![]() |
Originally Posted by los74
(Post 3791271)
If the board does not have anyone qualified, the board goes shopping for CEOs. It seems the board operates just like B6s line ops. Only time will tell what kind of CEO Joanna will be, I am not confident B6 management knows what they are doing. The most logical thing would be to bring an experienced airline CEO with a reputable record from the outside and flush everyone from the old guard if there was ever a guard.
|
Unless the company can refute these claims, ALPA needs to demand board representation before we are all in line at the unemployment office.
|
Originally Posted by knewyork
(Post 3791136)
I don’t think there’s any evidence of that and so it’s hard to say that’s the most likely answer. I guess we’ll know in May.
He said "most likely" not "definitely". There is sufficient evidence for "most likely". |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 3791287)
Giggity has been in charge for two months and they have announced shrinking bases, routes, headcount, and fleets. She has already pushed off aircraft deliveries. The trend is reduction, so to assume she changes course only two months into her tenure is absurd.
He said "most likely" not "definitely". There is sufficient evidence for "most likely". Also, it’s unfair to say they are shrinking routes. At some point, all of the aircraft we have today will be flying regularly like they should be. It’s not like all the axed LA flying will result in airplanes sitting around. They will be flying. And if the routes out west weren’t making money, they should be gotten rid of. Fleets are not shrinking. We will have more airplanes in the fleet than today by the end of 2025. The 220 is keeping pace with 190 retirements and we will have over 60 by end of 2025. No, 2024-2025 is not growth, but they are constrained by the engine problems. |
In regards to the airliners.net guy, his information seems to be up until the merger. Is that right? Plans can change in a split second, especially with leadership change, and especially after a colossal change of direction like the merger decision was. JetBlue wanted with merger at some point. Now they don’t. What changed? And what else has changed since then?
|
Originally Posted by Wasntme
(Post 3791253)
can you paraphrase the stuff that was deleted at all?
https://postimg.cc/gallery/mLZzgCy |
Don't be surprised if they announce an order in may, but it's going to be for the years beyond our current order book.
|
Originally Posted by knewyork
(Post 3791307)
Sorry, I don’t agree. I’m not saying they talked about order. But it’s not like the only possibilities are an order or more deferrals.
Also, it’s unfair to say they are shrinking routes. At some point, all of the aircraft we have today will be flying regularly like they should be. It’s not like all the axed LA flying will result in airplanes sitting around. They will be flying. And if the routes out west weren’t making money, they should be gotten rid of. Fleets are not shrinking. We will have more airplanes in the fleet than today by the end of 2025. The 220 is keeping pace with 190 retirements and we will have over 60 by end of 2025. No, 2024-2025 is not growth, but they are constrained by the engine problems. |
Originally Posted by Flyby1206
(Post 3791313)
these are all the screenshots that I have, I think some have been removed
https://postimg.cc/gallery/mLZzgCy $38 for each espresso. Yow. Not good. On a side note this poster seems very plugged in and very much opposed to anything "premium" being done by the company. If it's not Baldanza I don't know who else it could be. |
Originally Posted by knewyork
(Post 3791308)
In regards to the airliners.net guy, his information seems to be up until the merger. Is that right? Plans can change in a split second, especially with leadership change, and especially after a colossal change of direction like the merger decision was. JetBlue wanted with merger at some point. Now they don’t. What changed? And what else has changed since then?
Originally Posted by MainlineFlyer
(Post 3791374)
Oof. Some of those were tough to read, but kind of exactly what we all kind of thought has been happening. No management skin in the game. The company is bank account to be run dry.
$38 for each espresso. Yow. Not good. On a side note this poster seems very plugged in and very much opposed to anything "premium" being done by the company. If it's not Baldanza I don't know who else it could be. Going to the Spirit model as they suggest seems like a terrible idea. It would alienate our entire customer base that chose us over spirit, even if it’s a higher fare. Any idea if Baldanza talks like a dramatic novel author? This guy’s posts read like an 80 year old mentor to a protagonist. Fixing the operation and eliminating $38 espressos (wild spending) seems like a better idea, while retaining the blueism. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:46 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands