XJT Closing "ExpressJet Airlines" September 2, 2008

Reply Subscribe

Page 8 of 10

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

07-09-2008, 03:05 PM

#71

mooney

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jan 2008

Position: CL-65 captain

Posts: 2,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpilot92

I didnt have a vote because i dont work there.

details, details....I thought everyone who posted in a XJT forum HAD to work for XJT!!!!

07-09-2008, 09:52 PM

#72

JoeyMeatballs

Banned

Joined APC: Jan 2006

Position: A-320

Posts: 6,929

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nashmd11

You didn't have a Vote on the Scope issue because your MEC told SKYW to pack sand in the Vegas meetings. Because the MEC thought they knew better. Partly because ream put out the feeling that everything would work out. The furloughs were going to happen anyway, but the company has lost tens of millions in market cap. The one's that got screwed is the share holders.

Well, being a member of the XJT MEC, I can personally tell you that we did know better then to be involved with whipsawing, and the 14-16% PILOT COST REDUCTION they were looking to get. If you were privy to all the information that myself as well as the rest of the MEC, you to would tell them to "go pound sand" as well

07-10-2008, 05:31 AM

#73

Nevets

Banned

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: EMB 145 CPT

Posts: 2,934

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29

It wasn't the pilots that told SkyWest NO. They really don't make that decision with a publicly traded company.

Just to be clear, it was Skywest who put the removal of the holding letter on the offer. The BOD tried at least twice to get them to remove that condition. This is why I believe they would sold XJT if that wasn't a condition to the offer.

This didn't go out to the pilots because th MEC voted it down.

If the MEC would have approved and the pilots would have ratified it, the BOD would have pulled the trigger.

There is no doubt about it that the MEC killed this deal.

07-10-2008, 05:43 AM

#74

Nevets

Banned

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: EMB 145 CPT

Posts: 2,934

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slaphappy

Yup agree 100%

Many people told them the skywest offer would be very good but they all had tunnel vision on the whole "scope" non-issue.

On the contrary. The MEC looked at the proposal along with the CPA SKW negotiated with CAL. And they saw that CAL would be able to rebid all 205 aircraft and that if XJT didn't win it, it would allow them to transfer ALL aircraft to the winner. Couple that with second CPA SKW negotiated with CAL to use 29 XJT aircraft with SKW pilots and the offer by SKW to the XJT MEC that we could keep our flying if we became 'cost competative,' they were FAR from having tunnel vision.

07-10-2008, 05:56 AM

#75

Nevets

Banned

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: EMB 145 CPT

Posts: 2,934

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoop

Can a product really be called superior if they are selling their product (branded flying) for less than it cost to produce? It may have been a great bargain to the traveler, and customer service may have been outstanding, but it was only a matter of time. Look at Independence air, RJ's are not viable at these fuel costs.

Of course it can be a superior product. Is it viable at today's fuel prices? Its obvious that it isn't but that doesn't take away from the quality of the product. The average one way fare was $115 with load factors at 80%. If XJT had the fuel prices that Indy had, this all might have been different.

07-10-2008, 06:02 AM

#76

Jrod1500

Line Holder

Joined APC: Sep 2007

Posts: 26

Anybody that offers dollar beers on their flights has a superior product in my book.

07-10-2008, 06:15 AM

#77

Nevets

Banned

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: EMB 145 CPT

Posts: 2,934

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsphuntr

How was the SKYW offer an insult? It was a start. Do you go in to make an offer on a home, car, or work around your home and say "I'm willing to pay top dollar!" No...you start with a base and negotiate. Simple business. Pilots always fail to see the forest for the trees

It was an insult because of the reasons they wanted to get rid of the holding letter. They wanted to whipsaw us against SKW pilots so that we would become cost competative or lose the rest of the 205 aircraft to SKW.

Their second offer wasn't any better. They didn't even move one inch on the ONLY sticking point to the MEC - job protection. And why would they? It goes against their business philosophy. That is what is insulting.

07-10-2008, 06:37 AM

#78

Nevets

Banned

Joined APC: Dec 2007

Position: EMB 145 CPT

Posts: 2,934

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nashmd11

On the contrary. JR did no such thing. I honestly believe he was done at XJT anyways. The MEC did know better than to let SKW setup and whipsaw XJT pilots against SKW pilots with the threat of transfering more XJT aircraft to SKW if XJT didn't become 'cost competative.'

The shareholders are never the concern of the MEC. That is the BODs job and they would have pulled the trigger if SKW would have removed their conditions.

07-10-2008, 06:47 AM

#79

yancharlie

Line Holder

Joined APC: Jul 2008

Posts: 66

i have friends flying at xjt, and i hope everyone there will be ok. Beside the oil killing this industry, i wished that the age 65 did not come through, because there wouldn't be furloughs...