If I wanted to phase out ASA....

[Andy Neill]

If I was a SkyWest executive that was tasked with phasing out ASA [and I'll leave out all the arguments pro and con about that decision], this is how I would do it.

I would eliminate most of the pilot hiring at ASA. There would be no furloughs but any flying that the existing pilot population couldn't handle, I would shift to SkyWest Airlines.

I would maintain the remaining ASA workforce size proportional to the assigned flying.

Eventually as ASA pilots moved to other airlines, got fired, got medically grounded, or just left for whatever reason, the fling would trickle to a size that would be insignificant.

The only provision of any agreement I have violated (as far as I know) is the provision in the ASA sale contract that specified that ASA would retain X% of Delta's feed. Since SkyWest Inc. was the other signatory besides Delta, the issue won't be raised. ASA ALPA will disagree but has no legal standing in the matter since they din't sign the sales contract.

What am I missing?

 

[sweptback]

Let me guess, you're a SkyWest pilot, right?

If you have nothing better to do except to daydream about 1700 pilots losing their jobs, you need to get a damn life.

 

[strega7]

What am I missing?

SkyWest was party to something similar when it started the UEX flying. In that case is was Mesa's Westair that "lost" the UEX flying and SkyWest picked it up. In that situation it was a phase out of Westair and phase in of SkyWest.

Is there precedent for this kind of thing happening before? In other industries?

 

[Andy Neill]

Let me guess, you're a SkyWest pilot, right?

If you have nothing better to do except to daydream about 1700 pilots losing their jobs, you need to get a damn life.

Not a SKyWest pilot nor employee nor involved in the airline industry.

I didn't pose this as a wish but as a possibility of SkyWest Inc.'s course of action. I was wondering if there was some provision that would prevent this from happening.

This scenario does not involve 1700 pilots losing their jobs. It involves jobs going away (or more accurately to SkyWest Airlines) once vacated.

Now would you care to discuss the merits or deficiencies of the scenario without the emotion?

 

[USCtrojan]

Not a SKyWest pilot nor employee nor involved in the airline industry.

I didn't pose this as a wish but as a possibility of SkyWest Inc.'s course of action. I was wondering if there was some provision that would prevent this from happening.

This scenario does not involve 1700 pilots losing their jobs. It involves jobs going away (or more accurately to SkyWest Airlines) once vacated.

Now would you care to discuss the merits or deficiencies of the scenario without the emotion?

There are a number of reasons not to do that. The first one being 80% of all the Connection flying must be done by ASA, out of ATL according the DCI agreement. ASA is historically the most profitable airline in the USA. Smart people don't chop money trees. Second of all, there would be no pilots to do the flying you would have to cover. Third, and most importantly, you're a dumba$$ for even posting a thread like this. ASA ain't going anywhere. You may see a name change, that I'd agree with. You will see growth, lots of it coming. You SkyWhore idiots keep posting stupid crap. As much as you must hate the fact ASA has a very good relationship with Delta, you need to stop posting really stupid crap.

Trojan

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Eventually as ASA pilots moved to other airlines, got fired, got medically grounded, or just left for whatever reason , the fling would trickle to a size that would be insignificant.

Thanks. All the best to you and yours this Thanksgiving.

 

[Andy Neill]

There are a number of reasons not to do that.

In my post, I said I was disregarding all the reason pro and con for doing such a thing. There are good reasons on each side, but in my scenario, I presumed the deicsion had been made.

The first one being 80% of all the Connection flying must be done by ASA, out of ATL according the DCI agreement.

If this provision were violated. What is the recourse. SkyWest Inc. would be the only one with standing that could hold Delta's feet to the fire saying they had violated their agreement. If ASA were not getting the specified percentage because it is going to SkyWest Airlines, SkyWest Inc. wouldn't bring any action, right?

ASA is historically the most profitable airline in the USA. Smart people don't chop money trees.

Your best argument.

Second of all, there would be no pilots to do the flying you would have to cover.

Sure there would. These are the same pilots ASA would have hired over the years to cover attrition. They would simply be wearing SkyWest uniforms instead of ASA.

Third, and most importantly, you're a dumba$$ for even posting a thread like this. ASA ain't going anywhere. You may see a name change, that I'd agree with. You will see growth, lots of it coming. You SkyWhore idiots keep posting stupid crap. As much as you must hate the fact ASA has a very good relationship with Delta, you need to stop posting really stupid crap.

Trojan

I don't recall ever calling you (or anyone else on this forum) names. Do you not go by the Golden Rule? I'm not associated with SkyWest Airlines. I'm simply asking a hypothetical question to see if there are any real barriers to this happening. With that in mind, what am I missing?

 

[SkyNation]

you need to re-read Andy's post. All he means is that any vacancies at ASA won't be filled, and the flying will be covered by it's sister company, SkyWest. Over time, this would negate many of the worries brought up here over and over again, such as merging list. No one at ASA would be losing their jobs, their jobs just won't be filled if they move on for any reason. The flying would remain profitable, it would just be done by a different arm of the same holding company.

This seems very plausible to me, and BH going to Atlanta fits well with the scenario.

 

[USCtrojan]

In my post, I said I was disregarding all the reason pro and con for doing such a thing. There are good reasons on each side, but in my scenario, I presumed the deicsion had been made.



If this provision were violated. What is the recourse. SkyWest Inc. would be the only one with standing that could hold Delta's feet to the fire saying they had violated their agreement. If ASA were not getting the specified percentage because it is going to SkyWest Airlines, SkyWest Inc. wouldn't bring any action, right?

Hey, look at that, you have a cheerleader now. SkyWhore, do you have pom poms too? Is your boyfriend a cheerleader too?

Look dude, all I'm saying is that SkyWest Mgmt. has invested a lot of money on the infrastructure and mgmt of ASA. We are certainly being streamlined, with the GO going away, new hangar, etc. We have most of the technology in place or coming (full functioning ACARS, OurASA, etc.) SkyWest is going to do what the Big D tells them to do. Delta decides where airframes are allocated and who does the flying. If Jerry was to dismantle ASA he would have done it all before the TA as there were many less protections than now. That was never in the plan. You don't bring in a new leader, bring about change and watch destruction (and your investment) go down the tubes. Jerry A., I believe is eyeballing Mesa and quite possibly it's implosion and possibly a few other carriers. He will attack with a vengeance when/if those Carriers go down. He's making lots of money in the meantime. He's got close to a billion in the bank and competitors have roughly 200 mill in the bank and dwindling (Xjet, Mesa). Someone will go down. It certainly will not be a goldmine airline. Currently, ASA is hiring 40/month. Not that we're getting that.

Trojan

 

[strega7]

The flying would remain profitable, it would just be done by a different arm of the same holding company.

This seems very plausible to me, and BH going to Atlanta fits well with the scenario.

Just like Mesa did after it bought Westair. Westair was once one of the "best" regionals out there. They were Part 121 when others were 135. Flew 90 PAX 146's, E120's, etc. Then they were purchased by Mesa. From there it was all down hill. The important part is that Mesa planes and crews were flying the former "Westair only" routes because Mesa didn't keep Westair at it's "normal" staffing level. Soon the routes were intermixed and they were "Mesa" routes. Two different pilot groups doing the same routes in the same planes. What was the size of Westair at the purchase and then when they lost the UEX contract? Ultimately it was Mesa's subpar performance that lost it the UEX flying but the same could be done here with attrition. And yes, both groups had ALPA contracts.

And who's contract has the 80% provision in it? Is it DAL's because it likes ASA so much? Or is it SkyWest Inc. protecting its investment in ASA from Republic, Mesa, Comair, etc. in ATL? If ASA's amount dropped below 80% who is going to cry foul? DAL or SkyWest Inc. Why would DAL? Would SkyWest Inc.?