Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Scope


PasserOGas
06-26-2018, 08:08 AM
So many guys on here are leaning yes or voting yes primarily because of the scope provisions in the TA. Scope=job. After reading through the TA I think the complete lack of protections in that section need to be discussed. As I read it, the company can outsource every single flight at Jetblue with 2 limits.


1. The outsourced flying cannot be flown on a plane labeled "Jetblue".


2. The airline must fly 3% more block hours in the year it is signed.


That is pretty much it. We can outsource literally EVERY. SINGLE. FLIGHT.


There appears to be ZERO limits on the number of 50 seat aircraft the company can codeshare on. NONE. They just can't be called jetblue express.


Wow. That is some airtight language fellas. Lets get that signed into law! I feel so secure in my job with that insurance policy.



Why are you guys even THINKING about voting yes to this?



*Edit* Wow, copy/pasting the scope provision isn't as easy as I thought.


todd1200
06-26-2018, 08:33 AM
Scope

1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all flying conducted by or on behalf of the Company (including aircraft under the operational control of the Company) shall be performed by Pilots represented by the Association on the JetBlue Airways System Seniority list.

2. The Company will not enter into any “alter ego” or “double breasted” arrangement, or an agreement in which an affiliate performs Part 121 flying, unless such flying is performed by Pilots on the JetBlue System Seniority List under the terms of this Agreement, except for the period prior to the integration of the seniority lists of the two carriers as required by Section 1.E. of this Agreement.

3. A non-seniority list pilot may perform Test Flights. In addition, in the event no seniority list Pilot is on involuntary furlough, a non-seniority list pilot may perform non-revenue flying as provided below:
a. Maintenance ferry flights for heavy maintenance to or from San Salvador, El Salvador (SAL).
b. New aircraft delivery flights, provided a seniority list Pilot is a member of the crew.
c. Maintenance ferry flights departing from a heavy maintenance facility.
d. Maintenance ferry flights departing to a heavy maintenance facility provided the movement of one aircraft is connected with a planned movement and return to service of another aircraft from the heavy maintenance facility.

4. The Company may assign or subcontract revenue flying for up to ninety (90) days (subject to extension with the written consent of Association) to deal with an unanticipated FAA or aircraft manufacturer maintenance requirement or delivery delays caused by the manufacturer, provided no Pilot is furloughed as a result of such contracting. The Company shall provide notice to the Association prior to entering any agreement to assign or contract out revenue flying.

...

Code Sharing

1. The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
a. The block hours operated by the Company increase during the relevant Comparison Period compared to the relevant Base Period, and
b. The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company on the effective date of the Commercial Agreement has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed 365 days prior to the effective date.

2. The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier that is a new partner and is similar in size (e.g., Alaska Airlines) or smaller (measured by annual ASMs) than the Company in the relevant Comparison Period, provided:
a. The Company operated at least 3% more aircraft block hours in that Comparison Period than in the relevant Base Period, and
b. In each one-year period commencing first with the calendar month that includes the effective date of the Commercial Agreement and then commencing with the anniversary month of the first such period, the Company operates at least 1% more aircraft block hours than in the previous one-year period.

3. The Company may not renew or amend an existing Commercial Agreement, modify a pro-rate formula in a Commercial Agreement, or increase the ASMs, city pairs, or block hours that it permits the other air carrier or air carriers to operate under an existing Commercial Agreement, unless:
a. The block hours operated by the Company increase during the relevant Comparison Period compared to the relevant Base Period, and
b. The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed by the Company 365 days prior to the effective date of the renewal or amendment.

4. For the purposes of Section 1, a “Comparison Period” is the period of twelve full consecutive calendar months immediately preceding the effective date of the relevant action with respect to a Commercial Agreement. Example 1: For a new Commercial Agreement effective March 15, 2019, the relevant Comparison Period is the period March 2018-February 2019. Example 2: For a Commercial Agreement renewal or modification or an increase under a Commercial Agreement under Paragraph F.2 effective March 15, 2020, the relevant Comparison Period is the period March 2019-February 2020.

5. For the purposes of Section 1, a “Base Period” is the period of twelve full consecutive calendar months immediately preceding the relevant Comparison Period.

Example 1: For a new Commercial Agreement effective March 15, 2019, the relevant Base Period is the period March 2017 – February 2018.

Example 2: For a Commercial Agreement renewal or modification or an increase under a Commercial Agreement under Paragraph F.2 effective March 15, 2020, the Base Period is March 2018 – February 2019.

6. No carrier other than the Company will conduct flying pursuant to a Commercial Agreement or Marketing Agreement on aircraft owned, leased, operated, held on order or option, or otherwise controlled by the Company.

7. Additional Joint Venture Restrictions:
a. If the Company enters into a Joint Venture Agreement covering flying, any part of which is not within the range of one or more aircraft in revenue service for the Company as of the effective date of the Joint Venture Agreement, then, upon the start of oper ations under the Joint Venture Agreement, the Company will perform a portion of the out flying. ofrange Three (3) years after the effective date of the Joint Venture Agreement, the portion of the flying that the Company is performing will be maintained or increased.
b. If the Company enters into a Joint Venture Agreement covering flying, any part of which is within the range of one or more aircraft in revenue service for the Company, then, in each trailing period of twelve calendar months commencing with the effective month of such Joint Venture Agreement, the Company will operate a percentage of the ASMs covered by the Joint Venture equivalent to the proportion of system operated by the Company in comparison to the system operated in tha-- wide ASMs wide ASMs t same period by the other carrier participating in the Joint Venture.
c. Any Joint Venture Agreement covered by Paragraph F.7.b will terminate no later than the third anniversary of its effective date. The Joint Venture Agreement may be renewed for periods up to three years each, provided the Company is operating a percentage of the ASMs covered by the Joint Venture equivalent to the proportion of systemthe Company in comparison to the systemwide ASMs operated by wide ASMs operated in that same period by the other carrier participating in the Joint Venture.
d. The Company will not enter into a Joint Venture for flying to or from Brazil unless some portion of such flying is performed by JetBlue Pilots. No later than two (2) years after the effective date of s uch a Joint Venture, at least 50% of the departures conducted pursuant to the Joint Venture shall be flown by JetBlue Pilots.

8. Additional Restrictions on Commercial Agreements with Domestic Carriers:
a. The Company may not enter into or amend an existing Comm ercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier to include flying by another carrier between Focus Cities, unless such Focus Cities are in the same State.
b. The Company may not enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier that includes flying between a Focus City and one or more points outside the United States if such flying is within the normal operating range of any Company aircraft in revenue service at the time of operation, except for flying on aircraft configured for fewer than 51 seats or on turboprop aircraft.

9. The Company may not enter into a Commercial Agreement that includes flying by a Foreign Air Carrier operating under fifth freedom rights on a city pair that is served by the Company or has been served by the Company within the two years prior to the month in which the flying by the Foreign Air Carrier takes place.

10. Nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit the Company from entering into an Industry Standard Interline Agreement.

11. The Company shall not enter into any Capacity Purchase Agreements or purchase Block Space on other carriers.

12. The Company will not purchase equity in, or lend to, another company that is an air carrier or an affiliate of an air carrier as a means to circumvent the provisions of this Section.

13. Access to Information
a. The Company will meet and confer with the Association prior to announcing any new Commercial Agreement or Marketing Agreement.
b. The Company will provide reasonable opportunity for review by the MEC Chairman or his designee of any Commercial Agreement, subject to appropriate non-disclosure agreements.
c. The Company will timely provide the MEC Chairman or his designee any other data necessary to allow the Association to verify compliance with the requirements of this Section.
d. The Company will review with the Association the flows of Customers traveling on the Company’s code on other carriers and on other carriers’ codes on the Company’s flights.

O2pilot
06-26-2018, 09:01 AM
Scope

Except as otherwise provided...

Letís see whatís allowed...

The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier that is a new partner and is similar in size (e.g., Alaska Airlines) or smaller...

Wow. Lots of code sharing with Alaska and smaller airlines.

covering flying, any part of which is not within the range of one or more aircraft in revenue service for the Company

So unlimited code sharing as long as its a longer range than anything JB currently flies? Thatís all international flying.

..except for flying on aircraft configured for fewer than 51 seats or on turboprop aircraft.

Unlimited 50 seat jets! Not industry leading at all. Not even close.


Bluedriver
06-26-2018, 09:13 AM
Scope!

We can "codeshare" with an RJ operator or even a domestic narrowbody operator (Hawaiian out of LGB).

Have you heard of Air Lingus, TAP Portugal, Iceland Air, Air France, Air Brussles, Iberia, British Airways? All operate to destinations within the range of A321LRs, but who needs THAT scope?

We may not have any protections for our potential high paying positions! But at least those scary RJs are semi-protected to secure our lowest paying positions!

Let's see, pilots for regional airlines are becoming more rare than an on-time BlueJet flight, but how about our hubs?

RJs to replace our E190s at:

JFK- WHAT FOXTROT SLOTS?

BOS- WHAT FOXTROT GATES?

WEST COAST- WHAT FOXTROT GATES?

MCO- WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT, YOU FOXTROT SERIOUR CLARK?

FLL- ARE YOU FOXTROT KIDDING ME?

PasserOGas
06-26-2018, 09:38 AM
The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier that is a new partner and is similar in size (e.g., Alaska Airlines) or smaller...

Is SkyWest smaller than Alaska? What about Republic?

Rock solid scope.

todd1200
06-26-2018, 09:39 AM
Capacity Purchase Agreement: an agreement between two or more air carriers under which one of the air carriers purchases or reserves for sale to its own customers all of the seating capacity aboard one or more aircraft operated by other air carriers in the agreement.

Commercial Agreement: A ďCommercial AgreementĒ is a Codeshare Agreement or Joint Venture Agreement

1. A Codeshare Agreement is an agreement under which an air carrier other than the Company may carry customers ticketed under a flight number bearing a designator code then in use by the Company.

2. A Joint Venture Agreement is an agreement under which the Company receives revenues from the carriage of Customers aboard flights operated by another air carrier.

3. An Industry-Standard Interline Agreement is not a Commercial Agreement

Industry Standard Interline Agreement: an agreement between two airlines whereby:
1. either airline can sell tickets for travel on one or more flights operated either by itself and the other airline or operated only by the other airline;
2. neither airline can place its designator code or flight numbers on the flight or flights operated by the other airline under those tickets;
3. each airline will accept the otherís tickets as valid for travel;
4. baggage transfer and liability under those tickets are covered; and
5. the two airlines will realize proceeds from the sale of a ticket by way of sales commission, if any, plus:
a. an amount determined by pro-rating the ticket value according to the distance operated by each airline under the ticket;
b. an amount determined by prorating the ticket value according to each airlineís sector fare for the segment it operates; or c. an amount determined by prorating the ticket value according to the fare class and a banded-distance rate for the segment operated by each airline under the ticket.

capt707
06-26-2018, 09:42 AM
The fact we are still letting non-seniority list pilots fly here is a No!

Bozo the pilot
06-26-2018, 10:30 AM
The fact we are still letting non-seniority list pilots fly here is a No!

Thats a ridiculous reason to be a firm NO.
How many do we have?
Do you think they'll replace the seniority list?

hilltopflyer
06-26-2018, 11:16 AM
What about getting a Caribbean turbo prop company flying all our sju flying? Or 50 seat jet.

Bozo the pilot
06-26-2018, 11:19 AM
What about getting a Caribbean turbo prop company flying all our sju flying? Or 50 seat jet.

So instead of flying B6 metal, they would codeshare it out and get 1% of the fare instead of the full amount?
Why?
Not snark, serious question.

hilltopflyer
06-26-2018, 11:36 AM
So instead of flying B6 metal, they would codeshare it out and get 1% of the fare instead of the full amount?
Why?
Not snark, serious question.

Because they are making money. They wouldnít have the overhead to make money. If you had to take all the risk and have the really high overhead and hope people buy tickets on your flight or get a guaranteed amount of money with someone elseís overhead what would you do? Heck if it was my decision Iíd take my 1 dollar and not risk any then put all my work and sometimes make 10

PasserOGas
06-26-2018, 11:41 AM
So instead of flying B6 metal, they would codeshare it out and get 1% of the fare instead of the full amount?
Why?
Not snark, serious question.

For the same reason all airlines farm out flying. They collect profits and put downward pressure on labor. Under our scope we could code share with two A320 operators on our routes and whipsaw them. :eek:

Still a yes vote Bozo? Please explain.

Bozo the pilot
06-26-2018, 11:43 AM
Because they are making money. They wouldnít have the overhead to make money. If you had to take all the risk and have the really high overhead and hope people buy tickets on your flight or get a guaranteed amount of money with someone elseís overhead what would you do? Heck if it was my decision Iíd take my 1 dollar and not risk any then put all my work and sometimes make 10
So then you do not believe that B6 will go to Europe or have any ability or desire to do so?
Great- argue that, because to suggest that Robyn will get ETOPS and have the ability to do it himself and THEN choose to codeshare is ridiculous. Or it makes sense to you and you share BDs misinterpretation of codesharing.

Bozo the pilot
06-26-2018, 11:46 AM
For the same reason all airlines farm out flying. They collect profits and put downward pressure on labor. Under our scope we could code share with two A320 operators on our routes and whipsaw them. :eek:

Still a yes vote Bozo? Please explain.
Farming out in a fee for departure and codesharing are different things.
Again guys, codesharing is not a windfall for the company and many of you are conflating the two. Educate yourselves on Codeshare vs. Fee for departure.
Passer- tell me you know the difference...
And prove you do

seekingblue
06-26-2018, 11:47 AM
Not to interupt the yelling and screaming, but has anyone submitted these questions to ALPA?

Would like to hear the answer during a road show.

seekingblue
06-26-2018, 11:55 AM
ALPA is answering the submitted questions.


http://jbumec.alpa.org/Home/TA2018/tabid/11287/Default.aspx


Please have a look.

somertime32
06-26-2018, 11:58 AM
ALPA is answering the submitted questions.


http://jbumec.alpa.org/Home/TA2018/tabid/11287/Default.aspx


Please have a look.

Cool, thanks Iíll check it out.

seekingblue
06-26-2018, 11:59 AM
From the FAQ on B6 Alpa:



Can JetBlue use an operator such as JetSuite to provide feed under a Capacity Purchase Agreement?
No, agreed upon language prevents the Company from doing this. The Company is prohibited from entering into any Capacity Purchase Agreements or purchase Block Space on other carriers, and they cannot not purchase equity in, or lend to, another company that is an air carrier or an affiliate of an air carrier as a means to circumvent the provisions of our Scope agreement. Other provisions in scope prohibit JetBlue for using an entity like JetSuites as an alter ego or for doublebreasting.

Can JetBlue operate a JetBlue Express / regional carrier?
JetBlue cannot enter into a Capacity Purchase Agreement with any other carrier. However, if JetBlue were to establish a new brand, i.e. JetBlue Express with regional jets, it would be flown by JetBlue Pilots under the same CBA and seniority list.


Seems fairly clear cut to me, no?

Bozo the pilot
06-26-2018, 12:01 PM
From the FAQ on B6 Alpa:



Can JetBlue use an operator such as JetSuite to provide feed under a Capacity Purchase Agreement?
No, agreed upon language prevents the Company from doing this. The Company is prohibited from entering into any Capacity Purchase Agreements or purchase Block Space on other carriers, and they cannot not purchase equity in, or lend to, another company that is an air carrier or an affiliate of an air carrier as a means to circumvent the provisions of our Scope agreement. Other provisions in scope prohibit JetBlue for using an entity like JetSuites as an alter ego or for doublebreasting.

Can JetBlue operate a JetBlue Express / regional carrier?
JetBlue cannot enter into a Capacity Purchase Agreement with any other carrier. However, if JetBlue were to establish a new brand, i.e. JetBlue Express with regional jets, it would be flown by JetBlue Pilots under the same CBA and seniority list.


Seems fairly clear cut to me, no?

It is but guys are conflating codesharing and fee for departure.
2 totally different things.
Codesharing is necessary.

hyperboy
06-26-2018, 12:10 PM
So many guys on here are leaning yes or voting yes primarily because of the scope provisions in the TA. Scope=job. After reading through the TA I think the complete lack of protections in that section need to be discussed. As I read it, the company can outsource every single flight at Jetblue with 2 limits.


1. The outsourced flying cannot be flown on a plane labeled "Jetblue".


2. The airline must fly 3% more block hours in the year it is signed.


That is pretty much it. We can outsource literally EVERY. SINGLE. FLIGHT.


There appears to be ZERO limits on the number of 50 seat aircraft the company can codeshare on. NONE. They just can't be called jetblue express.


Wow. That is some airtight language fellas. Lets get that signed into law! I feel so secure in my job with that insurance policy.



Why are you guys even THINKING about voting yes to this?



*Edit* Wow, copy/pasting the scope provision isn't as easy as I thought.

How can we trust you? We donít even know your name? Whatís makes you so smart. Let me guess you know what is best for all of us and our families?

Letís start with....what is your name?

seekingblue
06-26-2018, 12:11 PM
Also for the dyslexic folks, there is now a video on scope.......


http://jbumec.alpa.org/Home/TA2018/tabid/11287/Default.aspx

Bluedriver
06-26-2018, 12:56 PM
From the FAQ on B6 Alpa:



Can JetBlue use an operator such as JetSuite to provide feed under a Capacity Purchase Agreement?
No, agreed upon language prevents the Company from doing this. The Company is prohibited from entering into any Capacity Purchase Agreements or purchase Block Space on other carriers, and they cannot not purchase equity in, or lend to, another company that is an air carrier or an affiliate of an air carrier as a means to circumvent the provisions of our Scope agreement. Other provisions in scope prohibit JetBlue for using an entity like JetSuites as an alter ego or for doublebreasting.

Can JetBlue operate a JetBlue Express / regional carrier?
JetBlue cannot enter into a Capacity Purchase Agreement with any other carrier. However, if JetBlue were to establish a new brand, i.e. JetBlue Express with regional jets, it would be flown by JetBlue Pilots under the same CBA and seniority list.


Seems fairly clear cut to me, no?

It says we can't Capacity Purchase Agreement with those Airlines. It does not say we can't codeshare with JetSuiteX, which we DO.

seekingblue
06-26-2018, 12:58 PM
It says we can't Capacity Purchase Agreement with those Airlines. It does not say we can't codeshare with JetSuiteX, which we DO.

Not trying to be dick, but what's the difference? Honestly don't know.

Bluedriver
06-26-2018, 01:23 PM
Not trying to be dick, but what's the difference? Honestly don't know.

I know you aren't, I just did a more complete explanation in the other thread.

somertime32
06-26-2018, 02:43 PM
Also for the dyslexic folks, there is now a video on scope.......


http://jbumec.alpa.org/Home/TA2018/tabid/11287/Default.aspx

Thanks for the help. I just finished the scope video. Good info.

hilltopflyer
06-26-2018, 03:00 PM
Thanks for the help. I just finished the scope video. Good info.

Me too very good info. I agree with a lot of what he said. I just canít believe we would code share with domestic carriers (Alaska etc) I get Hawaii but is there restrictions for conus?

PasserOGas
06-26-2018, 03:37 PM
How can we trust you? We donít even know your name? Whatís makes you so smart. Let me guess you know what is best for all of us and our families?

Letís start with....what is your name?

My name won't change the fact that this scope is terrible.

PasserOGas
06-26-2018, 03:39 PM
Me too very good info. I agree with a lot of what he said. I just canít believe we would code share with domestic carriers (Alaska etc) I get Hawaii but is there restrictions for conus?

The only real restriction is focus city to focus city. Other than that the company can code share and JV to its hearts content.

hilltopflyer
06-26-2018, 03:51 PM
The only real restriction is focus city to focus city. Other than that the company can code share and JV to its hearts content.

Not so sure on the joint venture side of it. Code share I agree

PasserOGas
06-26-2018, 04:01 PM
Not trying to be dick, but what's the difference? Honestly don't know.

Capacity purchase agreement is what you would traditionally think of as regional feed. So, should we buy capacity on Republic to operate pairings we already operate. In our current scope, this traditional model for outsourcing cannot happen.

What CAN happen is we begin code sharing domestic routes we don't yet fly, but otherwise would. Should the company decide there are routes we fly that would be better served by a Skywest E-145 they could code share that route, buy seats and sell them to passengers, as long as they grow 3% that year and the flights are flown by "Skywest" and not "JetBlue Express".

It's a loophole big enough to fly a Hawaiian Airlines A321 through.

todd1200
06-26-2018, 04:34 PM
Capacity purchase agreement is what you would traditionally think of as regional feed. So, should we buy capacity on Republic to operate pairings we already operate. In our current scope, this traditional model for outsourcing cannot happen.

What CAN happen is we begin code sharing domestic routes we don't yet fly, but otherwise would. Should the company decide there are routes we fly that would be better served by a Skywest E-145 they could code share that route, buy seats and sell them to passengers, as long as they grow 3% that year and the flights are flown by "Skywest" and not "JetBlue Express".

It's a loophole big enough to fly a Hawaiian Airlines A321 through.

They canít buy seats on another carrier and sell them, thatís not a code-share and itís specifically prohibited (F.9.11).

PasserOGas
06-26-2018, 04:42 PM
They canít buy seats on another carrier and sell them, thatís not a code-share and itís specifically prohibited (F.9.11).

Well it would still be considered a code share, but I see that they cannot purchase block space. Thanks for that.

So, do we know how they are benefiting financially from JetsuiteX? When members of our board own shares of another company and begin feeding that company passengers where is that addressed? You seem to be more in the know than most.

Bluedriver
06-26-2018, 06:27 PM
Well it would still be considered a code share, but I see that they cannot purchase block space. Thanks for that.

So, do we know how they are benefiting financially from JetsuiteX? When members of our board own shares of another company and begin feeding that company passengers where is that addressed? You seem to be more in the know than most.

JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and all would work the same way. We sell the tickets on BlueJet.com and they ride on JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and...

We keep a portion of the ticket price, they fly.

Your Skywest example was also on the right track, it COULD work the same as above, we just can't pre-buy capacity (seats) on the plane. But we can sell seats that are available in the reservation system.

Skywest, specifically, probably can't work. But a new regional with less restrictive prior contracts, *or*, Moxy buys C300s AND 60 CRJ900s, BOOM, there's your BJ regional codeshare.

But, is that really worse than JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and, and flying our domestic passengers?

todd1200
06-26-2018, 08:30 PM
Well it would still be considered a code share, but I see that they cannot purchase block space. Thanks for that.

So, do we know how they are benefiting financially from JetsuiteX? When members of our board own shares of another company and begin feeding that company passengers where is that addressed? You seem to be more in the know than most.

I think BD is correct; B6 gets a little bit on each seat they sell on JetSuiteX and benefits from increased traffic out of LGB. The Codesharing provisions cause me the most concern, just because they’re the most liberal and I wonder if down the road they could be used as an end run around the more restrictive CPA and JV sections. It seems like we’re relying mostly on market forces to limit the threat of codeshares replacing our flying, but I wonder what happens if market forces change? What if they’re able to negotiate a codeshare that pays a few quarters on the dollar instead of a few pennies? I don’t know if that’s even within the realm of possibility, and codeshares don’t seem to pose much of a threat to us today. Cape Air doesn’t seem to be hurting growth in Boston and Silver doesn’t seem to hurt us in FLL, but I just wonder what happens if the landscape changes. It sounds like provisions in the TA are industry standard or better (except for Southwest), but I don’t understand them well enough to know if that’s true.

In terms of the BOD’s other investments, I guess that just falls under SEC rules for conflict of interest, but honestly I have no clue.

hilltopflyer
06-27-2018, 01:47 AM
Itís sorta what Republic had planned with their cseries. Find someone they can Ďcodeshareí to bypass scopes. If there is a way to stop that I would be ok with it.

GuppyPuppy
06-27-2018, 05:16 AM
What is to stop JB from code-sharing with Moxy and their 60 C-Series airplanes?

Could they replace us on JFK-ABQ, LGB-RNO, etc...?

They would fly the C-Series, effectively replacing JB's E190s, while we grow the Airbus fleet?

Does the TA allow for this?

If so, I'll vote no. Scope is my #1 concern.

GP

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 05:50 AM
What is to stop JB from code-sharing with Moxy and their 60 C-Series airplanes?

Could they replace us on JFK-ABQ, LGB-RNO, etc...?

They would fly the C-Series, effectively replacing JB's E190s, while we grow the Airbus fleet?

Does the TA allow for this?

If so, I'll vote no. Scope is my #1 concern.

GP

I think we covered this is yesterday's class...

nuball5
06-27-2018, 05:52 AM
What is to stop JB from code-sharing with Moxy and their 60 C-Series airplanes?

Could they replace us on JFK-ABQ, LGB-RNO, etc...?

They would fly the C-Series, effectively replacing JB's E190s, while we grow the Airbus fleet?

Does the TA allow for this?

If so, I'll vote no. Scope is my #1 concern.

GP

Sounds like they could as long Jetblue is growing in block hours, pilots and it's not hub to hub. So in that scenario, it sounds like they'd have to both grow the Airbus fleet and replace the block hours lost from Moxy taking over Jetblue's 190 flying. Plus the factor that Jetblue makes a lot more money flying JFK-ABQ than having Moxy do it under a codeshare. (I'm not an expert on Section 1 by any means, just what I've been reading. I could be wrong.)

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 05:58 AM
Sounds like they could as long Jetblue is growing in block hours, pilots and it's not hub to hub. So in that scenario, it sounds like they'd have to both grow the Airbus fleet and replace the block hours lost from Moxy taking over Jetblue's 190 flying. Plus the factor that Jetblue makes a lot more money flying JFK-ABQ than having Moxy do it under a codeshare. (I'm not an expert on Section 1 by any means, just what I've been reading. I could be wrong.)

I honestly see it less of a risk that we lose existing flying but more that the airline uses codeshare with domestic carriers in the same way it uses international. There may be some new growth routes we don't serve that may end up being less risky and less capital intensive to serve with a domestic codeshare instead of growing more with our own equipment. Sell tickets onto Hawaiian, Alaska, Moxy, JetSuiteX, and, and, and....

Less revenue potential, but also a corresponding decrease in risk and capital. The areas most at risk are THE ENTIRE WEST COAST and parts of the Midwest. Just like our current trans-oceanic service...

GuppyPuppy
06-27-2018, 06:31 AM
I honestly see it less of a risk that we lose existing flying but more that the airline uses codeshare with domestic carriers in the same way it uses international. There may be some new growth routes we don't serve that may end up being less risky and less capital intensive to serve with a domestic codeshare instead of growing more with our own equipment. Sell tickets onto Hawaiian, Alaska, Moxy, JetSuiteX, and, and, and....

Less revenue potential, but also a corresponding decrease in risk and capital. The areas most at risk are THE ENTIRE WEST COAST and parts of the Midwest. Just like our current trans-oceanic service...

Yeah, why merge with Alaska when we could just code share the whole west coast?

GP

GuppyPuppy
06-27-2018, 06:32 AM
I think we covered this is yesterday's class...

Sorry, but I need it explained to me like I'm an 8-year old.

GP

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 06:36 AM
Yeah, why merge with Alaska when we could just code share the whole west coast?

GP

We may very well want to merge with Alaska, but Alaska management may not want to give up their gravy train.

So, we're both getting beat up by Delta in Boston, New York and Seattle, Alaska's getting beat up by Southwest and United in San Fran. Alaska has to contend with Delta, American and United all fighting over Los Angeles. So we may very well end up doing a big domestic codeshare with Alaska as a mutual survival plan.

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 06:38 AM
Sorry, but I need it explained to me like I'm an 8-year old.

GP

It was kind of a joke because we spent half of yesterday arguing over scope. Bottom line, we have scope protections that prevent us from doing a capacity purchase agreement. However, our scope does virtually nothing to protect us with code-sharing domestic or International, including with a regional Airline or with Moxy or Hawaiian or Alaska or JetSuiteX or or or.

nuball5
06-27-2018, 06:44 AM
We may very well want to merge with Alaska, but Alaska management may not want to give up their gravy train.

so, we're both getting beat up by Delta in Boston New York and Seattle, Alaska's getting beat up by Southwest and United in San Fran. Alaska has to contend with Delta American and United all fighting over Los Angeles. so we may very well end up doing a big domestic codeshare with Alaska as a mutual survival plan.


Alaska can just have Skywest or Horizon do all their flying under Alaska Express and make more $$$, they don't need Jetblue for strictly codesharing. Their regionals already do SEA-MSP...just add a BOS leg. Jetblue's survival plan of having Alaska become a major codeshare partner still means Jetblue has to grow.... but you're right it can be done as long as JB doesn't shrink.

PasserOGas
06-27-2018, 06:51 AM
Alaska can just have Skywest or Horizon do all their flying under Alaska Express and make more $$$, they don't need Jetblue for strictly codesharing. Their regionals already do SEA-MSP...just add a BOS leg. Jetblue's survival plan of having Alaska become a major codeshare partner still means Jetblue has to grow.... but you're right it can be done as long as JB doesn't shrink.

My favorite part of the scope video is how he emphasizes how great the "growth only" provisions are. So, if the company falls on hard times and begins furloughing we will make them give up ALL their codeshares? Really? Does anyone actually believe this provision is worth the paper it is written on?

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 07:04 AM
Alaska can just have Skywest or Horizon do all their flying under Alaska Express and make more $$$, they don't need Jetblue for strictly codesharing. Their regionals already do SEA-MSP...just add a BOS leg. Jetblue's survival plan of having Alaska become a major codeshare partner still means Jetblue has to grow.... but you're right it can be done as long as JB doesn't shrink.

Our scope says to have a big domestic codeshare with Alaska we have to grow JetBlue *a little bit*. Less than any of our previous historical growth rates.

While a agree Alaska has very unwisely leaned on it's regional feed lately for some of it's growth/network, it's not likely to continue to be it's primary growth tool. The best run airline in the country is Delta (Southwest also) and Delta's strong trend the last several years has been to upgauge. More mainline as a proportion of it's overall network, fewer RJs, especially the smallest RJs. And Delta doesn't have an extreme shortage of gate space at some of it's primary hubs (MSP, DTW and ATL) like BJ and Alaska does.

Alaska and JB both have very substantial gate space shortages in it's hubs. That is likely to get worse before it gets better (never). The exception is ANC. The future is also going to be much tougher for airlines to staff the lowest paying positions (RJs). Between the slot restrictions, gate scarcity (worst at large coastal hub cities, you know BJ and Alaska hubs) and pilot short supply, leaning on RJs as your primary lever of growth will soon be more rare than an on-time BJ flight.

Also, for most primary markets with high demand, it's much lower CASM to operate mainline aircraft, like Delta is doing.

The main point of me saying that large airlines are targeting both BJ and Alaska hubs right now is that a large domestic codeshare between us allows for a more complete network for our local customers. A network that begins to compete with the big 4. Right now that is not true. So if one or both companies refuses to merge, and both companies are experiencing pressure from the big 4, a domestic codeshare is the historical way this is resolved.

Delta and Alaska used to have large domestic codeshare. There are others that escape me right now, I think NWA-Continental. The point is it allows airlines to pretend to have a larger more complete network than they really do, without having to grow and compete within each other's respective regions. Which in the case of BJ-Alaska is now almost impossible due to slot and gate shortages.

Long post, sorry.

rvr1800
06-27-2018, 09:44 AM
My favorite part of the scope video is how he emphasizes how great the "growth only" provisions are. So, if the company falls on hard times and begins furloughing we will make them give up ALL their codeshares? Really? Does anyone actually believe this provision is worth the paper it is written on?

The company signed on the dotted line on that paper so yes I do.

Bozo the pilot
06-27-2018, 10:05 AM
JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and all would work the same way. We sell the tickets on BlueJet.com and they ride on JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and...

We keep a portion of the ticket price, they fly.

Your Skywest example was also on the right track, it COULD work the same as above, we just can't pre-buy capacity (seats) on the plane. But we can sell seats that are available in the reservation system.

Skywest, specifically, probably can't work. But a new regional with less restrictive prior contracts, *or*, Moxy buys C300s AND 60 CRJ900s, BOOM, there's your BJ regional codeshare.

But, is that really worse than JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and, and flying our domestic passengers?
How much of the ticket price though BD?
I taught you this yesterday.

pilotpayne
06-27-2018, 10:25 AM
My favorite part of the scope video is how he emphasizes how great the "growth only" provisions are. So, if the company falls on hard times and begins furloughing we will make them give up ALL their codeshares? Really? Does anyone actually believe this provision is worth the paper it is written on?

Dude if that provision is not worth the paper than the whole CBA is useless and if the CBA is useless the union is useless and therefore we just wasted lots of time and money.

Yes there is always stuff you can do to a contract but a some point those words mean something, otherwise why have a contract.

Bozo the pilot
06-27-2018, 10:35 AM
Dude if that provision is not worth the paper than the whole CBA is useless and if the CBA is useless the union is useless and therefore we just wasted lots of time and money.

Yes there is always stuff you can do to a contract but a some point those words mean something, otherwise why have a contract.

There was no way that anything would have pleased some the beaten-down guys here.
I get it- B6 ****es me off and has for years, and will continue to, but we have to either be objective or angry- the 2 dont coexist.
For the angry blind out there, at least go to a roadshow instead of poking holes in a TA that you dont fully understand.
I dont fully understand the 300 pages, but Im listening.
Do the same before you decide.

pilotpayne
06-27-2018, 10:40 AM
There was no way that anything would have pleased some the beaten-down guys here.
I get it- B6 ****es me off and has for years, and will continue to, but we have to either be objective or angry- the 2 dont coexist.
For the angry blind out there, at least go to a roadshow instead of poking holes in a TA that you dont fully understand.
I dont fully understand the 300 pages, but Im listening.
Do the same before you decide.


I have actually been very impressed by you. We went head to head on many things and probably still would but you are very fair in your analysis, along with others on here.

But it is funny we get to the point where we have a contract and now guys are like well the company will just ignore it.

So we will never have a union, nobody will show up to the rally, the company will never agree to a contract, the contract is worthless. So much fun.

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 10:54 AM
How much of the ticket price though BD?
I taught you this yesterday.

You didn't teach me anything clown. How much investment and risk to BlueJet?

If you really think that collecting the full dollar is the ultimate deciding factor, then why do we codeshare with Hawaiian out of LGB? You learned in yesterday's class that JB CAN fly to Hawaii, but has chosen not to. How can that be true, don't we want the whole dollar clown?

Why did Delta maintain such a large domestic codeshare with Alaska for so many years until Alaska refused to stop codesharing with AA at the same time, which ultimately made Delta decide to go after Seattle on there own? Didn't Delta want the whole dollar all those years?

You have literally scientifically demonstrated yourself to have less understanding on this subject than a BlueJet On-time Performance Program Engineer has on running a smooth operation.

Bozo the pilot
06-27-2018, 11:03 AM
You didn't teach me anything clown. How much investment and risk to BlueJet?

If you really think that collecting the full dollar is the ultimate deciding factor, then why do we codeshare with Hawaiian out of LGB? You learned in yesterday's class that JB CAN fly to Hawaii, but has chosen not to. How can that be true, don't we want the whole dollar clown?

Why did Delta maintain such a large domestic codeshare with Alaska for so many years until Alaska refused to stop codesharing with AA at the same time, which ultimately made Delta decide to go after Seattle on there own? Didn't Delta want the whole dollar all those years?

You have literally scientifically demonstrated yourself to have less understanding on this subject than a BlueJet On-time Performance Program Engineer has on running a smooth operation.

Hey- did you finally learn the difference between Fee for departure and codesharing?
You started off the debate yesterday trying to pick apart the Scope section, when what you really wanted to, but did not communicate, was complain about Hayes' indecision about TransAtlantic/Pacific.
Im with you, Id like to grow overseas, but can we not argue about corporate decision making and just get back to the T/A.
Any section you want BD. And when this passes, we can discuss the evils of corporate America.
Fair enough? I want to get back to the old Bozo-Bdriver thing.
Seriously, Peace BD.

Bozo the pilot
06-27-2018, 11:13 AM
I have actually been very impressed by you. We went head to head on many things and probably still would but you are very fair in your analysis, along with others on here.

But it is funny we get to the point where we have a contract and now guys are like well the company will just ignore it.

So we will never have a union, nobody will show up to the rally, the company will never agree to a contract, the contract is worthless. So much fun.

Thanks, I was pi$$ed at B6 for years and still am.
But now that a TA is out that directly affects our life, the emotions have to calm so that we can think clearly.
The negative guys here that I am currently addressing, have a few valid concerns, but betray themselves when they lash out at anyone who states the obvious benefits of the document in full.
I truly believe that these fellow pilots, wanted a full out war with B6 and Ive been told by a few that "If Jetblue agreed to this, then it sucks"
That's insane logic.
To your point, if that's believed, then whats the point of this process anyway?
I want to hear from the measured "No voter" and I will attempt to stay realistic and teachable.

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 11:14 AM
Hey- did you finally learn the difference between Fee for departure and codesharing?
You started off the debate yesterday trying to pick apart the Scope section, when what you really wanted to, but did not communicate, was complain about Hayes' indecision about TransAtlantic/Pacific.
Im with you, Id like to grow overseas, but can we not argue about corporate decision making and just get back to the T/A.
Any section you want BD. And when this passes, we can discuss the evils of corporate America.
Fair enough? I want to get back to the old Bozo-Bdriver thing.
Seriously, Peace BD.

You have me EXTREMELY confused with someone else if you think I don't understand the difference between FFD and codesharing. Basically everything you just said is either completely false or you can't follow a complex debate or you are intentionally misdirecting.

Either way, I think you and I have reached an impasse. I'm going to engage others as I see fit and you should add intelligent context, when able.

This whole "BD doesn't understand the topic of debate" is way, way beneath you.

I could try and give you the benefit of the doubt and understand that maybe some of the subtle context and background knowledge of the debate are simply escaping you, but I don't think that is the case. As evidenced by you continuing to avoid answering the hard questions.

Bozo the pilot
06-27-2018, 11:22 AM
You have me EXTREMELY confused with someone else if you think I don't understand the difference between FFD and codesharing. Basically everything you just said is either completely false or you can't follow a complex debate or you are intentionally misdirecting.

Either way, I think you and I have reached an impasse. I'm going to engage others as I see fit and you should add intelligent context, when able.

This whole "BD doesn't understand the topic of debate" is way, way beneath you.

I could try and give you the benefit of the doubt and understand that maybe some of the subtle context and background knowledge of the debate are simply escaping you, but I don't think that is the case. As evidenced by you continuing to avoid answering the hard questions.
Im not avoiding anything BD. The discussion was about the good and bad of Codesharing. You seemed to want it banned from existence and I simply explained that it was necessary and when checked, leads to our growth (Btw, you never did address the JAX-HNL point) So point a finger your way as well. You then went off on tangents about Hayes' decision making.
But lets continue the debate, and keep it on the TA and not some conjecture about B6s future plans.
We have no control over the direction they take, all we can do is get the best deal available. Is this it?
No one is sure.

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 11:30 AM
Im not avoiding anything BD. The discussion was about the good and bad of Codesharing. You seemed to want it banned from existence and I simply explained that it was necessary and when checked, leads to our growth (Btw, you never did address the JAX-HNL point) So point a finger your way as well. You then went off on tangents about Hayes' decision making.
But lets continue the debate, and keep it on the TA and not some conjecture about B6s future plans.
We have no control over the direction they take, all we can do is get the best deal available. Is this it?
No one is sure.

Another misdirect. We are discussing the adequacy of the scope protections in this TA as it relates to codesharing. We are on point. You said, our concerns regarding domestic and international codeshare protections, specifically the lack of those protections, is invalid because BlueJet will want the "whole dollar" and not "pennies on the dollar".

So, my questions, just two posts ago:

If we need not worry about domestic codesharing because we would want the "whole dollar", then why are we codesharing with Hawaiian airlines out of our hub in Long Beach when we have an aircraft capable of serving the route and CAN serve the route? Do we not want the "whole dollar"?

Also, why did Delta maintain an extensive domestic codeshare with Alaska for YEARS right up unitl Alaska refused to drop it's other large domestic codeshare with American? When Alaska refused Delta's ultimatum, Delta decided to build it's own Seattle hub. Didn't Delta want the "whole dollar" all those years?

Bozo the pilot
06-27-2018, 11:37 AM
Another misdirect. We are discussing the adequacy of the scope protections in this TA as it relates to codesharing. We are on point. You said, our concerns regarding domestic and international codeshare protections, specifically the lack of those protections, is invalid because BlueJet will want the "whole dollar" and not "pennies on the dollar".

So, my questions, just two posts ago:

If we need not worry about domestic codesharing because we would want the "whole dollar", then why are we codesharing with Hawaiian airlines out of our hub in Long Beach when we have an aircraft capable of serving the route and CAN serve the route? Do we not want the "whole dollar"?

Also, why did Delta maintain an extensive domestic codeshare with Alaska for YEARS right up unitl Alaska refused to drop it's other large domestic codeshare with American? When Alaska refused Delta's ultimatum, Delta decided to build it's own Seattle hub. Didn't Delta want the "whole dollar" all those years?

Ive responded to the first question already BD. Read it.
As for the Delta situation, you'd have to ask their management at the time- I wasnt in that office.
Now address, what specifically in the Scope section of the TA, that you feel leaves us vulnerable.
And btw, tell me, if you know why, limited codesharing is a positive thing. You are guilty of what you have accused me of- Dodging.
Jax-Hnl- why is this symbiotic?
I gotta go, but Ill wait for those answers Bd.
As always- hope you're well.

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 11:50 AM
Ive responded to the first question already BD. Read it.
As for the Delta situation, you'd have to ask their management at the time- I wasnt in that office.
Now address, what specifically in the Scope section of the TA, that you feel leaves us vulnerable.
And btw, tell me, if you know why, limited codesharing is a positive thing. You are guilty of what you have accused me of- Dodging.
Jax-Hnl- why is this symbiotic?
I gotta go, but Ill wait for those answers Bd.
As always- hope you're well.

Wait, you said the Airline would want the "whole dollar", so you need to explain to me why Delta didn't want the "whole dollar".

I've already explained the other Corp philosophy on the subject.

As for how codesharing CAN be positive, I guess this is all just a big misunderstanding on your part because I made that very clear yesterday:

" Bluedriver , Yesterday 12:47 PM
Quote:

Codesharing has at least two aspects. On the one hand codesharing customers into our network from a destination we *cannot* reach does improve load factor on our existing network and lead to new cities (DTW). Never disputed that. Didn't engage you on that point, intentionally. Doesn't mean I don't understand it Bozo.

The other side of the coin is codesharing to destinations we CAN reach (HNL & KEF *NOW* and soon to be Gatwick, Charles de Gaulle, Shannon, Dublin, Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Madrid etc...) but choose not to because of the investment and risk. We have instead elected to codeshare and take our "pennies on the dollar" up until now because it's low risk revenue.

Will that change, maybe. Been hearing Europe just a few years away since I got here.

Now I suggest you not insult my understanding of this industry again, as it's idiotic and should be beneath your debate skills."

End of quote.

PasserOGas
06-27-2018, 12:02 PM
I have actually been very impressed by you. We went head to head on many things and probably still would but you are very fair in your analysis, along with others on here.

But it is funny we get to the point where we have a contract and now guys are like well the company will just ignore it.

So we will never have a union, nobody will show up to the rally, the company will never agree to a contract, the contract is worthless. So much fun.

I am not saying the company would ignore it.

I am saying WE would ignore it. Much like a "no furlough" clause, if the survival of the company was in peril, or if it was in no position to buy 777's to fly to Dubai, B6ALPA and the Pilots of Jetblue, would grant immediate relief.

It is a nonsensical provision.

Especially when you consider that the complete giveaway of all codesharing rests on it.

todd1200
06-27-2018, 12:40 PM
If we need not worry about domestic codesharing because we would want the "whole dollar", then why are we codesharing with Hawaiian airlines out of our hub in Long Beach when we have an aircraft capable of serving the route and CAN serve the route? Do we not want the "whole dollar"?


I donít think itís an either/or question. We already codeshare on routes we serve with our own metal (I think BOS-ACK and FLL-JAX were mentioned in the Scope video). I guess mgmt sees a benefit in increasing our loads out of those cities via the codeshares. I just looked up two flights on BlueEye, and they each had 4 codeshares assigned to them, so I think it cuts both waysóIíd think we sell a lot more tickets because of the codeshares in a lot of cases.

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 12:43 PM
I donít think itís an either/or question. We already codeshare on routes we serve with our own metal (I think BOS-ACK and FLL-JAX were mentioned in the Scope video). I guess mgmt sees a benefit in increasing our loads out of those cities via the codeshares. I just looked up two flights on BlueEye, and they each had 4 codeshares assigned to them, so I think it cuts both waysóIíd think we sell a lot more tickets because of the codeshares in a lot of cases.

I don't think you should direct that at me. I know why we codeshare, and why codesharing cuts both ways.

My question was meant to promote thought, and bring about the realization that "JB would fly the route if able because we would want the whole dollar" was an incomplete and historically inaccurate concept.

Bozo the pilot
06-27-2018, 01:00 PM
I don't think you should direct that at me. I know why we codeshare, and why codesharing cuts both ways.

My question was meant to promote thought, and bring about the realization that "JB would fly the route if able because we would want the whole dollar" was an incomplete and historically inaccurate concept.

So then you expected a 100% codesharing restrictive TA?
There are restrictions- Ref Section 1 Paragraph F.
I responded to BNavy with the precise wording- Have you read that section or even watched the video?

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 01:13 PM
So then you expected a 100% codesharing restrictive TA?
There are restrictions- Ref Section 1 Paragraph F.
I responded to BNavy with the precise wording- Have you read that section or even watched the video?

Southwest is MUCH more restrictive on codesharing, so there is precedent.

And, regarding your "restrictions", which are a joke:

1. That's only required to add or amend an agreement, not to continue an agreement.

2. That 3% is a very low bar and it's a growth rate well below any historical BlueJet average I'm aware of.

BeatNavy
06-27-2018, 02:31 PM
Southwest is MUCH more restrictive on codesharing, so there is precedent.

And, regarding your "restrictions", which are a joke:

1. That's only required to add or amend an agreement, not to continue an agreement.

2. That 3% is a very low bar and it's a growth rate well below any historical BlueJet average I'm aware of.

Itís not even 3%...3% is only base to comparison year difference. Itís 1% yearly.

Bluedriver
06-27-2018, 02:36 PM
Itís not even 3%...3% is only base to comparison year difference. Itís 1% yearly.

Protected!!!

Southerner
06-27-2018, 06:15 PM
Ive responded to the first question already BD. Read it.
As for the Delta situation, you'd have to ask their management at the time- I wasnt in that office.
Now address, what specifically in the Scope section of the TA, that you feel leaves us vulnerable.
And btw, tell me, if you know why, limited codesharing is a positive thing. You are guilty of what you have accused me of- Dodging.
Jax-Hnl- why is this symbiotic?
I gotta go, but Ill wait for those answers Bd.
As always- hope you're well.

His lack of ability for reading comprehension strikes again! Hahaha.

PasserOGas
06-27-2018, 06:32 PM
So then you expected a 100% codesharing restrictive TA?
There are restrictions- Ref Section 1 Paragraph F.
I responded to BNavy with the precise wording- Have you read that section or even watched the video?

False choice, straw man. Obviously 100% would be impossible. We could have some version of the JV language in any future code shares.

If HA flies 1 under the JV language we would have to fly one also. Or it could be a smaller ratio. Just saying the current language gives away the store when it comes to code sharing.

BeatNavy
06-27-2018, 07:00 PM
False choice, straw man. Obviously 100% would be impossible. We could have some version of the JV language in any future code shares.

If HA flies 1 under the JV language we would have to fly one also. Or it could be a smaller ratio. Just saying the current language gives away the store when it comes to code sharing.

I brought it up in another thread but this one is more relevant so Iíll reiterate. I have yet to hear anyone answer these questions, and I am genuinely curious:

1) Do we currently have any domestic (or intl for that matter) codeshares on routes that we are capable of flying?
2) If (1) is ďno,Ē why would we allow it to start under this TA?
3) Why does the company want this provision in this TA if we currently donít do it, and havenít done it in 18 years?
4) What is the company benefit in (3) worth? What did the pilot group gain by allowing them to do that?
5) Does this provision hurt, help, or not affect the pilot group...and why?

todd1200
06-27-2018, 09:25 PM
I brought it up in another thread but this one is more relevant so Iíll reiterate. I have yet to hear anyone answer these questions, and I am genuinely curious:

1) Do we currently have any domestic (or intl for that matter) codeshares on routes that we are capable of flying?
2) If (1) is ďno,Ē why would we allow it to start under this TA?
3) Why does the company want this provision in this TA if we currently donít do it, and havenít done it in 18 years?
4) What is the company benefit in (3) worth? What did the pilot group gain by allowing them to do that?
5) Does this provision hurt, help, or not affect the pilot group...and why?

We already codeshare on routes we serve domestically, I believe BOS-ACK and FLL-JAX are mentioned as current examples in the Scope video.

GuppyPuppy
06-28-2018, 04:12 AM
We already codeshare on routes we serve domestically, I believe BOS-ACK and FLL-JAX are mentioned as current examples in the Scope video.

What I don't seem to get is that it seems to me there are no restrictions when it comes to domestic code sharing.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

GP

402DRVR
06-28-2018, 04:12 AM
I brought it up in another thread but this one is more relevant so Iíll reiterate. I have yet to hear anyone answer these questions, and I am genuinely curious:

1) Do we currently have any domestic (or intl for that matter) codeshares on routes that we are capable of flying?
2) If (1) is ďno,Ē why would we allow it to start under this TA?
3) Why does the company want this provision in this TA if we currently donít do it, and havenít done it in 18 years?
4) What is the company benefit in (3) worth? What did the pilot group gain by allowing them to do that?
5) Does this provision hurt, help, or not affect the pilot group...and why?

Toronto for sure is in range, though they could argue that Porter's destination is Toronto City Center which we can't do because of runway size, but Pearson is easily used.

And wouldn't Rekjavich (spelling??) be within range of a 320? Not sure on that one. We code share with Iceland Air.

rvr1800
06-28-2018, 04:22 AM
What I don't seem to get is that it seems to me there are no restrictions when it comes to domestic code sharing.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

GP

There are a few restrictions. JetBlue has to be growing by pilots and by block hours in order to sign new codeshares and renew existing codeshares and the end of their contract. Also the company it codeshares with can only be similar size or smaller than jetBlue.

GuppyPuppy
06-28-2018, 05:08 AM
There are a few restrictions. JetBlue has to be growing by pilots and by block hours in order to sign new codeshares and renew existing codeshares and the end of their contract. Also the company it codeshares with can only be similar size or smaller than jetBlue.

So, we can open up Alaska, Hawaiian, Sun Country and Frontier's entire network to our customer's on jb.com? Not to mention Seaborne, Cape Air, Silver, JetSuite X, etc...

Please explain how this is good for JB pilots. Why have JB fly an A320 LGB-SJC/RNO/etc... when JetSuite X can do it for us? Why not have Horizon fly Q400s between JFK-SYR/ROC/ORH?

This is my biggest problem with the TA.

No limitations other than we have to grow by 1 block hour or 1 pilot per year?

How does this help us?

GP

rvr1800
06-28-2018, 05:57 AM
So, we can open up Alaska, Hawaiian, Sun Country and Frontier's entire network to our customer's on jb.com? Not to mention Seaborne, Cape Air, Silver, JetSuite X, etc...

Please explain how this is good for JB pilots. Why have JB fly an A320 LGB-SJC/RNO/etc... when JetSuite X can do it for us? Why not have Horizon fly Q400s between JFK-SYR/ROC/ORH?

This is my biggest problem with the TA.

No limitations other than we have to grow by 1 block hour or 1 pilot per year?

How does this help us?

GP

Your Horizon example cannot happen. We cannot have a capacity purchase agreement in any form. Unless Horizon wanted to start selling their own tickets. Theyíre set up as a fee for departure company. And even if they changed to a regular airline who sells their own seats it could then only be a codeshare.

Your Alaska example doesnít really hold much water either. Weíd merge with them before we did something like that. Codeshares make pennies on the dollar compared to selling those seats on our own metal. Have you watched the Scope video?

AYLflyer
06-28-2018, 06:10 AM
Please explain how this is good for JB pilots. Why have JB fly an A320 LGB-SJC/RNO/etc... when JetSuite X can do it for us? Why not have Horizon fly Q400s between JFK-SYR/ROC/ORH?



I think you're confusing codesharing and regional fee for departure.

JB won't be making any sort of real profit off of simply codesharing our current flying. According to everything I've read so far, selling a ticket on JetSuite lands JB literally pennies on the dollar. If they want to stay in business as an airline and not a travel agency, then they won't be farming off all of our flying.

That said, I want to make sure I understand the scope as near 100% as possible. I'm hoping the road shows will clarify the information.

To those who have decided NO because of scope, can I ask, why are you willing to give up a contract now with scope in it, vs risking working under a PEA with no security and risking jetblue farming out flying in the next 12+ months while a new TA is drafted and voted in?

Also from the FAQ

Can JetBlue use an operator such as JetSuite to provide feed under a Capacity Purchase Agreement?
No, agreed upon language prevents the Company from doing this. The Company is prohibited from entering into any Capacity Purchase Agreements or purchase Block Space on other carriers, and they cannot not purchase equity in, or lend to, another company that is an air carrier or an affiliate of an air carrier as a means to circumvent the provisions of our Scope agreement. Other provisions in scope prohibit JetBlue for using an entity like JetSuites as an alter ego or for doublebreasting.

Can JetBlue operate a JetBlue Express / regional carrier?
JetBlue cannot enter into a Capacity Purchase Agreement with any other carrier. However, if JetBlue were to establish a new brand, i.e. JetBlue Express with regional jets, it would be flown by JetBlue Pilots under the same CBA and seniority list.

nuball5
06-28-2018, 06:25 AM
I think you're confusing codesharing and regional fee for departure.

JB won't be making any sort of real profit off of simply codesharing our current flying. According to everything I've read so far, selling a ticket on JetSuite lands JB literally pennies on the dollar. If they want to stay in business as an airline and not a travel agency, then they won't be farming off all of our flying.

That said, I want to make sure I understand the scope as near 100% as possible. I'm hoping the road shows will clarify the information.

To those who have decided NO because of scope, can I ask, why are you willing to give up a contract now with scope in it, vs risking working under a PEA with no security and risking jetblue farming out flying in the next 12+ months while a new TA is drafted and voted in?

Also from the FAQ

I agree. Watching the Scope video online, it sounds like the MEC is very content with the way Section 1 was agreed upon. In contrast watching the "Section 3 Compensation" video, you can tell they aren't as thrilled. If this agreement gets voted down, I'm willing to bet that Section 1 in TA2 would almost be copy & paste.

BeatNavy
06-28-2018, 06:47 AM
I think you're confusing codesharing and regional fee for departure.

JB won't be making any sort of real profit off of simply codesharing our current flying. According to everything I've read so far, selling a ticket on JetSuite lands JB literally pennies on the dollar. If they want to stay in business as an airline and not a travel agency, then they won't be farming off all of our flying.

That said, I want to make sure I understand the scope as near 100% as possible. I'm hoping the road shows will clarify the information.

To those who have decided NO because of scope, can I ask, why are you willing to give up a contract now with scope in it, vs risking working under a PEA with no security and risking jetblue farming out flying in the next 12+ months while a new TA is drafted and voted in?

Also from the FAQ

We can codeshare on horizon or SkyWest planes under the Alaska code if we codeshared with them. Doesnít have to be a CPA/FFD agreement. The idea with codesharing isnít necessarily to make a lot of profit from a route. Itís to get customers on our planes from markets we donít serve with little to no risk. Itís market access with no investment or cost. Then they connect on us and we make money that way. We get intl customers on our flights that way. With domestic codesharing, we can access west coast markets via Alaska and their CPAs with SKW and Horizon if we codeshared with them. How is that a good thing? That is incentive to not spend the money to grow organically into those markets.

Why was SWAPA so loud when SWA mgmt started privately discussing possible codeshares? Read this article and then tell me if you still think codesharing is harmless, and if so, how you came to that conclusion...Iím genuinely curious and want to know how itís not a threat to growth.
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2016/08/11/why-southwest-airlines-is-warming-to-codeshare-and.html

SWA Senior Vice President of Network and Revenue Andrew Watterson also said talk of codesharing and interline agreements haven't gotten far with rank-and-file employees at Southwest in the past because some believe such agreements could be used to cut back on the company's hiring plans.

"That could be a legitimate concern," Watterson conceded in his memo.

International or routes we canít fly is one thing. Like cape...I donít care about a small piston plane flying on our code with pax getting on our flights. We have nothing that can effectively fly those routes that cape has codeshared with us. Ditto for international (until we get the capability, which I wish had more controls to end codeshares if we can fly the routes with new planes).

Iíve read the TA scope section probably 30-40 times, read the FAQs, and still donít see how essentially unlimited domestic codeshares is a good (or even okay) thing. 1% growth? 1 block hour per year? 1 pilot added to the list a year. Thatís our controls put in place? Iím not sold.

Bluedriver
06-28-2018, 07:05 AM
Those that say they aren't worried about domestic codesharing simply don't understand the threat.

I'm not saying vote NO because of it, but I am saying to understand the true nature of the threat and acknowledge it exists.

Delta, for years, maintained a significant domestic codeshare with Alaska out of Seattle. Many Delta pilots we're VERY unhappy with the arrangement because all of the Pacific Northwest Delta commuters were watching Delta sell all these seats on to Alaska aircraft while maintaining a small senior Seattle base for Delta and most of those Delta guys having to commute to SLC, MSP, DTW or NYC. Delta management loved the arrangement because they got to sell connections on to a significant PCNW network that they didn't have to spend billions to develop themselves. Delta wanted to continue this arrangement which harmed Delta mainline pilots but became frustrated that Alaska was also codesharing with AA out of SEA. So DL gave Alaska an ultimatum, either codeshare exclusively with DL out of SEA or we will build our own SEA hub.

Well, you know the results, Delta pilots that live out West are huge winners now that the company built it's own SEA hub.

How does this apply to us?

Well, we have an east coast Airline with no network in the middle of the country and now with our announced reductions in intra-westcoast flying, no West coast network. We fly people to and from the west coast, but no West coast network.

We have been trying to find a way to build a west coast network, but have so far failed miserably. There are NO gates at any of the desirable airports.

Both Alaska and JB are being targeted by emboldened legacy carriers on both coasts, and unlike AK and JB, they can offer valuable business corporate accounts a FULL domestic network.

There is a very real possibility that JB and AK solve this problem with a large, mutually beneficial (for the airlines) large domestic codeshare.

And the same is potentially true for Moxy with there new C300 jets, as well as JetSuiteX.

If you really want to understand the threat, go ask about it in the APC Delta forum. This is the one area of our TA where we are absolutely NOT protected.

I'm not suggesting that we would furlough pilots or anything stupid like that. I'm not saying they are going to take our existing flying, that's just stupid. But, we may very well, and I think those chances are presently increasing, begin a large domestic codeshare with Alaska IN LIEU of building our own organic west coast network.

Not saying vote NO. Not saying doom and destruction. But understand the nature of the threat and stop telling the few of us that have concerns that it doesn't exist.

There are recent historical examples DL-AK, AA-AK, I think NWA-Continental. The PILOTS of those Airlines didn't like it because it reduced the airlines need to organically grow network relevance.

BD

Bluedriver
06-28-2018, 07:07 AM
We can codeshare on horizon or SkyWest planes under the Alaska code if we codeshared with them. Doesnít have to be a CPA/FFD agreement. The idea with codesharing isnít necessarily to make a lot of profit from a route. Itís to get customers on our planes from markets we donít serve with little to no risk. Itís market access with no investment or cost. Then they connect on us and we make money that way. We get intl customers on our flights that way. With domestic codesharing, we can access west coast markets via Alaska and their CPAs with SKW and Horizon if we codeshared with them. How is that a good thing? That is incentive to not spend the money to grow organically into those markets.

Why was SWAPA so loud when SWA mgmt started privately discussing possible codeshares? Read this article and then tell me if you still think codesharing is harmless, and if so, how you came to that conclusion...Iím genuinely curious and want to know how itís not a threat to growth.
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2016/08/11/why-southwest-airlines-is-warming-to-codeshare-and.html



International or routes we canít fly is one thing. Like cape...I donít care about a small piston plane flying on our code with pax getting on our flights. We have nothing that can effectively fly those routes that cape has codeshared with us. Ditto for international (until we get the capability, which I wish had more controls to end codeshares if we can fly the routes with new planes).

Iíve read the TA scope section probably 30-40 times, read the FAQs, and still donít see how essentially unlimited domestic codeshares is a good (or even okay) thing. 1% growth? 1 block hour per year? 1 pilot added to the list a year. Thatís our controls put in place? Iím not sold.

All correct.

And for emphasis, we CAN put JB customers on Skywest RJs via a codeshare with Alaska (who has NO scope or RJ limits).

I know you said it, just emphasizing it.

Guys, I may very well end up holding my nose and voting YES. I'm telling you this so you can at least understand the threat.

AYLflyer
06-28-2018, 10:17 AM
1% growth? 1 block hour per year? 1 pilot added to the list a year. Thatís our controls put in place? Iím not sold.

In a rolling 12 month period. Which on the surface seems good, but the more I think about it, well, it seems odd. Lets say there's a downturn so for a while the company can't add codeshare flying or partner up with others because we've reduced some flying, however once that rolling 12 months window catches up, they can just add a block hour and hire a guy and suddenly are able to renegotiate all their deals and add more? I dunno, maybe I'm misunderstanding that part but I'm not sold yet either.

Bluedriver
06-28-2018, 10:23 AM
In a rolling 12 month period. Which on the surface seems good, but the more I think about it, well, it seems odd. Lets say there's a downturn so for a while the company can't add codeshare flying or partner up with others because we've reduced some flying, however once that rolling 12 months window catches up, they can just add a block hour and hire a guy and suddenly are able to renegotiate all their deals and add more? I dunno, maybe I'm misunderstanding that part but I'm not sold yet either.

You are not wrong. This scenario is also possible:

"Codeshare agreements are not one year at a time. They are long term agreements.

So, this year, which is a multi-year low growth rate for BJ of about 6%, they sign a 7 year extensive codeshare agreement with Alaska.

Next year the board decides margin expansion is the airlines priority and they no longer need to grow out West, because we are selling tickets to connect onto Alaska's West coast network. So they defer half our aircraft deliveries for the next 5 years and cut our ASM or block hour growth to 2.5% (or .01% for that matter).

What happens to the 7 year extensive Alaska codeshare agreement? Nothing.

It doesn't need to be renewed, amended or entered into.

Same goes for Moxy and Hawaiian and JetSuiteX and and and."

GuppyPuppy
06-28-2018, 12:13 PM
So, what is to stop someone from starting an airline with E2s or C-Series that sells their own tickets and codeshares with JB? Maybe competing with JB initially at a loss, JB management exits the route because yields are down, then code shares with that same airline that drove them out of the market?

This is how we will keep growing...with metal from another carrier. And all JB has to do is net +1 pilot/year?

Very concerning.

Yes, I watched the video. Yes, I've read the scope. Seems to me this threatens JB...or maybe I'm just too stupid to get this through my head.

GP

Bozo the pilot
06-28-2018, 01:16 PM
So, we can open up Alaska, Hawaiian, Sun Country and Frontier's entire network to our customer's on jb.com? Not to mention Seaborne, Cape Air, Silver, JetSuite X, etc...

Please explain how this is good for JB pilots. Why have JB fly an A320 LGB-SJC/RNO/etc... when JetSuite X can do it for us? Why not have Horizon fly Q400s between JFK-SYR/ROC/ORH?

This is my biggest problem with the TA.

No limitations other than we have to grow by 1 block hour or 1 pilot per year?

How does this help us?

GP
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?

expectholding
06-28-2018, 01:19 PM
Why did we not restrict codesharing with Available Seat Mile (ASM) limits? It seems like we can codeshare with Alaska for a massive network.
In our process of investigating codeshare agreements, we learned that—contrary to popular belief—the non-flying code share partner is paid pennies on the dollar, typically one or two pennies. Because of this, code sharing between Alaska and JetBlue, whether it be us codesharing with Alaska on the West Coast or Alaska code sharing with us on the East Coast, would yield almost no return for either company. For instance, if JetBlue flew from JFK-LAX, and did a code share with Alaska from LAX-SEA, JetBlue would not generate significant revenue on the LAX-SEA segment, and Alaska would not generate substantial revenue on the JFK-LAX segment. For a company to make money, they need to assume the risk by flying the route. To put it differently, no-one code shares if they can make a profit doing the flying. Carriers code share to generate feed, not revenue. That is why, notwithstanding that there is presently no meaningful restriction on code sharing with Alaska or anyone else in JetBlue’s present non-CBA manuals or in Alaska’s CBA, there is no massive network of code sharing with Alaska. We would also add that under the TA we could not code share with Alaska under circumstances in which we are not growing in terms of both pilots and block hours.

Although ASM ratios between codeshare partners have been negotiated, experience shows that carriers can comply with the ratios while still contracting and drawing down flying.


We should be asking ourselves, what stops JetBlue from doing this now? They dont because they dont make a profit on it. Seems like these questions are being asked of the union and they're being addressed on the FAQ. Pretty good stuff on there.

Bozo the pilot
06-28-2018, 01:25 PM
We should be asking ourselves, what stops JetBlue from doing this now? They dont because they dont make a profit on it. Seems like these questions are being asked of the union and they're being addressed on the FAQ. Pretty good stuff on there.

Exactly- Now after a TA, theyll find the loophole that makes them less money, just to **** us off?
No, theyll continue to operate to make cash, while we will have more protection, pay and QOL.

expectholding
06-28-2018, 01:31 PM
Exactly- Now after a TA, theyll find the loophole that makes them less money, just to **** us off?
No, theyll continue to operate to make cash, while we will have more protection, pay and QOL.

Agreed. And they key seems to be that other airlines have limits, and they can still increase codesharing when they're shrinking. We cannot! This seems pretty solid to me.

Bozo the pilot
06-28-2018, 01:44 PM
Agreed. And they key seems to be that other airlines have limits, and they can still increase codesharing when they're shrinking. We cannot! This seems pretty solid to me.

Codesharing is actually needed for some of our growth.

BeatNavy
06-28-2018, 01:45 PM
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 arenít 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. Whatís 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 Iím speaking about? We donít currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we donít/canít feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Donít care about that piston flying. Intl connections we canít fly ourselves? Donít care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I canít seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if thatís via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we donít fly...thatís fine.

What I do care about is codeshares we donít have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just canít 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 canít 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 wouldnít 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 ďwouldnít codeshare out that much flyingĒ as you state, why wouldnít they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didnít want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we canít 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.

expectholding
06-28-2018, 01:57 PM
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.

My understanding it the only agreement that has more restrictions on codeshare is SWA. The fact that jb can draw feed from alk doesn't mean its less likely to put jb metal on the route. they'll put metal on the route if they can make a profit.

Bozo the pilot
06-28-2018, 01:58 PM
The codeshares themselves arenít 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. Whatís 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 Iím speaking about? We donít currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we donít/canít feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Donít care about that piston flying. Intl connections we canít fly ourselves? Donít care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I canít seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if thatís via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we donít fly...thatís fine.

What I do care about is codeshares we donít have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just canít 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 canít 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 wouldnít 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 ďwouldnít codeshare out that much flyingĒ as you state, why wouldnít they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didnít want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we canít 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.

When has a company not tried to limit everything a pilot group has asked for? Why would they let us eliminate it completely? We state our desire, they state their limits. Negotiations.
My point about the length of a 100% restrictive contract is that its not possible. We negotiate to a point where we feel we get enough restriction or at least some restriction and then we move on to the other parts of Scope like FFD/M&A etc. Could we have stipulated more of a growth number? Sure. As well we could have gotten pay higher/benefits and profit sharing. I am okay with the section including the Codesharing language.
I see why you want elimination of codeshares just like SWA, but do you want their work rules. At some point you have to accept the give and take of the process.
In respect BN.

expectholding
06-28-2018, 09:33 PM
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.


Silver Airways Begins Flights From Fort Lauderdale to Jacksonville | New Times Broward-Palm Beach (http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/silver-airways-begins-flights-from-fort-lauderdale-to-jacksonville-6442647)

It appears they did it, and now they dont, and we do...im guessing because we could make money on it.

And are you saying you "dont care about that piston flying" when its now jet flying that we do?? How do you make sense?

Bluedriver
06-28-2018, 09:41 PM
So, what is to stop someone from starting an airline with E2s or C-Series that sells their own tickets and codeshares with JB? Maybe competing with JB initially at a loss, JB management exits the route because yields are down, then code shares with that same airline that drove them out of the market?

This is how we will keep growing...with metal from another carrier. And all JB has to do is net +1 pilot/year?

Very concerning.

Yes, I watched the video. Yes, I've read the scope. Seems to me this threatens JB...or maybe I'm just too stupid to get this through my head.

GP

Oh, I think you are referring to MOXY!!!

Bluedriver
06-28-2018, 10:10 PM
When has a company not tried to limit everything a pilot group has asked for? Why would they let us eliminate it completely? We state our desire, they state their limits. Negotiations.
My point about the length of a 100% restrictive contract is that its not possible. We negotiate to a point where we feel we get enough restriction or at least some restriction and then we move on to the other parts of Scope like FFD/M&A etc. Could we have stipulated more of a growth number? Sure. As well we could have gotten pay higher/benefits and profit sharing. I am okay with the section including the Codesharing language.
I see why you want elimination of codeshares just like SWA, but do you want their work rules. At some point you have to accept the give and take of the process.
In respect BN.

Navy had a great explanation. The FAQ is down playing the issue. The codeshare would be intra-cali and intra-west. We CAN'T fly those routes because there are NO more gates available at the premium airports, which would be at one end of each leg we would codeshare on. To fly the routes we would codeshare on, we would instead have to build a robust intra-cali/west route network. We can't (no gates) and we haven't and we won't (cost to develop is way more than JB is willing to RISK and INVEST). Buy VA was the strategy to begin a West coast network, it failed. You won't like the new strategy nearly as much.

I can virtually guarantee our JB NC opening position was NO domestic codeshare, like SW. The company would have refused. Our fallback position was highly likely to be very limited domestic codeshare. The company again refused.

We ended up with almost unrestricted domestic codeshare because the company demanded it.

In this contract the company didn't really give up ANYTHING it held completely sacred, except MAYBE 5hr ADG. We went into this virtually demanding better healthcare and improvements to the unilateral profit sharing plan they crammed down our throats. We failed.

We got RJ scope (because the company had no intention of capacity purchase agreements, still glad we got it in writing) and we DIDN'T achieve strong limits on domestic codesharing because the company refused (we may very well learn why soon enough).

Bluedriver
06-28-2018, 10:19 PM
Exactly- Now after a TA, theyll find the loophole that makes them less money, just to **** us off?
No, theyll continue to operate to make cash, while we will have more protection, pay and QOL.

For most of JBs existence, the airline planned to eventually build it's own West coast network or buy Virgin America.

They now realize they can't do either.

Plan C is most likely Alaska codeshare, Moxy codeshare to smaller airports out West and more JetSuiteX out West..

Bluedriver
06-28-2018, 10:25 PM
The codeshares themselves arenít 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. Whatís 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 Iím speaking about? We donít currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we donít/canít feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Donít care about that piston flying. Intl connections we canít fly ourselves? Donít care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I canít seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if thatís via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we donít fly...thatís fine.

What I do care about is codeshares we donít have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just canít 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 canít 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 wouldnít 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 ďwouldnít codeshare out that much flyingĒ as you state, why wouldnít they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didnít want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we canít 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.

Another great post.

Your first paragraph is the big explanation. This is how/why Delta-Alaska and AA-Alaska maintained large domestic codeshares for so many years in SEA.

The argument that JB won't domestic codeshare because it only makes pennies on the dollar is wrong, proven by history. Delta and Alaska are two of the highest margin airlines in the world, and only reduced their codeshare because AK refused to end it's codeshare with AA.

I have to ask you guys, did Alaska and Delta not want the "whole dollar"?

You are not seeing all the moving parts.

rvr1800
06-29-2018, 03:46 AM
You guys worried about the codeshare thing realize there has been nothing stopping jetBlue from doing this for its entire existence right?

BeatNavy
06-29-2018, 04:08 AM
Silver Airways Begins Flights From Fort Lauderdale to Jacksonville | New Times Broward-Palm Beach (http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/silver-airways-begins-flights-from-fort-lauderdale-to-jacksonville-6442647)

It appears they did it, and now they dont, and we do...im guessing because we could make money on it.

And are you saying you "dont care about that piston flying" when its now jet flying that we do?? How do you make sense?

How do i make sense? Cape air flies piston twins. We codeshare with cape. Cape flies small planes on small short routes not exactly suited for jets, therefore by codesharing with them we aren’t losing anything. Same argument as the widebody side...we don’t have equipment suited for those routes. Silver flies turboprops. They are the FLL-JAX codeshare example used in the section 1 video. I’m guessing you haven’t watched it. Everyone else seems to understand what I’m saying.

BeatNavy
06-29-2018, 04:15 AM
You guys worried about the codeshare thing realize there has been nothing stopping jetBlue from doing this for its entire existence right?

You realize we tried to buy an airline to grow our west coast presence after our entire existence we were told ďorganic growthĒ only? Weíve always been a growth airline and grown organically...until we donít. We have failed at growing in the west coast, especially recently. Buying virginófail. Organic growth in/out of LGBófail. They are obviously getting creative now. Just because we can do it and have been able to doesnít mean we wonít...hence the companyís desire to keep the option open with few restrictions.

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 04:27 AM
You guys worried about the codeshare thing realize there has been nothing stopping jetBlue from doing this for its entire existence right?

Holy cow, I just explained that two posts ago:

"For most of JBs existence, the airline planned to eventually build it's own West coast network or buy Virgin America.

They now realize they can't do either.

Plan C is most likely Alaska codeshare, Moxy codeshare to smaller airports out West and more JetSuiteX out West.."

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 04:31 AM
Our NC and union are very intelligent. They know, as ***SWA know*******, that domestic codeshare is an important issue.

Our scope opening position would be to copy SWA, the true industry leader in scope.

The question you should be asking yourselves is "WHY did management dig in their heels and refuse domestic codeshare restrictions"?.

That should tell you how important it is to management.

hyperboy
06-29-2018, 04:33 AM
When has a company not tried to limit everything a pilot group has asked for? Why would they let us eliminate it completely? We state our desire, they state their limits. Negotiations.
My point about the length of a 100% restrictive contract is that its not possible. We negotiate to a point where we feel we get enough restriction or at least some restriction and then we move on to the other parts of Scope like FFD/M&A etc. Could we have stipulated more of a growth number? Sure. As well we could have gotten pay higher/benefits and profit sharing. I am okay with the section including the Codesharing language.
I see why you want elimination of codeshares just like SWA, but do you want their work rules. At some point you have to accept the give and take of the process.
In respect BN.

The videos, backed up by...........reading the contract, and FAQ's, contract comparison, and eventually a roadshow have, will and have been very informative. The information is ALL there you just have to do your part. I hope more show the importance of your vote and your career than what your fellow pilot tells you in the cockpit, and what fellow pilots did not do by showing support (for the process) at the last union meeting where you can express your opinion and thoughts as constituents.

There should be no excuse.

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 04:40 AM
When has a company not tried to limit everything a pilot group has asked for? ****Why would they let us eliminate it completely?***** We state our desire, they state their limits. Negotiations.
My point about the length of a 100% restrictive contract is that its not possible. We negotiate to a point where we feel we get enough restriction or at least some restriction and then we move on to the other parts of Scope like FFD/M&A etc. Could we have stipulated more of a growth number? Sure. As well we could have gotten pay higher/benefits and profit sharing. I am okay with the section including the Codesharing language.
I see why you want elimination of codeshares just like SWA, but do you want their work rules. At some point you have to accept the give and take of the process.
In respect BN.

Your own argument fails itself. They let us scope out RJs completely! So why did they stand so strong on domestic codesharing?

We went in as a union absolutely guns blazing on healthcare improvements and profit sharing improvements. We failed, because the company didn't want to separate us from the other work groups because it would show other work groups that they need to unionize to get good benefits. They (the company) will absolutely not give what they hold sacred.

So, why did they fold like a wet blanket on RJs but build a fortress around domestic codeshare?

I've been trying to explain it....

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 04:51 AM
The videos, backed up by...........reading the contract, and FAQ's, contract comparison, and eventually a roadshow have, will and have been very informative. The information is ALL there you just have to do your part. I hope more show the importance of your vote and your career than what your fellow pilot tells you in the cockpit, and what fellow pilots did not do by showing support (for the process) at the last union meeting where you can express your opinion and thoughts as constituents.

There should be no excuse.

No excuse for what?

Bozo the pilot
06-29-2018, 05:00 AM
Your own argument fails itself. They let us scope out RJs completely! So why did they stand so strong on domestic codesharing?

We went in as a union absolutely guns blazing on healthcare improvements and profit sharing improvements. We failed, because the company didn't want to separate us from the other work groups because it would show other work groups that they need to unionize to get good benefits. They (the company) will absolutely not give what they hold sacred.

So, why did they fold like a wet blanket on RJs but build a fortress around domestic codeshare?

I've been trying to explain it....

So its SWA or nothing for you- thanks for clarifying.

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 05:13 AM
So its SWA or nothing for you- thanks for clarifying.

Don't be a moron.

I'M NOT SAYING VOTE NO.

I may very well end up holding my nose and voting YES.

But, I do want us all to know what is likely coming in the future.

That's all Bozo. I know you desperately want this to pass, so you lash out at ANY criticism.

For me, this is just a warning, not a NO campaign.

Bozo the pilot
06-29-2018, 05:20 AM
Don't be a moron.

I'M NOT SAYING VOTE NO.

I may very well end up holding my nose and voting YES.

But, I do want us all to know what is likely coming in the future.

That's all Bozo. I know you desperately want this to pass, so you lash out at ANY criticism.

For me, this is just a warning, not a NO campaign.

I havent called you names and it appears as though you're the one lashing out BD.
Part of me wants to see how a rejection would play out, and Ive stated that before.
When all you have left is name-calling and rage, your childish approach to people is apparent.
Monitor your blood pressure BD, its peaking.
Lots of luck man.

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 05:22 AM
I havent called you names and it appears as though you're the one lashing out BD.
Part of me wants to see how a rejection would play out, and Ive stated that before.
When all you have left is name-calling and rage, your childish approach to people is apparent.
Monitor your blood pressure BD, its peaking.
Lots of luck man.

I was just telling you what NOT to be.

Bozo the pilot
06-29-2018, 05:29 AM
I was just telling you what NOT to be.

You get unhinged at any dissension from your perspective and revert to a playground mentality BD.
And in fairness, we all do at times.
Good luck to ya.

GuppyPuppy
06-29-2018, 07:31 AM
My fear is that if we give the company almost unlimited domestic code share then our growth slows down to a trickle.

Gup

nuball5
06-29-2018, 08:00 AM
My fear is that if we give the company almost unlimited domestic code share then our growth slows down to a trickle.

Gup

You guys keep going around in circles in this debate. I think we'd all like a Section 1 agreement that mirrored SWA. No one wants another airline conducting flying we could do ourselves. I think when we all decided to become Airline Pilots, we knew the inherent risks that came with this profession....9/11, down economy, Flag of Convenience (NAI), Scope. I believe our MEC achieved all they could with Section 1, but that's my opinion. I still respect anyone who would vote NO on this issue, cause I think it could effect our future growth.

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 08:13 AM
You guys keep going around in circles in this debate. I think we'd all like a Section 1 agreement that mirrored SWA. No one wants another airline conducting flying we could do ourselves. I think when we all decided to become Airline Pilots, we knew the inherent risks that came with this profession....9/11, down economy, Flag of Convenience (NAI), Scope. I believe our MEC achieved all they could with Section 1, but that's my opinion. I still respect anyone who would vote NO on this issue, cause I think it could effect our future growth.

I agree. I also think the NC did all they could, because I believe the company built a fortress around domestic codesharing.

PasserOGas
06-29-2018, 08:22 AM
I agree. I also think the NC did all they could, because I believe the company built a fortress around domestic codesharing.

A fortress built of terrible, terrible pay scales.

rvr1800
06-29-2018, 10:22 AM
Holy cow, I just explained that two posts ago:

"For most of JBs existence, the airline planned to eventually build it's own West coast network or buy Virgin America.

They now realize they can't do either.

Plan C is most likely Alaska codeshare, Moxy codeshare to smaller airports out West and more JetSuiteX out West.."

I didnít realize you were in those planning meetings. My apologies BD. :rolleyes:

Bluedriver
06-29-2018, 11:42 AM
I didnít realize you were in those planning meetings. My apologies BD. :rolleyes:

Or you could pay attention.

rvr1800
06-29-2018, 12:33 PM
Or you could pay attention.

What did they tell you about the fleet review??

Bluedriver
06-30-2018, 09:08 AM
What did they tell you about the fleet review??

I'm not allowed to say. But just like standard BlueJet, there's no way you could be disappointed!

Bozo the pilot
06-30-2018, 09:21 AM
I'm not allowed to say. But just like standard BlueJet, there's no way you could be disappointed!

Are we keeping the plain Popcorners or going with Jalapeno?
;)

Bluedriver
06-30-2018, 09:32 AM
Are we keeping the plain Popcorners or going with Jalapeno?
;)

I'm under a PNDA.















"popcorner" NDA.

zulu99
06-30-2018, 01:17 PM
There was no way that anything would have pleased some the beaten-down guys here.
I get it- B6 ****es me off and has for years, and will continue to, but we have to either be objective or angry- the 2 dont coexist.
For the angry blind out there, at least go to a roadshow instead of poking holes in a TA that you dont fully understand.
I dont fully understand the 300 pages, but Im listening.
Do the same before you decide.

Oh please Bozo. Youíre a yes, this ta could have you scrubbing lavs and youíd be a yes. What happened?! You used to have a head on you, Cheif pilot prospects???

Bozo the pilot
06-30-2018, 05:04 PM
Oh please Bozo. You’re a yes, this ta could have you scrubbing lavs and you’d be a yes. What happened?! You used to have a head on you, Cheif pilot prospects???

I always love hearing from the fans.
You're the reason we do this.

Love & Xs Zulu.
Bz

Bozo the pilot
06-30-2018, 05:07 PM
I'm under a PNDA.















"popcorner" NDA.

Well done BD. :D

Southerner
06-30-2018, 05:59 PM
Oh please Bozo. Youíre a yes, this ta could have you scrubbing lavs and youíd be a yes. What happened?! You used to have a head on you, Cheif pilot prospects???

Chief pilot is probably one of the worst jobs at any airline. I'm not sure why so many people here think it's something magical that we should all aspire to.

Bluedriver
07-01-2018, 04:22 AM
Chief pilot is probably one of the worst jobs at any airline. I'm not sure why so many people here think it's something magical that we should all aspire to.

Um yeah, that's not what we think or mean. It takes a certain kind of person to WANT to be a chief, and that usually isn't good...

b82rez
07-01-2018, 05:20 AM
The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we donít/canít feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Donít care about that piston flying.

Jetblue flys BOS-ACK. On a E190. I'm not sure you know exactly what you're talking about.

queue
07-01-2018, 06:46 PM
Chief pilot is probably one of the worst jobs at any airline. I'm not sure why so many people here think it's something magical that we should all aspire to.

You get more kick backs doing special projects.


This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

BeatNavy
07-01-2018, 08:59 PM
Jetblue flys BOS-ACK. On a E190. I'm not sure you know exactly what you're talking about.

Yeah, Iíve flown it. We do what 1 or 2 a day seasonally? We canít feasibly do it with the frequency they do it. Flying 50 miles, burning 1000 lbs of jet a between taxi on both ends and ground time there with the APU on, plus whatever the flight burns, plus the cycles on the plane/motors, doesnít exactly make for a great jet route. Itís extremely high CASM. Cape doing it on piston twins with a handful of people on each one is a lot better suited for it than we are on an E190. Our codeshare with them in that route isnít exactly a threat to our growth, nor taking measurable business from jetblue pilots. Iíve said repeatedly codeshares on routes we canít feasibly do ourselves or with equipment we don't have arenít the problem. The problem is codesharing on routes we can feasibly do ourselves with equipment we have (a la Alaska/possibly Moxy), which this TA allows in basically unlimited fashion. Our west coast growth failure, with no plan right now, leaves ALK codeshares as a real possibility, eliminating our attempts to get slots/gate space/organic growth intra west coast. Please tell me what exactly you think I donít know about this? Iím sure itís plenty, but Iíd like you to enlighten me.

DontCallMeCindy
07-02-2018, 02:37 AM
Yeah, Iíve flown it. We do what 1 or 2 a day seasonally? We canít feasibly do it with the frequency they do it. Flying 50 miles, burning 1000 lbs of jet a between taxi on both ends and ground time there with the APU on, plus whatever the flight burns, plus the cycles on the plane/motors, doesnít exactly make for a great jet route. Itís extremely high CASM. Cape doing it on piston twins with a handful of people on each one is a lot better suited for it than we are on an E190. Our codeshare with them in that route isnít exactly a threat to our growth, nor taking measurable business from jetblue pilots. Iíve said repeatedly codeshares on routes we canít feasibly do ourselves or with equipment we don't have arenít the problem. The problem is codesharing on routes we can feasibly do ourselves with equipment we have (a la Alaska/possibly Moxy), which this TA allows in basically unlimited fashion. Our west coast growth failure, with no plan right now, leaves ALK codeshares as a real possibility, eliminating our attempts to get slots/gate space/organic growth intra west coast. Please tell me what exactly you think I donít know about this? Iím sure itís plenty, but Iíd like you to enlighten me.

Hereís some enlightenment: we currently have zero protections against any and all codesharing, against any alter-egos, etc., and weíre rapidly nearing the end of one of the longest bull markets in the entire history of the USA.

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 04:19 AM
Hereís some enlightenment: we currently have zero protections against any and all codesharing, against any alter-egos, etc., and weíre rapidly nearing the end of one of the longest bull markets in the entire history of the USA.

Ok Cindy so we need to take the first offer we are given because of fear? No thanks. TAs are supposed to be voted on based on their value and merits, not on fear. Fear is an emotion. Donít vote on emotion. Really wish people would stop being so afraid of the bogeyman when voting on something that affects my family.

If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But donít take me down with you because you are afraid.

Please enlighten me more.

Southerner
07-02-2018, 04:52 AM
Ok Cindy so we need to take the first offer we are given because of fear? No thanks. TAs are supposed to be voted on based on their value and merits, not on fear. Fear is an emotion. Donít vote on emotion. Really wish people would stop being so afraid of the bogeyman when voting on something that affects my family.

If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But donít take me down with you because you are afraid.

Please enlighten me more.

That's not fear. It's being rational. The TA is a good deal. It isn't great, but it's solid, and gets us on the map. If the economy turns, we will be lucky to have this deal.

Bozo the pilot
07-02-2018, 05:01 AM
Ok Cindy so we need to take the first offer we are given because of fear? No thanks. TAs are supposed to be voted on based on their value and merits, not on fear. Fear is an emotion. Donít vote on emotion. Really wish people would stop being so afraid of the bogeyman when voting on something that affects my family.

If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But donít take me down with you because you are afraid.

Please enlighten me more.
So you're a juggernaut under current book, but fear what B6 will do once they have limits? And Im talking the entire TA.
Gotcha. :rolleyes:

PasserOGas
07-02-2018, 05:41 AM
Ok Cindy so we need to take the first offer we are given because of fear? No thanks. TAs are supposed to be voted on based on their value and merits, not on fear. Fear is an emotion. Donít vote on emotion. Really wish people would stop being so afraid of the bogeyman when voting on something that affects my family.

If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But donít take me down with you because you are afraid.

Please enlighten me more.

Seriously, if you are so sure the market will tank that you are willing to condemn us all to discount wages for our whole careers, you should be getting rich on Wall Street.

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 06:10 AM
So you're a juggernaut under current book, but fear what B6 will do once they have limits? And Im talking the entire TA.
Gotcha. :rolleyes:

I live under current book right now. I know the risks. I also know what leverage we have now that we wonít in 3.5-7 years as we negotiate our second contract. 6-12 more months of current book doesnít scare me. Being locked in a substandard contract for the next 4-8 years is more worrisome, as well as giving some things away that canít be easily gotten back, especially with less leverage. Not to mention showing mgmt and F&H that we are willing to accept less than market rate as a pilot group.

We disagree on risk tolerance I guess, as well as current and future value, and our self-worth. Did you marry the first chick who talked to you out of fear of being alone forever? I held out and am glad I did. Iíve ďheld out for moreĒ in lots of things in life, and worked/fought hard to get things I want. I havenít decided how I will vote yet, but when I do decide, it will be based on the value of the TA over the next 4-8 years in relation to the going rate in the industry, not fear.

Did the union spread ďthe sky is falling, we have no protection, and the economy will tank so we need to lock this inĒ rhetoric or did you guys just make it up on your own? I havenít heard or seen it yet from them. But I see it from a lot of the usual company guys. Not that you are one, just an observation from here, the other forums, and my circle of friends. My juicer friends are the ones who think this TA is great and we need to hurry up and sign before X, Y, or Z happens. Correlation?

hyperboy
07-02-2018, 07:06 AM
Seriously, if you are so sure the market will tank that you are willing to condemn us all to discount wages for our whole careers, you should be getting rich on Wall Street.

and you should send your paychecks to me....:D

hyperboy
07-02-2018, 07:15 AM
I live under current book right now. I know the risks. I also know what leverage we have now that we won’t in 3.5-7 years as we negotiate our second contract. 6-12 more months of current book doesn’t scare me. Being locked in a substandard contract for the next 4-8 years is more worrisome, as well as giving some things away that can’t be easily gotten back, especially with less leverage. Not to mention showing mgmt and F&H that we are willing to accept less than market rate as a pilot group.


We disagree on risk tolerance I guess, as well as current and future value, and our self-worth. Did you marry the first chick who talked to you out of fear of being alone forever? I held out and am glad I did. I’ve “held out for more” in lots of things in life, and worked/fought hard to get things I want. I haven’t decided how I will vote yet, but when I do decide, it will be based on the value of the TA over the next 4-8 years in relation to the going rate in the industry, not fear.




Did the union spread “the sky is falling, we have no protection, and the economy will tank so we need to lock this in” rhetoric or did you guys just make it up on your own? I haven’t heard or seen it yet from them. But I see it from a lot of the usual company guys. Not that you are one, just an observation from here, the other forums, and my circle of friends. My juicer friends are the ones who think this TA is great and we need to hurry up and sign before X, Y, or Z happens. Correlation?

I would argue that this is a market rate contract in plenty of ways. Yes I have read and watched all available information as well as contract comparisons across all sections to have this opinion. Is it perfect? No nor am I should have seen my last slamding.

I too, do not not act out of fear. The unknown without Merger and Scope language is REAL though.

IMHO. It is a solid foundation which we would need moving forward for all future contracts moving forward. Thoughts?

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 07:42 AM
I would argue that this is a market rate contract in plenty of ways. Yes I have read and watched all available information as well as contract comparisons across all sections to have this opinion. Is it perfect? No nor am I should have seen my last slamding.

I too, do not not act out of fear. The unknown without Merger and Scope language is REAL though.

IMHO. It is a solid foundation which we would need moving forward for all future contracts moving forward. Thoughts?

I agree it is market rate in many areas. Most of it is good. But some of the few items that are sticking points aren’t minor and sway too far from market rate in its totality, and may warrant a no vote. Which is why I’m not set one way or another yet. I also don’t know if I agree with the solid foundation part...it’s ok but could be more solid...now is the time to get what we need, not 4 years from now when the landscape may (or may not) change. We have leverage now. We need to leverage our leverage.

jtrain609
07-02-2018, 08:24 AM
I live under current book right now. I know the risks. I also know what leverage we have now that we wonít in 3.5-7 years as we negotiate our second contract. 6-12 more months of current book doesnít scare me. Being locked in a substandard contract for the next 4-8 years is more worrisome, as well as giving some things away that canít be easily gotten back, especially with less leverage. Not to mention showing mgmt and F&H that we are willing to accept less than market rate as a pilot group.

We disagree on risk tolerance I guess, as well as current and future value, and our self-worth. Did you marry the first chick who talked to you out of fear of being alone forever? I held out and am glad I did. Iíve ďheld out for moreĒ in lots of things in life, and worked/fought hard to get things I want. I havenít decided how I will vote yet, but when I do decide, it will be based on the value of the TA over the next 4-8 years in relation to the going rate in the industry, not fear.

Did the union spread ďthe sky is falling, we have no protection, and the economy will tank so we need to lock this inĒ rhetoric or did you guys just make it up on your own? I havenít heard or seen it yet from them. But I see it from a lot of the usual company guys. Not that you are one, just an observation from here, the other forums, and my circle of friends. My juicer friends are the ones who think this TA is great and we need to hurry up and sign before X, Y, or Z happens. Correlation?

So your attempt at persuading others to vote no is to call them pussies.

Gotcha.

Didn't know they gave middle schoolers ATP's.

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 08:50 AM
So your attempt at persuading others to vote no is to call them pussies.

Gotcha.

Didn't know they gave middle schoolers ATP's.

Oh really? Where did I do that?

jtrain609
07-02-2018, 09:01 AM
Oh really? Where did I do that?

I live under current book right now. I know the risks. I also know what leverage we have now that we wonít in 3.5-7 years as we negotiate our second contract. 6-12 more months of current book doesnít scare me. Being locked in a substandard contract for the next 4-8 years is more worrisome, as well as giving some things away that canít be easily gotten back, especially with less leverage. Not to mention showing mgmt and F&H that we are willing to accept less than market rate as a pilot group.

We disagree on risk tolerance I guess, as well as current and future value, and our self-worth. Did you marry the first chick who talked to you out of fear of being alone forever? I held out and am glad I did. Iíve ďheld out for moreĒ in lots of things in life, and worked/fought hard to get things I want. I havenít decided how I will vote yet, but when I do decide, it will be based on the value of the TA over the next 4-8 years in relation to the going rate in the industry, not fear.

Did the union spread ďthe sky is falling, we have no protection, and the economy will tank so we need to lock this inĒ rhetoric or did you guys just make it up on your own? I havenít heard or seen it yet from them. But I see it from a lot of the usual company guys. Not that you are one, just an observation from here, the other forums, and my circle of friends. My juicer friends are the ones who think this TA is great and we need to hurry up and sign before X, Y, or Z happens. Correlation?

I bolded it for you.

jtrain609
07-02-2018, 09:16 AM
Ok Cindy so we need to take the first offer we are given because of fear? No thanks. TAs are supposed to be voted on based on their value and merits, not on fear. Fear is an emotion. Donít vote on emotion. Really wish people would stop being so afraid of the bogeyman when voting on something that affects my family.

If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But donít take me down with you because you are afraid.

Please enlighten me more.

Sorry, should have quoted this one too.

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 09:19 AM
Sorry, should have quoted this one too.

And where is the name calling (specifically one that starts with ďpĒ) you speak of? Thatís not name calling. Peace.

Southerner
07-02-2018, 09:53 AM
And where is the name calling (specifically one that starts with ďpĒ) you speak of? Thatís not name calling. Peace.

Your intent is clear.

jtrain609
07-02-2018, 09:56 AM
And where is the name calling (specifically one that starts with ďpĒ) you speak of? Thatís not name calling. Peace.

The implication is obvious. And I hope you're not treating your colleagues in the cockpit like this.

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 10:09 AM
The implication is obvious. And I hope you're not treating your colleagues in the cockpit like this.

Treating them like what...sharing my opinions with them? So you guys who love it can jump around with joy and put down everyone who has opposing opinions? Anyone who agrees with you is good, anyone who disagrees with you is mean, a name caller, a bigot, etc.? What is this, CNN?

jtrain609
07-02-2018, 10:15 AM
Treating them like what...sharing my opinions with them? So you guys who love it can jump around with joy and put down everyone who has opposing opinions? Anyone who agrees with you is good, anyone who disagrees with you is mean, a name caller, a bigot, etc.? What is this, CNN?

No, that's not it at all. There are plenty of reasons for voting against this.

But that doesn't give you the right to be an ******* to your colleagues.

Which is what you're doing. Not because of your opinion, but because of how you're behaving.

Southerner
07-02-2018, 10:25 AM
No, that's not it at all. There are plenty of reasons for voting against this.

But that doesn't give you the right to be an ******* to your colleagues.

Which is what you're doing. Not because of your opinion, but because of how you're behaving.

Your posts are falling on deaf ears, I'm afraid. He doesn't realize that a fact is something like "The PTO sellback provisions impact me personally more that others, and therefore I'm voting No."

Versus a personal attack, which sounds like, "Only a weak idiot would vote yes to this, and our group is full of weak pilots who are 'just happy to be here.'"

jtrain609
07-02-2018, 10:28 AM
Your posts are falling on deaf ears, I'm afraid. He doesn't realize that a fact is something like "The PTO sellback provisions impact me personally more that others, and therefore I'm voting No."

Versus a personal attack, which sounds like, "Only a weak idiot would vote yes to this, and our group is full of weak pilots who are 'just happy to be here.'"

I blame Trump for this kind of behavior.

https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/1439835/images/o-SLOMOGUYS-facebook.jpg

Southerner
07-02-2018, 10:40 AM
I blame Trump for this kind of behavior.

https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/1439835/images/o-SLOMOGUYS-facebook.jpg

Nice. Facts? Truth? There is no such thing as objective truth.

jtrain609
07-02-2018, 10:43 AM
Nice. Facts? Truth? There is no such thing as objective truth.

I mean reality IS an illusion, as is time.

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 10:53 AM
Nice. Facts? Truth? There is no such thing as objective truth.

Yeah...my posts are all devoid of facts. Got it.

Southerner
07-02-2018, 11:03 AM
Yeah...my posts are all devoid of facts. Got it.

There are a few facts sprinkled in with the ad hominem.

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 11:47 AM
There are a few facts sprinkled in with the ad hominem.

Letís review some facts you construe as ad-hominem:
1) union asked us to wear lanyards as a show of unity
2) F&H union busters tally our lanyards to judge unity
3) you refuse to do this simple task
4) People bring it up to you and you throw a fit for bringing up facts that you donít like.

Now. Want to move on and debate facts of this TA? Like E195-E2, a 124-128 seat plane, paying $50 less than the smaller CS100 on DALs rates? Or the fact that our CS100 rates are $40 less than DALís? Or that our PS cliff makes our PS almost worthless? Or that our cola is sub par? Or that our 321 and/or blended rate is below everyone elseís in our peer group to start, and continues to fall further behind? Or our already bad medical changed by $300 a year seed money?

No emotion. Just facts. Facts you donít like to acknowledge.

We can talk about the happy facts too, but my point has been to ask if the shortfalls are worth holding out for. Check your emotion at the door. I know you get emotional when people ask for your support to stand with the rest of us and show unity with a lanyard, or when people bring up negatives about the TA, or when queue posts. No need for it.

Southerner
07-02-2018, 12:00 PM
Letís review some facts you construe as ad-hominem:
1) union asked us to wear lanyards as a show of unity
2) F&H union busters tally our lanyards to judge unity
3) you refuse to do this simple task
4) People bring it up to you and you throw a fit for bringing up facts that you donít like.

Now. Want to move on and debate facts of this TA? Like E195-E2, a 124-128 seat plane, paying $50 less than the smaller CS100 on DALs rates? Or the fact that our CS100 rates are $40 less than DALís? Or that our PS cliff makes our PS almost worthless? Or that our cola is sub par? Or that our 321 and/or blended rate is below everyone elseís in our peer group to start, and continues to fall further behind? Or our already bad medical changed by $300 a year seed money?

No emotion. Just facts. Facts you donít like to acknowledge.

We can talk about the happy facts too, but my point has been to ask if the shortfalls are worth holding out for. Check your emotion at the door. I know you get emotional when people ask for your support to stand with the rest of us and show unity with a lanyard, or when people bring up negatives about the TA, or when queue posts. No need for it.

I never threw a fit. I'm talking about your other posts. I don't give a crap what you think about me wearing a lanyard or not. That's not what we are here to discuss. You want to focus on that, because you use it as a straw man technique. You really should study up on logical fallacies...

I'm not emotional. Perhaps you should look in the mirror...

BeatNavy
07-02-2018, 12:15 PM
I never threw a fit. I'm talking about your other posts. I don't give a crap what you think about me wearing a lanyard or not. That's not what we are here to discuss. You want to focus on that, because you use it as a straw man technique. You really should study up on logical fallacies...

I'm not emotional. Perhaps you should look in the mirror...

Crickets on the rest of my post discussing the TA? Of course.

Southerner
07-02-2018, 12:31 PM
Crickets on the rest of my post discussing the TA? Of course.

Now. Want to move on and debate facts of this TA? Like E195-E2, a 124-128 seat plane, paying $50 less than the smaller CS100 on DALs rates? Or the fact that our CS100 rates are $40 less than DALís? Or that our PS cliff makes our PS almost worthless? Or that our cola is sub par? Or that our 321 and/or blended rate is below everyone elseís in our peer group to start, and continues to fall further behind? Or our already bad medical changed by $300 a year seed money?

1. Yep E190 pay didn't go up much. Are you willing to trade other things to get that pay up? Like it or not, the industry pays based on aircraft type, and that specific type is already the highest E190 pay in the industry. To fix that would be awesome, but it would likely cost us in other areas. I'm an E190 guy, so sure, wouldn't it be cool to have more? Yep. But I'd rather the larger fleet get more, and improve in other areas too.

2. CS rates could improve, yes. But they are middle of the road, and not terrible. At least they are doing a blended rate for the non-flight hours versus paying CS100 for all with an override if you fly a CS300. That's what I was expecting.

3. I don't GAS about profit sharing. I would rather give it up entirely for higher guaranteed rates. It is codified now in the CBA, so it cannot be changed. Again, middle of the road. Not great, or terrible.

4. I wish the COLA were 1% more. If we vote this down, we will never regain the loss in money over that timeframe. This is a simple cost/benefit analysis here. That's not enough for my no vote.

5. Medical benefits aren't a driving factor for me, so that doesn't drive my personal vote yes or no.

All of the above are meh/middle of the road for me. (And we are discussing my vote here, so that's the lens we should look at this through.)

Now we can discuss the stuff that is a dramatic improvement.

1. Reserve is better, with long-call provisions guaranteeing use of it.
2. Pairing construction is far improved.
3. Scope is far better.
4. Instructor provisions are far better. (Way better)
5. This will codify our CBA and give us a place to improve from in 3.5 years.

So for me, it's a meh/cost of voting no to improve the pay sections won't be outweighed by the gains versus the improvements in the other areas. That equals a solid yes. The risk of downturn simply makes that calculation more confirmed for me.



So all that said, I hold no ill-will towards those who vote no. Their calculus is different. Good for them.

GuppyPuppy
07-02-2018, 02:00 PM
Back on topic.....

Anyone remember Reno Air? Moxy is the new Reno Air.

We've all been told that LGB isn't profitable. If the TA passes, what is to stop JB from closing LGB and giving all slots to Moxy? We transfer all assets back east and give the west away, albeit growing by 1 pilot per year?

GP

Bozo the pilot
07-02-2018, 02:06 PM
Back on topic.....

Anyone remember Reno Air? Moxy is the new Reno Air.

We've all been told that LGB isn't profitable. If the TA passes, what is to stop JB from closing LGB and giving all slots to Moxy? We transfer all assets back east and give the west away, albeit growing by 1 pilot per year?

GP
Does that benefit B6 more than flying the routes themselves? Not really.
But Yes, its possible for them to do it.
Will they do it? Who knows.
You limit what you think they will do, not everything that they can do.

Bluedriver
07-02-2018, 05:00 PM
I was completely wrong. We DO have a west coast plan finally. Big announcement today 7-2-2018 regarding SFO!

PasserOGas
07-02-2018, 05:13 PM
I was completely wrong. We DO have a west coast plan finally. Big announcement today 7-2-2018 regarding SFO!

Care to share with the class?

Bluedriver
07-02-2018, 05:15 PM
Care to share with the class?

It was in a Jet-to-the-point today from M. Elliot.

Ted Striker
07-02-2018, 05:23 PM
It was in a Jet-to-the-point today from M. Elliot.

Upgrade times will drop to 1 month with this in place...

GuppyPuppy
07-02-2018, 05:35 PM
Distributing books in San Francisco.

Absolutely nothing to do with an airline.

Gup

Bluedriver
07-02-2018, 05:37 PM
Upgrade times will drop to 1 month with this in place...

I know! Get your apps in dudes!

pilotpayne
07-02-2018, 05:52 PM
It was in a Jet-to-the-point today from M. Elliot.

Yay books.
Itís cool to do stuff like that AFTER you figure out how to run an operation.

Bluedriver
07-02-2018, 06:18 PM
Yay books.
Itís cool to do stuff like that AFTER you figure out how to run an operation.

Exactly. I love the do-gooder stuff, but come on!

Mattio
07-02-2018, 08:14 PM
The sad part is they only do stuff that gets good press. If you ask them to give a flight to a person that is dealing with devastation but isn't in the news, they won't help.

DontCallMeCindy
07-02-2018, 09:38 PM
Ok Cindy so we need to take the first offer we are given because of fear? No thanks. TAs are supposed to be voted on based on their value and merits, not on fear. Fear is an emotion. Don’t vote on emotion. Really wish people would stop being so afraid of the bogeyman when voting on something that affects my family.

If you think the bull market will flip and is gonna tank in the time it takes us to fix this thing, go buy a ton of VXX and short the market. But don’t take me down with you because you are afraid.

Please enlighten me more.

My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.

Qotsaautopilot
07-02-2018, 09:54 PM
My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.


Im a Spirit pilot so clearly too dumb to do your math problem. Can you show me the answer? I’d like to see it, seriously. There are many things in the Jetblue TA I wish we could’ve gotten and some I’m glad we didn’t. I’d like to see your analysis of gong back to the table.

CaptCoolHand
07-03-2018, 02:32 AM
Im a Spirit pilot so clearly too dumb to do your math problem. Can you show me the answer? Iíd like to see it, seriously. There are many things in the Jetblue TA I wish we couldíve gotten and some Iím glad we didnít. Iíd like to see your analysis of gong back to the table.

Iím interested to hear what we got (if it passes) you are glad you didnít get?

Bluedriver
07-03-2018, 04:09 AM
Iím interested to hear what we got (if it passes) you are glad you didnít get?

That's easy, JB box meals. Gross.

hyperboy
07-03-2018, 04:35 AM
That's easy, JB box meals. Gross.

AND.....At least we have the finest PET POLICY in the industry. Until we get protections from Merger and Scope...Looks like Fido and Rover are much safer than we are....for now?

Bozo the pilot
07-03-2018, 04:37 AM
My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.

I love carpet.

PasserOGas
07-03-2018, 05:07 AM
My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.


Have you considered what our next round of negotiations looks like with a yes vote? Do all the math you want on this one. We will have shown we are willing to work for less, and given up any say on payrates for future aircraft. What cards will we have given the NC when in they are sitting across from Hyperboy at the negotiating table?

Please show your math.

pilotpayne
07-03-2018, 05:47 AM
My position is neither fear nor emotion-based in any way shape or form. My position as a "yes" voter is based on a purely objective risk assessment of historical mediated re-negotiation timelines (in highly favorable environments), historical airline business cycle timelines, and US economic history.

Given a comprehensive assessment of the risk matrix, the value of the deal on the table, and the absolute lack of scope/rules in the existing PEA/FSM, my position is that only an emotional person would vote no on this.

Feel free to show me your math. Here's a gross generalization of mine:

Tn(xi) = Re-negotiation period length in months (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pn(xi) = Probability of re-negotiation length (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pr(xi) = Probability of recession condition in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Po(xi) = Probability of oil price requiring capacity reduction in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pa(xi) = Probability of age 67 passage in month (x), for x = 1 to 120

Pm(xi) = Probability of merger or acquisition during month (x) for x = 1 to 120

For each value of x between 1 and 120 months, plot a cumulative distribution of the sum of Tn(xi) * P(xi) for each of the above probability classes, attempting to use probability values based on historical data points.

Overlaid on the same cumulative probability distribution chart, plot the cumulative running loss of post-tax compensation resulting from a "no" vote.

If you had truly simulated the consequences of a "no" vote from a purely unemotional financial risk management perspective/model (as I obviously have), you wouldn't be accusing others of being "emotional" for voting "yes." Because a "yes" vote is the only rational result I can see, even if you assume extremely generous re-negotiation times and risk probabilities.

I have not heard any compelling arguments from you (or any no voting evangelist) that is backed up with any math, historical facts, or really any data other than "leverage, blah blah--fleet plan, blah blah."

Show me your math--prove to me how a "no" vote will recover me even a penny more of net compensation, after accounting for all of the very REAL probabilities I have listed above.



So thatís what the math portion of the Delta interview looks like.

pilotpayne
07-03-2018, 05:49 AM
Iím interested to hear what we got (if it passes) you are glad you didnít get?

My question as well

Bluedriver
07-03-2018, 06:15 AM
AND.....At least we have the finest PET POLICY in the industry. Until we get protections from Merger and Scope...Looks like Fido and Rover are much safer than we are....for now?

Wait, I thought JB wasn't for sale? Organic growth?

hyperboy
07-03-2018, 08:05 AM
Have you considered what our next round of negotiations looks like with a yes vote? Do all the math you want on this one. We will have shown we are willing to work for less, and given up any say on payrates for future aircraft. What cards will we have given the NC when in they are sitting across from Hyperboy at the negotiating table?

Please show your math.

FUNNY POG! Sorry your life is sad that you must make false accusations about me. You checked out, have done nothing for the cause, and now you complain about the actions of others without looking at yourself in the mirror.

Survey represents all not just you. Vote accordingly.

hyperboy
07-03-2018, 08:07 AM
Wait, I thought JB wasn't for sale? Organic growth?

When the video comes out with the scope part. Great explanation...IMHO. Let me know what you think?

BeatNavy
07-03-2018, 08:14 AM
FUNNY POG! Sorry your life is sad that you must make false accusations about me. You checked out, have done nothing for the cause, and now you complain about the actions of others without looking at yourself in the mirror.

Survey represents all not just you. Vote accordingly.

I know Iím stating the obvious, but the MEC also ďrepresents all,Ē and 5 of them voted no. A no vote, or being displeased with this TA, is not a jab at the NC, MEC, ALPA, etc. It also does not mean that people who vote no, or even those who vote yes who donít like this TA, donít go to meetings, read union emails, volunteer for ALPA, and stay informed. Not sure if itís just a personal thing between you and POG, but plenty of people who do put a lot of time and effort into ALPA and this pilot group do not like this TA.

hyperboy
07-03-2018, 08:46 AM
I know Iím stating the obvious, but the MEC also ďrepresents all,Ē and 5 of them voted no. A no vote, or being displeased with this TA, is not a jab at the NC, MEC, ALPA, etc. It also does not mean that people who vote no, or even those who vote yes who donít like this TA, donít go to meetings, read union emails, volunteer for ALPA, and stay informed. Not sure if itís just a personal thing between you and POG, but plenty of people who do put a lot of time and effort into ALPA and this pilot group do not like this TA.

I guess you misunderstood me. All that goes for all Pilots. Union meetings at JetBlue are so badly attended, yet so informative at least in BOS. Its called accountablity, this is where it starts.

If you like what you see that would fall in line with the surveys .I disagree that is a blanket statement. BOS REPs are responsible to BOS pilots..if not you are recalled. IMHO they are doing an outstanding job.

We will know on July 27th if that is true. Until now it is all speculation. Does not matter what they voted.......We all get a vote. That is what matters. My Reps have explained their vote and I am fine with their explanation.The vote on the contract was really 9-3. The two Reps in LGB voted No because of the implementation. They explained that in an email to their pilots.

Bozo the pilot
07-03-2018, 08:52 AM
Have you considered what our next round of negotiations looks like with a yes vote? Do all the math you want on this one. We will have shown we are willing to work for less, and given up any say on payrates for future aircraft. What cards will we have given the NC when in they are sitting across from Hyperboy at the negotiating table?

Please show your math.

Hey Pog, Which roadshow will you be attending?
I want to see you hit the NC/MEC with these comments. Will you have questions?

BeatNavy
07-03-2018, 09:22 AM
I guess you misunderstood me. All that goes for all Pilots. Union meetings at JetBlue are so badly attended, yet so informative at least in BOS. Its called accountablity, this is where it starts.

If you like what you see that would fall in line with the surveys .I disagree that is a blanket statement. BOS REPs are responsible to BOS pilots..if not you are recalled. IMHO they are doing an outstanding job.

We will know on July 27th if that is true. Until now it is all speculation. Does not matter what they voted.......We all get a vote. That is what matters. My Reps have explained their vote and I am fine with their explanation.The vote on the contract was really 9-3. The two Reps in LGB voted No because of the implementation. They explained that in an email to their pilots.

Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they donít like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, itís a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a ďNo, but...Ē

queue
07-03-2018, 11:24 AM
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they donít like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, itís a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a ďNo, but...Ē


That was a disturbing email.


I love how they claim "due diligence" yet the evil Dependability Policy is now encoded in the contract! Sure, they can spin it with corporate double speak such as "do your professional duty and you won't get in trouble" but it doesn't change the fact that it's in the legalese. There's no way to spin that!


The Railway Labor Act Simplified (http://pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.html)


This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

queue
07-03-2018, 11:42 AM
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they donít like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, itís a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a ďNo, but...Ē


Let's see... what are all the other excuses I claimed months ago would be said.




"due diligence: thoroughly reading, evaluating and deliberating over the TA prior to their vote"

I guess they didn't print out every page then. The Dependability Policy is now made contractual! The company doctor can screw you over. If these guys claim "due diligence", then these guys are grossly negligent.

Hiding behind a survey to accept less in a contract ("we had record participation in our surveys").
They tell you to inform yourself with roadshows, watch videos, and attend infosessions.

Ok... but you need to also tell people about the RLA... I placed a convenient link below. We can Vote NO now, fix all the problems, then vote Yes to TA 2.0.

"The MEC and Negotiating Committee are confident that this TA achieves the vast majority of goals identified by our pilots."

What a politician... "vast majority" huh? Dependability policy is still in there. We still wear blue gloves and clean. Doctor can be weaponized by the company. Arbitration is alive in well in the contract. Our pay rates are still below Southwest.

" our goal was to achieve a market rate agreement as quickly as possible."

Fail and Fail. 3+ years to get a TA and still below Southwest. We're only looked up to by Cubana and Great Lakes Airlines.

"This TA isn't perfect but neither is any other pilot agreement."

Good job lowering expectations after the fact and softening the blow. Great use of the "race to the bottom" to justify the failure of TA 1.0. I have hopes for TA 2.0.

"It was a long hard fight to achieve this agreement with management, and no one knows how much longer it would take to make any substantial improvements."

No one stood in front of a tank in Tiennemen Square. First world sacrifices of attending air conditioned meetings are hardly sacrifices.
Right... no one knows. We do know that we plenty of leverage to affect the timeline in our favor. There's a reason BJ allowed TA 1.0, causing us to cancel the investor meeting protest.

" this is our first CBA and we had to bargain over and develop full language on all 31 sections."

This is our first CBA... didn't I call this month ago? This whole affair can be read like a book. It doesn't matter if it's our first CBA. This contract is not rocket science. It's essentially a drag-and-drop contract from hundreds of airlines as a template. I've read the entire thing and I find it overly simplistic and deficient in key logical constructs (e.g. it doesn't really limit BJ from inventing new policies that effectively nullify aspects of the contract).

"Even still the MEC rightfully insisted that every section of this agreement be on par with, or better than, our peers."

Well they failed.

"Our unity and professionalism were our best weapons in our fight to reach this agreement and regardless the outcome of the ratification, we will still need these effective weapons."

Yes. Unity will be demonstrated by fighting for a better TA 2.0. We have many weapons in our arsenal. Let's not let the company apologists, defeatists, and the ignorant scare us into accepting a second-tier regional level contract.







The Railway Labor Act Simplified (http://pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.html)


This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

blueballs
07-03-2018, 11:48 AM
I get it now
Queue is barneyí
Barneyí is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job

hyperboy
07-03-2018, 11:50 AM
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they donít like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, itís a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a ďNo, but...Ē

OK thats why I said I don't care how they vote as far as influencing my vote.

say again
07-03-2018, 12:08 PM
I get it now
Queue is barneyí
Barneyí is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job

Who's Barney?

queue
07-03-2018, 12:09 PM
I get it now
Queue is barney’
Barney’ is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job


I thought you guys already figured out that I'm not "Barney". I don't even know him in real life. If that is his real name, I don't like that he's called out by name.



I don't care about the personalities - I care about the ideas. You say whatever you want, but the ideas are what matters. You can't beat an idea by stating it's said by someone you claim is unpopular.





The Railway Labor Act Simplified (http://pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Bozo the pilot
07-03-2018, 01:01 PM
I get it now
Queue is barneyí
Barneyí is queue

DD stop focusing on your past employer and get a job

I never put that together BB. Nice work and it does make sense, although Barney seems to be a more pathetic version of "the Ignored Qne". :)

Bozo the pilot
07-03-2018, 01:04 PM
Agree, except for the bolded part. The vote was 7-5, no matter how you spin it. The 2 LGB Reps could have voted yes and still said they donít like the implementation. I know what their email said. But they voted no. 7-5. As Pat just said in his email, itís a binary vote. Yes or no. Not a ďNo, but...Ē

So you dont know that they voted no due to the implementation?
I actually agree with them. 18 months for some provisions is my least favorite part of the process.
That and not getting Delta +5% and 20% profit sharing. ;)

BeatNavy
07-03-2018, 01:42 PM
So you dont know that they voted no due to the implementation?
I actually agree with them. 18 months for some provisions is my least favorite part of the process.
That and not getting Delta +5% and 20% profit sharing. ;)

I clearly said I know what the LGB guys said. I also know they voted No. Regardless of the reason, they voted no. They could have voted yes, and said they donít agree with the implementation, but they didnít. They voted no. 7-5. Not 9-3. Donít know how thatís so difficult to comprehend for some of you.

Delta + 5 and 20%...see you bring these things that we know to be impossible into the argument, yet dismiss anyone who wants actual reasonable things in our contract. The more you do this, the less credibility you have.

Bozo the pilot
07-03-2018, 03:15 PM
I clearly said I know what the LGB guys said. I also know they voted No. Regardless of the reason, they voted no. They could have voted yes, and said they don’t agree with the implementation, but they didn’t. They voted no. 7-5. Not 9-3. Don’t know how that’s so difficult to comprehend for some of you.

Delta + 5 and 20%...see you bring these things that we know to be impossible into the argument, yet dismiss anyone who wants actual reasonable things in our contract. The more you do this, the less credibility you have.
Yes I comprehend that they voted NO. Can you comprehend their reason?
Oh and Madison Ave- lighten up. You're wound so tight, you're losing track of sarcasm. I hear whiskey helps.

You going to any roadshows Mr. Credible? :rolleyes:

PasserOGas
07-03-2018, 03:35 PM
So you dont know that they voted no due to the implementation?
I actually agree with them. 18 months for some provisions is my least favorite part of the process.
That and not getting Delta +5% and 20% profit sharing. ;)

Or Delta - 5% for that matter.

Bozo the pilot
07-03-2018, 03:56 PM
Or Delta - 5% for that matter.

Yea or that. :D
You will do better than you think POG even though you'll never admit it.
Ask a rep to explain some things.

blueballs
07-03-2018, 04:39 PM
I thought you guys already figured out that I'm not "Barney". I don't even know him in real life. If that is his real name, I don't like that he's called out by name.



I don't care about the personalities - I care about the ideas. You say whatever you want, but the ideas are what matters. You can't beat an idea by stating it's said by someone you claim is unpopular.





The Railway Labor Act Simplified (http://pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.
Nobody is being called out by name. Thatís your handle on bluepilots but good try

Southerner
07-03-2018, 04:44 PM
Nobody is being called out by name. Thatís your handle on bluepilots but good try

I prefer the moniker "Dumblop," personally.

queue
07-03-2018, 05:17 PM
Nobody is being called out by name. Thatís your handle on bluepilots but good try


Well, I'm not Barney, whoever he is by name or handle. If you want to think that, be my guest. It won't help a weak argument.



The Railway Labor Act Simplified (http://pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.html)

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1