Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > JetBlue
JetBlue Latest and Greatest >

JetBlue Latest and Greatest

Notices

JetBlue Latest and Greatest

Old 02-07-2022, 09:04 AM
  #12181  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2018
Position: CRJ-200 FO
Posts: 134
Default

Ok hear me out a second - I think JetBlue + Allegiant would actually be more useful for filling in the center of the country (though not sure if our product is too expensive for some of the smaller markets they serve). However, Allegiant in the last three years has really grown at a couple major airports - BNA to 25 cities, CVG to 17 cities, IND to 13 cities. They also have vacation packages that could overlap with JetBlue vacations. While different engines, they have 113 Airbus. And our A220s would be excellent on some of their longer routes (CVG-LAX is one I can think of).
SoarHigh757 is offline  
Old 02-07-2022, 10:56 AM
  #12182  
SDQ Base Chief
 
Flyby1206's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 5,549
Default

Originally Posted by SoarHigh757 View Post
Ok hear me out a second - I think JetBlue + Allegiant would actually be more useful for filling in the center of the country (though not sure if our product is too expensive for some of the smaller markets they serve). However, Allegiant in the last three years has really grown at a couple major airports - BNA to 25 cities, CVG to 17 cities, IND to 13 cities. They also have vacation packages that could overlap with JetBlue vacations. While different engines, they have 113 Airbus. And our A220s would be excellent on some of their longer routes (CVG-LAX is one I can think of).
Flyby1206 is offline  
Old 02-07-2022, 12:34 PM
  #12183  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 1Durrty5
Posts: 290
Default

Originally Posted by SoarHigh757 View Post
Ok hear me out a second - I think JetBlue + Allegiant would actually be more useful for filling in the center of the country (though not sure if our product is too expensive for some of the smaller markets they serve). However, Allegiant in the last three years has really grown at a couple major airports - BNA to 25 cities, CVG to 17 cities, IND to 13 cities. They also have vacation packages that could overlap with JetBlue vacations. While different engines, they have 113 Airbus. And our A220s would be excellent on some of their longer routes (CVG-LAX is one I can think of).
Not likely to happen. They're two separate companies with polar opposite business strategies. Allegiant has low utilization flying from nowhere to somewhere, packing as many low ticket price, high ancillary spending passengers as possible. Meanwhile Jetblue has a highly utilized fleet flying from large and mid size markets with a full service product and relatively little focus on ancillary revenue. The 737max order just further divides the two carriers. Besides, Allegiant spends their extra money investing in cool stuff like arcades and go-karts while jetblue invests in weather machines or something. I just don't see enough synergies to warrant spending money to combine the two.

I agree with you that jetblue needs to focus on the Midwest more than it is currently. Hopefully the NEA has shown there's more of an appetite for jetblue in more places than network planning had thought beforehand. The lower CASM of the A220 can provide a cost advantage or at least narrow the difference between it and the ULCCs to carry out that expansion. For now and the next several years, I don't see much Midwest expansion besides the current NYC/BOS/Florida to there structure, like the already announced MKE and MCO flying.
The701Express is offline  
Old 02-07-2022, 01:58 PM
  #12184  
Gets Weekends Off
 
todd1200's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

Originally Posted by antbar01 View Post
You have to think that undermining our scope language would be a significant benefit to the company if they pursued an Alaska merger. We would have almost no ability as a group to stop them from bringing regional flying to Jetblue in that case (I welcome corrections if I am wrong). Best case scenario we impose something between our (pretty good) scope and Alaska’s (no scope) scope.
The merger and successorship section of our contract (1.E) is pretty strong:

"...until a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement is ratified the status quo as specified in the agreement(s) of the impacted pilot group(s) will apply. Each pre-merger carrier shall keep separate flight operations of the carriers and will not transfer or interchange pilots or aircraft between the carriers unless otherwise negotiated and agreed to by the Association, and shall ensure that all Company aircraft on hand or on order at the time of the transaction are operated only by JetBlue Pilots."

So unless the collective group votes in a joint contract with weaker scope language, they can't farm out any of our flying.

Or maybe they could just violate our scope and we could file a grievance and spend a couple years meeting every so often to talk about possible solutions.
todd1200 is offline  
Old 02-07-2022, 03:21 PM
  #12185  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 194
Default

Originally Posted by antbar01 View Post
You have to think that undermining our scope language would be a significant benefit to the company if they pursued an Alaska merger. We would have almost no ability as a group to stop them from bringing regional flying to Jetblue in that case (I welcome corrections if I am wrong). Best case scenario we impose something between our (pretty good) scope and Alaska’s (no scope) scope.
Our pretty good scope they’re currently violating willingly and showing it off to the public and to us. Yeah I’d like to stay away from southwest unless I plan to be a career FO. I rather quit that day and go to Spirit/Frontier. Although I’m sure the company won’t really come asking for my opinion on who and when to merge.
KNOTAPILOT is offline  
Old 02-07-2022, 08:54 PM
  #12186  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 205
Default

Originally Posted by todd1200 View Post

Or maybe they could just violate our scope and we could file a grievance and spend a couple years meeting every so often to talk about possible solutions.
ding ding ding
antbar01 is offline  
Old 02-08-2022, 05:49 AM
  #12187  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 590
Default

Originally Posted by todd1200 View Post

Or maybe they could just violate our scope and we could file a grievance and spend a couple years meeting every so often to talk about possible solutions.
“we’re just going to do it anyway”….WC
avi8orco is offline  
Old 02-08-2022, 10:43 AM
  #12188  
facing forward
 
727_Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: forward facing stick actuator
Posts: 288
Default

I wonder if the DOJ will approve the NK F9 merger and still balk at the B6 AA NEA????
727_Driver is offline  
Old 02-08-2022, 10:52 AM
  #12189  
Covfefe
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Default

Originally Posted by 727_Driver View Post
I wonder if the DOJ will approve the NK F9 merger and still balk at the B6 AA NEA????
Yes and yes. NK/F9 combined is still a small player with regards to overall market share and total size relative to other airlines, and both provide low cost travel compared to legacy counterparts, and still will going forward. AA is a mega player, viewed as less friendly by the DOJ to average consumers, made even larger with tie ups on the east and west coast. There might be resistance to F9/NK, but it will be minimal. That said, I think NEA survives scrutiny but may need some more divestitures.
BeatNavy is offline  
Old 02-09-2022, 10:27 AM
  #12190  
The REAL Bluedriver
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,860
Default

Originally Posted by antbar01 View Post
You have to think that undermining our scope language would be a significant benefit to the company if they pursued an Alaska merger. We would have almost no ability as a group to stop them from bringing regional flying to Jetblue in that case (I welcome corrections if I am wrong). Best case scenario we impose something between our (pretty good) scope and Alaska’s (no scope) scope.
I don't think undermining JetBlue pilots scope, in general, is a current priority for the company. They would need or want some scope relief if they acquired or merged with Alaska, but otherwise I don't see a need or desire for scope relief outside of what they seek regarding the NEA.

Remember JB management agreed to the current scope just 3ish years ago. They did so relatively early in the negotiations timeline, and without much of a fight at all. Virtually all of JB's hubs are in extremely slot and/or gate constrained airports, and those airports are likely to be more constrained in the future, not less. It makes very little sense to use those extremely limited resources to fly a 70 seat jet at a relatively much higher CASM than a much lower CASM A220 (the future of JB's small gauge fleet).

In addition to the gate and slot constraints, pilots may well be the limiting growth factor in the not so far off future. If you are having an almost impossible time staffing the fleet, do you want to use those few pilots to move 70 people to BFE or 140-200 people to somewhere higher demand? Which of those two aircraft would be more enticing to the small pool of available pilots?
Bluedriver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Zoomie
Major
36
01-28-2015 11:44 AM
iahflyr
Major
27
09-30-2014 09:04 AM
Mason32
Regional
270
07-27-2010 06:01 PM
Scott34567
Regional
39
05-29-2008 07:08 PM
Sir James
Major
0
07-29-2005 07:02 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices