XJT to fly UAL

[rjacobs]

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.

What the ******************** are you talking about.

 

[amcnd]

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





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.

I would have to say they are looking down the road when there contract is up with CO. All there flying is at risk not just 30 aircraft one year 30 the next. I think its all 200+ in one shot. If they can start moving these aircraft around in new contracts, it will help offset that risk.

 

[drinksonme]

I would have to say they are looking down the road when there contract is up with CO. All there flying is at risk not just 30 aircraft one year 30 the next. I think its all 200+ in one shot. If they can start moving these aircraft around in new contracts, it will help offset that risk.

Until CAL ALPA drops their scope, no regional will operate a jet with anything more than 50 seats. We may be at risk from other companies under cutting us in 6 years when the current CPA is up. If CAL ALPA still has the scope, then it will only be for 50 seat jets. With that in mind, CAL obviously wants to get 70/90 seat jets on property. Colgan is a prime example of how bad they want bigger regional aircraft. CHQ also seemed to think they would be getting 70 seaters from CAL at some point. Now, with CAL in negotiations with what seems to be a more hard line CAL ALPA, do not be surprised if 70/90 show up on CAL's property being operated where they should be.....that being not at a regional. That could also be a problem for XJT.

Also, we have heard nothing. Rumors are flying all over the place, yet XJT employees remain in the dark. If we get it, then great. If we do not, then it will get ugly. Either way, it is lost flying at UAL and that is not good for anyone who cares about the career. More flying for regionals is not a win for the industry.

 

[yasir1212]

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!!!!

You're a freaking moron who has absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Spend a few seconds to do some research before spewing out garbage. You have any sources to back up your argument?

 

[Homer Jay]

Until CAL ALPA drops their scope, no regional will operate a jet with anything more than 50 seats. We may be at risk from other companies under cutting us in 6 years when the current CPA is up. If CAL ALPA still has the scope, then it will only be for 50 seat jets. With that in mind, CAL obviously wants to get 70/90 seat jets on property. Colgan is a prime example of how bad they want bigger regional aircraft. CHQ also seemed to think they would be getting 70 seaters from CAL at some point. Now, with CAL in negotiations with what seems to be a more hard line CAL ALPA, do not be surprised if 70/90 show up on CAL's property being operated where they should be.....that being not at a regional. That could also be a problem for XJT.

Also, we have heard nothing. Rumors are flying all over the place, yet XJT employees remain in the dark. If we get it, then great. If we do not, then it will get ugly. Either way, it is lost flying at UAL and that is not good for anyone who cares about the career. More flying for regionals is not a win for the industry.

We will NEVER drop our scope. Sorry junior.

 

[Tarzan]

We will NEVER drop our scope. Sorry junior.

We'll see when CO dangles a big carrot in front of you guys. I along with many others out here that never changes either. Harder to get a mainline job when it all being done by contract carriers. Hold the line... PLEASE!

 

[dojetdriver]

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).

Good point, but to add to it. It's been said by our D.O. PLENTY of times. The number of aircraft has to be over 20 airframes before it even becomes economically viable to take on a new fleet type.

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

The 10 CPA were breaking even.

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.

The 13 pro rate were bleeding money like crazy. When you're charging $49.99 for LAX-SFO and LAX-LAS roundtrips, that isn't going to make money.

I would have to say they are looking down the road when there contract is up with CO. All there flying is at risk not just 30 aircraft one year 30 the next. I think its all 200+ in one shot. If they can start moving these aircraft around in new contracts, it will help offset that risk.

The problem is, "down the road" is a pretty long way away in this climate. XJT is only about 1 year into a 7 year deal with CAL right now, 6 years left for 190 airframes. Again, with XJT's weak cash position, 6 years is a long time to lose money while waiting for airframes to free up.

 

[drinksonme]

We will NEVER drop our scope. Sorry junior.

Read the last sentence of my post moron. In fact re-read the whole thing. I do not want you to drop your scope. I was only showing others that 70-90 seat flying for a regional under CAL is not very plausible. Wow, way to take something the wrong way.

 

[ePilot22]

We will NEVER drop our scope. Sorry junior.

Don't have to. You'll be merged under United's scope.








eP.

 

[hou757]

Expect announcement later today or tomorrow by XJT for United Express flying.

So where is this announcement for XJT?

 

[drinksonme]

So where is this announcement for XJT?

See the other thread about TSA recalling. A lot of people at XJT now believe this was the announcement and their fate has been decided. It is now 1500 central time. The markets are closed for the week. XJT would have probably announced something good before close to raise the stock that took a pounding on Wednesday after the earning report.

 

[rumorhasit]

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.

I never said 70-90 seaters equal great place to work but every "open house" for employees we asked when xjt was going to get 70-90 seaters. We were told 50 seaters were more viable than 70-90 and would cost more for operations. CAL and XJT relationship was rocky to say the least, I personally saw Mesa, Skywest, and Rep. in the Cal headquarters building during this time in question. XJT had an opprotunity to fly the 70-90 seaters and would not persue it. At the time XJT was an awsome company regarding 50 seaters and most other carriers wanted them to do the same with 70-90 seaters. The mx was second to none and actually had other companies a/c mx. XJT had millions in the bank and a very strong balance sheet and the Reamster had everything going great. XJT and Cal have been on rocky ground since the IPO, and Cal had planned to deversify their regional options. And I know Weaver asked to go 70-90 seaters as well as most of the ground folks. If you want documentation for my "arguement" your are going to be waiting but if you had been on site back then you would know. I even heard (second hand) the 70-90 seaters question was asked and even the new contract had/has provisions for higher capacity aircraft. But what do I know I was only there for 10 years......

 

[rumorhasit]

You're a freaking moron who has absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Spend a few seconds to do some research before spewing out garbage. You have any sources to back up your argument?

yea ten years worth, where would you like me to start....

 

[dojetdriver]

I never said 70-90 seaters equal great place to work but every "open house" for employees we asked when xjt was going to get 70-90 seaters. We were told 50 seaters were more viable than 70-90 and would cost more for operations. CAL and XJT relationship was rocky to say the least, I personally saw Mesa, Skywest, and Rep. in the Cal headquarters building during this time in question. XJT had an opprotunity to fly the 70-90 seaters and would not persue it. At the time XJT was an awsome company regarding 50 seaters and most other carriers wanted them to do the same with 70-90 seaters. The mx was second to none and actually had other companies a/c mx. XJT had millions in the bank and a very strong balance sheet and the Reamster had everything going great.

As far as running an efficient operation, true. Sadly, efficiency and securing flying don't always go hand and hand. The management at XJT is very good at efficiency. But under the old CPA, they were also very insulated/protected from many of the issues that affect other management teams. It wasn't till the 69 airplane announcement that any real tough decisions had to be made by them.

As much disgust and disdain we in this career have for the managements at various regionals, they are way more skilled and experienced at securing CPAs, FPD's, whatever than the XJT management is/was since they've had to go though time and time again. Like I said, we can all despise the management teams, but rarely in aviation do running a good business and labor relations go hand in had. Like I said, rarely. SW would be an exception.

As far as the XJT DelCon flying goes, that's been covered. It was very coincidental. DAL wanted an operation that was had good performance numbers, was cheap, and had capable airframes to spare. XJT fit that bill at the time.

 

[79%N1]

As far as the XJT DelCon flying goes, that's been covered. It was very coincidental. DAL wanted an operation that was had good performance numbers, was cheap, and had capable airframes to spare. XJT fit that bill at the time.

Plain and simple, XJT undercut ASA/Skywest for that flying.

 

[dojetdriver]

Plain and simple, XJT undercut ASA/Skywest for that flying.

Did Skywest bid on that flying?

I've never doubted that they undercut ASA, but do you have actual, credible proof to back that statement up? As far as the 10 CPA aircraft go, yep, it wasn't a profit center.

The 13 pro rate aircraft bled money like crazy.

 

[79%N1]

My proof is that when the ASA base was closed and the flying went to XJT, the reason given was that Skywest would not fly the LA flying at a low, or nearly zero profit margin, and that XJT elected to do just that in order to get the flying.

 

[dojetdriver]

My proof is that when the ASA base was closed and the flying went to XJT, the reason given was that Skywest would not fly the LA flying at a low, or nearly zero profit margin, and that XJT elected to do just that in order to get the flying.

I think your overlooking that at that time, it was forbidden per the agreement with UAL that SkyWest fly Delcon out of LAX. Like I said, at that time. That stipulation was later dropped with UAL.

So I'll ask you again, do you have ACTUAL proof? IF the flying was done at zero profit or at a narrow profit margin, it's not like XJT had to adjust labor contracts, take pay cuts, undercut other labor groups at other airlines, and basically whore themselves out like a certain company did with 70/90 seat rates to secure some UAL flying a while ago, is it?

 

[79%N1]

That is why ASA was doing the Skywest flying out of LAX. One company. I think that is what you are overlooking. Company memo stated that SKYW would not fly the LAX flying for the slim profit margin, and XJT was doing it to get their planes in the air. If you want some secret company documents faxed to you for your proof, I can't produce them.

 

[dojetdriver]

That is why ASA was doing the Skywest flying out of LAX. One company. I think that is what you are overlooking.

Not overlooking anything. One company, but two different operating certificates. One with restrictions with UAL, the other, not.

Company memo stated that SKYW would not fly the LAX flying for the slim profit margin, and XJT was doing it to get their planes in the air.

Not sure what you're getting at here. You're kinda talking in circles. Your saying that ASA did it because they got around UAL's restrictions that way, but SkyWest wouldn't do it because of the narrow profit margin. Are you really denying that there was a stipulation with UAL, at that time, that SkyWest COULDN'T operate out of LAX under any other paint job? Again, it's one company, as you say.

Funny, SkyWest has no problem operating some CRJ's for Airtran with a yet to be determined profit margin. That flying is "at risk", is it not?

If you want some secret company documents faxed to you for your proof, I can't produce them.

And I'm sure you've seen these "secret company documents", right?

Won't even bother bringing up the other issues you dodged.

 

[Baronman]

That is why ASA was doing the Skywest flying out of LAX. One company. I think that is what you are overlooking. Company memo stated that SKYW would not fly the LAX flying for the slim profit margin, and XJT was doing it to get their planes in the air. If you want some secret company documents faxed to you for your proof, I can't produce them.

As someone else said...What does a pilot care what their company is getting paid? The only thing we should care about is what WE are getting paid.

It's bad when lower paid pilots get more flying...overall it creates a downward pressure for wages. In this case XJT pilots were making more than ASA pilots. XJT pilots weren't "undercutting" anyone.

I swear I think on these boards people focus on how much their company makes yet fail to notice how much they themselves make. "WE MADE $22 MILLION!!!!" yet this guy makes less than the other guy so who really cares?

 

[79%N1]

Dude...are you really that thick???? SKYW bids for ASA flying. i.e..... Same company. I guess for you I should have said that Skywest Inc chose not to bid for flying for either of their subsidiaries to do LAX flying for less than an acceptable profit margin. The reason ASA was there was indeed because Skywest Airlines could not do the flying. ASA did the flying until SKYW was forced to bid against other airlines to keep the flying. How is that talking in circles. The point was that Skywest inc, or any of it's subs, declined to bid as low as XJT did to gain the contract!

To the above guy, I never said anything about pilot pay. The other guy made the comment that XJT got some flying due to their phenomenal performance, reliability, etc. I simply offered up that a low bid to operate on a super low (unsustainable) margin may have had something to do with it.

Good luck to all XJT'ers.

 

[Erlanger]

...Funny, SkyWest has no problem operating some CRJ's for Airtran with a yet to be determined profit margin. That flying is "at risk", is it not?...

This is part of a larger plan by Skywest for the future. What's interesting is that this contract is for 3 years which incidently is about the time when Skywest plans on buying the new C-Series. Yup. you read that right. Not announced yet of course. Jerry has been talking about doing branded flying for awhile and he's one of 4 CEOs that talked Bombardier into not cancelling the C-Series project. Gee, why would he do that?

Jerry I've heard say that the days of the codeshare agreements of the past that Skywest and other regionals have been able to make money hand over fist is gone. He feels if Skywest doesn't expand into other areas it'll become extinct eventually. Skywest has been doing alot of at-risk flying for Delta and UAL over the last 2 years but no ones noticed. Looks like Republic and Skywest, Inc will be way ahead of everyone and may the only two left standing.

 

[dojetdriver]

Dude...are you really that thick???? SKYW bids for ASA flying. i.e..... Same company. I guess for you I should have said that Skywest Inc chose not to bid for flying for either of their subsidiaries to do LAX flying for less than an acceptable profit margin. The reason ASA was there was indeed because Skywest Airlines could not do the flying. ASA did the flying until SKYW was forced to bid against other airlines to keep the flying. How is that talking in circles. The point was that Skywest inc, or any of it's subs, declined to bid as low as XJT did to gain the contract!

Sorry, but you were talking in circles. You didn't acknowledge the UAL stipulation on SkyWest till it was brought up, anyyyyyywayyyyyy....

To the above guy, I never said anything about pilot pay. The other guy made the comment that XJT got some flying due to their phenomenal performance, reliability, etc.

We already covered it. DAL wanted a carrier that was 1) Cheaper, 2) Had airframes readily available, and 3) Had better performance numbers. That's not a slam on the fine folks at ASA, nor bravado about XJT. But when numbers are put out, take a look at many of ASA's, often times they are not at the top, but neither is XJT. And YES, I KNOW that much of that has to deal with the overall charlie foxtrot that is ATL. But if an operation can't be run out of the west coast with decent numbers, what's the problem? And I'd hardly put the XR up against the other plane I've flown, but it has the benefit of being designed after the CRJ series, and by default was designed to be a more operationally flexible plane. What kind of payload could the ASA CRJ's take out of places like CUL, RNO, ZCL, ect? Could you max out payload from those places?

I simply offered up that a low bid to operate on a super low (unsustainable) margin may have had something to do with it.

That's already been covered and not disputed. The ORIGINAL 10 CPA aircraft were on a low profit or break even arrangement. The pro rate that came later was at a severe loss.

 

[dojetdriver]

This is part of a larger plan by Skywest for the future. What's interesting is that this contract is for 3 years which incidently is about the time when Skywest plans on buying the new C-Series. Yup. you read that right. Not announced yet of course. Jerry has been talking about doing branded flying for awhile and he's one of 4 CEOs that talked Bombardier into not cancelling the C-Series project. Gee, why would he do that?

Jerry I've heard say that the days of the codeshare agreements of the past that Skywest and other regionals have been able to make money hand over fist is gone. He feels if Skywest doesn't expand into other areas it'll become extinct eventually. Skywest has been doing alot of at-risk flying for Delta and UAL over the last 2 years but no ones noticed. Looks like Republic and Skywest, Inc will be way ahead of everyone and may the only two left standing.

Interesting stuff to say the least. Especially using a larger aircraft than a 50 seat fleet type. Because it's been proven TWICE that when fuel goes up, the costs on those are simply too high. The problem with using the larger gage equipment is that it can attract the attention of well oiled machines like SW and JB. As well as the legacies that have huge amounts of cash/capitol on hand that absorb a loss, fuel increase, ect on a new route to squash some LCC competition. This also worked against I-Air and XJT. Attracting the attention of the lcc's and legacies was something that the management at XJT avoided, and governed many of the decisions they made for city pairs, etc.

I would agree with your last statement, those two companies have assets that position them much better than the two previous that tried to do their own branded flying.

 

[10nCLR]

This is part of a larger plan by Skywest for the future. What's interesting is that this contract is for 3 years which incidently is about the time when Skywest plans on buying the new C-Series. Yup. you read that right. Not announced yet of course. Jerry has been talking about doing branded flying for awhile and he's one of 4 CEOs that talked Bombardier into not cancelling the C-Series project. Gee, why would he do that?

Jerry I've heard say that the days of the codeshare agreements of the past that Skywest and other regionals have been able to make money hand over fist is gone. He feels if Skywest doesn't expand into other areas it'll become extinct eventually. Skywest has been doing alot of at-risk flying for Delta and UAL over the last 2 years but no ones noticed. Looks like Republic and Skywest, Inc will be way ahead of everyone and may the only two left standing.

Erlanger is very observant. I would agree with everything said here.

 

[TNPILOT]

Wow, 15 minutes of my life I can't get back. Are people really arguing about which regional's management undercut who? What a bunch of losers.

 

[SuperKooter]

Xjt, Mesa and Comair are going to be the first regional airlines that will cease opertaions in the next 5 years.

 

[Whydoitry]

Xjt, Mesa and Comair are going to be the first regional airlines that will cease opertaions in the next 5 years.

Mesa bankruptcy, liquidation.

XJT merger.

CMR reduced out of existence.

You maybe right, but probably not.

 

[walpaper]

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.

Does "economies of scale" mean anything to you???