Scope
 

So many guys on here are leaning yes or voting yes primarily because of the scope provisions in the TA. Scope=job. After reading through the TA I think the complete lack of protections in that section need to be discussed. As I read it, the company can outsource every single flight at Jetblue with 2 limits.


1. The outsourced flying cannot be flown on a plane labeled "Jetblue".


2. The airline must fly 3% more block hours in the year it is signed.


That is pretty much it. We can outsource literally EVERY. SINGLE. FLIGHT.


There appears to be ZERO limits on the number of 50 seat aircraft the company can codeshare on. NONE. They just can't be called jetblue express.


Wow. That is some airtight language fellas. Lets get that signed into law! I feel so secure in my job with that insurance policy.



Why are you guys even THINKING about voting yes to this?



*Edit* Wow, copy/pasting the scope provision isn't as easy as I thought.

Scope

1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all flying conducted by or on behalf of the Company (including aircraft under the operational control of the Company) shall be performed by Pilots represented by the Association on the JetBlue Airways System Seniority list.

2. The Company will not enter into any “alter ego” or “double breasted” arrangement, or an agreement in which an affiliate performs Part 121 flying, unless such flying is performed by Pilots on the JetBlue System Seniority List under the terms of this Agreement, except for the period prior to the integration of the seniority lists of the two carriers as required by Section 1.E. of this Agreement.

3. A non-seniority list pilot may perform Test Flights. In addition, in the event no seniority list Pilot is on involuntary furlough, a non-seniority list pilot may perform non-revenue flying as provided below:
a. Maintenance ferry flights for heavy maintenance to or from San Salvador, El Salvador (SAL).
b. New aircraft delivery flights, provided a seniority list Pilot is a member of the crew.
c. Maintenance ferry flights departing from a heavy maintenance facility.
d. Maintenance ferry flights departing to a heavy maintenance facility provided the movement of one aircraft is connected with a planned movement and return to service of another aircraft from the heavy maintenance facility.

4. The Company may assign or subcontract revenue flying for up to ninety (90) days (subject to extension with the written consent of Association) to deal with an unanticipated FAA or aircraft manufacturer maintenance requirement or delivery delays caused by the manufacturer, provided no Pilot is furloughed as a result of such contracting. The Company shall provide notice to the Association prior to entering any agreement to assign or contract out revenue flying.

...

Code Sharing

1. The Company may enter into a Commercial Agreement provided:
a. The block hours operated by the Company increase during the relevant Comparison Period compared to the relevant Base Period, and
b. The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company on the effective date of the Commercial Agreement has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed 365 days prior to the effective date.

2. The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier that is a new partner and is similar in size (e.g., Alaska Airlines) or smaller (measured by annual ASMs) than the Company in the relevant Comparison Period, provided:
a. The Company operated at least 3% more aircraft block hours in that Comparison Period than in the relevant Base Period, and
b. In each one-year period commencing first with the calendar month that includes the effective date of the Commercial Agreement and then commencing with the anniversary month of the first such period, the Company operates at least 1% more aircraft block hours than in the previous one-year period.

3. The Company may not renew or amend an existing Commercial Agreement, modify a pro-rate formula in a Commercial Agreement, or increase the ASMs, city pairs, or block hours that it permits the other air carrier or air carriers to operate under an existing Commercial Agreement, unless:
a. The block hours operated by the Company increase during the relevant Comparison Period compared to the relevant Base Period, and
b. The number of Active Pilots employed by the Company has increased compared to the number of Active Pilots employed by the Company 365 days prior to the effective date of the renewal or amendment.

4. For the purposes of Section 1, a “Comparison Period” is the period of twelve full consecutive calendar months immediately preceding the effective date of the relevant action with respect to a Commercial Agreement. Example 1: For a new Commercial Agreement effective March 15, 2019, the relevant Comparison Period is the period March 2018-February 2019. Example 2: For a Commercial Agreement renewal or modification or an increase under a Commercial Agreement under Paragraph F.2 effective March 15, 2020, the relevant Comparison Period is the period March 2019-February 2020.

5. For the purposes of Section 1, a “Base Period” is the period of twelve full consecutive calendar months immediately preceding the relevant Comparison Period.

Example 1: For a new Commercial Agreement effective March 15, 2019, the relevant Base Period is the period March 2017 – February 2018.

Example 2: For a Commercial Agreement renewal or modification or an increase under a Commercial Agreement under Paragraph F.2 effective March 15, 2020, the Base Period is March 2018 – February 2019.

6. No carrier other than the Company will conduct flying pursuant to a Commercial Agreement or Marketing Agreement on aircraft owned, leased, operated, held on order or option, or otherwise controlled by the Company.

7. Additional Joint Venture Restrictions:
a. If the Company enters into a Joint Venture Agreement covering flying, any part of which is not within the range of one or more aircraft in revenue service for the Company as of the effective date of the Joint Venture Agreement, then, upon the start of oper ations under the Joint Venture Agreement, the Company will perform a portion of the out flying. ofrange Three (3) years after the effective date of the Joint Venture Agreement, the portion of the flying that the Company is performing will be maintained or increased.
b. If the Company enters into a Joint Venture Agreement covering flying, any part of which is within the range of one or more aircraft in revenue service for the Company, then, in each trailing period of twelve calendar months commencing with the effective month of such Joint Venture Agreement, the Company will operate a percentage of the ASMs covered by the Joint Venture equivalent to the proportion of system operated by the Company in comparison to the system operated in tha-- wide ASMs wide ASMs t same period by the other carrier participating in the Joint Venture.
c. Any Joint Venture Agreement covered by Paragraph F.7.b will terminate no later than the third anniversary of its effective date. The Joint Venture Agreement may be renewed for periods up to three years each, provided the Company is operating a percentage of the ASMs covered by the Joint Venture equivalent to the proportion of systemthe Company in comparison to the systemwide ASMs operated by wide ASMs operated in that same period by the other carrier participating in the Joint Venture.
d. The Company will not enter into a Joint Venture for flying to or from Brazil unless some portion of such flying is performed by JetBlue Pilots. No later than two (2) years after the effective date of s uch a Joint Venture, at least 50% of the departures conducted pursuant to the Joint Venture shall be flown by JetBlue Pilots.

8. Additional Restrictions on Commercial Agreements with Domestic Carriers:
a. The Company may not enter into or amend an existing Comm ercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier to include flying by another carrier between Focus Cities, unless such Focus Cities are in the same State.
b. The Company may not enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier that includes flying between a Focus City and one or more points outside the United States if such flying is within the normal operating range of any Company aircraft in revenue service at the time of operation, except for flying on aircraft configured for fewer than 51 seats or on turboprop aircraft.

9. The Company may not enter into a Commercial Agreement that includes flying by a Foreign Air Carrier operating under fifth freedom rights on a city pair that is served by the Company or has been served by the Company within the two years prior to the month in which the flying by the Foreign Air Carrier takes place.

10. Nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit the Company from entering into an Industry Standard Interline Agreement.

11. The Company shall not enter into any Capacity Purchase Agreements or purchase Block Space on other carriers.

12. The Company will not purchase equity in, or lend to, another company that is an air carrier or an affiliate of an air carrier as a means to circumvent the provisions of this Section.

13. Access to Information
a. The Company will meet and confer with the Association prior to announcing any new Commercial Agreement or Marketing Agreement.
b. The Company will provide reasonable opportunity for review by the MEC Chairman or his designee of any Commercial Agreement, subject to appropriate non-disclosure agreements.
c. The Company will timely provide the MEC Chairman or his designee any other data necessary to allow the Association to verify compliance with the requirements of this Section.
d. The Company will review with the Association the flows of Customers traveling on the Company’s code on other carriers and on other carriers’ codes on the Company’s flights.

Let’s see what’s allowed...

Wow. Lots of code sharing with Alaska and smaller airlines.

So unlimited code sharing as long as its a longer range than anything JB currently flies? That’s all international flying.

Unlimited 50 seat jets! Not industry leading at all. Not even close.

Scope!

We can "codeshare" with an RJ operator or even a domestic narrowbody operator (Hawaiian out of LGB).

Have you heard of Air Lingus, TAP Portugal, Iceland Air, Air France, Air Brussles, Iberia, British Airways? All operate to destinations within the range of A321LRs, but who needs THAT scope?

We may not have any protections for our potential high paying positions! But at least those scary RJs are semi-protected to secure our lowest paying positions!

Let's see, pilots for regional airlines are becoming more rare than an on-time BlueJet flight, but how about our hubs?

RJs to replace our E190s at:

JFK- WHAT FOXTROT SLOTS?

BOS- WHAT FOXTROT GATES?

WEST COAST- WHAT FOXTROT GATES?

MCO- WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT, YOU FOXTROT SERIOUR CLARK?

FLL- ARE YOU FOXTROT KIDDING ME?

The Company may enter into or maintain a Commercial Agreement with a Domestic Air Carrier that is a new partner and is similar in size (e.g., Alaska Airlines) or smaller...

Is SkyWest smaller than Alaska? What about Republic?

Rock solid scope.

Capacity Purchase Agreement: an agreement between two or more air carriers under which one of the air carriers purchases or reserves for sale to its own customers all of the seating capacity aboard one or more aircraft operated by other air carriers in the agreement.

Commercial Agreement: A “Commercial Agreement” is a Codeshare Agreement or Joint Venture Agreement

1. A Codeshare Agreement is an agreement under which an air carrier other than the Company may carry customers ticketed under a flight number bearing a designator code then in use by the Company.

2. A Joint Venture Agreement is an agreement under which the Company receives revenues from the carriage of Customers aboard flights operated by another air carrier.

3. An Industry-Standard Interline Agreement is not a Commercial Agreement

Industry Standard Interline Agreement: an agreement between two airlines whereby:
1. either airline can sell tickets for travel on one or more flights operated either by itself and the other airline or operated only by the other airline;
2. neither airline can place its designator code or flight numbers on the flight or flights operated by the other airline under those tickets;
3. each airline will accept the other’s tickets as valid for travel;
4. baggage transfer and liability under those tickets are covered; and
5. the two airlines will realize proceeds from the sale of a ticket by way of sales commission, if any, plus:
a. an amount determined by pro-rating the ticket value according to the distance operated by each airline under the ticket;
b. an amount determined by prorating the ticket value according to each airline’s sector fare for the segment it operates; or c. an amount determined by prorating the ticket value according to the fare class and a banded-distance rate for the segment operated by each airline under the ticket.

The fact we are still letting non-seniority list pilots fly here is a No!

Thats a ridiculous reason to be a firm NO.
How many do we have?
Do you think they'll replace the seniority list?

What about getting a Caribbean turbo prop company flying all our sju flying? Or 50 seat jet.

So instead of flying B6 metal, they would codeshare it out and get 1% of the fare instead of the full amount?
Why?
Not snark, serious question.

Because they are making money. They wouldn’t have the overhead to make money. If you had to take all the risk and have the really high overhead and hope people buy tickets on your flight or get a guaranteed amount of money with someone else’s overhead what would you do? Heck if it was my decision I’d take my 1 dollar and not risk any then put all my work and sometimes make 10

For the same reason all airlines farm out flying. They collect profits and put downward pressure on labor. Under our scope we could code share with two A320 operators on our routes and whipsaw them. :eek:

Still a yes vote Bozo? Please explain.

So then you do not believe that B6 will go to Europe or have any ability or desire to do so?
Great- argue that, because to suggest that Robyn will get ETOPS and have the ability to do it himself and THEN choose to codeshare is ridiculous. Or it makes sense to you and you share BDs misinterpretation of codesharing.

Farming out in a fee for departure and codesharing are different things.
Again guys, codesharing is not a windfall for the company and many of you are conflating the two. Educate yourselves on Codeshare vs. Fee for departure.
Passer- tell me you know the difference...
And prove you do

Not to interupt the yelling and screaming, but has anyone submitted these questions to ALPA?

Would like to hear the answer during a road show.

ALPA is answering the submitted questions.


http://jbumec.alpa.org/Home/TA2018/tabid/11287/Default.aspx


Please have a look.

Cool, thanks I’ll check it out.

From the FAQ on B6 Alpa:



Can JetBlue use an operator such as JetSuite to provide feed under a Capacity Purchase Agreement?
No, agreed upon language prevents the Company from doing this. The Company is prohibited from entering into any Capacity Purchase Agreements or purchase Block Space on other carriers, and they cannot not purchase equity in, or lend to, another company that is an air carrier or an affiliate of an air carrier as a means to circumvent the provisions of our Scope agreement. Other provisions in scope prohibit JetBlue for using an entity like JetSuites as an alter ego or for doublebreasting.

Can JetBlue operate a JetBlue Express / regional carrier?
JetBlue cannot enter into a Capacity Purchase Agreement with any other carrier. However, if JetBlue were to establish a new brand, i.e. JetBlue Express with regional jets, it would be flown by JetBlue Pilots under the same CBA and seniority list.


Seems fairly clear cut to me, no?

It is but guys are conflating codesharing and fee for departure.
2 totally different things.
Codesharing is necessary.

How can we trust you? We don’t even know your name? What’s makes you so smart. Let me guess you know what is best for all of us and our families?

Let’s start with....what is your name?

Also for the dyslexic folks, there is now a video on scope.......


http://jbumec.alpa.org/Home/TA2018/tabid/11287/Default.aspx

It says we can't Capacity Purchase Agreement with those Airlines. It does not say we can't codeshare with JetSuiteX, which we DO.

Not trying to be dick, but what's the difference? Honestly don't know.

I know you aren't, I just did a more complete explanation in the other thread.

Thanks for the help. I just finished the scope video. Good info.

Me too very good info. I agree with a lot of what he said. I just can’t believe we would code share with domestic carriers (Alaska etc) I get Hawaii but is there restrictions for conus?

My name won't change the fact that this scope is terrible.

The only real restriction is focus city to focus city. Other than that the company can code share and JV to its hearts content.

Not so sure on the joint venture side of it. Code share I agree

Capacity purchase agreement is what you would traditionally think of as regional feed. So, should we buy capacity on Republic to operate pairings we already operate. In our current scope, this traditional model for outsourcing cannot happen.

What CAN happen is we begin code sharing domestic routes we don't yet fly, but otherwise would. Should the company decide there are routes we fly that would be better served by a Skywest E-145 they could code share that route, buy seats and sell them to passengers, as long as they grow 3% that year and the flights are flown by "Skywest" and not "JetBlue Express".

It's a loophole big enough to fly a Hawaiian Airlines A321 through.

They can’t buy seats on another carrier and sell them, that’s not a code-share and it’s specifically prohibited (F.9.11).

Well it would still be considered a code share, but I see that they cannot purchase block space. Thanks for that.

So, do we know how they are benefiting financially from JetsuiteX? When members of our board own shares of another company and begin feeding that company passengers where is that addressed? You seem to be more in the know than most.

JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and all would work the same way. We sell the tickets on BlueJet.com and they ride on JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and...

We keep a portion of the ticket price, they fly.

Your Skywest example was also on the right track, it COULD work the same as above, we just can't pre-buy capacity (seats) on the plane. But we can sell seats that are available in the reservation system.

Skywest, specifically, probably can't work. But a new regional with less restrictive prior contracts, *or*, Moxy buys C300s AND 60 CRJ900s, BOOM, there's your BJ regional codeshare.

But, is that really worse than JetSuiteX and Alaska and Moxy and Hawaiian and, and, and, and flying our domestic passengers?

I think BD is correct; B6 gets a little bit on each seat they sell on JetSuiteX and benefits from increased traffic out of LGB. The Codesharing provisions cause me the most concern, just because they’re the most liberal and I wonder if down the road they could be used as an end run around the more restrictive CPA and JV sections. It seems like we’re relying mostly on market forces to limit the threat of codeshares replacing our flying, but I wonder what happens if market forces change? What if they’re able to negotiate a codeshare that pays a few quarters on the dollar instead of a few pennies? I don’t know if that’s even within the realm of possibility, and codeshares don’t seem to pose much of a threat to us today. Cape Air doesn’t seem to be hurting growth in Boston and Silver doesn’t seem to hurt us in FLL, but I just wonder what happens if the landscape changes. It sounds like provisions in the TA are industry standard or better (except for Southwest), but I don’t understand them well enough to know if that’s true.

In terms of the BOD’s other investments, I guess that just falls under SEC rules for conflict of interest, but honestly I have no clue.

It’s sorta what Republic had planned with their cseries. Find someone they can ‘codeshare’ to bypass scopes. If there is a way to stop that I would be ok with it.

What is to stop JB from code-sharing with Moxy and their 60 C-Series airplanes?

Could they replace us on JFK-ABQ, LGB-RNO, etc...?

They would fly the C-Series, effectively replacing JB's E190s, while we grow the Airbus fleet?

Does the TA allow for this?

If so, I'll vote no. Scope is my #1 concern.

GP

I think we covered this is yesterday's class...

Sounds like they could as long Jetblue is growing in block hours, pilots and it's not hub to hub. So in that scenario, it sounds like they'd have to both grow the Airbus fleet and replace the block hours lost from Moxy taking over Jetblue's 190 flying. Plus the factor that Jetblue makes a lot more money flying JFK-ABQ than having Moxy do it under a codeshare. (I'm not an expert on Section 1 by any means, just what I've been reading. I could be wrong.)

I honestly see it less of a risk that we lose existing flying but more that the airline uses codeshare with domestic carriers in the same way it uses international. There may be some new growth routes we don't serve that may end up being less risky and less capital intensive to serve with a domestic codeshare instead of growing more with our own equipment. Sell tickets onto Hawaiian, Alaska, Moxy, JetSuiteX, and, and, and....

Less revenue potential, but also a corresponding decrease in risk and capital. The areas most at risk are THE ENTIRE WEST COAST and parts of the Midwest. Just like our current trans-oceanic service...

Yeah, why merge with Alaska when we could just code share the whole west coast?

GP