So you believe they JUST(using your word) want to make an operating profit this year? Do you not think they would love to make much more than that so they can ask for their extra bonuses? Would you feel better if they tell you to expect full net profit this year, even when that's not the case? Because it sounds like you are complaining that mgmt is blowing smoke up your arse on the earnings calls. Do you want more smoke? Darken 'em cheeks? I think it's good that they tell us this, because with that information, YOU, as a pilot, can decide if you want to stick around for it. THAT IS WITHIN YOUR CONTROL. Believe it or not, you have some control to be at an Airline where morale is good. Save your own cheeks sir.

Anyway...

Your quote: "...We can charge more for premium seating and domestic first class. Doesn’t change when our underlying business..."

Tell me, have you been listening to other airlines' earnings calls? Where is the strength in the market? How do you already know that adding Domestic, Bluesky, etc., doesn't change anything before it even matures? They are planning to fit 20 airplanes this year with first class, along with Bluesky and whatever else the plans are. That's not a lot of 1st class seats compared to our total fleet, yet the projection is break-even or better on OP profit. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that as more premium seats for a projected premium market come online, that would further change the revenue problem? 2019 cost is not coming back; fix the revenue problem. This is why I reserve judgment and is not helping you to "burn it down" on APC.

I'm not saying this cooked-up plan will work, I'm not saying BK or some form of merger can't happen. But I at least know enough not to come on here just to talk BS that I know nothing about while crying for a merger and embarrassing myself. Being a negative nancy is one thing, but coming on here day after day begging for a merger over and over again is just straight embarrassment. Is it because it's anonymous here that you don't show some level of shame? You are on here begging for a merger to other pilots who don't even run the joint. Don't you see just how pathetic that is?

Now, the fact that you ask why we were flying those recently canceled routes in the first place easily tells me you wouldn't do any better in that role. You will complain about why they are not trying different routes, then when they try it and it doesn't work, you will complain about why we were there in the first place . Use your magic 8-ball and tell mgmt where to fly, please, sir. smh. Can't make this up.

I share the frustration of sheit not happening quickly enough. Break-even should've happened last year, but they find excuses for it. Domestic first should have happened years ago, yada yada ya. Ok, it didn't. What the ***k can I as a pilot do about it? Nothing, other than update the logbook and apply elsewhere. If you're not doing that, then you are in my camp, riding shotgun, waiting for the right sign to hop off or keep chugging.

You ask if I'm a "just fly the line and go home" kinda guy. Haha, tell me, what are you doing differently from that guy, that does not include applying for another job? Are you out there talking to ole Scotty to make an offer to B6 mgmt? Or are you just hopping on here, and anywhere else where someone will listen to you, talking BS while you...wait for it...fly the line and go home?

Your whole statement is all conjecture, not facts. Just like the rest of us, you have no idea, not even a clue, what will and won't work in the current "plan". Then you're going to highlight route reductions (while staying quiet when there is news of route expansions) and ask, "When do we get positivity"? Only to shape pessimism because ole Scotty won't buy you.

I hope you don't have the day to boast and say "I was right about us going into BK, WHERE IS BGOOD?!?!", for all of our sakes. I either want you to be right about a merger or mgmt to be right about the standalone plan. In fact, I welcome both. So call me out if/when it happens. Otherwise, stop embarrassing yourself and your fellow mates.

"or delta lets us make money..." hahaha not even gonna comment on that.

 

Perfect example of what I mean. Purposely misrepresenting numbers because STD wants mergers smh

 

Ok. Would you say STD statement is accurate? That the only growth this year is ASM E190 to A220? Without using the argument of "we were shrinking for yrs before so now we're just returning".

Just relative to last year speaking. Because for everyone, stop shrinking and returning is still better news.

 

Jetblue is growing based on ASM’s only. This meets the text book definition. Adding 220’s to a saturated market and claiming growth by spinning the ASM narrative IS NOT growth, it’s jetblue narrative.

Jetblue is not taking delivery of revenue producing 321 NEO’s until 2030-31. Grabbing market share in FLL means the potential to control revenue as the dominant carrier but given JetBlues limited ability to expand to high value cities the revenue market will always be limited. None of what Jetblue is doing is setting it up for long term success. Jetblue is relying on Bluesky in New York and American remaining, well, American in MIA. At any given time DAL can put Jetblue out of business and for what ever reason it hasn’t happened and maybe that so that United can’t compete in JFK.

JetBlues success is dependent on more factors outside its control than within and that concept and reality is directly related to bad management and a lack of network. Neither are scheduled to change anytime soon.

 

So you're saying that unless its A321s, growing the fleet with A220s beyond the 60 is not growth? Its just the company narrative? Also consider we are talking about actual fleet growth. Which is what we, as pilots, care more about.

And are you saying A220s don't produce revenue?

I won't conment on the rest because it's just your opinion.

 

Growing can be having 1 more flight than last year. What most of us are looking for is meaningful growth…..ya know so those downgraded can get their seats back and the rest of the fo’s that have been here for a decade can upgrade? None of that is happening.

 

I'll chip in. I agree, growing can mean that. But is that what is currently happening? Objectively no. We have actual fleet growth for this year and the next few years, A220s. I agree that we as pilots want fleet growth so upgrades can happen. But based on what benzoate and STD said, we are not growing, even though deliveries are coming. Because we care about where they put those hulls, not the fact that they are adding to our hulls I guess.

 

Jetblue is adding 220 to replace 190 is the same markets. Adding ASM’s into already saturated markets. Adding more seats does not necessarily produce more revenue. The 220’s are not producing more revenue they are simply less expensive to operate. Jetblue expected the 220’s to generate 4-5 million compared to an 190 but that, again according to management, is dictated by Delta or other legacies changing their price by $1. The 200 is supposed to be 30-40% more efficient. According to MSG the 321 NEO’s are producing revenue related to Mint doing well.

Spin it any way you want built 220’s competing against DAL and UAL are not becoming JetBlues profit center.

in the end it doesn’t matter what management tells you when the operation can’t get out of its ow way and the airline’s survival is based on flying jetblue card holders on United. That’s an inescapable reality devoid of rhetoric.

 

How about you stick to the question asked? I dont really give an opinion on opinions like this much because it usually becomes a circle jerk. And in the end none of us have any accurate idea of what we are talking about. You're even saying stuff that I'm not even talking about.

Again, Are you saying that unless it's A321s, growing the fleet with A220s beyond the 60 is not growth? In other words, from a pilot perspective, does adding A220s beyond the 60 NOT create a better opportunity for upgrades for b6 pilots?

And Again, Are you saying that A220s don't produce revenue? (Since you mentioned "revenue producing 321s) I dont care how you think it produces revenue. Does it produce revenue?

And No, I dont bet on what management says out of their mouth. I'm talking tangible evidence here.

 

So far as I’ve noticed, the “extra” seats on the 220, vs the 190 it’s replaced, are mostly a total waste. The route I frequently commute used to be a 190, with 90% load factors. Now it’s a 220, with 65% loads.

The 220 isn’t, in many cases anyway, unlocking some secret revenue stream. Places like BUF, CLE, PIT… they’re 100 seat markets. AVL was a bust. TVC’s always half empty. 140 seats to PQI is hilarious.

And the 220’s way less reliable than the 190, so I’m willing to bet it’s costing us more, whilst dragging down performance numbers. Seriously, that thing’s broken and delayed every time I’m in the back.