Abeam79 wrote:

santi319 wrote:

I find it laughable that people think an NK/B6 merger wouldn’t be approved… they allowed AA and US, and CO and UA…

50%+ control of FLL would not be allowed? Meanwhile AA controls majority of MIA, DFW CLT, PHL and PHX traffic. UA controls majority of EWR, IAH and IAD and DL runs ATL, SLC and MSP but somehow FLL being a hub with lesser than 60% of operations is not allowed?

Make it make sense?

This!
And the door isn't completely shut with the B6/NK proposal, that was the board, its ultimately up to the shareholders and they are now being challenged by B6 to question why their board isn't going by their fiduciary obligations to maximize the offer by B6 which clearly is a superior offer...Stay tuned!
B6 hasn't even put out a statement saying that the deal is not happening, on the contrary they are taking it to the shareholders. Something isn't right here, NK has nothing to lose, why are they not taking the premium offering? Makes me think there is something we're not being told and I think Bill Franke is trying to sway his former company, which is interesting because Ben Baldaza is now a Jetblue board member and was former Spirit CEO.

It is implied NK’s management had a back door deal with Indigo.

And yes, the FLL situation was mentioned, and the NEA issue should be addressed but by the Government not the BOD of NK lol, specially when B6 offered a cash payout in case the government doesn’t allow the merger, which is very very very unlikely.

Something is up with NK.

santi319 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

santi319 wrote:

I find it laughable that people think an NK/B6 merger wouldn’t be approved… they allowed AA and US, and CO and UA…

50%+ control of FLL would not be allowed? Meanwhile AA controls majority of MIA, DFW CLT, PHL and PHX traffic. UA controls majority of EWR, IAH and IAD and DL runs ATL, SLC and MSP but somehow FLL being a hub with lesser than 60% of operations is not allowed?

Make it make sense?

This!
And the door isn't completely shut with the B6/NK proposal, that was the board, its ultimately up to the shareholders and they are now being challenged by B6 to question why their board isn't going by their fiduciary obligations to maximize the offer by B6 which clearly is a superior offer...Stay tuned!
B6 hasn't even put out a statement saying that the deal is not happening, on the contrary they are taking it to the shareholders. Something isn't right here, NK has nothing to lose, why are they not taking the premium offering? Makes me think there is something we're not being told and I think Bill Franke is trying to sway his former company, which is interesting because Ben Baldaza is now a Jetblue board member and was former Spirit CEO.

It is implied NK’s management had a back door deal with Indigo.

And yes, the FLL situation was mentioned, and the NEA issue should be addressed but by the Government not the BOD of NK lol, specially when B6 offered a cash payout in case the government doesn’t allow the merger, which is very very very unlikely.

Something is up with NK.

If the government not approving is very very very unlikely then B6 should put their money where their mouth is and offer a higher breakup payment then.

And the BOD can’t ignore the NEA as part of accessing the deal. Yes it is ultimately determined by the government but the BOD has to make a determination on how likely the government will let it pass muster, because as I mentioned they only get paid when the deal closes after government approves. B6 has already made it clear they will not walk away from the NEA for NK.

cloudboy wrote:

Right now JetBlue's biggest adversary is themselves. They used to be the airline of choice in the northeast because they had the best coach product. Now you avoid them because they are a disaster.

The problem is the upper management is too busy running a spreadsheet and not running an airline. There's enough travel going on right now that they can easily sustain themselves. They need to worry much less about their competitors at the moment and start getting their own airline in order again. Start with keeping some of their aircraft they are planning on getting rid of, and build an extra 10-15 minutes in turn around time in all of their routes. Yes this would be a lot of work, but they really need that flex right now to bring their habitual reliability problem in check. you can trim down later once you have things under control.

Second, they really need to work on their employee relations and staffing issues. Better communications. Less under staffing. more flexibility. Managers need to thing about people and customer relations and not pennies.

The whole goal is to make people like flying JetBlue and not dread it.

The first class thing, btw - easy solve there. The first couple of rows of Even More Space, just sell them at 1.75% of a single seat, and guarantee an empty middle seat. Throw in a free snack box. You've created a whole new product now for those who can't justify a first class ticket but willing to spend a little more for some room. But don't do this until you get everything in order first.

THIS

What the elt should do if the spirit thing ends up failing is pivot and work on the operation the employees the brand and the customers.
They were growing just fine, the 220s will help expand and I’m sure they will add more European city’s. It’s almost like the ELT hates what made JetBlue JetBlue. A focus on customers crew bets and the brand. There is nothing wrong with being small just be good at it. (But they won’t)

freakyrat wrote:

JetBlue needs to overhaul their management structure and then go back to their roots and premise in why they started in the first place. Then expand in the Midwest where they are weak. There a solid airline that sorta lost their way.

Bingo

Man you could make that a great media story
The media likes to build things up they love to tear things down, but a turn around story is what it’s all about. Think jobs and Apple.

cloudboy wrote:

The first class thing, btw - easy solve there. The first couple of rows of Even More Space, just sell them at 1.75% of a single seat, and guarantee an empty middle seat. Throw in a free snack box. You've created a whole new product now for those who can't justify a first class ticket but willing to spend a little more for some room. But don't do this until you get everything in order first.

I agree with most of what you said but I gotta say I'm a big mehhh on the value prop of "Eurobiz". I think B6 makes more money with 6 Y fares across vs 4 Eurobiz as the product just wouldn't be competitive here. Even CR7s and E75s are running around with domestic first recliners on the legacies. Spirit has the Big Front Seat and even Breeze now is flying 220s around with half the cabin in a domestic F config. An empty middle seat is nice if you're already all in on JetBlue, but if you're choosing between B6 and a competitor it's not gonna sway you unless it's really cheap.

fastmover wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

JetBlue needs to overhaul their management structure and then go back to their roots and premise in why they started in the first place. Then expand in the Midwest where they are weak. There a solid airline that sorta lost their way.

Bingo

Man you could make that a great media story
The media likes to build things up they love to tear things down, but a turn around story is what it’s all about. Think jobs and Apple.

Merger with Breeze and bring back Neeleman as Chairman of BOD?

flyby519 wrote:

Merger with Breeze and bring back Neeleman as Chairman of BOD?

I know you're trying to stir the pot but it's honestly not a bad outcome. They have 76 more A220 slots, and a functional operations team.

CobaltScar wrote:

They should immediately begin merger talks with Alaska. There are no other moves to play.

Which is kind of difficult since Alaska is already in bed with American Airlines, which is the reason Alaska became a OneWorld member. While technically a different airline, in reality AS is just an extension to AA. They ain't going to give that up.

One option could be a three-way merger between JetBlue, Spirit and Frontier. Together they got a pretty powerful position on the US domestic market.

Blerg wrote:

If 99% of people only cared about the price then why are airlines investing so much in their brand through marketing, uniforms, apps and so on.

First, for a correction, since interpreting hyperbole is apparently not everyone's strong suit: it's not "99% of people" -- it's just the overwhelming majority of leisure Y passengers.

Second, it's telling that the only investments you speak of, are the publicly noticeable ones-- do you have any IDEA how much money airlines spend on corporate/HVC retention?

Blerg wrote:

They would be just running around cutting costs and trying to offer the cheapest fare.

Um, that's exactly what they've done for the majority of seats being offered.....

Blerg wrote:

If your argument was valid then airlines such as Ryanair would have destroyed airlines with higher cost structures that still retain some level of onboard experience.

Which is more or less what they've done on any route with which they have a sizable presence..... force 'em off, or force them to downgrade their (general) services to a near equivalent level.

Blerg wrote:

After all, how many legacies have brought back onboard snacks and drinks after suspending them?

(1) because some routes generate spend therewith, (2) other routes, where it doesn't make economic sense, they haven't: random example, DL's LAX-SJC.

cledaybuck wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

WN could've easily had a 500+ departure station,

Uh, no.

Gee, what a persuasive response to a hypothetical with no definitive answer.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

in reality AS is just an extension to AA.

Nothing "reality" about that.

It's two separate operators, certificates, boards, and management. They're allowed to cooperate to an outlined degree, in some markets.

The only way AS becomes "an extension" of AA, is via a merger. Other than that, they're still very much subject to antitrust regulation, despite their limited immunity.

LAX772LR wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

WN could've easily had a 500+ departure station,

Uh, no.

Gee, what a persuasive response to a hypothetical with no definitive answer.

Fine. WN as an airline doesn't even have a 300+ departure station now, and you expect a slot restricted station like JFK would have become a 500+ departure station for an airline with no regional fleet and 0 flights to Europe?

Edit: Forgot to mention probably the airport where F is the most important in the US and an airline that is all economy.

cledaybuck wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Uh, no.

Gee, what a persuasive response to a hypothetical with no definitive answer.

Fine. WN as an airline doesn't even have a 300+ departure station now, and you expect a slot restricted station like JFK would have become a 500+ departure station for an airline with no regional fleet and 0 flights to Europe?

Edit: Forgot to mention probably the airport where F is the most important in the US and an airline that is all economy.

You forgot a lot more than that.

Tell me, how many flights per day does B6 have there?
...how many more do you think they could have, had they existed 20yrs earlier, before DL's buildup or morning slots where a thing?

What percentage of their flights have a premium cabin?

How many flights to Europe do they have again... like, 3?

And (my favorite), why do you believe that WN couldn't have done similarly, keeping in mind the potential advantage of a 20yr-earlier head start?

LAX772LR wrote:

Tell me, how many flights per day does B6 have there?

According to the FAA, B6 had 334 slots for S21 at JFK. So unless they acquired over 600 slots since then, I'm going to say a hell of a lot less than 500.

LAX772LR wrote:

And (my favorite), why do you believe that WN couldn't have done similarly, keeping in mind the potential advantage of a 20yr-earlier head start?

This is my favorite too. The idea that WN would have started JFK in 1980.

If you had said WN missed an opportunity to start JFK sometime in the 90's pre-B6 and could have 100+ flights per day there now, I wouldn't disagree. That's the last I'm going to say about this because this is B6 topic and this is getting quite a ways off topic.

flyby519 wrote:

Merger with Breeze and bring back Neeleman as Chairman of BOD?

That is EXACTLY what they need to do, actually, IMO. The Breeze ELT, especially Neeleman, actually seem to care about their passengers.

So my {pipe dream} prediction for B6 is: merge with MX, use MX's A220s and E190s as a stopgap to increase reliability (yes, I know, suboptimal that they aren't 320s, but at least they aren't like... 787s or something), and make Neeleman Chairman of BOD or something. I don't know about you guys, but when I watch or read interviews with Neeleman, it is really clear that he's passionate about B6. Like, why else would he call 'Azul' blue? And like I said, Neeleman really cares. Remember the Valentine's Day snowstorm mess?

But what will realistically happen is probably AA will buy B6 and B6 disappears without a trace like US Air did. I've always thought, even pre-this B6 mess, that B6 would eventually be purchased by AA.

cledaybuck wrote:

So unless they acquired over 600 slots since then, I'm going to say a hell of a lot less than 500.

Curious: why would they need to acquire slots..... at an airport that, for most of the day back then, wasn't slot restricted (by government nor operation)?

So, again, let's bring in the triple (but unfortunately now nonexistent) factors in the utter lack of domestic competition, the lack of a slot system throughout the early day at that time, and millions of dollars of incentives with which to do so.

It isn't hard to see this for the screwup that it was.

do

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

flyby519 wrote:

Merger with Breeze and bring back Neeleman as Chairman of BOD?

That is EXACTLY what they need to do, actually, IMO. The Breeze ELT, especially Neeleman, actually seem to care about their passengers.

So my {pipe dream} prediction for B6 is: merge with MX, use MX's A220s and E190s as a stopgap to increase reliability (yes, I know, suboptimal that they aren't 320s, but at least they aren't like... 787s or something), and make Neeleman Chairman of BOD or something. I don't know about you guys, but when I watch or read interviews with Neeleman, it is really clear that he's passionate about B6. Like, why else would he call 'Azul' blue? And like I said, Neeleman really cares. Remember the Valentine's Day snowstorm mess?

But what will realistically happen is probably AA will buy B6 and B6 disappears without a trace like US Air did. I've always thought, even pre-this B6 mess, that B6 would eventually be purchased by AA.

The US government isn’t going to allow AA to buy B6.

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

If 99% of people only cared about the price then why are airlines investing so much in their brand through marketing, uniforms, apps and so on.

First, for a correction, since interpreting hyperbole is apparently not everyone's strong suit: it's not "99% of people" -- it's just the overwhelming majority of leisure Y passengers.

Second, it's telling that the only investments you speak of, are the publicly noticeable ones-- do you have any IDEA how much money airlines spend on corporate/HVC retention?

Blerg wrote:

They would be just running around cutting costs and trying to offer the cheapest fare.

Um, that's exactly what they've done for the majority of seats being offered.....

Blerg wrote:

If your argument was valid then airlines such as Ryanair would have destroyed airlines with higher cost structures that still retain some level of onboard experience.

Which is more or less what they've done on any route with which they have a sizable presence..... force 'em off, or force them to downgrade their (general) services to a near equivalent level.

Blerg wrote:

After all, how many legacies have brought back onboard snacks and drinks after suspending them?

(1) because some routes generate spend therewith, (2) other routes, where it doesn't make economic sense, they haven't: random example, DL's LAX-SJC.

cledaybuck wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

WN could've easily had a 500+ departure station,

Uh, no.

Gee, what a persuasive response to a hypothetical with no definitive answer.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

in reality AS is just an extension to AA.

Nothing "reality" about that.

It's two separate operators, certificates, boards, and management. They're allowed to cooperate to an outlined degree, in some markets.

The only way AS becomes "an extension" of AA, is via a merger. Other than that, they're still very much subject to antitrust regulation, despite their limited immunity.

I will repeat what I already wrote, there is no proof that the vast majority of passengers only care about the price. As I already wrote in my previous posts, many airlines have actually improved their product (increasing their costs) in order to differentiate themselves from the rest and especially from those who fall within the category of ULCC.

Adding perks to certain routes is because of competition and because various airlines actually have to fight for the consumer. By merging airlines you are making them less competitive as there is less need to fight for each customer.

As for Ryanair, they have not done exactly that. They have actually failed in certain markets such as FRA (just one example). Also, when was the last time FR actually drove an airline into bankruptcy? Was it Malev back in 2012? That's almost a decade ago. Meanwhile European aviation market keeps on expanding and so do airlines which have actually maintained a certain level of service. Heck, even BA decided to bring drinks and snacks back on short haul flights. I wonder why that is when they have gone ULCC... hmm...

Blerg wrote:

As for Ryanair, they have not done exactly that. They have actually failed in certain markets such as FRA (just one example). Also, when was the last time FR actually drove an airline into bankruptcy? Was it Malev back in 2012? That's almost a decade ago. Meanwhile European aviation market keeps on expanding and so do airlines which have actually maintained a certain level of service. Heck, even BA decided to bring drinks and snacks back on short haul flights. I wonder why that is when they have gone ULCC... hmm...

Ryanair certainly contributed to the demise of Alitalia, didn't make it easy on them. Keep in mind that while Alitalia was the national airline of Italy, Ryanair is the airline with the most departures out of Italy.

The full-service business model of Malev didn't work on the Hungarian market, which is why Ryanair was able to bankrupt it. However like a phoenix, out of the ashes of Malev, Wizzair emerged. With a business model that is in fact a copy of Ryanair, Wizzair is now the largest airline in Hungary.

Every market fits another business model and the best way to differentiate all those service models is by using different brand names. They can be under the same umbrella, but because they got a different name people will instantly know which service level to expect. It avoids false expectations.

This is exactly the reason why Air France-KLM keeps the Transavia brand alive, people got different expectations for a Transavia flight than they have for a KLM flight. You can't fight Ryanair by using the KLM brand, but you can fight it by using the Transavia brand.

B6 does have opportunities to further expand at MKE with WN having a much smaller presence at MKE than it did 5 years ago with WN being down to only 17 daily departures out of MKE in Summer 2022 from the 38 daily departures that WN was operating out of MKE in Summer 2017.

There are a few more routes that B6 can add out of MKE such as MKE-FLL/LAX/MCO.

There are also a few other top markets traveled to from MKE that currently don't have any nonstop service out of MKE such as AUS, SAN, and SFO/OAK/SJC.

Blerg wrote:

I will repeat what I already wrote, there is no proof that the vast majority of passengers only care about the price.

There's plenty, with history to back it up. That you don't perceive/comprehend it, is not allayed by repeating the claim that there isn't.

Blerg wrote:

As for Ryanair, they have not done exactly that. They have actually failed in certain markets such as FRA (just one example).

K, now compare all the routes/destinations where they have, and we'll see just how disingenuous of a claim that turns out to be.

Blerg wrote:

Also, when was the last time FR actually drove an airline into bankruptcy? Was it Malev back in 2012? That's almost a decade ago.

What a strange standard of measure. No one's making the case that they perpetually drive others out of business, just to lower their cost through abandonment of superfluous offerings on routes where the majority of pax don't prioritize (or pay at all for) them.

Blerg wrote:

Meanwhile European aviation market keeps on expanding and so do airlines which have actually maintained a certain level of service.

What does that even mean? Full service carriers are outgrowing ULCCs in Europe? Because that would be blatantly false.

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I will repeat what I already wrote, there is no proof that the vast majority of passengers only care about the price.

There's plenty, with history to back it up. That you don't perceive/comprehend it, is not allayed by repeating the claim that there isn't.

Blerg wrote:

As for Ryanair, they have not done exactly that. They have actually failed in certain markets such as FRA (just one example).

K, now compare all the routes/destinations where they have, and we'll see just how disingenuous of a claim that turns out to be.

Blerg wrote:

Also, when was the last time FR actually drove an airline into bankruptcy? Was it Malev back in 2012? That's almost a decade ago.

What a strange standard of measure. No one's making the case that they perpetually drive others out of business, just to lower their cost through abandonment of superfluous offerings on routes where the majority of pax don't prioritize (or pay at all for) them.

Blerg wrote:

Meanwhile European aviation market keeps on expanding and so do airlines which have actually maintained a certain level of service.

What does that even mean? Full service carriers are outgrowing ULCCs in Europe? Because that would be blatantly false.

History is also a great source to back what I am saying so I remain unconvinced in the absence of concrete examples that back your claims.

What you don't understand about FR is that they didn't just become what they are today by eliminating their competition but by actually creating a whole new market out there. They got millions of people to switch to flying in stead of taking the bus or to actually go on holidays by plane to a destination not close from home.
These people were never targeted by traditional airlines. In the same way jetBlue needs to find its own kind of customer rather than lose their purpose. You can't be everything to everybody especially since a large share of the traveling public is willing to pay a bit more to have a certain level of comfort guaranteed.

No, traditional airlines are growing despite increasing presence of LCCs. In some markets they even managed to completely defeat them (good example of this is Norway). Actually this is a fantastic example which shows your 99% claim was utterly wrong.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

As for Ryanair, they have not done exactly that. They have actually failed in certain markets such as FRA (just one example). Also, when was the last time FR actually drove an airline into bankruptcy? Was it Malev back in 2012? That's almost a decade ago. Meanwhile European aviation market keeps on expanding and so do airlines which have actually maintained a certain level of service. Heck, even BA decided to bring drinks and snacks back on short haul flights. I wonder why that is when they have gone ULCC... hmm...

Ryanair certainly contributed to the demise of Alitalia, didn't make it easy on them. Keep in mind that while Alitalia was the national airline of Italy, Ryanair is the airline with the most departures out of Italy.

The full-service business model of Malev didn't work on the Hungarian market, which is why Ryanair was able to bankrupt it. However like a phoenix, out of the ashes of Malev, Wizzair emerged. With a business model that is in fact a copy of Ryanair, Wizzair is now the largest airline in Hungary.

Every market fits another business model and the best way to differentiate all those service models is by using different brand names. They can be under the same umbrella, but because they got a different name people will instantly know which service level to expect. It avoids false expectations.

This is exactly the reason why Air France-KLM keeps the Transavia brand alive, people got different expectations for a Transavia flight than they have for a KLM flight. You can't fight Ryanair by using the KLM brand, but you can fight it by using the Transavia brand.

Yes but we also have to understand that Alitalia and Malev did not go bankrupt only because of Ryanair. Main reason behind their demise was political meddling, corruption and mismanagement. How many years have Ryanair/Wizz Air been present in Poland, Romania, Greece, Serbia, The Baltics ... yet airBaltic, Air Serbia, Aegean, Tarom and LOT are still around? Yes, some of them are struggling but others are successfully turning around their business despite the circumstances.

The fact AF-KL is keeping Transavia is because they know there is a large part of the traveling public that is willing to pay more not to fly on an LCC. Otherwise they would have created a mega LCC and would have gotten away with it. That is why they have adapted, they have listened to the consumer and adjusted themselves to their needs.

Blerg wrote:

History is also a great source to back what I am saying so I remain unconvinced in the absence of concrete examples that back your claims.

What you don't understand about FR is that they didn't just become what they are today by eliminating their competition but by actually creating a whole new market out there. They got millions of people to switch to flying in stead of taking the bus or to actually go on holidays by plane to a destination not close from home.
These people were never targeted by traditional airlines. In the same way jetBlue needs to find its own kind of customer rather than lose their purpose. You can't be everything to everybody especially since a large share of the traveling public is willing to pay a bit more to have a certain level of comfort guaranteed.

No, traditional airlines are growing despite increasing presence of LCCs. In some markets they even managed to completely defeat them (good example of this is Norway). Actually this is a fantastic example which shows your 99% claim was utterly wrong.

Norway is actually not a good example at all. Indeed Ryanair and Wizzair don't have much market share there but Norwegian does, and they are an LCC. Maybe not an ULCC like Ryanair but they're tailored to the lower segment of the Scandinavian market.

You're right about customers being different and no airline can be everything at once. You need different airlines to target different markets, airlines should stick to their own specific market and tailor their service level to that while leaving the other markets to other airlines. Possibly within their own group, like the example I stated with Air France-KLM using Transavia to target a market which the Air France and KLM brands can't capture.

Blerg wrote:

What you don't understand about FR is that they didn't just become what they are today by eliminating their competition but by actually creating a whole new market out there.

You'd be better served focusing on what YOU don't understand (which is a lot)... seeing as, again, I've never made the claim or even mention of FR "eliminating their competition."

Blerg wrote:

No, traditional airlines are growing despite increasing presence of LCCs.

That's the nature of the market. Who's under the impression that "traditional airlines" (for that, I assume you mean network-based longhaul carriers) would cease growth at all?

What you keep failing to grasp is relativity. As depicted in your ridiculous comment below, or the FRA one above: anomalies do not a market trend make.


"In some markets they even managed to completely defeat them (good example of this is Norway). Actually this is a fantastic example which shows your 99% claim was utterly wrong."

Blerg wrote:

The fact AF-KL is keeping Transavia is because they know there is a large part of the traveling public that is willing to pay more not to fly on an LCC. Otherwise they would have created a mega LCC and would have gotten away with it. That is why they have adapted, they have listened to the consumer and adjusted themselves to their needs.

Perhaps you didn't realize but Transavia is an LCC, even bordering an ULCC. Air France and KLM are the premium brands, but plenty of people don't associate themselves with a premium brand. They're ordinary folks, they just want to get to your destination. They don't care about luxury.

Indeed there are people willing to pay more to not fly on an LCC, that's what they got the KLM and Air France brands for. Those offer a higher service level at a higher price. They wouldn't fly Ryanair. But among the people who would fly Ryanair, most of them would also fly Transavia. They're fishing in the same pond. With the Transavia brand Air France-KLM tries to dilute Ryanair.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The fact AF-KL is keeping Transavia is because they know there is a large part of the traveling public that is willing to pay more not to fly on an LCC. Otherwise they would have created a mega LCC and would have gotten away with it. That is why they have adapted, they have listened to the consumer and adjusted themselves to their needs.

Perhaps you didn't realize but Transavia is an LCC, even bordering an ULCC. Air France and KLM are the premium brands, but plenty of people don't associate themselves with a premium brand. They're ordinary folks, they just want to get to your destination. They don't care about luxury.

Indeed there are people willing to pay more to not fly on an LCC, that's what they got the KLM and Air France brands for. Those offer a higher service level at a higher price. They wouldn't fly Ryanair. But among the people who would fly Ryanair, most of them would also fly Transavia. They're fishing in the same pond. With the Transavia brand Air France-KLM tries to dilute Ryanair.

That's what I have been saying since the beginning. The market Transavia is after is the one that was developed by airlines like Ryanair decades ago. AFKL is trying to capture a share of it but they are not getting rid of their premium brand because there are people who don't mind paying more to fly on them.

This has nothing to do with Transavia or AF/KL.

Can we keep this on-topic please so it doesn't get locked?

Two different business models, two markets that are extremely different. You can't compare B6 JFK-FLL to AMS-FUE 3 days a week, and the market segments as to who is actually traveling are markedly different.

And as for what B6 should do... I don't even know anymore, counting on mgmt in LIC to get out of their group hot yoga class and let the troops know the plan.

cledaybuck wrote:

The US government isn’t going to allow AA to buy B6.

They let AA buy US. So I'm not so sure about that.

bluecrew wrote:

Two different business models, two markets that are extremely different. You can't compare B6 JFK-FLL to AMS-FUE 3 days a week, and the market segments as to who is actually traveling are markedly different.

It's actually not that different when you think about it, in both markets there are premium and non-premium travelers. In both markets there is therefor room for airlines offering a different service level.

So what JetBlue should do is what Air France-KLM did, they should acquire a second brand for their non-premium markets and keep JetBlue itself the premium brand. Two different airlines under one umbrella, it has been proven to work.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Two different business models, two markets that are extremely different. You can't compare B6 JFK-FLL to AMS-FUE 3 days a week, and the market segments as to who is actually traveling are markedly different.

It's actually not that different when you think about it, in both markets there are premium and non-premium travelers. In both markets there is therefor room for airlines offering a different service level.

So what JetBlue should do is what Air France-KLM did, they should acquire a second brand for their non-premium markets and keep JetBlue itself the premium brand. Two different airlines under one umbrella, it has been proven to work.

It's entirely different.

B6 on island flying has always focused on VFR flying, those A321s going to SDQ in the middle of the night are not full of vacationers. The original plan, which worked, was to suck up all the demand from AA in the vacuum they left, downsizing Latin America flying in the late 2000s/early 2010s. So is it premium flying during the day, and JetBlue Vacaciones during the night? Not that simple to segment.

Differentiating into two brands would be catastrophic, already there's a brand recognition problem outside of focus cities, and operating some separate brand for lower revenue travel would be yet another nail in the coffin. B6 simply doesn't have anywhere near the JFK slots, bandwidth, operational flexibility, or product flexibility to operate some secondary brand at the same cost structure. The reason the European airlines can get away with it is that they can stand up a new AOC within a few months and start paying the new crews a fraction of legacy costs, strip down the service, and generate a ULCC portion of the airline overnight, by hiring into that ULCC and operating in parallel with the existing operation. A good pilot contract makes that impossible (with good reason). The only way that works is by reducing cost structure - only way to start chipping away at that is a Metrojet style concession from the pilot group, or a Jets for Jobs scheme, and that's never going to happen again at any major airline.

Unlike European carriers, CBAs actually mean something here. B6 contract prohibits operating a sub-brand as a way of subverting the CBA - the idea was to prevent something like JetBlue Express or JetBlue Vacaciones, and thus sidelining existing junior pilots to a separate AOC, pay structure, work rules, etc.

Can't be done, thus the comparison is invalid. Let's move on

bluecrew wrote:

Unlike European carriers, CBAs actually mean something here. B6 contract prohibits operating a sub-brand as a way of subverting the CBA - the idea was to prevent something like JetBlue Express or JetBlue Vacaciones, and thus sidelining existing junior pilots to a separate AOC, pay structure, work rules, etc.

Can't be done, thus the comparison is invalid. Let's move on

A while back another user made this claim, and I was able to get my hands on the current JetBlue pilot contract. I've read Section 1 front to back a few times now. Can you point to the section which prohibits JetBlue from having a sub-brand so long as "all flying conducted [is] ... performed by pilots on the JetBlue Airways seniority list"? JetBlue don't have to create a new airline with separate employee groups to have a sub-brand in the way the Euro flag carriers do. I don't think it would be a good idea at all, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility with a management team who are prone to execute bad ideas.

trueblew wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Unlike European carriers, CBAs actually mean something here. B6 contract prohibits operating a sub-brand as a way of subverting the CBA - the idea was to prevent something like JetBlue Express or JetBlue Vacaciones, and thus sidelining existing junior pilots to a separate AOC, pay structure, work rules, etc.

Can't be done, thus the comparison is invalid. Let's move on

A while back another user made this claim, and I was able to get my hands on the current JetBlue pilot contract. I've read Section 1 front to back a few times now. Can you point to the section which prohibits JetBlue from having a sub-brand so long as "all flying conducted [is] ... performed by pilots on the JetBlue Airways seniority list"? JetBlue don't have to create a new airline with separate employee groups to have a sub-brand in the way the Euro flag carriers do. I don't think it would be a good idea at all, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility with a management team who are prone to execute bad ideas.

It's always been in Section 15, about seniority integration, regarding the acquisition or creation of an affiliate through a partner. Prevents anything greater than 50 seats or 10% ASM without arranging for a merger of the seniority list. It would allow them to stand up a very small charter operation with a separate seniority list, or a 49 seat RJ affiliate, but block them from flying too many seats, essentially blocking regional flying. There are other protections to stop them from standing up a regional operation as well.

Unsurprisingly, JetBlue's growth was around the same time as the 2003-4 round of airline bankruptcies, and a lot of pilots came over from US Airways (joke was to see the B6 seniority list you just had to hold the US one upside down), who had all been burned by the MetroJet scheme. The protections were written into the contract with that type of situation in mind - we just spent 15 years thinking that management's line about regional flying not being profitable, and not wanting a regional subsidiary, to be sufficient to not write harder protections into the contract. The NEA brings a lot of that into stark relief.

The protections here are written almost entirely to stop the company from painting 737-200s red and flying them to Florida. Not as strong as they could be, but I'll take that over Delta scope protection which is wanting.

Management could hypothetically do it with a brand new AOC and a holding company, but it would be pursued in court immediately, and they'd lose. It's just not how we do business in the US, and I don't really think any management team wants to be an "innovator in the space" with that idea. Their way around this is simply to cloak plenty of regional flying in the NEA, and maybe find a new home for the 190s if anyone wants them. The latter would require an amendment to some language, but the company has found ways to get things I'd never imagine possible done.

bluecrew wrote:

trueblew wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Unlike European carriers, CBAs actually mean something here. B6 contract prohibits operating a sub-brand as a way of subverting the CBA - the idea was to prevent something like JetBlue Express or JetBlue Vacaciones, and thus sidelining existing junior pilots to a separate AOC, pay structure, work rules, etc.

Can't be done, thus the comparison is invalid. Let's move on

A while back another user made this claim, and I was able to get my hands on the current JetBlue pilot contract. I've read Section 1 front to back a few times now. Can you point to the section which prohibits JetBlue from having a sub-brand so long as "all flying conducted [is] ... performed by pilots on the JetBlue Airways seniority list"? JetBlue don't have to create a new airline with separate employee groups to have a sub-brand in the way the Euro flag carriers do. I don't think it would be a good idea at all, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility with a management team who are prone to execute bad ideas.

It's always been in Section 15, about seniority integration, regarding the acquisition or creation of an affiliate through a partner. Prevents anything greater than 50 seats or 10% ASM without arranging for a merger of the seniority list. It would allow them to stand up a very small charter operation with a separate seniority list, or a 49 seat RJ affiliate, but block them from flying too many seats, essentially blocking regional flying. There are other protections to stop them from standing up a regional operation as well.

Unsurprisingly, JetBlue's growth was around the same time as the 2003-4 round of airline bankruptcies, and a lot of pilots came over from US Airways (joke was to see the B6 seniority list you just had to hold the US one upside down), who had all been burned by the MetroJet scheme. The protections were written into the contract with that type of situation in mind - we just spent 15 years thinking that management's line about regional flying not being profitable, and not wanting a regional subsidiary, to be sufficient to not write harder protections into the contract. The NEA brings a lot of that into stark relief.

The protections here are written almost entirely to stop the company from painting 737-200s red and flying them to Florida. Not as strong as they could be, but I'll take that over Delta scope protection which is wanting.

Management could hypothetically do it with a brand new AOC and a holding company, but it would be pursued in court immediately, and they'd lose. It's just not how we do business in the US, and I don't really think any management team wants to be an "innovator in the space" with that idea. Their way around this is simply to cloak plenty of regional flying in the NEA, and maybe find a new home for the 190s if anyone wants them. The latter would require an amendment to some language, but the company has found ways to get things I'd never imagine possible done.

I certainly appreciate the background and context, but my question was regarding a sub-brand being staffed by crew on the JetBlue master seniority list not any arrangements to the effect you were describing above.

trueblew wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

trueblew wrote:

A while back another user made this claim, and I was able to get my hands on the current JetBlue pilot contract. I've read Section 1 front to back a few times now. Can you point to the section which prohibits JetBlue from having a sub-brand so long as "all flying conducted [is] ... performed by pilots on the JetBlue Airways seniority list"? JetBlue don't have to create a new airline with separate employee groups to have a sub-brand in the way the Euro flag carriers do. I don't think it would be a good idea at all, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility with a management team who are prone to execute bad ideas.

It's always been in Section 15, about seniority integration, regarding the acquisition or creation of an affiliate through a partner. Prevents anything greater than 50 seats or 10% ASM without arranging for a merger of the seniority list. It would allow them to stand up a very small charter operation with a separate seniority list, or a 49 seat RJ affiliate, but block them from flying too many seats, essentially blocking regional flying. There are other protections to stop them from standing up a regional operation as well.

Unsurprisingly, JetBlue's growth was around the same time as the 2003-4 round of airline bankruptcies, and a lot of pilots came over from US Airways (joke was to see the B6 seniority list you just had to hold the US one upside down), who had all been burned by the MetroJet scheme. The protections were written into the contract with that type of situation in mind - we just spent 15 years thinking that management's line about regional flying not being profitable, and not wanting a regional subsidiary, to be sufficient to not write harder protections into the contract. The NEA brings a lot of that into stark relief.

The protections here are written almost entirely to stop the company from painting 737-200s red and flying them to Florida. Not as strong as they could be, but I'll take that over Delta scope protection which is wanting.

Management could hypothetically do it with a brand new AOC and a holding company, but it would be pursued in court immediately, and they'd lose. It's just not how we do business in the US, and I don't really think any management team wants to be an "innovator in the space" with that idea. Their way around this is simply to cloak plenty of regional flying in the NEA, and maybe find a new home for the 190s if anyone wants them. The latter would require an amendment to some language, but the company has found ways to get things I'd never imagine possible done.

I certainly appreciate the background and context, but my question was regarding a sub-brand being staffed by crew on the JetBlue master seniority list not any arrangements to the effect you were describing above.

I don't know, I'm not the union's lawyer. I can only imagine it would be vigorously challenged as being an end-run around the protections already described.

They can run a sub-brand all day as long as they're integrated into the master seniority list and subject to the CBA, which means same pay rates. I assume the flight attendants have a very similar provision in their contract, I would be shocked if it's not in there.

For the non-unionized airport ops and ramp people, they would be SOL, but they don't make enough for cuts to be meaningful anyways. And if you were to cut pay rates for AO/GO, you'd see a pretty immediate staffing issue, because they'd quit and go work down the terminal at UA/DL/AA.

There just wouldn't be much of a point in expending marketing capital and trying to build a new brand from scratch when you're going to basically have to pay everyone the same amounts.