I can’t see it happening unless JB comes close to BK. SW isn’t going to pay $10 for something that only adds $5 of value to their company. AirTran was cheap because they were having financial problems. JB is nowhere near that situation.

The JBLU board of directors doesn’t want to sell the company, and if they did it would take a giant premium to our current ~$5bil valuation to get them to change their mind. I agree our JFK/BOS presence is valuable, but the BOD has visions of grandeur far higher than that.

Now let’s talk a few years in the future if the economy softens, JB bungles the TATL expansion and costs soar through the roof. If JB is on the brink of bankruptcy then I think you’ll see the vultures come circling (and it won’t be just SW).

The merger is 2 years away. Free beer during the announcement.

Throw in some free pizza and I’m there! :p

Sure, but it’s coming out of your profit sharing.

I guess the B2 are the JB pilots without a degree....

That’s SSI here at JB. Can’t confirm.

Because your management had no intent to have a JB Express operation, so its an easy gimme so the MEC could save face and accept a lower than average contract and claim they got a big scope win. If JB management wanted a big RJ operation, they could have done it at any time in the past, and never did.

SW/JB would make no sense.

Delta or United could buy JB, but it would be better for a purchaser to wait. In 2015 JB had a market value of $8.4B and today its $4.8B. The trend is down, so maybe 1-3 years from now when JB is more affordable someone would buy them. Fragmentation is highly likely with a JB sale, because of the concentration of NY assets, which DL, UA, and AA all have huge bases there.

JBLU’s market cap is just slightly over book value. In other words, it’s market cap is priced just a tad higher than the sum of its assets if it were to be liquidated or otherwise sold off in parts. I don’t think you will see the JBLU share price drop below it’s book value, and there’s only about another buck or so to go down until it reaches that point. A sale would require a decent premium...I’d guess $25/sh.

Why was scope one of the first TA’s?

Cause when it was TA’d a few days laters OAG published HAL from LGB to HNL as a codeshare.

That may be true NOW, but there is no way to predict B6’s future. Once you give away Scope, you never get it back without losing several pounds of flesh. It really wasn’t in play this round, but it had to be protected.

yea, we should have just taken no scope. we could have gotten like $5/hr more and profit sharing.

We already have a big RJ operation and yes it was a huge win for the MEC. One of the few we got on CBA 1.0 but a big one none the less, we will see how 2.0 goes in 2022.

So we had a choice between scope or a higher rates? News to me. Sounds like you are creating a false narrative of a choice to justify your yes vote and rewrite the history of our TA. Company didn’t want outsourced RJs. Period. If they did they would have done it before we had a CBA. Therefore that piece of scope didn’t take much negotiating capital. But sure, keep pushing N8’s narrative that they would outsource all our RJs if we voted no. Or that we couldn’t achieve a better CBA unless we sold scope. That simply isn’t true.

Easy to criticize scope when times are good.

We hedged our bets. Plain and simple. Lock it up while we can because like others said you can’t reclaim scope. See United fighting tooth and nail for 76-seaters and Kirby is literally telling them NO WAY.

I don’t care what our business model is today. It won’t be the same in 10 years.

Some of you military folks who have never been affected by an economic downturn or regional rat race will probably never understand. But go talk to the Airways and Delta guys and ask them how it feels to be furloughed while you see brand new 76-seat airplanes be delivered to a wholly owned or worse a non union airline. Your option? Go work for $30/hr there.

Some of you have such thick skulls I wonder how you even absorb information at all.

So we can revisit this thread in years if history calls for it, but if our scope somehow saves your job and your house and feeds your kids, you can thank that MEC and pilots who realized how important it really is/was.

We can argue the merits of the rest of contract until we are blue in the face, but Section 1 will ALWAYS be a non-starter.

We didn’t vote on only one section. We voted on an entire CBA (which was lacking). The whole tone of the NC/MEC during most of the negotiations was “quality over speed.” Even in the labor dispute times. Until the AIP. Then it was “we have to vote this in at all costs because scope and mergers and downturns.” We are now 1.5 years post AIP. In this time we wouldn’t have regional feed and would most likely have achieved TA2. As you said, we can argue the merits of the entire CBA ad nauseum. But you don’t vote yes over one section, or over fear. Everyone should have simply voted over whether or not the CBA has a high enough overall value to warrant a yes vote. And if your mil comment was directed at me, I was at a bottom feeder regional working under a bankruptcy contract. I am a fierce advocate of scope. But I’m also not going to vote on a substandard CBA because of scope, when the fear being spread by N8 was unfounded and part of his agenda to get his baby approved.

I don't recall anyone saying that it isn't good that JB pilots locked out RJ scope. Literally NO ONE said that. Not a single person has said that scope should have been traded for something else either. Has not been said.

With that said, scope was agreed to early and without much/any negotiating capital because the company got what THEY wanted (virtually unlimited domestic codeshare (to be used in the future, standby) and virtually unlimited international codeshare). And the company gave up NOTHING that they saw value in... The company operates in some of the highest cost, most gate and slot restricted airspace/airports in the world, and they do so under a low-cost business model, at a time in history when we are all approaching a shortage of qualified pilots... The company has CLEARLY been in an ***UP***-gauging trend for several years. There is literally NOTHING that makes sense about JB running an outsourced RJ network.

That was never really a threat. Now domestic codeshare on the other hand...

With that said, yes I do think it is great to have RJs locked out, no matter how remote the possibility is/was. I would have strongly preferred, in addition, to see stronger restrictions on domestic/international codeshare.

But understand that big "win" cost the company nothing from their current or future business plans. And cost them nothing from their Treasury.

Which all means it is/was illogical to achieve less in other sections because of this "win". Remember, the company agreed early to this scope section... Because they got what they wanted and gave NOTHING they didn't want to give. Who "won" in that case exactly?

Agreed. We didn’t vote on a single section. But scope was a deal breaker for a large amount of YES voters.

Military comment was not at you. I was simply making a generalizing statement that military folks have a hard time understanding the importance of scope.

I don’t know Nate, have never met him, but I also don’t believe a normal line pilot understands how tense airline negotiations work. You can’t just stomp your foot and complain like children. A mediator will accuse you of negotiating in bad faith and your leverage drops drastically. So, I think we should acknowledge that.

Again - an open Section 1 leaves us vulnerable. So in my opinion we WON that. I don’t care what the company thinks. They will have to fight very hard to bust our scope, yesterday, today and in the future. So “WIN” is yet to be determined.

The question isn’t whether the company valued it 3 years ago. It’s will the company value it in the future? You buy life insurance when you are healthy. It doesn’t hold much value while you are alive. Sure it helps you sleep at night, but the value lies upon your death. I see scope as the same. No value today, but could pay off the in the future.

Your comments on the domestic and international codeshare and cross-ticketing stuff are good points. And the company has carte blanch autonomy as long as the airline isn’t shrinking. So yes that is a real threat and a hole.

Domestic narrow body code-sharing only "pays pennies on the dollar."

Yes, it does. With zero risk.

We have nearly $8 billion in revenue and generate 5 cents on every dollar.

Is brand neutral the future?

I believe its because your management is setting the company up for a sale. It would be difficult with an RJ operation, since the most likely purchasers are already at their scope limit, and your RJ feed would have put them over the limit and caused problems.

Proposing the pseudo-international flights are a good example because JB lacks the economies of scale to make that work, like we have seen WOW and others not be able to survive without a fully integrated network.

I’d say no merger now, but if the stock goes under $4B there are going to be some interested parties.

Pretty much none of this is true.

Thank you.

It kind of amazes me to watch the legacy try to claw back scope and yet we have our guys saying ehhh it wasn’t in the plan so they just gave it to us. Our management gets more like a legacy management team everyday it would never surprise me if they went hmmmmm maybe we could do JetBlue express.

JetBlue doesn’t have a network out of BOS or JFK? I don’t see how they can’t make 321lrs flying across the Atlantic work. Most of the plane will be mint it’s not like they are betting the farm here,

I’m not saying we aren’t for sale but I don’t see TATL as something that won’t work. They have already played around with the product and the plane and it had a big impact on our transcon performance so I don’t see or the Atlantic as that big of a stretch.

Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons why it won’t work:
Slot control and JBs inability to gain any meaningful/desirable slots.
JB flying into LGW, not LHR.
On time performance (or you know, lack thereof).
Lack of larger network.
Fare wars with VERY determined legacy carriers keeping prices lower than JB can keep up with.

Blah....Economies of Scale is a macroeconomic buzzword.

JetBlue doesn’t want any part of connecting traffic beyond the local city pair. They want the premium traffic of the local market.

Now if you want to talk about the lost revenue with the LR from international cargo operations - then you'd have a point.

It wasn't in JB's plan, and they did give it to JBALPA without a fight. No one has suggested the pilots were wrong to fight for no RJs, but as it turns out, no fight was needed. As for legacies, RJs WERE in the corporate plan and business model, and those pilots gave scope up voluntarily in some cases, and in bankruptcy in other cases. And yes, they are trying hard to claw that back.

But one thing has nothing to do with the other, and NO ONE has suggested JB pilots shouldn't have expected or demanded RJ scope.

But.... you seem to suggest that JB doesn't give any consideration to their future business plans when negotiating a CBA or otherwise...

And... you've been at JB a long time now, when have you EVER known them to have extra gates? Other than LGB, when have you ever known them to have extra surplus slots? The Industry is going into a period of very tight pilot supply. JB has, for years now, been in a consistent UP-gauging trend. 200 seat A321s (when not chasing premium Mint revenue). Swapping 100 seat E180s for 140 seat A220-***300**s. A corporation almost exclusively focused on cutting costs to the bone, lower CASM.

Now you want me to believe they are going to use those valuable gates (that they don't have) and valuable slots (that they don't have) and valuable pilots (that will be in very short supply and will be needed by JBLU and all the legacy airlines) and will suddenly reverse their corporate philosophy of UP-gauging... to not move 140-200 people per departure with that valuable (and scarce) infrustructure, but to instead move 50-76 people in a high-CASM low-service RJ?

NOT. BUYING. IT.

Hey man capitalize all you want but I never know what they will do or who will run the company. I have 27 years left and this issue won’t be an issue.

But are we going to argue that JetBlue doesn’t reverse their corporate philosophy? Yeah it’s up gauging NOW, but I would argue Mint, charging for bags and the attempted purchase of Virgin were some big changes in philosophy.

If you say NO ONE should have not expected us to demand or get RJ scope what is the issue? We got it, oh but they just gave it to us. So after we got it should we have given it back? If the company would have waited till the end and fought us on it would that be better?

Heck to me it makes the company look dumb. Depends on how you want to play it. I would have held the “worthless” thing till the end and made the union fight to get it giving it more value in their mind, while the company doesn’t actually care.

Now I know the argument is going to be well “it showed good faith” and they used that to show they were negotiating when they really weren’t and it kept us passive and the union used scope to sell the CBA and on and on. Probably really strong arguments there.

So this just goes round and round. In the end we have scope and that’s good but we have work to do on other sections as does every CBA out there.( ours might require more)

Exactly.

They want to serve the top markets from Boston and London is one of them. If they have the plane they already fly and the product and the geography why wouldn’t you do it?

The problem is guys say "yeah, this , that, and the next everything sucks in the CBA, but at least we got scope"... Which is another way of saying "yeah, it all sucks, but at least we got something that the company valued less than a bag of Blue Chips".

And yeah, the company COULD change nearly everything about it's business plan.

And unicorns and Sasquatchs COULD be real.

And I COULD come home to find that my wife has hired Jessica Alba as a live-in nanny.

As I said, no JB pilot has suggested that RJ scope wasn't expected/demanded, but it's not a good justification for expecting/justifying a crummy CBA.

Also, 27 years left and this issue won't be an issue?

1. 27 years is a lot of contract iterations... How many pilot groups in history have never given up RJ scope in a negotiations? 1? Company dangles a huge carrot and 51% of the Walnuts go for it, not possible?

2. Merge with Alaska which has RJs and NO scope. Arbitrator rules that scope must allow the existing RJs, not possible? Or, joint CBA negotiations and the company dangles a huge carrot and 51% of the Walnuts from both groups go for it, not possible?

3. JB is acquired by DL, UAL or AA, game over. Not possible?

4. JB files for bankruptcy, judge rules the company can subcontract RJs... not possible?

5. Moxy starts a large West coast operation and unlimited domestic codeshares with JB and JB abandons it's promise to growth on the West coast. Your seniority would be a fraction of what it could/should have been. Same goes with an unlimited domestic codeshare with Alaska. Allowed and DEFINITELY an "issue". Not possible?

6. Skywest offers an at-risk RJ network to JB and agrees to structure it as a codeshare. Allowed and possible. Not possible?

Not to mention the virtually unlimited international codeshare.

27 years, this issue WON'T be an issue?

😁

I don’t think these LR/XLR’s will be touching ORD, EWR, PHL etc...before heading over the pond. I think Transatlantic OTP will and hopefully be stronger than the rest of the system.

This.
Our biggest OTP problem with long haul will be the misconnects in the system. But they’re planning for O&D traffic so that should be minimal.

At some point though they’re going to have to announce stuff... like where in Europe we plan to go. 😆

This indeed. The trans-atlantic flights will go largely one-time, but this mis-connects could be biblical. You may be underestimating how many connecting itineraries they are planning, but that's just my opinion.

Now out of those coulds which did happen that we both saw?

We will never have a first class everyone is equal.

We will only grow organically.

We won’t be like those other airlines and charge for bags.

Would you prefer we didn’t have scope? I guess we could have skipped it because in all of the above you suggest it’s pretty much worthless.

Dude I don’t know what will happen in 27 years but I feel better walking in with scope on the first contract.

It’s funny you come up with all of these things yet when I say the company could change business plans you say nope not buying it.

So it’s a theoretical one sided argument like what could have maybe happened if we voted no. I really don’t feel like playing that game. I don’t even know if I’ll be alive in 27 years and I’m not going to take the time (especially with you) (that’s not in a rude way) to try to debate every scenario.

Again we have scope it’s good. There is other stuff to work on.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the contract needed to be done because of scope or anything like that. I as well as you knew that the company would most likely violate the contract day one. And it has. Or find a work around, this new coat. I’m just saying it not as worthless as some say. That’s all

In the history of M&A’s you really think on time % has been a pivotal factor in a decision? “We’d have merged with them but their on-time was 75% not 81%.”

Those #’s are already cooked into the books. And that’s that.

Nope they along with the pilots will probably be their own airline in an airline. If I was guessing.

You're talking about minor changes to the business plan here. Moving to start an RJ network would be trying to defy the laws of physics with respect to infrastructure and business plan.

And unicorns. And Jessica Alba nanny.

😁

To your first question, I have said:

"As I said, no JB pilot has suggested that RJ scope wasn't expected/demanded, but it's not a good justification for expecting/justifying a crummy CBA."

To this: "Dude I don’t know what will happen in 27 years..." You said you had 27 years left and that this issue wouldn't be an issue. That's the whole reason I wrote that long post.

And you say, you're glad we have scope. I say, it's partial scope, hence the content of the long post.