CaptCoolHand

If i missed the post sorry, but has anyone considered this fleet review will consist of eliminating the 190 and not replacing it on the jb certificate?

yea i know we have the sweet spot in the NE and the 190 has earned its right to be here and stuff, but seriously? Now we have jetsuiteX enroute.

NA, I'm just being negative.

jtrain609

Eliminating the entire 190 fleet without replacement will result in around 900 furloughs. I try to avoid joking about stuff like that.

CaptCoolHand

I don't think it would, and it's no joke. we get the contract, which calls for 400-500 new bodies for work rules, vacations, ect. Park the 190s over a year or two. We continue to get 10-20 bus over the transition. There would be no need to furlough, 1-2 years to transition the group and in 2020 we're still at 3700-3800 with an all bus fleet and multiple feeder airline code shares. Then we can revisit that stagnation thread and I'll eat my hat. I don't think it's in the tea leaves, but I'm quite sure that option has crossed the table.

Uber suck.

Ted Striker

Per investor call yesterday... 190 (sized aircraft) is a very big part of Jetblue's operation, especially in Boston. Q: Will it be replaced by an affiliate airline? RH said (for now) no, it will be flown by Jetblue.

Anyone catch the CFO slip and say 330's instead of 320's?

Bluedriver

WELL within the range of possible outcomes Cool.

Bluedriver

I HIGHLY recommend you not read into that. Unless you really like disappointment.

AYLflyer

The 100 seat aircraft market is very important to blue. The 190 style aircraft isn't going anywhere IMO.

That said.....SCOPE.


Look at Alaska as a perfect example of what not to do. Smaller than us (2000ish pilots I believe) and they have Skywest doing their flying on the 175. That is absolutely unacceptable IMO and exactly why scope is so important for us. I used to watch Skywest 175s pull into the ramp after a 3hr+ flight. Things like MKE-SEA. Those should be 737s with Alaska crews behind the controls, instead they're being operated by a cheap third party.

I don't care if JB wants to pay me $400/hr to fly as an FO in the 190, if there is bad scope language, my vote will be a big fat NO. Those are JetBlue pilot jobs on the line. If the ticket says JetBlue, it should be operated by a JetBlue ALPA employee. Same with paint shop and delivery flights. If a jetblue aircraft is taking to the sky, a JetBlue pilot needs to be at the controls.

David Puddy

SWISS operates its CS100/300s on primarily shorthaul flights around Europe (less than 2 hours) and a few flights in the 3-5 hour range. Many are used on high-frequency shuttle flights (Zurich to Frankfurt or Paris). The airplanes are durable, flexible and versatile - that’s the point.

And if Robin is interested in profitable growth, flying solely to highly competitive destinations or hub cities against cheaper regional E175s or low fare airlines like SWA, Spirit and F9 won’t help. You need to fly routes with less competition (ie BOS-ONT or FLL-TUS) to get higher yields. While the typical trunk routes are important for feed, you need to add routes with less competition (and better pricing power) to maintain good yields. And that type of thinking is also echoed in this blog about potential destinations out of stagnant LGB:

https://blog.wandr.me/2017/11/jetblue-atypical-routes-long-beach/

And keep in mind the CS100 was designed to also fly into challenging airports like steep-approach London City. Flexibility is important in the search for profitable routes.

cmesoar

I agree. The entire contract needs to be looked at before we vote. However, without good scope whats the point. It is not just alaska that is to blame for this regional crap. All the legacies are to blame. DAL/Ual/AA has plenty of 70 to 90 seaters flying around and they are not flown by their own pilots. We can not allow that here unless the company uses bankruptcy to get it in the future. I would love a statement from ALPA on this issue...we need to operate the 190 size aircraft if they go that route in the fleet review, period.

AYLflyer

Oh I agree 100%, and I wasn't putting the blame on Alaska for the regionals. My point was that, UAL/AA/DAL have seniroty lists 10,000+ deep with near 1000 aircraft across a global network. While the 3rd party regional thing sucks, I can understand why a 50 seater is better than an Airbus into some markets (Still should be mainline pilots), however Alaska is incredibly small compared to the big 3, and has farmed out a lot of flying into routes that were 737 Alaska routes. There is zero need for that other than company greed.




SCOPE SCOPE SCOPE SCOPE