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

Intelligent comments from Chautauqua CEO

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

StuckMic

Active member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Posts
33
Here is the latest company update from Bryan Bedford, the CEO of all Republic Associates (AKA Chautauqua et all).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon. So much for the exceptional weather pattern we've been enjoying. And the forecast for the next week looks pretty gloomy too. The big news this week is the recent announcement by XJT management that they intend to retain possession of the 69 aircraft that will be withdrawn from their Continental agreement. The announcement is consistent with what they have been saying all along that they won’t give CO back their aircraft; rather they will attempt to redeploy them in a variety of unspecified means. From purely emotional perspective, I completely understand why they are acting this way. The removal of the aircraft will have a material, negative impact on their company and its employees. Having said that, some negative impact was unavoidable as the airline simply has too high operating costs. Either management engaged with labor on reducing those costs (ala Comair) and also reduced overheads, or they would shrink. Atlantic Coast was faced with this same choice when United was in bankruptcy. Like XJT, they too chose to avoid the difficult choice and instead remove aircraft and go at it alone. History has shown, not only was that the wrong course of action, but it clearly shows the negative impact to their employees was dramatically higher than what would have been had they only worked to preserve their business relationship with United. Yet strangely XJT management and labor seem to be walking, arm in arm, down the same path but hoping for different results? I am afraid they won't find what they are looking for. Not only was Atlantic Coast's actions devastating for their airline, employees and shareholders, but in an ironic way it was bad for all regional airlines. By implementing a reckless business plan they also fueled an artificial demand for 50 seat regional jets to replace their former United flying. With Atlantic Coast in liquidation and their old aircraft now floating around the market of displaced RJ's, that glut is now coming home to hurt the entire industry. To once again artificially remove 69, 50 seat RJs which Continental will surely replace in some form or fashion, is harmful to XJT, its employees and shareholders and the rest of us working in this industry. For our part, our agreement with Continental remains in effect and I feel we are well positioned to assist CO in replacing some quantity of the withdrawn aircraft; although we will do so with the knowledge that this was not the best outcome for any of us involved in this situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Bedford seems to think that because ExpressJet management will be keeping the 69 airplanes Continental wanted to withdraw and give to Chautauqua , this is somehow “harmful to XJT, its employees and shareholders and the rest of us working in this industry.” I don’t get it….it seems this announcement is great news for XJT, its employees and shareholders and the rest of the industry (unless you work at Chautauqua). Someone please enlighten me.
 
Here's my take on it. By XJT taking their planes, that means they're going to need to find a place to put them. That also means Continental will need to find new airplanes to replace the ones taken (the artificial demand to which he was referring). So in doing that, instead of everything staying the way it is now, there is now going to be a bunch of RJs introduced into an already saturated 50 seat system. With high fuel prices and decreasing popularity of 50 seaters, we will end up with a surplus of them. Not to mention clogging up the already congested air traffic system resulting in more delays. While this may mean short term benefits for XJT employees in the fact that they won't need to furlough, it very well could be bad for the company and airlines in the long term. History has chosen that airlines who take their airplanes and go elsewhere haven't fared well.
That's what I believe he is saying but I'm sure there are differing opinions.
 
What becomes of the XJT flying, is it again up for bid?? It now seems that CHQ has the problem that the likes of ASA, SkyW and the rest had, they will have to add a fleet type and train pilots and mechs for something they have never seen. I'd rather see that XJT keeps it, but if that will not work out anyone but MESA.
 
While, no doubt, RAH CEO's comments will inflame a variety of responses, at a minimum I would consider his comments. This is an individual who knows his business quite well. He has made strategic and forward thinking moves that have allowed RAH to become incredibley prosperous.
Simply put, I would not disregard his thoughts simply because you don't like the message. He didn't build what he has by being an off-the-wall goofball. Even those who don't care for him personally will digress that he is one smart cookie.
 
gator_hater said:
What becomes of the XJT flying, is it again up for bid?? It now seems that CHQ has the problem that the likes of ASA, SkyW and the rest had, they will have to add a fleet type and train pilots and mechs for something they have never seen. I'd rather see that XJT keeps it, but if that will not work out anyone but MESA.

Huh?
CHQ already operates the E-145 series.
 
Well, so far there's been no announcement whatsoever about what XJT plans to do with those 69 airplanes. What I think Bedford is saying is that, should XJT try to go it alone with those frames, it's probably not a good idea.
 
Nothing but a piece of sour grapes dis-information, designed to keep CHQ employees thinking their management somehow has their best interests at heart.

Do some research folks. CAL is looking to reduce the amount of RJ's flying in and out their hubs. With $70 oil, the 50-seat market is not a profitable as it once was. CAL attempted to get some diversification with some cost savings. Instead they are getting their freedom from 69 leases, and the additional gate space at EWR. CAL couldn't be happier we're keeping the airplanes. CHQ will most likely not fly anything for CAL.

To compare XJT to ACA is apples and oranges. They went it alone. We have a guaranteed profit on 75% of our flying, with the remainder farmed out to separate entities who have been beating down our door. The handwriting is on the wall. We're flying proving runs now. Even though the last airframe is now on property, we're continuing to hire through at least the end of the year, even though we're staffed for the summer increase in block hours.

we will do so with the knowledge that this was not the best outcome for any of us involved in this situation.

No, it was the worst outcomne for you. XJT and CAL are fine.

Yet strangely XJT management and labor seem to be walking, arm in arm, down the same path but hoping for different results? I am afraid they won't find what they are looking for.

What a turd. Rest assured our leadership and BOD know exactly what they're doing.




 

Latest resources

Back
Top