Bluetruthpilots

[PCL_128]

AT didn't have a merger of operations clause in their contract.

False.

 

[BeachBummer]

A lot of that is incorrect. But the important thing to remember is this: unlike the JetBlue pilots, we had a say in our future. We had a union to represent our interests. Right now, Blue pilots have no one to look out for them except management, and when management's desires conflict with the pilots, watch out!

I'd like your take on it. That info comes from an 8yr AT guy. Who was furloughed by AA from TWA.

Not being confrontational, just wondering how you saw it go down. I thought I got a pretty straight story from the horses mouth.

 

[Fins Up]

Originally Posted by Lake Alice
AT didn't have a merger of operations clause in their contract.

False.

Care to elaborate?

 

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Lake Alice
AT didn't have a merger of operations clause in their contract.



Care to elaborate?

Not much on which to elaborate. Our CBA mandated operational integration no later than 18 months after the date of corporate closure. Therefore, we did have such a clause, and it was even linked to the holding company via a holding company side letter.

 

[PCL_128]

I'd like your take on it. That info comes from an 8yr AT guy. Who was furloughed by AA from TWA.

Not being confrontational, just wondering how you saw it go down. I thought I got a pretty straight story from the horses mouth.

Well, I prefer to avoid talking about it now, since the SWA guys obviously view things very differently, and I'd like to put all of this behind us. But I'll take it point by point, and hopefully it doesn't create an argument with our SWA bros:

SWA purchased AT under guadalupe holdings rendering MC-Bond ineffective because SWA didn't purchase them the holding company did.

The use of a holding company does not render McCaskill-Bond ineffective. Any transaction that involves the planned combination of air carriers triggers McCaskill-Bond, regardless of the use of holding companies or other corporate vehicles. Every merger involves the use of a holding company, due to tax and other issues.

The first "deal" would have been voted upon my both groups and would have passed the AT guys with flying colors and failed SWAPA by a landslide. They know this because they were polled.

There was no polling on either side related to the first SLI deal. Any statements about what would have happened with a vote on SLI1 is pure speculation. My best guess is that it would have been close on both sides, but we have no hard date to support that or any other conclusions.

The second "deal" was voted on and passed by both groups in the higher 80th percentile.

This part is correct.

The reason that the first deal never went to a vote is because it would have been voted down by SWAPA.

Our MEC stated that they voted down SLI1 because they felt that it was not a fair and equitable integration. The possibility of it being voted down by SWAPA may have been a consideration, but they certainly didn't say that it was, so that's speculation.

There would have been no arbitration. Guadalupe holdings would have continued to own AT and operate it. The planes would then be xfrd to SWA as needed and the AT pilots would have been XFRD to the street.

Guadalupe Holdings ceased to exist on May 1, 2011, long before any SLI deal was reached. AirTran became a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest Airlines on that day.

Although no specific threats were ever made, it was understood that SWA management's implied threat was to operate us separately and to not integrate operations. To the best of my knowledge, no one in SWA management even implied that AirTran pilots would be "XFRD to the street."

Regardless, we had contractual and other protections in the event that SWA management decided to go this route. How fighting to enforce those protections would have ultimately turned out is the subject of much debate.

ALPA got them the best deal possible under the circumstances.

Well, that's debatable. But regardless of your opinions on whether it was the best deal possible or not, one thing is certain: ALPA International is not responsible for the actions of a local MEC and its committees. ALPA merely provides the resources, and the local MEC decides what to do with those resources. Any decisions made regarding our SLI, whether you feel they were good or bad, were made on the local level. That's one of the benefits of ALPA representation: tons of resources, but local control.

 

[Ski-N-Fly]

Well, that's debatable. But regardless of your opinions on whether it was the best deal possible or not, one thing is certain: ALPA International is not responsible for the actions of a local MEC and its committees. ALPA merely provides the resources, and the local MEC decides what to do with those resources. Any decisions made regarding our SLI, whether you feel they were good or bad, were made on the local level. That's one of the benefits of ALPA representation: tons of resources, but local control.

Everyone at JetBlue needs to read this!

 

[StarChecker]

Well, that's debatable. But regardless of your opinions on whether it was the best deal possible or not, one thing is certain: ALPA International is not responsible for the actions of a local MEC and its committees. ALPA merely provides the resources, and the local MEC decides what to do with those resources. Any decisions made regarding our SLI, whether you feel they were good or bad, were made on the local level. That's one of the benefits of ALPA representation: tons of resources, but local control.

Agreed. But this also allows the BoB propaganda machine to blame ALPA for all the faults of local leadership over the years.

End result = Another year of fighting towards mediocrity with a pea shooter


Thanks 1193

 

[Lake Alice]

Especially since JetBlue wants the ability to sue the PVC if they don't do what leadership says.

 

[$$$4nothin]

Want to learn about how JetBlue pilots compare to the rest of the industry?

http://www.bluetruthpilots.com/

Just curious if you know the answer to this question:
Once you send a card in should you get any kind of response or correspondance.
Thanks

 

[BeachBummer]

Just curious if you know the answer to this question:
Once you send a card in should you get any kind of response or correspondance.
Thanks

Previously you would recieve an email if you provided one. I don't know if that's true now.



PCL thanks for your input.

 

[Lake Alice]

There isn't an active drive but send in the cards. Any active drive will allow jetblue to claim lab conditions i.e. another reason to stall. Currently they have no excuse.

 

[Lake Alice]

Not much on which to elaborate. Our CBA mandated operational integration no later than 18 months after the date of corporate closure. Therefore, we did have such a clause, and it was even linked to the holding company via a holding company side letter.

Also, how is JetBlue going to force a carrier with a CBA to negotiate SLI with our PEA's.

 

[PCL_128]

Also, how is JetBlue going to force a carrier with a CBA to negotiate SLI with our PEA's.

I'm not an attorney, so I'm not the best person to ask. But my best guess is that you don't really have any true SLI protection with your PEAs. McCaskill-Bond guarantees you a "fair and equitable" process of negotiations and arbitration, but without a union, you don't have any legal bargaining agent to handle the proceedings for you. You'd be counting on management to designate representatives for you to handle your side of the dealings. Not exactly something I would be comfortable with.

 

[Lake Alice]

Last year the PVC held meetings with 4 legal firms and that is exactly what they stated. In a CBA world our futures hinge on whether management will stand up for us or not. They also pointed out that a pilot group with a CBA does not have to negotiate with a pilot group under a PEA. We also have to use different methods of arbitration. In short JetBlue pilots will NEVER be able to fight an SLI without help from management.
Our only hope is an untested M/B and even that will be nearly impossible to manage as none of us will have the money to fight the legal battles as we'll be losing our jobs. This isn't fear mongering but JetBlue reality.

 

[StarChecker]

Last year the PVC held meetings with 4 legal firms and that is exactly what they stated. In a CBA world our futures hinge on whether management will stand up for us or not. They also pointed out that a pilot group with a CBA does not have to negotiate with a pilot group under a PEA. We also have to use different methods of arbitration. In short JetBlue pilots will NEVER be able to fight an SLI without help from management.
Our only hope is an untested M/B and even that will be nearly impossible to manage as none of us will have the money to fight the legal battles as we'll be losing our jobs. This isn't fear mongering but JetBlue reality.

Stop it. You are scaring me.