Mesa to add 9 900s
02-23-2013 | 10:11 AM
#41
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
There are many errors in your statements which tells me you're speaking out of your a$$. BTW, the only way SkyWest has “hundreds” of 50’s is by adding in XJT/ASA who has “hundreds” of 50’s.
And yes, SkyWest is a profitable publically traded company with SkyWest Airlines being the most profitable side.
Note I am not a SkyWest lifer, I plan on leaving as soon one of my top 4 hire me but I do believe SkyWest is a very good subcontractor.
And yes, SkyWest is a profitable publically traded company with SkyWest Airlines being the most profitable side.
Note I am not a SkyWest lifer, I plan on leaving as soon one of my top 4 hire me but I do believe SkyWest is a very good subcontractor.
Just curious as to what facts you have to sustain your position?
02-23-2013 | 10:24 AM
#42
Rollin'
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
From: AA Airbus
Respectfully, who do you work for and why would you have information not released to the public? Plus the burden of proof falls on you. If you prove me wrong on PHX I will concede but I’m curious how you’re going to magically make more 50’s appear and shorten our CPAs (all public info)?
02-23-2013 | 11:58 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,230
Likes: 280
Originally Posted by Telex69:1358697
You may want to look into the SKYWEST purchase agreements at other code shares and you will be surprised.
Wonder what will happen to the hundreds of 50 seaters you have coming off of codeshare at SKYWEST mainline and how that will affect the pilot group.
Good luck to the folks at Mesa they needed some good news!
02-23-2013 | 12:02 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,230
Likes: 280
Originally Posted by meyers9163:1358754
159 Crj200s by Skywest alone seems like hundreds..... Especially when its nearl half of your fleet...... Especially when DAL is involved.....
02-23-2013 | 12:27 PM
#46
Rollin'
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
From: AA Airbus
Of our 159 CR2's only about 25% of those ships are on the DAL side with the rest split between US, AA and UAL, UAL having the most. As Trip7 mentioned DAL's already met their contractual fleet numbers and seem to be pretty happy at the moment. Any more cuts to our fleet will come from the UAL side but even though our CR2 fleet will shrink our CR7/CR9 fleet will grow. There are other benefits for UAL and DAL to retain SkyWest that others seem to not be willing to provide. We provide A LOT of free feed (at risk flying) for both UAL and DAL. Those numbers are calculated in when retaining contracts but don’t help us much when bidding on new RFPs. I’ll have to look but I think we do close to 10,000 block hours/month of at risk flying. I’ll search and post the exact numbers, unless one of my other SkyWest brethren posts it first.If you want a staggering number XJT has over 350 CR2/E135/E145s with only about 100 flying for DAL, the rest are with UAL!!! “Knock, knock its Count Chocula calling.....”
As a hole the code-feed industry will shrink. My prediction is the regional industry will be half its size today by 2020, that’s good for all of us.
02-23-2013 | 12:44 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Not trying to argue but you can't tell me SKW didn't want these 9 900s as some suggest. Last I checked the contacts are getting smaller and duration shorter..... Its bad news for the FFD days....... I see the at risk thought..... Never knew that...... But to assume ones going to gain more large planes when scope is like DALs and even the new AA scope pretty much doesn't allow all that many more then the RAH deal...... Let alone when a JCBA gets worked out I'd not bet against nearly identical scope as DAL or UAL at AA which ultimately is good for most of us.
I just think when longevity at Gojets/Compass is so low it spells more flying for them as their labor cost are so low comparatively.....
I just think when longevity at Gojets/Compass is so low it spells more flying for them as their labor cost are so low comparatively.....
02-23-2013 | 01:13 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,302
Likes: 2
Wow. This turned into a SkyWest topic....Facts. 1) SKW wanted this flying.. I think they are more set up for a large RFP win, not a small 5-15 aircraft RFP.. 2) the PHX 200 flying is done cheap.. (Not at a loss) those planes are all "off lease" aircraft making the operation realy cheap.. Mesa has turned around into a cheap, lean RFP machine...
02-23-2013 | 01:55 PM
#50
Rollin'
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
From: AA Airbus
Not trying to argue but you can't tell me SKW didn't want these 9 900s as some suggest. Last I checked the contacts are getting smaller and duration shorter..... Its bad news for the FFD days....... I see the at risk thought..... Never knew that...... But to assume ones going to gain more large planes when scope is like DALs and even the new AA scope pretty much doesn't allow all that many more then the RAH deal...... Let alone when a JCBA gets worked out I'd not bet against nearly identical scope as DAL or UAL at AA which ultimately is good for most of us.
I just think when longevity at Gojets/Compass is so low it spells more flying for them as their labor cost are so low comparatively.....
I just think when longevity at Gojets/Compass is so low it spells more flying for them as their labor cost are so low comparatively.....
I'm not assuming we will gain more large aircraft, I know we will since it’s the only way UAL will get SkyWest to park 200’s and XJT to park 200/135/145s. It’s a no-brainer, if they give us long term contracts for CR7/9s just as Delta did, SkyWest will jump at the future gains in stability. Our Management team’s always looking toward the future.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
