Originally Posted by
lake alice
And this arrangement can continue indefinitely with the approval of the PVC without input from the pilot group. As we have no enforceable scope this little caveat was added to prevent any unnecessary litigation.
Lake,
Of course you will notice my absence from the discussion lately only because it degraded to name calling. You will also notice, that I have never personally attacked you (where as the opposite is not true). I respect your efforts for the company, and I, like you wish for improvements. I only want those improvement to occur in a different manner without what I call legacy CBA ideas, because I to have been around this industry in some form my entire life and seen nothing but degradation. I feel JetBlue actually can be a highly successful company if we remain cost efficient across all labor groups and across the corporation, management included.
Now to my point of the quote, with regard to Hawaiin. Instead of pilots being happy about B6 adding another revenue stream to the bottom line. Pilots somehow feel we are entitled to dictate corporate strategy by hiding behind "scope." JetBlue has never intended to fly wide body aircraft, so please tell me how we should somehow limit the companies ability to have a code share with Hawaiin, because the pilots of JetBlue feel we should have wide bodies on the property. This is exactly the kind of legacy CBA mentality I am talking about. The Hawaiin deal is a good thing for the pilots of JetBlue because it puts more revenue in our pocket and more capacity on our aircraft so we can continue to grow. But somehow pilots that want to be corporate directors and dictate corporate strategy. When we hamstring or limit the companies ability to do positive things for the company as a whole, that is when we will fail or become bankrupt just like every legacy before us. Again, this is my opinion. Please keep it civil or you will no longer hear my opinion.