Embraer maintenance costs cut into JetBlue's profits

[bri5150]

What is the purpose of said contract?

 

[B6Busdriver]

What is the purpose of said contract?

To give you a false sense of security.

 

[bri5150]

To give you a false sense of security.

Hmmm, I was thinkingg the opposite. I dont know anything about it, but I would be worried they could just say adios to any past their contract date without worrying about labor laws. Your contract is up, see ya. Obviously that isnt the purpose of the contract then?

 

[Smarta$$]

Never been done.

 

[Splert]

Never been done.

... to your knowledge which is not very deep.

Jetblue is a very dirty place and 3A WILL pull back the curtain on how Jetblue really operates and treats its cost units.

 

[Splert]

Hmmm, I was thinkingg the opposite. I dont know anything about it, but I would be worried they could just say adios to any past their contract date without worrying about labor laws. Your contract is up, see ya. Obviously that isnt the purpose of the contract then?

The 5 year term auto renews except for cause which is spelled out in Section 14 of the Agreement.

Sounds narrow but Section 14 refers to material breach of any law or regulation including FAR.

Sooo ... get busted on a day off for ... XYZ ... you agreed the company can terminate your contract.

 

[clickclickboom]

So what splert is sayin that no matter how drunk you get dont go over there and piss on that bush

 

[LearLove]

Although the airframe and parts attached to it are not known for their reliability either.

Funny because despite the people on mr gore's internets mouthing off about the 170/190 fleet reliability we don't seem to have a problem over here.

Power it up right in the morning and it will fine - slam power on it and it will be bitching at you all day. For electric planes I guess this it the new reality.

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

Most of the $20 million additional maintenance cost stems from the GE engines, not specifically the E-190 airframe...

 

[$$$4nothin]

Did you smoke-up that sweet theory all by yourself Doobiehowser?

There is a difference between a Transactional Event and Fragmentation and 'can get rid of any pilot they want, any time they want, regardless of seniority' (termination of contract).

The stupidity of the Jetblue pilot is bold and boundless.

As a matter of fact I did come up with this theory myself. Much like most pilots make up there theory's themselves as they have no clue what will actually happen. I am quite aware of the difference between a transactional event and fragmentation. Just curious which part of my post makes my stupidity boundless. I am really looking forward to your explanation as I am sure I will learn a lot from it. Or do you just like to call people stupid with no explanation except to say there is a difference in definitions between two words.

 

[olympus593]

Most of the $20 million additional maintenance cost stems from the GE engines, not specifically the E-190 airframe...

The 320 have IAE engines so what are you saying?

 

[Splert]

What ammuses me most about the guys on BP is how they are so contradicorty toward there own statements regarding the 190. They claim how the company will divest the 190 and send the pilots with the planes to the highest bidder in a post at least once a month. So these blow hard 320 guys are all up in arms about how the company will get rid of all the 190's and pilots with them because they can regardless of seniority. They say the company will do this to save so much money and nothing will stop them from doing this. They think seniority will not matter in the deal at all and only the $$$ matters. My question to all of these Airbus pilots that always say this is this. If the company gets rid of 650 or so pilots (number of 190 pilots) with the planes to save all of this money then why wouldn't they get rid of the 650 most expensive pilots on the seniority list including all of the 10-12+ year airbus captains and keep 2-3 year guys instead. If the company can get rid of any pilot they want, any time they want, regardless of seniority why wouldnt they get rid of 650ish guys making $165/$247 respectively over a 3 year guy that would make $150/$225 respectively. This would save the company about $15K/ year per pilot. The company would realize there training cost savings in less than a year. Even if the buying company would want 10K per untrained 190 pilot JB sent them with the planes the company would realize there savings within 1.5-2 years. So following the logic of all these 320 guys I would tell them they should be very carefull what they wish for. How any one wants any thing other than more aircraft, routes and flying for there airline to fly boggles my mind. More aircraft, routes, pilots etc at your airline helps everyone except the top 2% of the guys on the highest paying plane. You hear all these guys say they would fly anything for the right $$$ and schedule, yet when you say you can make more money over all and have a better schedule on the 190 than the 320 they say no way Im not flying that POS. Then they subsequently complain on BP about there schedule. Now my rant is over lets get a CBA, become a collective group, and stop having this conversation and then we can complain and argue about something else.

You wrote about two separate events.

1. Fragmentation (a transitional event).

2. The "company can get rid of any pilot they want, any time they want, regardless of seniority".

#2 is not true. A pilot can only be rightfully terminated for cause under section 14 of the PEA and the DRM requires due process. However, you draw a comparison between #2 to argue that after a TE you can't be fragmented and instead you have rights to displace a junior pilot in another aircraft.

You dreamed that up cause those rights are not in your PEA or the FSM.

Your stupidity is boundless because you use a false statement to argue that another false statement is true. A negative times a negative only makes a positive in math not contracts.

 

[n757st]

The 320 have IAE engines so what are you saying?

That the GE engines thrown on the E190 are piles of poo. Their design has caused numerous oil leaks, oil related fires in the exhaust cone, thrown compressor blades, and general software issues causing rollback. It was just another reason emb is shifting directions and throwing a Pratt GTF on the next generation e190.

I have never seen the IAE engine so much as hiccup FYI.

 

[NoPFactor]

That the GE engines thrown on the E190 are piles of poo. Their design has caused numerous oil leaks, oil related fires in the exhaust cone, thrown compressor blades, and general software issues causing rollback. It was just another reason emb is shifting directions and throwing a Pratt GTF on the next generation e190.

I have never seen the IAE engine so much as hiccup FYI.

I'd be willing to bet that if Sully and Jeff had IAE engines on their Bus that day over the Hudson you never would have heard of them.

 

[aewanabe]

That the GE engines thrown on the E190 are piles of poo. Their design has caused numerous oil leaks, oil related fires in the exhaust cone, thrown compressor blades, and general software issues causing rollback. It was just another reason emb is shifting directions and throwing a Pratt GTF on the next generation e190.

I have never seen the IAE engine so much as hiccup FYI.

I agree the CF34-10E is a pile of poo, but my only engine failure to date was an IAE...

 

[B6Busdriver]

I'd be willing to bet that if Sully and Jeff had IAE engines on their Bus that day over the Hudson you never would have heard of them.

The CFM's are solid performers with a long positive track record.

 

[$$$4nothin]

You wrote about two separate events.

1. Fragmentation (a transitional event).

2. The "company can get rid of any pilot they want, any time they want, regardless of seniority".

#2 is not true. A pilot can only be rightfully terminated for cause under section 14 of the PEA and the DRM requires due process. However, you draw a comparison between #2 to argue that after a TE you can't be fragmented and instead you have rights to displace a junior pilot in another aircraft.

You dreamed that up cause those rights are not in your PEA or the FSM.

Your stupidity is boundless because you use a false statement to argue that another false statement is true. A negative times a negative only makes a positive in math not contracts.

Thank you for the definitions. I guess you skipped over the first couple lines of the post that say what ammuses me most is how other people say these things. How they make these things up etc. I did not dream up any of these rights. My stupidity is boundless though. You really are as mature as an 8th grader just calling people names. You are an embarrasement and hurt the cause so many are fighting to achieve.

 

[Splert]

You used a third person references as the foundation of your own argument.

 

[no1pilot2000]

Convert the entire feel to Airbus

 

[linepilot]

So many BAD decisions.

The 190 was a big one and their decision to let the airplane "prove itself" is about to turn into the BIGGEST bad decision they ever made.

Choke on it.