badog
Right career, Wrong time
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2003
- Posts
- 219
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
jerry has a dog in the fight but no say.
skw is just a contracted feed provider.
ual/cal is making money.
Scope could partially kill him off, (and everyone else)
Do you guys realize that SkyWest is in a LONG TERM contract with United? In excess of 10 years for most of the airframes from the DOS. If United were to terminate the contract to bring the flying in-house, they'd have to essentially pay SkyWest as if they had flown those years for United. It would cost United millions if not billions to do so. This reason alone is why it's never going to happen...that is unless the UAL/CAL pilots intend to concede millions-billions of dollars in wages to pay for it. I'm guessing not, but who knows?
Scope would not rescind the 10 year agreement but would limit the air frames and reduce or eliminate them as the contract comes due. It's not, "all or nothing" but a decrease over time, Just a thought. Either way, regional feed is about to shrink.
Jerry is the only one with a check account at big, and with oil going no where but up, e's the only one with money to loan United. With that said, he's going to ensure that as much of his flying is protected...
The important thing is to keep telling yourself that is true. Once you say it enough times you will actually believe it.Do you guys realize that SkyWest is in a LONG TERM contract with United? In excess of 10 years for most of the airframes from the DOS. If United were to terminate the contract to bring the flying in-house, they'd have to essentially pay SkyWest as if they had flown those years for United.
If your company is not selling the tickets, or setting the schedules, or buying the gas, or paying the leases on aircraft, or landing fees, or gate rent, ect.... then your company is simply a service provider whose business is selling staffing.
Well, considering that SkyWest is doing all of that except selling the actual ticket is many of its markets---especially in markets that DL/UA pilots have never touched, yet think they've always owned---I think it's pretty safe to say that they aren't "just a staffing provider."
Yeah I hear the RASM's out of St George are killer!![]()
Well, considering that SkyWest is doing all of that except selling the actual ticket is many of its markets---especially in markets that DL/UA pilots have never touched, yet think they've always owned---I think it's pretty safe to say that they aren't "just a staffing provider."
How do you figure that? Regionals don't pay for schit! if they had to pick up the tab, they would not longer be in business. Look at UAL financials, they pay for everything, "fee for departure" even if the plane is empty!!
Well, considering that SkyWest is doing all of that except selling the actual ticket is many of its markets---especially in markets that DL/UA pilots have never touched, yet think they've always owned---I think it's pretty safe to say that they aren't "just a staffing provider."
Uh huh.I wasn't talking about other regionals; I was talking about SkyWest. SkyWest has a sizeable at-risk operation.
Here's some fun with math: Skywest operates 191 aircraft for UA and only 47 (24%) are revenue sharing. But out of the 47, over 60% are 30-seat turboprops.
In reality the core business of Skywest (in reference to UA) is that of a flat-rate fixed-fee per departure operator as the capacity of the Brazilia fleet is tiny in reference to the size of either Skywest or United. Add-in ASA and ExpressJet and the ratios are off the scale.
Are you sure about this one?Certain SFO routes (ACV)
This is where we disagree. IMHO, it is neither sizable or noticeable and that's the reason why it's already planned to go away over the next 36 months.As I said in my previous post, a sizeable portion portion of the flying is at-risk. It may not be the lion's share, but it's there, and it's noticable.
I wasn't talking about other regionals; I was talking about SkyWest. SkyWest has a sizeable at-risk operation. Most of it is the Brasilias, but there's also MKE, and certain DEN and ORD routes. At no point did I say that ALL, or NONE of their flying was at-risk.
This is where we disagree. IMHO, it is neither sizable or noticeable and that's the reason why it's already planned to go away over the next 36 months.
Are you sure about this one?
Or sorry. Go stick your **** in a *****.Glad we could keep this civil. It's so un-FI-like.![]()
I will give them credit in how they do business and how they protect themselves. Unlike many other regionals, I think skywest owns its own gates in SLC and has defined market share rights for ASA in ATL. ... But I think The jedi thinks a little to highly of his/her favorite regional company. I am not looking for a career at a regional but want a comfortable life if it does happen so I want to see good things happen at the regional level but NOT at the expense of mainline flying.
Or sorry. Go stick your **** in a *****.
![]()
Why is it that Skywest Inc only cultivates pro-rate flying for Skywest and not ASA?
I would say that is more at-risk flying that any other regional in the country.
Wow that is impressive. Wonder what happens if you take away the global airline at the other end that handles every dime of the marketing?