Sorry, but I need it explained to me like I'm an 8-year old.

GP

We may very well want to merge with Alaska, but Alaska management may not want to give up their gravy train.

So, we're both getting beat up by Delta in Boston, New York and Seattle, Alaska's getting beat up by Southwest and United in San Fran. Alaska has to contend with Delta, American and United all fighting over Los Angeles. So we may very well end up doing a big domestic codeshare with Alaska as a mutual survival plan.

It was kind of a joke because we spent half of yesterday arguing over scope. Bottom line, we have scope protections that prevent us from doing a capacity purchase agreement. However, our scope does virtually nothing to protect us with code-sharing domestic or International, including with a regional Airline or with Moxy or Hawaiian or Alaska or JetSuiteX or or or.

Alaska can just have Skywest or Horizon do all their flying under Alaska Express and make more $$$, they don't need Jetblue for strictly codesharing. Their regionals already do SEA-MSP...just add a BOS leg. Jetblue's survival plan of having Alaska become a major codeshare partner still means Jetblue has to grow.... but you're right it can be done as long as JB doesn't shrink.

My favorite part of the scope video is how he emphasizes how great the "growth only" provisions are. So, if the company falls on hard times and begins furloughing we will make them give up ALL their codeshares? Really? Does anyone actually believe this provision is worth the paper it is written on?

Our scope says to have a big domestic codeshare with Alaska we have to grow JetBlue *a little bit*. Less than any of our previous historical growth rates.

While a agree Alaska has very unwisely leaned on it's regional feed lately for some of it's growth/network, it's not likely to continue to be it's primary growth tool. The best run airline in the country is Delta (Southwest also) and Delta's strong trend the last several years has been to upgauge. More mainline as a proportion of it's overall network, fewer RJs, especially the smallest RJs. And Delta doesn't have an extreme shortage of gate space at some of it's primary hubs (MSP, DTW and ATL) like BJ and Alaska does.

Alaska and JB both have very substantial gate space shortages in it's hubs. That is likely to get worse before it gets better (never). The exception is ANC. The future is also going to be much tougher for airlines to staff the lowest paying positions (RJs). Between the slot restrictions, gate scarcity (worst at large coastal hub cities, you know BJ and Alaska hubs) and pilot short supply, leaning on RJs as your primary lever of growth will soon be more rare than an on-time BJ flight.

Also, for most primary markets with high demand, it's much lower CASM to operate mainline aircraft, like Delta is doing.

The main point of me saying that large airlines are targeting both BJ and Alaska hubs right now is that a large domestic codeshare between us allows for a more complete network for our local customers. A network that begins to compete with the big 4. Right now that is not true. So if one or both companies refuses to merge, and both companies are experiencing pressure from the big 4, a domestic codeshare is the historical way this is resolved.

Delta and Alaska used to have large domestic codeshare. There are others that escape me right now, I think NWA-Continental. The point is it allows airlines to pretend to have a larger more complete network than they really do, without having to grow and compete within each other's respective regions. Which in the case of BJ-Alaska is now almost impossible due to slot and gate shortages.

Long post, sorry.

The company signed on the dotted line on that paper so yes I do.

How much of the ticket price though BD?
I taught you this yesterday.

Dude if that provision is not worth the paper than the whole CBA is useless and if the CBA is useless the union is useless and therefore we just wasted lots of time and money.

Yes there is always stuff you can do to a contract but a some point those words mean something, otherwise why have a contract.

There was no way that anything would have pleased some the beaten-down guys here.
I get it- B6 ****es me off and has for years, and will continue to, but we have to either be objective or angry- the 2 dont coexist.
For the angry blind out there, at least go to a roadshow instead of poking holes in a TA that you dont fully understand.
I dont fully understand the 300 pages, but Im listening.
Do the same before you decide.

I have actually been very impressed by you. We went head to head on many things and probably still would but you are very fair in your analysis, along with others on here.

But it is funny we get to the point where we have a contract and now guys are like well the company will just ignore it.

So we will never have a union, nobody will show up to the rally, the company will never agree to a contract, the contract is worthless. So much fun.

You didn't teach me anything clown. How much investment and risk to BlueJet?

If you really think that collecting the full dollar is the ultimate deciding factor, then why do we codeshare with Hawaiian out of LGB? You learned in yesterday's class that JB CAN fly to Hawaii, but has chosen not to. How can that be true, don't we want the whole dollar clown?

Why did Delta maintain such a large domestic codeshare with Alaska for so many years until Alaska refused to stop codesharing with AA at the same time, which ultimately made Delta decide to go after Seattle on there own? Didn't Delta want the whole dollar all those years?

You have literally scientifically demonstrated yourself to have less understanding on this subject than a BlueJet On-time Performance Program Engineer has on running a smooth operation.

Hey- did you finally learn the difference between Fee for departure and codesharing?
You started off the debate yesterday trying to pick apart the Scope section, when what you really wanted to, but did not communicate, was complain about Hayes' indecision about TransAtlantic/Pacific.
Im with you, Id like to grow overseas, but can we not argue about corporate decision making and just get back to the T/A.
Any section you want BD. And when this passes, we can discuss the evils of corporate America.
Fair enough? I want to get back to the old Bozo-Bdriver thing.
Seriously, Peace BD.

Thanks, I was pi$$ed at B6 for years and still am.
But now that a TA is out that directly affects our life, the emotions have to calm so that we can think clearly.
The negative guys here that I am currently addressing, have a few valid concerns, but betray themselves when they lash out at anyone who states the obvious benefits of the document in full.
I truly believe that these fellow pilots, wanted a full out war with B6 and Ive been told by a few that "If Jetblue agreed to this, then it sucks"
That's insane logic.
To your point, if that's believed, then whats the point of this process anyway?
I want to hear from the measured "No voter" and I will attempt to stay realistic and teachable.

You have me EXTREMELY confused with someone else if you think I don't understand the difference between FFD and codesharing. Basically everything you just said is either completely false or you can't follow a complex debate or you are intentionally misdirecting.

Either way, I think you and I have reached an impasse. I'm going to engage others as I see fit and you should add intelligent context, when able.

This whole "BD doesn't understand the topic of debate" is way, way beneath you.

I could try and give you the benefit of the doubt and understand that maybe some of the subtle context and background knowledge of the debate are simply escaping you, but I don't think that is the case. As evidenced by you continuing to avoid answering the hard questions.

Im not avoiding anything BD. The discussion was about the good and bad of Codesharing. You seemed to want it banned from existence and I simply explained that it was necessary and when checked, leads to our growth (Btw, you never did address the JAX-HNL point) So point a finger your way as well. You then went off on tangents about Hayes' decision making.
But lets continue the debate, and keep it on the TA and not some conjecture about B6s future plans.
We have no control over the direction they take, all we can do is get the best deal available. Is this it?
No one is sure.

Another misdirect. We are discussing the adequacy of the scope protections in this TA as it relates to codesharing. We are on point. You said, our concerns regarding domestic and international codeshare protections, specifically the lack of those protections, is invalid because BlueJet will want the "whole dollar" and not "pennies on the dollar".

So, my questions, just two posts ago:

If we need not worry about domestic codesharing because we would want the "whole dollar", then why are we codesharing with Hawaiian airlines out of our hub in Long Beach when we have an aircraft capable of serving the route and CAN serve the route? Do we not want the "whole dollar"?

Also, why did Delta maintain an extensive domestic codeshare with Alaska for YEARS right up unitl Alaska refused to drop it's other large domestic codeshare with American? When Alaska refused Delta's ultimatum, Delta decided to build it's own Seattle hub. Didn't Delta want the "whole dollar" all those years?

Ive responded to the first question already BD. Read it.
As for the Delta situation, you'd have to ask their management at the time- I wasnt in that office.
Now address, what specifically in the Scope section of the TA, that you feel leaves us vulnerable.
And btw, tell me, if you know why, limited codesharing is a positive thing. You are guilty of what you have accused me of- Dodging.
Jax-Hnl- why is this symbiotic?
I gotta go, but Ill wait for those answers Bd.
As always- hope you're well.

Wait, you said the Airline would want the "whole dollar", so you need to explain to me why Delta didn't want the "whole dollar".

I've already explained the other Corp philosophy on the subject.

As for how codesharing CAN be positive, I guess this is all just a big misunderstanding on your part because I made that very clear yesterday:

" Bluedriver , Yesterday 12:47 PM
Quote:

Codesharing has at least two aspects. On the one hand codesharing customers into our network from a destination we *cannot* reach does improve load factor on our existing network and lead to new cities (DTW). Never disputed that. Didn't engage you on that point, intentionally. Doesn't mean I don't understand it Bozo.

The other side of the coin is codesharing to destinations we CAN reach (HNL & KEF *NOW* and soon to be Gatwick, Charles de Gaulle, Shannon, Dublin, Amsterdam, Brussels, Lisbon, Madrid etc...) but choose not to because of the investment and risk. We have instead elected to codeshare and take our "pennies on the dollar" up until now because it's low risk revenue.

Will that change, maybe. Been hearing Europe just a few years away since I got here.

Now I suggest you not insult my understanding of this industry again, as it's idiotic and should be beneath your debate skills."

End of quote.

I am not saying the company would ignore it.

I am saying WE would ignore it. Much like a "no furlough" clause, if the survival of the company was in peril, or if it was in no position to buy 777's to fly to Dubai, B6ALPA and the Pilots of Jetblue, would grant immediate relief.

It is a nonsensical provision.

Especially when you consider that the complete giveaway of all codesharing rests on it.

I don’t think it’s an either/or question. We already codeshare on routes we serve with our own metal (I think BOS-ACK and FLL-JAX were mentioned in the Scope video). I guess mgmt sees a benefit in increasing our loads out of those cities via the codeshares. I just looked up two flights on BlueEye, and they each had 4 codeshares assigned to them, so I think it cuts both ways—I’d think we sell a lot more tickets because of the codeshares in a lot of cases.

I don't think you should direct that at me. I know why we codeshare, and why codesharing cuts both ways.

My question was meant to promote thought, and bring about the realization that "JB would fly the route if able because we would want the whole dollar" was an incomplete and historically inaccurate concept.

So then you expected a 100% codesharing restrictive TA?
There are restrictions- Ref Section 1 Paragraph F.
I responded to BNavy with the precise wording- Have you read that section or even watched the video?

Southwest is MUCH more restrictive on codesharing, so there is precedent.

And, regarding your "restrictions", which are a joke:

1. That's only required to add or amend an agreement, not to continue an agreement.

2. That 3% is a very low bar and it's a growth rate well below any historical BlueJet average I'm aware of.

It’s not even 3%...3% is only base to comparison year difference. It’s 1% yearly.

Protected!!!

His lack of ability for reading comprehension strikes again! Hahaha.

False choice, straw man. Obviously 100% would be impossible. We could have some version of the JV language in any future code shares.

If HA flies 1 under the JV language we would have to fly one also. Or it could be a smaller ratio. Just saying the current language gives away the store when it comes to code sharing.

I brought it up in another thread but this one is more relevant so I’ll reiterate. I have yet to hear anyone answer these questions, and I am genuinely curious:

1) Do we currently have any domestic (or intl for that matter) codeshares on routes that we are capable of flying?
2) If (1) is “no,” why would we allow it to start under this TA?
3) Why does the company want this provision in this TA if we currently don’t do it, and haven’t done it in 18 years?
4) What is the company benefit in (3) worth? What did the pilot group gain by allowing them to do that?
5) Does this provision hurt, help, or not affect the pilot group...and why?

We already codeshare on routes we serve domestically, I believe BOS-ACK and FLL-JAX are mentioned as current examples in the Scope video.

What I don't seem to get is that it seems to me there are no restrictions when it comes to domestic code sharing.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

GP

Toronto for sure is in range, though they could argue that Porter's destination is Toronto City Center which we can't do because of runway size, but Pearson is easily used.

And wouldn't Rekjavich (spelling??) be within range of a 320? Not sure on that one. We code share with Iceland Air.

There are a few restrictions. JetBlue has to be growing by pilots and by block hours in order to sign new codeshares and renew existing codeshares and the end of their contract. Also the company it codeshares with can only be similar size or smaller than jetBlue.

So, we can open up Alaska, Hawaiian, Sun Country and Frontier's entire network to our customer's on jb.com? Not to mention Seaborne, Cape Air, Silver, JetSuite X, etc...

Please explain how this is good for JB pilots. Why have JB fly an A320 LGB-SJC/RNO/etc... when JetSuite X can do it for us? Why not have Horizon fly Q400s between JFK-SYR/ROC/ORH?

This is my biggest problem with the TA.

No limitations other than we have to grow by 1 block hour or 1 pilot per year?

How does this help us?

GP

Your Horizon example cannot happen. We cannot have a capacity purchase agreement in any form. Unless Horizon wanted to start selling their own tickets. They’re set up as a fee for departure company. And even if they changed to a regular airline who sells their own seats it could then only be a codeshare.

Your Alaska example doesn’t really hold much water either. We’d merge with them before we did something like that. Codeshares make pennies on the dollar compared to selling those seats on our own metal. Have you watched the Scope video?

I think you're confusing codesharing and regional fee for departure.

JB won't be making any sort of real profit off of simply codesharing our current flying. According to everything I've read so far, selling a ticket on JetSuite lands JB literally pennies on the dollar. If they want to stay in business as an airline and not a travel agency, then they won't be farming off all of our flying.

That said, I want to make sure I understand the scope as near 100% as possible. I'm hoping the road shows will clarify the information.

To those who have decided NO because of scope, can I ask, why are you willing to give up a contract now with scope in it, vs risking working under a PEA with no security and risking jetblue farming out flying in the next 12+ months while a new TA is drafted and voted in?

Also from the FAQ

I agree. Watching the Scope video online, it sounds like the MEC is very content with the way Section 1 was agreed upon. In contrast watching the "Section 3 Compensation" video, you can tell they aren't as thrilled. If this agreement gets voted down, I'm willing to bet that Section 1 in TA2 would almost be copy & paste.

We can codeshare on horizon or SkyWest planes under the Alaska code if we codeshared with them. Doesn’t have to be a CPA/FFD agreement. The idea with codesharing isn’t necessarily to make a lot of profit from a route. It’s to get customers on our planes from markets we don’t serve with little to no risk. It’s market access with no investment or cost. Then they connect on us and we make money that way. We get intl customers on our flights that way. With domestic codesharing, we can access west coast markets via Alaska and their CPAs with SKW and Horizon if we codeshared with them. How is that a good thing? That is incentive to not spend the money to grow organically into those markets.

Why was SWAPA so loud when SWA mgmt started privately discussing possible codeshares? Read this article and then tell me if you still think codesharing is harmless, and if so, how you came to that conclusion...I’m genuinely curious and want to know how it’s not a threat to growth.
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/...share-and.html

International or routes we can’t fly is one thing. Like cape...I don’t care about a small piston plane flying on our code with pax getting on our flights. We have nothing that can effectively fly those routes that cape has codeshared with us. Ditto for international (until we get the capability, which I wish had more controls to end codeshares if we can fly the routes with new planes).

I’ve read the TA scope section probably 30-40 times, read the FAQs, and still don’t see how essentially unlimited domestic codeshares is a good (or even okay) thing. 1% growth? 1 block hour per year? 1 pilot added to the list a year. That’s our controls put in place? I’m not sold.

Those that say they aren't worried about domestic codesharing simply don't understand the threat.

I'm not saying vote NO because of it, but I am saying to understand the true nature of the threat and acknowledge it exists.

Delta, for years, maintained a significant domestic codeshare with Alaska out of Seattle. Many Delta pilots we're VERY unhappy with the arrangement because all of the Pacific Northwest Delta commuters were watching Delta sell all these seats on to Alaska aircraft while maintaining a small senior Seattle base for Delta and most of those Delta guys having to commute to SLC, MSP, DTW or NYC. Delta management loved the arrangement because they got to sell connections on to a significant PCNW network that they didn't have to spend billions to develop themselves. Delta wanted to continue this arrangement which harmed Delta mainline pilots but became frustrated that Alaska was also codesharing with AA out of SEA. So DL gave Alaska an ultimatum, either codeshare exclusively with DL out of SEA or we will build our own SEA hub.

Well, you know the results, Delta pilots that live out West are huge winners now that the company built it's own SEA hub.

How does this apply to us?

Well, we have an east coast Airline with no network in the middle of the country and now with our announced reductions in intra-westcoast flying, no West coast network. We fly people to and from the west coast, but no West coast network.

We have been trying to find a way to build a west coast network, but have so far failed miserably. There are NO gates at any of the desirable airports.

Both Alaska and JB are being targeted by emboldened legacy carriers on both coasts, and unlike AK and JB, they can offer valuable business corporate accounts a FULL domestic network.

There is a very real possibility that JB and AK solve this problem with a large, mutually beneficial (for the airlines) large domestic codeshare.

And the same is potentially true for Moxy with there new C300 jets, as well as JetSuiteX.

If you really want to understand the threat, go ask about it in the APC Delta forum. This is the one area of our TA where we are absolutely NOT protected.

I'm not suggesting that we would furlough pilots or anything stupid like that. I'm not saying they are going to take our existing flying, that's just stupid. But, we may very well, and I think those chances are presently increasing, begin a large domestic codeshare with Alaska IN LIEU of building our own organic west coast network.

Not saying vote NO. Not saying doom and destruction. But understand the nature of the threat and stop telling the few of us that have concerns that it doesn't exist.

There are recent historical examples DL-AK, AA-AK, I think NWA-Continental. The PILOTS of those Airlines didn't like it because it reduced the airlines need to organically grow network relevance.

BD

All correct.

And for emphasis, we CAN put JB customers on Skywest RJs via a codeshare with Alaska (who has NO scope or RJ limits).

I know you said it, just emphasizing it.

Guys, I may very well end up holding my nose and voting YES. I'm telling you this so you can at least understand the threat.