This whole thing got brought up by someone saying we were close to SkyWest doing our flying and we saved ourselves with this CBA. I brought up an opposing viewpoint. And now I’m a snowflake? Ok. Has nothing to do with “losing.” I’m glad we have a CBA. Some of it is good. Most of it is ok. Some lacks. Some of us thought the risk was worth the reward for holding out. 74% didn’t. That’s fine. But fear of SkyWest flying our 190s was not valid, and that’s what I called out. The union didn’t mention skywest flying our planes as a concern until roadshow time. Scopes been TAd for a while and they didn’t jump to an agreement hastily after they TAd scope. It wasn’t a concern they mentioned in March. But after the AIP/TA, it helped sell the TA. That’s it. Wasn’t gonna happen. Especially since scope was TAd, they wouldn’t have blown up the whole TA if it was voted down, made a CPA with SKW, and started from scratch with no scope. That would have turned a somewhat contentious labor dispute to an all out war. But yeah, I guess I’m a snowflake for not agreeing with the fearful guys who saved the day.

Talking about the importance of scope is like making a persuasive argument about the importance of flying above stall speed; anyone who has done this for any period of time knows how fundamental scope is to any contract, and how without it your flying can be outsourced overnight.

But hey, this is probably your first airline, so I get it, you don't know what you don't know.

Just be glad the guys who negotiated this contract know better than you do and go grab yourself a beer.

2nd airline, and 2nd negotiation cycle, but thanks for the career advice. And I know the importance of scope, thanks. I also know jetblue wasn’t going to outsource flying. Scope was TAd. And if this was voted down, JB wouldn’t have blown all the progress out of the water and declared war by outsourcing flying. They would have addressed the shortfalls and fixed it. Easy to look back and say they would have and feel like you took credit for saving the pilot group. No one will truly know, but outsourcing regionals doesn’t make sense from a business standpoint for jetblue. Which is why they agreed to scope during negotiations and didn’t just outsource flying 6 months ago when they could have.

The point was simply to point out what we would NEVER DO... right up until they decided to do it. I don't think this was a threat in the near term. But it's only a CEO or BOD change away.

Yes, we could still get that email. Infact, when we get that email, there's nothing to stop it. An M&A event is a certainty at some point.

Trying to stay out of this battle royal, but I agree with you whole heartedly that an M&A event is coming.

I hear ya...

I did get pulled from a trip the other day to my surprise. CS stated we'd go over 14hrs so they were recrewing it.

I'll take my win, thanks gigitty.

We all lost. Don't kid yourself.

Never said we were close..... Throwing out a scenario off the top of my head. As JB struggles with the transition to a new fleet, we utilize a regional to "help." Of course they don't fly all 60 E190s, who's got the staffing for that?! Plus it would upset the pilots right? But 10, or 20 planes...you never know.

You're talking as if JB never used regional before. Never found themselves in a pickle and dialed 1-800-RentAJet. You're right man....we had scope locked down years ago and we didn't even know it.

Scope was in-fact TAd early in the process. Because JB didn't want a regional... And our hubs, gates and business model don't support one.

Bluedriver, the point is that THIS Jetblue didn’t want that. The guys running it in 4 years may very well want it.

As far as business model supporting it, sure it could.

America West had regional feed.
ATA had regional feed.
Frontier had regional feed.
Midwest Express had regional feed.
Alaska has regional feed.

We are not too small to have RJs and turbo props take our flying.

Back to lurking and looking forward to moving on from this tired discussion....