Originally Posted by
copy
What growth did LOA13 provide that LOA12 doesn’t?
Bumping again. Seekingblue, other yes voters...anyone care to answer? “Allowing JetBlue to grow” has been the #1 reason I’ve gotten from the union, the company, and yes voters in real life. But...how does 13 allow more growth for JetBlue than 12? When I ask this question to them in real life, none of them seem to be able to articulate an answer. Nobody can tell me how allowing AA/AE to do 100% of the FC to international, 35% Caribbean, and 35% FC to FC allows JetBlue to grow more than current status quo prohibiting that flying in a codeshare IAW our CBA.
Also, no one has been able to answer how the revenue sharing portion of the NEA that would have been allowed by LOA13, but disallowed by the CBA, is beneficial to the pilot group. How is giving away JetBlue revenue a good thing for us? We do more flying, we generate more revenue, we give a share of that revenue up. We do less flying, generate less revenue, but get more revenue in exchange for AA/AE doing that flying. Neither scenario seems great for the pilot group. So, what am I missing about the revenue sharing portion?
So, for Seekingblue, I think you said you’re minimizing your forum time, so I’ll bump it again in case you missed it the last 2 times I asked. Any other yes voter feel free to enlighten me too. I truly want to hear a decent answer to that original question. I’ve been asking my reps since this came out for an answer and they can’t give it to me, yet they all still voted yes (and cited JB growth opportunity as their number one reason). Chief pilot I discussed it with? No answer to it. Every yes voter I’ve talked to in real life (surprised there are any) also can’t seem to answer it. Hopefully one of the yes voters here like Seekingblue can.
I was a no voter but if you like the NEA as it’s been sold you need to have most of the relief LOA13 provides. If AA wants us to feed international flying out of NYC and Boston, we need to be able to put our code on AA international flights. Some destinations (Tel Aviv) won’t require relief to do that but as soon as we get an LR, everything in Western Europe and much of South America will. Without that, what’s the incentive for AA to partner? That 100% / 0% split is scary but my understanding is none of our planned Europe flying is included in the NEA and thus there’s nothing for AA to put their code on. How can it be anything but 100%?
I think the argument for the Caribbean limits and focus city to focus city flying is shakier from our perspective but it’s easy to see why increasing frequencies without costs would be appealing for both companies. Was the NEA possible without those provisions? I obviously can’t say. It seems we likely have more to gain but too much is based on trust.
When it comes down to it, I don’t think arguing LOA 12 vs LOA 13 is relevant. It’s growth with the NEA versus without it.