB. 6 months after training Delta offers him a job. The non-compete applies to this situation. It is my guess this is the specific situation it was written to prevent.
The clause really seems to be aiming at regional guys going back to their old carrier's Legacy parent, although it could potentially apply to pilots who are furloughed. Am I reading this correctly?
Example 1: Guy who has never had an airline job is hired by JB. 6 months later he is subsequently hired by any part 121 carrier. The non-compete does not apply.
Example 2: A furloughed Delta pilot is hired by JB. 6 months after training he is subsequently hired by UAL. The non-compete does not apply. If it was Delta recalling then the clause would apply.
Example 3: A captain from Comair is hired by JB. 6 months after training Delta offers him a job. The non-compete applies to this situation. It is my guess this is the specific situation it was written to prevent.
The clause really seems to be aiming at regional guys going back to their old carrier's Legacy parent, although it could potentially apply to pilots who are furloughed. Am I reading this correctly?
11-13-2013, 06:23 AM
#408
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 251
Example 3: A captain from Comair is hired by JB. 6 months after training Delta offers him a job. The non-compete applies to this situation. It is my guess this is the specific situation it was written to prevent.
The clause really seems to be aiming at regional guys going back to their old carrier's Legacy parent, although it could potentially apply to pilots who are furloughed. Am I reading this correctly?
The clause really seems to be aiming at regional guys going back to their old carrier's Legacy parent, although it could potentially apply to pilots who are furloughed. Am I reading this correctly?
For those pilots who are trying to make the best decision for their family and their career, it's important to know what you're walking into. Right now, it's just fuzziness.
11-13-2013, 06:28 AM
#409
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: 190 FO
Posts: 406
"Parent" is a word with a specific definition, as is "affiliate." There are only a few regionals left that affiliate with only one legacy carrier. Definitions matter. If you worked for Republic or SkyWest, this would apply to almost every single legacy airline out there, and the pilot would be potentially locked in at B6 with a as-yet-to-be-defined penalty for leaving inside the two year window, presumably incurring legal fees.
For those pilots who are trying to make the best decision for their family and their career, it's important to know what you're walking into. Right now, it's just fuzziness.
For those pilots who are trying to make the best decision for their family and their career, it's important to know what you're walking into. Right now, it's just fuzziness.
11-13-2013, 06:37 AM
#410
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,099
Jetblue was given very specific language from the PVC legal as to the definitions of "affiliate", "control" and others. This suggested language and definitions for section 15 were also given. Of course all the suggestions were disregarded.
Jetblue's reasoning for not placing any specific language in the PEA's is based on their belief that the "spirit" of the idea is incorporated in the document. Their are countless examples of the "spirit" of the rule being to applied the FSM, disability, insurance, vacation etc. In a calculated manner the airline choses to omit language and definitions in the PEA giving the airline specific flexibility. It's how it has always been done at Jetblue.
Insurance and vacation are one thing but section 15 is supposed to protect our jobs. Any airline with a union is going to eat us alive in a T/E because specific definitions are defensible in courts. The spirit of the section is not.
There is a substantial difference between the words "and" or "or" in a contract. A capital "P" in pilot means something completely different to a lower case "p".
We live in a specific CBA world with a generalized PEA.
Jetblue's reasoning for not placing any specific language in the PEA's is based on their belief that the "spirit" of the idea is incorporated in the document. Their are countless examples of the "spirit" of the rule being to applied the FSM, disability, insurance, vacation etc. In a calculated manner the airline choses to omit language and definitions in the PEA giving the airline specific flexibility. It's how it has always been done at Jetblue.
Insurance and vacation are one thing but section 15 is supposed to protect our jobs. Any airline with a union is going to eat us alive in a T/E because specific definitions are defensible in courts. The spirit of the section is not.
There is a substantial difference between the words "and" or "or" in a contract. A capital "P" in pilot means something completely different to a lower case "p".
We live in a specific CBA world with a generalized PEA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
