B6 strikes again!
 

Can't wait to hear Gman spin this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...iE8&refer=news

Ouch
 

..........that is going to leave a mark!

Thinking about picking up some of that. I'm glad to see the JB folks were pay protected.

What type of spin do you expect? It is what it is... The Embraer 190 has some problems that are being addressed aggressively. Do I like like the fact that were doing this? Absolutely not... The only reason I don't like it, is because we are going to be providing an inferior product to our customers. No offense to Express Jet, but I flew the E-145 in a past life and I still commute on it regularly. I can honestly say it's the most uncomfortable aircraft I have had the pleasure to ride on. The good news is that Embraer is picking up the tab, and we are not going to be cancelling flights to fix these problems with the E190. Thanks for being so concerned.:rolleyes:

Av8tor, the story also talks about in April jetBlue delayed the delivery of 44 aircraft for four years.

I am guessing this was April of '06?
What kind of growth is jetBlue looking to have or has the growth stopped?

I believe this year we are taking delivery of 20 aircraft. 10 of each kind. I think this is scheduled to continue for the foreseeable future. About 14-16% growth.

As the green man always says you guys need a union and a scope clause.

I just love that pink tank top!

Just curious, what kind of software problems does it have? Why does it have problems that say a 170 doesn't?

It's funny that everyone yaps about how Jblu needs scope when they're the only major that's flying the big Emb's with their own pilots.

At least until now.

No spin needed. Good article.
We could either cancel flights while the E190's are fixed or we can stuff people into little E-145 Recession Jets wich is what all those great, unionized legacy airlines do on a daily basis.
Funny how people will consider this as subhuman if it has a JetBlue flight number but are willing to accept this treatment from anybody else, any given day.
Modifications will be done in April and this sorry RJ time will be soon forgotten.
Can't see how increasing the E-190s reliability can be seen as something negative by you JetBlue haters.

After the 190's get Cntrl-Alt-Del, what is to stop JB managment from retaining Expressjet and using it as leverage against the pilots ?????

Just curious.

Bingo!


VOTE ALPA.

Those are some harsh words about the E145 coming from another regional pilot. I call you that since that is what you guys are, flying those 190s for crap wages.

Complain to your union about the outsourcing of your flying. Oh wait you don't have one.

And don't want one either. JBPA - maybe. ALPA - never.

How do you spin Kitty Hawk and Northern Air Cargo doing Alaska cargo lines? I'm just trying to be fair here....

Your question shows the inherent mistrust of management which might be justified everywhere else but here at JetBlue.

We are more than embarrassed to have our product watered down by stuffing our customers in a RJ. This is temporary and paid for by Embraer.
Unless Embraer decides to pay for Express Jet forever I don’t see this lasting longer than April…

The E190 is not a RJ. If it is, then a Fokker 100 and DC-9-40 and B-737-100 is too. The E190 will outperform these aircraft in all performance aspects.
More legroom than any other coach seat othert han our own A320 cabin.Fly one one day and learn. If you don't like ours try US Air - they have a flock coming their way. No Live TV and XM Radio , but Unionized crews which will make you the PAX so much more comfortable.

Do not forget the 717 is in the 100 seat group but do not know if it will be out preformed by the -190.

I agree about the leg room...6'4" and was very comfortable. My second leg was on an AA 757 ORD-STL and I could not fit and could not sleep.

XM and DirecTV was great and that has nothing to do with any union.

It's bad news. We've had this problem before and have settled with the company on this grievance. They are now ignoring their agreement. The next steps may not be pleasant for the company. Unfortunately, we are in the middle of sec 6 negotiations so I suspect the company will use this violation of our contract as a bargaining chip. We'll see, but it smacks of our management being disingenuous.

Again the bottom line is the RLA makes unions almost powerless.

you can take care of the pax, and take care of the pilots at the same time.

David never said that the 190 was a RJ. He said that you were a RJ pilot because of the pay on the 190, therfore he is correct!

Right on! ALPA will sell you out...

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but why did they decide to go with 190s instead of 319s, or even 318s for that matter? It doesn't make any sense to me to double the parts and training for an unproven aircraft. I wonder if someone somewhere is kicking himself yet.

EDC,

I'm guessing B757200ER's comments were in direct relationship to Duane Woerth and ALPA National turning their back on one of it's oldest members, TWA when they were being integrated in American Airline's seniority. I think B757200ER is very aware of the workings of a union.

However, I agree with the spirit of your post, that a union is as good as the members within and the resources provided by "Big Brother".

Thanks for the large font on your posting, I could read it without my cheaters !! :D

Your own local leadership (whether it is an MEC a Teamster's local or independent) is who will Perform the percieved "Selling out".

Elect good leadership and keep them honest.

BTW B757 have had this dicussion before, I think the Indidvidual TWA Pilot got a raw deal in the integration, but it was the TWA MEC voted to void the Scope/Successorship clause of the TWA Pilot contract. I know they were stong armed by APA and AMR managment as a prerequisite to proceed with the merger. Apparently the TWA MEC thought they were better off taking their chances with a staple job. I really have no commnet on what the TWA pilots chances were or were not during merger discussions with AMR, but I do know that it was the TWA MEC who agreed to Voiding the protection afforded them under their contract, Not anyone from ALPA National. In truth if TWA had been represented by the Teamsters or their own independent Union and the TWA leadership had done the same thing (voided their scope/successordhip clause) , the same or worse results would have occurred.

The sad truth is Without that contractual clause, AMR could have fired all the TWA pilots.


It is always easy to point fingers. It is harder to accept the reality you were sold out by your Pilot group's elected leaders.

This is a detail that is missed by too many "I hate ALPA" guys I meet.. they just don't get that ALPA is them..

Well said, David.

Good point. At least we have a contract and a grievance procedure to deal with crap like this. B6 guys have to take it and like it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. So I won't.

I tell you, for JB's management not wanting unions on property, they are going in exactly the opposite direction. The FAs have started organizing and the rampers are coming due again. Now if the pilots can get on board....should know in the next month or so. I just don't see where it benefits them to not have collective bargaining or at least a united voice. I'll bet the bank they are a union company by year's end.

You know what they say, "Companies get the Unions they deserve."

There are organizations that treat their labor fairly, but they are few and far between.

Basically...it's not UPS. They would do it despite the contract that is in place and then tell you to grieve it. But technically...nothing. Although, the dollar costs to JB would be too high.

Sorry about the big font, I was not trying to be emphatic, I use my word processor to spell check and I needed the larger font.

Red-eye : I agree with you that it was the TWA MEC that made the agreements with AMR that lead to only some TWA pilots having jobs. But we all know where those same pilots would have been if AMR did not buy the TWA operation. And they would not have bought them if the MEC had not agrees to such language. One of my best friends was at TWA and is now at another airlines. But is still does not change the facts.

But we all know where those same pilots would have been if AMR did not buy the TWA operation. And they would not have bought them if the MEC had not agrees to such language.

Actually, I'm not sure I can agree with either of those two statements.

TWA was nearing the eleventh hour financially. Three serious suitors were present and there were others waiting in the wings. AMR, Boeing, and fair to say, possibly America West. Others were AirTran, Carl Icahn , and some quack from California that didn't even own an airline. AMR's offer presented our CEO an opportunity to retain some control over TWA LLC, leave with a hefty parachute and in quotes would offer "most of the TWA employees with positions with the new airline" (unbeknowgnst to us, positions with no seniority and susceptible to immediate furlough during a sagging economy back in 2001). The Boeing offer would have resulted in paycuts and furloughes and the loss of control of the airline to an outside management firm. I am not familiar what the America West code-share proposal or the AirTran offer. I can only imagine what Uncle Carl Icahn would have done to us, and the quack from California, deal would never have been approved anyway. So to say what would have happen to TWA if the AMR offer fell threw is purely speculative. It may not have been pretty, it may resemble the trials and tribulations that our brothers/sisters at USAir, United, and Delta have had to endure or it could have resembled what the good folks at Pan Am and Eastern and others have had to go through. In short, we don't know which offer would have gone through if AMR had backed away.

It's not entirely true that AMR wouldn't have bought us if we did not agree to waive scope while we were in bankruptcy. Our collective bargain was not dissolved but in bankruptcy it was just a matter of time. In addition AMR AND TWA LLC management asked us to waive scope or else they would file a Section 1049 (I'm not sure the number, but in bankrupcy it would effectively voided our contract anyways). If we agreed to waive scope they promised us a better seniority deal. In retrospect, our refusal to waive scope would have only added one step to dissolving our scope protection. I will go on record to say, that I'd rather task management with that "one more step" to know that in my heart I did everything possible to attain/negotiate what was best for the TWA pilots. So to say that our MEC's refusal would have stopped the deal, I would respectfully say that I disagree, it would just add work to their lawyers workload.

If my memory serves me correctly our F/As did not relinquish their scope clause, it was dissolved in bankrupcty court, and they were treated far worse than the pilots..specifically, no severence pay upon furlough and 5 year recall rights which will end soon with Zero TWA F/As recalled-essentially they were fired. This 5 year limit to recalls was put in place by the AA F/A union, and approved by AMR. It amazes me how one union would so blatantly trample fellow industry professionals from another airline and then blame management.

AMR 1 AA Unions 0 TWA -22,500

????

TWA brought 186 jets to the party, valuable landing slots at ORD/JFK/LGA/DCA, Worldspan Reservation system (which when sold netted AMR hundreds of millions of dollars) and 76 international route authorities some overlapped AA's, some did not. TWA and AA were hiring right up to the time of the merger...from actually being there at the time of the merger, I observed that there were more than enough seats to go around. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I respectfully disagree.
If American had not bought TWA, who would have taken the 2,889 furloughes that AMR dished out to the pilot group ?? IMHO, AA pilots paid less with the merger than they would have if they had to endure the furloughes without the TWA pilots.

FF