Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
ASA Classes
- Thread starter ASABound
- Start date
- Watchers 13
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
From what I've heard its interviews again in April training in Feb. We are VERY fat on pilots now, mostly in DFW, due to the Brasilia going away. The ranks will start to thin as we get more airplanes in, but that will take about 5 or 6 airplanes (in DFW alone) to thin the herd.
There was a roumor about the pool being dumped too. So if you are in the pool I'd give em a call and see if your name is still there. Just to be on the safe side.
Good luck.
There was a roumor about the pool being dumped too. So if you are in the pool I'd give em a call and see if your name is still there. Just to be on the safe side.
Good luck.
Nov. lines for DFW
Hey,
DFW lines actually grew about 15 i think, without looking at the package.
It is anybodys guess what the future holds at ASA in terms of pilot growth.
Today(monday Oct 13) our senior VP of air op's is "visiting" the pilot lounge for two days in each domicile to "answer" questions, so maybe some new info will be given or a better look at the big picture. But, most likely not. He is a good dodger of questions.
Medeco
Hey,
DFW lines actually grew about 15 i think, without looking at the package.
It is anybodys guess what the future holds at ASA in terms of pilot growth.
Today(monday Oct 13) our senior VP of air op's is "visiting" the pilot lounge for two days in each domicile to "answer" questions, so maybe some new info will be given or a better look at the big picture. But, most likely not. He is a good dodger of questions.
Medeco
Today's meeting
I caught our VP just as he was sitting down so I had himself to myself for a bit. As far as the initial question goes, he indicated that early spring would be the start of training again. We're taking 15 aircraft next year and at 5.75 crews/aircraft, that would take up our slack and run the extras out by summertime approximately, thus the hiring in early spring. He didn't indicate a number of hirees, but if you do the math, I'd guess about not more than a couple classes. There's not much attrition right now, so we won't be taking on too much. DFW lines did grow this month, but I think it's more of a function of aircraft rotation and availability than actual growth.
As far as the rest of the meeting, here's the pertinent pieces I picked ouin the three hours I sat with him...
We will be taking back service to many markets which we previously served as well as some that was started by our Connection partners. By year's end, we'll see a smaller Skywest and to a lesser extent CQH presence. I don't remember the whole list of changes, but it's in the Deltamatic so you can check them. Suffice it to say it's pretty significant. These are all replacements, but they're will likely be some new service as well thought of course that falls under "non-disclosure", so it's speculation at the moment.
ATL will get better. They're committed, from an operational standpoint at least, to dramatically improving the quality and efficiency of operations. He gave some interesting info regarding ATL ATC operations and how they affect our operations. It appears to be an uphill battle against the system we operate in and getting what we need from DAL, but he seems to be of the opinion that we've finally gotten the attention we need and it will make a difference soon. Standing by on that one...
They're looking into long-term viability of keeping the ATR around what options there are if it were to go.
In relation to growth, after we take the 15 aircraft next year, between us and CMR, we've reached the CRJ-700 scope limit imposed by DAL. No options have been exercised for any 50-seaters. We need about a 13 month lead time to receive aircraft options which could be exercised. So, draw that out to its logical conclusion.
We will not have any other crew bases than ATL and DFW. There will likely be rotation through other markets(ie. SLC), but there are no plans to base crews anywhere outside our current domiciles.
After a while, all the questions became the same, those were the main points.
Now, we all know that this isn't even close to the "big picture." I've heard recently from sources that would be considered "in the know" information which paints a different picture in terms of growth. I'm certainly no wiser than anyone else about what information is truth and which is fiction, but I'd guess that our future looks fairly bright.
Oh yeah, the contract negotiations...no word.
I caught our VP just as he was sitting down so I had himself to myself for a bit. As far as the initial question goes, he indicated that early spring would be the start of training again. We're taking 15 aircraft next year and at 5.75 crews/aircraft, that would take up our slack and run the extras out by summertime approximately, thus the hiring in early spring. He didn't indicate a number of hirees, but if you do the math, I'd guess about not more than a couple classes. There's not much attrition right now, so we won't be taking on too much. DFW lines did grow this month, but I think it's more of a function of aircraft rotation and availability than actual growth.
As far as the rest of the meeting, here's the pertinent pieces I picked ouin the three hours I sat with him...
We will be taking back service to many markets which we previously served as well as some that was started by our Connection partners. By year's end, we'll see a smaller Skywest and to a lesser extent CQH presence. I don't remember the whole list of changes, but it's in the Deltamatic so you can check them. Suffice it to say it's pretty significant. These are all replacements, but they're will likely be some new service as well thought of course that falls under "non-disclosure", so it's speculation at the moment.
ATL will get better. They're committed, from an operational standpoint at least, to dramatically improving the quality and efficiency of operations. He gave some interesting info regarding ATL ATC operations and how they affect our operations. It appears to be an uphill battle against the system we operate in and getting what we need from DAL, but he seems to be of the opinion that we've finally gotten the attention we need and it will make a difference soon. Standing by on that one...
They're looking into long-term viability of keeping the ATR around what options there are if it were to go.
In relation to growth, after we take the 15 aircraft next year, between us and CMR, we've reached the CRJ-700 scope limit imposed by DAL. No options have been exercised for any 50-seaters. We need about a 13 month lead time to receive aircraft options which could be exercised. So, draw that out to its logical conclusion.
We will not have any other crew bases than ATL and DFW. There will likely be rotation through other markets(ie. SLC), but there are no plans to base crews anywhere outside our current domiciles.
After a while, all the questions became the same, those were the main points.
Now, we all know that this isn't even close to the "big picture." I've heard recently from sources that would be considered "in the know" information which paints a different picture in terms of growth. I'm certainly no wiser than anyone else about what information is truth and which is fiction, but I'd guess that our future looks fairly bright.
Oh yeah, the contract negotiations...no word.
AFELLOWAVIATOR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
- Posts
- 411
ASAPILOT,
Thank you for the info. As you know, we have been approached for concessions. I can tell you now it aint gonna happen. Our MEC is going to demand that our two pilot groups combine, and all future DCI growth go to us. Well, we all know our Mgt. has no authority to make that happen, and it will just serve as a poison pill to end the "concessions for growth" talks. Yes, that is what it is officially being called. Kind of funny ,hu?
Can you elaborate a little about Skywest and Cha? Did he actually say DAL would be using them less?
Good luck at the table and keep the faith. We are behind you guys 100%
Thank you for the info. As you know, we have been approached for concessions. I can tell you now it aint gonna happen. Our MEC is going to demand that our two pilot groups combine, and all future DCI growth go to us. Well, we all know our Mgt. has no authority to make that happen, and it will just serve as a poison pill to end the "concessions for growth" talks. Yes, that is what it is officially being called. Kind of funny ,hu?
Can you elaborate a little about Skywest and Cha? Did he actually say DAL would be using them less?
Good luck at the table and keep the faith. We are behind you guys 100%
Tim47SIP
Serving for the USofA
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,157
AFELLOWDOOD
Just curious. Did your MEC talk with anyone at ASA about combining the lists? I dont remember voting on that issue (but I was on a Mil LOA for 18 months). I know that there was a combined list presented at the PID request in 2000, but I thought the issue was dropped. I hear alot about combining the lists from the Comair side and not a whole lot about it from the ASA side. Some are for it and others are against it.
Just curious. Did your MEC talk with anyone at ASA about combining the lists? I dont remember voting on that issue (but I was on a Mil LOA for 18 months). I know that there was a combined list presented at the PID request in 2000, but I thought the issue was dropped. I hear alot about combining the lists from the Comair side and not a whole lot about it from the ASA side. Some are for it and others are against it.
AFELLOWAVIATOR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
- Posts
- 411
Good question. As I understand it, our respective MEC's have discussed this. I think it is more a poison pill than any thing else.
A vote would be conducted on any proposal according to our MEC.
I would be curious of what your MEC had to say about it, but botton line is the company, DAL, would never go for it and our MECs know it.
I too wonder how a combined list would help us. It did not seen to do much good for Eagle.
A vote would be conducted on any proposal according to our MEC.
I would be curious of what your MEC had to say about it, but botton line is the company, DAL, would never go for it and our MECs know it.
I too wonder how a combined list would help us. It did not seen to do much good for Eagle.
More info...
Yeah, I was amazed I was able to take 3 hours of Drew in one shot too. With all that's going on in the industry right now, I decided should find out as much as I could. It wasn't easy I tell ya!
AFELLOW-
He didn't say specifically that Skywest and CQH would do any less Connection flying as a whole. Here in DFW, by year's end, there will be a substantial reduction in Skywest flying, likely to reposition the aircraft back to SLC to be ready for the Jan. restructuring of that hub. For us that means taking back some or all service to JAN, TYS, JAX, TLH, PFN, and a few others I can't remember at the moment. He said one other that hasn't been posted yet, so I think he didn't mean to say it. I won't say it either but suffice it to say it's in the desert, it's really hot, and it's the home of one of the worst teams in the NFL. In addition, I know we'll be getting some of PNS and LFT back from CQH. Oh, and ELP slipped out as a possibility too.
The problem we face is this: CQH and even ACJet(however that works out) are cheaper than we are and will continue to be. While operating costs may chane some, they'll likely always be able to outbid us(ASA/CoMR). Our average pilot longetivity at ASA is about 7.5-8 years and it's likely near that at CMR. CQH's is about 18 months. So, even if we operated under the exact same contract, they'd have less of an expense operating the same flight. Take Mesa who operates cheap and has a very young pilot group and you can see why they're so dangerous. Drew said specifically that companies like Mesa or CQH will continue to pose a threat to our growth. So, we've got to make strides in other areas(operational efficiency, etc.) to keep it viable. Now, you've got mgmt. trying to go the other way and just cut the cost of paying us down to equal the costs of the Mesas and CQHs. Drew said that DAL has a committment to CRM and ASA in that we both have vast experience operating in our respective regions and can more effectively adapt and manage the things we know about. But, when it comes to new service, Skywest and CQH will always be an option DAL will be happy to use if it suits their needs. I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is, but it's not taking a pay cut, that's for sure. That doesn't make you more competitive, it just puts you one the same field as the rest of them.
As far as what I've heard from other sources about future growth, it seems that DAL's "restructuring" of hubs is likely to continue. We saw it here in DFW back in early summer and now we see it in SLC in January. DAL is bringing back aircraft from the desert and LEO seems to think things are going to grow at mainline soon. But, it would appear that DAL wants to deploy the RJ fleet in advance of potential mainline capacity. We've been used as "market builders" in many cities and it sounds like that trend will continue. While DAL pulls some flights down and brings in RJs, they're not parking planes, just beefing up routes they can fill. The indication to me was that we will continue to find markets to build and/or maintain while DAL figures out what it's going to do with itself. It also seems that we're actively trying to find ways to obtain more CR7s which will of course require some relief from the DAL MEC(or just doing it and working it out in court later). The fly in the oinment is paying for more airplanes. It's hard to get a loan when DAL posts a $750 million loss. So, I don't know how that will all go down. The bottom line is, on paper and officially from Drew, we have no further growth planes beyond about 13 months from now. But, from others who get to sit in on some of these meetings, the company is actively trying to find ways to continue the push and it would appear that we'll likely be successful at least in part.
Yeah, I was amazed I was able to take 3 hours of Drew in one shot too. With all that's going on in the industry right now, I decided should find out as much as I could. It wasn't easy I tell ya!
AFELLOW-
He didn't say specifically that Skywest and CQH would do any less Connection flying as a whole. Here in DFW, by year's end, there will be a substantial reduction in Skywest flying, likely to reposition the aircraft back to SLC to be ready for the Jan. restructuring of that hub. For us that means taking back some or all service to JAN, TYS, JAX, TLH, PFN, and a few others I can't remember at the moment. He said one other that hasn't been posted yet, so I think he didn't mean to say it. I won't say it either but suffice it to say it's in the desert, it's really hot, and it's the home of one of the worst teams in the NFL. In addition, I know we'll be getting some of PNS and LFT back from CQH. Oh, and ELP slipped out as a possibility too.
The problem we face is this: CQH and even ACJet(however that works out) are cheaper than we are and will continue to be. While operating costs may chane some, they'll likely always be able to outbid us(ASA/CoMR). Our average pilot longetivity at ASA is about 7.5-8 years and it's likely near that at CMR. CQH's is about 18 months. So, even if we operated under the exact same contract, they'd have less of an expense operating the same flight. Take Mesa who operates cheap and has a very young pilot group and you can see why they're so dangerous. Drew said specifically that companies like Mesa or CQH will continue to pose a threat to our growth. So, we've got to make strides in other areas(operational efficiency, etc.) to keep it viable. Now, you've got mgmt. trying to go the other way and just cut the cost of paying us down to equal the costs of the Mesas and CQHs. Drew said that DAL has a committment to CRM and ASA in that we both have vast experience operating in our respective regions and can more effectively adapt and manage the things we know about. But, when it comes to new service, Skywest and CQH will always be an option DAL will be happy to use if it suits their needs. I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is, but it's not taking a pay cut, that's for sure. That doesn't make you more competitive, it just puts you one the same field as the rest of them.
As far as what I've heard from other sources about future growth, it seems that DAL's "restructuring" of hubs is likely to continue. We saw it here in DFW back in early summer and now we see it in SLC in January. DAL is bringing back aircraft from the desert and LEO seems to think things are going to grow at mainline soon. But, it would appear that DAL wants to deploy the RJ fleet in advance of potential mainline capacity. We've been used as "market builders" in many cities and it sounds like that trend will continue. While DAL pulls some flights down and brings in RJs, they're not parking planes, just beefing up routes they can fill. The indication to me was that we will continue to find markets to build and/or maintain while DAL figures out what it's going to do with itself. It also seems that we're actively trying to find ways to obtain more CR7s which will of course require some relief from the DAL MEC(or just doing it and working it out in court later). The fly in the oinment is paying for more airplanes. It's hard to get a loan when DAL posts a $750 million loss. So, I don't know how that will all go down. The bottom line is, on paper and officially from Drew, we have no further growth planes beyond about 13 months from now. But, from others who get to sit in on some of these meetings, the company is actively trying to find ways to continue the push and it would appear that we'll likely be successful at least in part.
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Delta can have as many RJs as they want, especially 70 seaters---as long as they fly the NEW ones with Delta furloughs. Drew doesn't want to admit that, he just wants them on his side. I am sure our guys at the bottom would love to fly at your rates too. (That is not under bidding you---the same rates) Just set up a new subsidiary and fly all of the ones you want Delta---go ahead.
Bye Bye--General Lee
Bye Bye--General Lee
jetflyer-
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure I'll be using it often.
Blue-
Sorry 'bout that. I thought I read on another CHQ post that it was CQH, but perhaps my eyes had blurred from reading too many posts. You shall be referred to as CHQ from now on.
General-
That's certainly DAL's option to order its own CR7s and crew them with furloughs. I just don't see this happening because then they have to set up their own training, MX, and operations programs using their own money. Although I'm sure many furloughees would welcome the oppourtunity to fly them at ASA rates, it would still be work to push it all through with ALPA and DAL mgmt. I can't see how it wouldn't be easier to just have us and CMR continue the flying we're doing. I'm not saying it's the best option for everyone involved. I just don't know how you'd talk DAL into it.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure I'll be using it often.
Blue-
Sorry 'bout that. I thought I read on another CHQ post that it was CQH, but perhaps my eyes had blurred from reading too many posts. You shall be referred to as CHQ from now on.
General-
That's certainly DAL's option to order its own CR7s and crew them with furloughs. I just don't see this happening because then they have to set up their own training, MX, and operations programs using their own money. Although I'm sure many furloughees would welcome the oppourtunity to fly them at ASA rates, it would still be work to push it all through with ALPA and DAL mgmt. I can't see how it wouldn't be easier to just have us and CMR continue the flying we're doing. I'm not saying it's the best option for everyone involved. I just don't know how you'd talk DAL into it.
General Lee said:Delta can have as many RJs as they want, especially 70 seaters---as long as they fly the NEW ones with Delta furloughs. Drew doesn't want to admit that, he just wants them on his side. I am sure our guys at the bottom would love to fly at your rates too. (That is not under bidding you---the same rates) Just set up a new subsidiary and fly all of the ones you want Delta---go ahead.
Bye Bye--General Lee
General,
We all (well I think we all) want all of the furloughs back. The problem is that you can't get any growth at DCI even if your furloughed pilots work for our (Conair/ASA) wages. Even if your CASM is lower than the low wage scum non-wholly owned airlines (like ASA/Conair's CASM is). That's not good enough for Portfolio Fred, you see, he has all of these lower cost (well really they just have lower wages and poor work rules) scum outfits beating his door down wanting to get a piece of the DCI pie. So if you want some 70 seat aircraft, your furloughed pilots will have to fly them for less than Skywest 50 seat rates. Do they really want to do that? I will not!
OK, it's in the DAL timetable now, so here it is...
3x/day to PHX
2x/day to MSP
2x/day to ELP
All of those will include an overnight.
Also, we got the evening DAB from Skywest, I think it started this month actually. A long nap from DFW...
The more I've been looking around and on the phone today, the more I've decided to basically disregard the Drew-speech from yesterday.
If you're in the pool, keep swimming...
3x/day to PHX
2x/day to MSP
2x/day to ELP
All of those will include an overnight.
Also, we got the evening DAB from Skywest, I think it started this month actually. A long nap from DFW...
The more I've been looking around and on the phone today, the more I've decided to basically disregard the Drew-speech from yesterday.
If you're in the pool, keep swimming...
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
