Scope
06-28-2018 | 01:58 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
The codeshares themselves aren’t that profitable, but the pax getting into our network become profitable when they connect on us. Using the ALK example, if we throw a bunch of people into codeshares on the west coast and make money off them when they board a connecting JetBlue plane, the company makes money. Great. A JetBlue pilot flies that pax at some point. Great. What’s not great is now the company has less reason to try to expand organically in those markets. They are already getting connections from those markets on a HZ/SKW/ALK plane.
How do you imagine we will lose flying without codeshares I’m speaking about? We don’t currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we don’t/can’t feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Don’t care about that piston flying. Intl connections we can’t fly ourselves? Don’t care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I can’t seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if that’s via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we don’t fly...that’s fine.
What I do care about is codeshares we don’t have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just can’t seem to get right. The good part about it is it could add more pax to our network. The bad part: that limits our need to grow in there on our own. My whole point is codeshares are fine for places we can’t fly ourselves. But for places we can fly ourselves, we should do it ourselves. And we should put limits on existing codeshares for places which we become capable of flying (HNL, or wherever). But this TA leaves domestic codeshares wide open. I just see ALK/Moxy codeshares growing faster than our own organic growth under those agreements. If we had solid growth I wouldn’t be as concerned. But clearly our west coast strategy is failing, our block hour growth is anemic, and the provisions and protections in codesharing are pretty slim.
If the company “wouldn’t codeshare out that much flying” as you state, why wouldn’t they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didn’t want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we can’t feasibly fly, domestically and internationally. And to your point about more specifics adding up to be thousands of pages long, this language I want could exist in the same space that exists now, with different wording.
How do you imagine we will lose flying without codeshares I’m speaking about? We don’t currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we don’t/can’t feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Don’t care about that piston flying. Intl connections we can’t fly ourselves? Don’t care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I can’t seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if that’s via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we don’t fly...that’s fine.
What I do care about is codeshares we don’t have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just can’t seem to get right. The good part about it is it could add more pax to our network. The bad part: that limits our need to grow in there on our own. My whole point is codeshares are fine for places we can’t fly ourselves. But for places we can fly ourselves, we should do it ourselves. And we should put limits on existing codeshares for places which we become capable of flying (HNL, or wherever). But this TA leaves domestic codeshares wide open. I just see ALK/Moxy codeshares growing faster than our own organic growth under those agreements. If we had solid growth I wouldn’t be as concerned. But clearly our west coast strategy is failing, our block hour growth is anemic, and the provisions and protections in codesharing are pretty slim.
If the company “wouldn’t codeshare out that much flying” as you state, why wouldn’t they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didn’t want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we can’t feasibly fly, domestically and internationally. And to your point about more specifics adding up to be thousands of pages long, this language I want could exist in the same space that exists now, with different wording.
My point about the length of a 100% restrictive contract is that its not possible. We negotiate to a point where we feel we get enough restriction or at least some restriction and then we move on to the other parts of Scope like FFD/M&A etc. Could we have stipulated more of a growth number? Sure. As well we could have gotten pay higher/benefits and profit sharing. I am okay with the section including the Codesharing language.
I see why you want elimination of codeshares just like SWA, but do you want their work rules. At some point you have to accept the give and take of the process.
In respect BN.
06-28-2018 | 09:33 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
How do you imagine we will lose flying without codeshares I’m speaking about? We don’t currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we don’t/can’t feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Don’t care about that piston flying. Intl connections we can’t fly ourselves? Don’t care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I can’t seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if that’s via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we don’t fly...that’s fine.
It appears they did it, and now they dont, and we do...im guessing because we could make money on it.
And are you saying you "dont care about that piston flying" when its now jet flying that we do?? How do you make sense?
06-28-2018 | 09:41 PM
#93
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
So, what is to stop someone from starting an airline with E2s or C-Series that sells their own tickets and codeshares with JB? Maybe competing with JB initially at a loss, JB management exits the route because yields are down, then code shares with that same airline that drove them out of the market?
This is how we will keep growing...with metal from another carrier. And all JB has to do is net +1 pilot/year?
Very concerning.
Yes, I watched the video. Yes, I've read the scope. Seems to me this threatens JB...or maybe I'm just too stupid to get this through my head.
GP
This is how we will keep growing...with metal from another carrier. And all JB has to do is net +1 pilot/year?
Very concerning.
Yes, I watched the video. Yes, I've read the scope. Seems to me this threatens JB...or maybe I'm just too stupid to get this through my head.
GP
06-28-2018 | 10:10 PM
#94
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
When has a company not tried to limit everything a pilot group has asked for? Why would they let us eliminate it completely? We state our desire, they state their limits. Negotiations.
My point about the length of a 100% restrictive contract is that its not possible. We negotiate to a point where we feel we get enough restriction or at least some restriction and then we move on to the other parts of Scope like FFD/M&A etc. Could we have stipulated more of a growth number? Sure. As well we could have gotten pay higher/benefits and profit sharing. I am okay with the section including the Codesharing language.
I see why you want elimination of codeshares just like SWA, but do you want their work rules. At some point you have to accept the give and take of the process.
In respect BN.
My point about the length of a 100% restrictive contract is that its not possible. We negotiate to a point where we feel we get enough restriction or at least some restriction and then we move on to the other parts of Scope like FFD/M&A etc. Could we have stipulated more of a growth number? Sure. As well we could have gotten pay higher/benefits and profit sharing. I am okay with the section including the Codesharing language.
I see why you want elimination of codeshares just like SWA, but do you want their work rules. At some point you have to accept the give and take of the process.
In respect BN.
I can virtually guarantee our JB NC opening position was NO domestic codeshare, like SW. The company would have refused. Our fallback position was highly likely to be very limited domestic codeshare. The company again refused.
We ended up with almost unrestricted domestic codeshare because the company demanded it.
In this contract the company didn't really give up ANYTHING it held completely sacred, except MAYBE 5hr ADG. We went into this virtually demanding better healthcare and improvements to the unilateral profit sharing plan they crammed down our throats. We failed.
We got RJ scope (because the company had no intention of capacity purchase agreements, still glad we got it in writing) and we DIDN'T achieve strong limits on domestic codesharing because the company refused (we may very well learn why soon enough).
06-28-2018 | 10:19 PM
#95
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
They now realize they can't do either.
Plan C is most likely Alaska codeshare, Moxy codeshare to smaller airports out West and more JetSuiteX out West..
06-28-2018 | 10:25 PM
#96
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
The codeshares themselves aren’t that profitable, but the pax getting into our network become profitable when they connect on us. Using the ALK example, if we throw a bunch of people into codeshares on the west coast and make money off them when they board a connecting JetBlue plane, the company makes money. Great. A JetBlue pilot flies that pax at some point. Great. What’s not great is now the company has less reason to try to expand organically in those markets. They are already getting connections from those markets on a HZ/SKW/ALK plane.
How do you imagine we will lose flying without codeshares I’m speaking about? We don’t currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we don’t/can’t feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Don’t care about that piston flying. Intl connections we can’t fly ourselves? Don’t care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I can’t seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if that’s via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we don’t fly...that’s fine.
What I do care about is codeshares we don’t have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just can’t seem to get right. The good part about it is it could add more pax to our network. The bad part: that limits our need to grow in there on our own. My whole point is codeshares are fine for places we can’t fly ourselves. But for places we can fly ourselves, we should do it ourselves. And we should put limits on existing codeshares for places which we become capable of flying (HNL, or wherever). But this TA leaves domestic codeshares wide open. I just see ALK/Moxy codeshares growing faster than our own organic growth under those agreements. If we had solid growth I wouldn’t be as concerned. But clearly our west coast strategy is failing, our block hour growth is anemic, and the provisions and protections in codesharing are pretty slim.
If the company “wouldn’t codeshare out that much flying” as you state, why wouldn’t they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didn’t want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we can’t feasibly fly, domestically and internationally. And to your point about more specifics adding up to be thousands of pages long, this language I want could exist in the same space that exists now, with different wording.
How do you imagine we will lose flying without codeshares I’m speaking about? We don’t currently have those codeshares. The codeshares we have are on routes/equipment we don’t/can’t feasibly fly. BOS-ACK? Don’t care about that piston flying. Intl connections we can’t fly ourselves? Don’t care, until we have the capability to fly it ourselves. FLL-JAX I believe is what N8 used as a silver example...but I can’t seem to find any FLL-JAX direct flights on silver, so I dunno if that’s via a 2 leg silver flight. Regardless, if silver connects our pax elsewhere that we don’t fly...that’s fine.
What I do care about is codeshares we don’t have yet, eg Alaska. Alaska connecting all our pax to intra-cali and other west coast flying we just can’t seem to get right. The good part about it is it could add more pax to our network. The bad part: that limits our need to grow in there on our own. My whole point is codeshares are fine for places we can’t fly ourselves. But for places we can fly ourselves, we should do it ourselves. And we should put limits on existing codeshares for places which we become capable of flying (HNL, or wherever). But this TA leaves domestic codeshares wide open. I just see ALK/Moxy codeshares growing faster than our own organic growth under those agreements. If we had solid growth I wouldn’t be as concerned. But clearly our west coast strategy is failing, our block hour growth is anemic, and the provisions and protections in codesharing are pretty slim.
If the company “wouldn’t codeshare out that much flying” as you state, why wouldn’t they let us limit it in the TA or allow more strict codeshare controls? Clearly they want it for a reason. If they didn’t want to expand our codeshares, they would have allowed us to codify what we have now and just codeshare on routes we can’t feasibly fly, domestically and internationally. And to your point about more specifics adding up to be thousands of pages long, this language I want could exist in the same space that exists now, with different wording.
Your first paragraph is the big explanation. This is how/why Delta-Alaska and AA-Alaska maintained large domestic codeshares for so many years in SEA.
The argument that JB won't domestic codeshare because it only makes pennies on the dollar is wrong, proven by history. Delta and Alaska are two of the highest margin airlines in the world, and only reduced their codeshare because AK refused to end it's codeshare with AA.
I have to ask you guys, did Alaska and Delta not want the "whole dollar"?
You are not seeing all the moving parts.
06-29-2018 | 04:08 AM
#98
Covfefe
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Likes: 0
Silver Airways Begins Flights From Fort Lauderdale to Jacksonville | New Times Broward-Palm Beach
It appears they did it, and now they dont, and we do...im guessing because we could make money on it.
And are you saying you "dont care about that piston flying" when its now jet flying that we do?? How do you make sense?
It appears they did it, and now they dont, and we do...im guessing because we could make money on it.
And are you saying you "dont care about that piston flying" when its now jet flying that we do?? How do you make sense?
06-29-2018 | 04:15 AM
#99
Covfefe
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Likes: 0
You realize we tried to buy an airline to grow our west coast presence after our entire existence we were told “organic growth” only? We’ve always been a growth airline and grown organically...until we don’t. We have failed at growing in the west coast, especially recently. Buying virgin—fail. Organic growth in/out of LGB—fail. They are obviously getting creative now. Just because we can do it and have been able to doesn’t mean we won’t...hence the company’s desire to keep the option open with few restrictions.
06-29-2018 | 04:27 AM
#100
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
From: Airbus Capt
"For most of JBs existence, the airline planned to eventually build it's own West coast network or buy Virgin America.
They now realize they can't do either.
Plan C is most likely Alaska codeshare, Moxy codeshare to smaller airports out West and more JetSuiteX out West.."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
