Virtual Airline?
12-16-2018, 01:00 PM
#11
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
Why is it that some people just can’t help themselves from sitting around looking for reasons to be worried or angry?
A virtual airline requires an organization with overwhelmingly positive brand recognition (which we do not have) selling seats or purchasing capacity from an airline with lower CASM, which is not possible.
Relax.
A virtual airline requires an organization with overwhelmingly positive brand recognition (which we do not have) selling seats or purchasing capacity from an airline with lower CASM, which is not possible.
Relax.
12-17-2018, 05:29 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by ecam
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samuele...U#56214e461d99
This is being thrown around as Indigo's plan for WOW.
The concept is an airline in name only that code shares 100% of its flights. It chooses the lowest cost airlines it can to codeshare on. It would be much less vulnerable to seasonal variations in loads since it doesn't actually own airplanes and just sells tickets. No need to deal directly with unions or regulators.
This sounds like it's straight off Maury's desk. And nothing in our scope clause prevents it. It would be his wet dream.
While our union fights the good fight on short term issues they need to also keep their eye on the ball with big picture stuff. Winning grievances doesn't matter if the company sells the planes, furloughs the pilots and contracts out all flying to cover its resorts and vacation packages in a few years. Plenty of ACMI carriers would line up to fly G4 code.
Some of you guys keep saying you're sick of the sky is falling crap but sticking your head in the sand won't make problems go away.
Always remember ironclad scope is the most important part of any contract. Without it the rest can be gone with the stroke of a pen.
This is being thrown around as Indigo's plan for WOW.
The concept is an airline in name only that code shares 100% of its flights. It chooses the lowest cost airlines it can to codeshare on. It would be much less vulnerable to seasonal variations in loads since it doesn't actually own airplanes and just sells tickets. No need to deal directly with unions or regulators.
This sounds like it's straight off Maury's desk. And nothing in our scope clause prevents it. It would be his wet dream.
While our union fights the good fight on short term issues they need to also keep their eye on the ball with big picture stuff. Winning grievances doesn't matter if the company sells the planes, furloughs the pilots and contracts out all flying to cover its resorts and vacation packages in a few years. Plenty of ACMI carriers would line up to fly G4 code.
Some of you guys keep saying you're sick of the sky is falling crap but sticking your head in the sand won't make problems go away.
Always remember ironclad scope is the most important part of any contract. Without it the rest can be gone with the stroke of a pen.
12-18-2018, 07:27 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A320
Posts: 1,347
You are all missing the bigger threat!
Maury will join the Pentavret and proceed to inject fried chicken worldwide with zombie juice instantly crashing all markets which they will have shorted like they did before 9/11. Then when a stable base of zombies have made it through a shortened ground school the FAA signed off on after dozens of free pizza parties they will remove all rest rules because.. hey they’re zombies. Then we’re all out of jobs. So obvious.
Maury will join the Pentavret and proceed to inject fried chicken worldwide with zombie juice instantly crashing all markets which they will have shorted like they did before 9/11. Then when a stable base of zombies have made it through a shortened ground school the FAA signed off on after dozens of free pizza parties they will remove all rest rules because.. hey they’re zombies. Then we’re all out of jobs. So obvious.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
