DCI Fall Cutbacks..............

[Rick]

BrownInThePants...........no one wishes to hear your drivel here. Go back to fishing in another thread and leave this one alone.

As I see it, SkyWest will eventually furlough regardless of what ASA does. There is no way they are going to be able to lose the amount of flying they did in Milwaukee and still remain staffed as is. There isn't going to be enough flying to divvy up at the end of this, I'm affaid.

How long before ASA has to meet the cost lock in for our DCI contract?

I think the news about them breaking away from the Midwest deal could make things harder at ASA. My fear is that if we had some opportunities for 20 RJ's it will be taking by INC for those planes first. When I listened to the last conference call it sure seemed that ASA was taking furloughs for the entire company and not just ASA.

 

[viper548]

As I see it, SkyWest will eventually furlough regardless of what ASA does. There is no way they are going to be able to lose the amount of flying they did in Milwaukee and still remain staffed as is. There isn't going to be enough flying to divvy up at the end of this, I'm affaid.

The planes flying for midwest will be placed with United

 

[boctal]

Are you all retarded, a no furlough clause means nothing in the airline industry, NOTHING.

A lawyer and a bunch of selfish senior azzhole's can get around it any day of the week.

I'll take it in the shorts to keep guys on our list at ASA, but I'll bet too many other's won't, not enough real men left in this industry.

Way to resort to insults when none were directed at you. I disagree with you as there is precedent from previous cases in which no furlough clause's were upheld. I would like to hear your reasoning and examples of why you think management would be able to maneuver around this clause (given Inc's current financial status and the precedent set by the courts) without repercussions. Granted, if it does come to that, the grievance process could take awhile, but I'm sure we could all fly a little "safer" during the process. We're on the same team here and if they blatantly violate our contract, it will be up to us to show them that the management love fest is over. Based upon the various comments of folks I've flown with recently, we have more solidarity amongst our ranks than you give credit for.

 

[crj567]

Way to resort to insults when none were directed at you. I disagree with you as there is precedent from previous cases in which no furlough clause's were upheld. I would like to hear your reasoning and examples of why you think management would be able to maneuver around this clause (given Inc's current financial status and the precedent set by the courts) without repercussions. Granted, if it does come to that, the grievance process could take awhile, but I'm sure we could all fly a little "safer" during the process. We're on the same team here and if they blatantly violate our contract, it will be up to us to show them that the management love fest is over. Based upon the various comments of folks I've flown with recently, we have more solidarity amongst our ranks than you give credit for.

Very simple-

Mgmt's trump card is called "bankruptcy." The parent company can account for the subsidiaries any way they wish. Just post all the profits to Skyw and all the losses to ASA and Bammo! One subsidiary is doing great, the other gets their contract thrown right out in bankruptcy-the WHOLE contract! Totally legal!!

-Ain't justice beautiful?

 

[boctal]

Very simple-

Mgmt's trump card is called "bankruptcy." The parent company can account for the subsidiaries any way they wish. Just post all the profits to Skyw and all the losses to ASA and Bammo! One subsidiary is doing great, the other gets their contract thrown right out in bankruptcy-the WHOLE contract! Totally legal!!

-Ain't justice beautiful?

I don't think it's quite that simple. The bankruptcy court would require information on assets, liabilities, current income, expenditures, executory contracts, unexpired leases, and a statement of financial affairs from the subsidiary. The subsidiaries assets and liabilities are indeed combined with the parent, however subsidiaries do their own record keeping, in which case those documents would be required by the bankruptcy court irregardless of the parent company records. By doing what you described (falsifying) it would be borderline corporate fraud and embezzlement by the parent company. This whole scenario doesn't seem remotely feasible to me for a variety of reasons (including Inc.'s contract with Delta), but if you can offer up a legal explanation as to how Inc. could do this legally, then I'll change my tune. Also, if anybody finds fault in my reasoning, feel free to correct me as I am certainly no expert and am only trying to provide my view.

 

[JumpersAway]

I don't think it's quite that simple. The bankruptcy court would require information on assets, liabilities, current income, expenditures, executory contracts, unexpired leases, and a statement of financial affairs from the subsidiary. The subsidiaries assets and liabilities are indeed combined with the parent, however subsidiaries do their own record keeping, in which case those documents would be required by the bankruptcy court irregardless of the parent company records. By doing what you described (falsifying) it would be borderline corporate fraud and embezzlement by the parent company. This whole scenario doesn't seem remotely feasible to me for a variety of reasons (including Inc.'s contract with Delta), but if you can offer up a legal explanation as to how Inc. could do this legally, then I'll change my tune. Also, if anybody finds fault in my reasoning, feel free to correct me as I am certainly no expert and am only trying to provide my view.

I think the theory of running ASA through bankruptcy makes little sense, but it could be done. Just look at MAIR holdings and the debacle with Mesaba and Big Sky a couple of years back. Mesaba was profitable, Big Sky was not, yet Mesaba was the subsidiary that was taken to the cleaners.

 

[crj567]

I think the theory of running ASA through bankruptcy makes little sense, but it could be done. Just look at MAIR holdings and the debacle with Mesaba and Big Sky a couple of years back. Mesaba was profitable, Big Sky was not, yet Mesaba was the subsidiary that was taken to the cleaners.

EXACTLY!

Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant. Fact is-it is legal, and it would work-if that were the goal. The MAIR/BigSky scenario is immoral, evil, and totally horrible, but it is what they can do.-Legally.

 

[boctal]

I think the theory of running ASA through bankruptcy makes little sense, but it could be done. Just look at MAIR holdings and the debacle with Mesaba and Big Sky a couple of years back. Mesaba was profitable, Big Sky was not, yet Mesaba was the subsidiary that was taken to the cleaners.

You bring up an excellent point as I had honestly not remembered Mesaba's past bankruptcy when typing my response. While I admit bankruptcy might be a possible avenue, I still don't think it's feasible or even remotely likely that Inc. would stoop to such measures, when both of their subsidiaries are still profitable, only so they can furlough more than the 55 or so that are not protected. All the while they risk losing their contract with Delta. Which reverts back to the original question, with precedent set in the courts in regard to a no furlough clause, what other avenues might the company pursue to get around it? Considering the remote possibility that Inc. could cause ASA to file for bankruptcy, I still find it extremely unlikely the company will be able to violate the clause and it be upheld without resorting to such extreme measures. I certainly appreciate the civilized discussion and debate. I'm sure we can all agree that hopefully this never comes to pass.

 

[waka]

How is this different from the current generation of regional f/o from the "academies" who have never dealt with real weather , high density ATC or real emergencies, plus the biggest thing they have flown is a seminole. I'd rather have one that at least knows about jet systems and jet handling and can fly at jet speeds.

I'd take somebody that was slumming it in a slow Seminole, Aztec or Beech 18 than some MPL simulator "jet speed" wunderkind any day. It isn't the size or the speed of the airplane, it is the kind of experience that counts. Even with a fast track program 0 to regional guy, if he's got some MEI time, he'd be a much better candidate than someone that's never seen a real airplane....no matter how advanced the simulator.

 

[sperfly]

if you read the no furlough part of the contract it says "the company will not furlough except in circumstances over which the company has no control. The term circumstances over which the company has no control includes but is not limited to......."

so technically the company has no control over how much delta cuts our flying. we are losing 20 planes (maybe next spring). what if delta pulls 100 planes from us. would they still not furlough because of this clause. i believe they can furlough anybody they want right now because they have 'no control' over the block hours that delta gives us. this is all my interpretation and would like to hear any others.