It's not gonna be JetBlue.

[Flyby1206]

We at JB have probably dodged a merger for this round, since AA/US is almost a certainty now. If Horton stays at the helm of the combined company then I could see JB as their next target, but if Parker takes charge then we might escape their grasp for a while longer.

 

[Smarta$$]

did you watch the video? He never said anything about an NDA. Remember the decision isn't up to him anyways.

What video. The one from weeks ago? Read the article. Dave is on the PUBLIC record saying we did not receive and NDA, and that we are not interested in merging. That is an official public statement made by the CEO. To say this when it is not true is a violation of federal law and opens him up to prosecution and a class action lawsuit by the shareholders.

 

[Smarta$$]

Eh, or maybe not... Still haven't heard an accurate answer about an NDA. Also, talking about it might be covered under the 'nonexistent' NDA.



And... you are making my second argument for me. Shareholders are usually only concerned with the highly praised ROIC... if AA will payout much higher than the seemingly low stock value. Well, it doesn't take a genius to connect those dots.

Read the article. Dave made statements directly to Bloomberg. We have not received an NDA and we are not interested in a merger. Theses are PUBLIC statements that effect a public company. To be dishonest or misleading is a violation of FEDERAL LAW.

Regarding the stock price, the inside (big) money already knows whether or not this is happening, and the price of our stock does NOT reflect it at all. Furthermore, the fact that a merger could raise our stock price does NOT mean it will happen. The board can decide that staying independent, with our growing markets, record profits and strong brand will eventually lead to a stock price that will be good for the shareholders, without losing control of the company.

My guess is that you KNOW what you are saying is wrong, but simply want to do whatever it takes to get a union, even if it means lying.

 

[Smarta$$]

Hostile takeovers don't work when you have two equal sized partners. When you have mega carriers looking at a tiny carrier there is a higher chance of success.

You're a thoughtful guy in general. So I will ask, what evidence or recent example are you using to base your assertion on?

We are not exactly a "tiny" company anymore. The executives and the chairman of the board do very well here with things the way the are, with the control and prestige that comes with it.

 

[n757st]

You're a thoughtful guy in general. So I will ask, what evidence or recent example are you using to base your assertion on?

We are not exactly a "tiny" company anymore. The executives and the chairman of the board do very well here with things the way the are, with the control and prestige that comes with it.

Analysts predict AMR will emerge a 6 billion dollar company. JetBlue is a 1.5 billion dollar company. Figure in an effort to buy enough shares the stock price doubles... It would probably take 3 billion to buy us, and they get 1.2 billion back from the effort.

Not saying its going to happen, but it's a lot more likely then when continental worth 3 billion was looking at united worth about the same. This goes equal for a company like delta acquiring northwest, it would take too much money, too much debt. Doesnt make it likely, but it's a lot easier then past hookups of like sized competitors.

 

[Smarta$$]

I am asking for a recent example of a hostile takeover that has parallels to our situation at jetBlue.

The Chief Executive Officer of our company is on public record to our shareholders that we plan to remain independent. So, it would have to be hostile.

 

[Flyby1206]

Read the article. Dave made statements directly to Bloomberg. We have not received an NDA and we are not interested in a merger. Theses are PUBLIC statements that effect a public company. To be dishonest or misleading is a violation of FEDERAL LAW.

Regarding the stock price, the inside (big) money already knows whether or not this is happening, and the price of our stock does NOT reflect it at all. Furthermore, the fact that a merger could raise our stock price does NOT mean it will happen. The board can decide that staying independent, with our growing markets, record profits and strong brand will eventually lead to a stock price that will be good for the shareholders, without losing control of the company.

My guess is that you KNOW what you are saying is wrong, but simply want to do whatever it takes to get a union, even if it means lying.

He said we have not received a recent NDA related to this merger activity. He has also stated previously that we have many discussions with several of our interline partners. There is a solid chance we have a pre-existing NDA regarding financial information for the interline/frequent flier partnership between JB/AA. The reason AA sent out NDAs was so they could exchange financial information, something they probably do already with us.

How does our CEO have any control over whether we merge or not? We have been a growing company, strong brand, record profits for several years now... but our stock price has waffled between $4-6 ever since Neeleman left and Soros pulled out his cash. How long are investors willing to wait?

 

[ClrdForOption]

My guess is that you KNOW what you are saying is wrong, but simply want to do whatever it takes to get a union, even if it means lying.

Lying, no. The CEO of any company had a fiduciary responsibility to the BOD and the shareholders - not to the employee group. A CEO can say any number of things 'publicly' - and as long as his legal team tells him that they are okay under the SEC rules - can turn around and say the opposite thing the next day. (i.e. Taking the company in a new direction, more financially profitable, or etc.)

Now, on the flip side, the B6 pilot group is being fed 'legal opinions' from a person not on the legal team of the company. In fact, I don't believe the VP of Ops has any legal training whatsoever... or to use a company catchphrase - "None Whatsover." So, why is he rendering legal opinions... oh, wait a minute, he is not. He is rendering his personal opinion, which means nothing in contract and employment law. (Which is what our lawyers will say when we point back to all of his emails in the lawsuit when we are out on the street.)

As to unionization... some reasons offhand that the jetBlue pilot group need a union in a nutshell are:

1.) Healthcare. With our healthcare in limbo the costs can change yearly - or be taken away completely. You cannot plan ahead for you and you family this way.

2.) Retirement. Continually below average - trying to catch up. Being sold that profit sharing is retirement which is profit sharing which is also retirement. (When everywhere else - it's Profit Sharing and Retirement as separate things)

3.) Compensation. The pay review process that the company decided on and approved is being thrown out the window. Constantly catching up to being one year below average apparently 'costs too much' at our destination airline. It's like they are a petulant child, who owns the bat and ball and constantly changes the rules - THAT THEY MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE! The 321 is a 757 equivalent. Yes, the 319-320-321 are a common type... so is a 757-767. Should we be getting 767 pay rates then included in the 'average' of common fleet types? The point is that the rules keep changing in the middle. Again, can't plan ahead.

4.) Disability. I still don't even understand this, but I have flown with pilots who have been through the disability ringer and we are lacking.

5.) Merger Protection. First it was 2300 iron clad PEA's that would protect you, (remember the shark posters or the castle one?) then it's the five documents... Do I think that I would keep my job if we merged with AA... probably not, but I would have a job to go back to. Not 'One and Out.' or the expiration of a PEA at the end of it's five years.

Is a Union the 'messiah' - the source of our salvation? No, of course not. Is it insurance? Yes. Better insurance than we have right now where the rules can change on a whim and the company can not only change the rules, but specifically turn on the rules that benefit them. (While coming up with excuses so that the rules that would benefit the pilot group are a part of a 'Chinese blue cotton shortage.')

Aeromedical, Loss of License, protection in case the guy I am flying with dings an airplane while taxiing, and 'career insurance' should be worth 1.9% - it's insurance, anything more is a bonus.

 

[RiddleEagle18]

What video. The one from weeks ago? Read the article. Dave is on the PUBLIC record saying we did not receive and NDA, and that we are not interested in merging. That is an official public statement made by the CEO. To say this when it is not true is a violation of federal law and opens him up to prosecution and a class action lawsuit by the shareholders.

Ok ill give you another shot. PLEASE watch this video.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/jetb...r-merger-ceo-says-clHWFlFxTX~CckzlV29k1A.html

This is the interview that article is based on.

There is NO, I REPEAT NO, quote from Dave Barger that says he has not signed an NDA. That was a statement made by the author of the article only.

 

[B6Busdriver]

Ok ill give you another shot. PLEASE watch this video.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/jetb...r-merger-ceo-says-clHWFlFxTX~CckzlV29k1A.html

This is the interview that article is based on.

There is NO, I REPEAT NO, quote from Dave Barger that says he has not signed an NDA. That was a statement made by the author of the article only.

Listened to it and didn't hear one word about a NDA. Now Barger seemed to make it clear that JetBlue is not interested in getting together but Riddle's statement is correct.

 

[RiddleEagle18]

Just to make things very clear here. Show me a video or recording of him saying it. Otherwise he simply says it was a misquote and he never said that. Even the article doesnt quote him in a traditional sense. No quotations with a direct comment. NONE.

 

[Smarta$$]

Ok ill give you another shot. PLEASE watch this video.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/jetblue-seeks-growth-not-amr-merger-ceo-says-clHWFlFxTX~CckzlV29k1A.html

This is the interview that article is based on.

There is NO, I REPEAT NO, quote from Dave Barger that says he has not signed an NDA. That was a statement made by the author of the article only.

From your video:

"what discussions have you had with American Airlines about possible consolidation?" Dave Barger's answer "we haven't".

Directly from bloomberg regarding NDA:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/jetblue-ceo-wants-more-airport-access-correct-.html

In the article he is directly quoted. Now, it wasn't in the video, but that doesn't mean it wasn't part of a more detailed off camera interview. Either way, it is either an accurate quote, or it isn't. Either way, JetBlue executives are aware of what bloomberg is reporting, and if it wasn't accurate, they would have to have the record corrected because this is very important to shareholders, and accuracy of public information is the company's responsibility.

So, either:

1. Dave Barger lied publicly to the millions of shareholders of JetBlue.

2. This is part of an evil plot to deceive the pilots, and as of 8-20-12 he was telling the truth, but on 8-21-12 intense discussions with American were to begin.

3. It was a misquote by one of the nations most prominent new outlets and a retraction or company press release correcting the record is eminent.

4. He is telling the truth.

This is a public company, and any statements made to the public must be accurate, or he faces prosecution and shareholder lawsuits.

If he would have said, "I can't comment on that right now", I would be worried.

 

[Smarta$$]

Just to make things very clear here. Show me a video or recording of him saying it. Otherwise he simply says it was a misquote and he never said that. Even the article doesnt quote him in a traditional sense. No quotations with a direct comment. NONE.

A retraction would be required and requested by JetBlue. They cannot legally have a misquote of this importance go completely unanswered without being liable to shareholder lawsuits.

Sorry you can't understand this simple concept.

 

[fam62c]

In public CEO's almost always say they prefer a stand-alone plan, you want to play hard-to-get to increase the value of any offer that may come your way. When the offer does come the next thing they say is that it "undervalues" the company. I'm not saying JB wants a merger but a public company is always for sale, nothing can prevent a bid from another party. Iin any case, AMR isn't going to buying anybody anytime soon.

 

[Smarta$$]

Lying, no. The CEO of any company had a fiduciary responsibility to the BOD and the shareholders - not to the employee group. A CEO can say any number of things 'publicly' - and as long as his legal team tells him that they are okay under the SEC rules - can turn around and say the opposite thing the next day. (i.e. Taking the company in a new direction, more financially profitable, or etc.)

Now, on the flip side, the B6 pilot group is being fed 'legal opinions' from a person not on the legal team of the company. In fact, I don't believe the VP of Ops has any legal training whatsoever... or to use a company catchphrase - "None Whatsover." So, why is he rendering legal opinions... oh, wait a minute, he is not. He is rendering his personal opinion, which means nothing in contract and employment law. (Which is what our lawyers will say when we point back to all of his emails in the lawsuit when we are out on the street.)

As to unionization... some reasons offhand that the jetBlue pilot group need a union in a nutshell are:

1.) Healthcare. With our healthcare in limbo the costs can change yearly - or be taken away completely. You cannot plan ahead for you and you family this way.

2.) Retirement. Continually below average - trying to catch up. Being sold that profit sharing is retirement which is profit sharing which is also retirement. (When everywhere else - it's Profit Sharing and Retirement as separate things)

3.) Compensation. The pay review process that the company decided on and approved is being thrown out the window. Constantly catching up to being one year below average apparently 'costs too much' at our destination airline. It's like they are a petulant child, who owns the bat and ball and constantly changes the rules - THAT THEY MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE! The 321 is a 757 equivalent. Yes, the 319-320-321 are a common type... so is a 757-767. Should we be getting 767 pay rates then included in the 'average' of common fleet types? The point is that the rules keep changing in the middle. Again, can't plan ahead.

4.) Disability. I still don't even understand this, but I have flown with pilots who have been through the disability ringer and we are lacking.

5.) Merger Protection. First it was 2300 iron clad PEA's that would protect you, (remember the shark posters or the castle one?) then it's the five documents... Do I think that I would keep my job if we merged with AA... probably not, but I would have a job to go back to. Not 'One and Out.' or the expiration of a PEA at the end of it's five years.

Is a Union the 'messiah' - the source of our salvation? No, of course not. Is it insurance? Yes. Better insurance than we have right now where the rules can change on a whim and the company can not only change the rules, but specifically turn on the rules that benefit them. (While coming up with excuses so that the rules that would benefit the pilot group are a part of a 'Chinese blue cotton shortage.')

Aeromedical, Loss of License, protection in case the guy I am flying with dings an airplane while taxiing, and 'career insurance' should be worth 1.9% - it's insurance, anything more is a bonus.

Nice F&*(^(^) rant. I don't need your version of an "education".

He has made a clear statement to the press about not pursuing a merger. He can change his mind in the future, sure. But the statements have to accurate when he says them, and negotiations with American cannot already be underway as of 8-20-12, or he WOULD be sued and subject to federal violation.

Either way, while I generally support a union here at JetBlue, it will not make a merger with American go away if it were going to happen, and it would not "protect" us from a merger. It is also very debatable whether or not it would change the final outcome of our staple. Union or no union, this is such a TERRIBLE job that we would never deserve more than a staple anyway, right?

 

[Flyby1206]

So, either:

1. Dave Barger lied publicly to the millions of shareholders of JetBlue.

2. This is part of an evil plot to deceive the pilots, and as of 8-20-12 he was telling the truth, but on 8-21-12 intense discussions with American were to begin.

3. It was a misquote by one of the nations most prominent new outlets and a retraction or company press release correcting the record is eminent.

4. He is telling the truth.

This is a public company, and any statements made to the public must be accurate, or he faces prosecution and shareholder lawsuits.

If he would have said, "I can't comment on that right now", I would be worried.

So there's a 25% chance he was telling the truth, sounds about right

 

[$$$4nothin]

So there's a 25% chance he was telling the truth, sounds about right

I usually agree with you Flyby, but it seems like you and a group of guys like you are really reaching here.

1. The CEO publicly states no buyout, merger, etc. will happen
2. The Chairman of the BOD publicly states it isn't happening.
3. The numbers (financially speaking) don't make any sense that it would happen right now.

I am just curious what exactly would need to happen for you to believe that a merger/aquisition/hostitle take over or whatever you think isn't happening any time in the next couple of years.

Yes I am pro union, no I am not a blue juicer. I am just trying to figure out what it would take for you guys to believe that staying "organic" is the direction B6 is going at least for a while.

 

[Flyby1206]

I usually agree with you Flyby, but it seems like you and a group of guys like you are really reaching here.

1. The CEO publicly states no buyout, merger, etc. will happen
2. The Chairman of the BOD publicly states it isn't happening.
3. The numbers (financially speaking) don't make any sense that it would happen right now.

I am just curious what exactly would need to happen for you to believe that a merger/aquisition/hostitle take over or whatever you think isn't happening any time in the next couple of years.

Yes I am pro union, no I am not a blue juicer. I am just trying to figure out what it would take for you guys to believe that staying "organic" is the direction B6 is going at least for a while.

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic with my previous remark about the 25%. I agree with you on the merger probability in the next few years. I believe that a lot has changed over the recent months and we were in AA's crosshairs previously, but now will be left alone for a while.

I think the AA/US merger will be a front burner issue for AMR and that will take several years to fully stabilize. DAL will be the only other major player not wrapped up in merger issues, but I really dont think they want jetblue, they want to competitively destroy jetblue.

So I do believe we are safe from merger/buyout for the next 2-3 years. I have clung to the hope of a merger because I am worried about the direction of jetblue as we stand today. Our company is stuck in 'startup mode' and cant figure out how to grow into an established/sustainable carrier. We are growing, which is great, but growing into a niche carrier in the northeast. Not the 'Airline of the Americas' like management claims as our goal. If they change our mission statement to become the Airline of the East Coast then I would feel comfortable and confident that management knows we can be sustainable just flying up and down the east coast.

More importantly, merger or not, we really need a CBA to guarantee some basic benefits of employment.

 

[texman]

It will be WN, JetBlue, and HN. One big happy family.