Originally Posted by
Bozo the pilot
They wouldnt codeshare out that much flying- Its not profitable enough.
Yes, the overhead costs are diminished, but so are the profits.
On a broader, conceptual note, contrary to popular belief, Airlines dont find ways to screw pilots over- They find ways to make the MOST money and sometimes the pilots get hosed as a result.
My point is that just because something is not specifically addressed in a CBA, doesnt mean it will happen. A CBA is meant to mitigate REASONABLE actions that the company will take, not ALL actions.
A CBA that limits ALL possible company actions, would be thousands of pages long. At some point you just put up enough road blocks and figure said company wont shoot themselves in the foot just to screw the pilot group.
To someones point "How is this good for Jblu pilots?"
It requires a measure of growth- Which is good.
I believe that no level of growth would satisfy codeshares for some of you, and I totally get that too.
To you Beatnavy- I appreciate your belief in a zero codeshare based on the SWA model, but are you willing to lose some flying that we do because of codeshares in order to limit jetblue? Not sure if that is ideal either.
Now, with B6, all fears could come true. Do you guys want zero protection for another year or more?
The codeshares themselves aren’t that profitable, but the pax getting into our network become profitable when they connect on us. Using the ALK example, if we throw a bunch of people into codeshares on the west coast and make money off them when they board a connecting JetBlue plane, the company makes money. Great. A JetBlue pilot flies that pax at some point. Great. What’s not great is now the company has less reason to try to expand organically in those markets. They are already getting connections from those markets on a HZ/SKW/ALK plane.
How do you imagine we will lose flying without codeshares I’m speaking about? We don’t currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we don’t/can’t feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Don’t care about that piston flying. Intl connections we can’t fly ourselves? Don’t care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I can’t seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if that’s via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we don’t fly...that’s fine.
What I do care about is codeshares we don’t have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just can’t seem to get right. The good part about it is it could add more pax to our network. The bad part: that limits our need to grow in there on our own. My whole point is codeshares are fine for places we can’t fly ourselves. But for places we can fly ourselves, we should do it ourselves. And we should put limits on existing codeshares for places which we become capable of flying (HNL, or wherever). But this TA leaves domestic codeshares wide open. I just see ALK/Moxy codeshares growing faster than our own organic growth under those agreements. If we had solid growth I wouldn’t be as concerned. But clearly our west coast strategy is failing, our block hour growth is anemic, and the provisions and protections in codesharing are pretty slim.
If the company “wouldn’t codeshare out that much flying” as you state, why wouldn’t they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didn’t want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we can’t feasibly fly, domestically and internationally. And to your point about more specifics adding up to be thousands of pages long, this language I want could exist in the same space that exists now, with different wording.