"Latest and Greatest" about jetBlue
05-12-2012, 06:56 AM
#2651
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 712
While I understand your point I don't quite agree with you. If you believe the language in Section 15 is worth the paper it is written on, then one could argue that we are better off in a T/E. Take the AirTran/SWA scenario. I don't want to get into the specifics of Section 15 on this public forum, but if you believe Section 15 we would have been much better off than AirTran.
The problem with Section 15, is it takes a certain amount of trust in our management team. Many pilots find it very difficult to trust management. You also need to have some knowledge of MaCaskill-Bond. Again the nay-Sayers will argue that there are many ways to get around the legislation. But again one could also argue that JetBlue would have gone to arbitration if they were involved in the same scenario as SWA/AirTran. Again, rather not get into the details on this public forum.
Essentially it will come down to a personal comfort level when balancing risk and trust associated with management and your future if a T/E were to take place. But for every argument against section 15, most folks can come up with an equal argument in its favor. The best thing to do is educate yourself on both sides of the argument and make an informed decision.
The problem with Section 15, is it takes a certain amount of trust in our management team. Many pilots find it very difficult to trust management. You also need to have some knowledge of MaCaskill-Bond. Again the nay-Sayers will argue that there are many ways to get around the legislation. But again one could also argue that JetBlue would have gone to arbitration if they were involved in the same scenario as SWA/AirTran. Again, rather not get into the details on this public forum.
Essentially it will come down to a personal comfort level when balancing risk and trust associated with management and your future if a T/E were to take place. But for every argument against section 15, most folks can come up with an equal argument in its favor. The best thing to do is educate yourself on both sides of the argument and make an informed decision.
05-12-2012, 07:05 AM
#2652
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 536
Is it really a good idea to trust that management, whether present or future, will be looking out for the best interest of the pilot group while trying to work out their own deal? After all Mc-B says that management can represent the pilot group if they want to.
Also, imagine APA versus JB pilots with individual PEAs. I have no doubt that we would get ripped to shreds. Our $2mil fund that supposedly exists somewhere for the purpose of T/E representation would, after individual pilots who wish to go their own way and take their share of the fund out, not get us very far.
As the DC law firm(s?) told our PVC, we live in a CBA world. Like it or not we need to jump on the CBA boat or drown like rats (hypothetical T/E withstanding).
Also, imagine APA versus JB pilots with individual PEAs. I have no doubt that we would get ripped to shreds. Our $2mil fund that supposedly exists somewhere for the purpose of T/E representation would, after individual pilots who wish to go their own way and take their share of the fund out, not get us very far.
As the DC law firm(s?) told our PVC, we live in a CBA world. Like it or not we need to jump on the CBA boat or drown like rats (hypothetical T/E withstanding).
The APA's own union magazine acknowledges that any future merger will go to Arbitration under McCaskill-Bond legislation. Read the merger article in this link: https://public.alliedpilots.org/APA/...qo%3D&tabid=59
Again, with regard to the $2 million, one could argue that the pilot group could collect a merger fund to account for legal fees in the event of a T/E. One could argue that we are better off in any merger going to Arbitration vs ALPAs merger language which takes precedence over M-B in the event of a T/E.
05-12-2012, 07:42 AM
#2653
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
The APA's own union magazine acknowledges that any future merger will go to Arbitration under McCaskill-Bond legislation...One could argue that we are better off in any merger going to Arbitration vs ALPAs merger language which takes precedence over M-B in the event of a T/E.
A lot of the end result could depend on the larger pilot group's willingness to work with management and grant temporary relief in their own section 1 clauses to permit operating separately with conditions and time limits for the purpose of phasing a smaller airline out. Pilot groups don't like to do that because no one likes to grant management any kind of relief in section 1 M,A&F language during a merger, but any group would be severely pressured to do so if they (their legal team) read this chapter 15 you keep speaking of and it really was all that.
Going into a merger with a very young group with relative integration all the rage these days, especially when that group could be in some sort of superior position, and with no way to engage the younger group and get a binding agreement because everyone is going in several thousand different directions very well could, as you pointed out, make for a pulverizing merger to any other group that attempts it. The potential windfall from a young 12 year old start up getting full relative would be mind blowing. All of that is why any pilot group would be nuts not to work with management to legally avoid all that by any means necessary.
If you do have it better off, that is a weakness not a strength.
05-12-2012, 10:32 AM
#2654
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 194
CR read this copied post below. This is reality.
First of all, McCaskill/Bond only says that two pilot groups must be integrated via Alleghaney/Mohawk in a fair and equitable manner--it does NOT say what "fair and equitable" is. Fair and equitable is determined by the two pilot groups agreeing to the merge. Alleghaney/Mohawk provides the framework for the integration--and it specifically states that non-unionized pilot groups "may" be represented by their management for that integration Why? Because non-unionized work forces do NOT have a legal means for someone to act on their behalf! So-- when the company says that we must be fairly and equitably integrated in accordance with McCaskill-Bond, they are absolutely correct--except for all that other stuff they are NOT telling you. BTW-- the government looks to see that an integration process was followed as per Alleghaney-Mohawk. The government does NOT evaluate whether it was a fair nor equitable RESULT-- that is left up to the two parties determining the integration. For us that means whatever our ELT accepts and what the other union determines to be fair and equitable. You don't like it? Arbitration with an imaginary $2 million from some source AFTER you pay first.
When the PEA is talked about in terms of the company having to merge lists, the real answer is that JetBlue Airways would, but something like a JetBlue Group would not. Why? Because the ELT has refused to use standard industry language to define both what JB could be as a controlling entity and what control can be--in other words, Jetblue Airways could reside under Peterson Group, who also has 60 E-190 aircraft operating in the islands under a name called Carribean Blue, and that would be perfectly OK by our PEA. If, however, jetBlue Airways bought all of American Eagle aircraft and put them under the JetBlue Airways operations, THEN there must be an integration--but American Eagle's MEC would represent them in the deal WITHOUT one JetBlue pilot in the room.
In regards to furlough-- we do NOT have a "no furlough" clause. We have a severance clause--we have asked for the specific words "no furlough" to be placed into our PEAs over the last few years and each time the ELT refuses. If someone were to purchase us, the PEA states we cannot be furloughed in the first year, but if we were, then we must receive one year's pay. Additionally, no where in our five year contract does it say that an acquiring airline MUST auto-renew our contracts. So...we COULD be furloughed AFTER the first year without a dime. We COULD be let go within the first year with one year's pay. Or as our 5-year contracts expire, the other acquiring company COULD let us go. Without specific, industry-standard language, anything COULD happen beyond what this ELT promises. Also, no definition of "how" we are to be furloughed, in what order, and how we would be recalled. Again, all too specific for this ELT to include in our PEAs and ignored in the 5-docs.
In regards to the SWA/AirTran merger-- the SWAPA in-house and ALPA-sponsored MECs had to follow the same NMB rules that ALPA carriers have to follow in regards to SLI because McCaskill-Bond/Alleghaney-Mohawk covers all mergers of operations. For Mc-B to apply, two things MUST happen-- (1) operations are merged and (2) the acquiring company ends up controlling the other company. The key in this acquisition was that (a) Guadaloupe Holding-not SWA- purchased/acquired AirTran and (b) SWA held the upper hand in making the deal--key to the deal was whether or not the two "operations" were to be merged at all. In fact, the two operations have yet to be fully merged! Guadaloupe Holdings could have purchased AirTran and shut them down after a while. However, both MECs agreed to the 2nd SLI offered and both pilot groups approved of the SLI-- that is why the results did NOT go to arbitration. Finally, SWA was the bigger and "older" pilot group to AirTran, so integration was never going to be good for AirTran from AirTran's perspective. Definitely more to the story than this (like the AirTran MEC passing on the first offer to attempt to go for date-of-hire instead), but definitely NOT as framed by Sandy's e-mail. One other point to be made is that AirTran was operating under an in-house contract when Guadaloupe Holdings purchased them-- the words, definitions, and requirements for "operations", "merging of operations", and "control" were NOT defined in their contract. Given they were under ALPA, between contracts, ALPA helped them the best they could under the existing in-house document. Does this sound familiar???
Our pro-pilot PVC members and previous "obstructionists" over the last four years have identified numerous faults and shortcomings within our PEA and the amendments, the least of which was easily summarized by the DC-lawyers interviewed before the Christmas holidays--we really must trust that our ELT will do the right thing for us given that our PEAs reside in a CBA world. In other words, we are contrarian and industry leading because we are the ONLY MAJOR AIRLINE WITH 2300+ INDIVIDUALLY CONTRACTED PILOTS.
...do you really believe this company will protect YOUR interests given that our CEO has repeatedly stated the priorities are shareholders first, customers second, and crewmembers third? Finally, why does the company continually deny putting CBA-like industry-standard language and definition improvements into our PEAs under the excuse "we must retain flexibility in an uncertain marketplace?"
Sandy just signed the legal and corporate comm's latest attempt to appease the masses. Either there is something afoot between JB and another company or they really are afraid of the next organizing campaign...
First of all, McCaskill/Bond only says that two pilot groups must be integrated via Alleghaney/Mohawk in a fair and equitable manner--it does NOT say what "fair and equitable" is. Fair and equitable is determined by the two pilot groups agreeing to the merge. Alleghaney/Mohawk provides the framework for the integration--and it specifically states that non-unionized pilot groups "may" be represented by their management for that integration Why? Because non-unionized work forces do NOT have a legal means for someone to act on their behalf! So-- when the company says that we must be fairly and equitably integrated in accordance with McCaskill-Bond, they are absolutely correct--except for all that other stuff they are NOT telling you. BTW-- the government looks to see that an integration process was followed as per Alleghaney-Mohawk. The government does NOT evaluate whether it was a fair nor equitable RESULT-- that is left up to the two parties determining the integration. For us that means whatever our ELT accepts and what the other union determines to be fair and equitable. You don't like it? Arbitration with an imaginary $2 million from some source AFTER you pay first.
When the PEA is talked about in terms of the company having to merge lists, the real answer is that JetBlue Airways would, but something like a JetBlue Group would not. Why? Because the ELT has refused to use standard industry language to define both what JB could be as a controlling entity and what control can be--in other words, Jetblue Airways could reside under Peterson Group, who also has 60 E-190 aircraft operating in the islands under a name called Carribean Blue, and that would be perfectly OK by our PEA. If, however, jetBlue Airways bought all of American Eagle aircraft and put them under the JetBlue Airways operations, THEN there must be an integration--but American Eagle's MEC would represent them in the deal WITHOUT one JetBlue pilot in the room.
In regards to furlough-- we do NOT have a "no furlough" clause. We have a severance clause--we have asked for the specific words "no furlough" to be placed into our PEAs over the last few years and each time the ELT refuses. If someone were to purchase us, the PEA states we cannot be furloughed in the first year, but if we were, then we must receive one year's pay. Additionally, no where in our five year contract does it say that an acquiring airline MUST auto-renew our contracts. So...we COULD be furloughed AFTER the first year without a dime. We COULD be let go within the first year with one year's pay. Or as our 5-year contracts expire, the other acquiring company COULD let us go. Without specific, industry-standard language, anything COULD happen beyond what this ELT promises. Also, no definition of "how" we are to be furloughed, in what order, and how we would be recalled. Again, all too specific for this ELT to include in our PEAs and ignored in the 5-docs.
In regards to the SWA/AirTran merger-- the SWAPA in-house and ALPA-sponsored MECs had to follow the same NMB rules that ALPA carriers have to follow in regards to SLI because McCaskill-Bond/Alleghaney-Mohawk covers all mergers of operations. For Mc-B to apply, two things MUST happen-- (1) operations are merged and (2) the acquiring company ends up controlling the other company. The key in this acquisition was that (a) Guadaloupe Holding-not SWA- purchased/acquired AirTran and (b) SWA held the upper hand in making the deal--key to the deal was whether or not the two "operations" were to be merged at all. In fact, the two operations have yet to be fully merged! Guadaloupe Holdings could have purchased AirTran and shut them down after a while. However, both MECs agreed to the 2nd SLI offered and both pilot groups approved of the SLI-- that is why the results did NOT go to arbitration. Finally, SWA was the bigger and "older" pilot group to AirTran, so integration was never going to be good for AirTran from AirTran's perspective. Definitely more to the story than this (like the AirTran MEC passing on the first offer to attempt to go for date-of-hire instead), but definitely NOT as framed by Sandy's e-mail. One other point to be made is that AirTran was operating under an in-house contract when Guadaloupe Holdings purchased them-- the words, definitions, and requirements for "operations", "merging of operations", and "control" were NOT defined in their contract. Given they were under ALPA, between contracts, ALPA helped them the best they could under the existing in-house document. Does this sound familiar???
Our pro-pilot PVC members and previous "obstructionists" over the last four years have identified numerous faults and shortcomings within our PEA and the amendments, the least of which was easily summarized by the DC-lawyers interviewed before the Christmas holidays--we really must trust that our ELT will do the right thing for us given that our PEAs reside in a CBA world. In other words, we are contrarian and industry leading because we are the ONLY MAJOR AIRLINE WITH 2300+ INDIVIDUALLY CONTRACTED PILOTS.
...do you really believe this company will protect YOUR interests given that our CEO has repeatedly stated the priorities are shareholders first, customers second, and crewmembers third? Finally, why does the company continually deny putting CBA-like industry-standard language and definition improvements into our PEAs under the excuse "we must retain flexibility in an uncertain marketplace?"
Sandy just signed the legal and corporate comm's latest attempt to appease the masses. Either there is something afoot between JB and another company or they really are afraid of the next organizing campaign...
05-12-2012, 10:35 AM
#2655
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 194
And read this:
EXCLUSIONS AND NO DUPLICATION OF PAYMENTS.
Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement, JetBlue shall not be obligated under this Agreement to make any indemnity or pay Expenses in connection with any Claim made against Indemnitee:
a. to the extent Indemnitee has otherwise actually received payment (under any insurance policy, employment agreement or otherwise) of the amounts otherwise indemnifiable hereunder; or
b. to the extent prohibited by applicable law or public policy (including gross negligence or willful misconduct (fraud)); or c. in connection with any Claim (or any part of any Claim) initiated by Indemnitee against JetBlue or any third party or any Claim initiated by JetBlue against Indemnitee.
--
--
--
The indemnification agreement in the Charter says JetBlue can sue any committee member. That sucking sound you are about to here is the rush to the door by pilots resigning from the committees.
This is the Jebtlue relationship you are so keen on retaining. One that discourages the truth. One that clearly states should you tell the truth to the pilots you should be terminated or sued.
EXCLUSIONS AND NO DUPLICATION OF PAYMENTS.
Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement, JetBlue shall not be obligated under this Agreement to make any indemnity or pay Expenses in connection with any Claim made against Indemnitee:
a. to the extent Indemnitee has otherwise actually received payment (under any insurance policy, employment agreement or otherwise) of the amounts otherwise indemnifiable hereunder; or
b. to the extent prohibited by applicable law or public policy (including gross negligence or willful misconduct (fraud)); or c. in connection with any Claim (or any part of any Claim) initiated by Indemnitee against JetBlue or any third party or any Claim initiated by JetBlue against Indemnitee.
--
--
--
The indemnification agreement in the Charter says JetBlue can sue any committee member. That sucking sound you are about to here is the rush to the door by pilots resigning from the committees.
This is the Jebtlue relationship you are so keen on retaining. One that discourages the truth. One that clearly states should you tell the truth to the pilots you should be terminated or sued.
05-12-2012, 10:38 AM
#2656
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 194
I appreciate your passion for this company but you truly have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. If you took the time to call your PVC rep and ask what is really going on you wouldn't be on this board defending the DR.
05-13-2012, 10:46 AM
#2657
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 66
Dayum!! Been off of this forum for a week and.....
Ho...Lee...$hit!!! That's an overload of doom and gloom there brother! Easy easy easy!
Take some deep breaths, then grab a Heineken and relaaaaaaaaax!
LMAO!! No kidding!!
Ho...Lee...$hit!!! That's an overload of doom and gloom there brother! Easy easy easy!
Take some deep breaths, then grab a Heineken and relaaaaaaaaax!
LMAO!! No kidding!!
05-13-2012, 11:58 AM
#2658
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 73
I agree with your first 2 paragraphs, to bad you lost so much credability with the last paragraph. We all want to see JetBlue be profitable but until we get a CBA we will be below industry standard. I am sick to death of the pessimistic attitude of some people on this board as well, but the best way to improve things is to exercise our rights of collective bargaining. I am 100% for JBPA, I just am not a fan of ALPA (because we would be viewed as a regional)
Oh and by the way 450. ALPA has stated over and over that in the UNLIKELY event the TWA judgement against them is upheld there will be no assessment to membership, the insurance will cover it. Do you actually think this judgement is going to stand, especially that amount? TWA was on life-support and ALPA had NOTHING to do with the furloughs, Mohamed Atta did, sue him!
Last edited by whatifguy; 05-13-2012 at 12:10 PM.
05-13-2012, 06:06 PM
#2659
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 194
And again, how are we going to pay for our legal fees? Since our contract, I mean, PEA clears states...
...$2,000,000 (Two Million U.S. Dollars) that shall be shared on a pro rata basis by all pilots employed by Airline on the date of the occurrence of a Potential Transactional Event; provided, however that such fund shall be used for the sole purpose of supplementing any expenses Pilot may incur for legal representation during the seniority integration process.
...$2,000,000 (Two Million U.S. Dollars) that shall be shared on a pro rata basis by all pilots employed by Airline on the date of the occurrence of a Potential Transactional Event; provided, however that such fund shall be used for the sole purpose of supplementing any expenses Pilot may incur for legal representation during the seniority integration process.
05-13-2012, 07:12 PM
#2660
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 524
How old are you? Are you capable of a fact based post or retort?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
