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.

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.

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.

ding ding ding

“we’re just going to do it anyway”….WC

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.

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?