What's in the works at SkyWest?
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,857
Likes: 0
As quoted directly from CAL's 10-Q filed in April '07:
As far as us getting sued by CAL, I wouldn't believe everything that comes from the rumor mill over at ExpressJet High School.
The Chautauqua CPA has a five year term with
respect to ten aircraft and an average term of 2.5 years for the balance of the aircraft. In addition, we have the unilateral right to extend the Chautauqua CPA on the same terms on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis for a period of up to five years in the aggregate for 20 aircraft and for up to three years in the aggregate for 24 aircraft, subject to the renewal terms of the related aircraft lease.
respect to ten aircraft and an average term of 2.5 years for the balance of the aircraft. In addition, we have the unilateral right to extend the Chautauqua CPA on the same terms on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis for a period of up to five years in the aggregate for 20 aircraft and for up to three years in the aggregate for 24 aircraft, subject to the renewal terms of the related aircraft lease.
#22
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
O.K. so a right to extend does not mean it was for longer than 2.5 years. Therefore, it was not ten. And your remarks about "ExpressJet High School" put you on the same level as the so called students there; that unfortunately, are my co-workers.
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
From: e190
arent the crj-200's on a lease with chq that ends in Dec 08-may 09. there are roughly 20 of them.
the whole chq-xjt thing is BS. its perpetuated by the idiots of both of our pilot groups.
chq and cal did have a bit of a falling out though. cal was not happy with the initial performance and i believe cal gave chq a shape up or ship out deal. chq started performing much better and things are fine now and the crjs were relocated to better suited routes. It wasnt chq's fault. if cal wanted erj's on the routes then cal should have said so. idiot bean counters making decisions is a bad move.
if cal flying was to come from the xjt side it would start in dec 2009. That is the soonest any flying can be taken from us unless our entire CPA is cancelled. CAL does lease us our aircraft so if we decide to keep those airframes which we are allowed to do then CAL has a financial stake in our success or failure. a CH 11 filing from our company could hurt CAL
the whole chq-xjt thing is BS. its perpetuated by the idiots of both of our pilot groups.
chq and cal did have a bit of a falling out though. cal was not happy with the initial performance and i believe cal gave chq a shape up or ship out deal. chq started performing much better and things are fine now and the crjs were relocated to better suited routes. It wasnt chq's fault. if cal wanted erj's on the routes then cal should have said so. idiot bean counters making decisions is a bad move.
if cal flying was to come from the xjt side it would start in dec 2009. That is the soonest any flying can be taken from us unless our entire CPA is cancelled. CAL does lease us our aircraft so if we decide to keep those airframes which we are allowed to do then CAL has a financial stake in our success or failure. a CH 11 filing from our company could hurt CAL
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,857
Likes: 0
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
May 12, 2006
Good afternoon. So much for the exceptional weather pattern we've been enjoying. And the forecast for the next week looks pretty gloomy too.
The big news this week is the recent announcement by XJT management that they intend to retain possession of the 69 aircraft that will be withdrawn from their Continental agreement. The announcement is consistent with what they have been saying all along that they wont give CO back their aircraft; rather they will attempt to redeploy them in a variety of unspecified means.
From purely emotional perspective, I completely understand why they are acting this way. The removal of the aircraft will have a material, negative impact on their company and its employees. Having said that, some some negative impact was unavoidable as the airline simply has too high operating costs. Either management engaged with labor on reducing those costs (ala Comair) and also reduced overheads, or they would shrink. Atlantic Coast was faced with this same choice when United was in bankruptcy. Like XJT, they too chose to avoid the difficult choice and instead remove aircraft and go at it alone. History has show, not only was that the wrong course of action, but it clearly shows the negative impacts to their employees was dramatically higher than what would have been had they only worked to preserve their business relationship with United. Yet strangely XJT management and labor seem to be walking, arm in arm, down the same path but hoping for different results? I am afraid they won't find what they are looking for.
Not only was Atlantic Coast's actions devastating for their airline, employees and shareholders, but in an ironic way it was bad for all regional airlines. By implementing a reckless business plan they also fueled an artificial demand for 50 seat regional jets to replace their former United flying. With Atlantic Coast in liquidation and their old aircraft now floating around the market of displaced RJ's, that glut is now coming home to hurt the entire industry. To once again artificially remove 69, 50 seat RJs which Continental will surely replace in some form or fashion, is harmful to XJT, its employees and shareholders and the rest of us working in this industry.
For our part, our agreement with Continental remains in effect and I feel we are well positioned to assist CO in replacing some quantity of the withdrawn aircraft; although we will do so with the knowledge that this was not the best outcome for any of us involved in this situation.
Good afternoon. So much for the exceptional weather pattern we've been enjoying. And the forecast for the next week looks pretty gloomy too.
The big news this week is the recent announcement by XJT management that they intend to retain possession of the 69 aircraft that will be withdrawn from their Continental agreement. The announcement is consistent with what they have been saying all along that they wont give CO back their aircraft; rather they will attempt to redeploy them in a variety of unspecified means.
From purely emotional perspective, I completely understand why they are acting this way. The removal of the aircraft will have a material, negative impact on their company and its employees. Having said that, some some negative impact was unavoidable as the airline simply has too high operating costs. Either management engaged with labor on reducing those costs (ala Comair) and also reduced overheads, or they would shrink. Atlantic Coast was faced with this same choice when United was in bankruptcy. Like XJT, they too chose to avoid the difficult choice and instead remove aircraft and go at it alone. History has show, not only was that the wrong course of action, but it clearly shows the negative impacts to their employees was dramatically higher than what would have been had they only worked to preserve their business relationship with United. Yet strangely XJT management and labor seem to be walking, arm in arm, down the same path but hoping for different results? I am afraid they won't find what they are looking for.
Not only was Atlantic Coast's actions devastating for their airline, employees and shareholders, but in an ironic way it was bad for all regional airlines. By implementing a reckless business plan they also fueled an artificial demand for 50 seat regional jets to replace their former United flying. With Atlantic Coast in liquidation and their old aircraft now floating around the market of displaced RJ's, that glut is now coming home to hurt the entire industry. To once again artificially remove 69, 50 seat RJs which Continental will surely replace in some form or fashion, is harmful to XJT, its employees and shareholders and the rest of us working in this industry.
For our part, our agreement with Continental remains in effect and I feel we are well positioned to assist CO in replacing some quantity of the withdrawn aircraft; although we will do so with the knowledge that this was not the best outcome for any of us involved in this situation.
#27
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,144
Likes: 801
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Hate to break it to you my friend but YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!
That "memo" you're talking about calls for 210 upgrades by the end of June. 130 RJ CA's, 80 EMB CA's, 90 Transitions (EMB FO - CRJ FO) and 310 new hires (180 RJ & 130 EMB).
That's 3 times that amount you've listed above. These numbers are only taking into account our attrition rates and the positions we currently have open, no growth other than what's already on the books. (To date we're still understaffed)
PILOT CLASS DATES 2008
Jan 7.....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Jan 14....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Jan 7.....30 EMB NEW HIRE
Jan 7.....14 EMB CA
Jan 28....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Feb 4.....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Feb 4.....20 EMB HIRE
Feb 4.....14 EMB CA
Feb 18....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Feb 25....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Mar 3.....20 EMB NEW HIRE
Mar 3.....14 EMB CA
Mar 10....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Mar 17....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Mar 26....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Mar 31....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Apl 7......20 EMB NEW HIRE
Apr 7.....14 EMB CA
Apr 21....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Apr 28....20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
May 5.....20 EMB NEW HIRE
May 5.....14 EMB CA
May 12....20 RJ NEW HIRE
May 19....20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Jun 2......20 RJ NEW HIRE
Jun 9......20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Jun 2......20 EMB NEW HIRE
Jun 2......10 EMB CA
Jun 23....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Jun 30....20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
TFO = Transition FO's
That "memo" you're talking about calls for 210 upgrades by the end of June. 130 RJ CA's, 80 EMB CA's, 90 Transitions (EMB FO - CRJ FO) and 310 new hires (180 RJ & 130 EMB).That's 3 times that amount you've listed above. These numbers are only taking into account our attrition rates and the positions we currently have open, no growth other than what's already on the books. (To date we're still understaffed)
PILOT CLASS DATES 2008
Jan 7.....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Jan 14....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Jan 7.....30 EMB NEW HIRE
Jan 7.....14 EMB CA
Jan 28....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Feb 4.....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Feb 4.....20 EMB HIRE
Feb 4.....14 EMB CA
Feb 18....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Feb 25....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Mar 3.....20 EMB NEW HIRE
Mar 3.....14 EMB CA
Mar 10....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Mar 17....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Mar 26....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Mar 31....10 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Apl 7......20 EMB NEW HIRE
Apr 7.....14 EMB CA
Apr 21....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Apr 28....20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
May 5.....20 EMB NEW HIRE
May 5.....14 EMB CA
May 12....20 RJ NEW HIRE
May 19....20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Jun 2......20 RJ NEW HIRE
Jun 9......20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
Jun 2......20 EMB NEW HIRE
Jun 2......10 EMB CA
Jun 23....20 RJ NEW HIRE
Jun 30....20 RJ CA / 10 RJ TFO
TFO = Transition FO's
#28
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
O.K. I was still closer than the person who said 10 years, so I guess I was merely proving them wrong, but you're ExpressJet High School remark is just a childish as your accusations.
#30
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
[quote=JetJock16;281631]Sorry to bust your bubble but SWA doesn't want us to fly A380's..................its Emirates and we’re open our Dubai domicile in June! First reports are for 100 a/c spilt between A380's and B1900's. LOL!
quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks that was just what I needed

quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks that was just what I needed


Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



