Originally Posted by
Bluedriver
Its a TWO WAY codeshare. TWO WAY. So you are saying that AA and JB management, through their collaboration and planning, would have the MORE expensive and LESS productive group do the lion's share of the new flying?
Look, I am not saying I want substantial codesharing, and no say in the codesharing. But I am not as convinced that WE will be the big losers in an AA codeshare. I also think it is niave and misleading to suggest that if we don't allow any codesharing, management will be forced to order a whole bunch of new airplanes to fly those routes that we wouldn't let them codeshare on.....
Also, if a big mega-carrier (biggest in the world) wants to code-share with us, the same one we have been taking their flying from for years, and we say no-thanks, they may have a pretty aggressive anti-cooperative and anti-jetBlue response waiting for us.... Maybe it isn't smart to poke the BIG BEAR in the eye at this stage of our existince over some routes that we might otherwise overlap on or be unprofitable for us both to serve at the same time....
Again, us forcing management to not codeshare will NOT force them to order a bunch more airplanes and grow faster than they want....
Yes, I am pro-union.
More flying at what cost? I hear the revenue stream is anticipated at 100 million. With the least restrictive code sharing, JB will become dependant on the income and will end up having to compete, or bid for further revenue with other potential carriers. Thus will end up with a chunk of flying that puts JB into a Regional carrier status. Your future will be competing against lowest bidder. Sound familiar?
Even if the flying isn't threatened, you will hear from leadership the threat of losing revenue if you are paid too much. Have fun with that!