Originally Posted by Kellwolf

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.

Originally Posted by benzoate

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.

Originally Posted by Southerner

So do you guys think that the pilot group would cave on scope, given the example/history of the existing regional carriers?

Originally Posted by CaptCoolHand

The PVC is advisory in nature, ref the latest emails. It's always been that way. The company will do what it wants when it wants. If Jb decides that they need republic to fly the 190's and some atr's in the caribean... it'll happen. All we can do is say... NO!! That's not fair... We have a PPA! Dave said he'd never do that! NO! This ELT is honorable, why would they farm out our flying! NO!! I thought our culture would protect me... you get it.

At the end of the day the show goes on so they can say they got input from XYZ and this is what we (managment) has decided is best.

Originally Posted by Kellwolf

Now, if they want to make it a BONUS program based on our performance numbers, sure. In fact, lots of other airlines have that.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

So, if unions are SO effective at limiting codesharing, why did DL and AA have to tighten their codesharing restrictions? Why would they need to tighten code share language that was so restrictive?

Originally Posted by Kellwolf

I said it once already, but I'll repeat it: so the flights they're doing now to Europe don't become code share flights operated by Virgin Atlantic (gee, wonder why Delta bought a major share in THAT one) or Air France as part of the code share. It's SCOPE and job protection language.

You seem to be perfectly happy with foregoing routes flown by jetBlue as long as someone flies them and the company gets money. More codeshares flown by other domestic carriers (I don't really care about international outside of the Carribean or South America) means fewer jetBlue jobs. Or maybe you'd be okay with a code share with TACA outta FLL since it would increase revenue even if it was a route we COULD be doing ourselves?