Will JetBlue A320 pilots ask for union representation if Neeleman exchanges A320 routes for Embraer

[AAplanesareold]

Just a question for JetBlue pilots (or anyone else):

If Neeleman takes away A320 flying and gives it to Embraer pilots a couple of years from now, would the JetBlue A320 pilots seek union representation?

In other words, if the Embraer pilots start displacing A320 pilots.

Curious minds want to know.

 

[Diesel8]

jetBlue pilot group is seniority based, so transfer of flying would be based on seniority, not that it will happen though.

 

[Farley]

Curious minds need to reformulate their questions so they reflect reality. AAplanesareold''s question is based on flawed assumptions, and cannot be taken seriously.

 

[AAG2000]

The question makes sense only in the context of what has happened at other airlines, i.e., replacing mainline DC-9s, 737s, etc. with CRJs and ERJs operated by regional affiliates. In some cases, older mainline aircraft were retired and replaced entirely with regional jets.

However, it does not apply to JetBlue for two reasons. First, the Embraers are not replacing any A320s, since the A320 fleet will continue to expand simultaneously. Even if A320s disappear from a particular route, they will simply be moved elsewhere--so, at the end of the day, no "A320 flying" is being "taken away." Second, the Embraers (which really shouldn''t even be lumped in the same category as existing ERJs and CRJs anyway) are being flown by JetBlue pilots, not by a subsidiary or affiliated carrier.

I don''t work for JetBlue, or any other airline (heck, I haven''t even flown on JetBlue), but I can only imagine that it must get tiresome for JetBlue employees to keep hearing this sort of groundless implication of future labor unrest, skyrocketing maintenance costs, or whatever the ominous Chicken Little prediction du jour happens to be. Sure, JetBlue has plenty of challenges ahead of it, but in the meantime, it seems to be doing everything right.

 

[Blue Dude]

This question is non-sensical. What is an "A320 route"? Do Delta''s B-757 pilots get up in arms if one of the "757 routes" is displaced by a 737? Are the MD-88 pilots peeved if a couple of their frequencies are replaced with a B-767? I mean, who cares? It''s the same pilot group, and you''ll be able to bid either seat in either airplane in accordance with your seniority.

What possible difference does it make if an Airbus is pulled from a route, and a 190 flies it instead? It''s not as though we''re running out of places for the Airbus to go. The opposite problem is true, and we''ll be taking on Airbuses at the same rate as the 190''s. Firm orders alone total 152 A-320''s and 100 EMB-190''s. I sincerely hope that some A320''s are replaced by 190''s so the 320''s will be used on routes that are more suited to them.

 

[Blue Dude]

----------------
On 7/16/2003 129 PM AAG2000 wrote:

I can only imagine that it must get tiresome for JetBlue employees to keep hearing this sort of groundless implication of future labor unrest, skyrocketing maintenance costs, or whatever the ominous Chicken Little prediction du jour happens to be.

----------------​

An understatement.

 

[luv2fly]

----------------
On 7/16/2003 8:37:49 AM Diesel8 wrote:

jetBlue pilot group is seniority based, so transfer of flying would be based on seniority, not that it will happen though.



----------------​

Who says JB management won''t offer the flying to a "B" scale pilot group, seperate from the JB seniority list? Pilots who will fly for even less money, or does JB management just impose a wage unilaterally?

 

[Diesel8]

I will ask Cleo, what management will do!

Considering their track record so far, considering they turned down a couple of RJ operators, considering we are buying both A-320 and EMB-190's, considering they view Unionisation as a failure of doing the right thing and considering, that it would destroy the great service, I for one seriously doubt, that such a thought has even occured to Neeleman et al, much less that it will ever happen.

 

[AAplanesareold]

----------------
On 7/16/2003 4:18:38 PM Diesel8 wrote:

I will ask Cleo, what management will do!

Considering their track record so far, considering they turned down a couple of RJ operators, considering we are buying both A-320 and EMB-190's, considering they view Unionisation as a failure of doing the right thing and considering, that it would destroy the great service, I for one seriously doubt, that such a thought has even occured to Neeleman et al, much less that it will ever happen.

----------------​

Well the track record is one thing and straying from the original business plan in another. Neeleman said that JetBlue would never fly anything other than A320's, in order to keep costs down. Not even A321's. Then he throws around the idea of the A320.5, which basically caused howls of laughter at Airbus.

Now the EMB-190's will cause not only JetBlue's CASM to rise, but it also has the potential to cause labor unrest. Unless the brilliant posters on this board have access to a new kind of math, how can an A320 pilot make the same kind of bread each year with less flying? Remember, JetBlue pilots make more money by picking up more flying every month. Less flying equals less money. Before you throw the profit sharing in my face, the percentage paid out is based on your yearly earnings. Less mula, less profit sharing!

 

[AAG2000]

Continuing this discussion is probably futile, but I have to ask: what are you talking about with this "less flying" thing? It seems that, despite all of the responses to your original post, you are still under the mistaken impression that the 190s will be replacing the A320s. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. In fact, JetBlue still has A320s on order. Lots of them. The 190s will simply supplement them, allowing JetBlue to develop new markets and add frequencies that can't support an A320.

More A320s = more flying = more money.
More A320s + new 190s = even more flying = even more money.

This is not a "new kind of math." What about this do you not understand?

 

[B6Busdriver]

AAplanesareold,
Nice attempt to stir the pot. As was clearly stated there are A320's on order with deliveries through 2010. The Embraers are for additional markets. If you listened to last weeks conference call you would have heard mgmt state that they have identified 1100 potential markets for the EMB. Furthermore, our loads are through the roof. Why do we need smaller airplanes to replace the A320? Granted places like BTV and SYR will very likely lose 320 service but it will be minimal. Also, remember that everytime one roundtrip to the west coast is added that equates to one aircraft.

 

[AAplanesareold]

Ladies and gentlemen, if there are limitless cities for the A320 to fly too, why get Embraer aircraft? Could it be that there is a limit to the amount of cities that can support A320 flights? Bingo!!!

Why then deny the obvious? There will be some reduction in A320 flying as the Embraer 190's come into the system. So it goes without saying that some A320 pilots will fly less hours.

Could the Embraers be a catalyst for unionization at JetBlue? I don't know and that's why I am asking.

I have no interest in stirring any pots. I could care less if JetBlue stays union free or not. JetBlue does not pay my rent.

 

[tadjr]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 8:56:37 PM AAplanesareold wrote:


Why then deny the obvious? There will be some reduction in A320 flying as the Embraer 190's come into the system. So it goes without saying that some A320 pilots will fly less hours.

----------------​

I am not a pilot and I dont work for Jetblue, but even I can see you appear to be trying to stir the pot. What part of MORE PLANES means LESS FLYING? They are NOT getting rid of any A320s and ADDING more A320s AND Embraers. MORE MORE MORE all around. How does this equate to a REDUCTION in flying for the A320?

 

[AirplaneFan]

All airlines have hubs, focus cities, connection points etc. Southwest has many different cities where you can connect thru. For JetBlue to add RJ's it only adds opportunities for A-320's. For example, if JetBlue set up a midwest hub at MidAmerica airport in St. Louis. They might fly regional jets to many midwest locations then pass those passengers along on the big jets to exotic locations like Long Beach. But if they couldn't fly those passengers in on RJ's for the first leg than they wouldn't be able to continue on the A-320 for the last leg (or vice-versa).

An appropriate analogy might be if chefs unionized and told their employers that they were no longer using measuring spoons because it might take away jobs from those chefs who were using measuring cups. For certain recipes you need to mix the measuring apparatus to get maximum customer service and usage and its the same for the airline industry. Certain markets may only need a smaller amount of service, but by pooling those communities together you can also build markets for the larger aircraft.

Bon Appetite

 

[RJStud]

I guess JB management can do whatever they want to. The JB pilots don't have any sort of contract protections right now do they? That said, getting a union doesn't necessarily make your life any better (ask any ALPA member). The JB management seems to take pretty good care of their employees, so why would they want to unionize?