UAL / CAL scope

[AntiJedi]

If your company is not selling the tickets, or setting the schedules, or buying the gas, or paying the leases on aircraft, or landing fees, or gate rent, ect.... then your company is simply a service provider whose business is selling staffing.

Well, considering that SkyWest is doing all of that except selling the actual ticket is many of its markets---especially in markets that DL/UA pilots have never touched, yet think they've always owned---I think it's pretty safe to say that they aren't "just a staffing provider."

 

[nimtz]

Well, considering that SkyWest is doing all of that except selling the actual ticket is many of its markets---especially in markets that DL/UA pilots have never touched, yet think they've always owned---I think it's pretty safe to say that they aren't "just a staffing provider."

Yeah I hear the RASM's out of St George are killer!

 

[AntiJedi]

Yeah I hear the RASM's out of St George are killer!

They refuse to move HDQ, and they need the seats to get the employees in and out. You're right, but noting the above, they're willing to eat it.

 

[bluefin]

Well, considering that SkyWest is doing all of that except selling the actual ticket is many of its markets---especially in markets that DL/UA pilots have never touched, yet think they've always owned---I think it's pretty safe to say that they aren't "just a staffing provider."

How do you figure that? Regionals don't pay for schit! if they had to pick up the tab, they would not longer be in business. Look at UAL financials, they pay for everything, "fee for departure" even if the plane is empty!! The only way to stay competitive at the regional level is to take it out of the employee's, low wages, take away their health care, i.e. skywest!

 

[AntiJedi]

How do you figure that? Regionals don't pay for schit! if they had to pick up the tab, they would not longer be in business. Look at UAL financials, they pay for everything, "fee for departure" even if the plane is empty!!

I wasn't talking about other regionals; I was talking about SkyWest. SkyWest has a sizeable at-risk operation. Most of it is the Brasilias, but there's also MKE, and certain DEN and ORD routes. At no point did I say that ALL, or NONE of their flying was at-risk.

 

[bluechunks]

Well, considering that SkyWest is doing all of that except selling the actual ticket is many of its markets---especially in markets that DL/UA pilots have never touched, yet think they've always owned---I think it's pretty safe to say that they aren't "just a staffing provider."

I wasn't talking about other regionals; I was talking about SkyWest. SkyWest has a sizeable at-risk operation.

Uh huh.

The revenue-sharing (i.e. "at risk") flying that Skywest does for UAL is a tiny portion of the flat-rate ("fixed fee") total.

"As of December 31, 2010, SkyWest Airlines operated 70 CRJ700s, 83 CRJ200s and 38 Brasilia turboprops under the SkyWest Airlines United Express Agreement..."​

"As of December 31, 2010, 29 of the 38 Brasilia turboprops and 18 of the 83 CRJ200s SkyWest Airlines operated under the SkyWest Airlines United Express Agreement were operated under a revenue-sharing arrangement."

Source: Skywest 2010 Annual Report​

Here's some fun with math: Skywest operates 191 aircraft for UA and only 47 (24%) are revenue sharing. But out of the 47, over 60% are 30-seat turboprops.

In reality the core business of Skywest (in reference to UA) is that of a flat-rate fixed-fee per departure operator as the capacity of the Brazilia fleet is tiny in reference to the size of either Skywest or United. Add-in ASA and ExpressJet and the ratios are off the scale.

 

[XPOO]

To further what AntiJedi was saying, the following is all at-risk flying for SkyWest (as of February 2011):

All SLC based EMBs (SGU, CDC, RKS, EKO, TWF, SUN, GCC, PIH, COD, WYS)
All DEN based EMBs (RKS, GCC)
All PDX based EMBs (SEA, RDM, EUG, OTH, LMT)
All MKE AirTran routes (STL, DSM, PIT, OMA, IND, CAK)
Certain LAX routes (CLD, IMP, SBA, SBP, MRY, ELP, SGU, FAT/LAS, PSP/LAS)
Certain SFO routes (SBP, ONT, BFL, MOD, SMF, CIC, RDD, ACV, CEC, LMT, RDM, PSC, OTH, SMF/ACV, ACV/CEC)
Certain DEN routes (MAF, MKE)
Certain ORD routes (EAU, CWA, DLH, CMX, MKG, MKE, FWA, MBS, AVL, PAH, SPI)

I would say that is more at-risk flying that any other regional in the country.

 

[AntiJedi]

Here's some fun with math: Skywest operates 191 aircraft for UA and only 47 (24%) are revenue sharing. But out of the 47, over 60% are 30-seat turboprops.

In reality the core business of Skywest (in reference to UA) is that of a flat-rate fixed-fee per departure operator as the capacity of the Brazilia fleet is tiny in reference to the size of either Skywest or United. Add-in ASA and ExpressJet and the ratios are off the scale.

Oh yay! Finally a reference!

As I said in my previous post, a sizeable portion portion of the flying is at-risk. It may not be the lion's share, but it's there, and it's noticable. For UA, the at-risk is limited in percentage via contract; there's nothing that can be done about that, except try and amend the contract.

As for ASA and Expressjet, well, if you use the INC umbrella, yeah you'd be right; however, since all of the carriers operate seperately, and under different contracts---not to mention that ASA and Expressjet will be busy merging---I intentionally avoided discussing them.

 

[strega7]

Certain SFO routes (ACV)

Are you sure about this one?

 

[bluechunks]

As I said in my previous post, a sizeable portion portion of the flying is at-risk. It may not be the lion's share, but it's there, and it's noticable.

This is where we disagree. IMHO, it is neither sizable or noticeable and that's the reason why it's already planned to go away over the next 36 months.