|
Originally Posted by Xelectro
(Post 3130058)
I wonder why nobody mentions that the MEC said no to 175s for delta in 2007? I honesty think this was the beginning of the end of XJT.
their exact words were, “we have no business flying aircraft that size”. us well I guess not too gladly, judging by how often they called in sick |
Originally Posted by Xelectro
(Post 3130058)
I wonder why nobody mentions that the MEC said no to 175s for delta in 2007? I honesty think this was the beginning of the end of XJT.
their exact words were, “we have no business flying aircraft that size”. Nobody mentioned it because it’s fake news. |
Originally Posted by coolyokeluke
(Post 3130041)
I liked it and it was distinctive in a sea of white blue and red variations of livery.
|
While I don't ever recall the MEC turning down 70 seaters, I do vaguely remember management saying something about 70 seaters were not feasible for XJT. I could be wrong... Old age and all...
|
Originally Posted by Xelectro
(Post 3130058)
I wonder why nobody mentions that the MEC said no to 175s for delta in 2007? I honesty think this was the beginning of the end of XJT.
their exact words were, “we have no business flying aircraft that size”. IIRC, of the Delcon flying, 10 planes were on a CPA, the other 13(?) were on a prorate cost basis.
Originally Posted by AboveMins
(Post 3130453)
While I don't ever recall the MEC turning down 70 seaters, I do vaguely remember management saying something about 70 seaters were not feasible for XJT. I could be wrong... Old age and all...
|
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 3130715)
I doubt that's true. And IF it was true, I wouldn't doubt that DAL wanted XJT bear the brunt of all costs associated.
IIRC, of the Delcon flying, 10 planes were on a CPA, the other 13(?) were on a prorate cost basis. Not sure. But it was mentioned many times that a new fleet type has to be over a certain number for the costs to be "worth it", unless the mainline parter is footing most of bill. It’s patently false. The issue with bigger airplanes in general were that, first, under COEX flying, there was obviously a CAL pilot scope issue. So any bigger airplane flying would have to come from somewhere else. And the CAL CPA put many restrictions on operations other than for COEX (MFN, hub restrictions, resource restrictions, etc that i mentioned earlier). From the BOD’s point of view, they also didn’t want to upset the cow and sour the milk more than they were already by flying for another carrier (we saw how much they didn’t like it when XJT did start doing that). Second, once CAL forced the hand of the BOD, they were preserving the cash on hand for the first 12-18 months of branded operations because they knew it would take at least that long to be profitable. Third, DAL (not anyone else) didn’t ask for bigger airplanes. Xjt was essentially a placeholder in LAX between when they kicked ASA out and when they were able to do the flying themselves. The original DAL CPA was for 24 months but ended up only being 12 because both sides wanted to get out of it. DAL wanted that flying back at that point and XJT wanted out of the unprofitable DAL prorate flying and to put those planes back under the new CAL CPA. Some of those airplanes (22 eventually) went to UAX. |
Does anyone have any info on the final XJT flight on 9/30? Thinking about trying to book a fare on it.
|
Originally Posted by AboveMins
(Post 3130837)
Does anyone have any info on the final XJT flight on 9/30? Thinking about trying to book a fare on it.
|
Originally Posted by FXLAX
(Post 3130790)
It’s patently false. The issue with bigger airplanes in general were that, first, under COEX flying, there was obviously a CAL pilot scope issue. So any bigger airplane flying would have to come from somewhere else. And the CAL CPA put many restrictions on operations other than for COEX (MFN, hub restrictions, resource restrictions, etc that i mentioned earlier). From the BOD’s point of view, they also didn’t want to upset the cow and sour the milk more than they were already by flying for another carrier (we saw how much they didn’t like it when XJT did start doing that). Second, once CAL forced the hand of the BOD, they were preserving the cash on hand for the first 12-18 months of branded operations because they knew it would take at least that long to be profitable. Third, DAL (not anyone else) didn’t ask for bigger airplanes. Xjt was essentially a placeholder in LAX between when they kicked ASA out and when they were able to do the flying themselves.
Originally Posted by FXLAX
(Post 3130790)
The original DAL CPA was for 24 months but ended up only being 12 because both sides wanted to get out of it.
|
Originally Posted by DirkDiggler
(Post 3130914)
Im pretty sure the last 121 passenger flight was a few weeks ago, according to XJT.com. They were quick to extinguish this place that’s for sure.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:11 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands