If I wanted to phase out ASA....

[Andy Neill]

If I was a SkyWest executive that was tasked with phasing out ASA [and I'll leave out all the arguments pro and con about that decision], this is how I would do it.

I would eliminate most of the pilot hiring at ASA. There would be no furloughs but any flying that the existing pilot population couldn't handle, I would shift to SkyWest Airlines.

I would maintain the remaining ASA workforce size proportional to the assigned flying.

Eventually as ASA pilots moved to other airlines, got fired, got medically grounded, or just left for whatever reason, the fling would trickle to a size that would be insignificant.

The only provision of any agreement I have violated (as far as I know) is the provision in the ASA sale contract that specified that ASA would retain X% of Delta's feed. Since SkyWest Inc. was the other signatory besides Delta, the issue won't be raised. ASA ALPA will disagree but has no legal standing in the matter since they din't sign the sales contract.

What am I missing?

 

[sweptback]

Let me guess, you're a SkyWest pilot, right?

If you have nothing better to do except to daydream about 1700 pilots losing their jobs, you need to get a damn life.

 

[strega7]

What am I missing?

SkyWest was party to something similar when it started the UEX flying. In that case is was Mesa's Westair that "lost" the UEX flying and SkyWest picked it up. In that situation it was a phase out of Westair and phase in of SkyWest.

Is there precedent for this kind of thing happening before? In other industries?

 

[Andy Neill]

Let me guess, you're a SkyWest pilot, right?

If you have nothing better to do except to daydream about 1700 pilots losing their jobs, you need to get a damn life.

Not a SKyWest pilot nor employee nor involved in the airline industry.

I didn't pose this as a wish but as a possibility of SkyWest Inc.'s course of action. I was wondering if there was some provision that would prevent this from happening.

This scenario does not involve 1700 pilots losing their jobs. It involves jobs going away (or more accurately to SkyWest Airlines) once vacated.

Now would you care to discuss the merits or deficiencies of the scenario without the emotion?

 

[USCtrojan]

Not a SKyWest pilot nor employee nor involved in the airline industry.

I didn't pose this as a wish but as a possibility of SkyWest Inc.'s course of action. I was wondering if there was some provision that would prevent this from happening.

This scenario does not involve 1700 pilots losing their jobs. It involves jobs going away (or more accurately to SkyWest Airlines) once vacated.

Now would you care to discuss the merits or deficiencies of the scenario without the emotion?

There are a number of reasons not to do that. The first one being 80% of all the Connection flying must be done by ASA, out of ATL according the DCI agreement. ASA is historically the most profitable airline in the USA. Smart people don't chop money trees. Second of all, there would be no pilots to do the flying you would have to cover. Third, and most importantly, you're a dumba$$ for even posting a thread like this. ASA ain't going anywhere. You may see a name change, that I'd agree with. You will see growth, lots of it coming. You SkyWhore idiots keep posting stupid crap. As much as you must hate the fact ASA has a very good relationship with Delta, you need to stop posting really stupid crap.

Trojan

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Eventually as ASA pilots moved to other airlines, got fired, got medically grounded, or just left for whatever reason , the fling would trickle to a size that would be insignificant.

Thanks. All the best to you and yours this Thanksgiving.

 

[Andy Neill]

There are a number of reasons not to do that.

In my post, I said I was disregarding all the reason pro and con for doing such a thing. There are good reasons on each side, but in my scenario, I presumed the deicsion had been made.

The first one being 80% of all the Connection flying must be done by ASA, out of ATL according the DCI agreement.

If this provision were violated. What is the recourse. SkyWest Inc. would be the only one with standing that could hold Delta's feet to the fire saying they had violated their agreement. If ASA were not getting the specified percentage because it is going to SkyWest Airlines, SkyWest Inc. wouldn't bring any action, right?

ASA is historically the most profitable airline in the USA. Smart people don't chop money trees.

Your best argument.

Second of all, there would be no pilots to do the flying you would have to cover.

Sure there would. These are the same pilots ASA would have hired over the years to cover attrition. They would simply be wearing SkyWest uniforms instead of ASA.

Third, and most importantly, you're a dumba$$ for even posting a thread like this. ASA ain't going anywhere. You may see a name change, that I'd agree with. You will see growth, lots of it coming. You SkyWhore idiots keep posting stupid crap. As much as you must hate the fact ASA has a very good relationship with Delta, you need to stop posting really stupid crap.

Trojan

I don't recall ever calling you (or anyone else on this forum) names. Do you not go by the Golden Rule? I'm not associated with SkyWest Airlines. I'm simply asking a hypothetical question to see if there are any real barriers to this happening. With that in mind, what am I missing?

 

[SkyNation]

you need to re-read Andy's post. All he means is that any vacancies at ASA won't be filled, and the flying will be covered by it's sister company, SkyWest. Over time, this would negate many of the worries brought up here over and over again, such as merging list. No one at ASA would be losing their jobs, their jobs just won't be filled if they move on for any reason. The flying would remain profitable, it would just be done by a different arm of the same holding company.

This seems very plausible to me, and BH going to Atlanta fits well with the scenario.

 

[USCtrojan]

In my post, I said I was disregarding all the reason pro and con for doing such a thing. There are good reasons on each side, but in my scenario, I presumed the deicsion had been made.



If this provision were violated. What is the recourse. SkyWest Inc. would be the only one with standing that could hold Delta's feet to the fire saying they had violated their agreement. If ASA were not getting the specified percentage because it is going to SkyWest Airlines, SkyWest Inc. wouldn't bring any action, right?

Hey, look at that, you have a cheerleader now. SkyWhore, do you have pom poms too? Is your boyfriend a cheerleader too?

Look dude, all I'm saying is that SkyWest Mgmt. has invested a lot of money on the infrastructure and mgmt of ASA. We are certainly being streamlined, with the GO going away, new hangar, etc. We have most of the technology in place or coming (full functioning ACARS, OurASA, etc.) SkyWest is going to do what the Big D tells them to do. Delta decides where airframes are allocated and who does the flying. If Jerry was to dismantle ASA he would have done it all before the TA as there were many less protections than now. That was never in the plan. You don't bring in a new leader, bring about change and watch destruction (and your investment) go down the tubes. Jerry A., I believe is eyeballing Mesa and quite possibly it's implosion and possibly a few other carriers. He will attack with a vengeance when/if those Carriers go down. He's making lots of money in the meantime. He's got close to a billion in the bank and competitors have roughly 200 mill in the bank and dwindling (Xjet, Mesa). Someone will go down. It certainly will not be a goldmine airline. Currently, ASA is hiring 40/month. Not that we're getting that.

Trojan

 

[strega7]

The flying would remain profitable, it would just be done by a different arm of the same holding company.

This seems very plausible to me, and BH going to Atlanta fits well with the scenario.

Just like Mesa did after it bought Westair. Westair was once one of the "best" regionals out there. They were Part 121 when others were 135. Flew 90 PAX 146's, E120's, etc. Then they were purchased by Mesa. From there it was all down hill. The important part is that Mesa planes and crews were flying the former "Westair only" routes because Mesa didn't keep Westair at it's "normal" staffing level. Soon the routes were intermixed and they were "Mesa" routes. Two different pilot groups doing the same routes in the same planes. What was the size of Westair at the purchase and then when they lost the UEX contract? Ultimately it was Mesa's subpar performance that lost it the UEX flying but the same could be done here with attrition. And yes, both groups had ALPA contracts.

And who's contract has the 80% provision in it? Is it DAL's because it likes ASA so much? Or is it SkyWest Inc. protecting its investment in ASA from Republic, Mesa, Comair, etc. in ATL? If ASA's amount dropped below 80% who is going to cry foul? DAL or SkyWest Inc. Why would DAL? Would SkyWest Inc.?

 

[USCtrojan]

Just like Mesa did after it bought Westair. Westair was once one of the "best" regionals out there. They were Part 121 when others were 135. Flew 90 PAX 146's, E120's, etc. Then they were purchased by Mesa. From there it was all down hill. The important part is that Mesa planes and crews were flying the former "Westair only" routes because Mesa didn't keep Westair at it's "normal" staffing level. Soon the routes were intermixed and they were "Mesa" routes. Two different pilot groups doing the same routes in the same planes. What was the size of Westair at the purchase and then when they lost the UEX contract? Ultimately it was Mesa's subpar performance that lost it the UEX flying but the same could be done here with attrition. And yes, both groups had ALPA contracts.

And who's contract has the 80% provision in it? Is it DAL's because it likes ASA so much? Or is it SkyWest Inc. protecting its investment in ASA from Republic, Mesa, Comair, etc. in ATL? If ASA's amount dropped below 80% who is going to cry foul? DAL or SkyWest Inc. Why would DAL? Would SkyWest Inc.?

ASA is 1700 pilots strong. ASA's profit margin is 13.2% last I checked. Westair was a shoddy operation, as Mesa's airlines are. Completely different dynamic. That's not even close to comparing Apples to Oranges. That's comparing Apples to Doorknobs.

Additionally, how much poor "performance" can be attributed to ASA? We're only FA's, Pilots, and Mechanics, with currently VERY bad leadership. Hopefully that changes. Baggage, parking, gate agents, all that stuff is no longer for ASA.

Trojan

 

[strega7]

Westair was a shoddy operation, as Mesa's airlines are.

You should do some research. Westair was THE regional in the last 80's early 90's. This was before they were purchased. A few years later, yes Mesa allowed them to become a "shoddy operation" and then it lost it's UEX contract.

If you see SkyWest planes/crews flying to what was once "ASA only" cities, I would start to take notice. Just because an airline has 1700 pilots does not make it immune to bad things that go bump in the night.

I would hope that Brad brings you guys the leadership that has been sorely lacking. Maybe he has visions of competing against SGU and ASA will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!!!!!

Have a happy Thanks!

 

[Andy Neill]

Maybe he has visions of competing against SGU and ASA will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!!!!!

Have a happy Thanks!

Sounds like a quote from Marianne Williamson:
http://www.simonsdiary.co.uk/miscellaneous/fear.html

 

[ASAFOE120]

Just a few reasons why I believe doing away with ASA is not on the horizon:

1) As mentioned above, ASA is very profitable and makes Skywest Inc. a ton of money.

2) If Inc. began shrinking ASA, Atkin and the boys would have to answer to the shareholders why they were dismanteling the regional airline with the highest profit margin that brings in so much cash. (a tough sell to shareholders).

3) We just voted in a contract that will lock in our pay, benefits, etc... and guarantee our costs stay in check while still bringing in tons of cash to Inc.

4) Over the next 3 yrs of our contract, several other regionals will be negotiating their next working agreement. As they surpass our pay, benefits, etc... the boys in SGU will stay have us locked in at our rate and be getting quite the bargain.

5) No more whipsaw. I'm sure he would miss being able to do this to both groups if the proper occasion arose. (via threats and scare tactics of course).

6) Probably most importantly, the lack of pilots. We cannot fill our classes currently. Neither can Pinnacle, Comair, SkyW, or anyone else. I know, you say that "well, those folks that were going to ASA will just go to Skyw". True, some would, but there are many pilots out there that would rather go to an airline that does not discriminate against a pilot for what aircraft he flies (bro guys get no raise, what a crock of ....), has union benefits and protections, a contract thats locked in rather than a hand shake, etc...

7) Surely you know that as an airline grows, its costs decrease. As an airline shrinks, its costs rise. In your scenario, ASA's costs would increase as each airfram left and at some point, it would just have to dump the entire operation so they would not lose their butts with soaring costs (sure to please all shareholders). With our new contract, "dumping" the enitre thing in that manner would not be allowed.

8) The transfer of airframes is extremely expensive (as Atkin and the boys found out the hard way when they transferred a few of our a/c over a while back). I loved it when they posted their earnings and had to explain why they missed Wall Street estimates and one of the reasons was due to the "cost of transfer of assets from ASA to Skyw". I'm sure the shareholders loved that. Thats when the transferring came to an ubrupt halt.

Their are probably more I could come up with but these are just the ones that come to mind.

Just my $.02

 

[Andy Neill]

Just a few reasons why I believe doing away with ASA is not on the horizon:

In my original posts, I acknowledged there are a lot of good reasons on both sides about whether to take this course or not. In my scenario, I had presumed all those considerations wrere made and the deicsion was to go ahead. I was wondering what agreements would prevent that.

That being said, let me address your well presented points:

1) As mentioned above, ASA is very profitable and makes Skywest Inc. a ton of money.

2) If Inc. began shrinking ASA, Atkin and the boys would have to answer to the shareholders why they were dismanteling the regional airline with the highest profit margin that brings in so much cash. (a tough sell to shareholders).

3) We just voted in a contract that will lock in our pay, benefits, etc... and guarantee our costs stay in check while still bringing in tons of cash to Inc.

4) Over the next 3 yrs of our contract, several other regionals will be negotiating their next working agreement. As they surpass our pay, benefits, etc... the boys in SGU will stay have us locked in at our rate and be getting quite the bargain.

No argument there. I would expect with the newly approved TA, its margin will diminish somewhat.

5) No more whipsaw. I'm sure he would miss being able to do this to both groups if the proper occasion arose. (via threats and scare tactics of course).

I can certainly see that. There are some on the board saying that it would be even better since you have a diminishing union voice whipsawed against an unprotected group. In the end, it's just the unprotected group.

6) Probably most importantly, the lack of pilots. We cannot fill our classes currently. Neither can Pinnacle, Comair, SkyW, or anyone else. I know, you say that "well, those folks that were going to ASA will just go to Skyw". True, some would, but there are many pilots out there that would rather go to an airline that does not discriminate against a pilot for what aircraft he flies (bro guys get no raise, what a crock of ....), has union benefits and protections, a contract thats locked in rather than a hand shake, etc...

While there are those that strongly prefer a unionized operation, I think if it were a choice of SkyWest or nothing (or some undesireable union operations) they would choose SkyWest.

7) Surely you know that as an airline grows, its costs decrease. As an airline shrinks, its costs rise. In your scenario, ASA's costs would increase as each airfram left and at some point, it would just have to dump the entire operation so they would not lose their butts with soaring costs (sure to please all shareholders). With our new contract, "dumping" the enitre thing in that manner would not be allowed.

...and as one operation decreases in efficiencies of scale, the other side benefits so I see this as a wash. When the overhead gets to be too much, then it's time to merge into one HQ.

8) The transfer of airframes is extremely expensive (as Atkin and the boys found out the hard way when they transferred a few of our a/c over a while back). I loved it when they posted their earnings and had to explain why they missed Wall Street estimates and one of the reasons was due to the "cost of transfer of assets from ASA to Skyw". I'm sure the shareholders loved that. Thats when the transferring came to an ubrupt halt.

I missed your point on this one. SkyWest Inc had positive earnings surprises on the last quarter and the one before that. Are you talking about three quarters ago?

Is there anything in the TA (new contract) that would preclude the described scenario from happening if no furloughs are involved?

 

[79%N1]

Yes. A limit to the amount of aircraft transfers allowed in a 12 month period, up to a maximum amount, and a no-furlough clause. This was something we negotiated in our contract. After that, we get transfer rights to Skywest. As a side note, we also negotiated tranfer rights for Skywest pilots to ASA if transfers go the other way! Nice huh? Your welcome.....

 

[Andy Neill]

Yes. A limit to the amount of aircraft transfers allowed in a 12 month period, up to a maximum amount, and a no-furlough clause. This was something we negotiated in our contract. After that, we get transfer rights to Skywest. As a side note, we also negotiated tranfer rights for Skywest pilots to ASA if transfers go the other way! Nice huh? Your welcome.....

Yes, thanks for the reminder. SkyWest Inc. can essentially transfer an aircraft every 13 weeks with no need to offer pilot transfers. Nothing stops them from transferring more if offers to transfer with seniority is made. If that happened, I wonder how far down the ASA seniorty list the offers would go before getting used up. If it got to the bottom, SkyWest Inc has made good on it's part of the bargain.

I presume the "You're welcome" was directed to the SkyWest people - I am not one.

 

[bobbyice]

Yes, thanks for the reminder. SkyWest Inc. can essentially transfer an aircraft every 13 weeks with no need to offer pilot transfers. Nothing stops them from transferring more if offers to transfer with seniority is made. If that happened, I wonder how far down the ASA seniorty list the offers would go before getting used up. If it got to the bottom, SkyWest Inc has made good on it's part of the bargain.

I presume the "You're welcome" was directed to the SkyWest people - I am not one.

You gotta be honest here though Andy...were you not a former SkyWest employee? In the training department on the E120 if I recall correcly? At least you're one of the few on this board who consistently makes respectful posts.

 

[sweptback]

Never mind.

 

[Andy Neill]

You gotta be honest here though Andy...were you not a former SkyWest employee? In the training department on the E120 if I recall correcly? At least you're one of the few on this board who consistently makes respectful posts.

Yes. I was a ground instructor on the Brasilia at SKYW until a year ago.

As for my forum behavior, that is one of the reasons I use my name so I can be held accountable for what I say. Bill Mostellar is my hero in this respect.