Originally Posted by
Bluedriver
It wasn't in JB's plan, and they did give it to JBALPA without a fight. No one has suggested the pilots were wrong to fight for no RJs, but as it turns out, no fight was needed. As for legacies, RJs WERE in the corporate plan and business model, and those pilots gave scope up voluntarily in some cases, and in bankruptcy in other cases. And yes, they are trying hard to claw that back.
But one thing has nothing to do with the other, and NO ONE has suggested JB pilots shouldn't have expected or demanded RJ scope.
But.... you seem to suggest that JB doesn't give any consideration to their future business plans when negotiating a CBA or otherwise...
And... you've been at JB a long time now, when have you EVER known them to have extra gates? Other than LGB, when have you ever known them to have extra surplus slots? The Industry is going into a period of very tight pilot supply. JB has, for years now, been in a consistent UP-gauging trend. 200 seat A321s (when not chasing premium Mint revenue). Swapping 100 seat E180s for 140 seat A220-***300**s. A corporation almost exclusively focused on cutting costs to the bone, lower CASM.
Now you want me to believe they are going to use those valuable gates (that they don't have) and valuable slots (that they don't have) and valuable pilots (that will be in very short supply and will be needed by JBLU and all the legacy airlines) and will suddenly reverse their corporate philosophy of UP-gauging... to not move 140-200 people per departure with that valuable (and scarce) infrustructure, but to instead move 50-76 people in a high-CASM low-service RJ?
NOT. BUYING. IT.
Hey man capitalize all you want but I never know what they will do or who will run the company. I have 27 years left and this issue won’t be an issue.
But are we going to argue that JetBlue doesn’t reverse their corporate philosophy? Yeah it’s up gauging NOW, but I would argue Mint, charging for bags and the attempted purchase of Virgin were some big changes in philosophy.
If you say NO ONE should have not expected us to demand or get RJ scope what is the issue? We got it, oh but they just gave it to us. So after we got it should we have given it back? If the company would have waited till the end and fought us on it would that be better?
Heck to me it makes the company look dumb. Depends on how you want to play it. I would have held the “worthless” thing till the end and made the union fight to get it giving it more value in their mind, while the company doesn’t actually care.
Now I know the argument is going to be well “it showed good faith” and they used that to show they were negotiating when they really weren’t and it kept us passive and the union used scope to sell the CBA and on and on. Probably really strong arguments there.
So this just goes round and round. In the end we have scope and that’s good but we have work to do on other sections as does every CBA out there.( ours might require more)