CAL dropping Colgan?

[hou757]

Saw on another board that there is a rumor going around that CAL is planning on dropping Colgan. Anyone believe this one?

 

[SmitteyB]

This would cost a LOT of money for CAL. Getting out of that contract early would be over $100 million they would pay to PNCL.

 

[wilde737]

I dunno....
Most contracts have a safety clause that they can use to drop you if they believe you're unsafe.

 

[hou757]

I dunno....
Most contracts have a safety clause that they can use to drop you if they believe you're unsafe.

I was also thinking that CAL could assume the leases for the Q's and assign them to another operator... Who knows....

 

[30West]

You lost me at the word "rumor"

 

[DoinTime]

This would cost a LOT of money for CAL. Getting out of that contract early would be over $100 million they would pay to PNCL.

The better question is how much will it cost CAL to keep Colgan?

 

[jmreii]

This would cost a LOT of money for CAL. Getting out of that contract early would be over $100 million they would pay to PNCL.

The lawsuits over the colgan accident could easily cost them more.

 

[SmitteyB]

Colgan is operator. Colgan > Pinnacle > Delta will bear the insurance.

For those of you who didn't know- Delta held the hull and liability insurance on the airplane.

 

[SmitteyB]

I was also thinking that CAL could assume the leases for the Q's and assign them to another operator... Who knows....

I doubt it. Pinnacle owns the airplanes. If CAL dropped Colgan and CAL wanted the airplanes, PNCL would want SERIOUS money for them.

 

[SmitteyB]

I dunno....
Most contracts have a safety clause that they can use to drop you if they believe you're unsafe.

We are over a year from this. If CAL dropped them, CJC would get an injunction seeing as there is no basis for assuming Colgan is unsafe.

 

[Smarta$$]

We are over a year from this. If CAL dropped them, CJC would get an injunction seeing as there is no basis for assuming Colgan is unsafe.

Really? No basis?

 

[ackattacker]

As wild rumors go, this one doesn't get me too excited. Try harder.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

We are over a year from this. If CAL dropped them, CJC would get an injunction seeing as there is no basis for assuming Colgan is unsafe.

That's what you have to say everyday when you go to work for them. Reality is they have a body count that is difficult to overlook.
PBR

 

[Erlanger]

This would cost a LOT of money for CAL. Getting out of that contract early would be over $100 million they would pay to PNCL.

CAL has in their contract a clause that says they can cancel the contract with Colgan "if there is an accident or incident that causes CAL great embarrassment."

I can't remember the exact wording but it's worded in the fashion above. I'm very serious that this clause does exist. Now it's just a matter of waiting to see what CAL does.

 

[30West]

That's what you have to say everyday when you go to work for them. Reality is they have a body count that is difficult to overlook.
PBR

But it's still far less both in total numbers and as percentages of total block hours than most. What's your point?
So everytime an airline has a crash they should automatically go out of business? I hope you don't honestly believe CJC has the monopoly on any of the shenanigans going on in the industry.

Since you're the expert, what is their total "body count" to date since their first day in business, compared to every other carrier? We'll wait.....

 

[QOL_is_great:)]

This would cost a LOT of money for CAL. Getting out of that contract early would be over $100 million they would pay to PNCL.

Just wondering how ya know this info? Facts? Sources? If it were true then that sure would be a heap of coin for Colgan that they'll need.

 

[QOL_is_great:)]

We are over a year from this. If CAL dropped them, CJC would get an injunction seeing as there is no basis for assuming Colgan is unsafe.

I believe the families of the dead would feel a different way. It's only a guess.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

But it's still far less both in total numbers and as percentages of total block hours than most. What's your point?
So everytime an airline has a crash they should automatically go out of business? I hope you don't honestly believe CJC has the monopoly on any of the shenanigans going on in the industry.

Since you're the expert, what is their total "body count" to date since their first day in business, compared to every other carrier? We'll wait.....

UHHH,
You you might have those numbers, but my nearest count off the top of my head Colgan/Peaknuckle has 50+ and two airframes as total loss. Which doesn't bode well for them. Careless and reckless comes to mind.
PBR

 

[30West]

UHHH,
You you might have those numbers, but my nearest count off the top of my head Colgan/Peaknuckle has 50+ and two airframes as total loss. Which doesn't bode well for them. Careless and reckless comes to mind.
PBR

I don't mean to sound like there is ever an acceptible number, but I'm sure I could come up with a long list of airlines that are still around despite having killed far more people in their history.
I'm not defending any single airlines' bad practices whatever they may be including my own. But to assume an entire airline is unsafe due to one crash is awfully presumptuous. There wouldn't be many airlines left today, using that yardstick. Wishing Colgan out of business isn't going to do anything but put some damn fine pilots as a whole out on the street.
I've been with the company for many years. While cheap, I'd hardly consider it to be generally "unsafe". Most regional pilots do a damn good job not because of their corporate culture, but in spite of it. Only way to fix that is by improving the culture and that is set at the top.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I am sure there are plenty of good pilots at your airline. But the combo of bad management and poor training department checking allowed at least 4 horrible pilots through the process. Every Capt. who flew with the crash PICs(won't dignify them by mentioning their names), when they were F/O carry some guilt/responsibility for not pushing their names back to the flight training office. The Capts who flew with the crash F/Os who didn't see/notice the deficiencies carry some also. If your company goes out of business, I will feel bad for the remaing crews, but they will have other opportunities to pursue, the victims of your coworkers will not have that opportunity. The victims bought tickets to travel, not fund a Starbucks Barrista's flight training.
Sorry if this is harsh, but there 50+ people who died in smoking craters who might argue this isn't harsh enough.
PBR

 

[Browntothebone]

I was also thinking that CAL could assume the leases for the Q's and assign them to another operator... Who knows....

CAL should drop Colgan and give the Qs to RAH since CAL took the CRJs from RAH. It's the ethical thing to do. That way, RAH doesn't lose out on any flying.

 

[ohoh]

CAL should drop Colgan and give the Qs to RAH since CAL took the CRJs from RAH. It's the ethical thing to do. That way, RAH doesn't lose out on any flying.

ethical?

how about you guys not flying for MIDWEST pilots at 50% rates.

 

[bizicmo]

Colgan is still safe per the FAA.

 

[Browntothebone]

ethical?

how about you guys not flying for MIDWEST pilots at 50% rates.

Midwest pilot pay is not sustainable in the current economy. RAH is a much more realistic payscale.

 

[SmitteyB]

Midwest pilot pay is not sustainable in the current economy. RAH is a much more realistic payscale.

FLAMEBAIT.

You disgust me.

 

[duck_killer]

Midwest pilot pay is not sustainable in the current economy. RAH is a much more realistic payscale.

The only reason its unsustainable is you're willing to do it for half.

 

[Browntothebone]

FLAMEBAIT.

You disgust me.

Not flamebait, if Midwest was a sustainable business model using Midwest pilots, then Midwest management would do it that way. Obviously, the only way Midwest can remain viable is to use RAH for lift.

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

CAL should drop Colgan and give the Qs to RAH since CAL took the CRJs from RAH. It's the ethical thing to do. That way, RAH doesn't lose out on any flying.

How about CAL puts 737s back on those routes or takes the Q's and keep the flying at mainline, therefore starting a trend that would give all regional pilots a career to look forward to???

 

[zasca]

Browntothebone....

Ahahahahahaaaaa! You are very funny. On par with Benny Hill telling a Seinfeld joke...

If you had actual numbers to play this stupid game with, I wouldn't feel the desire to spit on your pathetic face.

 

[Browntothebone]

How about CAL puts 737s back on those routes or takes the Q's and keep the flying at mainline, therefore starting a trend that would give all regional pilots a career to look forward to???

You guys really don't get it do you? It's UNECONOMICAL to put mainline jets on those routes and/or give the Qs to mainline. Regionals serve a purpose to both mainline management and aspiring up and coming pilots. Management likes them because they are an economical source of lift and newbie pilots like them because they can build their time at the regionals beforing getting on at a major. Everyone actually wins in this scenairio.