Softpayman

I think that's a possible outcome. They can always sweeten the pot but the sticking point will remain scope. And at that point they can either sweeten the pot and give us the guarantees we want while complying with their agreement with AA or they realize that the assurances we want run contrary to their whole playbook with AA and the deal implodes (unless AA bends). I'm fine with the deal imploding, but to me best case is we get a sweet pot plus guarantees and metrics that protect our scope while growing our company.

Bluedriver

Agree. They can also amend the deal with AA to comply with a modified TA. At a minimum, why RJs hub to hub? No thanks.

And if this is supposed to result in big growth for JB, put much more aggressive growth requirements in the TA itself. Otherwise it's a leap of faith for the spoils, but the scope erosion is contractual and in writing.

We each get one vote, and this isn't nearly good enough for this guys vote.

And among other things, including more restrictions and guarantees, profit sharing is the "starter", or it's a "non-starter". Good thing it costs them nothing for at least a couple of years until they are well out of this crisis.

AYLflyer

10 year option, 24 mo wind down for what? Furlough protection? They can keep it. We've been under threat of furlough for 1 year now. I hate to sound like a dick but if in the 1 year of protection we've had, you haven't gotten yourself a good furlough cash fund then that's on you. I don't want to see any pilot on the streets but we've had time to prepare for this. I'm not letting go of scope because they might save my job for another year, and yes I'm in the bottom 20%. Nobody should be voting Yes on this because they don't want to be furloughed.

At recurrent they've been talking about hiring in the summer and flying to London. Doesn't sound like furlough talk.


I'm not. I will never vote yes on a contract that relieves scope. Anybody who has spent a day at a regional knows that's a death sentence. We have 190s, we're getting 220s, we can fly our own regional routes.

stanherman

+1. I hope we shoot it down and the deal tanks. Although highly unlikely, I really don’t want Jetblue doing any kind of business with AA. It has and always will be a complete dumpster fire.

Boomer

This TA is the closest we will ever get to voting on our own merger.

If we vote yes, it’s out of our hands forever.

usmc-sgt

Curious about legacy AA snack offerings. I’m a yes if they offer coke products.

Boomer

OK folks, USMC Sgt has discovered the first positive item in this TA.

Dirtplt

The real question to ask is what does this mean about long term. Scope is a fence. And the company wants to take that fence down. AA, PSA, Piedmont, Jetblue, and who ever else could be pitted in a multi way bidding war for flying down the road. The labor wars that were pitting the regionals against regionals in a race to the bottom, which could be a vote away from being brought in house. This is managements dream come true. They play darts while we slowly bleed out from the pin pricks.

PotatoChip

Here's what I would like answers to...
I understand that we need to give away something in section one in order to allow American to fly routes in a codeshare agreement. We fly for them, they fly for us, it's a codeshare, not revenue. It's passengers getting access to more routes, frequent flier programs, etc. I understand we (ALPA) have to limits on this (65/35 in the LOA). Fine. All makes sense.
-But why are all AA regionals involved?? Why does the language specify they could operate B6 code, and the union responds with "that's not going to happen" and "that's not how it supposed to work"??? If that really is the case, GET IT IN WRITING or I'm voting NO 100% of the time.
-And why does the language allow for AA to fly 100% of international routes outside of the Caribbean? WHY? I completely understand that we want them to fly international routes, and we gain flying by feeding their network, that's the point! But -WHY make the language say 100%?? What about all our SA flying? Does "within the normal operating range of our aircraft" include the soon-to-be-delievered A321LRs? That's not addressed.
-I had initially thought (through MEC communications) that this was going to be approximately three years worth of agreement. This would get us through the pandemic AND be within our current contract. Why 10 years?? What changed?
-Why is this now a joint venture? What happened to only codesharing?

seekingblue

New Q & A out. Thought the first Q&A was garbage—confusing and misleading.

talked to a NC member at length and went from NO to YES.

Hopefully they can better address the concerns of the pilot group.