Not what I asked.
Would you have accepted the CBA (if everything else was great) with no scope? It’s worth nothing anyway right.

Ok fine. When I sat there and watched the presentations at investor day (days) since I have been here. They said we believe in organic growth, we aren’t interested in destroying our “culture” the secret sauce of JetBlue that fuels our business and makes us different. We believe that culture is why people fly us and on and on

I guess that isn’t a business plan.

So when in and out says we want to grow without franchising and keep control of everything that isn’t a business plan?

I would think the original business plan was to bring humanity to air travel and part of that was to remain independent (nope)

Keep the culture
(Killing it everyday)

No first class
(Hello mint)

Standard cabins all the same leg room
(Hello eml)

Not following the other guys
(Sure we will charge for bags)

Only one type of plane
(Nope)

Soon we will have basic economy fares.


Now I still say telling the investors of all people that you believe in organic growth is definitely a business plan. All of the other stuff as well as the merger is simply a company changing plans and ideas. I don’t have an issue with it, adapt or die. I’m just saying I don’t trust the company. If they are willing to change all of the above why not other things?

I don’t think anybody is arguing we should have had no scope. The argument being addressed is that this CBA is/was a “win” or a “must vote yes to lock in scope” because it has scope. All you yes voters seem to point to scope and say “see! I told you so! Now we are protected from big bad RJs! They were coming it was just a matter of time!....” Meanwhile no voters (and BD who I think voted yes) point out facts that support the notion that RJs weren’t going to happen anyway and your “win” was basically a zero cost item, and that it still has flaws as it currently is. And then you and CoolHand retort with silly ideas like “look at the virgin acquisition attempt...see? We were gonna get RJs if we voted it down” (which btw sounds as silly as some of the junk on cnn).

The CBA is largely a turd, but many yes voters point back to scope as the justification for their decision and/or their retrospective “win,” when the reality is RJ scope wasn’t really on the table, despite N8’s fear/sell job. The scope we do have still has plenty of holes.

So yeah, we absolutely need scope. That’s not even a question...I don’t think anyone engaged in this discussion is saying otherwise. In fact we need better scope. But we also need a better CBA outside of just section 1, and we voted in a substandard, industry lagging one. Now we are back full circle with you about to say “it’s not lagging...we have the 2nd best scope section of all the majors and that’s what’s important. Are you willing to give that up for the rest of the CBA to be average/leading?”

Hopefully next round, all the fearful ones of the past will have the stones to demand/hold out for more and have a higher self-worth. Every negotiating cycle, at every airline, CBA or not (even daddy D) Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt comes out during voting time. It’s always something with FUDsters who have an agenda. The economy. RJs. Airplanes. More flying. Cost. Profitability. Sustainability. Blah blah blah.


Edit: TL;DR version:
You guys keep appearing to say we had a binary choice: scope or decent contract...or that we had only that one opportunity to vote in scope. That wasn’t the case at all.

I voted "NO" with whatever you think is in there right now.

So ... you figure it out.

Again not what I asked but a standard answer from you.

I never said you need to vote for the CBA because of scope.

I never said it was a binary choice

I never said RJs were coming anytime now

I never said we don’t need a better CBA, that’s pretty much sop otherwise why negotiate every few years? Even Delta pilots want a better CBA.

I never said because we tried to buy virgin well we are getting RJs if we vote this down.

I was simply pointing out stuff the company said it would never do was rapidly done or tried.

The last point in the circle is just a question of if the rest of the CBA was good and there was no scope would you vote yes. People seem to say well the company wouldn’t do RJs and it’s a dead model and worth nothing so if that’s the case yes some would vote for a contract that was great in other areas but left scope open because it won’t happen and is worthless.

Anyway round and round this could go.

Oh missed but everything else was great.

When you say scope what are you referring too?

I see B2, C, D and E as good.

The fixation of RJs being scoped out as having any value is what I’m referring too.

So yes if everything else was good to great I would have voted yes.

Personally, no, I would not advise a yes vote without RJ scope, but that's also partially because I know it costs us nothing to get RJ scope anyway. You know, because the company has no viable use for them...

I hear ya, thanks

Makes sense