No one's talking about PREVENTING them except you. We're talking about putting the handcuffs on them so we don't get hosed out of jobs in the name of revenue and profits. I have no problem code sharing with most of our international partners as I don't see us ever flying from JFK or BOS to Dubai. It's the domestic routes that have me concerned. I COULD see us doing LGB-HNL if we got bigger aircraft. But it's cheaper to codeshare with Hawaiian. We COULD start service into Midwestern markets, but it's cheaper to codeshare with American. Hence the reason we need to keep restrictions in place.

You are arguing semantics.

Can we agree right now you have NO protection at all? That with a stroke of an email key everything can change? That they probably already have the code share agreement in place by whats been said during the investor call in and quarterly reports? That they expect you to pay for your raise with give backs?

How about this? Can we agree that through a union the american pilots were able to protect themsevles down from imposed unlimited domestic codeshare to 50% and then down to 5% in the combined UsAirways LOA? That without their union they like us would have been at the mercy of thier management? That they wihout thier union would have unlimited codehare right now?

Unions can prevent codeshare as well. SWAPA has done it for years.

It is notably inferred by benz and his goons that a union would prevent codesharing. Read one of his last posts. He says a union couldn't prevent codeshares, but then says that ALPA could give us the resources to prevent codeshares (at least that is what he seems to infer).

The problem with both your arguments is history.

I am not saying that it wouldn't help, but it will not be our codeshare savior.

We are going to grow, even with the codeshares. You mention American. They want to codeshare with us. We can either codeshare with them, get the revenue from it, and continue to expand into OTHER cities. Or, we could say NO, and be forced to start those new routes ourselves, while competing in a fare war with the new AA on those routes. And those new routes that we have to do battle on, are planes that can't be used to start other routes that could have been more profitable...

You guys that think that we should just deny any codesharing because it would force us to fly to Hawaii, or Dublin, or wherever are delusional. It won't. All it will do is limit our revenue that could be used to start flying other places. It WON'T make them order 100 more new planes so that we can fly those routes ourselves.... If we aren't ready yet, we aren't ready yet.

Personally, I would rather codeshare with AA on routes that we don't have to start an all-out war, and use those revenues to start new routes to other places where we don't have to have a fare war.

Would that leverage of massive shortfalls somehow disapear if the union vote was tomorrow? Is there a better time to have the negotiation than when we are so far behind people will be leaving unless the company moves quickly?


Ill leave what I posted but let me take another stab at this.

You are right. The threat of a union is extremely useful. However scope is very rarely put back in the bottle. Once gone it is usually gone(the American negotiation all happened in a matter of months and they were able to negotiate it down because it was never fully implemented).

Scope is so very important to me personally and I think so undervalued by pilots at large. I for one will forgo this "raise" temporarily, to make sure we dont lose massively on scope/codeshare now. One thing has been perfectly clear from management so far during this "negotiation," they do expect us to pay for it somehow.

quote from the PVC email
"Communications from Flight Operations, the PAR Team, and from Senior Leadership all continue to narrowly set pilot expectations of this year’s “contract review” to a wage rate change that is paid for by work rule concessions and scope relief."

There is a quote mirroring this from investor day that im looking for currently.

I agree it can help. And, it could possibly give us some leverage. More reasons I am, and have been pro CBA.

But it is always suggested by Benz and his buddies that if we had a CBA, we wouldn't have these codeshares or interline agreements... If you had been watching this whole industry, you would know that isn't the case.

You know what, I just can't stand the OVER selling or false promises.

Otherwise, carry on.

You are looking at this from the benfit of us being the cheaper carrier. Yes right now the AA codeshare would be great for us. What happens when it becomes cheaper for management to outsource all the 190s? Or the codeshare dynamics shift in favor of the other company? Its about 2 way protection upguage and down guage.

Ok great! I dont think anyones over promising on purpose. They just see the huge risk that having ZERO SAY is.

I have those concerns, and think we need a CBA. I do think that would fall under a different part of the scope section, but yes, we need it.

Every pilot group negotiates their own terms. Pilot groups can and do prevent code shares if it is beneficial. They also approve others. Its called negotiating, something JetBlue pilots can't do. Stop being part of the problem and try being a solution.

Then please explain why both Delta and American tightened their codeshare language in their new contracts. If history says they're good, then why are they tightening control?

Which is why I'm arguing for codeshare CONTROL. If the markets are profitable, why not start them and get a greater share of the revenue rather than a percentage through a code share? If they're not (or won't work in our system), that's when a code share becomes a valid point. I don't see us ever flying Allentown-Philadelphia, but we might be able to pick up some customers that live in Allentown that want to get to Boston that way.

Negative. I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm arguing for RESTRICTIONS on code sharing, not denying them. If you'll re-read my post, I even point that out in regards to international flying. Not sure where you're getting that I'm saying deny all code shares.

But no control over the codeshares leads to us potentially NOT growing. If we can garner revenues hand over fist via a code share, where's the incentive to enter another market. We've got tons of places we could fly domestically that are tripping over each other to bring us in. CLE and CVG have both expressed interest, and I think we could do well. By your argument, however, we should just let AA (or even Delta) operate out of BOS to those cities while we concentrate elsewhere. What happens when it comes to the point where we make more money by NOT doing anything? With code share controls, we could start the market ourselves and generate revenue that way. Does it hurt the bottom line? Not much, but what it DOES do is protect jobs at jetBlue rather than further growth at American (likely dba American Eagle). This all ties back into the scope that you're supporting in a later post. Scope isn't just about protecting our flying from the regionals anymore.