ExpressJet Flies West
#431
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 176
us
well I guess not too gladly, judging by how often they called in sick
#432
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
#435
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,649
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.
#436
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
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.
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.
#438
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: lav dumper
Posts: 707
#439
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,649
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.
Was actually about 15 months, I was there start to stop.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post