I am agreeing with you.

What my original question was asking -

If B6 management said to you - in Section 2 negotiations (Remember there is nothing stopping them from outsourcing right this second since you have no scope clause) - we are getting rid of the 190 in favor of 175's. We will either let your fly them for regional rates OR we will give the flying to RAH/SKYW/TSH. Would JetBlue pilots entertain that proposal to keep flying in house?

 

I'm not a jetBlue pilot, but I hope they would keep all of their flying on their own seniority list. You lose quality control when the people operating aren't vested in the success of the product/brand.

 

JFK is slot controlled and BOS and FLL don't have enough gate space to maintain capacity while reducing the size of the aircraft by around 20%. I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility, but I don't see a Sophie's choice like that. If they want to outsource that capacity before a CBA is signed, management wouldn't ask, they'd tell us like they've done with every other unilateral change they've instituted before and during section 6 negotiations.

Is there any regional airline out there that could staff up to 60 RJs right now anyways?

 

JetBlue management has said, at least to my class in indoc, that there are no regional partners because they like to control the brand and product. That could obviously change, but the chaos and implosion that would cause with the airline would likely not be worth it. Especially since regional pilots cost more and more these days. I think many of us would bail if scope was sold like that, but more importantly I don't think any contract would make it to the pilot group that allowed for that to happen.

Now this is all a hypothetical, but if e175s came on property and were the same rates as the e190, I'd be ok with that, as I'm not a bigger is better kind of guy. Pilots don't buy airplanes, BOD/c level execs do. If they paid me appropriately to fly them, I don't really care what I fly. I don't think that will happen though. I could maybe see the E175 e2 if we got e190/195 e2s, as the e175-e2 can hold 88 seats at 31" pitch. That'd give us a little more versatility in the 80-130 seat range if we had multiple aircraft sizes, IF the commonality and reduced capacity from the 190/195 was worth the slightly reduced operating cost. But I don't know the RASM/CASM/acquisition/operating costs of any of those planes, am not privy to nor care enough to make a net present value analysis of such an acquisition. I just wiggle sticks and push buttons. And I'd rather wiggle a C series sidestick anyway, as I believe BBD>EMB.

 

They've lost a bit of that in the last year anyway. They have and will do whatever they like until there is a CBA.

 

Management became obligated to maintain status quo as soon as ALPA came on property. Something as big as an agreement with a regional, if they were stupid enough to try it, wouldn't hold up in arbitration.

 

Status quwhat? I don't understand this phrase. It seems to mean management can deal out concessions like candy on Christmas but we can't do squat.

 

My thoughts exactly...ALPA has to fight every change in court that they dish out and wait for the judges answer...RLA favors the company. As Spirit just found out...

I don't see B6 getting smaller planes. The Airbus has better CASM than the E190 IIRC. Don't they already have an agreement with Cape Air and they invested in JetSuite on the west coast.

 

Not to mention a bazillion code share agreements to fly around the world.

 

The irony is that if JB outsourced any E-jet feed the regional pilots would be working under better work rules than the "mainline" JB pilots, and every single one of them would have greater total compensation than a first-year JB pilot. Ohhhh, the irony.