Skywest/Expressjet/Continental

[Turtlesfly]

here's something productive...can a xjt or anyone else please explain the non-hub clause. I don't understand or I guess I haven't read much about it...lets try to not fight about this one eh

The first 69 planes that CAL released from XJT's CAL feed were "given" to XJT in the sense that we could do just about anything with them: fly our own airline (branded), fly another codeshare (Delta) et cetera. But what we couldn't do is operate them for revenue into/out of any of CAL's hub airports: CLE, IAH and EWR. Rumor had it that that's why we didn't get the contract to do the express flying for Midwest: since we would have to have told Midwest: we have planes laying around and we'd love to fly for you, but unfortunately we can't do any turns into EWR CLE or IAH - but any other city is fine. Supposedly that was one reason we didn't get the feed and it went to Skywest.

Once CAL releases more than 1/2 of the original 274, then the no-compete clause is cancelled for ALL of the airframes - and we can send those planes to compete with CAL head-to-head if we so chose

hope that helps

 

[flyboyzz1]

makes sense...so if it got to this point (hope it doesn't) you could start to spread the branded to hubs of CAL? What good would that do as I'm sure it would be a tough market? Thanks for the answer BTW

 

[Nevets]

What matters is cash on hand, unless XJT plans to liquidate their entire company of $500 million in assets.

As of Dec 31, 2007, XJT reported $189 million in cash. They just reported a loss of $31.31 million in the 1st quarter - leaving now their cash on hand at $158. Google Financial reports their market capitol is at $159.81 Million at $3.08 a share. Tough times for the entire industry..

SOURCE: PR NEWSWIRE
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-05-2008/0004806855&EDATE=

XJT has $191.7 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of March 31, 2008. I was just responding to someone who said that, "There's nothing to buy" because they don't own any aircraft when in fact they have more than $500 million in total assets.

 

[Nevets]

The first 69 planes that CAL released from XJT's CAL feed were "given" to XJT in the sense that we could do just about anything with them: fly our own airline (branded), fly another codeshare (Delta) et cetera. But what we couldn't do is operate them for revenue into/out of any of CAL's hub airports: CLE, IAH and EWR. Rumor had it that that's why we didn't get the contract to do the express flying for Midwest: since we would have to have told Midwest: we have planes laying around and we'd love to fly for you, but unfortunately we can't do any turns into EWR CLE or IAH - but any other city is fine. Supposedly that was one reason we didn't get the feed and it went to Skywest.

Once CAL releases more than 1/2 of the original 274, then the no-compete clause is cancelled for ALL of the airframes - and we can send those planes to compete with CAL head-to-head if we so chose

hope that helps

The Continental CPA states that:

• at Continental’s hubs, we may only fly for Continental;

• at any other airport where Continental, its subsidiaries and other regional jets operating under Continental’s code as their primary code operate an average of more than 50 flights daily(currently there are no such airports), we may only fly for Continental; and

• we cannot operate any of our aircraft subject to the agreement or use our passenger-related airport facilities employed under the agreement for other carriers or for flights under our own code.

So long as scheduled flights under the Continental CPA represent at least 50% of all our scheduled flights, or at least 200 of our aircraft are covered by the agreement, we are required to allocate our crews, maintenance personnel, facilities and other resources on a priority basis to scheduled flights under the agreement above all of our other flights and aircraft.

So long as Continental is our largest customer, if we enter into a capacity purchase or economically similar agreement with another major airline (defined as any airline with annual revenues greater than $500 million, prior to adjustment for inflation since 2000) to provide regional airline service for more than 10 aircraft on terms and conditions that are, in the aggregate, less favorable to us than those in the Continental CPA, that agreement has a provision that may allow Continental to amend it to conform to the terms and conditions of our new agreement.

 

[Metro752]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Yeah!

Kool-Aid, that hits the spot!

 

[XPOO]

XJET getting rid of its scope at the hands of Jerry Atkin will be bad for the entire profession.

And for those who say I have an axe to grind, well I don't know quite how to respond. First, I'm a Mormon convert. So, that can't be it.

You wont give up scope to keep your job and support your family, but you'll give up 10% of your hard earned money to support a religion that was fabricated from the mind of a mid-1800's adulterer?

 

[SMOE]

From Another Board...

More likely result will be CAL taking back the 51 jets if Coex does not want them. Then we will lease them to to Skywest which in turn will staff them at a much lower cost than Expressjet ever could. The reason why? When Skywest figures the cost they figure it at new crew rates ie. 1st year F/O's and year 2 or 3 Capt's. They did the same thing to us at Air Wisconsin. We ended up losing all of our flying to them. When you are trying to compete against a person bidding aganist you at an "incremental" cost, you can never be cheaper.

 

[Turtlesfly]

You wont give up scope to keep your job and support your family, but you'll give up 10% of your hard earned money to support a religion that was fabricated from the mind of a mid-1800's adulterer?

Ouch...

 

[Turtlesfly]

The Continental CPA states that:

• at Continental’s hubs, we may only fly for Continental;

• at any other airport where Continental, its subsidiaries and other regional jets operating under Continental’s code as their primary code operate an average of more than 50 flights daily(currently there are no such airports), we may only fly for Continental; and

• we cannot operate any of our aircraft subject to the agreement or use our passenger-related airport facilities employed under the agreement for other carriers or for flights under our own code.

So long as scheduled flights under the Continental CPA represent at least 50% of all our scheduled flights, or at least 200 of our aircraft are covered by the agreement, we are required to allocate our crews, maintenance personnel, facilities and other resources on a priority basis to scheduled flights under the agreement above all of our other flights and aircraft.

So long as Continental is our largest customer, if we enter into a capacity purchase or economically similar agreement with another major airline (defined as any airline with annual revenues greater than $500 million, prior to adjustment for inflation since 2000) to provide regional airline service for more than 10 aircraft on terms and conditions that are, in the aggregate, less favorable to us than those in the Continental CPA, that agreement has a provision that may allow Continental to amend it to conform to the terms and conditions of our new agreement.

Well, basically what I said but with a lot more technical crap behind it.

 

[erj-145mech]

I'm pretty sure they have options for 50 seaters but EMB has told them they can use them for bigger aircraft

And what official source did you deduct this from? Don't tell me...the old lady sweeping the carpet behind the podium at the gate after the flight departed??

I'm pretty sure that if your Mom boned the president of Empressa (thats the parent organization of Embraer), she would get options on bigger airplanes too!

 

[flylike44]

let me get this straight. "inc." is the new cool kid word for skywest? what a bunch of a holes...

 

[Bako Cap]

SkyWest Inc is the holding company.
SkyWest airlines is one of Inc.'s companies
ASA is one of Inc.'s companies

So when someone states Inc., they are talking about the holding company not SkyWest Airlines or ASA.

With deductive reasoning of your post, I guess "a holes" also apply to Expressjet guys when they say "holdings"

 

[ToiletDuck]

If I understand correctly, the -705 is just a CRJ900 that is only certified for 75 seats. Bombardier apparently went out of their way to certify this version of the -900 for 75 as a work around on the scope conflict so they could secure the Air Canada order.

The EMB170/175/190...as far as pax comfort is concerned, there is no equal amongst the regional manufacurers. No doubt it is a great aircraft...however, the the extra gross weight of the aircraft (obviously requiring a little more fuel to operate) has been a primary reason for not moving away from the CRJ's altogether.

The CRJ might burn a little less fuel but the 175/190 is much lower in MX. Less checks. Still cheaper.

 

[Morning Wood]

More likely result will be CAL taking back the 51 jets if Coex does not want them. Then we will lease them to to Skywest which in turn will staff them at a much lower cost than Expressjet ever could. The reason why? When Skywest figures the cost they figure it at new crew rates ie. 1st year F/O's and year 2 or 3 Capt's. They did the same thing to us at Air Wisconsin. We ended up losing all of our flying to them. When you are trying to compete against a person bidding aganist you at an "incremental" cost, you can never be cheaper.

How do they figure crew rates at 1st year F/O and 2nd/3rd year captain when fairly senior crews from SLC and DEN do a fair amount of the UAX flying? Air Wisconsin lost their United flying because they had the highest costs of any UAX carrier and Geoff Crowley tried to see who would blink first.

 

[Nevets]

Well, basically what I said but with a lot more technical crap behind it.

Yeah, I just lifted it directly from the 2007 annual report. I was just trying to fill in some of your gaps.

 

[cfi_greg]

Thats very easy, express jet raised the bar on pay for all regional pilots.

Mesa has always done the opposite.

MESA SUCKS!

The branded flying was the idea of management not pilots, express jet pilots have a right to have pride in who the work for.

Medeco

When is anything that is ever done in the airlines the pilots ideas. We just drive the bus.

 

[rtmcfi]

How do they figure crew rates at 1st year F/O and 2ND/3RD year captain when fairly senior crews from LC and DEN do a fair amount of the UAX flying? Air Wisconsin lost their United flying because they had the highest costs of any UAX carrier and Geoff Crowley tried to see who would blink first.

OO's huge growth spurt (along with GO-Jet, Mesa, and maybe others) with UAL came as a result of AWACS demise. This absolutely was bid with the first year FO and 2-3 yr Captain pay. When ORD and DEN opened for SkyWest, they went JR.

Even if all of the SR PSP and PDX pilots were to have decided to do the new flying, SkyWest would still have done well because all of the PSP and PDX flying would have been filled by newhire FO's and JR Captains.

At the time of AWAC's demise with UAL, they had a fairly senior, thus higher cost pilot group. The pay scales at that time for AWAC and SkyWest were very comparable, but longevity was another story. It was a tough situation. AWACS flying was the only flying put up for bid. Every other regional got the chance to bid on a manageable size chunk of new flying, and crew it with jr crews, while still getting paid for their existing flying. AWAC on the other hand had to bid it with their existing, higher longevity crews. The outcome was pretty predictable. United had a gun to AWACs head, and pulled the trigger. (not for the first time either, but that is a different story)

Let the industry stagnate for a while, and when SKyWests contracts come up for renegotiation, it could just as easily happen to them.

You are correct about the GC part. I think SkyWest Mgmnt was willing to accept a smaller profit margin than AWAC.

 

[rtmcfi]

More likely result will be CAL taking back the 51 jets if Coex does not want them. Then we will lease them to to Skywest which in turn will staff them at a much lower cost than Expressjet ever could. The reason why? When Skywest figures the cost they figure it at new crew rates ie. 1st year F/O's and year 2 or 3 Capt's. They did the same thing to us at Air Wisconsin. We ended up losing all of our flying to them. When you are trying to compete against a person bidding aganist you at an "incremental" cost, you can never be cheaper.

That is not accurate. SkyWest got the lions share, but Go-Jets, Mesa, and maybe others all got a piece of the action.

 

[difete]

Wa wa wa, we just reported a loss in income compared from last year's quarter. There you have it... we also can bleed.

 

[Future Furlough]

Let the industry stagnate for a while, and when SKyWests contracts come up for renegotiation, it could just as easily happen to them.

???What contract??? I believe (although could be wrong:0 ) that Inc. graciously gave Skywest pilots a 1% pay raise this year. Pay rates at Skywest are whatever management says they are, and not a penny more.