Union Responsibility

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I didn't want a XJ/9L either. Mergers happen regardless of what pilots want. If Wall Street/investors want it, and there is money to be scored, then a merger can happen.

Curious @kellwolf @cencal83406 at the reasons for a 'no'? Do you not think that to better compete with just 3 mega legacies, the LCCs (JetBlue, Virgin, Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant) may need to consolidate?
Click to expand...

Because mergers in general suck. It would be HORRIBLE for the crewmembers at both airlines, and they'd likely set the two groups against each other. I've already been through that once, and I'd rather not deal with it at the airline I plan to retire from. We're already looking at high costs retro-fitting our existing A320s to match the NEOs we're getting when it comes to interiors and IFE. Why would we want to add MORE of those into the mix? The focus right now is on A321s, too. Is it better for the investors? Maybe. Is it better for management? Well, half of them, since the other half will wind up jobless. Is it better for the employees? Hell. No. I think we let Virgin stay on the west coast and we'll take the east coast. We don't NEED to merger since we're barely competing with each other as it is. Sure, we compete with SWA on some of the Caribbean stuff now, but how is a "west coast presence" going to help us on those routes? Why START competing with them on a LAX-LAS more than we already are? We can't squeeze anymore into LGB anyway since it's slot restricted, and the only business we're really focused on in SFO is the transcon. Would you want ALL our A320s to be two class like Virgin? 'Cause that's a lot of $$$ to retro fit. Same if we got rid of Virgin's set up for an all-core setup. Cheapest route is to leave them as they are, and that winds up being confusing for the customers.

It's more than just "They both fly a lot of A320s with different engines."
 
kellwolf said:
Because mergers in general suck. It would be HORRIBLE for the crewmembers at both airlines, and they'd likely set the two groups against each other. I've already been through that once, and I'd rather not deal with it at the airline I plan to retire from. We're already looking at high costs retro-fitting our existing A320s to match the NEOs we're getting when it comes to interiors and IFE. Why would we want to add MORE of those into the mix? The focus right now is on A321s, too. Is it better for the investors? Maybe. Is it better for management? Well, half of them, since the other half will wind up jobless. Is it better for the employees? Hell. No. I think we let Virgin stay on the west coast and we'll take the east coast. We don't NEED to merger since we're barely competing with each other as it is. Sure, we compete with SWA on some of the Caribbean stuff now, but how is a "west coast presence" going to help us on those routes? Why START competing with them on a LAX-LAS more than we already are? We can't squeeze anymore into LGB anyway since it's slot restricted, and the only business we're really focused on in SFO is the transcon. Would you want ALL our A320s to be two class like Virgin? 'Cause that's a lot of $$$ to retro fit. Same if we got rid of Virgin's set up for an all-core setup. Cheapest route is to leave them as they are, and that winds up being confusing for the customers.

It's more than just "They both fly a lot of A320s with different engines."
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Just curious, ignore Virgin, IYO do you see jetBlue being standalone in the next 10 years?
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Yeah I am starting to learn how regional airlines really operate. Do you know why regionals have to have a partnership with the majors? Why don't they just operate under their own name? Instead of United Express and Delta Connection.
Click to expand...

The term "regional" as it is applied to this discussion is a misnomer. It's a holdover from when there really were regional airlines. The original regional airlines were small airlines that operated what are considered "mainline" aircraft: DC-9's and 737's. They had their own airplanes and route structure, and they did their own marketing They were "regional" airlines because their route structures was typically focused in a certain area (region) of the country. An example is Ozark. They were based out of St. Louis, and flew mainly in the Midwest. Most of these companies were merged out of existence in the 1980's.

As the original regional airlines disappeared the term started being applied to what used to be called "commuter" airlines. Commuter airlines were similar to regional airlines, except they typically flew 19 to 30 seat turboprop aircraft. Back then, an airline could operate under less stringent rules provided their aircraft had 30 seats or less. In the 70's and 80's the commuters started signing marketing agreements with the major airlines to provide service to cities that could not economically support a traditional mainline aircraft. The major airlines started taking over the marketing, and commuter airlines evolved into the lift provider model you see currently.

There have been some attempts by the modern regional to operate independently. They have not worked out because the RJ costs more, on a seat mile basis, to operate than the mainline aircraft they are replacing.
 
Phil Schuyler said:
The term "regional" as it is applied to this discussion is a misnomer. It's a holdover from when there really were regional airlines. The original regional airlines were small airlines that operated what are considered "mainline" aircraft: DC-9's and 737's. They had their own airplanes and route structure, and they did their own marketing They were "regional" airlines because their route structures was typically focused in a certain area (region) of the country. An example is Ozark. They were based out of St. Louis, and flew mainly in the Midwest. Most of these companies were merged out of existence in the 1980's.

As the original regional airlines disappeared the term started being applied to what used to be called "commuter" airlines. Commuter airlines were similar to regional airlines, except they typically flew 19 to 30 seat turboprop aircraft. Back then, an airline could operate under less stringent rules provided their aircraft had 30 seats or less. In the 70's and 80's the commuters started signing marketing agreements with the major airlines to provide service to cities that could not economically support a traditional mainline aircraft. The major airlines started taking over the marketing, and commuter airlines evolved into the lift provider model you see currently.

There have been some attempts by the modern regional to operate independently. They have not worked out because the RJ costs more, on a seat mile basis, to operate than the mainline aircraft they are replacing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info!
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Fair enough. Just curious, ignore Virgin, IYO do you see jetBlue being standalone in the next 10 years?
Click to expand...

I'd like to say "yes," but I don't think so. A clear merger protection rather than a "We THINK this is how it would work" was one of the reasons I wanted a CBA.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I'll put some money on that. I'd bet in ten years jetBlue still exists, and is flying wide bodies to South America.
Click to expand...

I hope so, but I think Azul beat us to the punch on that. They're starting 330 service between Brazil and FLL and JFK. I think MCO might be on that list. I'm also not surprised at their choice of American cities, too. Not only are they jetBlue focus cities, but the demand is there for all three. I don't think we've officially announced a code share, but it wouldn't surprise me. We just got pass benefits on them. Then again, maybe we'll get bought by Azul and Neeleman will be back in charge again. I can always hope.....
 
That's unfortunate. Hopefully your new contract has either protections or lucrative provisions for all of this code share. I still believe that jetBlue's product is too good for them to be a merger partner. They're an aspirational brand. Slap a "Spirit" logo on the side of the plane and you lose that market share because those people want the service and the Facebook cache of flying a brand that is widely loved. Just my opinion. Now if JetBlue bought spirit and elevated Spirit to that standard... Watch out. Eh... What do I know?
 
ZapBrannigan said:
That's unfortunate. Hopefully your new contract has either protections or lucrative provisions for all of this code share. I still believe that jetBlue's product is too good for them to be a merger partner. They're an aspirational brand. Slap a "Spirit" logo on the side of the plane and you lose that market share because those people want the service and the Facebook cache of flying a brand that is widely loved. Just my opinion. Now if JetBlue bought spirit and elevated Spirit to that standard... Watch out. Eh... What do I know?
Click to expand...

Some of the codeshares make sense. I don't see us flying to Johannesburg, Dubai, Tel Aviv or even Paris, so I'm okay with airlines like South African, Emirates, El Al, etc codesharing with us. It helps out the bottom line in the end, and it's flying we'll never see. When it comes to South America (or even Hawaii), things get a bit "Eh" for me. We'll see how long it takes to get a contract. Here it is September already, and we don't even have a permanent MEC, NC or committee structure. I'd say we're a good 6 months away from even STARTING negotiations on Contract 1.0.
 
kellwolf said:
Some of the codeshares make sense. I don't see us flying to Johannesburg, Dubai, Tel Aviv or even Paris, so I'm okay with airlines like South African, Emirates, El Al, etc codesharing with us. It helps out the bottom line in the end, and it's flying we'll never see. When it comes to South America (or even Hawaii), things get a bit "Eh" for me. We'll see how long it takes to get a contract. Here it is September already, and we don't even have a permanent MEC, NC or committee structure. I'd say we're a good 6 months away from even STARTING negotiations on Contract 1.0.
Click to expand...


I'm hearing a lot of Hawaiian + B6 rumors lately. (Sour grapes from the Azul 330 announcement coupled with the 'instant' widebody access, training program, and experience). Also, Tel Aviv is on the table for sure once the wide bodies are in 'da house - basically filling the need that Tower Air once filled.

I also plan on retiring from here... But who knows what is going to be painted on the sides of the planes.
 
kellwolf said:
Some of the codeshares make sense. I don't see us flying to Johannesburg, Dubai, Tel Aviv or even Paris, so I'm okay with airlines like South African, Emirates, El Al, etc codesharing with us. It helps out the bottom line in the end, and it's flying we'll never see. When it comes to South America (or even Hawaii), things get a bit "Eh" for me. We'll see how long it takes to get a contract. Here it is September already, and we don't even have a permanent MEC, NC or committee structure. I'd say we're a good 6 months away from even STARTING negotiations on Contract 1.0.
Click to expand...

I agree, nothing will happen fast unless attrition picks up so much that mgmt feels like they have to stop the bleeding.
 
kellwolf said:
I hope so, but I think Azul beat us to the punch on that. They're starting 330 service between Brazil and FLL and JFK. I think MCO might be on that list. I'm also not surprised at their choice of American cities, too. Not only are they jetBlue focus cities, but the demand is there for all three. I don't think we've officially announced a code share, but it wouldn't surprise me. We just got pass benefits on them. Then again, maybe we'll get bought by Azul and Neeleman will be back in charge again. I can always hope.....
Click to expand...
<side note>

David Neeleman is one of my heroes in this business.

</side note>
 
WestIndian425 said:
That's weird. The sentiment I've been getting from the B6 aviator family is they wish he'd come back. I'd hate to think they're acting like the Israelites wishing they would go back to bondage in Egypt.
Click to expand...

So is that kind of like "the enemy you know" line of thinking then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top