Straight shootin' about JetBlue

[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. . . .
.
.
.

 

[Falconjet]

Although the contract says you can't go back to your old 121 carrier, it has no mention of what the penalty would be if you did. I can only assume they would have to sue you to keep you from going back to work for your old carrier. Nothing in the contract (apparently) prevents you from going to work for a different 121 carrier (as long as it isn't your old one) or any 121 carrier if you never worked for a 121 carrier before jB.

In fact, I personally know a guy very well who went to jB, flew the line for about a month and then left for a different 121 carrier (freight). jB was his first 121 carrier. There was no training contract or legal action against him, and he was free to go. That was 3 years ago.

That may help alleviate any fears somebody might have of not being able to get out of the contract if they want to go work somewhere else.

FJ

 

[TonyC]

..., because the contract auto-extends, just like other contracts under the Railway Labor Act.

Well, not exactly. With RLA contracts, there is not a provision for either party to terminate by providing notice within three (3) months of the Agreement expiration date. RLA contracts continue idefinitely, and become amendable. There is no expiration date.


But - - and I concede this was your point - - it's close.






.

 

[TonyC]

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

Well, Mr TAZ MAN, riddle me this. Which profession are we approaching in this thread, either in the original topic, or the topic to which it has crept?

I believe the object of discussion at this moment is the underlying purpose as it may or may not pertain to unions of the 5-year contract for pilots.

wndshr postulated that pilots have 5-year contracts simply because FAs have 5-year contracts, and the employee groups must be treated equally. "[C]an you imagine," he asked, "the stink it would raise if the pilots didn't have the same thing...[?]"

Perhaps it's my military background (highly doubtful) but I cannot imagine much of a stink about it. Nevertheless, I HAVE witnessed a stink raised, not only among outside parties, both interested and disinterested alike, but among JetBlue pilots themselves about the pitiful low wage rates proposed, no, introduced, for JetBlue mainline pilots to fly RJs. I have read pilots who have rationalized the low rates, believing that they will be increased if and when the RJ proves to be profitable. But I have not read or heard of a single JetBlue pilot that is satisfied with the rates as they stand.

We have witnessed a "stink" about the RJ rates. What has been the result? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. No change.

So, let's revisit my statement, "Yeah, kinda like the stink the pilots raised about the RJ rates - - that had a huge impact." For the context challenged among us, allow me to point out that the statement I made was intended as sarcasm. I could rephrase the above to remove the sarcasm and it would look like this: "The pilots raised a stink about the RJ rates, and there was no impact."


Now, would you care to refute that statement, or do you still have an issue with my background?



.

 

[TAZ MAN]

Well, Mr TAZ MAN, riddle me this. Which profession are we approaching in this thread, either in the original topic, or the topic to which it has crept?

I believe the object of discussion at this moment is the underlying purpose as it may or may not pertain to unions of the 5-year contract for pilots.

wndshr postulated that pilots have 5-year contracts simply because FAs have 5-year contracts, and the employee groups must be treated equally. "[C]an you imagine," he asked, "the stink it would raise if the pilots didn't have the same thing...[?]"

Perhaps it's my military background (highly doubtful) but I cannot imagine much of a stink about it. Nevertheless, I HAVE witnessed a stink raised, not only among outside parties, both interested and disinterested alike, but among JetBlue pilots themselves about the pitiful low wage rates proposed, no, introduced, for JetBlue mainline pilots to fly RJs. I have read pilots who have rationalized the low rates, believing that they will be increased if and when the RJ proves to be profitable. But I have not read or heard of a single JetBlue pilot that is satisfied with the rates as they stand.

We have witnessed a "stink" about the RJ rates. What has been the result? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. No change.

So, let's revisit my statement, "Yeah, kinda like the stink the pilots raised about the RJ rates - - that had a huge impact." For the context challenged among us, allow me to point out that the statement I made was intended as sarcasm. I could rephrase the above to remove the sarcasm and it would look like this: "The pilots raised a stink about the RJ rates, and there was no impact."


Now, would you care to refute that statement, or do you still have an issue with my background?



.

Touch a nerve? Simple comment on a different background can give one a different perspective. You automatically thought it was about you. Interesting.

How could you take that statement and spin to an issue with you. I could have been supporting you. Interesting.

You sure put alot of words in my mouth this morning. May I suggest decaf?

 

[TonyC]

Touch a nerve? Simple comment on a different background can give one a different perspective. You automatically thought it was about you. Interesting.

How could you take that statement and spin to an issue with you. Interesting.

A subtle hint was the fact that you began by quoting me.





.

 

[TAZ MAN]

A subtle hint was the fact that you began by quoting me.





.

Who else said the statement? Geeze dude. Lighten up! You need to take a break from this forum. Your holding on a little to tight.

 

[klhoard]

.
.
.
Whoop, Whoop!!!!!, Taz Alert, Taz Alert; Whoop Whoop!!!
.
.
.

 

[Dizel8]

99% of all questions concerning jetblue, could be handled by using the search function.

(Now TonyC, do take the 99% number with a grain of salt, I made a wag, it is not a scientific survey and is for illustrational purposes only)

 

[radarlove]

Well, not exactly. With RLA contracts, there is not a provision for either party to terminate by providing notice within three (3) months of the Agreement expiration date. RLA contracts continue idefinitely, and become amendable. There is no expiration date.


But - - and I concede this was your point - - it's close.

I hesitated when I wrote that, since this actually doesn't fall under the RLA, since there is no union involved. I just assumed that they were modeling this "model contract" off of what an actual union contract would look like.

I'm not arguing that this is as good as a union contract, just that it's about halfeway there. Usually items such as firing for cause, seniority, etc. aren't established until the first union contract is voted in. In this case, the non-union JBLU pilots get a lot of protections they otherwise wouldn't, lessening the call for unionization.

But on the downside, as you mentioned, there really is no pilot advocate to enforce rights and no structured grievance procedure to decide the grey areas. 190 rates are a case in point, Pilots: "Please raise them!", Management: "No."

My original point was that I find it amusing that the fact a company is progessive enough to offer worker rights that are generally only won after a labor organization battle and a contract negotiation is viewed by the cynical pilots in this economy as somehow "bad".

The contract isn't as good as a union contract, but it's certainly better than nothing!

 

[Hobiehawker]

.
.
.
Whoop, Whoop!!!!!, Taz Alert, Taz Alert; Whoop Whoop!!!
.
.
.

Your a coward. Hide behind that mask. Its the only power you have. You personally give Fedex pilots a bad name. Never any substance to any post. You really are a flamebaiting coward.