Softpayman

Just because in your estimation the CBA was against their best interests and got voted in doesn’t mean it was against their best interests. We find ourselves with some level of negotiating capital thanks to that CBA.

nuball5

I think the thing that gives me hope that this will get voted down, is that many of the pilots we’ve hired the past couple years in the so called “furlough zone” came from a regional carrier. So they’ve seen the effects of being whipsawed and having your flying be contracted out to multiple regionals firsthand.

PSU Flyer

No one said the CBA was against their best interests. In fact, the strength of the Scope section was a huge part of the yes vote. And now, just a few years later, the company (and apparently the union) want you to vote to destroy that. I don’t understand how anyone who understands this TA can possibly want to vote for it.

dingo222

We have to educate our pilots to the absolute grave dangers of giving up scope. If that means we call or email, then we do it. If there are only 2 takeaways from this to vote no, here they are.
1. AA pilots don’t get to vote or have a say into this agreement. Why? Because their scope is not nearly as strong as ours. We still have the ability to say no, and JB is offering us a 2% raise to give that up.

2. SP’s financially speaking e-mail says himself that we have weathered the worst of the storm. The company isn’t going out of business anytime soon, and they aren’t going to furlough anytime soon. We are being asked to give up scope for 10+ years for what? The man said we are just fine this morning. Don’t let your peers get played. This has career implications for every seniority list pilot at JB. Who’s making the bag stickers?

cloudtopper

When is the vote?

Bluedriver

I don't believe Republic, Skywest or Mesa are considered Wet Lease. They are more likely Capacity Purchase Agreements, and fall under the APA definition of Eagle Branded.

Bluedriver

You've been pretty silent since this came out. Are you OK with this TA/LOA?

Softpayman

No I don’t like it . And no amount of profit sharing would change it. I wouldn’t sell ourselves out for some profit that might never arrive.

leavemealone

I understand that the CBA didn’t have everything in it and as far as pay goes, for a lot it was break even with the reduction in PTO buybacks. Also with some of the rules for pay while getting extended while on reserve. But it still had some massive gains, one of which was the scope. Industry leading scope. That’s why the CBA passed.

This thing, on the other hand, gives flying to regional airlines, gives our international flying to AA and allows them to furlough in November and then base the growth metrics off for the code share off of a post furlough pilot group. For an additional year of raises on our contract, and a waiting room.

I am terrified of being furloughed but I literally read the first line of this LOA and didn’t even want to read further. Flying to a regional? Are you insane? Then I read further. Growth metrics based on the size of the company January 2022? Ummmm, no. Then you read the briefing notes and 100% of international flying can be done by AA? I just don’t get it.

Based on their email today and how they have been pumping requals and recurrent classes full of sunshine over the last couple months to me means they are trying to get everyone to think how great this deal is. ITS NOT.

Unfortunately we have a large swath of young guys in this industry whose careers have skyrocketed since they started flying and don’t seem to understand or, through no fault of their own, don’t have the ability to see how this could completely gut the company.

I just hope people can see through the smoke.

Bluedriver

Good, so we agree on all.

Changing the subject back to the TA, one of the growth metrics that must be maintained by the company in order to continue the codeshare is ASM growth.

But, it's using 2021 as the starting point, which will be low, and more importantly it's Available Seat Miles (block hours would protect better) of only 2%. What's the problem? Well the 100 seat E190s will be phased out of 140 seat A220s. So the ASMs will grow without a single added block hour. Well... They are required to add 1 block hour per year....

If this is going to create so much growth, why the ultra-low growth targets/requirements?

​​​​​​