It's four airplanes and we are woefully understaffed. It won't change the picture much. I also don't think it will have much of an effect on profitability. Again, it's a very small part of the big picture. I think it's more of an experiment, a test lab for our relatively new and inexperienced network planning and revenue management people to learn how to run a CRJ pro-rate operation under the Skywest name with a codeshare. Might be useful experience depending on how scope clauses evolve at the majors over the next few years.

Instead of keeping that operation running, we'll just store the airplanes for a little bit until we need to send more of the original batch of CRJs to retirement. This saves us from having to bring in four more former Mesa birds, like we're doing now to replace our own CRJs when they hit 40,000 hours.

As to the vote, I'm voting NO and here's why:

1. It's insulting to give a first officer a $400 raise and the guy sitting next to him a $4,000 raise.

2. Management is going to have to buy labor peace at ASA/XJT. While I'd rather set the bar really high for them, that doesn't seem very likely since we don't have any serious leverage. Our options are to vote yes to this and screw ASA/XJTs chances of a great deal, or vote no and wait to piggyback on their gains. Neither option is great, but one is obviously better than the other.

3. They didn't address the Highly Compensated Employee problem. It doesn't affect me personally since I'm on third year FO pay, but it's an easy fix for the company and would help a lot of our captains save for retirement.

4. Our 401(k) match sucks. It needs to go up and it won't under this proposal.