JetBlue Latest and Greatest
01-29-2021, 12:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,327
I agree with you on this. I am glad they sent that email. It may have swayed my vote from no to yes
01-29-2021, 12:36 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 42
01-29-2021, 01:18 PM
Saab Saab Phooey!
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Set Hundo
Posts: 479
At least I’m hearing resounding no’s across the board from everyone I’ve talked to. I’d say 5-10% leaning yes. Ironically, it’s the Jr guys who are about to get chopped (including myself) that are the hardest No’s....that’s somewhat reassuring. Its all these guys out on incentive leave that I wonder about. I wish we could vote this piece sh!t down tonight.
01-29-2021, 01:23 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: fifi whisperer
Posts: 1,255
01-29-2021, 01:26 PM
Saab Saab Phooey!
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Set Hundo
Posts: 479
I'm curious about how we proceed following a "no" vote. Clearly the company wants the deal, and I think they sent the offer across the table to us thinking "why wouldn't these guys want 40 extra planes worth of flying, especially right now? That alone should get their attention." And I think it does to some degree, I saw it in the AIP and thought it would especially be helpful getting our pilots back flying again. What I gather from here though is that in general we're not comfortable with the length of the agreement and the lack of protections we get in terms of scope. I'm all for scope relaxation if it means we get the spoils (sorry AA) of the joint deal. So either the company can come back to us knowing that they can comply with their agreement with AA and us simultaneously, or they have something else in mind down the road that needs us to sell out our scope for a short term gain of 40 planes which (to me) doesn't make sense.
01-29-2021, 01:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,008
Respectfully, could you please share why you’re a yes vote now or what changed your mind? To me it’s a lot of “I don’t foresee them doing that” type of stuff, rather than holding their feet to the fire and making it legally binding.
01-29-2021, 01:35 PM
Saab Saab Phooey!
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Set Hundo
Posts: 479
Whenever your union, or friendly chief pilot, or IP buddy at JBU says “I don’t think the company would do this”, or “that is not what this language is intended to mean”, or “this is intended to prevent this”. What they are actually saying 100% of the time is: If this is good for the company, they will absolutely do this if they can get away with it.
if the language in any way allows it, and it’s good for them and sucks for you, it is probably going to happen.
If a deal looks bad, and someone has to explain to you that it is actually good, in reality it is probably still bad.
Last edited by LoudFastRules; 01-29-2021 at 01:58 PM.
01-29-2021, 01:42 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 98
...butttttt the DOT approval explicitly allows AA (which includes all feeders per the LOA) and JB to coordinate slot times.
Did your rep clear that up for you? Because it seems fairly clear to me we have a gaping disparity in some of the “facts” being thrown around.
01-29-2021, 01:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2020
Posts: 128
There’s still too much:
That’s not the intent
That’s only a minimum
That won’t happen
Fine, put it in writing. It’s like a partnership agreement with a business. The time you really need is when there’s a dispute. Then language matters.
That’s not the intent
That’s only a minimum
That won’t happen
Fine, put it in writing. It’s like a partnership agreement with a business. The time you really need is when there’s a dispute. Then language matters.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
