Why does everyone want jetBlue to fail?

[mrnolmts]

...Start at 6a, fly 8 legs for a total of 7.5 hours and get done at 10p (Typical regional schedule)...

Eh, I don't know about other regionals, but it sure is not typical here at QX. 16 hour days, I mean... 8 leg days? In the Q200 I guess they are somewhat common, however, the Q400 and the RJ average about 3-4 legs a day, I think.
Maybe you weren't trying to be realistic, just making a point?

 

[32LT10]

And get our Ceo's name right, you look like an idiot who knows not for what he speaks .

I did. Needleman

 

[hockeypilot44]

Our wages and benefits are comparable if not better than most airlines flying the A320--- In a few years the 190 will be reasonable as well. It's human nature to want bad things to happen to good people, especially in the airline industry. This same animosity carries to denied jumpseats from legacy carriers too, which is sad, considering no pilot or flight attendant has ever been denied a jumpseat by us. People don't seem to realize however, that the makeup of pilots here at JBLU are 80% or so furlough/previoius legacy experienced guys and gals. We'll keep doing what we do, y'all keep doing what you guys do, and in the end, life will go on...

Your wages are kind of comparable. Give it a few years. Jet Blue has only been around for a few years and is already posting a loss. Wait a few years as the majority of your pilots work their way up the pay scale. Losses will beome greater and greater. After all of the legacy carrier adjustments, Jet Blue might not be competitive anymore. Then again, maybe not. Just remember that as a whole right now, majority of legacy captains are on max pay scale which is more than what most captains at Jet Blue make. Then again maybe fuel prices will drop and Jet Blue will succeed and eventually becocme a legacy carrier. Who knows what will happen.

 

[Networ-King]

For all you blue guys in favor of changing the 8 hour rule, why not just do what every other carrier does and throw an IRO in there? I know the transcons are not international flights, but Im sure you could change that rule alot easier. That way you get more pilots on your list and you can make your "day" transcon turns .


Seriously....

What the FAA needs to do to remedy this whole flight time/duty time BS is just switch over to the CAA rules. Its a beautiful system that limits a pilots day by duty ONLY. For example....

If you show before 6 AM your limited to 9 hours and 45 minutes of duty and you can only have a total of 2 sectors (legs). Should your company choose to make you fly 9 hours and 40 minutes of that then so be it.

If you show between 6AM and 8AM then your limited to 12 hours of duty and you can only have a total of 3 sectors (legs). The flight time really means nothing in the CAA world, its all about the "DUTY LIMITS" over there, this is a daily thing, because I remember something about a 100 hours in a 28 day cycle. Nevertheless.... this is a superb system and I wish the FAA would at least give it some consideration.

Now its been a while since I flew over there and the numbers might be a bit off, but you get the gist of the it. Anyone out there still versed in the EXACT CAA rules and regs that could post the exact numbers?

And FN FAL.....

if you find any mispelled words in my post don't bother just look up this next couple of words for me....that is after you correct the spelling. :laugh: :laugh:

kcuf uoy

 

[JB Bus Drvr]

For all you blue guys in favor of changing the 8 hour rule, why not just do what every other carrier does and throw an IRO in there? I know the transcons are not international flights, but Im sure you could change that rule alot easier. That way you get more pilots on your list and you can make your "day" transcon turns . Not really cost effective especially for an SLC or LAS turn. Besides, who would want to sit in a jumpseat for 8 or 9 hours.


Seriously....

What the FAA needs to do to remedy this whole flight time/duty time BS is just switch over to the CAA rules. Its a beautiful system that limits a pilots day by duty ONLY. For example....

If you show before 6 AM your limited to 9 hours and 45 minutes of duty and you can only have a total of 2 sectors (legs). Should your company choose to make you fly 9 hours and 40 minutes of that then so be it.

If you show between 6AM and 8AM then your limited to 12 hours of duty and you can only have a total of 3 sectors (legs). The flight time really means nothing in the CAA world, its all about the "DUTY LIMITS" over there, this is a daily thing, because I remember something about a 100 hours in a 28 day cycle. Nevertheless.... this is a superb system and I wish the FAA would at least give it some consideration.

Now its been a while since I flew over there and the numbers might be a bit off, but you get the gist of the it. Anyone out there still versed in the EXACT CAA rules and regs that could post the exact numbers?

I really wish we would do this. It's been proven that the CAA rules work. But enter the alphabet groups (ALPA, ATA, etc.) and you've got a fight that will last for years. One carrier at a time, then they can't do anything.

 

[wndshr]

Your wages are kind of comparable. Give it a few years. Jet Blue has only been around for a few years and is already posting a loss. Wait a few years as the majority of your pilots work their way up the pay scale. Losses will beome greater and greater. After all of the legacy carrier adjustments, Jet Blue might not be competitive anymore. Then again, maybe not. Just remember that as a whole right now, majority of legacy captains are on max pay scale which is more than what most captains at Jet Blue make. Then again maybe fuel prices will drop and Jet Blue will succeed and eventually becocme a legacy carrier. Who knows what will happen.

OK...would someone smart please do a comparison of pilot pay versus fuel prices as it relates to CASM!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that pilot pay is a very SMALL part of CASM...fuel is a very BIG part of CASM...therefore...if fuel is high, ALL airlines are going to be hurting, not just jetBlue! No, UAL, DAL etc etc will not be able to pull a profit with fuel at today's prices...eventually SWA will not be able to operate profitably either with today's fuel prices. So, the real question is...who is going to have the best cost structure to OUTLAST everyone else so that they can eventually raise RASM?

 

[IronCityBlue]

better unionize huh?

Now that B6 is losing tons of dough, the first employee group management comes after are the Pilots. You better unionize before the company just takes what they want, unless you don't care. I mean this sincerely, having been in this business awhile.

HSC

Yeah management came after us big time the other day in a meeting with us. They specifically said that our costs were not the problem, and that we were doing as good a job as we can be doing, to keep it up, and its up to management to fix the other issues to get back in the black.

But you're right, we'd better unionize. We should have done that a year or so ago, during peak profits. That way we could have gotten a "SWA PLUS" contract that management couldn't touch during the bad times.

"We don't want to kill the Blue Goose, we just want to choke it by the neck til it gives us every last egg" said Mr. Bluinsky, JetBlue's top union knee buster in a fit of market based reasoning.

Then maybe we could have stopped management's Mid Hudson subsidiary and kept the E190 on the same list. If only we unionized there wouldn't be a BlueCo.

If only we had unionized, we wouldn't have hundreds of jets flying our colors, brand and passengers outsourced to 5 or 6 lowest bidders while we have hundreds or thousands of our pilots on the street.

Are we invincibile? Nah. But a union does not make sense for us right now. If one day it does, none of the established pilot unions (not including the in house ones) have prooven woerth the 2% pay cut. If it ever comes to unionizing, it will be in house. But for now it hasn't come to that.

Management gets the union they deserve.

 

[jetblue320]

Operate above board and honestly.....using all the rules as the currently exist,or by trying to change the ones that aren't to your liking?


PHXFLYR

We play by the rules as they exist, for now. Who said we were hiding the fact that we are trying to change the rules? Not I......

C yaa

 

[jetblue320]

Now that B6 is losing tons of dough, the first employee group management comes after are the Pilots. You better unionize before the company just takes what they want, unless you don't care. I mean this sincerely, having been in this business awhile.

HSC

Well, I wouldn't consider a 20 million annual loss a "ton" of dough. Some other the other airlines lose close to that in a week or less. It's a bummer regardless of the amount but I seriously doubt if the company is going to ask for give backs or take any back. But, thanks for the advice and heads up!



C yaaaa

 

[Dave Siegel]

Yeah management came after us big time the other day in a meeting with us. They specifically said that our costs were not the problem, and that we were doing as good a job as we can be doing, to keep it up, and its up to management to fix the other issues to get back in the black.

But you're right, we'd better unionize. We should have done that a year or so ago, during peak profits. That way we could have gotten a "SWA PLUS" contract that management couldn't touch during the bad times.

"We don't want to kill the Blue Goose, we just want to choke it by the neck til it gives us every last egg" said Mr. Bluinsky, JetBlue's top union knee buster in a fit of market based reasoning.

Then maybe we could have stopped management's Mid Hudson subsidiary and kept the E190 on the same list. If only we unionized there wouldn't be a BlueCo.

If only we had unionized, we wouldn't have hundreds of jets flying our colors, brand and passengers outsourced to 5 or 6 lowest bidders while we have hundreds or thousands of our pilots on the street.

Are we invincibile? Nah. But a union does not make sense for us right now. If one day it does, none of the established pilot unions (not including the in house ones) have prooven woerth the 2% pay cut. If it ever comes to unionizing, it will be in house. But for now it hasn't come to that.

Management gets the union they deserve.

Hi, it's Dave! It's so encouraging to see that some people like IronCityBlue really take everything that management tells them at face value. You should, as we are truly superior in intellect and vision.

For the record, I'm very upset at the conspiracy to keep my beloved Seahawks from winning that football trophy. It's a crime, and I vow to have the cheaters punished and have the trophy restored to Mr. Holmgren, a man who was the character of a great leader. He is truly a class act.

 

[IB6 UB9]

He is truly a class act.

For the record...you are not.

 

[HighSpeedClimb]

Well, I wouldn't consider a 20 million annual loss a "ton" of dough. Some other the other airlines lose close to that in a week or less. It's a bummer regardless of the amount but I seriously doubt if the company is going to ask for give backs or take any back. But, thanks for the advice and heads up!



C yaaaa

Okay, I'll give you that, but it wasn't $20 million, it was over $40 mil, with more loses to come. You may say no, we'll talk again when the first quarter results come out. :0

 

[IB6 UB9]

Okay, I'll give you that, but it wasn't $20 million, it was over $40 mil, with more loses to come. You may say no, we'll talk again when the first quarter results come out. :0

I think it was $40 mil for the quarter and $20 mil for the year.

 

[IronCityBlue]

ALPA or Seahawks, who'se the biggest excuse maker?

Hi, it's Dave! It's so encouraging to see that some people like IronCityBlue really take everything that management tells them at face value. You should, as we are truly superior in intellect and vision.

For the record, I'm very upset at the conspiracy to keep my beloved Seahawks from winning that football trophy. It's a crime, and I vow to have the cheaters punished and have the trophy restored to Mr. Holmgren, a man who was the character of a great leader. He is truly a class act.

There's a difference between face value and track record. You can take JetBlue management's track record and put it up against ALPA's during the last 6 years anyday. But you knew that.

And yes, Holmgren was a class act. Until he literally pouted on national television, like a 2 year old about to go to time out. Yeah Mr. Holmgren, it was that barely breaking the plane call that lost it for you. Not the missed field goals, the dropped passes, Alexander's averge performance, the turnover, the pathetic inability to convert on third down (something the Steelers also suffered from) and the fact that during the biggest game of his life he was only able to lead his troops to 10 measly points.

Career wise, he's a very good coach and I wish him well. This year he made a tool of himself whining more about bad (and close but good) calls when he couldn't get it done on the field in so many ways.

If only he settled down before he embarassed himself, and asked What Would Favre Do?

 

[A350]

First, lets look at "longevity" and how it relates to costs and pilot pay.

A quick look at the JB pilot list yields @ 1500 pilot......at $3 bucks per hour longevity per hour and 85 hours per month.....

My public math yields a $ 4.6 million/year in increased pilot costs. A very simplistic look at it as you have FO's upgrading and such, so to really hammer home how trivial it is, lets double it to $ 9.2 million dollars. WOW you say. Wrong.....that equates to 46 cents per passenger at 20 million customers per year.

If I were JB management, I would fire the top 200 pilots to avoid this pay hike and hire some more new hires. LOL!

A350

 

[jetblue320]

Okay, I'll give you that, but it wasn't $20 million, it was over $40 mil, with more loses to come. You may say no, we'll talk again when the first quarter results come out. :0

Yes, $46m for the quarter is correct. $20m for the year 2005.

I am not in denial about the prospect of losing money in the upcoming quarter(s). I don't like it, but then who would?

C yaaaa

 

[G4G5]

I really wish we would do this. It's been proven that the CAA rules work. But enter the alphabet groups (ALPA, ATA, etc.) and you've got a fight that will last for years. One carrier at a time, then they can't do anything.

You can't possibly find a more difficult way for airlines to track crews and in particular track reservists. Leave it to the Brit's to make duty regs as complicated as possible. The unions have very little to say about this. Take a look for yourself, can you imagine that additional man power required to stay with the guidlines of CAA CAP 371

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF

No, the unions would be for this because it would put more numbers on the seniority lists. The airlines would oppose this.