Scope
06-27-2018, 12:40 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,016
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
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"?
06-27-2018, 12:43 PM
#62
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,881
Originally Posted by todd1200
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.
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.
06-27-2018, 01:00 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
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.
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.
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?
06-27-2018, 01:13 PM
#64
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,881
Originally Posted by Bozo the pilot
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?
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?
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.
Last edited by Bluedriver; 06-27-2018 at 01:25 PM.
06-27-2018, 02:31 PM
#65
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
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.
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.
06-27-2018, 06:15 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by Bozo the pilot
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.
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.
06-27-2018, 06:32 PM
#68
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by Bozo the pilot
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?
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?
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.
06-27-2018, 07:00 PM
#69
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Originally Posted by PasserOGas
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.
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.
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?
06-27-2018, 09:25 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,016
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
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?
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
