Originally Posted by
Utah
As far as the first right of refusal... are you sure XJT management would want them? From a business perspective they can't just keep them if they don't have a solid plan to make money with them. Keeping them to spite CAL may sound good from an emotional standpoint, but business decision shouldn't and usually aren't be made that way. Without a new CPA with UA, DL or someone else what would they do to with them? More branded flying? Doubtful. Management will do what is necessary to remain profitable, and that may include getting smaller as evident by the industrys recent events. Beyond CAL who wants 50 seaters anyway?
In the CAL CPA, if they remove another 53 airplanes they forfit the MFN clause, so at that point XJT no longer has to give CAL the same rate they give someone else. This gives XJT the freedom to fly the aircraft for minimal profit and not have to share that rate with CAL. The reason only 10 airplanes are on the DL CPA? Any more than 10 and they would have to share that rate with CAL. If they remove more aircraft this becomes a non-factor. XJT could fly those airplanes at cost just to keep the lights on and not have to share that rate with CAL. With the MFN clause remove the "hide the airplanes" game becomes more possible.
Originally Posted by
ToiletDuck
Watch what you say that's considered bashing the company in this neck of the woods.
At XJT there has been a sense of "our management is great" that I have always thought made no sense. Our local management and dirrect superviors are okay, but on the executive level they've mis-managed the company into what it is now. The CAL CPA they were handed after the IPO was a hard point to start but things could have been done differently. It's funny to hear some of my fellow XJT'ers call people Kool-Aide drinkers when no matter what this management does they are "great".