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.




Mattio
07-05-2018, 07:03 AM
A common thing posted by yes voters, those leaning yes and some in union leadership is that we can't vote no and expose ourselves to scope issues, jetblue express etc. If we can't go another 12 months without scope, why did we go this long without scope since voting in a union? If we can vote a TA in based on scope provisions at the expense of other sections.... Then why, 4.5 years ago, did we not we just cut and paste a scope section and have it in writing that no changes will be made to the FSM, PEA, or benefits without mutual agreement (with a short time before we can return to the table)? Seems like that would've been a very quick process. We could be voting on our second contract right now and had scope protections this whole time. Or could we? Am I missing something? I very likely could be as I'm not an expert on contract negotiations.

I'm not asking from the standpoint of a no voter, I'm asking from the standpoint of a confused union member.


Softpayman
07-05-2018, 07:26 AM
A common thing posted by yes voters, those leaning yes and some in union leadership is that we can't vote no and expose ourselves to scope issues, jetblue express etc. If we can't go another 12 months without scope, why did we go this long without scope since voting in a union? If we can vote a TA in based on scope provisions at the expense of other sections.... Then why, 4.5 years ago, did we not we just cut and paste a scope section and have it in writing that no changes will be made to the FSM, PEA, or benefits without mutual agreement (with a short time before we can return to the table)? Seems like that would've been a very quick process. We could be voting on our second contract right now and had scope protections this whole time. Or could we? Am I missing something? I very likely could be as I'm not an expert on contract negotiations.

I'm not asking from the standpoint of a no voter, I'm asking from the standpoint of a confused union member.

Would you be willing to give up scope for improvements in other sections? I wouldn't.

Why 4 years ago did they not just cut and paste a scope section into our PEA? Probably because if that was our first contract it would have had an amendable date 4 years out and made impossible getting a contract before then. In the end the timeframe didn't work out that well but I doubt they would have just accepted the current PEA with scope as our CBA for 4 years. No way the union would have been voted in with that as ALPA's platform.

I can't speak to why the company hasn't explored farmed out JB flying in the past. I can only say that every day we exist as a pilot group without something firm in writing in the form of a CBA, we're exposed. 12 months may sound too short for them to ramp something up but I wouldn't put it past them.

PasserOGas
07-05-2018, 07:37 AM
A common thing posted by yes voters, those leaning yes and some in union leadership is that we can't vote no and expose ourselves to scope issues, jetblue express etc. If we can't go another 12 months without scope, why did we go this long without scope since voting in a union? If we can vote a TA in based on scope provisions at the expense of other sections.... Then why, 4.5 years ago, did we not we just cut and paste a scope section and have it in writing that no changes will be made to the FSM, PEA, or benefits without mutual agreement (with a short time before we can return to the table)? Seems like that would've been a very quick process. We could be voting on our second contract right now and had scope protections this whole time. Or could we? Am I missing something? I very likely could be as I'm not an expert on contract negotiations.

I'm not asking from the standpoint of a no voter, I'm asking from the standpoint of a confused union member.



They basically DID just copy paste our old PEA with some scope provisions.


Mattio
07-05-2018, 07:46 AM
Would you be willing to give up scope for improvements in other sections? I wouldn't.

Definitely not and sorry if I implied that. I think scope is a part of a complete contract. I was speaking more to the timeline and voting it in because it has the scope even though it doesn't have other things that we want yet.

queue
07-05-2018, 07:53 AM
I very likely could be as I'm not an expert on contract negotiations.
There are no experts in this game. No one can foretell the future. It doesn't matter if they're ALPA or a lawyer.

We do know that outsourcing our personal responsibility of making ourselves aware leads to a false sense of trust in people who are also making guesses. If you have a good reason based on your research, you are the expert.

Your question is precisely the kind of scrutiny that every ALPA member ought to have of their servant union. Otherwise, we'll get a sub-performance contract with permanent multi-year legal ramifications.

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.

jtrain609
07-05-2018, 08:05 AM
A common thing posted by yes voters, those leaning yes and some in union leadership is that we can't vote no and expose ourselves to scope issues, jetblue express etc. If we can't go another 12 months without scope, why did we go this long without scope since voting in a union? If we can vote a TA in based on scope provisions at the expense of other sections.... Then why, 4.5 years ago, did we not we just cut and paste a scope section and have it in writing that no changes will be made to the FSM, PEA, or benefits without mutual agreement (with a short time before we can return to the table)? Seems like that would've been a very quick process. We could be voting on our second contract right now and had scope protections this whole time. Or could we? Am I missing something? I very likely could be as I'm not an expert on contract negotiations.

I'm not asking from the standpoint of a no voter, I'm asking from the standpoint of a confused union member.

Why did we take this long? Why did JetBlue pilots reject union drives multiple times? Why does management not see how to fix a problem until they do?

We have the chance to protect our jobs in the future, and saying that this has no value is likely coming from the same people who voted against ALPA; those who are short sighted and didn't spend any time at the regionals.

The first ten years of my career were ruined by RJ's, I don't want the next ten years ruined by RJ's ending up here.

So to put the answer in TEM terms; a positive outcome is not a measure of safety. We were flying unstable approaches for years, and it isn't a problem until it is, and then it's catastrophic.

queue
07-05-2018, 08:14 AM
Why did we take this long? Why did JetBlue pilots reject union drives multiple times? Why does management not see how to fix a problem until they do?

We have the chance to protect our jobs in the future, and saying that this has no value is likely coming from the same people who voted against ALPA; those who are short sighted and didn't spend any time at the regionals.

The first ten years of my career were ruined by RJ's, I don't want the next ten years ruined by RJ's ending up here.

So to put the answer in TEM terms; a positive outcome is not a measure of safety. We were flying unstable approaches for years, and it isn't a problem until it is, and then it's catastrophic.


The current TA 1.0 is like an unstable approach... it won't be catastrophic until it is. TA 2.0 will be like putting in protections against unstable approaches.


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.

Mattio
07-05-2018, 08:18 AM
We have the chance to protect our jobs in the future, and saying that this has no value is likely coming from the same people who voted against ALPA; those who are short sighted and didn't spend any time at the regionals.

I haven't heard anyone say that it has no value. I have only heard people question whether it has enough value to not go back to the table. It's kind of like insurance. Most people lose money on insurance (that's how the insurance companies stay in business) but having it puts your mind at ease. However, I wasn't questioning whether we need to lock in this "insurance" now or not, I was asking if it is so important why didn't we get the policy 4.5 years ago? With your TEM argument, are you saying that we made a mistake by not voting in a quick TA with scope early on and now we're realizing that we made a mistake?

jtrain609
07-05-2018, 08:52 AM
I haven't heard anyone say that it has no value. I have only heard people question whether it has enough value to not go back to the table. It's kind of like insurance. Most people lose money on insurance (that's how the insurance companies stay in business) but having it puts your mind at ease. However, I wasn't questioning whether we need to lock in this "insurance" now or not, I was asking if it is so important why didn't we get the policy 4.5 years ago? With your TEM argument, are you saying that we made a mistake by not voting in a quick TA with scope early on and now we're realizing that we made a mistake?

I'm saying this pilot group made a mistake by not voting in a union sooner.

The TA was done about when it should have been. 3 years to do a full contract is about right.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 08:58 AM
Jtrain, softpay and the other experts that think Skywest is about to be painted blue any day now, why did the company roll over on RJ scope but build a fortress around domestic codesharing?

PasserOGas
07-05-2018, 09:00 AM
I'm saying this pilot group made a mistake by not voting in a union sooner.

The TA was done about when it should have been. 3 years to do a full contract is about right.

All they did was copy paste 70% of the PEA and FSM. What took so long?

rvr1800
07-05-2018, 09:03 AM
Jtrain, softpay and the other experts that think Skywest is about to be painted blue any day now, why did the company roll over on RJ scope but build a fortress around domestic codesharing?

Ok so then are you the expert? What do other contracts codesharing sections look like? Yes we all know what Southwestís is but what about everyone else?

CaptCoolHand
07-05-2018, 09:04 AM
Jtrain, softpay and the other experts that think Skywest is about to be painted blue any day now, why did the company roll over on RJ scope but build a fortress around domestic codesharing?

Jetblue was never gonna do a lot of things until they decided they wanted to do it.

CaptCoolHand
07-05-2018, 09:05 AM
All they did was copy paste 70% of the PEA and FSM. What took so long?

pretty sure that's not how it went... good story though.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 09:13 AM
Jetblue was never gonna do a lot of things until they decided they wanted to do it.

And JetBlue never gives up something it holds sacred. So what did they give up in the scope section and what did they build a fortress around in the scope section?

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 09:17 AM
Ok so then are you the expert? What do other contracts codesharing sections look like? Yes we all know what Southwestís is but what about everyone else?

Well, Southwest IS the model we should be striving for. But, why are you asking me what scope sections say instead of asking yourself why JetBlue rolled over on RJ scope and built a fortress around domestic codesharing?

jtrain609
07-05-2018, 09:23 AM
Jetblue was never gonna do a lot of things until they decided they wanted to do it.

Exactly.

Mint was never going to happen. Flying to as much of the Carribean wasn't part of the business plan. The 190's didn't fit the single fleet concept.

RJ's don't make sense until they do. When that happens I want protections.

CaptCoolHand
07-05-2018, 09:30 AM
And JetBlue never gives up something it holds sacred. So what did they give up in the scope section and what did they build a fortress around in the scope section?

I dunno man, You'd have to ask Nate, Jeff, or Tommy.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 09:38 AM
I dunno man, You'd have to ask Nate, Jeff, or Tommy.

BS. They don't KNOW what the company truly intends to do. They fought to get the best scope language the company WOULD AGREE TO.

Now, it's up to you, me and the rest of us to understand why the company gave what it gave and built a fortress around certain things.

I'm glad we have RJ language, very glad. Time will tell why they were willing to give that up, but not domestic codeshare.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 09:39 AM
Exactly.

Mint was never going to happen. Flying to as much of the Carribean wasn't part of the business plan. The 190's didn't fit the single fleet concept.

RJ's don't make sense until they do. When that happens I want protections.

You're a real rocket surgeon dude.

CaptCoolHand
07-05-2018, 09:47 AM
BS. They don't KNOW what the company truly intends to do. They fought to get the best scope language the company WOULD AGREE TO.

Now, it's up to you, me and the rest of us to understand why the company gave what it gave and built a fortress around certain things.

I'm glad we have RJ language, very glad. Time will tell why they were willing to give that up, but not domestic codeshare.

come on man. the whole thing is not a conspiracy. you asked what they gave up for us to get that scope, those are the guys that would have the answer.

You guys are so worried about domestic code share? why not just farm it all out to delta united and swa? Why don't we just sell all our west coast seats on alaska? oh no moxy is trying to get some shiny new jets oh no!

why not? because there's no money in it. that's why. If jb wants to keep the ATM firing out fun tickets, it needs it's own planes on it's own routes.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 10:33 AM
come on man. the whole thing is not a conspiracy. you asked what they gave up for us to get that scope, those are the guys that would have the answer.

You guys are so worried about domestic code share? why not just farm it all out to delta united and swa? Why don't we just sell all our west coast seats on alaska? oh no moxy is trying to get some shiny new jets oh no!

why not? because there's no money in it. that's why. If jb wants to keep the ATM firing out fun tickets, it needs it's own planes on it's own routes.

1. I didn't ask what we gave up to get it, you must have misunderstood.

2. We won't farm out our existing flying, but we may very well use Alaska's West coast network to connect and feed our east coast network, since they actually HAVE a west coast network and we can longer CREDIBLY build one because there are no more gates at the premium airports.

I've heard we may have a deal for more gates at SFO, but until that is announced, it's just fantasy.

Moxy, no one knows where they will operate, but it may be part of JBs future.

I love the RJ fear mongers who say JB was gonna farm out it's flying to RJs because "they weren't going to, until they did" and then say why would we domestic codeshare, "we've never done that all these years, if domestic codeshare was a problem they would have done it by now"....

benzoate
07-05-2018, 11:14 AM
1. I didn't ask what we gave up to get it, you must have misunderstood.

2. We won't farm out our existing flying, but we may very well use Alaska's West coast network to connect and feed our east coast network, since they actually HAVE a west coast network and we can longer CREDIBLY build one because there are no more gates at the premium airports.

I've heard we may have a deal for more gates at SFO, but until that is announced, it's just fantasy.

Moxy, no one knows where they will operate, but it may be part of JBs future.

I love the RJ fear mongers who say JB was gonna farm out it's flying to RJs because "they weren't going to, until they did" and then say why would we domestic codeshare, "we've never done that all these years, if domestic codeshare was a problem they would have done it by now"....

All this is a concern.

The management of this airline had multiple carriers flying our passengers overnight in 2007 after the “Valentines day massacre”. While circumstances today are different Jetblue mentality is all about paying others to do what you CAN do yourself. Spending capital to prevent this does sting but the necessity of it all CANNOT be overstated.

benzoate
07-05-2018, 11:20 AM
Exactly.

Mint was never going to happen. Flying to as much of the Carribean wasn't part of the business plan. The 190's didn't fit the single fleet concept.

RJ's don't make sense until they do. When that happens I want protections.


This is what the newer pilots here fail to understand. Neeleman told us we would not go west. Barger said we would never go Deep South. The 190ís were purchased to open smaller domestic markets. I could go on and on with what we were told as to where we are today. Iím not complaining about the business model changing, the simple fact is the model does change and if we have the opportunity to affect how it evolves then we must.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 11:28 AM
*NO* one is disputing that having RJ scope is a good thing. We all want that. Done.

Now, why did the company give that up (they never give up anything they hold sacred) but choose to build a fortress around domestic codeshare?

If this company had ANY intentions of doing capacity purchase agreements, they wouldn't have agreed to our new scope. Now, things could change, and I'm glad we have that scope, but IF they had any intentions of RJs, they wouldn't have given that up. But they DID build a fortress around domestic codesharing. Why?

benzoate
07-05-2018, 11:35 AM
*NO* one is disputing that having RJ scope is a good thing. We all want that. Done.

Now, why did the company give that up (they never give up anything they hold sacred) but choose to build a fortress around domestic codeshare?

If this company had ANY intentions of doing capacity purchase agreements, they wouldn't have agreed to our new scope. Now, things could change, and I'm glad we have that scope, but IF they had any intentions of RJs, they wouldn't have given that up. But they DID build a fortress around domestic codesharing. Why?

Itís unlikely we will ever know and I am ok with that. To your point why did they give us so much control over pairing construction and work rules? Perhaps they are shortsited and simply trying to limit pay and benefits. Given the fervor with which Jetblue has used ďopen architectureĒ to code share this is still a victory in my book.

queue
07-05-2018, 01:01 PM
BS. They don't KNOW what the company truly intends to do. They fought to get the best scope language the company WOULD AGREE TO.


"Would agree to" with virtually no resistance from us. Air conditioned office meetings and one silent campout are hardly a show of force. If more of these events occur, then BJ would be more compelled to agree to more favorable terms.


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.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 01:20 PM
Itís unlikely we will ever know and I am ok with that. To your point why did they give us so much control over pairing construction and work rules? Perhaps they are shortsited and simply trying to limit pay and benefits. Given the fervor with which Jetblue has used ďopen architectureĒ to code share this is still a victory in my book.

We each have a book. In my book it's a half victory. But, I have to disagree, we may very well become aware of the "why" in the next year or two.

I sure hope not.

benzoate
07-05-2018, 01:23 PM
We each have a book. In my book it's a half victory. But, I have to disagree, we may very well become aware of the "why" in the next year or two.

I sure hope not.

You may well be right. The airline, while seemingly rudderless, if often a few steps a head in a lot of ways. I still think they have other ventures they are more interested in and this was not that important. Either way Jetblue was able to monetize the ďwantĒ from the union.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 01:52 PM
You may well be right. The airline, while seemingly rudderless, if often a few steps a head in a lot of ways. I still think they have other ventures they are more interested in and this was not that important. Either way Jetblue was able to monetize the ďwantĒ from the union.

Yes, other ventures, I think we'll send our airplanes east to Gatwick and connect our network intra-west onto Alaska's network, since we have no credible plan to offer a west coast network.

Bozo the pilot
07-05-2018, 02:38 PM
And JetBlue never gives up something it holds sacred. So what did they give up in the scope section and what did they build a fortress around in the scope section?

Get a new expression BD :rolleyes:
And just go ahead and repeat every other post you already published.
You gonna ask any questions at a roadshow or just shoot from the hip?

benzoate
07-05-2018, 02:43 PM
Get a new expression BD :rolleyes:
And just go ahead and repeat every other post you already published.
You gonna ask any questions at a roadshow or just shoot from the hip?
Interestingly enough all these questions are already answered on FAQ site.

Bluedriver
07-05-2018, 04:00 PM
Interestingly enough all these questions are already answered on FAQ site.

They really are not. It's glossed over and over simplified. The argument is "if they can make money on our own metal"...

Well, we *can't* intra-west coast, no premium gates. So.......

O2pilot
07-05-2018, 05:10 PM
I'm glad we have RJ language, very glad. Time will tell why they were willing to give that up, but not domestic codeshare.

My guess is that they donít really have a plan for an RJ operation, because UA/DL/AA have already gobbled all that up, and there just arenít enough pilots to start a new one and the existing ones already have agreements and are maxed out. So they throw a ďscope boneĒ and say ďyeah yeah we wonít do any JB Express, but for you to get that we want all these pay concessions, etcĒ and they give you something that doesnít cost them anything but get you to give something up in return. Nothing has stopped them form doing this in the last 18 years, and if they wanted it they wouldnít give it up.

benzoate
07-05-2018, 07:33 PM
They really are not. It's glossed over and over simplified. The argument is "if they can make money on our own metal"...

Well, we *can't* intra-west coast, no premium gates. So.......listen Iím a no vote so donít think Iím trying to defend anyone but reallocation of assets is not a big deal. You guys missed the years when we opened 14 cities and closed half of them down or stopped flying to all the original destinations. Iím not quite sure what type of language your were expecting either. The ability to domestic code share is normal and the argument supports the finances. If Jetblue can make money on it they will. Intra-west coast flying is not nearly as lucrative as east coast/Carib/LA. If you look at SEA to SFO/LAX count the number of flights and frequency. Itís an extremely competitive market to fly with the frequency we did. The code share explanation of dollars and cents it factual so donít me concerned about that little detail. The ****ty healthcare, UTO and some others are much greater concern.

queue
07-05-2018, 09:58 PM
My guess is that they don’t really have a plan for an RJ operation, because UA/DL/AA have already gobbled all that up, and there just aren’t enough pilots to start a new one and the existing ones already have agreements and are maxed out. So they throw a “scope bone” and say “yeah yeah we won’t do any JB Express, but for you to get that we want all these pay concessions, etc” and they give you something that doesn’t cost them anything but get you to give something up in return. Nothing has stopped them form doing this in the last 18 years, and if they wanted it they wouldn’t give it up.


They don't care about the RJ market. There is too much inertia from existing 121 regionals for another to enter the market. Besides, the economics of it just don't work out. It costs a lot of $$$ to fly RJs especially when they aren't 100% full. That's why BJ is playing around with Part 135 carriers. They can feed mainline with smaller than RJ cabins at airports where there is virtually no hassle (read: no TSA). Scope is important but it's something to take for granted at this point. I wouldn't give it up, but it certainly isn't the right criteria to declare victory. BJ is winning on other things that really matter: contract language, bottom of the barrel healthcare, UTO/PTO, vacation bidding (which almost no one will be able to take advantage of), and of course the basic pay rates --- all of which is aimed at containing the cost of pilots. The Yes voters are living in yesterday not understanding that BJ is a different animal and what B6ALPA views as a victory is really a cost-neutral compromise, not a victory.



You are absolutely right... they spoofed us. They gave us something they never cared about in the first place. What they really care about is paying us less because they need to make the balance sheets look good for investors. If people listened to the investor's meetings, they would agree with you and realize that TA 1.0 is sub-standard.


TA 1.0 = 0.6*Pay & 0.5*Rules


TA 2.0 = Pay & Rules



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.

Bluedriver
07-06-2018, 04:11 AM
listen Iím a no vote so donít think Iím trying to defend anyone but reallocation of assets is not a big deal. You guys missed the years when we opened 14 cities and closed half of them down or stopped flying to all the original destinations. Iím not quite sure what type of language your were expecting either. The ability to domestic code share is normal and the argument supports the finances. If Jetblue can make money on it they will. Intra-west coast flying is not nearly as lucrative as east coast/Carib/LA. If you look at SEA to SFO/LAX count the number of flights and frequency. Itís an extremely competitive market to fly with the frequency we did. The code share explanation of dollars and cents it factual so donít me concerned about that little detail. The ****ty healthcare, UTO and some others are much greater concern.

I'm not even saying vote NO. I may not. But don't tell me as so many guys do that we are "protected".

So sound as if you agree with me more than anything, that we may well codeshare intra-westcoast (no premium gates, very saturated/competitive market).

But connecting onto someone else's west coast network is less oganic growth for us and we have lots of guys who live west and believed in the fairytale that we had a west coast plan for them "someday".

Otherwise, yeah, not the end of the world, just more "less growth".

Carry on.

Bluedriver
07-06-2018, 04:13 AM
My guess is that they donít really have a plan for an RJ operation, because UA/DL/AA have already gobbled all that up, and there just arenít enough pilots to start a new one and the existing ones already have agreements and are maxed out. So they throw a ďscope boneĒ and say ďyeah yeah we wonít do any JB Express, but for you to get that we want all these pay concessions, etcĒ and they give you something that doesnít cost them anything but get you to give something up in return. Nothing has stopped them form doing this in the last 18 years, and if they wanted it they wouldnít give it up.

You're not wrong.

benzoate
07-06-2018, 05:58 AM
I'm not even saying vote NO. I may not. But don't tell me as so many guys do that we are "protected".

So sound as if you agree with me more than anything, that we may well codeshare intra-westcoast (no premium gates, very saturated/competitive market).

But connecting onto someone else's west coast network is less oganic growth for us and we have lots of guys who live west and believed in the fairytale that we had a west coast plan for them "someday".

Otherwise, yeah, not the end of the world, just more "less growth".

Carry on.

I do agree with you. No issues there. Iím just not overly concerned about the west coast flying. Itís a difficult market that is highly saturated. If for some reason domestic code share does happen it would typically increase west flying anyhow.
If jetblue hasnít done it by now Iíd guess itís unlikely to happen. IMHO if it does happen itís likely a precursor to a merger anyhow.

Softpayman
07-06-2018, 08:20 AM
But connecting onto someone else's west coast network is less oganic growth for us and we have lots of guys who live west and believed in the fairytale that we had a west coast plan for them "someday".

Otherwise, yeah, not the end of the world, just more "less growth".

Carry on.

More like less growth where you'd like it (West coast). But growth nevertheless, otherwise no codeshares.

Bluedriver
07-06-2018, 08:46 AM
More like less growth where you'd like it (West coast). But growth nevertheless, otherwise no codeshares.

Nope. Just more "less growth". We're already at a multi-year low growth rate. And we could cut our already low growth rate by a further 75% and STILL sign new codeshares.

GuppyPuppy
07-06-2018, 09:03 AM
Nope. Just more "less growth". We're already at a multi-year low growth rate. And we could cut our already low growth rate by a further 75% and STILL sign new codeshares.

Yep

Gup

Softpayman
07-06-2018, 09:13 AM
Ideally we would not allow any RJs and have very very limited codesharing. The TA doesn't allow RJs and has at least some limitations to codesharing. To me this is near industry leading, and a massive improvement over what we have now.

The latest MEC video out basically poses the scenario....Skywest has 100 E175-E2 on order. They're too heavy to be used at their current mainline partners. What's to stop them from replacing our E190s? Similar situation with TransStates and the Mitsubishi jet. "The threat is real."

Bluedriver
07-06-2018, 10:12 AM
Ideally we would not allow any RJs and have very very limited codesharing. The TA doesn't allow RJs and has at least some limitations to codesharing. To me this is near industry leading, and a massive improvement over what we have now.

The latest MEC video out basically poses the scenario....Skywest has 100 E175-E2 on order. They're too heavy to be used at their current mainline partners. What's to stop them from replacing our E190s? Similar situation with TransStates and the Mitsubishi jet. "The threat is real."

Ok, Skywest Inc starts another certificate, called Skywest Blue, starts selling tickets on SkywestBlue.com, codeshares with JetBlue on all their West coast routes. As long as JB grows a tiny, tiny, tiny little bit, here's your RJs. Totally permissable. The "threat is real".

Same can be said for Moxy.

queue
07-06-2018, 10:18 AM
Ideally we would not allow any RJs and have very very limited codesharing. The TA doesn't allow RJs and has at least some limitations to codesharing. To me this is near industry leading, and a massive improvement over what we have now.

The latest MEC video out basically poses the scenario....Skywest has 100 E175-E2 on order. They're too heavy to be used at their current mainline partners. What's to stop them from replacing our E190s? Similar situation with TransStates and the Mitsubishi jet. "The threat is real."


So you're ok with *any* degree of improvement.. even if it's just crumbs and nowhere near what it should be?


Is there some rule that a 1st TA has to be just barely better than nothing? Or is this some arbitrary mental block most BJ pilots have?



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.

Softpayman
07-06-2018, 11:16 AM
Ok, Skywest Inc starts another certificate, called Skywest Blue, starts selling tickets on SkywestBlue.com, codeshares with JetBlue on all their West coast routes. As long as JB grows a tiny, tiny, tiny little bit, here's your RJs. Totally permissable. The "threat is real".

Same can be said for Moxy.

Do you even know what a codeshare is?

In your example Skwest is starting itís own independent airline and assuming all the risk.

Bluedriver
07-06-2018, 11:34 AM
Do you even know what a codeshare is?

In your example Skwest is starting itís own independent airline and assuming all the risk.

Exactly. Like Expressjet did once before and Moxy is about to do.

That's why I said *sell* tickets. You did say they have all those E175s that are on order too heavy for any existing mainline besides Alaska. Oh, Alaska, that brings me to my next point.

Softpayman
07-06-2018, 12:35 PM
Exactly. Like Expressjet did once before and Moxy is about to do.

That's why I said *sell* tickets. You did say they have all those E175s that are on order too heavy for any existing mainline besides Alaska. Oh, Alaska, that brings me to my next point.

Jetblue will either exist in the market or it won't and it'll use a codeshare to fill a space where it couldn't profitably exist. There's little upside to the codeshare. If there was money to be made there (especially LGB) we have the planes and infrastructure to have done it.

It's like you think the CEO is sitting around thinking, if only we could pull out of the West Coast and use codeshares.

Bluedriver
07-06-2018, 01:35 PM
Jetblue will either exist in the market or it won't and it'll use a codeshare to fill a space where it couldn't profitably exist. There's little upside to the codeshare. If there was money to be made there (especially LGB) we have the planes and infrastructure to have done it.

It's like you think the CEO is sitting around thinking, if only we could pull out of the West Coast and use codeshares.

Hilarious. You guys either don't listen or can't fully comprehend all the possibilities.

Either way, don't care anymore.

Softpayman
07-06-2018, 01:46 PM
Hilarious. You guys either don't listen or can't fully comprehend all the possibilities.

Either way, don't care anymore.

Explain then how JB makes money off a stand alone carrier like SkyWest-blue operating west coast flights.

BeatNavy
07-06-2018, 01:53 PM
Explain then how JB makes money off a stand alone carrier like SkyWest-blue operating west coast flights.

By getting them on a JB connecting flight.

Bluedriver
07-06-2018, 02:13 PM
Explain then how JB makes money off a stand alone carrier like SkyWest-blue operating west coast flights.

I could, I'm just over the conversation.

But, the short version is think along the lines of how Emirates gains additional revenue and passengers by connecting into JBs network. We would gain additional revenue and passengers (that would fly on another Airline) by connecting into Alaska's (as an example) intra-westcoast network. It wouldn't make sense for JB to do that *IF* we could develop our own intra-westcoast network. We can't anymore due to gate space at the premium airports and west coast competition.

We are trying hard to attract corporate accounts in Boston. Consider a medical sales company that needs to send a rep to a surgeon in Idaho Falls or any number of other mid-sized and smaller west coast cities. We can fly them to SEA or SFO though, and then connect onto Alaska or Moxy (depending on where Moxy deploys their aircraft).

We had always thought we could build our own West coast network or buy VA. Now plan A and B are gone. It's plan C time. I have a feeling they built a fortress around domestic codesharing for a reason.

Time will tell.

On to a new subject.

hilltopflyer
07-07-2018, 01:13 AM
I could, I'm just over the conversation.

But, the short version is think along the lines of how Emirates gains additional revenue and passengers by connecting into JBs network. We would gain additional revenue and passengers (that would fly on another Airline) by connecting into Alaska's (as an example) intra-westcoast network. It wouldn't make sense for JB to do that *IF* we could develop our own intra-westcoast network. We can't anymore due to gate space at the premium airports and west coast competition.

We are trying hard to attract corporate accounts in Boston. Consider a medical sales company that needs to send a rep to a surgeon in Idaho Falls or any number of other mid-sized and smaller west coast cities. We can fly them to SEA or SFO though, and then connect onto Alaska or Moxy (depending on where Moxy deploys their aircraft).

We had always thought we could build our own West coast network or buy VA. Now plan A and B are gone. It's plan C time. I have a feeling they built a fortress around domestic codesharing for a reason.

Time will tell.

On to a new subject.

But they wouldnít make as much money so
Why would they do that!!! Oh ya we canít grow because we sit on our hands while letting every other airline expand till no more room. But we only make pennies on the dollar (still making money with zero risk, and giving customers access to other parts of the country we donít go to since we wonít grow anywhere besides SDQ) I give up. I voted and have my receipt showing how I voted.

Gearswinger
07-07-2018, 03:50 AM
But they wouldnít make as much money so
Why would they do that!!! Oh ya we canít grow because we sit on our hands while letting every other airline expand till no more room. But we only make pennies on the dollar (still making money with zero risk, and giving customers access to other parts of the country we donít go to since we wonít grow anywhere besides SDQ) I give up. I voted and have my receipt showing how I voted.

Then you didnít vote, because the receipt doesnít show how you voted for confidentiality.

hilltopflyer
07-07-2018, 04:21 AM
But the screen before it shows how you did and the time is the same as my receipt time. So ya it does show.

Gearswinger
07-07-2018, 07:01 AM
But the screen before it shows how you did and the time is the same as my receipt time. So ya it does show.



You just contradicted yourself. The receipt doesnít show it, but the screen before it does. 2 different things. Vote your conscience, you donít need to broadcast it.

Bozo the pilot
07-07-2018, 08:59 AM
By getting them on a JB connecting flight.

Which is good for us.. Yea?

Bluedriver
07-07-2018, 09:15 AM
Which is good for us.. Yea?

Half as good as growing our own organic west coast network, which is what we SAID we were going to do. They haven't.

BeatNavy
07-07-2018, 11:24 AM
Which is good for us.. Yea?

Good for making money on our existing network. Not good for disincentivizing investment in future networks. We are still a growth company. If we have a reason not to grow, or to focus growth elsewhere, that isnít as good as incentivizing mgmt to invest and grow organically in those same markets. Iíd rather grow into those markets as we always have, not codeshare into them, from both a pilot and shareholder perspective.

Bluedriver
07-07-2018, 11:28 AM
Good for making money on our existing network. Not good for disincentivizing investment in future networks. We are still a growth company. If we have a reason not to grow, or to focus growth elsewhere, that isnít as good as incentivizing mgmt to invest and grow organically in those same markets. Iíd rather grow into those markets as we always have, not codeshare into them, from both a pilot and shareholder perspective.

Yeah, but at least we'll be slowing to 7-8 deliveries a year soon. Yay.