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

CAL-Skywest Code Share - Facts

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
We're beating a dead horse here, and it's obviously impossible to reason with Skyward. You can't make the abrogation issue much clearer than Surplus1 has, and even then Skyward keeps bring up the same argument. And he hasn't addressed why XJT doesn't just bring back their old turboprops for the XJT crews to fly themselves.

One thing that I can't wait to see once a formal announcement is made...Skyward's response when he sees that the all-or-nothing attitude failed miserably, and that his union reps have been wrong all along.
 
And he hasn't addressed why XJT doesn't just bring back their old turboprops for the XJT crews to fly themselves.

I addressed this on another thread; CAL ALPA cannot force XJT management to fly turbo props any more than SkyWest pilots can force management to fly 747’s. CAL ALPA can however dictate any terms of turbo prop flying in IAH.
 
Skyward said:
..........CAL ALPA can however dictate any terms of turbo prop flying in IAH.

What if CAL sells their majority stake in XJT? What then???

My guess is the next thing you'll be labeling the purchaser SCABS!

We'll just have to wait and see won't we.
 
If CAL sells the remaining shares of XJT it doesn’t change anything regarding the Prop MOU. As far as your SCAB comment, I have no idea what you’re talking about. My definition of a SCAB doesn't include someone who buys an airline. What does that have to do with anything? :confused:
 
Skyward said:
.....My definition of a SCAB doesn't include someone who buys an airline. What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

Good! I was just Just checking!!:D
 
Maybe a minor detail but the flying as it stands now belongs to Continental; not Continental Express, not Sky West. Hence, Continental can dictate pretty much every aspect of the deal. So the Sky West pilots would be pissed if Coex pilots fly to VCT you say? Guess what the alternative would be? Think CAL management is more worried about XJet pilots or Sky West pilots?
 
Guys,

All sides have points and arguments that make total sense. But from all indications that i've heard, the A/C to be used would be the ones that are in the desert with Cont. Exp. already written on them. If Skywest uses them then CALAPLA is doing the right thing. If Skywest uses their own Maintenance, Disp, Crew Rooms and operations at IAH, then I say good luck.

What I'm basically saying is if the Prop flying is done with our old A/C, Give em hell CALALPA. If it is a total seperate deal for Skywest and they use their own equipment totally and their own facilities then it should be allowed. If Xjet or CAL is associated in anyway for Mx or Disp or even Flt Atts., No deal.

I just don't wanna see our old birds in the desert being used in another corporate shell game regardless who is on the other end.

Once Skywest is in ,then we need to make sure that we negotiate block hour restrictions or destination restrictions. If we dont we'll see props mixed in with jets eventually to routes that can support both(Ex: Iah-Btr)


Flame Away
 
Gottafly74,
Just wondering if COEX owns the airplanes in the desert? SkyWest doesn't have enough brasilias in the system to cover that flying. They would have to take leases or loans out to get the aircraft to do the flying. What does it matter if it used to be your airplanes. If you sold them then they aren't yours anymore. Just like when XJET decided to go all jets. They want props on those routes because it costs less to operate I guess. I am not trying to be confrontational at all. This is business taking place and we are just pawns.
 
Skyward said:
Surplus, no matter how you cut it you are better off today because of ALPA. They may not be perfect, but better than the alternative. Your anti-ALPA tirades are getting old.

Skyward,

My tirades are not anti-ALPA, they are anti-seniority theft. If that shoe fits the ALPA foot then they'll just have to wear it. No matter how "old" that gets you'll continue to hear it. Your option is to stop reading my posts.

As to how better off I am today because of ALPA, candidly, you are not in a position to know that one way or the other. You haven't been around long enough.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top