MIflyer12 wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots.

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

The JetBlue Union leadership agreed to the TA and sent it out to the pilots for a vote, and the JetBlue Union leadership pushed pretty hard for the agreement to get approved by all the pilots. A majority of all the pilots said the deal was not acceptable- the JetBlue union leadership looks out of touch with their pilots because of this defeat.

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots. I don't see how B6's pilots will be negatively affected by this partnership. In fact, B6's pilots and FAs will gain the most, as B6 will be taking over a lot of the "slot-holder" regional flights at LGA (and probably JFK) currently being flown by American Eagle's regional carriers. Thus, it is the American Eagle pilots and FAs who are the ones being most negatively impacted by this. Even the mainline AA pilots and FAs will be benefiting from this. As there will now be more international AA widebody flights (extra pilot and more FAs per flight) out of JFK

B6 Pilots, not ALPA, voted it down.

ALPA actually pushed for it.

The pilots told ALPA no

JoseSalazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue pilots represented by ALPA rejected an agreement that would have given the company contractual relief in order to implement JetBlue’s full partnership with American Airlines. More than 92 percent of eligible voters participated and, of those, 53.7 percent voted against the agreement.

What are the practical implications of this? Limits on codesharing?

They can’t do the revenue sharing that is a part of the NEA, and they can’t codeshare focus city to focus city or focus city to international. That’s the big stuff I think. There’s some other smaller nuanced stuff.

My guess is it gets renegotiated and JetBlue will sweeten the pot a little.

Revenue sharing was never part of the NEA.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... ebsite.pdf
All it allowed for is schedule coordination on routes passing through BOS/JFK/EWR/LGA.
I don't see how DOT would allow a real domestic JV to get approved even in the current environment.

I think B6 will need to sweeten the pot a little bit and also tighten up the language of the scope relaxations. For example, the language on international flights makes it sounds like B6 will abandon its TATL ambitions. When more likely, they just put that in for more flexibility in when they start TATL flying and such. And focus city to focus city scope relaxation can be changed to only allowing code shares on routes AA was already flying pre-pandemic. Otherwise, it sounds like like they are looking to farm out focus city to focus city flying to AAE. When in reality, AA isn't going to give up flying on JFK/BOS-LAX or BOS-LGA just because there is a NEA.

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots. I don't see how B6's pilots will be negatively affected by this partnership. In fact, B6's pilots and FAs will gain the most, as B6 will be taking over a lot of the "slot-holder" regional flights at LGA (and probably JFK) currently being flown by American Eagle's regional carriers. Thus, it is the American Eagle pilots and FAs who are the ones being most negatively impacted by this. Even the mainline AA pilots and FAs will be benefiting from this. As there will now be more international AA widebody flights (extra pilot and more FAs per flight) out of JFK

Keep in mind B6 pilots perspective. This goes beyond AA and B6. Pilots saw what happened to United, Delta, and AA pilots once scope was relaxed. Delta was a prime example example with constant scope violations with their international JVs. This NO vote is about protection the B6 pilots protecting one of the Industry leading scope clauses.

MIflyer12 wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots.

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

So true. If all of these commenters had gone through the first 15 years of working at JetBlue, they may have a basis for better understanding. There were decisions made during the negotiations for the first contract that required abandoning some of the pilots goals to achieve what they really thought was important. Scope is essentially the foundation upon which everything else is built. Seeing how other groups fare with poor, or no scope is enough proof that the pilot group was correct in its strategy.

11C wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots.

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

So true. If all of these commenters had gone through the first 15 years of working at JetBlue, they may have a basis for better understanding. There were decisions made during the negotiations for the first contract that required abandoning some of the pilots goals to achieve what they really thought was important. Scope is essentially the foundation upon which everything else is built. Seeing how other groups fare with poor, or no scope is enough proof that the pilot group was correct in its strategy.

This right here, 100 percent

tphuang wrote:

JoseSalazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

What are the practical implications of this? Limits on codesharing?

They can’t do the revenue sharing that is a part of the NEA, and they can’t codeshare focus city to focus city or focus city to international. That’s the big stuff I think. There’s some other smaller nuanced stuff.

My guess is it gets renegotiated and JetBlue will sweeten the pot a little.

Revenue sharing was never part of the NEA.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... ebsite.pdf
All it allowed for is schedule coordination on routes passing through BOS/JFK/EWR/LGA.
I don't see how DOT would allow a real domestic JV to get approved even in the current environment.

I think B6 will need to sweeten the pot a little bit and also tighten up the language of the scope relaxations. For example, the language on international flights makes it sounds like B6 will abandon its TATL ambitions. When more likely, they just put that in for more flexibility in when they start TATL flying and such. And focus city to focus city scope relaxation can be changed to only allowing code shares on routes AA was already flying pre-pandemic. Otherwise, it sounds like like they are looking to farm out focus city to focus city flying to AAE. When in reality, AA isn't going to give up flying on JFK/BOS-LAX or BOS-LGA just because there is a NEA.

There is most definitely a revenue sharing portion of this agreement, but it isn’t like most JV revenue sharing deals.

Here’s part of the B6ALPA sell job messaging addressing why it shouldn’t be a big deal to pilots:

Under this commercial agreement, the NEA uses a hybrid form of revenue sharing (Mutual Growth Incentive Agreement—as communicated in the Scope chairman’s message) to incentivize both parties to independently operate their respective network in a way that would take passengers from their competitors and put them on JetBlue and American metal. After reviewing the terms of the NEA, the DOT is requiring that both airlines grow. The revenue-sharing component of the NEA incentivizes both parties to be equally compensated for the additional risk taken by increasing the number of routes in highly competitive markets like New York and Boston.


So long as there is revenue sharing of any kind, a lot of B6 pilots will continue to vote no if a new LOA is negotiated.

JoseSalazar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

JoseSalazar wrote:

They can’t do the revenue sharing that is a part of the NEA, and they can’t codeshare focus city to focus city or focus city to international. That’s the big stuff I think. There’s some other smaller nuanced stuff.

My guess is it gets renegotiated and JetBlue will sweeten the pot a little.

Revenue sharing was never part of the NEA.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... ebsite.pdf
All it allowed for is schedule coordination on routes passing through BOS/JFK/EWR/LGA.
I don't see how DOT would allow a real domestic JV to get approved even in the current environment.

I think B6 will need to sweeten the pot a little bit and also tighten up the language of the scope relaxations. For example, the language on international flights makes it sounds like B6 will abandon its TATL ambitions. When more likely, they just put that in for more flexibility in when they start TATL flying and such. And focus city to focus city scope relaxation can be changed to only allowing code shares on routes AA was already flying pre-pandemic. Otherwise, it sounds like like they are looking to farm out focus city to focus city flying to AAE. When in reality, AA isn't going to give up flying on JFK/BOS-LAX or BOS-LGA just because there is a NEA.

There is most definitely a revenue sharing portion of this agreement, but it isn’t like most JV revenue sharing deals.

Here’s part of the B6ALPA sell job messaging addressing why it shouldn’t be a big deal to pilots:

Under this commercial agreement, the NEA uses a hybrid form of revenue sharing (Mutual Growth Incentive Agreement—as communicated in the Scope chairman’s message) to incentivize both parties to independently operate their respective network in a way that would take passengers from their competitors and put them on JetBlue and American metal. After reviewing the terms of the NEA, the DOT is requiring that both airlines grow. The revenue-sharing component of the NEA incentivizes both parties to be equally compensated for the additional risk taken by increasing the number of routes in highly competitive markets like New York and Boston.


So long as there is revenue sharing of any kind, a lot of B6 pilots will continue to vote no if a new LOA is negotiated.

Sorry, I'm a little confused here. How would this revenue sharing be different from your normal codeshare in an alliance between AA and AS?

if they can't coordinate pricing, how would they know what the other side charged on their ticket (which is how you would determine the revenue)?

MIflyer12 wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots.

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

Contrary to popular belief, ALPA pilots care about their company and career, not just pay and working conditions. JetBlue is just starting to spread its wings across the Atlantic, and could do more. The NEA has its plusses and its minuses. JetBlue gets to grow domestically particularly at LGA and EWR, but a lot of international will be outsourced to AA for the foreseeable future. Scope protection is key. For its part, Delta pilots have seen a lot of flying outsourced to international JV and equity partners. Paul Jacobson infamously said it was more economical to expand internationally by buying foreign airlines, than new DL widebodies. Of course, that $2b investment in LATAM isn't looking nearly as good these days.

TigerFlyer wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots.

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

Contrary to popular belief, ALPA pilots care about their company and career, not just pay and working conditions. JetBlue is just starting to spread its wings across the Atlantic, and could do more. The NEA has its plusses and its minuses. JetBlue gets to grow domestically particularly at LGA and EWR, but a lot of international will be outsourced to AA for the foreseeable future. Scope protection is key. For its part, Delta pilots have seen a lot of flying outsourced to international JV and equity partners. Paul Jacobson infamously said it was more economical to expand internationally by buying foreign airlines, than new DL widebodies. Of course, that $2b investment in LATAM isn't looking nearly as good these days.

But the pilots seem to be protecting something that hasn't even materialized yet (TATL flying on B6). And may only materialize in a limited aspect if no partnership with AA comes into being. B6 will never, ever match the TATL route network UA has out of EWR, nor what DL has out of JFK. And that's before you factor in their JV/ATI alliance partners. And even though this B6/AA partnership may limit how many TATL routes B6 may start in the future, it will definitely mean more domestic routes for B6, especially out of LGA. On the other hand, AA/DL/UA were all flying TATL before their respective JV/ATI partner agreements came into place.

Like I said before, the pilot/FA group most negatively impacted by this potential partnership are the ones at American Eagle's regional carriers.

tphuang wrote:

JoseSalazar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Revenue sharing was never part of the NEA.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... ebsite.pdf
All it allowed for is schedule coordination on routes passing through BOS/JFK/EWR/LGA.
I don't see how DOT would allow a real domestic JV to get approved even in the current environment.

I think B6 will need to sweeten the pot a little bit and also tighten up the language of the scope relaxations. For example, the language on international flights makes it sounds like B6 will abandon its TATL ambitions. When more likely, they just put that in for more flexibility in when they start TATL flying and such. And focus city to focus city scope relaxation can be changed to only allowing code shares on routes AA was already flying pre-pandemic. Otherwise, it sounds like like they are looking to farm out focus city to focus city flying to AAE. When in reality, AA isn't going to give up flying on JFK/BOS-LAX or BOS-LGA just because there is a NEA.

There is most definitely a revenue sharing portion of this agreement, but it isn’t like most JV revenue sharing deals.

Here’s part of the B6ALPA sell job messaging addressing why it shouldn’t be a big deal to pilots:

Under this commercial agreement, the NEA uses a hybrid form of revenue sharing (Mutual Growth Incentive Agreement—as communicated in the Scope chairman’s message) to incentivize both parties to independently operate their respective network in a way that would take passengers from their competitors and put them on JetBlue and American metal. After reviewing the terms of the NEA, the DOT is requiring that both airlines grow. The revenue-sharing component of the NEA incentivizes both parties to be equally compensated for the additional risk taken by increasing the number of routes in highly competitive markets like New York and Boston.


So long as there is revenue sharing of any kind, a lot of B6 pilots will continue to vote no if a new LOA is negotiated.

Sorry, I'm a little confused here. How would this revenue sharing be different from your normal codeshare in an alliance between AA and AS?

if they can't coordinate pricing, how would they know what the other side charged on their ticket (which is how you would determine the revenue)?

I believe they are upset about the MGIA but I didn't even know it was approved:

“Mutual Growth Incentive Payment Arrangements” means the methodology, as set out in this Agreement, used by the Parties to settle the Aggregate NEA Revenue Amount."
“Mutual Growth Incentive Payments” means a Party’s Periodic Mutual Growth Incentive Payment or its Final Mutual Growth Incentive Payment, as applicable."



https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... thince.htm

Mutual Growth Incentive Agreement: "In connection with the entry into the NEA Agreement, the Carriers also entered into the MGIA. The MGIA provides the terms of the payments between the Carriers in connection with the transactions contemplated by the NEA The MGIA shall remain in effect so long as the NEA Agreement remains in effect and can only be terminated in accordance with the NEA Agreement."

https://sec.report//Document/1158463/00 ... garlan.htm

Full agreement
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... llianc.htm

TigerFlyer wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots.

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

Contrary to popular belief, ALPA pilots care about their company and career, not just pay and working conditions.

'Care about' is a very fuzzy metric. I invite you to put forth evidence.

IMHO, the contract drivers are:

1. Pilots making sure they get their 'fair share.'

2. Senior pilots making sure they retain their advantages over junior pilots.

Recent evidence of #2, DL's no pilot furlough agreement:

The deal allows the company to lower pilots’ guaranteed hours by as much 5%. The more than 1,700 pilots who would have been furloughed by the Atlanta-based airline at the end of the month will get partial pay of 30 hours a month and will not have to fly.

Senior pilots lose up to 5% of pay. Junior pilots lose 54%, from a guarantee of 65 hours to 30.

MIflyer12 wrote:

TigerFlyer wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

Contrary to popular belief, ALPA pilots care about their company and career, not just pay and working conditions.

'Care about' is a very fuzzy metric. I invite you to put forth evidence.

IMHO, the contract drivers are:

1. Pilots making sure they get their 'fair share.'

2. Senior pilots making sure they retain their advantages over junior pilots.

Recent evidence of #2, DL's no pilot furlough agreement:

The deal allows the company to lower pilots’ guaranteed hours by as much 5%. The more than 1,700 pilots who would have been furloughed by the Atlanta-based airline at the end of the month will get partial pay of 30 hours a month and will not have to fly.

Senior pilots lose up to 5% of pay. Junior pilots lose 54%, from a guarantee of 65 hours to 30.

That’s not the way JetBlue’s incentive lines work. They are voluntary, not seniority based. Also, the line value reduction we negotiated is across the seniority list, not just for junior pilots.

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. The AA codeshare is not contingent on this vote and was previously approved in the summer. This LOA gave them a 2% raise and furlough protection in exchange for line value relief so fewer guys would sit reserve. But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. ........ But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

You're forgetting protecting Scope. B6ALPA is avoiding the slippery slope the other pilots groups did not, and are paying for to this day. Once they allow company a chip in scope, company will be back for a chunk. The no vote here protected Scope.

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. The AA codeshare is not contingent on this vote and was previously approved in the summer. This LOA gave them a 2% raise and furlough protection in exchange for line value relief so fewer guys would sit reserve. But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

No. PS was only a minor item, and even if it was included, this still wouldn’t have passed. Section 1 (scope) relief was the big show stopper. TLV relief would fund the 2% pay “raise.” Funding your own raise isn’t much of a raise now, is it? Also, JetBlue pilots are tired of getting 2% raises as they did in the current CBA, when most other airlines have hd 3%. This 2% “raise” (again, self-funded) would put the 2022 B6 pay rates where legacy rates were in 2019. That is not enough to sway many. B6 pilots took less for their robust scope protections—and now the company and the union both tried to give it away for nothing, under the guise of “fewer people will sit reserve.” Yeah....ok. How many more? And how much money would the pilot group lose?

Also, just because a CBA becomes amendable, doesn’t mean 1) it will get amended and ratified anytime soon and 2) doesn’t mean pilots will be able to gain profit sharing, or any other items. Especially since they will have no leverage a year or two from now when their CBA is amendable. The company unilaterally took profit sharing away during the last CBA negotiations, before JetBlue pilots had a contract, which not coincidentally happened to be when they started becoming decently profitable. All JetBlue pilots want is their old formula back. Profit sharing would cost the company nothing right now. So how out of touch are pilots wanting profit sharing when it won’t cost them anything until they are profitable again? Historically, most good profit sharing formulas have come during bad times. JetBlue took away PS during the best of times because they didn’t want to share profits when profits were big. They took it away and simultaneously started buying back billions in stock. So basically pilots got the lowest pay, worst profit sharing, mediocre work rules, because scope was so solid. Now they want pilots to give it away for nothing, and not restore the previous PS. Nope.

The pilots want the company to succeed. But if they are giving up a major and sacred section of their contract (scope relief) to provide JetBlue with hundreds of millions (I think it’s actually in the billions) of additional revenue, then JetBlue management needs to get serious with their offer. Also, the pilot enforcement of growth metrics (not NEA metrics, but those from the B6 failed LOA) can’t be remedied until 2027 at the earliest if JetBlue isn’t compliant. That won’t fly for most pilots.

The termination fees from the NEA are far too high for JetBlue to back out. They need to renegotiate this, or they will get crushed by the arbitrator for violating scope in my opinion. That could also cost them. To successfully renegotiate, in my opinion, they need better raises, profit sharing to share the revenue NEA brings in, which is allowed only by the pilots giving scope relief, and to not allow 100% of international codeshare to go to AA. There also needs to be restriction on American eagle operating B6 code, as well as elimination or mitigation of the revenue sharing to protect B6 pilot jobs.

TL;DR, this is about much more than profit sharing.

SPREE34 wrote:

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. ........ But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

You're forgetting protecting Scope. B6ALPA is avoiding the slippery slope the other pilots groups did not, and are paying for to this day. Once they allow company a chip in scope, company will be back for a chunk. The no vote here protected Scope.

You know what it is? many of these posters are fanboys that know nothing about the nuts and bolts of scope. They are excited over new routes (to be announced today) and paint jobs. I get it. im a fanboy too.

But when you have a mortgage to pay and family to support, this is about so much more than shiny new jet syndrome.

Scope protects pilot jobs.

B6 pilots have ironclad scope. the company negotiated this scope just a few years ago. The rest of the contract is mediocre. Now, management wants relief from scope for 10 years and in return offered a one time 2 percent raise and 10 months of furlough protection that wont be needed because of ongoing government aid that doesnt allow furloughs.

Now, the company and union will go to expedited arbitration.

The company will be going in with an on the record “we are implementing this anyway”

Not a good spot to be.

Or, the union and company will renegotiate something to get the pilots onboard.

We just got word of the new JFK service that was rumored before. So it’s official. Colombia, Chile, St. Lucia and Turks and Caicos

aacun wrote:

We just got word of the new JFK service that was rumored before. So it’s official. Colombia, Chile, St. Lucia and Turks and Caicos

Indeed, BOG, CLO, MDE all daily and all 319s and SCL 3 x weekly then daily from November. Surprised AA is putting a 777 on the SCL route from JFK. Likely too much plane for this but JFK isn't a 787 station right now. UVF and PLS from JFK is once weekly on Saturdays from June. Plus JFK-SNA comes back (it operated in the 2000s briefly on the 757 and didn't work) and this time will be on the 321T. Interesting adds....

Why is EWR in the codeshare? There’s almost no connecting options.

JoseSalazar wrote:

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. The AA codeshare is not contingent on this vote and was previously approved in the summer. This LOA gave them a 2% raise and furlough protection in exchange for line value relief so fewer guys would sit reserve. But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

No. PS was only a minor item, and even if it was included, this still wouldn’t have passed. Section 1 (scope) relief was the big show stopper. TLV relief would fund the 2% pay “raise.” Funding your own raise isn’t much of a raise now, is it? Also, JetBlue pilots are tired of getting 2% raises as they did in the current CBA, when most other airlines have hd 3%. This 2% “raise” (again, self-funded) would put the 2022 B6 pay rates where legacy rates were in 2019. That is not enough to sway many. B6 pilots took less for their robust scope protections—and now the company and the union both tried to give it away for nothing, under the guise of “fewer people will sit reserve.” Yeah....ok. How many more? And how much money would the pilot group lose?

Also, just because a CBA becomes amendable, doesn’t mean 1) it will get amended and ratified anytime soon and 2) doesn’t mean pilots will be able to gain profit sharing, or any other items. Especially since they will have no leverage a year or two from now when their CBA is amendable. The company unilaterally took profit sharing away during the last CBA negotiations, before JetBlue pilots had a contract, which not coincidentally happened to be when they started becoming decently profitable. All JetBlue pilots want is their old formula back. Profit sharing would cost the company nothing right now. So how out of touch are pilots wanting profit sharing when it won’t cost them anything until they are profitable again? Historically, most good profit sharing formulas have come during bad times. JetBlue took away PS during the best of times because they didn’t want to share profits when profits were big. They took it away and simultaneously started buying back billions in stock. So basically pilots got the lowest pay, worst profit sharing, mediocre work rules, because scope was so solid. Now they want pilots to give it away for nothing, and not restore the previous PS. Nope.

The pilots want the company to succeed. But if they are giving up a major and sacred section of their contract (scope relief) to provide JetBlue with hundreds of millions (I think it’s actually in the billions) of additional revenue, then JetBlue management needs to get serious with their offer. Also, the pilot enforcement of growth metrics (not NEA metrics, but those from the B6 failed LOA) can’t be remedied until 2027 at the earliest if JetBlue isn’t compliant. That won’t fly for most pilots.

The termination fees from the NEA are far too high for JetBlue to back out. They need to renegotiate this, or they will get crushed by the arbitrator for violating scope in my opinion. That could also cost them. To successfully renegotiate, in my opinion, they need better raises, profit sharing to share the revenue NEA brings in, which is allowed only by the pilots giving scope relief, and to not allow 100% of international codeshare to go to AA. There also needs to be restriction on American eagle operating B6 code, as well as elimination or mitigation of the revenue sharing to protect B6 pilot jobs.

TL;DR, this is about much more than profit sharing.

Very well stated. This is precisely the angst of the majority of the professional aviators at Jetblue.

It´s official according to AA:

http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/do ... 2-2021.pdf

Chile should do well. Its developed according to the State deparment and is the ONLY Latin American country in the US VISA Waiver Program.

JoseSalazar wrote:

The termination fees from the NEA are far too high for JetBlue to back out. They need to renegotiate this, or they will get crushed by the arbitrator for violating scope in my opinion. That could also cost them. To successfully renegotiate, in my opinion, they need better raises, profit sharing to share the revenue NEA brings in, which is allowed only by the pilots giving scope relief, and to not allow 100% of international codeshare to go to AA. There also needs to be restriction on American eagle operating B6 code, as well as elimination or mitigation of the revenue sharing to protect B6 pilot jobs.

TL;DR, this is about much more than profit sharing.

i don't think the danger is in JetBlue backing out.

Even at not being able to put B6 codeshare on AA non-Caribbean international stuff or focus city to focus city stuff, this deal is well worth it for JetBlue from the interlining/reprotection, AA codeshare on B6 metals and more slots. The issue is that AA might not be satisfied with what B6 is able to codeshare and decide to slow roll the implementation of NEA. Or due to B6 not being able to put codeshare on AA flights hurting performance of AA flights. That imo would reduce incentive for AA to lease more slots to JetBlue or even reduce further cooperation.

So, it seems to me that JetBlue will come back to pilots if it wants NEA to work out well. I think the international non-caribbean codehare shouldn't be too hard to work out. I can't see why would not have a bunch of its own TATL flights after already spending so much money on this?

Restriction on AE operating B6 code would be harder point to achieve. I don't see how B6 can tell AA that they can't operate RJ out of LGA on routes that they have always been flying RJ on. Even if that's just a condition on focus to focus city flights, could AA guarantee they never schedule a couple of flights a day on RJ on BOS-LGA? In the end of the day, those slots belong to AA. It's up to them to decide how many LGA slots they lease to JetBlue.

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. The AA codeshare is not contingent on this vote and was previously approved in the summer. This LOA gave them a 2% raise and furlough protection in exchange for line value relief so fewer guys would sit reserve. But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

This just shows that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. The envy of the industry’s profit sharing scheme has been Delta for some time now. DALPA negotiated that during a time when there were no profits. This is precisely the time to get PS. It’s a bargaining chip that costs the company absolutely nothing until they’re back to profitability.

Looks like code share also gives Jetblue regional feed that they werent allowed to have under their contract. Routes that were too thing for a 190 or A320 now being flown by American Eagle. Biggest winner here seems to be Newark.

x1234 wrote:

Chile should do well. Its developed according to the State deparment and is the ONLY Latin American country in the US VISA Waiver Program.

Maybe. LATAM flies it too, and has been established on the route for years, and this is a long-thin route. The 772 AA intends to put on the route is very likely too much plane vs the 787-8/9 that Latam usually flies. Time will tell I guess, but it makes sense for AA to add it.

Got an email from B6 with these new routes from LGA in the summer:
New York (LGA): Charleston and Denver, and seasonal service to Martha's Vineyard.

Is B6 really going to continue using the Marine Air Terminal at LGA? A bit small for the increasing number of destinations. I feel like the additional flights and now code-share with AA should put them in the Central Terminal B.

JoseSalazar wrote:

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. The AA codeshare is not contingent on this vote and was previously approved in the summer. This LOA gave them a 2% raise and furlough protection in exchange for line value relief so fewer guys would sit reserve. But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

No. PS was only a minor item, and even if it was included, this still wouldn’t have passed. Section 1 (scope) relief was the big show stopper. TLV relief would fund the 2% pay “raise.” Funding your own raise isn’t much of a raise now, is it? Also, JetBlue pilots are tired of getting 2% raises as they did in the current CBA, when most other airlines have hd 3%. This 2% “raise” (again, self-funded) would put the 2022 B6 pay rates where legacy rates were in 2019. That is not enough to sway many. B6 pilots took less for their robust scope protections—and now the company and the union both tried to give it away for nothing, under the guise of “fewer people will sit reserve.” Yeah....ok. How many more? And how much money would the pilot group lose?

Also, just because a CBA becomes amendable, doesn’t mean 1) it will get amended and ratified anytime soon and 2) doesn’t mean pilots will be able to gain profit sharing, or any other items. Especially since they will have no leverage a year or two from now when their CBA is amendable. The company unilaterally took profit sharing away during the last CBA negotiations, before JetBlue pilots had a contract, which not coincidentally happened to be when they started becoming decently profitable. All JetBlue pilots want is their old formula back. Profit sharing would cost the company nothing right now. So how out of touch are pilots wanting profit sharing when it won’t cost them anything until they are profitable again? Historically, most good profit sharing formulas have come during bad times. JetBlue took away PS during the best of times because they didn’t want to share profits when profits were big. They took it away and simultaneously started buying back billions in stock. So basically pilots got the lowest pay, worst profit sharing, mediocre work rules, because scope was so solid. Now they want pilots to give it away for nothing, and not restore the previous PS. Nope.

The pilots want the company to succeed. But if they are giving up a major and sacred section of their contract (scope relief) to provide JetBlue with hundreds of millions (I think it’s actually in the billions) of additional revenue, then JetBlue management needs to get serious with their offer. Also, the pilot enforcement of growth metrics (not NEA metrics, but those from the B6 failed LOA) can’t be remedied until 2027 at the earliest if JetBlue isn’t compliant. That won’t fly for most pilots.

The termination fees from the NEA are far too high for JetBlue to back out. They need to renegotiate this, or they will get crushed by the arbitrator for violating scope in my opinion. That could also cost them. To successfully renegotiate, in my opinion, they need better raises, profit sharing to share the revenue NEA brings in, which is allowed only by the pilots giving scope relief, and to not allow 100% of international codeshare to go to AA. There also needs to be restriction on American eagle operating B6 code, as well as elimination or mitigation of the revenue sharing to protect B6 pilot jobs.

TL;DR, this is about much more than profit sharing.

Well said...

nc3rd wrote:

Looks like code share also gives Jetblue regional feed that they werent allowed to have under their contract. Routes that were too thing for a 190 or A320 now being flown by American Eagle. Biggest winner here seems to be Newark.

That's a really high cost regional feed. B6 with E90 or A220 should have no problem flying to places like CMH/IND from BOS and NYC.

EWR is where the demand is right now. I won't be surprised if B6 came into this thinking additional LGA flying is the biggest win they get from this deal, but are finding out that people would rather fly out of Newark

PSA727 wrote:

TigerFlyer wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

Contrary to popular belief, ALPA pilots care about their company and career, not just pay and working conditions. JetBlue is just starting to spread its wings across the Atlantic, and could do more. The NEA has its plusses and its minuses. JetBlue gets to grow domestically particularly at LGA and EWR, but a lot of international will be outsourced to AA for the foreseeable future. Scope protection is key. For its part, Delta pilots have seen a lot of flying outsourced to international JV and equity partners. Paul Jacobson infamously said it was more economical to expand internationally by buying foreign airlines, than new DL widebodies. Of course, that $2b investment in LATAM isn't looking nearly as good these days.

But the pilots seem to be protecting something that hasn't even materialized yet (TATL flying on B6). And may only materialize in a limited aspect if no partnership with AA comes into being. B6 will never, ever match the TATL route network UA has out of EWR, nor what DL has out of JFK. And that's before you factor in their JV/ATI alliance partners. And even though this B6/AA partnership may limit how many TATL routes B6 may start in the future, it will definitely mean more domestic routes for B6, especially out of LGA. On the other hand, AA/DL/UA were all flying TATL before their respective JV/ATI partner agreements came into place.

Like I said before, the pilot/FA group most negatively impacted by this potential partnership are the ones at American Eagle's regional carriers.

That would be YX.

tphuang wrote:

nc3rd wrote:

Looks like code share also gives Jetblue regional feed that they werent allowed to have under their contract. Routes that were too thing for a 190 or A320 now being flown by American Eagle. Biggest winner here seems to be Newark.

That's a really high cost regional feed. B6 with E90 or A220 should have no problem flying to places like CMH/IND from BOS and NYC.

EWR is where the demand is right now. I won't be surprised if B6 came into this thinking additional LGA flying is the biggest win they get from this deal, but are finding out that people would rather fly out of Newark

On a flight-level basis, a 190 or 220 would be fine.

However, CMH and IND would both be new (resumed in the case of CMH) stations for B6. It's easy enough to contract everything out for a once a day flight that's a redeye - BOS-IND/CMH will likely be multiple frequencies at different time channels to capture business traffic. That adds up costs quite a bit - you need to have a dedicated gate, ground handling, etc. In the case of CMH and IND (and really all these other BOS routes on Eagle), AA has all that in place at the outstations - there's very marginal additional costs to tack on at the spokes - gates and staff are all pretty much baked into the financials to begin with.

deltairlines wrote:

tphuang wrote:

nc3rd wrote:

Looks like code share also gives Jetblue regional feed that they werent allowed to have under their contract. Routes that were too thing for a 190 or A320 now being flown by American Eagle. Biggest winner here seems to be Newark.

That's a really high cost regional feed. B6 with E90 or A220 should have no problem flying to places like CMH/IND from BOS and NYC.

EWR is where the demand is right now. I won't be surprised if B6 came into this thinking additional LGA flying is the biggest win they get from this deal, but are finding out that people would rather fly out of Newark

On a flight-level basis, a 190 or 220 would be fine.

However, CMH and IND would both be new (resumed in the case of CMH) stations for B6. It's easy enough to contract everything out for a once a day flight that's a redeye - BOS-IND/CMH will likely be multiple frequencies at different time channels to capture business traffic. That adds up costs quite a bit - you need to have a dedicated gate, ground handling, etc. In the case of CMH and IND (and really all these other BOS routes on Eagle), AA has all that in place at the outstations - there's very marginal additional costs to tack on at the spokes - gates and staff are all pretty much baked into the financials to begin with.

Sure, but at some point, JetBlue will need to add these markets. It can't keep ignoring service to middle of the America just because opening new year round stations cost money. From all indications we get, IND and CMH are among the most likely middle of the country market to add.

jfklganyc wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. ........ But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

You're forgetting protecting Scope. B6ALPA is avoiding the slippery slope the other pilots groups did not, and are paying for to this day. Once they allow company a chip in scope, company will be back for a chunk. The no vote here protected Scope.

You know what it is? many of these posters are fanboys that know nothing about the nuts and bolts of scope. They are excited over new routes (to be announced today) and paint jobs. I get it. im a fanboy too.

But when you have a mortgage to pay and family to support, this is about so much more than shiny new jet syndrome.

Scope protects pilot jobs.

B6 pilots have ironclad scope. the company negotiated this scope just a few years ago. The rest of the contract is mediocre. Now, management wants relief from scope for 10 years and in return offered a one time 2 percent raise and 10 months of furlough protection that wont be needed because of ongoing government aid that doesnt allow furloughs.

Now, the company and union will go to expedited arbitration.

The company will be going in with an on the record “we are implementing this anyway”

Not a good spot to be.

Or, the union and company will renegotiate something to get the pilots onboard.

Not a good spot to be in for who, the company? Why? LOA 12 already authorized them to move forward with it. The pilot group should be worried about an arbitrator who is going to point to it already being implemented, pax who have already bought tickets, and saying "what's the real damage here?"

The pilot group's anger is misguided. The company didn't unilaterally push this. They have an MEC who negotiated it and agreed to it.

ABEguy wrote:

catiii wrote:

The pilot group has lost touch with reality. The AA codeshare is not contingent on this vote and was previously approved in the summer. This LOA gave them a 2% raise and furlough protection in exchange for line value relief so fewer guys would sit reserve. But this pilot group wanted “profit sharing” which in the middle of a pandemic shows how they’ve spun off the planet.

The contract is amendable next year. That would have been the place to make a stand on profit sharing.

This just shows that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. The envy of the industry’s profit sharing scheme has been Delta for some time now. DALPA negotiated that during a time when there were no profits. This is precisely the time to get PS. It’s a bargaining chip that costs the company absolutely nothing until they’re back to profitability.

I don't know what I'm talking about? You mean the major give back of the 10/20 profit in the 2016 agreement, the same year DL made about $5B pre tax?

Do you think AA could launch at some point JFK-LIM?

catiii wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

You're forgetting protecting Scope. B6ALPA is avoiding the slippery slope the other pilots groups did not, and are paying for to this day. Once they allow company a chip in scope, company will be back for a chunk. The no vote here protected Scope.

You know what it is? many of these posters are fanboys that know nothing about the nuts and bolts of scope. They are excited over new routes (to be announced today) and paint jobs. I get it. im a fanboy too.

But when you have a mortgage to pay and family to support, this is about so much more than shiny new jet syndrome.

Scope protects pilot jobs.

B6 pilots have ironclad scope. the company negotiated this scope just a few years ago. The rest of the contract is mediocre. Now, management wants relief from scope for 10 years and in return offered a one time 2 percent raise and 10 months of furlough protection that wont be needed because of ongoing government aid that doesnt allow furloughs.

Now, the company and union will go to expedited arbitration.

The company will be going in with an on the record “we are implementing this anyway”

Not a good spot to be.

Or, the union and company will renegotiate something to get the pilots onboard.

Not a good spot to be in for who, the company? Why? LOA 12 already authorized them to move forward with it. The pilot group should be worried about an arbitrator who is going to point to it already being implemented, pax who have already bought tickets, and saying "what's the real damage here?"

The pilot group's anger is misguided. The company didn't unilaterally push this. They have an MEC who negotiated it and agreed to it.

LOA 12: A. Code Sharing
1. For the period beginning on the effective date of this LOA and ending on May 1,
2021, the Parties agree to the following:


Your LOA Expires May 1.


You seem to not understand or appreciate contract law. It isn’t an emotional sport.

There’s a contract that was signed by two parties.

One party wants to amend it, they approach the other party.

The other party, after discussions/deliberations/voting says no.

The party seeking the change says we will knowingly violate the contract.

The second party goes to expedited arbitration.

That is how this game is played.

No anger. Certainly not misguided.

tphuang wrote:

deltairlines wrote:

tphuang wrote:

That's a really high cost regional feed. B6 with E90 or A220 should have no problem flying to places like CMH/IND from BOS and NYC.

EWR is where the demand is right now. I won't be surprised if B6 came into this thinking additional LGA flying is the biggest win they get from this deal, but are finding out that people would rather fly out of Newark

On a flight-level basis, a 190 or 220 would be fine.

However, CMH and IND would both be new (resumed in the case of CMH) stations for B6. It's easy enough to contract everything out for a once a day flight that's a redeye - BOS-IND/CMH will likely be multiple frequencies at different time channels to capture business traffic. That adds up costs quite a bit - you need to have a dedicated gate, ground handling, etc. In the case of CMH and IND (and really all these other BOS routes on Eagle), AA has all that in place at the outstations - there's very marginal additional costs to tack on at the spokes - gates and staff are all pretty much baked into the financials to begin with.

Sure, but at some point, JetBlue will need to add these markets. It can't keep ignoring service to middle of the America just because opening new year round stations cost money. From all indications we get, IND and CMH are among the most likely middle of the country market to add.

Which is why they'll eventually merge with another airline.

AmericanAir88 wrote:

Got an email from B6 with these new routes from LGA in the summer:
New York (LGA): Charleston and Denver, and seasonal service to Martha's Vineyard.

Is B6 really going to continue using the Marine Air Terminal at LGA? A bit small for the increasing number of destinations. I feel like the additional flights and now code-share with AA should put them in the Central Terminal B.

I think B6 will be using some gates at the main terminal building, at some point. That is part of the agreement.

catiii wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

SPREE34 wrote:

You're forgetting protecting Scope. B6ALPA is avoiding the slippery slope the other pilots groups did not, and are paying for to this day. Once they allow company a chip in scope, company will be back for a chunk. The no vote here protected Scope.

You know what it is? many of these posters are fanboys that know nothing about the nuts and bolts of scope. They are excited over new routes (to be announced today) and paint jobs. I get it. im a fanboy too.

But when you have a mortgage to pay and family to support, this is about so much more than shiny new jet syndrome.

Scope protects pilot jobs.

B6 pilots have ironclad scope. the company negotiated this scope just a few years ago. The rest of the contract is mediocre. Now, management wants relief from scope for 10 years and in return offered a one time 2 percent raise and 10 months of furlough protection that wont be needed because of ongoing government aid that doesnt allow furloughs.

Now, the company and union will go to expedited arbitration.

The company will be going in with an on the record “we are implementing this anyway”

Not a good spot to be.

Or, the union and company will renegotiate something to get the pilots onboard.

Not a good spot to be in for who, the company? Why? LOA 12 already authorized them to move forward with it. The pilot group should be worried about an arbitrator who is going to point to it already being implemented, pax who have already bought tickets, and saying "what's the real damage here?"

The pilot group's anger is misguided. The company didn't unilaterally push this. They have an MEC who negotiated it and agreed to it.

Who cares what the MEC agreed to? What this weak MEC agrees to matters not if the members vote it down. Also, it is the same MEC that violated ALPA policy by not even giving the members a vote for LOA 12, and they should have been recalled for that. It wasn’t until recently that the full details of the NEA were revealed to the pilots. The MEC initially sold it to the pilots during LOA12 rollout as a simple codeshare that could have happened anyway per B6 scope if B6 were growing. The B6ALPA MEC/reps misrepresented what the details of the NEA were, and there are efforts being initiated as we speak to recall the 12 LEC members who voted yes and who support the MEC (that’s the first step of recalling the MEC...as the members can’t directly recall the MEC). Pilots are angry at the MEC/NC for putting this crap deal together, and angry at the company for blatantly violating the most sacred part of the contract. This is why ALPA got voted in in the first place 6 years ago. The company is used to the direct relationship and violating their word and their agreements with workgroups, and peeing on them while saying it’s raining out. They continue to show their true colors. They preach integrity, but then blatantly violate it. They have now declared war on the pilot group. It won’t go well for the company, both from the pilots’ standpoint, or the arbitrator’s. If this vote were to reopen, it would fail by an even larger margin. I know quite a few yes voters who have already turned against the company.

I find the new LGA-RAP flight to be really interesting. Will it be Saturday only or operated during the week as well?

The flight is 1,502 miles per GCMap which is 2 miles over the LGA perimeter rule. Does the rule go by LGA or by "NYC"? Because if by NYC, the flight is 1,496 mles.

AA needs to get their pricing strategy fixed. Lots of complaints about the high costs for B6 flights.

iwastemyday wrote:

I find the new LGA-RAP flight to be really interesting. Will it be Saturday only or operated during the week as well?

The flight is 1,502 miles per GCMap which is 2 miles over the LGA perimeter rule. Does the rule go by LGA or by "NYC"? Because if by NYC, the flight is 1,496 mles.

If it’s Saturday only, it’s not perimeter controlled.

iwastemyday wrote:

I find the new LGA-RAP flight to be really interesting. Will it be Saturday only or operated during the week as well?

The flight is 1,502 miles per GCMap which is 2 miles over the LGA perimeter rule. Does the rule go by LGA or by "NYC"? Because if by NYC, the flight is 1,496 mles.

Only operates on Saturdays so no perimeter rule. Plenty of flights like this have come and gone out of LGA. Nothing new here.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

AA needs to get their pricing strategy fixed. Lots of complaints about the high costs for B6 flights.

Keep in mind that they are apparently going to implement reciprocal mileage earning benefits which will allow you to purchase AA flight and choose it to credit to TrueBlue and vice versa. If they get that implemented, you really don't need code share pricing to make sense. Just purchase the flight on the operating carrier and credit it to the program that you want to get miles.

deltairlines wrote:

tphuang wrote:

nc3rd wrote:

Looks like code share also gives Jetblue regional feed that they werent allowed to have under their contract. Routes that were too thing for a 190 or A320 now being flown by American Eagle. Biggest winner here seems to be Newark.

That's a really high cost regional feed. B6 with E90 or A220 should have no problem flying to places like CMH/IND from BOS and NYC.

EWR is where the demand is right now. I won't be surprised if B6 came into this thinking additional LGA flying is the biggest win they get from this deal, but are finding out that people would rather fly out of Newark

On a flight-level basis, a 190 or 220 would be fine.

However, CMH and IND would both be new (resumed in the case of CMH) stations for B6. It's easy enough to contract everything out for a once a day flight that's a redeye - BOS-IND/CMH will likely be multiple frequencies at different time channels to capture business traffic. That adds up costs quite a bit - you need to have a dedicated gate, ground handling, etc. In the case of CMH and IND (and really all these other BOS routes on Eagle), AA has all that in place at the outstations - there's very marginal additional costs to tack on at the spokes - gates and staff are all pretty much baked into the financials to begin with.

If I am understanding the Mutual Growth Incentive Agreement(MGIA) between AA & B6 correctly (which I am not 100% sure I am). It appears that both AA & B6 will pay each other based on how many new routes/seats each carrier grows.

With YX having its largest bases in IND & CMH, and doing lots of BOS flying for AA, it seems to make a lot of sense for AA to operate these routes. As you mentioned the costs are low, the planes/crew need to come from IND & CMH anyway to feed other BOS regional flying, and based on the wording of their agreement, AA will even receive incentive payments from B6 to operate these flights.

Similar story with LGA, YX is moving lots of its flying to LGA in anticipation of AA.

It's confusing because I have not been able to find any info, filings, or articles (I suspect that is intentional) about this piece of the agreement other than a heavily redacted SEC filing.

rjbesikof wrote:

Do you think AA could launch at some point JFK-LIM?

I wouldn’t be surprised to see JFK-LIM with the growing emphasis on Latin American routes. AA is growing MIA-LIM with a fourth daily flight this summer and they seem to be confident with the 787 on DFW-LIM.

Although, what aircraft would it be on? AA hasn’t integrated the 787 to JFK yet, the 757s are now gone, and the A321XLRs won’t be here for several years. Could the 737 MAX do it? AA planned to use the MAX on MIA-BSB, which is slightly shorter than JFK-LIM.

When will phase two be announced they said this was just phase one of there code share meaning more routes wonder where too ?

11C wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

This seems like ALPA is just using this as an excuse to get more benefits for their pilots.

Of course it is! Every contract change sought by the company is an opportunity to seek more pay and work protections. You could hand ALPA a six-scoop banana split and they'd argue to 'respect' the pilots it really needs to be eight, and with more sprinkles. That is how labor bargaining plays out in the U.S. airline (passenger or freight) industry.

So true. If all of these commenters had gone through the first 15 years of working at JetBlue, they may have a basis for better understanding. There were decisions made during the negotiations for the first contract that required abandoning some of the pilots goals to achieve what they really thought was important. Scope is essentially the foundation upon which everything else is built. Seeing how other groups fare with poor, or no scope is enough proof that the pilot group was correct in its strategy.

Bingo! See AS for the definition of ‘no scope’.

Theres's a disconnect between management and the pilot group, I think largely caused by the government assistance. Management knows the true severity of the situation while the pilots have been among the largest benefactors (probably in the world) of pandemic assistance. There's no urgency on the pilot's part to grow the business (or modify anything for that matter) as long as government funds them. If there's no urgency, then it's time to leverage the CBA for further gains.