A lot of talk of B6 lately, whether their loses, the NK merger (unsuccessful), the NEA, Robin Hayes as CEO, their transatlantic operation, etc.

IMO B6 should drop all non trans con flying from LAX. Keep only JFK, EWR, BOS, Florida routes, Mexico, and Costa Rica from LAX and make them all MINT to stay competitive. Focus on the northeast to Florida routes, continue to expand in Latin America and Caribbean from MCO, JFK, FLL. In London I think they should keep the operation simple with JFK and BOS only, and focus on growing their brand across the pond.

Lastly I don’t think B6 should rely on the NEA with AA going forward as much as they’re saying they will. I don’t know how possible it would be but I would like to see B6 start JVs with Icelandair, Copa, and maybe Caribbean Airlines.

Curious to know what other’s opinion is what they should do going forward

Drop the NEA, buy spirit (either via their shareholders overturning the BOD or via hostile takeover) and keep the NK gates/slots they said they’d divest to keep the NEA alive with the merger, then in 5 years after the dust has settled from that merger, buy Alaska. Maybe buy some 330NEOs while they are at it.

Maybe they get desperate enough and they merge with someone else but if it is AS I doubt they are the surviving name. If they don’t get NK I feel like HA is the only one that would allow them to keep their name but they don’t make much sense.

But why would they need to do anything other than what they have been doing until now? Why not just keep on growing organically and slowly expanding their coverage to new markets.
If B6 is struggling with their operations then the last thing they need is to over-expand. As for their finances, they might be losing money now because of covid and the economic slowdown in the US.
However, if I am not wrong, before covid they were profitable.

That said, I never understood where this obsession with mergers in the US was coming from? Why would you as a consumer wish for less competition and less options when flying?

Wneast wrote:

merge with someone else but if it is AS I doubt they are the surviving name.

Why? Sure AS has brand equity in the west, but who's to say that B6's recognition in the east isn't the greater value?

I mean, "Southwest" is one thing-- but it really would be sorta odd to have a potentially NYC-based carrier, flying all throughout and within the eastern corridor, called "Alaska." "JetBlue" on the other than, is rather neutral.

And as the UA/CO and J7/FL mergers have shown: the smaller airline can (for various reasons) possess the greater branding value, much to the chagrin of Av nerds everywhere.

Blerg wrote:

That said, I never understood where this obsession with mergers in the US was coming from? Why would you as a consumer wish for less competition and less options when flying?

Why are you only looking through the lens of a consumer?

Equally (if not greater) represented here and elsewhere online, are the enthusiast and the investor-- both of whom could have an interest in a stronger and more financially stable/capable entity.

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

That said, I never understood where this obsession with mergers in the US was coming from? Why would you as a consumer wish for less competition and less options when flying?

Why are you only looking through the lens of a consumer?

Equally (if not greater) represented here and elsewhere online, are the enthusiast and the investor-- both of whom could have an interest in a stronger and more financially stable/capable entity.

Because the consumer is what matters the most. Furthermore, why should an enthusiast be happy about there being less airlines flying around the US?

As for investors, why should I as a consumer care for them. Less competition means more expensive fares so that profits could be higher. So I should pay more for an average fare so that they can keep on breaking previous records on profitability? No thanks.

Blerg wrote:

But why would they need to do anything other than what they have been doing until now? Why not just keep on growing organically and slowly expanding their coverage to new markets.
If B6 is struggling with their operations then the last thing they need is to over-expand. As for their finances, they might be losing money now because of covid and the economic slowdown in the US.
However, if I am not wrong, before covid they were profitable.

That said, I never understood where this obsession with mergers in the US was coming from? Why would you as a consumer wish for less competition and less options when flying?

My previous remarks were more towards B6 making cuts, going back to their basics and strong markets. I don’t think expanded expedited growth is the answer right now.

Blerg wrote:

But why would they need to do anything other than what they have been doing until now? Why not just keep on growing organically and slowly expanding their coverage to new markets. If B6 is struggling with their operations then the last thing they need is to over-expand.

I totally agree with you, Blerg! JetBlue is strongest on the USA's east coast, west coast, Florida, and the Caribbean. As much as I would like to see them serve my hometown airport (CVG), I don't see that fitting into their current business model. (After all, they did wash out at CMH.) There are still many opportunities to plant their footprints in their own front, back, and side yards. The NEA should serve them well, and so should carefully selected transatlantic markets.

Actually, I did see a JetBlue Airbus A320 at CVG a few years ago. It was September, and a JetBlue charter brought a high school football team from New Jersey to Cincinnati to play St. Xavier.

JetBlue unfortunately lost their shot with Virgin America (I think this would've been the perfect merger... east v west, culture, age, fleet, etc), and that's left them behind in the dust and without a dance partner, with the (dreaded) ULCC model becoming bigger and bigger while JB's superior product gets forgotten. So here's my.... well, it's too out-there to be a prediction... so I guess here's my fantasy:

Southwest buys JetBlue but continues to operate it as a separate entity and its own brand, so the marriage is essentially a financial/business decision to help save a lot of what JB has worked toward and preserve its super loyal customer base, and also to give the combined SW company a fortified presence in certain markets.

Both sides (basically) keep doing what they are now, but they become a bit more focused to reduce overlap that may exist: the Southwest side would own the whole middle of the country (and especially the southwest) using their current model of no-frills and heavy point-to-point routemap, while the JetBlue side of the house will focus on NYC/BOS to Florida and Caribbean, and on being the sole operator of the transcons, Caribbean, and Europe for the combined airline, since those routes have the highest demand for the Mint product. The JB side would focus on their NYC, BOS, and Florida hubs, with LAX and SFO being reduced from what they are now to almost-solely providing the premium transcon ops.

The combined airline would bring under one roof two different groups of travelers (I never really considered SW and JB to be direct competitors) and further fortify themselves against the ever-growing ULCC model of Spirit/Frontier and Allegiant WITHOUT erasing JB's incredible cabin product and IFE from the map. This would be a way of saving JB's products and not letting them be left behind in the dust of the latest round of merger mania, and would also gives the combined Southwest a sudden huge presence into the NYC and Boston markets, where SW has never been all that big. Plus, Southwest and JetBlue each have huge customer loyalty.

Odds I give it: About 0. But hey... it's fun to stir the pot. Where's that old dodging-apple emoji when ya need it??

Blerg wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

That said, I never understood where this obsession with mergers in the US was coming from? Why would you as a consumer wish for less competition and less options when flying?

Why are you only looking through the lens of a consumer?

Equally (if not greater) represented here and elsewhere online, are the enthusiast and the investor-- both of whom could have an interest in a stronger and more financially stable/capable entity.

Because the consumer is what matters the most. Furthermore, why should an enthusiast be happy about there being less airlines flying around the US?

As for investors, why should I as a consumer care for them. Less competition means more expensive fares so that profits could be higher. So I should pay more for an average fare so that they can keep on breaking previous records on profitability? No thanks.

Consumers don’t run companies or make business/transactional decisions (except when it comes to purchasing goods and services of course). Owners of the company do. The lens of a consumer is mostly irrelevant in M&A, except as it relates to the effect a transaction has on consumers in an antitrust review. So, it doesn’t matter if you care for investors or not—the fact is the investors own the respective companies, and they therefore have a say. Consumers don’t. If consumers had a say in how businesses were run, all bags would be free, tickets would be $25 round trip transcon, and every seat in the airplane would be first or business.

To your other question about why would a consumer want a merger? As a consumer, if a B6/NK merger gave me more flight options to more places around the country with a superior onboard product and a cheaper fare than a legacy carrier, then I would welcome that. More uncomfortable torture chamber NK/F9 flights with nickel and dime fares are useless to me, as I wouldn’t ever fly on either of them if I had a choice. More B6 flights with more focus cities and destinations, however, would bring a better product with lower fares to more people and give more choices to people who are otherwise flying on a legacy or southwest. The broader and deeper an airline’s network is, the more useful it is to its consumers, unless it creates a monopoly and drives prices up. But fortunately for consumers, a 5% player acquiring a 3% player wouldn’t exactly create a monopoly in any markets.

Blerg wrote:

But why would they need to do anything other than what they have been doing until now? Why not just keep on growing organically and slowly expanding their coverage to new markets.

Because currently there is a unique opportunity to capture a great deal of growth in the airline industry. Per Doug Parker, US airlines contribute about 1% of US GDP. Currently, due to Covid, it is about 0.5%. So the airlines are going to see a great deal of growth simply to catch up to historical levels, and in order to monetize this opportunity you need aircraft and crew. Hence, the need for jetBlue to beef up by acquiring another airline. Spirit is almost an ideal acquisition target. And if jetBlue management have been interested in Spirit, as they claim, then one could reasonably assume that jetBlue have built up a position of Spirit stock over the years. I personally find it hard to believe Spirit board have rejected B6 offer, and I don't think this is the end of it.

Blerg wrote:

Because the consumer is what matters the most. Furthermore, why should an enthusiast be happy about there being less airlines flying around the US?

As for investors, why should I as a consumer care for them.

So much this.

Putting on my travel enthusiast/consumer hat:
- I want to travel on more different airlines not less (so I don't want Air Europa to be merged into Iberia).
- I want to have less fleet rationalization and more different aircraft options to travel on to my destinations (yay for obscure types that would likely be lost in the event of mergers eg SAS 737-600, Q Link 717s etc).
- I want fares to be more competitive, not less.

Putting on my spotter's hat:
- I want to see many airlines flying into whatever airport I'm at, not fewer larger ones.
- I want to see a diverse range of aircraft types, not for whatever airport to be rationalized into a fleet base for whatever airline's 737-800s or A320s.

Putting on my investor's hat, I know better than to invest in airlines, so have no reason to want them to have an outsized profit that beats that of the same quarter in the previous year. Doesn't mean that I don't want them to be profitable, obviously.

Not speaking about anyone in particular, but this forum has loads of comments that are seemingly wanting more mergers/takeovers and more fleet homogenization, which I do find particularly curious.

sea13 wrote:

A lot of talk of B6 lately, whether their loses, the NK merger (unsuccessful), the NEA, Robin Hayes as CEO, their transatlantic operation, etc.

IMO B6 should drop all non trans con flying from LAX. Keep only JFK, EWR, BOS, Florida routes, Mexico, and Costa Rica from LAX and make them all MINT to stay competitive. Focus on the northeast to Florida routes, continue to expand in Latin America and Caribbean from MCO, JFK, FLL. In London I think they should keep the operation simple with JFK and BOS only, and focus on growing their brand across the pond.

Lastly I don’t think B6 should rely on the NEA with AA going forward as much as they’re saying they will. I don’t know how possible it would be but I would like to see B6 start JVs with Icelandair, Copa, and maybe Caribbean Airlines.

Curious to know what other’s opinion is what they should do going forward

I don't care what qualifications you have, but send a letter to Queens Plaza with a screenshot of this and ask for a position on the board. You'll be there in no time.

This has been the problem for nearly a decade. Retrench in the Northeast, stay afraid of anything outside the comfort zone, and only focus on Florida and trophy routes.

The FL expansion to the Caribbean and LatAm has been done with NK as the primary competitor on most routes. London is a nonsequitur: it's one market with 2 P2P routes, that's hardly going to disrupt the market. Enjoy your 8-hour layover in the beautiful T5 before your flight to Raleigh.

Mint is not competitive unless we're talking premium heavy routes. There was an extensive analysis done on a "short-haul Mint" back in 2015 and from what they said, it wouldn't make up for the loss of coach seats. This was part of the cabin reconfiguration project shortly after Mint launched; finance made sure to let us know that they'd lose their shirt on Mint on the 320 or also 162 seats instead of 165 (but they settled on 162).

B6 has seemingly fully hitched itself to the NEA and the "growth" that will come from essentially a JV with American. It's a slippery slope into becoming the "major" that feeds the majors.

If B6 merge with AS how large would it be?

Blerg wrote:

Because the consumer is what matters the most.

In M&A? ...um, since when?

99% of consumers don't give a damn who they're on, so long as it's the lowest price offered...

...and for all the regulatory mantra regarding "what's best for the consumer," anyone with an iota of experience knows that the true concern is the maximization of returns coupled with minimization of regulatory impositions.

Blerg wrote:

Furthermore, why should an enthusiast be happy about there being less airlines flying around the US?

Again, you're defaulting the perspective of a consumer: the LEAST consequential one.

But to answer your question: efficiency. People here love to romanticize the days of milk-runs on multiple incompatible carriers, while forgetting how much it sucked ass having to (pay someone to) keep up with and book those ever-changing itineraries.

Blerg wrote:

As for investors, why should I as a consumer care for them.

Who's saying you should? Again: consumer-- least consequential opinion regarding a merger. No corporate board is ACTUALLY concerned with how consumers feel, only whether or not they'll perpetuate the same-or-better spending habits/patterns, post transaction.

chunhimlai wrote:

If B6 merge with AS how large would it be?

5th largest US carrier in most measures, behind the Big3+WN.

Also worth noting that if AS were to be the surviving certificate, then the merged AS+B6 would continue to be one of the four surviving "Legacy carrier(s)" alongside AA/DL/UA.

FlySail2015 wrote:

Southwest buys JetBlue but continues to operate it as a separate entity and its own brand, so the marriage is essentially a financial/business decision to help save a lot of what JB has worked toward and preserve its super loyal customer base, and also to give the combined SW company a fortified presence in certain markets.

Well, not exactly your fantasy as stated, but think of it this way:

Southwest's (WN, not SW) hodgepodge presence in NYC will always be a reminder (1) that it can screw up a market assessment just as well as the worst of 'em, and (2) of JetBlue (B6, not JB)
______________________________
NY (both city and state) for years, decades even, PLEADED with WN to expand domestic service from JFK, which back in the '80s and '90s was nothing like it is today: aside from the Concordes and a few LatAm arrivals, you could go bowling on JFK's runways from sunrise to mid-afternoon.

Yet, no matter what offer was thrown at them, WN perpetually refused. Sure it was "Herb's airline" back then, and followed the "guidelines" that helped it grow. But right under their nose, circa 2000, came Neeleman with his "New Air" concept, wanting 738s and upstate subsidies. They got the latter, but Boeing refused to sell a new entrant the former in the amount/price they requested. Enter Airbus, with a glorious deal on A320s. And now, 23yrs later, you have B6.

WN could've easily had a 500+ departure station, and one less major competitor, had they played their cards well back then. #Hindsight

JetBlue's immediate needs are to overhaul its leadership structure, with a specific focus around bringing in IT, Operations, and Network folks to rebuild from the inside. Their strategy since the pandemic has been a mess (LAX, EWR growth not quite working out as planned) but operational issues have been a core B6 issue since its earlier days (does anyone remember the Valentine's Day snow storm mess in the 2000s?)

Long term, I think JetBlue is headed for a merger. The question though, is realistically, with whom, and how, financially. The NK proposal is cynical, and it is stupid. It doesn't do a lot to fill the holes in the B6 domestic network and they'd spend a fortune aligning the NK cabin configurations to its own.

JetBlue's assets are the slots, the planes, and the brand, but its inability to run a clean operation for as long as it has been around are its achilles heel. My sense is AS or AA are where JetBlue is headed, but financially, it will require a combination of activist investors, private equity, and other financial instruments to make that work as no US airline is in a position to outright purchase another.

zkojq wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Because the consumer is what matters the most. Furthermore, why should an enthusiast be happy about there being less airlines flying around the US?

As for investors, why should I as a consumer care for them.

So much this.

Putting on my travel enthusiast/consumer hat:
- I want to travel on more different airlines not less (so I don't want Air Europa to be merged into Iberia).
- I want to have less fleet rationalization and more different aircraft options to travel on to my destinations (yay for obscure types that would likely be lost in the event of mergers eg SAS 737-600, Q Link 717s etc).
- I want fares to be more competitive, not less.

Putting on my spotter's hat:
- I want to see many airlines flying into whatever airport I'm at, not fewer larger ones.
- I want to see a diverse range of aircraft types, not for whatever airport to be rationalized into a fleet base for whatever airline's 737-800s or A320s.

Putting on my investor's hat, I know better than to invest in airlines, so have no reason to want them to have an outsized profit that beats that of the same quarter in the previous year. Doesn't mean that I don't want them to be profitable, obviously.

Not speaking about anyone in particular, but this forum has loads of comments that are seemingly wanting more mergers/takeovers and more fleet homogenization, which I do find particularly curious.

I’m glad we’re finally addressing this.

Anyone else notice a trend where A.net users have become far less interested in aircraft and far more interested in business? Maybe that’s the way of the world as T tails and tri-holers and 747s become a thing of the past. Maybe with the skies full of boring 737s and a320s with a few homogeneous looking widebodies peppered in aviation enthusiasts have little choice but to shift focus.

I still hold on for nostalgia and book most of my flights on 757s and 767s (fortunately DL still operates large fleets). I feel bad for enthusiast who live in parts of the world where this is almost impossible.

Ultimately it’s always interesting to be in the know about the airline business - I do remember a time when the “armchair CEO” posts carried more of a stigma when it came to uneducated speculation.

If they want to continue selling Emirates style first class seats, they really should consider buying some A330s and start some transpacific routes.

They should get new management and fix up their internal problems before trying too much other things. The network is fine. LAX is doing great. NEA is doing well. FLL/MCO will be in the backburners. That was the situation before this SAVE merger attempt and it will be the situation after it.

Realistically, focus on building up LAX as well as EWR. I can see why NK would prefer F9...issues with competition in Florida, on NY-FL routes, and the Northeast Alliance at B6. There isn't an iNKling of having both Spirit and the NEA.

A B6 and AS merger has already been discussed but what about a HA+B6 or AA+B6 merger look like? I am assuming that DoJ won't approve of the AA and B6 but it will be interesting to see what the dynamics of HA and B6 look like.

Um... nothing. Just keep doing good, grow organically and leverage the AA agreement.

I have often wondered if JetBlue and Alaska could simply be allowed to optimize their two networks without breaking monopoly laws. I don't think either of them compete on any(?) routes without competition from the big 4. Even Hawaii could be encouraged to join. The 'price' they might be required to pay, would be improving networks into areas not served. This could be, either directly, or by requiring favorable contracts with smaller regionals - In effect a small alliance. The problem would be how they would ally with world wide alliances. The two (or three) have prospered by offering somewhat upscale service. As such they have offered a unique choice for many. If they didn't have to compete with each other they may be able to better compete with the big 4.

ps - this would not mean that there would be no overlap, particularly in the major markets. Both likely would continue Seattle/New York.

LAX772LR wrote:

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

Uh, no.

LAX772LR wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Because the consumer is what matters the most.

In M&A? ...um, since when?

99% of consumers don't give a damn who they're on, so long as it's the lowest price offered...

...and for all the regulatory mantra regarding "what's best for the consumer," anyone with an iota of experience knows that the true concern is the maximization of returns coupled with minimization of regulatory impositions.

Blerg wrote:

Furthermore, why should an enthusiast be happy about there being less airlines flying around the US?

Again, you're defaulting the perspective of a consumer: the LEAST consequential one.

But to answer your question: efficiency. People here love to romanticize the days of milk-runs on multiple incompatible carriers, while forgetting how much it sucked ass having to (pay someone to) keep up with and book those ever-changing itineraries.

Blerg wrote:

As for investors, why should I as a consumer care for them.

Who's saying you should? Again: consumer-- least consequential opinion regarding a merger. No corporate board is ACTUALLY concerned with how consumers feel, only whether or not they'll perpetuate the same-or-better spending habits/patterns, post transaction.

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. They would be just running around cutting costs and trying to offer the cheapest fare. 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. After all, how many legacies have brought back onboard snacks and drinks after suspending them? Why would they do that if 99% of the people don't care about that but are only after the lowest fare?

Matter of fact is that despite what many on here say, there is more than 1% of the traveling public that is ready to avoid ULCCs and actually pay more to have a decent onboard experience. This has been shown over and over again.

When it comes to mergers and acquisitions, of course the consumers matter. After all, it's the consumers that decide how strong the stock is and with it the bargaining position of each side. There is a reason why airlines like Spirit or Frontier did not replace carriers such as Delta or United.

I keep on reading here that people only care about the price but have never actually seen any kind of scientific backing. Meanwhile, airlines with higher costs and higher fares manage to remain competitive.

What B6 needs to do is to give people a reason to book a flight with them instead of their competition.

Blerg wrote:

What B6 needs to do is to give people a reason to book a flight with them instead of their competition.

And that’s where B6 struggles. Their costs aren’t low enough to compete with super low fares, but outside of NYC and BOS they don’t have a compelling network to attract frequent flyers from competitors.

Sell the airline to American, United or Southwest. I think the employees would like to work for one of those three, upward mobility.

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?

With Delta at JFK and United at Newark the only US3 airline that could merge with JB is AA. If AA & JB did merge they would have a huge amount of terminal space at JFK from the old TWA site( JB terminal ) to the current BA terminal 7 to AA T8.

JB could establish a third hub in their JFK and BOS style at Dulles in the Washington area.

Is there a path forward for B6 that includes a successful outcome with the NEA lawsuit?

This is likely a flawed way of thinking, but lets take a drastic example and say B6 one day decides they are done being an independently branded airline and want to replicate what someone like Republic Airways has done with their capacity purchase agreements with several airlines. AA then buys capacity through an agreement with the ex-B6 company in NYC and those airplanes that once flew the B6 colors from JFK-FLL now are painted in AA Connection scheme with "Operated by JetBlue Airways" next to the door. Would this be legal? Why would this be allowed but the NEA not (which by comparison preserves the brand and position in the industry as a competitor)?

Long story short, could this NEA style agreement be a more rational path forward for short haul flying currently done via capacity purchase agreements at regional carriers? Is it better for the consumer to have JB/AA NEA vs AA slot squatting with small RJs flying LGA-PHL?

If this could be accomplished then maybe we see it spread to other parts of the country and even with other carriers. Maybe UA would like to gain access to B6's FLL hub and B6 can grow in ORD with their network and FF base.

flyby519 wrote:

Is there a path forward for B6 that includes a successful outcome with the NEA lawsuit?

This is likely a flawed way of thinking, but lets take a drastic example and say B6 one day decides they are done being an independently branded airline and want to replicate what someone like Republic Airways has done with their capacity purchase agreements with several airlines. AA then buys capacity through an agreement with the ex-B6 company in NYC and those airplanes that once flew the B6 colors from JFK-FLL now are painted in AA Connection scheme with "Operated by JetBlue Airways" next to the door. Would this be legal? Why would this be allowed but the NEA not (which by comparison preserves the brand and position in the industry as a competitor)?

Long story short, could this NEA style agreement be a more rational path forward for short haul flying currently done via capacity purchase agreements at regional carriers? Is it better for the consumer to have JB/AA NEA vs AA slot squatting with small RJs flying LGA-PHL?

If this could be accomplished then maybe we see it spread to other parts of the country and even with other carriers. Maybe UA would like to gain access to B6's FLL hub and B6 can grow in ORD with their network and FF base.

Scope clauses still exist so this is a non-starter for all legacy carriers.

Polot wrote:

Blerg wrote:

What B6 needs to do is to give people a reason to book a flight with them instead of their competition.

And that’s where B6 struggles. Their costs aren’t low enough to compete with super low fares, but outside of NYC and BOS they don’t have a compelling network to attract frequent flyers from competitors.

I'm in the Northeast and because of their ongoing operational issues I find myself spending more money and potentially accepting a connection to avoid them apart from Mint operated services which seem to fare better operationally. The soft and hard product is good and the pricing is okay given the number of non stop services from JFK and BOS. None of that matters if folks can't rely on the flight to depart on time or at all.

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?

I haven't heard anyone argue that their market percentage at FLL would be a problem; the issue is eliminating a lower fare competitor and trying to do all this and keep the NEA.

usflyer msp 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?

I haven't heard anyone argue that their market percentage at FLL would be a problem; the issue is eliminating a lower fare competitor and trying to do all this and keep the NEA.

Right. The part about being aligned with the largest airline in the country is a problem.

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.

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.

cledaybuck wrote:

usflyer msp 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?

I haven't heard anyone argue that their market percentage at FLL would be a problem; the issue is eliminating a lower fare competitor and trying to do all this and keep the NEA.

Right. The part about being aligned with the largest airline in the country is a problem.

And NK has been one of the most vocal airlines against the NEA. So B6 suddenly buying them isn’t the greatest look.

Abeam79 wrote:

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.

you realize that NK and it’s shareholders only fully get paid out if the deal closes (ie, gets full regulatory approval) correct? And that is the problem- NK’s board of directors believe the deal will never close due to antitrust concerns, and in the meantime Spirit would be stuck in a limbo that could leave them worse off than if they rejected the deal (or in this case take F9’s).

bval wrote:

Polot wrote:

Blerg wrote:

What B6 needs to do is to give people a reason to book a flight with them instead of their competition.

And that’s where B6 struggles. Their costs aren’t low enough to compete with super low fares, but outside of NYC and BOS they don’t have a compelling network to attract frequent flyers from competitors.

I'm in the Northeast and because of their ongoing operational issues I find myself spending more money and potentially accepting a connection to avoid them apart from Mint operated services which seem to fare better operationally. The soft and hard product is good and the pricing is okay given the number of non stop services from JFK and BOS. None of that matters if folks can't rely on the flight to depart on time or at all.

Every time I read about their operational issues I think about my last B6 flight....several years ago, an overnight LAS - FLL. At the gate it became progressively more and more delayed, eventually about 90 minutes late, but the gate agents sounded like it was a common event. However, they spent a lot of time hounding people about measuring carry-ons and checking bags, going as far as to threaten to walk around the seating area and take bags that they thought were too large (which they started to do). No, there wasn't an issue with mine. Most that I saw would easily fit in an overhead. After that experience why would I fly them again? For most of my flying, timing is important. They need to focus on operations.

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.

Really well said, I agree with you on upper management changes among others.

Instead of another airline, B6 needs someone like Indigo Partners to buy them out and take B6 private for massive restructurings and make them a more attractive investment and/or perspective merging partner.

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

usflyer msp wrote:

flyby519 wrote:

Is there a path forward for B6 that includes a successful outcome with the NEA lawsuit?

This is likely a flawed way of thinking, but lets take a drastic example and say B6 one day decides they are done being an independently branded airline and want to replicate what someone like Republic Airways has done with their capacity purchase agreements with several airlines. AA then buys capacity through an agreement with the ex-B6 company in NYC and those airplanes that once flew the B6 colors from JFK-FLL now are painted in AA Connection scheme with "Operated by JetBlue Airways" next to the door. Would this be legal? Why would this be allowed but the NEA not (which by comparison preserves the brand and position in the industry as a competitor)?

Long story short, could this NEA style agreement be a more rational path forward for short haul flying currently done via capacity purchase agreements at regional carriers? Is it better for the consumer to have JB/AA NEA vs AA slot squatting with small RJs flying LGA-PHL?

If this could be accomplished then maybe we see it spread to other parts of the country and even with other carriers. Maybe UA would like to gain access to B6's FLL hub and B6 can grow in ORD with their network and FF base.

Scope clauses still exist so this is a non-starter for all legacy carriers.

Scope clauses aside, what would the DOJ be able to do about B6 becoming a CPA carrier vs an independent brand and sell all capacity to other airlines? This is a thought experiment and I really dont think this is likely, but it frames the NEA in a better light vs what would be legal otherwise.

I do think that healthier/more rational relations between competing carriers can be a win for consumers.

flyby519 wrote:

Is there a path forward for B6 that includes a successful outcome with the NEA lawsuit?

Yes! If they can prove that the NEA has not been anti-competitive. Both airlines seem very confident that they can make their case.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

JetBlue's immediate needs are to overhaul its leadership structure, with a specific focus around bringing in IT, Operations, and Network folks to rebuild from the inside. Their strategy since the pandemic has been a mess (LAX, EWR growth not quite working out as planned) but operational issues have been a core B6 issue since its earlier days (does anyone remember the Valentine's Day snow storm mess in the 2000s?)

Long term, I think JetBlue is headed for a merger. The question though, is realistically, with whom, and how, financially. The NK proposal is cynical, and it is stupid. It doesn't do a lot to fill the holes in the B6 domestic network and they'd spend a fortune aligning the NK cabin configurations to its own.

JetBlue's assets are the slots, the planes, and the brand, but its inability to run a clean operation for as long as it has been around are its achilles heel. My sense is AS or AA are where JetBlue is headed, but financially, it will require a combination of activist investors, private equity, and other financial instruments to make that work as no US airline is in a position to outright purchase another.

I agree with the above. The sad fact is their inability to run a clean operation is partly what has them in this situation. It's evident one of the reasons their costs keep spiraling up as they are is that B6 can't reduce their irrops losses. A full C suite change is not an easy or quick fix, but without it, I don't see how they move forward no matter what their strategy. I'll add that I hate mergers, and loss of competition. I fly a few times a month and ticket prices over the last Quarter are the highest I've paid in years, including pre-covid.

CobaltScar wrote:

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

Why AS and B6? Both of the route networks, business models, and branding are different. Easten Airlines have a better change merging with Jetblue than Alaska does.

Call Allegiant and make them an offer. Or at this point even call Hawaiian. We still have to wait and see how the NK deal plays out because their shareholders are not happy about looking all that B6 money. I am willing to be they are talking to them directly behind the scenes.

PHLspecial wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

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

Why AS and B6? Both of the route networks, business models, and branding are different. Easten Airlines have a better change merging with Jetblue than Alaska does.

They would actually fit together really well, not that I see a merger happening anytime soon (too many egos involved in that pairing).

Their route networks are complimentary, although still weak in middle of country, and their business models are similar-they are “legacy-lite” airlines in terms of service as oppose to full [U]LCC experiences.

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.