JetBlue TrueBlue - JetBlue shaking in their boots: Virgin America approved!

.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So, let me get this straight. An airline with 32" seat pitch and nickle and diming revenue strategy that is just starting out (with a great deal of foreign ownership), not to mention all the bad press in getting approved and jetBlue's head start in the SFO market, their home base, is going to be a threat to jetBlue - going as far as jetBlue having to liquidate in 3 years?

PLEASE! Get real.

As much as I pissed off with B6 lately I hardly see Virgin America pushing them out of here in 3 years. It will just be another LCC which will be a darling at the beginning and start showing wear and tear after a few years.

Time will tell.

While not predicting, I certainly wouldn't underestimate Richard. We've been flying around Aus on VirginBlue, and (if it is relevant), they really do have their act together, beyond the competition.

Time will tell.

Exactly right. I recall all the great press that PeopleExpress got. I flew them plenty, despite their postively abysmal terminal at EWR. But their business decisions were incorrect (e.g., simple 2-tier fare structure) and they ran out of money. We have no idea whether Virgin America will make the right business decisions.

I predict JetBlue to be all but a distant memory w/in 3 years. Virgin America has finally won DOT approval and will begin flying SFO-JFK this Summer. The full flight schedule will be released in a couple of weeks. VX (Virgin America) will finally show U.S. flyers what real customer service is all about!

It's On!!

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/21/MNGRUOOVA71.DTL&type=business

Please elaborate a little bit more. In all of your wisdom, how is a couple of extra flights a day between JFK and SFO going to put B6 out of business? There are so many faults with your statement that I don't have time to elaborate, nor do I really want too.

As the biggest carrier by far, UA has the most to lose with the start up of Virgin America. With only SFO-JFK as an overlap with B6, this will barely be a blip on the radar screen.

It is great news that Virgin America got approval to fly as I always had supported Virgin America in the past with the approval process. However, I doubt Virgin America can cause a huge problem with jetBlue as the only overlap is any transcon service between the Bay Area, not just SFO, and the east coast and maybe to the Los Angeles / Long Beach area. However, it is already proven that the Bay Area / Los Angeles service can support multiple low cost carriers and United will be more hurt by Virgin America than jetBlue on transcon. Of the low fare carriers, I believe Southwest would be the most hurt by Virgin America because there would be a huge overlap of service between the San Francisco Bay Area and some of the potential destinations Virgin America has listed that they would like to fly. Keep in mind, jetBlue is always finding ways to improve its inflight service and, unlike other traditional airlines, is able to find a mistake or problem in its own operation and be willing to be able to fix it. To think jetBlue would not change to fit in with the current and future landscape of the aviation industry is just wrong and we have yet to see what jetBlue is gonna do with the bandwidth they won from the FCC. In the end, no one knows how Virgin will effect jetBlue until they post exactly what route they will be flying.

Will I fly Virgin America, Of Course! Why? jetBlue doesn't fly everywhere that I go and Virgin America is just that missing piece in the puzzle for me. I was ready to ditch American and Southwest a looooong time ago for another airline for places jetBlue does not fly to until now.

It is great news that Virgin America got approval to fly as I always had supported Virgin America in the past with the approval process. However, I doubt Virgin America can cause a huge problem with jetBlue as the only overlap is any transcon service between the Bay Area, not just SFO, and the east coast and maybe to the Los Angeles / Long Beach area. However, it is already proven that the Bay Area / Los Angeles service can support multiple low cost carriers and United will be more hurt by Virgin America than jetBlue on transcon. Of the low fare carriers, I believe Southwest would be the most hurt by Virgin America because there would be a huge overlap of service between the San Francisco Bay Area and some of the potential destinations Virgin America has listed that they would like to fly. Keep in mind, jetBlue is always finding ways to improve its inflight service and, unlike other traditional airlines, is able to find a mistake or problem in its own operation and be willing to be able to fix it. To think jetBlue would not change to fit in with the current and future landscape of the aviation industry is just wrong and we have yet to see what jetBlue is gonna do with the bandwidth they won from the FCC. In the end, no one knows how Virgin will effect jetBlue until they post exactly what route they will be flying.

Will I fly Virgin America, Of Course! Why? jetBlue doesn't fly everywhere that I go and Virgin America is just that missing piece in the puzzle for me. I was ready to ditch American and Southwest a looooong time ago for another airline for places jetBlue does not fly to until now.

Just out of interest. Skaterjasp will you fly exclusively in VA's first class or are you prepared for the 32" of pitch offered in the aft cabin. I suspect that JB are already looking for additional gatespace at SFO and I'm positive none of the big players are too thrilled at that prospect.

Just out of interest. Skaterjasp will you fly exclusively in VA's first class or are you prepared for the 32" of pitch offered in the aft cabin. I suspect that JB are already looking for additional gatespace at SFO and I'm positive none of the big players are too thrilled at that prospect.

I've heard a rumor that we are looking at securing 7 gates or so at SFO before the year is out.

I've heard a rumor that we are looking at securing 7 gates or so at SFO before the year is out.

Really? I could see that being feasible. LGB is pretty much done as a hub (as far as further expansion goes). The rest of the LA area airports (BUR, ONT, SNA, or LAX) are either close to max capacity or don't have the catchment area to be a hub. Jetblue also has a focus city at OAK, but I have heard that they reached their capacity. I don't know what is going on with Southwest moving to different terminals, but it looks like OAK has reached its max. So, that leaves SFO. I guess they have a lot of room. It is a major city, and is dominated primarily by United. No real LCC's with a sizable presence there. And, who knows what will happen with VA. The amount of time that it may take for VA to start ops, Jetblue could build a small presence at SFO, maybe moving some flights over from OAK.

Only time will tell.

As the biggest carrier by far, UA has the most to lose with the start up of Virgin America. With only SFO-JFK as an overlap with B6, this will barely be a blip on the radar screen.

OAK-JFK and SJC-JFK are also overlaps to SFO-JFK.

Also, if the Virgin America flights are seen as being more 'cool' than B6, that's something that affects B6 systemwide as people hear about it.

B6 won't go out of business entirely due to Virgin America coming in, but B6 may lose some of the sparkle. Much of what B6 used to own from a marketing perspective is at risk of being taken away.

From an image standpoint, B6 had better be worried about Virgin America because so much of B6 is built around image.

Just out of interest. Skaterjasp will you fly exclusively in VA's first class or are you prepared for the 32" of pitch offered in the aft cabin. I suspect that JB are already looking for additional gatespace at SFO and I'm positive none of the big players are too thrilled at that prospect.

So it was okay for B6 to offer 32" seats but not other carriers to do so?

Just out of interest. Skaterjasp will you fly exclusively in VA's first class or are you prepared for the 32" of pitch offered in the aft cabin. I suspect that JB are already looking for additional gatespace at SFO and I'm positive none of the big players are too thrilled at that prospect.

On flights under 2 hours I can handle the 32" seat pitch... as for longer transcon, I'm still pretty much with jetBlue, however, may consider Virgin America's first class if they have redeye to JFK. This could be interesting because it could end up that I fly Virgin America to JFK and jetBlue back in coach because no matter how comfy the seats are, unless you get a whole row to yourself, its really hard to sleep. I guess its case by case, I'm not going to ditch jetBlue for a service that I have yet to experience, even though, I do believe that it will be a whole lot better than what is being offer by the competitors.

I can tell you for sure that when I decide to fly Virgin America, it will be more likely to be flights to places where jetBlue does not already fly to out of Northern California.

Really? I could see that being feasible. LGB is pretty much done as a hub (as far as further expansion goes). The rest of the LA area airports (BUR, ONT, SNA, or LAX) are either close to max capacity or don't have the catchment area to be a hub. Jetblue also has a focus city at OAK, but I have heard that they reached their capacity. I don't know what is going on with Southwest moving to different terminals, but it looks like OAK has reached its max. So, that leaves SFO. I guess they have a lot of room. It is a major city, and is dominated primarily by United. No real LCC's with a sizable presence there. And, who knows what will happen with VA. The amount of time that it may take for VA to start ops, Jetblue could build a small presence at SFO, maybe moving some flights over from OAK.

Only time will tell.

Theres that whole huge terminal that used to be the international terminal.... lots and lots and lots of gates there and very centralized to all the runways! As of now, 0 airlines operate out of it... I think SFO might end up splitting up that terminal for jetBlue, Virgin, and Southwest.

OAK-JFK and SJC-JFK are also overlaps to SFO-JFK.

Also, if the Virgin America flights are seen as being more 'cool' than B6, that's something that affects B6 systemwide as people hear about it.

B6 won't go out of business entirely due to Virgin America coming in, but B6 may lose some of the sparkle. Much of what B6 used to own from a marketing perspective is at risk of being taken away.

From an image standpoint, B6 had better be worried about Virgin America because so much of B6 is built around image.

Had VA made a Hub at JFK or LAX or FLL then maybe JB had to watch out. But with SFO no worries at all. When JB started up LGB-ATL DL came in and knocked JB out of the box. Even FL doesnt run a wide system of flights out anywhere West and they have ATL as 1 of their Hubs.

I feel if anyone has to look out it will be UA & WN. As for JB maybe they will have to cut back a flight or two, but not much more if even that much.

But I will say that JB does have to Look Out and should be extremely Worried but not of anybody but Itself. Unless it gets itself into shape it kill itself off, as the others simply standby and watch as it does so all by her own self.

So it was okay for B6 to offer 32" seats but not other carriers to do so?

Sorry J3823x but you kind of lost me here. Any carrier can offer any product they want. Jetblue offers 36 & 34 inch pitch on all A320s.

As much as I pissed off with B6 lately I hardly see Virgin America pushing them out of here in 3 years. It will just be another LCC which will be a darling at the beginning and start showing wear and tear after a few years.

Time will tell.

SFO is B6's home base? Could have fooled me, I hardly notice them even though I fly in and out of here all the time. The thing about Virgin is that it looks like they are going to do Jetblue's routine, but better. We'll have to see what sorts of fares and schedules they actually offer when things get rolling.

I predict JetBlue to be all but a distant memory w/in 3 years. Virgin America has finally won DOT approval and will begin flying SFO-JFK this Summer. The full flight schedule will be released in a couple of weeks. VX (Virgin America) will finally show U.S. flyers what real customer service is all about!

It's On!!

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/21/MNGRUOOVA71.DTL&type=business

So can you back up your prediction with some cold hard facts. I get it, you're just another legend in their own underpants. How much in free vouchers were you able to squeeze out of the nice folks in SLC. I really look forward to flying you in the future.

Sorry J3823x but you kind of lost me here. Any carrier can offer any product they want. Jetblue offers 36 & 34 inch pitch on all A320s.

I think what j3823x was referring to was when B6 started up, they originally had 32" pitch. Only since then have they removed seats and increased the pitch to 36"/34".

SFO is B6's home base? Could have fooled me, I hardly notice them even though I fly in and out of here all the time. The thing about Virgin is that it looks like they are going to do Jetblue's routine, but better. We'll have to see what sorts of fares and schedules they actually offer when things get rolling.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But, if you're not, no, SFO isn't B6's home base. In fact, currently, they don't even fly out of there. They announced recently that they are adding JFK/BOS-SFO, starting sometime in May, IIRC.

.....

.....

JFK is VX's East Coast Focus City/Mini Hub, so yes, B6 does indeed have to watch out.

All of VX flights will be to & from SFO & JFK. The other 4 cities (which won't start until November) will be LAS, IAD, SAN, & LAX. The first SFO-JFK flights will be the 4th of July...although there will most likely be some sampler/teaser flights on this route starting in late April/early May.

So what gates are VA going to use at JFK. Real estate is definitely at a premium these days at Kennedy. My bet is that they will have to rotate the gates at the international terminal and unfortunately for Virgin these gates aren't cheap. I really don't believe that Jetblue will suffer from Virgins arrival. If I were Virgin I would be more concerned with UA's ability to flood their overlapping routes with excess capacity. Temporarily substitute standard 767s for those explus 757s and virgin will be in a world of pain in no time. When B6 started operations prior to 911 the legacys paid little attention to them and it really bit them in the .... I truely don't see a repeat. Additionally, LAS and IAD are definitely not very high yield markets and whilst it is a hub for UA, both B6 and WN have an adequate presence in IAD with the ability to ramp up operations as they see fit. When Jetblue has approximately 50 E190s they will start to deploy them to the west coast and when this happens even the mighty Southwest will take notice. I predict that you will see Jetblue expand west coast operations into LAX by the end of this year. Love or hate Jetblue at your discretion but don't be fooled into thinking that they will simply go away. The St Valentines meltdown was definitely a watershed in B6's history and I have no doubt that a much more confident and competitive company is emerging. The mark of any good company is its ability to learn from its past mistakes.

Sorry J3823x but you kind of lost me here. Any carrier can offer any product they want. Jetblue offers 36 & 34 inch pitch on all A320s.

The comment was if skaterjasp was prepared for 32" pitch as if its wrong to do so. Prior to removing the latest row of seats, B6 has 32" seats. I just don't understand how it could be wrong to sit in 32" seats when B6 offered 32" seats themselves until very recently.

I predict punishing fare wars and mileage opportunities from United. If you regularly fly from SFO-JFK or one of the other scheduled flights, you are in luck!

United let Frontier grow in DEN but absolutely pummeled that upstart at IAD out of existence (though that one was more personal).

Had VA made a Hub at JFK or LAX or FLL then maybe JB had to watch out. But with SFO no worries at all. When JB started up LGB-ATL DL came in and knocked JB out of the box. Even FL doesnt run a wide system of flights out anywhere West and they have ATL as 1 of their Hubs.

I feel if anyone has to look out it will be UA & WN. As for JB maybe they will have to cut back a flight or two, but not much more if even that much.

But I will say that JB does have to Look Out and should be extremely Worried but not of anybody but Itself. Unless it gets itself into shape it kill itself off, as the others simply standby and watch as it does so all by her own self.

Its not about what routes Virgin and B6 share; its about the image of each.

From jetblue.com Why You'll like Us

Tasty snacks and drinks
Serious R&R
Great low fares
Award-winning service
Customer loyalty program
DIRECTV® programming
XM SATELLITE RADIO®
FOX InFlight™ movies
Free wireless

If Virgin gives the impression of doing better than the above, it will be an issue for B6. If Virgin actually does better than B6, it will be a really big issue for B6 because then its stuck between what's cool (Virgin) and what's more functional (legacy carriers). Without cool, what is B6's niche?

.....

If Virgin actually does better than B6, it will be a really big issue for B6 because then its stuck between what's cool (Virgin) and what's more functional (legacy carriers). Virgin is going to get a huge, huge media boost at launch. The brand is global and sexy and Branson plays the press like a fiddle.

The story will be: Euro-cool, ultra-hip service brand shakes up stodgy, anti-customer US airline market. I bet it makes the cover of Newsweek. JetBlue will look like yesterday's news, at least for awhile.

Then the first time fog at SFO snarls the Virgin system, you'll see the inevitable backlash: "Lost in the Fog: Virgin Reputation Plummets Back to Earth" ... etc. You can write the headlines 18 months in advance.

Virgin's not going to destroy JetBlue, any more than United's going to destroy American. But between Virgin's brand aura and JetBlue's critical self-inflicted wounds, JetBlue will never again be the coolest airline going or any sort of media darling.

Ummm, you do know how many BILLIONS of dollars VX has, don't you? And there are BILLIONS & BILLIONS & BILLIONS more where that came from should there be a need for it. What VX wants, VX will get ~ believe you me. VX isn't a McAirline like B6!

You're right...jetBlue has no financial backing. :rolleyes:

George Soros, AMEX, many pro-jetBlue politicians...these are just some sources of BILLIONS should jetBlue need it. Not to mention the $500 million + ca$h in the bank.

I have it from inside sources that VX (Virgin America) will have the entire old Int'l Terminal to itself. Sorry WN & B6! :p Stay in Oakland!

Inside sources!!! :eek: :eek: Now you must be telling the truth.

Ummm, you do know how many BILLIONS of dollars VX has, don't you? And there are BILLIONS & BILLIONS & BILLIONS more where that came from should there be a need for it. What VX wants, VX will get ~ believe you me. VX isn't a McAirline like B6!

Great, they have a lot of money. That doesn't make gates magically appear, no matter how much they want it to. Wasn't there another LCC that started at JFK with a hub, same routes as Jetblue, same amentities, better international connections and better mileage program. Only difference: they are the distant memory. Why should this be any different.

Great, they have a lot of money. That doesn't make gates magically appear, no matter how much they want it to. Wasn't there another LCC that started at JFK with a hub, same routes as Jetblue, same amentities, better international connections and better mileage program. Only difference: they are the distant memory. Why should this be any different.

Which was the LCC you have in mind? The only 1 I can think of is JB

Great, they have a lot of money. That doesn't make gates magically appear, no matter how much they want it to.

The people running an airport want to maximize revenue. That means maximizing the combination of gate rental and per-passenger fees. I don't think any airline wants to pay rent for empty gates at a level equal to the per-passenger fees that fully utilized gates would bring in. The airport authorities deciding between Southwest at 1000+ enplanements per gate per day and Virgin America at zero because they are not using the gate have a pretty easy decision. The system is stacked against hoarding unutilized gates.

I think I've heard this Song before :D.

I think I've heard this Song before :D.

I didnt consider Song as a separate carrier. As I didnt consider Ted as 1 either.

Both were alot more limited in scope then JB.

I do consider AirTran, Frontier, Independence Air (was), SouthWest, ATA, etc as LCCs as they arent (except ATA but didnt start that way) connected to a Major.

I didnt consider Song as a separate carrier. As I didnt consider Ted as 1 either.

Both were alot more limited in scope then JB.

I do consider AirTran, Frontier, Independence Air (was), SouthWest, ATA, etc as LCCs as they arent (except ATA but didnt start that way) connected to a Major.

Limited in scope? You gotta compare the size that Jetblue was when Song started. They flew to identical destinations with nearly identical entertainment. There was a multitude of people that came on here saying that Jetblue was in trouble and couldn't compare to the product that Song was offering. Now, there is some debate as to whether they were profitable or not, but the fact is that one of them is gone, and the other has maintained some profitability.

The people running an airport want to maximize revenue. That means maximizing the combination of gate rental and per-passenger fees. I don't think any airline wants to pay rent for empty gates at a level equal to the per-passenger fees that fully utilized gates would bring in. The airport authorities deciding between Southwest at 1000+ enplanements per gate per day and Virgin America at zero because they are not using the gate have a pretty easy decision. The system is stacked against hoarding unutilized gates.

I understand that part of it. However, I don't think that there are enough gates available at all times of the day to operate a focus city. Sure, they could split a gate with an international who only uses the gate at night. But they would need a few dedicated gates of their own to truly open up a focus city and pose a threat to Jetblue.

Ummm, you do know how many BILLIONS of dollars VX has, don't you? And there are BILLIONS & BILLIONS & BILLIONS more where that came from should there be a need for it. What VX wants, VX will get ~ believe you me. VX isn't a McAirline like B6!

Why do you consider Jetblue a "McAirline". I just want to know what qualifications you have to give your opinion some validity. I think that you shoot your mouth off quite a bit without any substance to your claims. I am more than prepared to listen to your viewpoint but to date your predictions and claims have absolutely zero credibility. If anything I really believe that I can sense a little desperation. Watch closely over the coming months as JB updates its infrastructure and signs international alliances with additional foreign companies. I found it rather coincidental that Aer Lingus just announced 3 new US cities, each served by Jetblue. Indeed, Aer Lingus has a much more developed European route structure than Virgin does. With all the potential international alliances that LCCs can develop and exploit it is perhaps the legacy carriers who may have more to loose. Absinthe, you are quick to berate jetblue at each and every opportunity but you fail to fully comprehend how far they have come along in 7 years and the company emerging from the St Valentines meltdown is already better organised and proactively correcting its weaknesses. Get use to the fact than JetBlue isn't going away anytime soon.

.....

If one is impressed by a net $2 loss per stock share since inception (5 years!) then boy they have certainly come a long way.

JFK is different from most other airports. For example at LGA in the CTB the airlines pay the Port Authority rent on the gate. So if the rent is say $10,000a month it makes no difference if you run 1 flight a day or 10. At JFK all the terminals but T4 are owned by the airlines and they pay the Port Authority rent on the land/building. So at JFK when you don't own a terminal you pay by the passenger to the terminal owner. They in turn use that money to help off set the cost of operating the terminal and the rent to the Port Authority...1 flight a day will cost you less than 10. This is something that most airlines have a hard time with when looking at JFK. As for VX the choice of homes is rather limited since DL, AA, UA, etc won't be too keen on having them as a tenant. What makes things interesting is the status of T6 after B6's new home is open. Will B6 keep it or not? VX could deal with a few growing pains now with an eye on T6 in the near future. Let's not forget the Port Authority is paying for a nice portion of the B6 terminal, who knows if they have something planned for VX. T4 can also be expanded from 16 gates to 32.

JFK is different from most other airports. For example at LGA in the CTB the airlines pay the Port Authority rent on the gate. So if the rent is say $10,000a month it makes no difference if you run 1 flight a day or 10. At JFK all the terminals but T4 are owned by the airlines and they pay the Port Authority rent on the land/building. So at JFK when you don't own a terminal you pay by the passenger to the terminal owner. They in turn use that money to help off set the cost of operating the terminal and the rent to the Port Authority...1 flight a day will cost you less than 10. This is something that most airlines have a hard time with when looking at JFK. As for VX the choice of homes is rather limited since DL, AA, UA, etc won't be too keen on having them as a tenant. What makes things interesting is the status of T6 after B6's new home is open. Will B6 keep it or not? VX could deal with a few growing pains now with an eye on T6 in the near future. Let's not forget the Port Authority is paying for a nice portion of the B6 terminal, who knows if they have something planned for VX. T4 can also be expanded from 16 gates to 32.

I won't say never, but Jetblue ain't giving up Terminal 6 to a competitor. Once they shift their operations over to T5, they are supposedly going to level/update their current terminal and keep it available for either 1) Hard Stands 2) Future Gates. Also, how long would it take to make 16 new gates at JFK?

FWIW, the Virgin website's career section has jobs posted for Station Managers or Supervisors in LAX, SAN, SFO, IAD, and JFK.

T4 was designed to be built out without impacting the operation of the terminal. The main terminal can also be extended on either side by adding a third to each side. Construction at the airport can be slow at best, however if you did it in phases you could have a few gates (2) up and running in less than 6-8 months. I also forgot to mention that the new AA terminal was originally planned to 50+ gates and when it opens this year it will be scaled down 30+ gate terminal - so they too can expand when needed.

As for the job postings, I know the JFK station manager and supervisor, so it may be a bit dated. The station manager is ex Jet Blue.

.....

[QUOTE=Absinthe;7453526][QUOTE=dietcoke;7452443]Why do you consider Jetblue a "McAirline". Watch closely over the coming months as JB updates its infrastructure and signs international alliances with additional foreign companies. [QUOTE]

B6 is a McAirline since they only offer McJobs: Correct me if I'm wrong, but JetBlue has the lowest paid workers in the industry (well, until SkyBus starts that is!). Sorry if I seem offensive, but I get really pissed when U.S. corporations pay squat to their hard working employees. As much as I criticize B6, I'd like nothing more than for all their emplyees to make double what they currently do. That's the main beef I have w/ them: their cheapskate CEO. Hopefully all B6 employees will organize soon. (VX is already doing this as I write).

However, I hardly consider an interline baggage agreement w/ Aer Lingus to be an "international alliance". Virgin, on the other hand, has airlines not only in the UK, but also Africa, Oz and soon Israel... oh yeah, and the USA![/QUOT

Once again you are wrong on so many levels and AGAIN I HAVE TO CORRECT YOU.. I am a pilot so I can only speak for the pilot pay. Jetblue A320 pay is higher than most including United. Additionally everything above 70 hours for a pilot, in both seats is paid at 150%. My current payrate is $126 an hour straight pay. Presently the poorest A320 CA's in the industry are US Airways. Virgin, OTOH will start their CA's at $95 an hour and skybus a whopping $65000 a year. One of my best friends is the #3 Ca at Virgin. My compensation package also includes additional perdiem and company 401K contributions. I have also done very well with my company stock options. Additionally Abby, with my seniority I average 17-18 days off per month, not bad for a partime job. Once again Abby you are making false and misleading claims. Please stop posting dribble. Go to airlinepaycentral and see the true numbers. Once again, your post holds zero credibility. Did I also neglect to mention that neither Virgin or Skybus provide paid accommodation whilst in grounschool. Thankfully inspite of Abbys continued lies I know I am on the right team. I also know that I have a highly sought after skill which will allow me to change companies at will. I am also only 38 years old and thankfully in great physical condition. I have already declined an interview at Virgin for a direct entry CA position. So once again, I simply ask that you validate your arguments with facts because I am getting tired off showing you up.

.....

How they are able to get around The City's $12/hour minimum wage law is mezmerizing to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't minimum pay a national law? ie., it does not vary by city/state.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't minimum pay a national law? ie., it does not vary by city/state.

States and cities often have their own (higher) minimum wages.

It's a fact that here in San Francisco the ground jobs (ramp/gate/baggage, etc.) for JetBlue for SFO starts at about $8.60/hour. This wage is the absolute lowest that I've ever seen. How they are able to get around The City's $12/hour minimum wage law is mezmerizing to me.


According to mapquest, the San Francisco Int'l Airport is in the City of SOUTH San Francisco in San Mateo County. Also even if it was in SF, the minmium wage for the city of San Francisco is $9.14 not $12

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/olse/mwo/MWO_Official_Poster.pdf

Been there, done that on VB in Oz. They have my vote and business. vs WN and B6.

SFO living wage starts at $11.50/hr.

In addition to what dietcoke was saying, simple front line Crewmembers start out and top off more than any other airline. US Airways starts around 8.50 or 8.75 in !BOS! where at B6 we start out at $11.00.

DietCoke: I'm glad that such a young man is able to make such great money as a B6 pilot: Congratulations. However, my whole beef w/ the B6 payrates has nothing to do w/ pilots. It's a fact that here in San Francisco the ground jobs (ramp/gate/baggage, etc.) for JetBlue for SFO starts at about $8.60/hour. This wage is the absolute lowest that I've ever seen. How they are able to get around The City's $12/hour minimum wage law is mezmerizing to me.

I've read on this very board how the B6 call center reps are all part-timers who only work 24 hours/week. That's also really bad: not hiring full-timers gets JetBlue around alot of health care/benefits issues.

What I would like to see is a link for these types of airline employees (ramp/gate/ticket/customer service/baggage, etc.) and their wages. If anyone could provide it that would be awesome. Thanx.

Absinthe, I really don't know much about other paygrades at B6, however at the end of the day it is up to us all as individuals to decide our own self worth. I have nothing but respect for anyone who is willing to work regardless off their position or station in life. I really don't think that you should hate a company because it pays an employee X amount compared to any other company. What I personally find more disgusting is the deep concessions that thousands in this industry have been strong armed to giving up and for absolutely nothing in return. Absinthe, whilst I share your frustration I truely believe you need to vent in a different way. Please don't attack me for being greedy but I think the majority of todays passenger pilot groups are way undercompensated for the job we do. Even at 38 years of age I feel like and eternal student with all the continuous training that is required as a pilot. Absinthe, I look forward to more constructive comments from you.

Virgin probably will become the "coolest" airline, but then a paper airline doesn't yet have any of the challenges of a real one.

I've flown with Virgin Blue and thought they were excellent. I've also heard many good things about Virgin Atlantic, so I expect Virgin America's experience to be top notch.

I much prefer Virgin's idea of on demand screen content rather than live TV. I find most American TV outside primetime to be dire (along with the adverts).

But in the end I'm pretty sure there's room for both JetBlue and Virgin. Who knows in a couple of years they may even merge to link up their east and west coast hubs/focus cities :)

I think both airlines should be credited with doing their bit to make flying a more pleasurable experience in economy.

FT has a forum for freeewheeling discussion of fairness in pay, market economics in general, politics, or anything else* that bothers you. It's called OMNI. Newbies cannot access that forum because FT rules demand a certain post count and membership tenure.

People who prefer to look at the underside of things will find plenty of sympathetic members at OMNI and TS&S. OMNI and TS&S have a much harder edge than this forum or any of the other forums.

I should also warn people that more FT members are suspended for their posts in OMNI than probably all other forums combined. It's freewheeling, as I said, but that seems only to encourage some people to cross even that generously drawn line. If your self-control isn't what you'd like it to be, you're probably better off avoiding both OMNI and TS&S.

*Except moderator actions. Public discussion of those is banned, except that: (a) you may PM me and I'll respond, (b) you may post on Only Randy Petersen, and (c) you may appeal any moderator decision directly to Randy, who has a heart of gold.

.....

It's a fact that here in San Francisco the ground jobs (ramp/gate/baggage, etc.) for JetBlue for SFO starts at about $8.60/hour.

I find it hard to understand how anyone would sign up for a job as hard as baggage handling at $8.60 per hour in an area as expensive as San Francisco. There must be more to the picture: overtime, fringe benefits, prospects for fast promotion, or something.

There are so many easier ways to make $10 per hour in the SF bay area. When it comes to deciding what job to take, the total pay package is first or second on everybody's list. If JetBlue is attracting and retaining the people they need, the pay must be at least adequate.

Something here doesn't add up. If $8.60 sounds too low to be true, then it's probably not true.

SFO is not considered part of San Francisco per the county and state. It's a technicality. There are several threads in the UA forum if you do a search



As far as SFO being in South San Francisco, it's kinda/sorta not 100% true. Every inch of land that surrounds SFO is indeed South S.F., but the airport itself technically part of San Francisco.

I'm excited and hope that Virgin comes to Long Beach soon! My IPod needs a place to go lol

I'm excited and hope that Virgin comes to Long Beach soon! My IPod needs a place to go lol

I think with the slot restrictions at LGB you unfortunately may not get your wish. From a business standpoint it definitely wouldn't be a very bright move.