Boomer

I just read the new Q&A. To sum up:

“Dear pilot, This contract sounds like it carves up our scope. And, in all honesty, that’s exactly what it does.

But, if you stop reading the actual words, and think about what might happen, it’s not that bad. For example, just because this TA lets Jetblue give away our flying, it doesn’t mean they will.

It doesn’t say they HAVE TO give away our flying, it just says that they CAN.

So vote yes. The company might not actually need the scope relief we’re giving them.”

Boomer

Or in other words, it confirms all my suspicions:

”You reached out to us because you think the TA gives away 35% of our focus city and Caribbean flying, and 100% of our international flying...”

”Well, that’s exactly what it does. But we don’t think the company will do that.”

PSU Flyer

Some things never change at this place. How many times will the pilots fall for “The company wouldn’t do that” even though the TA allows them to do just that? If they have no intention of doing something, write the TA in a way that says that and prevents them from changing their mind in the future. Have people never rented a house or bought a car or done anything with a contract? The writing is what matters, not the intent or what the company said. We’re not friends with the company and we shouldn’t take their word for stuff. Put it in writing or it’s a no. It’s business, pure and simple.

Plus, a lot can change in the next 11 years. Who knows. Maybe a new management team comes in and wants to do things differently. Lucy and the football again!

Ted Striker

Read the Q and A, still a no vote for me.

If we are giving up contractual sections which cost considerable “value” as in monetary negotiating capital. Then I better see some considerable monetary return. It’s absolutely insulting for the company to value ten years of scope carve outs for a single one time 2% raise. When we would be negotiating for that raise anyway. It’s a no brainer for the company. We ask (at least try) for back pay during say the 4-5 years we work under our old contract. Some carriers get back pay, some get a signing bonus. The company is giving us money they might already have to give us anyway with a new contract!!

There is way too much gray area for me in this TA. We got absolutely smoked by the company on the pairings literally overnight when our contract passed. The union said it would never happen... guess what? It did. This is no different at all. Close every loop hole in writing, let the TA be on three year reviewable cycle, then back the brinks truck up and I will consider this.

DontCallMeCindy

Union email:

”The proposed LOA does not allow this. The American Capacity Purchase Agreements provide passengers directly to the mainline carrier at the specific terms dictated by the mainline carrier. JetBlue does not and will not have any relationship nor may even suggest where or when American Eagle aircraft operate.”

NASDAQ Article:

“The DOT agreement reveals that the two airlines plan to go a step further, though, by actively coordinating their schedules on routes to and from New York and Boston. That will allow them to offer more connecting opportunities and provide better time-of-day coverage on routes they both serve today.”

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/amer...nce-2021-01-16

So which is true? Is B6 allowed to coordinate schedules with AA in BOS and NYC or not?

Atl320

The statement is not a lie or a truth. It’s obfuscation. JetBlue can’t coordinate with an eagle carrier, but they can with American. Eagle only flies where and when American tells them. If JetBlue coordinates routes and schedules with American, then they are in fact also coordinating with eagle.

that answer from Alpa should tell you all you need to know about this TA. If they will lie to their own pilots about obvious facts, what else will they lie about?

I have always been an ardent ALPA supporter. I’m very disappointed in this whole situation.

A145

I’ve been a pretty solid no since the LOA came out but I’m also trying to take a devil’s advocate perspective and I’d like to see some holes poked in the stuff I’m thinking of. I see a lot of underrating of the damage of voting no while maybe overrating the damage of a yes vote. For example, listing all sorts of things the company CAN do with the LOA but not considering the things it might do without it.

If we vote no, we eliminate:
-blue city to blue city codeshare
-blue city to international codeshare within current fleet a/c range
-joint venture flying to international destinations we do not ourselves fly to

But the company can still:

-code share as much as it wants on non blue city routes while still maintaining service per the DOT approval. These can be flown by Eagle carriers with no limitations.

-potentially eliminate the revenue sharing and codeshare international routes outside of our fleets capability without limitations (is revenue sharing integral to the deal working?)

-cancel/modify LR orders and abandon Europe plans thus allowing American 100% of Europe codeshare without needing our approval.

-furlough, shrink ASMs systemwide, etc as long as it complies with the same very low bar required to extend the codeshare when it’s up for renewal.

If we vote yes:

-the company can codeshare blue city to blue city as long as we do 65% plus. We stand to gain some or stay stable where our blue cities match American hubs but could potentially reduce where they do not. Eagle could do this flying, much like they can do the non blue city flying whether we vote yes or no.

-the company can codeshare 100% of non Caribbean international from the northeast. I suspect this would slow our Europe growth even if they say they intend to begin it but the worst case is they axe Europe, same as a worst case no vote. Caribbean is 65% plus and we stand to stay stable or gain some.

-the company can revenue share on flights that exceed our fleet’s range without us having to acquire an aircraft to do that flying. Revenue sharing is some of the scarier part of this all for me but I don’t think we’re getting 330s either way.

Revenue sharing scares me and I think blue city to blue city is important to keep which is why I’m a no vote but I’m not seeing the doomsday scenarios of either yes or no.

Atl320

Loa 12 was asking if American could spend the night. Loa 13 is asking if we can sleep in the same bed.

They get the benefit of code sharing already. Allowing them to disarm us of our strongest contract section is too much.

What position are we in when AAL goes into CH11 then exits and announces a merger.
how do we argue career expectations, longevity, and category when we have already given them the opportunity to take the most valuable parts? How will that seniority integration go?

Then what leverage will the combined group have for a joint CBA when neither side has any scope to fall back on?

American has a 4:1 debt to equity ratio. They aren’t getting out of it without CH11.

it can all be accomplished before 2027 which would be when they have to unwind it.

Looking at this as job protection for a year ignores the that the downside could be career suicide.

AYLflyer

Can those who went from No to Yes explain what lead you to changing your mind? I've always been someone who is open minded and willing to listen to what the unions put out. I'm not a burn it down guy and understand that negotiations have two sides, but from my reading of this TA is comes off as a total loss to the pilot group, and unless I get some real, hard explanations then I'm still a No vote. If the explanation includes "The company wouldn't do it that way" or "We dont see them doing that", well then that's not enough for me, but again I'm all ears and want to hear from the YES crowd. We all saw how the reserve rules went when the contract passed. Tons of guys on call but nobody able to drop/swap because of limiting language and "We didn't think they would do that".

This is the best summary I've seen so far. When this all started I thought this was going to be a way for the two companies to help each other get through the covid downturn, suddenly it's looking like a 10-12 year deal with options and winddowns. Makes no sense but I don't like it.

Wounded Duck

I read all the new information. Still a hard no. It is interesting that the MEC is neutral on this TA.
Normally they are all in on a TA. The FAQ is how the union is interpreting the TA, none of that is a guarantee of how things will play out. After reading the language it feels like the MEC is being a little naive on a lot of it.