Pilots against JBPA (jetblue union)

[PsubS]

Bad enough like TB in FLL?

From what I've heard about TB, no. But our Values committee member in question (LM) went way beyond the legal limits to further his agenda.

Sorry to say that he never responded to pointed questions about it on the BP site...he just printed his side of the story and left it at that.

Guys there are legitimate reasons for voting "yes" on this representation vote. However, drawing LM and his supposed "poor treatment" by the PVC into the argument does not support the position.

LM acted foolishly and is lucky to have a job. The PVC acted in the best interests of the pilot group to police themselves--I could only ask for greater transparency in the rules they use to run the committee.

 

[Sailpilot]

From what I've heard about TB, no. But our Values committee member in question (LM) went way beyond the legal limits to further his agenda.

Sorry to say that he never responded to pointed questions about it on the BP site...he just printed his side of the story and left it at that.

Guys there are legitimate reasons for voting "yes" on this representation vote. However, drawing LM and his supposed "poor treatment" by the PVC into the argument does not support the position.

LM acted foolishly and is lucky to have a job. The PVC acted in the best interests of the pilot group to police themselves--I could only ask for greater transparency in the rules they use to run the committee.

53 post and all you've talked about in them...

1.F-15's (crash)
2.NMB filing (I know it's just not the right time)
3.JBPA (yep, it's just a bad Idea)
4.jetblue PVC (insider info, that we just don't know about)

Hmmmm, I wonder if you IP address is in the MCO area?

 

[PsubS]

I'm flattered that you would research my years of posts, all 54 of them. From that, you actually came to the incorrect conclusions on several topics. Perhaps you should go back and read my posts a bit more slowly, since you obviously need a little more time to think about them.

And, you probably think you know who I am...and I don't really give a rat's ass if you do.

And from that diligent research, you probably think you know how I am going to vote...but you'd likely be wrong. I've recently decided to vote for the union.

Now please tell me you are not running for office.

WHAT I AM saying, in my posts, is that the PVC did a reasonable job in keeping one of their own in check. They had imperfect tools to work with. Yes, I have insider info...is it improper for me to use that info to counter LM's totally inaccurate "whine?" Probably--but someone needed to do it.

Nick has every right to speak his mind, and I don't see any conflict of interest.

Do you see anything specific that Nick has done to indicate otherwise?

 

[Bavarian Chef]

From what I've heard about TB, no. But our Values committee member in question (LM) went way beyond the legal limits to further his agenda.

Sorry to say that he never responded to pointed questions about it on the BP site...he just printed his side of the story and left it at that.

Guys there are legitimate reasons for voting "yes" on this representation vote. However, drawing LM and his supposed "poor treatment" by the PVC into the argument does not support the position.

LM acted foolishly and is lucky to have a job. The PVC acted in the best interests of the pilot group to police themselves--I could only ask for greater transparency in the rules they use to run the committee.

How about an answer to my question: how do you know the details of the LM "case"? I am curious because you seem to be an advocate of the PVC. And you are making some pretty grandiose statements wrt LM and his employment status. Why should I believe you (or the PVC or LM for that matter)?

Why do you have insider info?

For Nick, it's the potential conflict of interest and the mere perception of impropriety that bothers me (perception is reality). Oh, and the fact that I don't think the PVC is an impartial body and am mystified by the shroud of secrecy and lack of communication ever since AA took over. That, coupled with the fact that Nick's "opinion" happens to be in line with the official company position, makes me wonder if the company (I mean PVC) would be so accommodating to a PVC member that started a website in favor of the JBPA.

As for bluepilots, I like many other pilots at JB, choose not to be a member. If that's where JB pilots are going for reliable information or a balanced debate, we get what we deserve.

 

[PsubS]

How about an answer to my question: how do you know the details of the LM "case"? I am curious because you seem to be an advocate of the PVC. And you are making some pretty grandiose statements wrt LM and his employment status. Why should I believe you (or the PVC or LM for that matter)?

A reasonable question.

You are right--you would't believe me, even if I gave you specifics. Were I in your shoes, I'd feel similarly mistrustful of a statement not supported by specifics. Trouble is, I cannot give you specifics because I was asked not to by PVC members, worried about the rights of the person in question!

I worked closely with (as closely as pilots work with one another), and count former three former/current PVC members as good friends. I interacted with them at least three times a month, pretty good by our nomadic standards.

During the entire time these guys were on the PVC, they were ASTOUNDINGLY close mouthed about every personal issue they were dealing with--on purpose. They understood that they were trying to help the individual, but had to keep that individual's specific info out of the rumor mill. To that end, they did their jobs very well. Just because you did not hear "what" they were doing doesn't mean that they weren't doing "anything."

Yes, I am a supporter of the PVC--but that does not mean that they, or their rules, are perfect. We have a long way to go toward transparancy of their ops.

The only time these PVC members slipped was during the LM episode, and two of them told me enough (I suppose out of frustration) to piece it together. Realizing that they had probably said too much, they asked me not to divulge the details. LM then put out this "message to all pilots" email on the official website in response to his suspension, and then argued it again on the BP site. He never mentioned what actually got him suspended.

He never posted in that thread again after I specifically requested him to give specifics of his actions that led to suspension, even though he promised to do so. I can only suppose that he knew he was being called out.

As for the BP site, I agree with your assessment.

 

[Lebowski]

Also, for those who continue to compare JBLU with SWA-- please, an 8.5 y/o airline vs a 38.5 y/o airline is no comparison...

Why not? Who should a JetBlue pilot compare himself to? What should we be shooting for? Didn't DN model JetBlue after SWA?

To continue with your line of reasoning, JB pilots should be happy to get 1/4 of Southwest pilot wages because what...JB has been in business 1/4 of the time?

I've heard this argument several times: "Name a unionized carrier, other than Southwest, that you think is doing better than we are...." (or something to that effect).

Guess what. You can't simply dismiss what SWA pilots have accomplished with a wave of your hand. In terms of bargaining, SWA pilots are a great model to follow. They have continuously bargained for their compensation and work rules while ensuring the success of their company. That should be admired and embraced, not dismissed as if it does not apply.

 

[Lebowski]

Hi Lebowski
First of all you do have a contract with the company. Sure it might not address all your personal needs and preferences. But to believe a CBA would make all the ills of our industry, and for that matter JB, disappear is an unrealistic expectation....

Howdy Blueside,

Thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful response. I think you make some good points that we both can agree on:

• We all want the company to succeed.
• We don't have the worst work rules/pay.
• We don't have the best work rules/pay.
• There's room for improvement with our work rules/pay.
• JBPA, and unions in general, will not fix all issues with work rules/pay.
• It is unrealistic to expect the JBPA or any other union to fix all our issues and to make everyone happy.
• Overall, JetBlue management has done a good job of running the organization.
• Overall, JetBlue management is not "the enemy" (as they have characterized the JBPA).
• Senior management could change at any time.
• This company could be bought at any time.

From my perspective the three main advantages of unionizing are:

1. We formalize our agreement going forward. Work rules/pay cannot simply be changed on a dime. Yes, this goes both ways, which leads to point number 2.

2. We finally get to negotiate for our work rules/pay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one on the PVC (or anywhere else) is negotiating on our behalf. In other words, we take what we are given. I simply fail to see why, as career employees, negotiating is such a bad idea.

3. We put ourselves in a better bargaining position if (when) JetBlue is bought by a larger company. (I simply don't believe that our company-provided merger protection language for our individual contracts would be stronger than what we could achieve for ourselves as a collective unit.)

And finally, yes, I understand that I have a contract with the company. More imporantly, we don't have a contract with the company. Strength in numbers is a given. That's why CBAs exist in this industry. That's why CBAs exist in other industries. That's why police departments, fire departments, teachers, nurses, etc., tend to unionize.

My philosophy is that we are professionals, and we should take pride in doing great work for the company. I know I do. However, we are also labor, and therefore something of a commodity. I don't forget that, either.

Thanks again for the civil debate.

Lebowski

 

[8vATE]

1. We formalize our agreement going forward. Work rules/pay cannot simply be changed on a dime. Yes, this goes both ways, which leads to point number 2.

2. We finally get to negotiate for our work rules/pay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one on the PVC (or anywhere else) is negotiating on our behalf. In other words, we take what we are given. I simply fail to see why, as career employees, negotiating is such a bad idea.

3. We put ourselves in a better bargaining position if (when) JetBlue is bought by a larger company. (I simply don't believe that our company-provided merger protection language for our individual contracts would be stronger than what we could achieve for ourselves as a collective unit.)

Lebowski

Rebuttal...

1. Maybe point one is more good than not. Being locked in to a concessionary contract when the company is in a turnaround is still a risk. Also, falling in to the 4-5 year CBA and then taking 1-3 years to negotiate a new one with little chances of retro pay is another issue. And where is the strength in airline negotiators. Work actions? Sick outs? Striking? Collaborating with the company yearly and making improvements/adjustments as needed and when financially viable is the other option.

2. Negotiating vs collaborating is the big question. I've done the negotiating thing. It's NOT a fix-all for any pilot group's problems. The burden is on management to prove that collaboration will be successful.

3. This point is in my humble opinion your weakest assertion. I can look around the industry and name a LOT of mergers that had pilot groups crapped on and they had CBAs... some had the same union. There is NO guarantee of a "fair" outcome in a merger. Our work agreement I believe has some good legal language but a good lawyer can find a way around almost anything.

For the record.. I have 13 years ALPA experience.
I'm on the fence but keeping an open mind. Leaning towards giving the company 24 mos to make good on their promises of improving problem areas.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

For the record.. I have 13 years ALPA experience.
I'm on the fence but keeping an open mind. Leaning towards giving the company 24 mos to make good on their promises of improving problem areas.

Instead of wating for and losing 24 months... why not look at the last eight years?

 

[a320drivr]

Nick B and the BoB members can suck my cork!!!

 

[PsubS]

Av8ATE and Lebowski--thanks for the solid input.

a320drvr...GAL. Seriously.

 

[Blue Dude]

Leaning towards giving the company 24 mos to make good on their promises of improving problem areas.

That's exactly what was being said in Dec 2006 after PCG I. Then that was "fixed" that spring, with the next "annual" review occurring summer 2008, non-retroactively taking effect in Sept 2008. And the same problem areas exist, in fact many have gotten worse because they put Band-aids on hemorrhages (e.g. merger, LOL) and call them fixed. We won't see any more substantive action on them. What will it take to make you realize that there is no interest on the part of the company to fix problem areas to any extent other than to make us shut up?

The only incentives that have ever pushed for change with this management team have been negative: attrition and the current NLRB filing. Nothing has been granted out of the goodness of their hearts before, and there will be no change in that direction if the vote fails.

Nobody is advocating for the pilots with regard to our pay, work rules, or benefits and we have no way to advocate for ourselves. The new improved committee structure will not change that because they will have exactly the power that previous attempts have had, i.e. none whatsoever. We need a way to sit down at the table as something other than as supplicants. In short, we need to negotiate. Every service provider or vendor to the airline, other than line employees, does exactly this. And if the agreement is not to their liking, they negotiate a new one or walk away. The second option is the only one we have, and it's a bad one considering that our careers are wedded to the airline. Don't think they don't know that, which is exactly why there's no incentive to improve matters any more than minimally necessary to keep training costs down due to attrition.

 

[viper01]

Rebuttal...

For the record.. I have 13 years ALPA experience.
I'm on the fence but keeping an open mind. Leaning towards giving the company 24 mos to make good on their promises of improving problem areas.

Too late the vote is coming. I would also like to give the company 12-24 months, but if the jbpa fails and if the company fails on their promises then there won't be anyone with the time/energy to start the push for another in-house union. Then you know who will show up at our doorstep...alpa/teamsters/etc.

 

[Skywest Pylot]

Too late the vote is coming. I would also like to give the company 12-24 months, but if the jbpa fails and if the company fails on their promises then there won't be anyone with the time/energy to start the push for another in-house union.

As a former SkyWest pilot let me give you some advice. Get a union and a legally binding contract. I watched for years as my former company made promises that were broken soon after the threat of a union drive was over. If JetBlue management is serious about making some changes then they should have absolutely no problem putting them in writting in a legally binding contract. You wouldn't buy a house on a hand shake so why should your career be any different?

 

[bluesideup340]

Skywest Pylot
I am sure you have reasons to want more. But isn't it also true that you have one of the highest paying commuter jobs with good work rules at one of the most successful Regional carriers? I know about many really bad CBA's. Just because something is written does not mean it is good.

 

[StarChecker]

Just because something is written does not mean it is good.

No....but if it's written it cannot be changed via e-mail.

90% of our work rules can change overnight via email. Not good...not in this industry.

 

[bluesideup340]

OK fair enough, give me an example of a work rule or rules that has changed by an e-mail in the last 12 months. And Also, give me reasons why it should not have changed or what is should have been instead.

 

[bluesideup340]

I posted the following on a different thread but believe is should be discussed here as well.
What should and could JBPA, of for that matter any other Union, do to address the following.

Seniority, Fairness, and Pilot Union Failure


Robert J. Lavender​

Much has been written about pilot unions and the seeming inability of their members to get along these days. Of particular note has been the recent attempt by units of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) at Delta and Northwest Airlines to integrate their seniority lists and facilitate a merger between their two companies. The Associated Press reported that pilots have

not been able to agree to how seniority for the 12,000 pilots would work under a combined carrier.[1]

In similar fashion, the recent effort at US Airways to decertify ALPA and replace it with an independent union was driven by the quest for seniority position as its pilots and those from America West Airlines furiously clashed over how to consolidate their members. During that campaign, many pilots sported lanyards stating “Seniority Matters.” Indeed, “seniority” matters so much to pilots that it trumps and clouds business decisions that could otherwise be in their long-term best interest. As a 30-year airline pilot, I can testify that seniority is the force behind almost all of the internal competition that turns pilots—union “brethren,” if you will—into enemies.

The situation is simple to understand: In the pilot culture, seniority rules. Senior pilots (that is, those who were hired first), have historically enjoyed the best of everything including the highest pay, the first choice of cockpit position and trips, and, overall, the best quality of life. These are not petty matters. At FedEx, for instance, differentials in cash compensation alone can be more than $150,000.00 per year between senior and junior pilots. Unfortunately, in the open market, a difference in value of this magnitude among similarly-skilled providers of service always invites competition. If one can imagine the competitive response that would occur if an airline company tried to justify higher ticket prices based on its date of incorporation, one can understand the pilot problem.

The question is: Why is “seniority,” a concept of limited importance to most unions, so enormous to pilots, and what can be done to stop the friction that it causes?

The pilot notion of seniority “rights” is a holdover from the period in which airlines and their employees were highly regulated and protected from natural economic forces by the federal government. During this period of “Regulation,” there were few if any airline failures, hence, employees, including pilots, all had the same career expectation: You got hired when you were young, you worked at one company for thirty years, and, you retired with money in the bank. The fact that you made a ridiculously low wage as a new-hire was worth ignoring because you made it up on the back end when you became senior. In that protected environment, the captain’s position coincidentally became the anchor for determining pay. The internal system by which pilots valued each other became known as the “seniority system,” and it worked adequately for decades under those stable conditions.

Everything changed, though, with passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. The express purpose of this law was to create competition within the airline industry—and it did exactly that, not only among companies but among pilots as well. When companies such as Braniff failed, their pilots found themselves looking for employment. Sadly, the system that worked fine under government control did not function well at all when 40 and 50 year-olds with kids in college were faced with starting over in union jobs paying $1300.00 per month. So, when Continental pilots went on strike in 1983, 450 Braniff pilots crossed their picket line. Why? Because they could make two and a half times more money there than they could at a union carrier. Yes, they had to “steal” their seniority from striking pilots, but the financial incentive was too great to ignore. They had the skills and the motivation; all they needed was the opportunity. In failing to adjust to the reality of the “free market,” union officials left their members wide open to this form of competition.

The same exact economic forces that affected pilots in 1983 are in play today as pilots jockey for merged seniority position and the pay and lifestyle that go along with it. Even though the adage, “You only have to be junior once” has not been true for decades, pilots still act as though it is. Remarkably, thirty years after the airline world was rocked, pilots are still doing business among themselves the old way.

Part of the problem is that pilots ignore the fact that seniority is a political system, not an economic one. Throughout the commercial world, it exists almost exclusively to protect against management favoritism and it means mostly one thing: First-hired, last fired. In some union environments, it doesn’t even mean that. In the National Football League, for instance, if the rookie draws the bigger crowd, he gets the job. Likewise, if a member of the electricians union were to demand grossly higher wages simply because he received his electrician license first, he would be seen as greedy and there would be open warfare…exactly as there is among pilots.

Airline managers appear to love this system—it generates so much competition and distraction among pilots that it prohibits them from competing effectively with the corporate establishment. Whereas, airline mergers should have resulted in larger and stronger pilots groups, they have become larger and weaker. The proof is in the pudding: Pilots have been unable to pull off one meaningful job action in years, even when faced with the reduction and loss of their most precious assets: cash compensation, work rules, and pension funds.

In this writer’s opinion, “seniority,” as currently employed by pilots, causes gross disharmony within the ranks of union members. Unity does not fall from trees in the open market; it must be created through economic incentives. If pilots desire to reduce internal competition, enhance their ability to compete with corporate strategists, and eliminate problems associated with seniority list integration, they must reduce compensation differentials to levels that are economically fair to everyone. The perception of fairness is the primary factor in incentivizing unified behavior. This is not to suggest that everyone get paid the same; it is to say that differences cannot be based on non-economic concepts such as date-of-hire or the condescending attitude that “You are junior, so you must suffer.” They must be based on sound economic reasoning including the law of supply and demand. If, for instance, there is less demand to fly at night (“redeye” flying), then pilots who do it must receive greater compensation (i.e., pay, vacation time, etc.) for their trouble. This kind of logic may be applied in dozens of ways to create a sense of fairness that does not now exist within the piloting profession.

The upside to leveling the economic playing field among pilots is significant. For instance, if pay were front-end, rather than back-end, “loaded,” pilots would have the same average career earnings as they have now, but they would also: 1. Enjoy an improved tax consequence; 2. Earn more compounded interest on more savings for more years; 3. Reduce internal competition for seat position; and, 4. Eliminate the need for a “national seniority list” (because they could start over at an new job at a living wage). Not one of these advantages is currently available to any union pilot.

It is common knowledge that the Labor movement has collapsed in this country. Unions now represent only 7.5% of the private workforce, and pilots, in particular, appear to be in a failure mode. Competition among them has been so intense for so long that they no longer trust each other on economic matters. After years of leadership neglect, it is clear that unions possess neither the skills nor the tools required to create professional harmony. Fortunately, there are those who do possess the needed expertise and they are willing to help. Tens of thousands of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations around the world have employed Organizational Behavior expertise with great success in bringing workers together. If pilots wish to relieve their internal distress, they must take advantage of this expertise and devise logical market-based strategies for competing wisely in today’s world. If they continue to follow the traditional union economic model, they should plan on achieving traditional results: Disunity, weakness, and management exploitation. Such are the components of union failure.

[1] Delta Pilots Say No Deal With Northwest, Harry Weber, AP, Posted: 2008-03-17 21:11:05

 

[CaptainSpaz]

OK fair enough, give me an example of a work rule or rules that has changed by an e-mail in the last 12 months. And Also, give me reasons why it should not have changed or what is should have been instead.

1) 10 hour rest rule. Maybe a good change for operational integrity, but a bad change for productivity, which already is suffering severely.

2) General pairing productivity. Again, maybe good for operational integrity, but it is an effective pay cut and QOL decrease.

3) PTS. Don't make me explain this one.

 

[BrokenWing]

1) 10 hour rest rule. Maybe a good change for operational integrity, but a bad change for productivity, which already is suffering severely.

2) General pairing productivity. Again, maybe good for operational integrity, but it is an effective pay cut and QOL decrease.

3) PTS. Don't make me explain this one.

I'll give you #1, but #2 and #3 were not changed via e-mail. In fact, you had the option to keep your old contract so I don't know why you're complaining about the PTS thing.