JetBlue Latest and Greatest
01-30-2021, 05:29 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 15
My question is that if you were presented with this LOA, without any of the furlough protections, COLA increase or EILs how would you vote? Would you voluntarily give this to the company? I thought that originally this was an agreement that was in the works for years and would have proceeded if it wasn’t for covid (i.e. the reduced block hours). Why are we now giving concessions all over section 1? The company can do just fine with the relief already given.
Section 1 of our CBA is there for a very good reason, specifically for times like these. The history of short term gains for scope relief has been proven. Aside from everything else, my issue with this LOA is that the furlough protection is a fallacy. It’s actually a concession, given up for very short term relief. Here’s my argument:
Our CBA States: “The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company on the effective date of the Commercial Agreement has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed 365 days prior to the effective date.” (O.K. fine, we gave relief on this already.)
“The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement provided:
In each one-year period commencing first with the calendar month that includes the effective date of the Commercial Agreement and then commencing with the anniversary month of the first such period, the Company operates at least 1% more aircraft block hours than in the previous one-year period.”
The key word here is to MAINTAIN this agreement. We must have year over year growth (block hours and active pilots are synonymous).
LOA 13 changes this. According to the new agreement:
(Sec B.2.a) “Using the 2021 Calendar Year as the base period”, (and we all know how many block hours are being flown currently)
b. “The number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2024 Calendar Year must be at least the greater of the following amounts:
i. Three (3) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2021 Calendar Year;
ii. Two (2) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in 2022 Calendar Year; OR
iii. One (1) block hour greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2023 Calendar Year.”
Again, the key word is OR.
This means that to MAINTAIN this agreement, instead of increasing the block hours year over year (current CBA), the company only has to increase the block hours for calendar year 2023. Anyone can see where this is going. Farm the flying out… furlough, and recall if needed in a few years. But wait… the company won’t do that, we have protection right?
J. “Early Termination of Certain Temporary Provisions Beginning with September 2021, if the Company’s total operating revenues (using total operating revenues as calculated for the Company’s Form 10-K and 10-Q), for any two consecutive months (e.g., September-October, October-November)is less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the total operating revenues for the corresponding two months in 2019, the Company may terminate Paragraph H here in on or after November 1, 2021”
I think everyone familiar with profit sharing knows how revenues work.
I’m on the bottom. If there is a furlough, I will be on the list. Please don’t vote yes for the reason that you are doing me a favor. The way I’m reading this is that you are not. In fact you will be doing me a disservice. I am satisfied with section 1 currently in our CBA. There is no reason that the company cannot provide furlough protection for the duration of this agreement. Only that would EVER make me consider a reason to give any concessions in section 1.
Section 1 of our CBA is there for a very good reason, specifically for times like these. The history of short term gains for scope relief has been proven. Aside from everything else, my issue with this LOA is that the furlough protection is a fallacy. It’s actually a concession, given up for very short term relief. Here’s my argument:
Our CBA States: “The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company on the effective date of the Commercial Agreement has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed 365 days prior to the effective date.” (O.K. fine, we gave relief on this already.)
“The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement provided:
In each one-year period commencing first with the calendar month that includes the effective date of the Commercial Agreement and then commencing with the anniversary month of the first such period, the Company operates at least 1% more aircraft block hours than in the previous one-year period.”
The key word here is to MAINTAIN this agreement. We must have year over year growth (block hours and active pilots are synonymous).
LOA 13 changes this. According to the new agreement:
(Sec B.2.a) “Using the 2021 Calendar Year as the base period”, (and we all know how many block hours are being flown currently)
b. “The number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2024 Calendar Year must be at least the greater of the following amounts:
i. Three (3) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2021 Calendar Year;
ii. Two (2) block hours greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in 2022 Calendar Year; OR
iii. One (1) block hour greater than the number of block hours operated by the Company in the 2023 Calendar Year.”
Again, the key word is OR.
This means that to MAINTAIN this agreement, instead of increasing the block hours year over year (current CBA), the company only has to increase the block hours for calendar year 2023. Anyone can see where this is going. Farm the flying out… furlough, and recall if needed in a few years. But wait… the company won’t do that, we have protection right?
J. “Early Termination of Certain Temporary Provisions Beginning with September 2021, if the Company’s total operating revenues (using total operating revenues as calculated for the Company’s Form 10-K and 10-Q), for any two consecutive months (e.g., September-October, October-November)is less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the total operating revenues for the corresponding two months in 2019, the Company may terminate Paragraph H here in on or after November 1, 2021”
I think everyone familiar with profit sharing knows how revenues work.
I’m on the bottom. If there is a furlough, I will be on the list. Please don’t vote yes for the reason that you are doing me a favor. The way I’m reading this is that you are not. In fact you will be doing me a disservice. I am satisfied with section 1 currently in our CBA. There is no reason that the company cannot provide furlough protection for the duration of this agreement. Only that would EVER make me consider a reason to give any concessions in section 1.
The same argument could be made as to why there aren’t higher growth requirements.
Where you lose me is the furloughing to farm out flying. I don’t see LOA13 being worse than what can already be done with LOA12 but maybe that’s a misreading if the situation. With LOA13 we could lose 35% of blue city to blue city ASMs but it seems to be a toss up when it comes to growing versus maintaining those markets when you compare city pairs were strong in and those American is. Non blue cities and we have zero control or limits whether on LOA 12 or 13. International stuff would require some changes to the agreement and maybe changing out fleet plans but if the company wants to it can freeze us out of Europe and deep South America either way. So in my reading the company has plenty of latitude to shift flying regardless of how we vote and voting no could potentially cause them to make decisions (modify LRs, cancel Europe) that are negative for both them and the pilot group.
I do wish we had more information on the finer points of the JV. According to the company, they don’t earn much revenue from AA operated flights, but how much is not much and when does it start changing decisions? If they’re correct, I don’t see how they’d ever have the incentive to give away flying we want to do. How a possible merger would play out there is a concern though. I don’t like the revenue sharing portion of the deal but I think that’s an area we do have power and voting no would means they’d have to abandon it to go forward without further agreement.
01-30-2021, 05:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 1,005
This is exactly why I no longer feel comfortable with our reps. Just about every pilot in here has been burned by loose language at one point or another. I just don’t get why they wouldn’t make this TA airtight. Even if it was, the length is a dealbreaker. I hope this thing get voted down.
01-30-2021, 05:37 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 15
IMHO..
This is not the job of ALPA to sell. It is the companies. We no nothing about the depth, worth or vision of this joint venture.
Interesting enough lets say there is a merger down the road. And we have given up all international flying out of the focus cities minus the 65% into the Caribbean does that change our CAREER EXPECTATIONS? This is one of the 4 bench marks for the merging of a seniority list and one probably weighted the most.
ORGANIC, CONTRARIAN......F7 and F8 are not for sale!
This is not the job of ALPA to sell. It is the companies. We no nothing about the depth, worth or vision of this joint venture.
Interesting enough lets say there is a merger down the road. And we have given up all international flying out of the focus cities minus the 65% into the Caribbean does that change our CAREER EXPECTATIONS? This is one of the 4 bench marks for the merging of a seniority list and one probably weighted the most.
ORGANIC, CONTRARIAN......F7 and F8 are not for sale!
01-30-2021, 05:46 AM
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
You are too afraid of them cancelling the LRs, as if that is some giant benefit to this pilot group. Some yes, but not critical in any way.
Second, not having international in a merger is better than GIVING YOUR RUGHTS TO IT AWAY VOLUNTARILY ahead of time. Then you have no claim to international now, or ever, because you gave it away.
Second, not having international in a merger is better than GIVING YOUR RUGHTS TO IT AWAY VOLUNTARILY ahead of time. Then you have no claim to international now, or ever, because you gave it away.
01-30-2021, 06:14 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: B6
Posts: 1,047
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.
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.
I will bite please see below to your comments. Some of it is misinformation and it's all in the language not whet you may have been told.
LOA 12 has already been approved by our MEC apparently for 10 years without pilot ratification (I can't believe i just said that). This is in Section F.1. It deal with CODESHARE It involves codesharing that they already have and has some metrics in there for why they needed our approval in this case. They can do all of this just like the code share with Silver Airways Please read.
LOA 13 deal with F.7 and F.8. It DEALS with a JOINT VENTURE. IT IS A MUST READ!!!!!!!This language (in our CBA) is in there to PROTECT us, It PREVENTS us from having to look the other way while others do our flying, deal with focus city to focus city. regional flying, , bypasses OUR international growth, and it ignores the idea we have the iron to fly that route. .....I am gonna stop there because I can't believe its ON the table. It is there for a reason and any change EVER for this requires PILOT RATIFICATION. This is why its in there.
Its terrifying that this temporary relief is for ONE DAY or what could be up 10 years.
Why do we have it in there? To prevent it and NEVERt allow it and PROTECT our jobs.
Remember they still have codesharing. They have flexibility from F.1. Like it or not form LOA 12
I LOVE this company and want this company to survive. OUR BRAND, ORGANIC, CONTRARIAN!
SCOPE IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE MY #!! This is what is under attack.
Here are my questions? Answers must be from the language we are voting on and nothing else........
Where are the details to this deal?
What is this deal worth?
How much for B6 to get out of this agreement?
How much for AA to get out of this agreement?
What happens if AA goes to BK?
What are the JETBLUE aircraft requirements for this agreement?
What are the AA, American Eagle, MESA aircraft requirements for this agreement?
Why could they still furlough in this agreement? see above questions.
MY SCOPE is not for sale. What we are voting on next week is a JOINT VENTURE. It is also is NEVER for Sale.
01-30-2021, 06:15 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 15
You are too afraid of them cancelling the LRs, as if that is some giant benefit to this pilot group. Some yes, but not critical in any way.
Second, not having international in a merger is better than GIVING YOUR RUGHTS TO IT AWAY VOLUNTARILY ahead of time. Then you have no claim to international now, or ever, because you gave it away.
Second, not having international in a merger is better than GIVING YOUR RUGHTS TO IT AWAY VOLUNTARILY ahead of time. Then you have no claim to international now, or ever, because you gave it away.
The merger angle makes things so much more dangerous and unpredictable. If in 5 years we’re merging which situation is worse for us?
Vote no:
-fly 100% of our own in range international
-possibly no LRs so AA code flies all Europe and deep South America
Votes yes:
- fly at least 65% of Carribean ASMs
- likely (but not necessarily) fly to Europe on our own
- possibly fly zero international ASMs within the agreement
- go in front of judge having voted to allow in range international codeshare.
I think yes is more damaging here and in most places but they both look pretty bad from a career expectations/category perspective. A yes vote could have us going into a potential merger flying more total international than a no vote but with the relief we gave hanging around our necks.
01-30-2021, 06:21 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 15
I will bite please see below to your comments. Some of it is misinformation and it's all in the language not whet you may have been told.
LOA 12 has already been approved by our MEC apparently for 10 years without pilot ratification (I can't believe i just said that). This is in Section F.1. It deal with CODESHARE It involves codesharing that they already have and has some metrics in there for why they needed our approval in this case. They can do all of this just like the code share with Silver Airways Please read.
LOA 13 deal with F.7 and F.8. It DEALS with a JOINT VENTURE. IT IS A MUST READ!!!!!!!This language (in our CBA) is in there to PROTECT us, It PREVENTS us from having to look the other way while others do our flying, deal with focus city to focus city. regional flying, , bypasses OUR international growth, and it ignores the idea we have the iron to fly that route. .....I am gonna stop there because I can't believe its ON the table. It is there for a reason and any change EVER for this requires PILOT RATIFICATION. This is why its in there.
Its terrifying that this temporary relief is for ONE DAY or what could be up 10 years.
Why do we have it in there? To prevent it and NEVERt allow it and PROTECT our jobs.
Remember they still have codesharing. They have flexibility from F.1. Like it or not form LOA 12
I LOVE this company and want this company to survive. OUR BRAND, ORGANIC, CONTRARIAN!
SCOPE IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE MY #!! This is what is under attack.
Here are my questions? Answers must be from the language we are voting on and nothing else........
Where are the details to this deal?
What is this deal worth?
How much for B6 to get out of this agreement?
What are the JETBLUE aircraft requirements for this agreement?
What are the AA, American Eagle, MESA aircraft requirements for this agreement?
Why could they still furlough in this agreement? see above questions.
MY SCOPE is not for sale. What we are voting on next week is a JOINT VENTURE. It is also is NEVER for Sale.
LOA 12 has already been approved by our MEC apparently for 10 years without pilot ratification (I can't believe i just said that). This is in Section F.1. It deal with CODESHARE It involves codesharing that they already have and has some metrics in there for why they needed our approval in this case. They can do all of this just like the code share with Silver Airways Please read.
LOA 13 deal with F.7 and F.8. It DEALS with a JOINT VENTURE. IT IS A MUST READ!!!!!!!This language (in our CBA) is in there to PROTECT us, It PREVENTS us from having to look the other way while others do our flying, deal with focus city to focus city. regional flying, , bypasses OUR international growth, and it ignores the idea we have the iron to fly that route. .....I am gonna stop there because I can't believe its ON the table. It is there for a reason and any change EVER for this requires PILOT RATIFICATION. This is why its in there.
Its terrifying that this temporary relief is for ONE DAY or what could be up 10 years.
Why do we have it in there? To prevent it and NEVERt allow it and PROTECT our jobs.
Remember they still have codesharing. They have flexibility from F.1. Like it or not form LOA 12
I LOVE this company and want this company to survive. OUR BRAND, ORGANIC, CONTRARIAN!
SCOPE IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE MY #!! This is what is under attack.
Here are my questions? Answers must be from the language we are voting on and nothing else........
Where are the details to this deal?
What is this deal worth?
How much for B6 to get out of this agreement?
What are the JETBLUE aircraft requirements for this agreement?
What are the AA, American Eagle, MESA aircraft requirements for this agreement?
Why could they still furlough in this agreement? see above questions.
MY SCOPE is not for sale. What we are voting on next week is a JOINT VENTURE. It is also is NEVER for Sale.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
