|
Hopefully we’ll take all the MAX options and put in an order for more mainline aircraft so that we can continue on our path of steady growth for the next 20 years. Should bode well for everyone currently on property.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by fucius
(Post 3175380)
Hopefully we’ll take all the MAX options and put in an order for more mainline aircraft so that we can continue on our path of steady growth for the next 20 years. Should bode well for everyone currently on property.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Flaps1check
(Post 3175390)
This^. I’m an EX-VXer, still on the bus. I give two $hites which airframe I’m on. I had no loyalty to VX, I have no loyalty to AS. I have loyalty to my family first and then this pilot group. All I care about is contract and QOL improvements, mainline airframe growth, and a profitable company. The rest is hurt feelings and d___ measuring contests.
Thank you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by AK22
(Post 3175249)
Oh look...another bitter lottery winner!
|
Originally Posted by Flaps1check
(Post 3175390)
This^. I’m an EX-VXer, still on the bus. I give two $hites which airframe I’m on. I had no loyalty to VX, I have no loyalty to AS. I have loyalty to my family first and then this pilot group. All I care about is contract and QOL improvements, mainline airframe growth, and a profitable company. The rest is hurt feelings and d___ measuring contests.
|
Originally Posted by Flaps1check
(Post 3175390)
All I care about is contract and QOL improvements, mainline airframe growth, and a profitable company.
Something to add: No matter how a pilot found themselves on the Alaska seniority list, I strongly believe everyone benefited from the merger in this crisis. Who knows if VX would have made it? Maybe, maybe not. On the other side of the house, those 71 pesky Airbuses Alaska wants to get rid of made furlough substantially more costly. Alaska did not agree to the furlough mitigation programs out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it to save money. When the VX aircraft are gone, the efficiencies of a single fleet will return along with the ease of furlough when the next black swan rears its head. Its time for proper scope protections in our contract. |
Originally Posted by greaser
(Post 3175471)
Similar thoughts here.
Something to add: No matter how a pilot found themselves on the Alaska seniority list, I strongly believe everyone benefited from the merger in this crisis. Who knows if VX would have made it? Maybe, maybe not. On the other side of the house, those 71 pesky Airbuses Alaska wants to get rid of made furlough substantially more costly. Alaska did not agree to the furlough mitigation programs out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it to save money. When the VX aircraft are gone, the efficiencies of a single fleet will return along with the ease of furlough when the next black swan rears its head. Its time for proper scope protections in our contract. And thank you as well... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Without question, downgrades and furloughs would have happened in no time had we been single fleet. Would venture a guess that there would be 6-700 guys on furlough right now except for the Airbus/Boeing fleet. There would have been no EIL program after Oct 1st....
|
I'm sure flying with AK22 is very similar to winning the lottery!
|
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3176115)
|
Originally Posted by Flaps1check
(Post 3176124)
No way, I would be shocked. I’ve only been with Alaska since they bought us. In the short time it’s become clear that this type of move would be way outside management’s comfort zone.
Could you imagine the mess the outstations would be in South America or beyond? The company isn’t capable of international operations. It would be a complete gong show. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
The chances that those ever are on property at Alaska Airlines are less than zero, we should probably be happy that we aren’t totally shrinking as most of the Airbi are being replaced.....
allegedly |
Imagine if we ever merged with jetblue, that would be so many buses to park.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3176115)
|
Originally Posted by OTZeagle1
(Post 3174512)
The A321 is also prohibited from SNA🤔
I guess, I don’t see your point. When you say something, say something that means something. |
My apologies, I am confident you are a great person. The 321 is a more capable aircraft at shorter airfields. Bottom line, the MAX will produce the greatest revenue and the largest profit margins for Alaska. Single fleet was always going to happen. It is done, there is no secret Airbus order. Max9 performance numbers are closer to 800 numbers then 900 numbers.
|
“the greatest revenue and the largest profit margins for Alaska”.
Important point that OTZ made. Alaska is truly a boutique investment firm. What OTZ stated is their mission statement. They are not in the jobs or comfort or transportation or employee business or any of the myriad other things that people say and want out of their job. Our CBA is a direct reflection of this mission statement. We will be flying DC6’s or driving trucks if they bring in more revenue/profit. To truly benefit from working here (like the SEA millionaires club)you have to align yourself with their principals. So the max meets the mission...The end |
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3176880)
“the greatest revenue and the largest profit margins for Alaska”.
Important point that OTZ made. Alaska is truly a boutique investment firm. What OTZ stated is their mission statement. They are not in the jobs or comfort or transportation or employee business or any of the myriad other things that people say and want out of their job. Our CBA is a direct reflection of this mission statement. We will be flying DC6’s or driving trucks if they bring in more revenue/profit. To truly benefit from working here (like the SEA millionaires club)you have to align yourself with their principals. So the max meets the mission...The end |
Originally Posted by ElCaribe
(Post 3176885)
I want to be in a millionaires club. Don’t you?
|
Originally Posted by ElCaribe
(Post 3176885)
I want to be in a millionaires club. Don’t you?
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3176948)
Prob coulda joined at some point in the last 22 years. Looked into it, didn’t care for the members. Club membership is not offered here anymore. Been that way for ten years or so...
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3176880)
“the greatest revenue and the largest profit margins for Alaska”.
Important point that OTZ made. Alaska is truly a boutique investment firm. What OTZ stated is their mission statement. They are not in the jobs or comfort or transportation or employee business or any of the myriad other things that people say and want out of their job. Our CBA is a direct reflection of this mission statement. We will be flying DC6’s or driving trucks if they bring in more revenue/profit. To truly benefit from working here (like the SEA millionaires club)you have to align yourself with their principals. So the max meets the mission...The end |
Originally Posted by ERJFO
(Post 3177561)
All publically traded companies exist to maximize returns for their owners (shareholders). Its the legal duties of the Officers and Directors.. Alaska, and frankly all airlines of note make their decisions from this perspective. Alaska is no different than any of its competition here.
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3177613)
And your point is?
No one in management cares about you. Just your ability to move metal. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by ERJFO
(Post 3177561)
All publically traded companies exist to maximize returns for their owners (shareholders). Its the legal duties of the Officers and Directors.. Alaska, and frankly all airlines of note make their decisions from this perspective. Alaska is no different than any of its competition here.
Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ) In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors.The Shareholder Value Myth , Eur. Fin. Rev. Lynn Stout (April 30, 2013)The Ideology of Shareholder Value Maxim (Watch), Evonomics |
Originally Posted by NewGuy01
(Post 3177614)
No one in management cares about you. Just your ability to move metal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Back2future
(Post 3177616)
Nice declaration you made there:
|
Originally Posted by Back2future
(Post 3177616)
Nice declaration you made there:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/the-...objective.html But a publicly traded company cannot disregard shareholder value, or they won't have any shareholders. |
Originally Posted by ERJFO
(Post 3177913)
Publically traded companies and private companies are different.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3178012)
Private companies can do whatever they want. Public companies are subject to more legal boundaries, plus the shareholders have to be at least a significant consideration since managers ultimately work for the shareholders.
Here's an article about shareholders getting all upset because they felt Costco should treat its employees more like Walmart. Guess what nobody got sued let alone hauled off to the Hoosegow: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108025917854365904 |
Originally Posted by Back2future
(Post 3178087)
You guys do know that Gordon Gecko is not a real person right? There's no "legal obligation."
Originally Posted by Back2future
(Post 3178087)
If a public company is not maximizing shareholder value enough then the shareholders can take their money and go somewhere else.
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3174862)
The Max is purpose built for cheap, tourist class travel. It can never have a real first class or business class. It provides a cramped, noisy uncomfortable travel experience for 45 minutes longer than an NG.
|
Is this new or same as the previous MAX order?
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/new...18197958&gfv=1 |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3213561)
Is this new or same as the previous MAX order?
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/new...18197958&gfv=1 I suspect it’s the same order, otherwise there’d be some sort of company fanfare about it. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 3213561)
Is this new or same as the previous MAX order?
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/new...18197958&gfv=1 SEC Filing | Alaska Air Group Inc You can't really expect a news organization to let facts get in the way of a sensationalized story. |
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...regional-jets/
So is this OTZ’s reported bronze plan, or perhaps the silver plan? Any updates to the outlook OTZ/MEA? |
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
(Post 3234032)
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...regional-jets/
So is this OTZ’s reported bronze plan, or perhaps the silver plan? Any updates to the outlook OTZ/MEA? Wonderful more RJ’s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Originally Posted by CassinAK
(Post 3234037)
Wonderful more RJ’s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Originally Posted by hoover
(Post 3234070)
and more than half flown by skywest.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:26 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands