XJT to fly UAL

[Baronman]

I don't really care and hope xjt is a success I really do. But this is what we are being told. That this might be a money loser for xjt with how low they bid.

You think whatever bid Skywest or whoever put in was going to be a big money maker? I'd bet all the bids were in the same ballpark...Or perhaps only Skywest knows it's a money loser because the bid they submitted was one as well?

 

[trip]

I bet it will happen. XJT will undercut the flying by 10-20% just to get in the door. It will be a money losser. But it will keep the airplanes flying.

I think they tried that in SLC with DL and almost lost the farm!

 

[GINCHBLASTER]

Have fun with that. UAL is such a sh1thole.

 

[Hypoxik]

I think they tried that in SLC with DL and almost lost the farm!

LAX... with a few a/c rotated via SLC

 

[flyguy_022]

.......... oops

 

[dojetdriver]

I could throw out the normal sarcastic comment about how it must be official but for some reason the SkyWest guys always know more about what is going to happen at XJT before anyone at XJT........

DAL press releases and "Mock12" know what's going on at XJT before XJT people do.

I bet it will happen. XJT will undercut the flying by 10-20% just to get in the door. It will be a money losser. But it will keep the airplanes flying.

I don't really care and hope xjt is a success I really do. But this is what we are being told. That this might be a money loser for xjt with how low they bid.

Anything is possible, especially the way flying is being secured now days. But with the cash/financial position that XJT is in right now and the latest "losses" call, it doesn't seem like it would be viable to get into a multi year money losing RFP. It would trigger the BK threshold pretty quick, and that would royally screw up the current CPA with CAL.

But hey, when UAL/CAL merge, it will all be a moot point anyway.

 

[rumorhasit]

The Sad thing is XJT used to be a great place to work and was a very viable company. I guess that whole "we are staying with 50 seaters, this 70/90 seat thing is a fad" didn't work out very well!!! Most of the employees begged the Reamster to go 70/90 seaters back in 2003-04 but the 50 seat is more economical I guess or that is all ops and training knew!!!!

 

[Baronman]

The Sad thing is XJT used to be a great place to work and was a very viable company. I guess that whole "we are staying with 50 seaters, this 70/90 seat thing is a fad" didn't work out very well!!! Most of the employees begged the Reamster to go 70/90 seaters back in 2003-04 but the 50 seat is more economical I guess or that is all ops and training knew!!!!

It's a good place to work. If you're going to say that in order to be a "great" place to work you have to have 70-90 seaters with 2 year upgrades then go work somewhere else where you can find that.

Most people begged Ream to get those planes? I personally don't know anyone. You argument is flawed until you start analyzing the xjt/cal situation back then as well.

 

[aa73]

XJT = Continental Express. BE-1900s, ATR-42s and 72s, Brasilias and they are just getting their first ERJ-145s. Pay for training through FSI, around $9000.

 

[rjacobs]

The fact that XJT doesn't have and 70 seaters isnt because they weren't wanted or that Ream didnt want them(as is commonly thought). Our old CPA with CAL prohibited anything larger than 50 seat jets from being on property. We would have had to get a second certificate for them and then deal with all the hassle associated with that. Under our new CPA with CAL we are allowed to do pretty much what ever we want. Well guess what, now there aren't really any CPA's for large quantities of 70 seat aircraft, but if there were, I guarantee we would be bidding on them. Supposedly the United RFP has 70 seat aircraft in it and we have bid on it(as well as the props).

The DAL stuff in LAX was done to keep airplanes flying, I dont think anybody will say anything different. I dont think it was as big of a money loser as people think. 10 airplanes making money on a CPA and 8-10 airplanes either losing money or breaking even on a pro-rate. That whole deal was killed because of our new deal with CAL not because it was a huge money loser that was going to sink the company.