Originally Posted by BeatNavy

Not necessarily. A 5-7 year guy is senior enough to be left seat with good QOL on the 190. A 3 month guy can have good QOL on the 190 in the right seat. There’s additional bodies required the more fleets there are, because there are more guys in training at any given time, more reserves needed, more management staff needed, more instructors needed, etc. Having a much lower paying fleet is also good because of the wider distribution in seniority and more options for relative seniority. Also, those options were going to get exercised anyway. It was just a matter of time. And keep in mind, they are also replacing 320s as those exit the fleet (as are 321 variants). All in all, it’s good for the company, but there are some advantages to having multiple fleets from the pilot perspective. Having 2 similar paying planes will make upgrades longer, training events fewer, and resultant staffing needs a little lower. Having a 3rd much lower paying plane helped the pilot group.

If there was actual profit sharing given out, I’d use that as an argument for streamlining fleets, as it would have a positive impact to that. But the only argument you could make for pilot benefit is that the company will do better financially this way and better be able to afford more growth and higher pay rates. But, that’s a stretch imo.

Also from a pilot’s perspective, the 190 is a good plane for short stuff. The 220 is most efficient on routes 2 hours or greater and can’t currently do EYW and MVY. Scott L said a higher thrust variant -300 is coming and will likely be able to do EYW-JFK, but the pavement in MVY is (or was) restricted and won’t allow the -300 apparently. So, where does that leave jetblue from a network perspective. Let RJs fly that stuff with the NEA? Seems like a potential solution…one that I don’t particularly like. -100s are a solution, but it appears even now with the final nail in the 190 coffin, they don’t want -100s.