XJT or CHQ

[BluDevAv8r]

Wait, someone correct me if I'm wrong...

... but doesn't the XJT contract with CAL go through 2010??? 2007 is when Continental, if it chooses, does not have to make XJT the sole RJ operator. Does that mean that CAL can take some of the 274 RJs from XJT and give 'em to Continental Connection aka Commutair? Or, does that mean that if any of the 100 options for the RJs are exercised, those *might* go to someone other than XJT?


So isn't XJT, technically, "safe" until 2010 ?

The contract itself runs through 2010 but as you said, in 2007 XJT is no longer the exclusive jet feed operator for CAL and CAL can bring in someone like CHQ to do some of their feeder flying. They cannot, however, just take jets from us and give them to CHQ. I'd say that 2007 is far more of a significant date for XJT than 2010.

-Neal

 

[Flyer1015]

The contract itself runs through 2010 but as you said, in 2007 XJT is no longer the exclusive jet feed operator for CAL and CAL can bring in someone like CHQ to do some of their feeder flying. They cannot, however, just take jets from us and give them to CHQ. I'd say that 2007 is far more of a significant date for XJT than 2010.

-Neal

But even if CAL cooses CHQ in 2007 to give jets do, then the worse that can happen to XJT is no growth. There would be no furloughs. But, if in 2010, CAL decides to end the contract, then XJT could have massive furloughs...

... isn't 2010 more important?

Just curious.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

But even if CAL cooses CHQ in 2007 to give jets do, then the worse that can happen to XJT is no growth. There would be no furloughs. But, if in 2010, CAL decides to end the contract, then XJT could have massive furloughs...

... isn't 2010 more important?

Just curious.

CAL can tell ExpressJet that it doesn't need all 274 jets from them in 2007 and use 230 instead while backfilling those 44 slots with CHQ jets (that CHQ would have to finance themselves).

-Neal

 

[Flyer1015]

CAL can tell ExpressJet that it doesn't need all 274 jets from them in 2007 and use 230 instead while backfilling those 44 slots with CHQ jets (that CHQ would have to finance themselves).

-Neal

So even in 2007, CAL can *technically* take 'away' jets from XJT ?

 

[ILStoMinimums]

But realistically does anybody see CAL drpping XJT?

 

[Flyer1015]

Well, my take is this.

IMHO, Skywest has a much better product than Colgan (it's just an opinion), but, CAL still dropped Skywest to get Colgan.

What makes anyone think that CAL will hang on to XJT because they offer a great product?

I'm interested in knowing what you think. I have no idea.

 

[bugchaser]

Remember that CAL also still has some ownership in XJET. That will have to weigh in when the time comes to make a decision on this.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Remember that CAL also still has some ownership in XJET. That will have to weigh in when the time comes to make a decision on this.

It is a very small percentage at this point and CAL will continue to divest itself of its equity position in XJT over the next year or so until it is completely free of ownership.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

So even in 2007, CAL can *technically* take 'away' jets from XJT ?

Not jets...but block hours, yes.

-Neal

 

[Flyer1015]

CAL can tell ExpressJet that it doesn't need all 274 jets from them in 2007 and use 230 instead while backfilling those 44 slots with CHQ jets (that CHQ would have to finance themselves).

-Neal

Not jets...but block hours, yes.

-Neal

But from what you just said right there, it sounds like CAL is taking 44 jets 'away' from XJT by letting CHQ buy and operate the 44 ERJs. So to clarify, in 2007, the number of jets at XJT (274) will stay exactly the same?

 

[ILStoMinimums]

Does XJT have any other potential flying in mind? Or are they just set on CAL?

 

[BluDevAv8r]

But from what you just said right there, it sounds like CAL is taking 44 jets 'away' from XJT by letting CHQ buy and operate the 44 ERJs. So to clarify, in 2007, the number of jets at XJT (274) will stay exactly the same?

No, my point is that CAL can't just take our jets and give them to someone else. They can, however, reduce the amount of block hours we perform for them and give those block hours elsewhere. Everything in this business is block hour driven, not airframe driven. Also, the CAL tentative agreement caps the number of RJ's for CAL at 274 unless CAL grows.

-Neal

 

[Flyer1015]

Also, the CAL tentative agreement caps the number of RJ's for CAL at 274 unless CAL grows.

That shouldn't be a problem, though. Since CAL got the 500 million in concessions, aren't they now cleared to receive a bunch of B753 and B738 this year and next year (respectively, I think)? Also, I think CAL is now cleared to get the 10 787s from 2009 onwards.

 

[flatspin7]

No, my point is that CAL can't just take our jets and give them to someone else. They can, however, reduce the amount of block hours we perform for them and give those block hours elsewhere. Everything in this business is block hour driven, not airframe driven. Also, the CAL tentative agreement caps the number of RJ's for CAL at 274 unless CAL grows.

-Neal

But that isn't cost effective because CAL will still be stuck with the leases on the airplanes that we wouldnt be using. Unless some one would endercut us XJT so severly where it would be cost effective to under-utilize or park airplanes that they have to pay for anyway.... And the scope clause in CALs TA prevents any 70 seater to be flown in CAL colors by anyone but CAL... The only way around it is code share... Which occurs currently with the NWA code share (Mesaba's RJ-85s)

 

[EMB170Pilot]

I just want to say, 3 pages so far of discussion and not 1 slam....


See we can be civil

 

[shamrock]

Does that mean that CAL can take some of the 274 RJs from XJT and give 'em to Continental Connection aka Commutair?

Thanks for the laugh. That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Jets at Commutair.

Priceless.

 

[Flyer1015]

Thanks for the laugh. That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Jets at Commutair.

Priceless.

Is there something in the contract that prohibits that?

AMR came up with "American Connection" to avoid scope clause issues, and outsource flying that should have gone to AA/Eagle. AMR even sold 14 EAGLE ERJs to the American Connection banner. So unless there is some kind of contract prohibitation that prevents something like that, what makes anyone think that CAL wouldn't hesitate to give jets to Commutair, Colgan, etc ?

Not tryin' to raise a fight, I'm just wondering...

 

[BoilerUP]

deleted...

 

[shamrock]

Is there something in the contract that prohibits that?

AMR came up with "American Connection" to avoid scope clause issues, and outsource flying that should have gone to AA/Eagle. AMR even sold 14 EAGLE ERJs to the American Connection banner. So unless there is some kind of contract prohibitation that prevents something like that, what makes anyone think that CAL wouldn't hesitate to give jets to Commutair, Colgan, etc ?

Not tryin' to raise a fight, I'm just wondering...

No, nothing along those lines. I'm just imagining the collective stroke that the Commutair training department would have with any new airplane, let alone a jet.

This is a company that is seemingly pathologically opposed to flying anything other than the 1900, having flown nothing but for what, 15, 16 years? There have been rumors about larger airplanes for a looong time but nothing has ever come of them. Adding jets to this little "Mom and Pop" airline just seems to be way too much of an undertaking, and if history is any guide the owners don't seem to be the least bit interested in evolving, choosing instead to ride the 1900 horse until it's bitter end.

 

[ILStoMinimums]

I just want to say, 3 pages so far of discussion and not 1 slam....


See we can be civil

Lets keep it that way.......

 

[flatspin7]

Lets keep it that way.......

Now 4 Pages


I dont really fear Colgan or Commutair moving in with jets in 2007. I worry more about Skywest, CHQ, or Mesa. In the past Jon Orenstien(sp) had been known to beg Gordon Bethune for flying which he never got.

 

[ATRedneck]

In the past Jon Orenstien(sp) had been known to beg Gordon Bethune for flying which he never got.

JO can beg all he wants, but he ain't gonna get anything from Gordo. GB is retired and probably doesn't give two shiites.

BTW flatspin7, did you know that you misspelled "Embraer" in your profile? Nice.

 

[EMB170Pilot]

One of my 135 jobs, all the owner had was C-402 and the pilots asked constatnly when would a turboprob comei nto play( king air, caravan, whatever) He's been in business for 16+ years now and has not had 1 single accident and people knew his company well and did very well making money.

Point is, he was happy in his little niche that he was in flying C-402s and didnt want to change. Could that be the point with Commutair. Mom & Pap operation just like my ol 135 charter job.

 

[Flyer1015]

Now 4 Pages


I dont really fear Colgan or Commutair moving in with jets in 2007. I worry more about Skywest, CHQ, or Mesa. In the past Jon Orenstien(sp) had been known to beg Gordon Bethune for flying which he never got.

I guess Colgan and Commutair won't be the problem afterall.

But Skywest, CHQ, or Mesa might be, you're right.

I still wanna see if Skywest is getting the Air Wis 70 CRJ flying. If that deal goes through, then I'm thinking things are gonna get weird real fast !

 

[ILStoMinimums]

I guess Colgan and Commutair won't be the problem afterall.

But Skywest, CHQ, or Mesa might be, you're right.

I still wanna see if Skywest is getting the Air Wis 70 CRJ flying. If that deal goes through, then I'm thinking things are gonna get weird real fast !

I'm hoping XJT keep all the flying.....I'm starting class in a week and sure would hate to think about job instability.........

 

[Flyer1015]

I'm hoping XJT keep all the flying.....I'm starting class in a week and sure would hate to think about job instability.........

Can any airline pilot NOT think about job instability? The way I see it, if anyone is entering the aviation industry, they need to get ready to face the ups and the downs (instability, furlough).