Straight shootin' about JetBlue

[TonyC]

can you imagine the stink it would raise if the pilots didn't have the same thing...

Yeah, kinda like the stink the pilots raised about the RJ rates - - that had a huge impact.










.

 

[JackSparrow]

A more recent contract I've seens has an non-compete agreement at the end. The non-compete says you won't accept "re-employment" at your previous Part 121 carrier, its parents or subsidiaries, within 2 years of starting training at B6.

 

[TonyC]

A more recent contract I've seens has an non-compete agreement at the end. The non-compete says you won't accept "re-employment" at your previous Part 121 carrier, its parents or subsidiaries, within 2 years of starting training at B6.

That's not in the version I have (which I have already stipulated is several years old).

Would you care to share the Contract to which you refer? Can we see?






[Oops - - that's not the quote I thought I was responding to - - had to do a little detective work - - see post below.]


.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Tony C and JackSparrow,


Thanks. You guys are the "Myth Busters". The contract language sounds very reasonable if you wish to do something else after 2 years of employment.


FBJ

P.S. No flames, please. I don't make any implied statements on the whole union vs. non-union thing or the correctness of a renewable 5 year contract.

 

[TonyC]

A more recent contract I've seens has an non-compete agreement at the end. The non-compete says you won't accept "re-employment" at your previous Part 121 carrier, its parents or subsidiaries, within 2 years of starting training at B6.

Your original post:

The way I read it, the non-compete says you won't accept "re-employment" at your previous Part 121 carrier, its parents or subsidiaries, within 2 years of starting training at B6.

One of the weaknesses of our written language is we can't know the tense of the word "read" in the above sentence. I took it to be the word that sounds like "reed" which I believe is the present perfect tense, meaning it's something you're doing right now. Since you changed the post, I surmise you meant to use the word that sounds like "red" (the color) which is the past tense, meaning it's something you have done at some time in the past, whether it was 30 seconds ago or 5 years ago.

Present perfect is a far more reliable witness than past. What you've done, essentially, is contribute hearsay. Do you suppose you could obtain a copy of the "more recent" contract that can be entered into evidence for the sake of a factual discussion?



Like I said, these contracts are so elusive.








OH, and thanks for editing the post to clarify the meaning.





.

 

[JBFlyer]

A more recent contract I've seens has an non-compete agreement at the end. The non-compete says you won't accept "re-employment" at your previous Part 121 carrier, its parents or subsidiaries, within 2 years of starting training at B6.

That is a correct statement. Was in there when I started over 2 yrs ago.

 

[TonyC]

That is a correct statement. Was in there when I started over 2 yrs ago.

Can you spare a copy?






.

 

[Mr Hat]

The company doesn't want a union. The fastest way to get a union on properety is to stop renewing pilot contracts. JetBlue knows this and they aren't going to start abusing their pilots, they want to keep their advantage of not having a union.
Jetblue does their thing and as long as the pilots don't feel they need a union, management is going to do everything they can to ensure that the pilots don't suddenly feel threatened.

 

[JackSparrow]

Wow, you're one of the first pilots I've ever met that knows the difference between past tense and fourth person plural! Irregardless... [sic]

"The Pilot agrees that he/she will not, for a period of two years after the first day of the Pilot's initial training class, for any reason accept re-employment with his/her most recent Part 121 air carrier employer, including its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates..."

 

[wndshr]

Yeah, kinda like the stink the pilots raised about the RJ rates - - that had a huge impact.


tony c....

lettme guess....straight outta military to fedex? LOL!

 

[radarlove]

In one of those weird misunderstandings that we pilots are so good at coming up with on our own, I think the JBLU pilot contract is pretty much the opposite of what everyone immediately assumes it is.

Here's the question they appear to have been trying to answer: "How do we keep a union off of the property?"

Answer: Give the pilots most of the rights that a union would offer, including seniority protection, no-furlough (!) and firing for cause only. If I remember correctly (it's been years since I saw a copy) there was even some sort of rudimentary grievance procedure. The only gotcha was that if the company was sold the pilots get one year's pay and no rights to go with the equipment.

So this company offers all sorts of rights that are generally not offered to non-union employees and the rumor quickly spreads that they're just out to screw the guys once they hit five years--which is silly, because the contract auto-extends, just like other contracts under the Railway Labor Act.

In the end, it certainly doesn't offer the protections and benefits of a real union contract, but it surely is a lot better than absolutely nothing. I still scratch my head over the fact they pay guarantee for the length of the contract if you're furloughed.

So once again, the cynics have turned something that isn't a bad thing into what sounds like a bad thing. From what I remember, the contract was for the pilot's benefit, not the other way around.

 

[TonyC]

The company doesn't want a union.

On this we agree.

The fastest way to get a union on properety is to stop renewing pilot contracts.

On this, we don't.

Failing to renew a contract is a convenient way to remove a union-leaning pilot. Finding a reason under the DISCHARGE paragraph would be even faster. When said contract is terminated, the Company controls the communication, and pilot has little to no recourse. "Yes, we terminated Joe because he breached his contract," would leave the remaining pilots with no rebuttal.

There is no institutionalized pilot advocate to take up the side of the terminated pilot, or to provide communication about the "other side of the story."


There may be some good things about the 5-year contract scheme, but I don't think the length or method of extension have anything to do with union-busting.

JetBlue knows this and they aren't going to start abusing their pilots, they want to keep their advantage of not having a union.
Jetblue does their thing and as long as the pilots don't feel they need a union, management is going to do everything they can to ensure that the pilots don't suddenly feel threatened.

Again, we agree that JetBlue considers it an advantage to not have a union. We also agree that their management will take care to not suddenly threaten the pilots. Changes that impact the pilots negatively will be introduced incrementally so as not to cause too great a disturbance. Note how careful they have been to introduce RJ rates.

They're doing a lot of things right, to be sure. But i don't think the contract scheme was concocted to keep unions away.




.

 

[TonyC]

Yeah, kinda like the stink the pilots raised about the RJ rates - - that had a huge impact.

tony c....

lettme guess....straight outta military to fedex? LOL!

[EDITED wndshr's format for clarity]

Do you have anything to contribute that is pertinent to the topic?

What does my background have to do with anything?







.

 

[TAZ MAN]

[EDITED wndshr's format for clarity]

Do you have anything to contribute that is pertinent to the topic?

What does my background have to do with anything?








.

Background can be everything on how one can approach this profession. Not better or worse, just different.

 

[klhoard]

[EDITED wndshr's format for clarity]

Do you have anything to contribute that is pertinent to the topic?

What does my background have to do with anything?


.

.
.
.
'cuz that's all he gots. . . .
.
.
.