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

Experts predict Comair may be sold

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
You won't see me defending Truly Stupid Delta Management Practices, look at how many we can come up with between us all. Although it may take more pursuasion than it's worth, what you might want to consider is that Comair was profitable before it ever became a Delta Connection and certainly was while it was a publically traded company. Skywest and Chautauqua operate similar equipment, currently report profits, and are public corporations. Since Comair operates the same sized aircraft, I do not see it as unreasonable for Comair and ASA to continue their long track record of profits if they were spun off.

Oh, that's right, we are all SUBSIDIZED. And Jet Blue doesn't pay for their Airbus maintenance. Now I understand what they are up against.

When it comes to wages/work rules, our costs are pretty much in-line with other DCI carriers, can you say the same about Delta's costs compared to the other legacy carriers?

NWA's profit margins might not be the best example to cite since an overwhelming proportion of their RJ seats are in the venerable Bae-146 and its other four-engined varients. It must be like trying to run a taxi service with a Land Rover, I'll take my chances with something a bit more economical.

Take care.
 
....ARRGGGG>>>

Oh no, I leave for a little bit and suddenly Comair is being sold.......Haven't you guys yet heard in your investments, to never pay attention to the analysts........and never buy a stock after it's been on the cover of Fortune.......
 
captainv said:
it's a fact that CMR posted a 4th quarter profit of @ $40 million. what we don't know is how much we cost the company. DAL does pick up the tab on a lot of things, but to what extent? you don't know any more than I do, so the argument is academic at best.

Well we do know from the latest DAL SEC filing that DAL picked up over $100M in RJ debt payments alone, and DAL will make over $500M in RJ debt payments this year. That sure does take a bite out of a $40M quarterly profit, without even beginning to look into all the other subsidies.
 
Yes, and as a matter of convenience, you forget the fact that Comair and ASA make lease payments to DCI for those planes. How 'bout commenting on FlyComairJets' post -- really, take a company that was making profits and buying airplanes, and suddenly now, that Delta owns us, we're unprofitable?? You wish. Keep the blinders on, it will make reality less harsh for you.
 
FlyComAirJets said:

Oh, that's right, we are all SUBSIDIZED. And Jet Blue doesn't pay for their Airbus maintenance. Now I understand what they are up against.

While much of JBLU's aircraft are still under warrantee, they certainly are getting a break on mx costs. Forbes magazine wrote a large article on JBLU last year and dealt with this issue among others. The annual mx costs on each airframe are expected to increase by $1.7M once they come out of warrantee. Nothing unusual about that. As far as your subsidy, the latest DAL SEC filing has DAL paying over $100M in RJ debt payments this last quarter and DAL expects to pay over $500M in RJ debt payments this year. That's quite a subsidy for a carrier that can only squeeze out a $40M quarterly profit while having someone else pick up the tab on your aircraft debt payments, which is probably why M. Burns, DAL's CFO, wouldn't say that CMR is profitable for DAL.
 
Pez D. Spencer said:
Yes, and as a matter of convenience, you forget the fact that Comair and ASA make lease payments to DCI for those planes. How 'bout commenting on FlyComairJets' post -- really, take a company that was making profits and buying airplanes, and suddenly now, that Delta owns us, we're unprofitable?? You wish. Keep the blinders on, it will make reality less harsh for you.

How much did you pay on that lease? BTW, I didn't say you were unprofitable, I only stated that you might not be profitable for DAL, since much of your costs are paid by DAL. As far as your previous profitability goes, that is a matter of the contract you got to fly DL code passengers, not because of any revenue that you generated. Any carrier can be profitable with a lucrative contract that guarantees a profit. But than again those days were coming to an end, and when DAL refused to extend the CMR contract, CMR management knew the gig was up, and opted to be a wholly owned subsidiary rather than an independent carrier. I guess CMR management didn't think CMR could be profitable without DAL footing the bills and providing the revenue.
 
Riiiight..and ms burns is really taking one for the 'team'...oh riiiight...out of the boiling oil into the fire...I'm SURE Mirant is SOOO glad to have another "top level executive"...
 
Give me a fu%kin break.....most of our costs are paid for by DAL??? DAL "charges" us everytime we use our own ground power equipment, DAL "charges"us every time we have our planes cleaned, or use ATL radio, or have a wheel chair meet our airplane...and they "charge" us a H-U-G-E sum...FAR more than it really costs.

If RJ's weren't profitable, would they be buying then hand over fist??

GG has a plan for DAL, he just doesn't know how to break it to DALPA.

**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.....let me off of this Titanic Delta ship wreck.....Please God, sell us to someone who knows how to run a buisiness. :eek:
 
You soon will be, but you will still have the Delta PWA to follow---and to get other contracts---you will have to slash costs--or wages. We wouldn't vote for any plan that included more RJs---just a fact---and he knows that.

BYe BYe--General Lee:rolleyes: ;)
 
FDJ2 said:
DAL pilots can imagine being bought, which is why we have "change of control" protections written into our contract as well as "fragmentation" protections. In the event DAL were to be bought or DAL were to acquire a carrier with other than permitted aircraft integration of the transferring pilots would occur in accordance with the ALPA Merger Policy, or the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protection Provisions.

That's good, a nice comeback. It is also true that you could imagine a decline in the business and that is why you have a "furlough protection" clause written into your contract, right? It prevented you from being furloughed didn't it?

There's no joy in the furloughs but that's not the point. The point is that your "contract" can be changed. Any "contract" is only as good as long as both parties choose to keep it. Go ahead and hang your hat on ALPA's Merger Policy if that makes you feel good. It has alwaysworked to the benefit of the acquired carrier. You knew that right?

Tell me about the Allegheny Mohawk LPP's. Have they ever been enforced for anyone? Has any pilot group ever actually received what they say? Do you even know what they say or did you just read that in your "contract" and think it sounds nice?

Ask a TWA pilot how Allegheny/Mohawak LPP's work. Ask an Ozark pilot how ALPA Merger Policy works. Check out a few of the other glowing examples, before you crow so loudly. I think you'd better pray that merger never happens.

I think you guys would do best in a merger with AA, your personalities seem to fit each other well.

Perhaps Surplus you should of thought of these protections prior to your acquisition, but then again, you could never have imagined being acquired.

Given the success of ALPA's Merger Policy and the Allegehny Mohawk LPP track record, it may well be that the our stupidity in not having that in our contract is the best thing that ever happened to us. Otherwise you would be flying our airplanes and we would be pounding sand. Did you ever think of that?

They say the Lord protects drunks and fools; maybe He was on our side when we "forgot" that clause.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top