Jaxs170

As much as I want to believe this, the JB guys I speak to say they are making money on them. They say they sell most of the mint product on each flight which puts them in the green.

I'd love to see the evidence, in either direction. I agree, I can't imagine them generating a profit not being able to take much or any cargo on these flights to the most expensive airports in Europe.

Oh, and if we had 3+ more TATL gates in BOS, having a 321LR fleet to go to the more secondary airports in Europe would probably make sense.

Khantahr

Selling out a flight doesn't mean it's making money.

PilotJ3

We do not need NB going into Europe. Thats a B757 pilot síndrome, let the WB do the ocean crossing. More high paying jobs, more movement for everyone.

Also we have provisions for pay raises if they use those playing for ocean crossings. I’m sure the company doesn’t have an incentive to get 321XLR.

PilotJ3

I don’t know, but I can’t see JetBlue growing as quick as they want. They are retracting from the west coast. The LCC and ULCC for sure are in trouble if they can’t make money this year.

Vsop

We don’t AF/KLM/Virgin/xxxx can do it for us and not violate the scope agreement.

Wolf424

That’s quite the red herring.

While true, none of our partners fly NB over the NAT. Considering the congestion at AMS/CDG/LHR, I doubt they plan to “downgauge” to a NB.

Not to mention, if the scope agreement had included the non-existent NB transoceanic flying from our partners, what would stop Delta from using our NB (and lower paying) aircraft to do ocean crossings within the agreement?

Delta can do all the ocean crossings they want on a NB, but it doesn’t factor into our share of flying within global scope.

Vsop

This horse is dead and buried. We all argued it prior to the GS vote. For anyone that wants the opposing view this is the summary.

I’m not saying they would down gauge a route. In a senario that a NB trans Atlantic route made economic sense: it would make sense for our partner airline prior to it making financial sense for Delta. The reasons are:

We have higher pilot costs already.

Delta operating that route with a NB would trigger our “sucker insurance” clause in the PWA

Delta can fill up to 30% of the seats and not violate scope.


The fact the no routes currently exist ignores the potential for these routes in the future. It also ignores that we made sure to set scope rules for an aircraft that doesn’t even exist, but failed to make rules for one that does exist.

The fear is that we cede the oddball routes to our partners. Routes that many would enjoy. NYC to random European cities. Liverpool, Lyon, Rotterdam, Bordeaux….

The point is moo now, but fixing this is on my list of requests for the next PWA negotiation. To me the answer is a 50/50 NB agreement added to our WB agreement.

dbrownie

Agree if you have ever done ocean crossings single Aisle it sucks, we used to do Dakar, Malaga, Paris a couple more.

Just the wrong plane for the job, I did a bunch it was substandard at best,. (All though Malaga was amazing!)

PilotBases

Eh... https://viewfromthewing.com/jetblue-...n-partnership/

4fans

Has anyone heard any updates on the 350 delivery schedule? I thought I heard we were taking delivery of 7 new planes in 2024, but it seems like we would have seen more vacancies for FO’s if this was the case. Maybe we are overstaffed on the 350?