Notices
ExpressJet Regional Airline

ExpressJet Flies West

Old 09-16-2020, 03:41 PM
  #431  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 176
Default

Originally Posted by Xelectro View Post
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”.
they all very gladly flew it when United gave them to
us

well I guess not too gladly, judging by how often they called in sick
SeeYa is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 05:30 PM
  #432  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Default

Originally Posted by Xelectro View Post
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.
FXLAX is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 06:19 PM
  #433  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ReadOnly7's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,320
Default

Originally Posted by coolyokeluke View Post
I liked it and it was distinctive in a sea of white blue and red variations of livery.
And it was memorialized forever in Harold & Kumar 2.
ReadOnly7 is offline  
Old 09-17-2020, 05:11 AM
  #434  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 602
Default

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...
AboveMins is offline  
Old 09-17-2020, 10:25 AM
  #435  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,649
Default

Originally Posted by Xelectro View Post
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”.
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.

Originally Posted by AboveMins View Post
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...
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.
John Carr is offline  
Old 09-17-2020, 12:19 PM
  #436  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Default

Originally Posted by John Carr View Post
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.
FXLAX is offline  
Old 09-17-2020, 01:44 PM
  #437  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 602
Default

Does anyone have any info on the final XJT flight on 9/30? Thinking about trying to book a fare on it.
AboveMins is offline  
Old 09-17-2020, 03:31 PM
  #438  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: lav dumper
Posts: 707
Default

Originally Posted by AboveMins View Post
Does anyone have any info on the final XJT flight on 9/30? Thinking about trying to book a fare on it.
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.
DirkDiggler is offline  
Old 09-17-2020, 03:42 PM
  #439  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,649
Default

Originally Posted by FXLAX View Post
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.
Yep, well aware of the all that.

Originally Posted by FXLAX View Post
The original DAL CPA was for 24 months but ended up only being 12 because both sides wanted to get out of it.
Was actually about 15 months, I was there start to stop.
John Carr is offline  
Old 09-18-2020, 02:57 AM
  #440  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 176
Default

Originally Posted by DirkDiggler View Post
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.
I flew a few fights on Wednesday
SeeYa is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10671
01-11-2016 06:49 AM
R57 relay
American
222
01-17-2014 02:17 PM
Boneman
ExpressJet
16
12-10-2009 09:04 PM
Past V1
Regional
64
04-28-2008 03:04 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices