Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- JetBlue (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/)

- - Yes vs. no (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/115117-yes-vs-no.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by expectholding (Post 2642809)

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/...t-structu.aspx

Wall St estimated in Jan a contract that was an additional $100m/yr. Not so sure they’ll be happy.

First of all, that is Adam Levine Weinberg...he’s not exactly Wall st. He’s a writer at MF, not an analyst at any WS firm. Secondly, and more to the point, his last paragraph still holds true. Priest has said twice now, in this last earnings call and the previous one (I think it was then) that our ex fuel CASM will be mostly flat (0-1%) thru 2020, inclusive of a pilot deal being offset by cost cutting measures. They wouldn’t give guidance like that if they know the pilot contract will cause their ex fuel casm to rise...that’d be fraud. So either they’ve cut significantly more than $100mil a year, or will as this TA is implemented, or this contract won’t cost them more than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatNavy (Post 2642817)

I have a feeling that was one of the reasons for this cost cutting program. I also think they want to go over the pond and expand jetblue and if they don’t control costs Wall St will freak. We already saw Jamie Baker question the point of growth.

They kind of get stuck if you don’t grow someone will...Bos could be a major SWA hub now or FLL could be a major Frontier hub, if we hadn’t taken advantage of it. Also growth almost always means costs.

We are sitting on great geography for Europe if that 321lr or XLR works. But that would be growth and jetblue will have to defend that idea. Wall St wasn’t a fan of mint either but it has really helped our transcon stuff.

I guess we will see. God knows we will be the last to know with this ELT.

Point is, you’re speculating instead of dealing in facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by expectholding (Post 2642760)

You really don’t know what you are talking about. As was pointed out at the roadshow the BJ has had “no interest” in many things and then turned around and pursued those things. No doubt that United would love our scope and, in fact, they have said so.

What is really ridiculous though is the statement that if there is a merger with Alaska we will lose our protections, including the RJ protection.

If there is a merger with Alaska (or anyone else) our contract and its scope remain in place until there is both a JCBA and an agreement or arbitration award on seniority integration. Base on all this deal being better than Alaska’s in most key issues (have you seen their RJs flying around or their lack of an ADG or their vacation distro dropping to 3% in summer?) I’m pretty sure their pilot group would work to keep our scope as well as the bulk of our agreement.

Or we could, as you suggest, go into a merger with no CBA and no scope, and deprive ourselves of any leverage in the JCBA negotiations and completely prejudice ourselves in a seniority integration arbitration. That doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.

Where did I suggest, as you say, that we go into a merger with no CBA?

The company has no interest in using RJs because there literally is no business case for us to do so. Literally none whatsoever. They would NOT have agreed to it if they did.

As for our scope in a merger situation, Continental had the best scope of any legacy airline. They had an outright ban on any Regional Jet over 50 seats. Period. How did that scope fair in the united merger? I'll give you a hint, look across the ramp at Newark.

Do you have any more stupid things to say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmitteyB (Post 2642799)

Why do you think we couldn't hold onto this? Or at least negotiate a JCBA with wind down provisions?

Depends on the negotiating environment. It's not necessarily a shoe-in that ALK scope (or lack thereof) would prevail.

Wow, at least you asked in a respectful intelligent way.

Continental had the best scope language of any legacy airline. They had an outright ban on any Regional Jet with more than 50 seats. Continental pilots were very proud of that scope and fought hard to keep it that way while Delta and United were giving up 76 seats. In the JCBA negotiations, they tried to keep their 50 seat RJ scope limit, but as you can see next time you land in EWR, that didn't happen.

I do not think we would lose all scope in a JCBA with Alaska. I think it's very likely our scope section survives mostly intact, but would probably allow the current fleet of Alaska RJs to continue. That is my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by expectholding (Post 2642809)

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/...t-structu.aspx

Wall St estimated in Jan a contract that was an additional $100m/yr. Not so sure they’ll be happy.

This agreement almost certainly doesn't cost more than 100m in the first year. Probably doesn't exceed 100m by much the second year. The 750m is largely backend loaded due to COLA increases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by expectholding (Post 2642896)

Point is, you’re speculating instead of dealing in facts.

It's not speculation to say Adam Levine Wienberg is NOT a Wall Street analyst. He's an opinion writer for the motley fool.

And, as Navy said, it is NOT speculation that our CFO has said flat'ish CASM through 2020 inclusive of a pilot deal.

You have a serious attitude problem and agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluedriver (Post 2642624)

This TA has SOME scope. The scope prevents all the things this company has no intentions of doing in the foreseeable future, which is the only reason the agreed to it. The scope also allows the things the company DOES intend to use, and that's why they required it to be allowed.

Our RJ scope, which the company had no interest in, is gone with a merger with Alaska (we will have negotiated limits, but we will lose the outright ban), so don't get too excited.

Glad the TA has more protections than the PEA, but understand it's not SWA scope and we haven't yet won a permanent victory.

I don't disagree with you.

The point I was making is for the guys that say "I just want the Delta contract".

That implies that you want tons of our flying to be wh0red out to every regional out there like the Delta/UAL pilots agreed to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishNJ (Post 2643337)

I just don't think that's what "they" mean when they say that. They want compensation and benefits on par with our premium CBA peers, but that doesn't mean they want or will accept RJs in the fleet. And I don't think, SWA as the example, that you need to have RJs to have a great W2 contract.

Doesn't matter though, contract is settled for the next 7-8 years or until a JCBA...

Now the fight to get JB to abide and implement the CBA begins.