Jetblue and the PVC
04-16-2013, 04:32 PM
#181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 900
So, do we know what the company wants out of this codeshare deal? Everything has been pretty darn vague so far, and that's kinda disconcerting. Vague when it comes to contracts normally comes back to bite you when you least expect it. The PVC e-mail today was kinda "Scope for Dummies" without much meat on it.
04-17-2013, 05:19 AM
#184
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,099
Look code sharing is an industry accepted practice. If done correctly it can benefit both sides. There are several issues associated with Jetblue's solution. First the pilot group, via the PVC, must ensure the upcoming codeshare does not stunt our growth as a pilot group. We must protect ourselves against Capacity Purchase Agreements, ensure we do not lose block hours, ensure we do not limit future domestic growth or routes and as the PVC acutely pointed out this agreement cannot be made with a current snap shot in mind.
There are many issues associated with the type of agreements. For those of you who have not been here 3-4+ years Jetblue made it very clear years prior that Jetblue would never enter into an agreement such as this. Not only would they not code share but they certainly would not do it with a carrier like AA. To paraphrase Dave Barger he stated this would never happen as AA's culture would take care of our customers.
Lastly, the conversation between the PVC and Jetblue tying codeshare to a pay raise must STOP!!!
Alaska, which jetblue counts as our peer, enjoys an 11% operating CASM advantage yet still provides and industry standard/leading pay and benefits pacakge. Jetblue, on the other hand, provides a bottom of the industry pay and benefits package while enjoying a 28% operating CASM.
You must email your PVC and the PAR advising them you will not accept a give back. Pay is not tied to codeshare.
There are many issues associated with the type of agreements. For those of you who have not been here 3-4+ years Jetblue made it very clear years prior that Jetblue would never enter into an agreement such as this. Not only would they not code share but they certainly would not do it with a carrier like AA. To paraphrase Dave Barger he stated this would never happen as AA's culture would take care of our customers.
Lastly, the conversation between the PVC and Jetblue tying codeshare to a pay raise must STOP!!!
Alaska, which jetblue counts as our peer, enjoys an 11% operating CASM advantage yet still provides and industry standard/leading pay and benefits pacakge. Jetblue, on the other hand, provides a bottom of the industry pay and benefits package while enjoying a 28% operating CASM.
You must email your PVC and the PAR advising them you will not accept a give back. Pay is not tied to codeshare.
04-17-2013, 06:17 AM
#185
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
Look code sharing is an industry accepted practice. If done correctly it can benefit both sides. There are several issues associated with Jetblue's solution. First the pilot group, via the PVC, must ensure the upcoming codeshare does not stunt our growth as a pilot group. We must protect ourselves against Capacity Purchase Agreements, ensure we do not lose block hours, ensure we do not limit future domestic growth or routes and as the PVC acutely pointed out this agreement cannot be made with a current snap shot in mind.
There are many issues associated with the type of agreements. For those of you who have not been here 3-4+ years Jetblue made it very clear years prior that Jetblue would never enter into an agreement such as this. Not only would they not code share but they certainly would not do it with a carrier like AA. To paraphrase Dave Barger he stated this would never happen as AA's culture would take care of our customers.
Lastly, the conversation between the PVC and Jetblue tying codeshare to a pay raise must STOP!!!
Alaska, which jetblue counts as our peer, enjoys an 11% operating CASM advantage yet still provides and industry standard/leading pay and benefits pacakge. Jetblue, on the other hand, provides a bottom of the industry pay and benefits package while enjoying a 28% operating CASM.
You must email your PVC and the PAR advising them you will not accept a give back. Pay is not tied to codeshare.
There are many issues associated with the type of agreements. For those of you who have not been here 3-4+ years Jetblue made it very clear years prior that Jetblue would never enter into an agreement such as this. Not only would they not code share but they certainly would not do it with a carrier like AA. To paraphrase Dave Barger he stated this would never happen as AA's culture would take care of our customers.
Lastly, the conversation between the PVC and Jetblue tying codeshare to a pay raise must STOP!!!
Alaska, which jetblue counts as our peer, enjoys an 11% operating CASM advantage yet still provides and industry standard/leading pay and benefits pacakge. Jetblue, on the other hand, provides a bottom of the industry pay and benefits package while enjoying a 28% operating CASM.
You must email your PVC and the PAR advising them you will not accept a give back. Pay is not tied to codeshare.
For perfect clarity, are we not voting on PPA changes that would alter our scope and codesharing?
Seperately, are we signing new PEAs that would include our peer-set-industry-average pay increases?
Looks via the protocol agreement that we do these two things seperately and individually.
04-17-2013, 06:47 AM
#186
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,099
You are correct but as negotiations progress they are tied together. Although they are separate items in separate documents the raise will not come unless we give up scope.
Based on the investor conference Jetblue has agreed to the codeshare but needs PVC approval. Martin also stated that the codeshare must be agreed to prior to pay raise information being discussed.
Yes, they are two separate documents but make no mistake jetblue will require the codeshare to be agreed upon prior to receiving any raises.
Based on the investor conference Jetblue has agreed to the codeshare but needs PVC approval. Martin also stated that the codeshare must be agreed to prior to pay raise information being discussed.
Yes, they are two separate documents but make no mistake jetblue will require the codeshare to be agreed upon prior to receiving any raises.
04-17-2013, 06:55 AM
#187
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
How? Its actually very simple math. The prebate reimburses you 23% of the federal poverty line. Now, multiply what you spend by 23%. Take that number and divide it by the difference of the prebate and spending. The answer is your effective tax rate. So you can see that as the numerator increases with spending and the corresponding reduction of the denominator because of the prebate, the effective gets closer to 23%. Progressively, if the poor family only spend half of their income on new goods and services, their effective tax rate will actually be negative. In other words, they pay less in taxes than they get from the prebate.
Like I said, this is not a yearly calculation as it is today. You keep getting hung up on that. It's a tax on ALL wealth regardless of WHEN you made or WHEN you spend it. And regardless of whether you earned it from pay checks, capital gains, dividends, inheritance, etc. it's ALL taxed at a 23% inclusive tax rate.
Lets not get stuck thinking congruently. We need to think out of the hectogon that our current tax laws have become.
Anyway, just to put it simply, its progressive because the poor pay negative taxes and the wealthy pay 23%. Those in between being poor and wealthy pay a progressively higher tax rate as they spend more. I don't know how much simpler to explain tax progressiveness.
Like I said, this is not a yearly calculation as it is today. You keep getting hung up on that. It's a tax on ALL wealth regardless of WHEN you made or WHEN you spend it. And regardless of whether you earned it from pay checks, capital gains, dividends, inheritance, etc. it's ALL taxed at a 23% inclusive tax rate.
Lets not get stuck thinking congruently. We need to think out of the hectogon that our current tax laws have become.
Anyway, just to put it simply, its progressive because the poor pay negative taxes and the wealthy pay 23%. Those in between being poor and wealthy pay a progressively higher tax rate as they spend more. I don't know how much simpler to explain tax progressiveness.
I will try again.
Question one asks how someone that spends 500,000, 5,000,000, and 25,000,000 would have the SAME tax rate (you said "close to 23%"). You say it is a progressive tax, but I gave you 3 vastly different spending levels and you said the tax rate was the SAME "close to 23%".
The question was to illustrate that for all practical purposes, beyond the poor and lower middle class, that this is actually a VERY flat tax for the upper middle class, rich and super rich.
Spending tax rate on A is .22724%, B is .229999724% and C is .2299999448. So, it is technically progressive, but only if you are looking at 2 tens of 1%, or less. In other words, you are talking about .002.... This is a VERY flat tax with exeption of the poor and lower middle class.
Question 2 shows you that as a tax on INCOME, most rich people will have an effective tax on INCOME much lower than the middle class and upper middle class. People don't become rich, or stay rich by spending a high ratio of their annual earnings... They get rich and stay rich by spending much less each year than they earn, thus avoiding taxes on a high percentage of the their income, be that annually, 3 year lookback, 10 year lookback. They can't stay rich if they spend a high ratio of their earned income, and most of them DON'T. Much of that wealth may SOMEDAY be spent, but firstly, how do we fund the government while we wait for decendents decades from now to spend the money, and secondly, there is nothing stopping these people from buying used cars, boats, homes, airplanes....
As a tax on income in the short term, IT IS REGRESSIVE as wealth increases, because the rich CLEARLY spend a smaller percentage of their income, while saving and investing HIGHER percentages of their income, avoiding taxes. In the long term, we may recapture some of that lost revenue, but that is dependant on spending/savings/investment habits and whether or not they bias their purchases toward used luxury items to keep the gubament from getting their hands on it.
Your scheme will also cause the prices of used homes, cars, boats and other durable goods to be bid up by people who don't want the big bad gubament to get their money, and the prices for used items would also naturally rise to close the gap with NEW items which will fall out of favor because they cost 30% more PLUS the difference in the depreciation from new-used.
Also, stop saying 23% inclusive. It is a 30% tax. It is amazing that they have you typing 23% inclusive. It is misleading. It is a 30% tax in the context of how Americans understand taxation. Sales tax in my state is 6.5%. You don't see people saying the tax is 5.2% inclusive.... You are using a very unconventional way of calculating taxes in order to show a misleadingly low tax rate of 23%, all the while have to type the word inclusive after every time you quote the tax rate of 23%. It is misleading, requires extra unnessasary key strokes, and is annoying. It is a 30% tax. People that insist on say it is "23% inclussive" are being manipulative and misleading to those that don't understand the distinction.
Either way, your unicorn with herpes will never become law, so I am checking out of this tax discussion.
04-17-2013, 07:05 AM
#188
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
You are correct but as negotiations progress they are tied together. Although they are separate items in separate documents the raise will not come unless we give up scope.
Based on the investor conference Jetblue has agreed to the codeshare but needs PVC approval. Martin also stated that the codeshare must be agreed to prior to pay raise information being discussed.
Yes, they are two separate documents but make no mistake jetblue will require the codeshare to be agreed upon prior to receiving any raises.
Based on the investor conference Jetblue has agreed to the codeshare but needs PVC approval. Martin also stated that the codeshare must be agreed to prior to pay raise information being discussed.
Yes, they are two separate documents but make no mistake jetblue will require the codeshare to be agreed upon prior to receiving any raises.
If the PPA vote fails to produce the codesharing they desire, then they can choose to make changes in our favor and solicit a yes vote. If it ultimately fails, then the company can choose to withhold our PEA amendment with the pay raises. If they do that, they will have attraction-retention-union problems that THEY will need to fix........
As far as scope/capacity purchase agreements/RJ outsourcing, I am a NO vote.
As far as codesharing, I am automatically and instictively NO, and the burden is on them to show a benefit to OUR pilots and most importantly show me the appropriate PVC controls, restrictions and possible dial backs that we need to unsure OUR interests are protected.
So it will be an up hill battle for them to convince me of a yes vote, but not impossible because I can see if properly done that JB pilots could possible win more than we lose.
04-17-2013, 07:29 AM
#189
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 27
You are correct but as negotiations progress they are tied together. Although they are separate items in separate documents the raise will not come unless we give up scope.
Based on the investor conference Jetblue has agreed to the codeshare but needs PVC approval. Martin also stated that the codeshare must be agreed to prior to pay raise information being discussed.
Yes, they are two separate documents but make no mistake jetblue will require the codeshare to be agreed upon prior to receiving any raises.
Based on the investor conference Jetblue has agreed to the codeshare but needs PVC approval. Martin also stated that the codeshare must be agreed to prior to pay raise information being discussed.
Yes, they are two separate documents but make no mistake jetblue will require the codeshare to be agreed upon prior to receiving any raises.
04-17-2013, 07:39 AM
#190
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 27
Well, then first comes code-share/scope talks. We will vote on those on their own merrits yes/no.
If the PPA vote fails to produce the codesharing they desire, then they can choose to make changes in our favor and solicit a yes vote. If it ultimately fails, then the company can choose to withhold our PEA amendment with the pay raises. If they do that, they will have attraction-retention-union problems that THEY will need to fix........
As far as scope/capacity purchase agreements/RJ outsourcing, I am a NO vote.
As far as codesharing, I am automatically and instictively NO, and the burden is on them to show a benefit to OUR pilots and most importantly show me the appropriate PVC controls, restrictions and possible dial backs that we need to unsure OUR interests are protected.
So it will be an up hill battle for them to convince me of a yes vote, but not impossible because I can see if properly done that JB pilots could possible win more than we lose.
If the PPA vote fails to produce the codesharing they desire, then they can choose to make changes in our favor and solicit a yes vote. If it ultimately fails, then the company can choose to withhold our PEA amendment with the pay raises. If they do that, they will have attraction-retention-union problems that THEY will need to fix........
As far as scope/capacity purchase agreements/RJ outsourcing, I am a NO vote.
As far as codesharing, I am automatically and instictively NO, and the burden is on them to show a benefit to OUR pilots and most importantly show me the appropriate PVC controls, restrictions and possible dial backs that we need to unsure OUR interests are protected.
So it will be an up hill battle for them to convince me of a yes vote, but not impossible because I can see if properly done that JB pilots could possible win more than we lose.
Any terms we secure for ourselves is just future grounds for give and take though.
