Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Trans States signs LOI for up to 100 MRJs >

Trans States signs LOI for up to 100 MRJs

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Trans States signs LOI for up to 100 MRJs

Old 02-03-2011, 07:51 AM
  #31  
Can't abide NAI
 
Bucking Bar's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,989
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Just as a friendly reminder, Delta sold Compass Airlines to Trans States for $20.5M in 2010.
That is $4.5 million more than ALPA sold those Northwest Pilots' jobs to management for in concessionary negotiations. But hey, I got a stock award out of the merger.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot View Post
Like I said earlier, they could have done it just to be the first in line. If the jet proves successful, those slots will be worth a decent amount of money if sold.
Maybe, but... Two points:

* Cancellation penalties. TSA had better be bankrupt if they default on the contract. Pratt will be building engines, gear struts will be forged, the supply chain spins up 12 to 18 months before the thing comes together. They don't work for free.
* What is the history of mainline order cancellations contrasted with those at regional carriers? If past performance is a predictor of future results, I'd place bets with the regional management team. They've been right more often than not.

It appears to me some parties are placing big bets that some version of 100 seat flying gets outsourced. Do not know, what they know. But usually they place bets with inside information. My understanding is that proposals for 100 seat jet operations are the buzz amongst the executive offices of a number of small narrow body jet operators.

Now my question, could these be a replacement for the E170/175's? If so, Delta management was right in stating the airplane had a limited economic life. Also, if these next gen narrow body jets are truly a "Guppy Killer" ... SWA might be a target. They've got a bit of blubber and TSA's always been a poacher.

After Go Jets, TSA should be ALPA's enemy #1, but we no longer function with that level of moral indignation.

Last edited by Bucking Bar; 02-03-2011 at 08:04 AM.
Bucking Bar is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 08:04 AM
  #32  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar View Post
That is $4.5 million more than ALPA sold those Northwest Pilots' jobs to management for in concessionary negotiations. But hey, I got a stock award out of the merger. Maybe, but... Two points:

* Cancellation penalties. TSA had better be bankrupt if they default on the contract. Pratt will be building engines, gear struts will be forged, the supply chain spins up 12 to 18 months before the thing comes together. They don't work for free.
* What is the history of mainline order cancellations contrasted with those at regional carriers? If past performance is a predictor of future results, I'd place bets with the regional management team. They've been right more often than not.

It appears to me some parties are placing big bets that some version of 100 seat flying gets outsourced. Do not know, what they know. But usually they place bets with inside information. My understanding is that proposals for 100 seat jet operations are the buzz amongst the executive offices of a number of small narrow body jet operators.

Now my question, could these be a replacement for the E170/175's? If so, Delta management was right in stating the airplane had a limited economic life. Also, if these next gen narrow body jets are truly a "Guppy Killer" ... SWA might be a target. They've got a bit of blubber and TSA's always been a poacher.
How ironic would it be if TSA was contracted to fly MRJ's for RAH?
johnso29 is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 08:17 AM
  #33  
Happy to be here
 
acl65pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
How ironic would it be if TSA was contracted to fly MRJ's for RAH?
Honesty it would be horrible. Even though we like our "Red Meat Moments" and the LUV pilots expense, remember that this industry and these scope clauses has proven to be a set of dominoes set in close succession.

I do not wish that on any pilot group. Period.
acl65pilot is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 07:51 PM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by acl65pilot View Post
Problem is that if the mainline willfully sells 100 seat flying, these same pilot will knowingly be selling their own jobs. Not sure if I see that happening. Not even for money. Everyone that I have talked to understands that after the last decade of stagnation.
I both hope and think you are right on that. However it will require significant diligence because the carrot will be huge and the packaging very attractive. I think every pilot can put 2 and 2 together and realize that if the 100 seater is outsourced, there won't be any 101 seaters at mainline. Far from it. The traditional outsource seat gap will mean the A319 and 320 and 737, MD88/90 will be drastically reduced with mega furloughs and downgrades and subsequent pay cuts and across the board concessions for those remaining as the foundation for their pay and work rules wipe away any temporary cookie they would get as a result of what before could be labeled ignorance but can now only be called outright treachery. Even in another Chapter 11, there are no pensions to cut, which was the single biggest hammer the last time.

All eyes on CAL/UAL. Even if they fold and allow the 70's, if they still keep the 76's locked out and limit the 70's, DL and AA will be on very solid ground WRT scope. There is absolutely no contract I will sign off on with a single seat of scope relief not because I am righteous or uber moral, but rather because every penny of initial bribery management may offer to sell a given amount of scope will have to be paid back with mob loan levels of interest in direct proportion to what was sold, because the very act of selling scope sows the seeds of your own economic devastation. Its like selling both your kidneys for 100 grand, only to have to go out and pay cash for 20 grand worth of dialyses every year for the rest of your life. Pain and suffering included.
gloopy is offline  
Old 02-27-2020, 02:42 PM
  #35  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 69
Default

this to show how quick things can change smh
James White is offline  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:11 PM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ed Force One's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 702
Default

Originally Posted by James White View Post
this to show how quick things can change smh
Expressjet was dangling the MRJ carrot for a while too. Had posters up in the crew rooms and everything for a plane that was 5 years out.
Ed Force One is offline  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:17 PM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,940
Default

Originally Posted by James White View Post
this to show how quick things can change smh
I don't know if signing for MRJs and going under 9 years later is a "how quick things change" kind of situation.
CBreezy is offline  
Old 02-27-2020, 08:58 PM
  #38  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

The funny part is the MRJ is still a long way from service.
Mesabah is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GitRDone
Trans States Airlines
43
06-27-2007 09:56 PM
Koolaidman
Trans States Airlines
17
05-31-2007 10:37 AM
Koolaidman
Trans States Airlines
10
09-11-2006 08:10 PM
dmb911
Trans States Airlines
1
07-18-2006 06:21 AM
Freight Dog
Hiring News
0
06-01-2005 03:27 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