Alaska contract

[MCDU]

Only if you vote to approve does any of this happen. If we ratify this, we fk'ed ourselves this time.

I don't blame the company at all, now I understand why the company has been so agreeable to our negotiating time line. It turns out our MEC has been standing their with our wallets open and the company pilfering it.

Do not worry. Your union ALPA has you covered. They are a national union with strong union principles and they will protect your interests.

M

 

[Old School 737]

Share repurchase program

Alaska will likely generate around $333 million of free cash flow in this year, which will help it complete its $250 million share repurchase program, announced last year. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the company repurchased approximately 1.7 million shares for $60 million, and expects to complete the buyback by the end of next year. This will provide some upside to its stock in the challenging environment.

 

[igneousy2]

During investor conference earlier this month, CFO states that new pilot contract will increase CASM by .01

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Before you panic, two years ago when SkyWest started this flying, the agreement was for eight airplanes. Only five were available. The rest were already flying for SkyWest or ASA and had been reconfigured for two class cabins. There were four others owned by the Alaska group; three leased to South Africa and one in India. The three in South Africa come off lease this summer and they are the ones that SkyWest will start flying this November. I don't know about the one in India.

Two years ago we staffed PDX and SEA for eight airplanes and only operated five. Now the other three are coming on line. I have not heard anything about massive growth in the northwest with these E175's. The way it works is that we pioneer service in a new market with small airplanes. If it grows, larger aircraft will replace our aircraft and we will seek new markets.

It is very risky starting service in a new market, using a CRJ instead of a 737 limits the risk. If it is successful, it can grow into larger aircraft. If not, the loss is minimized and assets can be redeployed.

SkyWest is not going to displace any Alaska flying. We may help Alaska grow into new markets resulting in more growth at Alaska.

In any case we will only do flying that will improve the bottom line and make your airline more profitable.

Peace.

 

[redflyer65]

Before you panic, two years ago when SkyWest started this flying, the agreement was for eight airplanes. Only five were available. The rest were already flying for SkyWest or ASA and had been reconfigured for two class cabins. There were four others owned by the Alaska group; three leased to South Africa and one in India. The three in South Africa come off lease this summer and they are the ones that SkyWest will start flying this November. I don't know about the one in India.

Two years ago we staffed PDX and SEA for eight airplanes and only operated five. Now the other three are coming on line. I have not heard anything about massive growth in the northwest with these E175's. The way it works is that we pioneer service in a new market with small airplanes. If it grows, larger aircraft will replace our aircraft and we will seek new markets.

It is very risky starting service in a new market, using a CRJ instead of a 737 limits the risk. If it is successful, it can grow into larger aircraft. If not, the loss is minimized and assets can be redeployed.

SkyWest is not going to displace any Alaska flying. We may help Alaska grow into new markets resulting in more growth at Alaska.

In any case we will only do flying that will improve the bottom line and make your airline more profitable.

Peace.

?????

 

[Jon Rivoli]

?????

What don't you get? It's pretty simple.

 

[Mookie]

Before you panic, two years ago when SkyWest started this flying, the agreement was for eight airplanes. Only five were available. The rest were already flying for SkyWest or ASA and had been reconfigured for two class cabins. There were four others owned by the Alaska group; three leased to South Africa and one in India. The three in South Africa come off lease this summer and they are the ones that SkyWest will start flying this November. I don't know about the one in India.

Two years ago we staffed PDX and SEA for eight airplanes and only operated five. Now the other three are coming on line. I have not heard anything about massive growth in the northwest with these E175's. The way it works is that we pioneer service in a new market with small airplanes. If it grows, larger aircraft will replace our aircraft and we will seek new markets.

It is very risky starting service in a new market, using a CRJ instead of a 737 limits the risk. If it is successful, it can grow into larger aircraft. If not, the loss is minimized and assets can be redeployed.

SkyWest is not going to displace any Alaska flying. We may help Alaska grow into new markets resulting in more growth at Alaska.

In any case we will only do flying that will improve the bottom line and make your airline more profitable.

Peace.

Sorry dude. You're wrong. Pdx and sea do delta and united flying, ergo the extra crews. And yes, Alaska pilots havnt lost a job, but I'll bet that several pdx/sea Skywest crews would rather by at Alaska and not OO. That's reality

Mookie

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Sorry dude. You're wrong. Pdx and sea do delta and united flying, ergo the extra crews. And yes, Alaska pilots havnt lost a job, but I'll bet that several pdx/sea Skywest crews would rather by at Alaska and not OO. That's reality

Mookie

Don't be sorry dude. I'm not wrong. PDX crews only do Alaska flying, SEA does some UA and Delta flying and PDX has in the past, but that is because we are staffed for eight airplanes and only had five. The other flying was to offset the delay in Alaska flying.

Reality is that I don't know a single PDX captain that would leave for Alaska or anywhere else. Life is good flying out of Portland, ask any of the senior Horizon Captains why they never left.

There are plenty at SkyWest that would love to fly for Alaska, but if you have it good, why would you want to get on the bottom of a seniority list with upgrade more than a decade away. The joys of juniority, reserve, commuting. No thank you. I'm in the top 12% at SkyWest and only move up about five numbers a year. The people who are leaving are junior and have no quality of life here.

None the less. Alaska will more likely grow faster in partnership with SkyWest than without, creating more opportunities for those who are already at Alaska and those who want to go there.

Peace.

 

[CesnaCaptn]

The way it works is that we pioneer service in a new market with small airplanes. If it grows, larger aircraft will replace our aircraft and we will seek new markets.

It is very risky starting service in a new market, using a CRJ instead of a 737 limits the risk. If it is successful, it can grow into larger aircraft. If not, the loss is minimized and assets can be redeployed.

SkyWest is not going to displace any Alaska flying. We may help Alaska grow into new markets resulting in more growth at Alaska.

In any case we will only do flying that will improve the bottom line and make your airline more profitable.

Peace.

Did you tell this same story when the jets started arriving for UA express back in the '00s? Are LAX-SEA or DEN-SJC pioneering service?

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Did you tell this same story when the jets started arriving for UA express back in the '00s? Are LAX-SEA or DEN-SJC pioneering service?

That was a different story, it had to do with putting the right number of seats in a market. UAL and DAL had over capacity and the RJ was a way to reduce capacity while still maintaining schedule. Without the RJ the markets would have been abandoned.

Alaska doesn't have a capacity problem.

 

[CesnaCaptn]

That was a different story, it had to do with putting the right number of seats in a market. UAL and DAL had over capacity and the RJ was a way to reduce capacity while still maintaining schedule. Without the RJ the markets would have been abandoned.

Alaska doesn't have a capacity problem.

Off the top of my head, Alaska used to fly PDX-SMF, SEA-YVR, LAX-LTO, LAX-LAP, SEA-RNO, and more frequencies from the Northwest and the Bay Area. Now we have QX coming to Alaska.

You think DL and UA are somehow different? Alaska's management could make the same excuses and run a SkyWest CPA all over the west coast.

 

[Jon Rivoli]

Off the top of my head, Alaska used to fly PDX-SMF, SEA-YVR, LAX-LTO, LAX-LAP, SEA-RNO, and more frequencies from the Northwest and the Bay Area. Now we have QX coming to Alaska.

You think DL and UA are somehow different? Alaska's management could make the same excuses and run a SkyWest CPA all over the west coast.

What was the price of oil in 2000?

Jet fuel used to be almost free and WN flew between LUV IAH and SAT.

Fuel is now an airlines single largest cost and fares have bottomed out.

Costs go up and revenue goes down. Somethings gotta give.

Routes that used to be profitable no longer are. Capacity must get cut and markets dropped. A full Q400 will always be more profitable than a half full 737, or a full one with deeply discounted fares.

The AS fleet plan is for all 737-800's and -900's. That means you're selling your product (seats) in increments of about 160. That leaves a lot of markets uneconomic. That is where the Q and the 700 fill in.

If you want to fly the Q and the CRJ in house, cool! Let's merge.

That hasn't happened over the past decade and I tend to doubt it will ever happen. AS seems to want to focus on higher yield flying with larger aircraft. Why kill yourself doing cheep work. Southwest isn't.

Rather than worrying about RJ's, you should be thinking about 787's.


Peace

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

[FALSE DICHOTOMY]

Rather than worrying about RJ's, you should be thinking about 787's.

[/FALSE DICHOTOMY]

I'm a worrier; I'll worry about both.

 

[dicko]

. That leaves a lot of markets uneconomic. That is where the Q and the 700 fill

Why kill yourself doing cheep work. Southwest isn't.

In one sentence you argue for the outsourcing of Alaska product. Then you justify it using a comparison to an airline that outsources none of its flying. Absolutely ridiculous.

By the way; if you can't spell "cheap", perhaps you shouldn't involve yourself in a discussion about outsourcing flying to the lowest bidder.

 

[Capi_Cafre']

I'm suprised they are announcing all this "new" flying on Skywest jets before the contract has been settled ...

AAG would never give Alaska flying away to Skywest like they gave Horizon flying away to Skywest. Nothing to see here folks, move along...

 

[Old School 737]

Have anybody else seen the MOU attached to the contract that addresses them looking at PBS ....

 

[Ocity]

Have anybody else seen the MOU attached to the contract that addresses them looking at PBS ....

Hey why not? We're giving away the store as it is by voting yes to this disaster, why not throw on PBS too? Whatever vender they want, whatever protocol they want too. Lets just give and give ourselves away back to Mesa.

 

[NoJoy]

Mesa and PBS do not go in the same sentance-

 

[igneousy2]

Have anybody else seen the MOU attached to the contract that addresses them looking at PBS ....

Sadly...that was the only positive I found.

 

[Old School 737]

Sadly...that was the only positive I found.

??? You want PBS ? The only positive I found is we will get our sched earlier in the month ..