I'm fairly certain he was. Just don't see what's wrong with that situation though. It seems like it would be a win-win for both pilot groups, since the JetBlue guys can't get anymore slots out of there. All it would do is increase their profits.

in this day of $120 barrel of oil a 50 seater does not make money for anyone.you are not going to see a code share of JB with any 50 seater operator. the reason we had those few xpress jet planes flying a while back when we had the 190 maintenance issue was because embraer paid for it,not us, so we could give the tickets away and it cost us nothing.

we are reducing block hours for the summer so we won't need any feeding. when we expand it will be out of LAX with the 320 and specially the 190, which is now a money maker (finally).
After JBPA is voted in our scope will prevent any outsourcing of jobs to anything bigger than a 19 seater.For us that is a huge job security issue.

I'll second that no way on the code sharing, the pilot group would take a collective crap in the pants. Like, Mr. Greedyexec said we are taking a cut in block hours.

I think it's more of XJET guys wanting to fly the code share, that's where the rumors are coming from.

It was my understanding that LA was going to be long haul, with LGB picking up more of the short haul. They were going to 'move' the long haul flights to BUR and LA.

The E90 is out west now, yee haw.

I know you guys don't want to outsource. I think that is a good thing, but you're not going to get any more slots at LGB unless you get a plane that weighs under 75,000 lbs.

Outsourcing flying to flying you "can't" do right now, isn't losing anything.

If you only sell 50 seats on a flight, your E190 will lose more money than the ERJ-145. 50-seaters will always make more money than your planes when the seat sold equals 50 seats or less, unless you fly a E190 that burns the same gas per hour and other costs are the same.

I think what you meant to say was, "50-seaters might lose less money than your planes when the seat sold equals 50 seats or less."

please listen carefully: No 50 seaters are making money for their mainline with fuel this expensive.

They are an incredible drain right now, especially if the mainline is paying for gas (and regionals are not taking the proper efficiency steps). To the RJ guys who brag about not doing smart starts and running the APU excessively to "stick it to" the mainline...do you realize you are jeopardizing your jobs?

please listen carefully..... get rid of all the 50 and 70 seat jets out there and domestic feed suffers... cant have that either can we....

p.s. I in no way believe XJT should be codesharing with JB..... just doesnt seem like a good fit.

As critical as I normally am of tper, I think he may be on to something.

He's not asking that Expressjet become "Jetblue Connection" - he's simply saying that his company can use their already-existing branded flying in and out of LGB to carry passengers who bought Jetblue tickets. It would be the traditional codeshare arrangement, not any fee-for-departure nonsense.

XJT gains revenue for their Branded ops for each JBLU per passenger carried, and JBLU gets feed at a low fixed cost...with NONE of the current FFD issues. Jetblue wouldn't have to pay for XJT's fuel, overhead, crew costs, etc - simply a flat fee per passenger carried. It'd be the exact same setup as Skyteam or OneWorld - just with an RJ operator as one of the partners.

It really could be a win-win, IF Jetblue wanted to pursue that...and I'm not sure why any JBLU pilots would object to a limited, revenue-enhancing codeshare that doesn't threaten their jobs and only strengthens their company's financial bottom line.

Well considering XJT just tanked another 31 million dollar loss in the first quarter and their Branded op only showed a 63% load factor ( they would have plenty of seats ) ...... it just might be something to pursue.

Thanks BoilerUp, that is exactly what I was trying to get at.

In no way think JetBlue should outsource their flying since it's their flying. I was just thinking of a Alliance like Skyteam. We would do our own mainline flying that we are already doing out of Long Beach there and just work together to increase the revenue for both of us.

I really do respect your attitudes on not releasing scope and you guys should stick to it.

Yeah our LF for Jan. and Feb. was in the low 50%. Our LF in March was 73% so things are looking up, and that was before we pulled our daily flights down from 200 to 160 starting April 1 as well as COLA's to a bunch of pilots on that date as well. So hopefully getting rid of the poor routes should help our second quarter returns. We fly from MTY, RNO and FAT right now to LGB. So if we can bring them in cheap and then they get on a flight for JetBlue to JFK or something like that we may have just gained revenue for both of us.