ExpressJet Europe taking off

[davessn763]

i believe he was stating that it was 8 days of 100% completion not 5.

I am going to stay optimistic about everything. I really believe our mgmt team will figure some thing out to keep XJET up and running and even growing. Remember the mgmt team has alot resting on XJET staying strong. We will see in a few months, it should be interesting either way.

Here is what they have resting:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060131/xjt8-k.html

On January 31, 2006, the Human Resources Committee of our board of directors approved the ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan (the Plan), pursuant to which certain senior and other management employees, including executive officers, of the company and its subsidiaries may receive bonus awards in the form of cash, restricted shares of our common stock or a combination of both. Any shares of restricted stock issued pursuant to these bonus awards will be issued under the ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, which was previously approved by our stockholders.

Are they cashing out?

 

[davessn763]

Ditto. All you can do is do your job to the best of your ability, go home enjoy your days off and hope for the best...doing your job not for the company but because you're a professional and that's what we do.

My sentiments exactly!!! Thats what I love about our pilot group.

As seen at Comair, concessions won't save jobs or keep aircraft on property at XJT(American version), that is completely up to Mother CAL and XJT management.

 

[SLFLYHI]

I think Jim Ream and Larry Kellner would make great editions to the World Series of Poker tour. They've got excellent poker faces. First, CAL shocks the world by going all in with a pair of deuces (we're removing 69 airplanes), then, XJT counters by going all in with a 3, 7 off suit. Now we're all just waiting for the flop. It will really get interesting when we get to the river.

This is nothing but poker on a global stage. In the end, the most likely outcome will be a split pot where the airplanes stay at XJT, some sort of lower number will be negotiated to the CPA (that will be less than what XJT has presently offered), and everyone will save face while being able to turn to all the respective shareholders and declare victory.

Makes for entertaining viewing, that's for sure.

 

[Truckdriver]

CAL has too many in its system already. There are two reasons for their pulling the aircraft:
1) Negotiating tactic to get XJT to lower its cost.
2) Reduce their excess 50-seat capacity.

That is the first time I have heard of CAL having too many 50 seat jets. They have said for years and continue to say that 274 is about the number that they need. When they negotiated scope in the CAL contract last year, they actually included the ability to add more 50 seat jets. I agree with you on the negotiating tactic to get XJT to lower the block hour costs, but I disagree with you on the excess 50 seat capacity. XJT block hours continue to rise significantly indicating the need for additional 50 seat capacity in the CAL system. We just got another 5000 block hours for March for a total of around 75,000 block hours. That number is suppose to rise about another 10,000 hours this year alone. If they had too many 50 seat jets, that number would not be going up.

 

[BritishGuy]

I can't see how ExpressJet are going to operate in Europe by keeping the aircraft on the US Register. That is something the JAA wil NOT allow. Not if it's a schedule airline service. A 121 service usin US aircraft in Europe is a NO-NO. If they do start a scheduled service to passengers then the aircraft will HAVE to be on the JAA register which will in turn mean only JAA certified crew will be acceptable. And for those that don't know, getting a JAA certificate is so complex, lengthy and expnsive that it's not even worth doing. Not that the JAA ceritificate is any better (though the European like to think that it is). Red tape and buracracy.....plenty of it.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Well, didn't Pan Am have a European counterpart at one time? I can't remember if those were registered in the US or not. I believe they were.

 

[dojetdriver]

Well, didn't Pan Am have a European counterpart at one time? I can't remember if those were registered in the US or not. I believe they were.

Pan Am operated in Europe as the U.S. Pan Am. It was American Pan Am planes being flown by American Pan Am pilots. They hubbed out of various cities using same flight numbers, ect. One example, the Lockerbie (#103) flight originated in Germany as flight #103 using a 727, then in England switched to #103 as a 747.

FedEx did the same thing with their SIBA bids. When UAL got some of Pan Am's european network they did the same thing as well. Offering TDY's to flight crews. How cool would that be to TDY in London, Frankfurt, ect.

 

[007]

How cool would that be to TDY in London, Frankfurt, ect.

You've obviously never been TDy'd.

 

[dojetdriver]

You've obviously never been TDy'd.

Actually, I have been TDY'd, twice. Both times in good cities, with good hotels, meanwhile collecting 24/7 per diem ($1000/mo non-taxable). It was a great deal. By contract we were to be positive spaced back to normal domicile at the beginning and end of the TDY period as well.

I'm guessing you work for a crappy company like Mesa or something that involuntarily TDY's you around the system?

 

[Captain X]

That is the first time I have heard of CAL having too many 50 seat jets.

Then you haven't been listening for the last few years.

They have said for years and continue to say that 274 is about the number that they need.

Where exactly have "they" said this.

XJT block hours continue to rise significantly indicating the need for additional 50 seat capacity in the CAL system. We just got another 5000 block hours for March for a total of around 75,000 block hours. That number is suppose to rise about another 10,000 hours this year alone. If they had too many 50 seat jets, that number would not be going up.

Or it could indicate that our current aircraft are underutilized and by adding block hours/removing airframes the utilization goes up and the indirect operating cost goes down.