Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
SkyWest looking to buy MAG, XJT, or both >

SkyWest looking to buy MAG, XJT, or both

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

SkyWest looking to buy MAG, XJT, or both

Old 05-02-2008, 09:59 AM
  #101  
Furlough line holder
 
andy171773's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: CRJ2, ATR, CRJ7, E145, 737
Posts: 1,845
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Both Mesa and XJT have a branded divisions producing large losses; their fee-for-departure business is profitable. Never the less, I spoke in absolutes and you rightfully called me on it.

But since you asked...I believe Allegiant is the only passenger airline other than SWA and fee-for-departure regionals that have thus far reported or are projecting a profit for Q1'08.

PNCL's report is due out May 8th; they are projecting a profit.

RJET reported a profit April 24.

SKYW's report is due out May 7th; they are projecting a profit as well.

No way to definitively tell with TSH & AWAC as both are private...but I'd say its a safe bet Hulas and the Amigos aren't operating at a loss (more like a 7-10% margin).
Comair made a profit
andy171773 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 10:27 AM
  #102  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Default

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
Rights to be organized ? We have that "right" now. We've used that right; 3 times. JA is abiding by our collective wishes by protecting us from the very union that we just said no to, for the second time. The very union that USA said no to, and kicked out. And Colgan said no to. The very union that is sueing SkW in some bizarro deparate attempt to disable the pilot organization that we have (hope you enjoy your dues money being used for that).
Our Holding Letter would require him to merge seniority list. That would lead to a representation vote. That is what he does not want. I don't think it has anything to do with the SKW pilots' wishes. As for sueing, you quickly forget that a federal judge had to put an injunction on SKW management to force them to comply with federal laws during the last drive. Why did a judge have to tell JA to abide by federal law? I'm sure its because he wants his pilots to have the basic right to organize.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
Let me state categorically that JA will not cut any deal which will encumber SkW pilots, who have already turned down a union multiple times, to be forced into a union. Based on his comments in ORD, I'd say that the pilots of XJT will have the final word on a sale, and in my opinion, JA wins either way. Bought with his provisos, or bought at auction in pieces. Or not bought at all. But he won't hurt us.
Let me state categorically that JA will not cut any deal which will encumber SKW Inc. He is a very astute businessman. If the deal is right, he would do whatever was best for the shareholders regardless of his "at-will" employees.

You keep forgetting that the CAL letter has kept the door open on XJT to come to terms with CAL with savings on the magnitude that SKW was offering and stay independent. There wont be any pieces in that case.

[quote=TonyWilliams;377956]
Obviously, CAL wants to cut a better deal with XJT, or use SkW (sounds like we're moving in to CAL anyway, XJT or not). I'm not sure what the best answer for XJT is on that, but I'm sure that all the parties involved knows what's best for them. Unfortunately, the airline business is replete with examples of folks holding out until total failure.[/qoute]

I wouldn't be surprised if SKW starts doing business with CAL even if the XJT falls through. I could see SKW doing something like Colgan is now.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
Ok, I got the number from somebody else's post. What number would you like me to use ? I don't care how much it was; it wasn't a penny of my money. How about a gazillion dollars ? Let's see, full page ad in USA Today ($150,000-ish maybe?), advertising in airports (tens of thousands), legal bills still ongoing (staff attorneys don't work for free), full time ALPA officer shacked up in SLC for the whole drive (some five figure amount), lots of free drinks and meals ($$$$$$$ thanks, by the way :-), travel expenses and hotels for organizing committee ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$). Give me a number.
Ok, I'll tell you where you got that figure from. That $5 million was money allocated from the ALPA MCF for the purpose of organizing pilot groups, not just SKW. This money is/was also for SKW, AWA/USA, Colgan, CommuteAir, JetBlue and others I can't remember right now. This is not a one time expense. Its money that can/will be used as necessary going forward. As for the SKW drive itself, its more like $300k that was spent.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
One thing that I've learned in my short time around the unionized airline business is that those "rights" get trampled on more times than we "at-will" employees at SkW. Makes for a good sound bite, though.
Kind of sounds like the FAA NATCA relationship. But you wouldn't have given being part of NATCA just because "those 'rights' get trampled on." Its not a sound bite and your prior union experience should tell you that.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
Ok, well we've discussed this. JA is against it, the pilots at SkW would be against it. Even if JA didn't care whether we got screwed over in the deal or not, he doesn't have to look far in the airline world to see what a mess that can be VERY quickly.
I agree that JA is against it. I was just responding to someone who said it couldn't happen when in fact it could regardless of SKW Inc being ONLY a holding company.

But even if he wasn't, if there was a SKW/XJT seniority integration, it would be negotiated between XJT MEC and SKW management. Much different than when two pilot groups try to negotiate between themselves.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
That's a good point. If XJT guys vote to be integrated into a non-union list, more power to them. Yes, they should be cool with that, if that's what they choose. But I can imagine them signing off on that, only to start union drive #4 at SkW a week later.... which is fine, but frankly, I'm personally tired of the drama with that.

And if that union drive fails, what do we have ? P*ssed off union guys in our ranks.
There wouldn't be a union drive a week later. It would trigger be a representation election immediately. Which means they can decertify if the majority would be "cool with that, if thats what they choose." If the union drive fails, you would have at least less than 50% p*ssed off anyways. Kind of like you had 35% of SKW pilots p*ssed off right now.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
So what is a "pilot"? Are you saying that we are not real "pilots" like you guys???

What about US Airways and Cactus?
They are union as well.
Nevets is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 12:09 PM
  #103  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Exclamation

Originally Posted by Nevets View Post

They are union as well.
Oh, OK. So are you saying that non-union pilots are not "real" pilots?

What about ex-union pilots who left the fold after the union proved it was unable to protect basic working conditions, contractual provisions, and human dignity?

Answer carefuully, you're on thin ice here...
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 12:13 PM
  #104  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
You honestly think that mainline pilots are going to give scope relief for 100+ seat airplanes after what has happened with RJs? Not even UsAir guys would give up the E190s, and if you think guys feel like they're too good to fly them then tell me why there are stacks of apps at UsAir and JetBlue.

The 70+ seaters were a result of BK and threatened loss of retirments. That's ammo has been all used up, so they will have to find something new.
Under normal circumstances, no I don't think any mainline group is likely to give up much scope going forward. I'm just asking you to remember this conversation the NEXT time things get really tough, and the company comes looking for concessions. Give 'em some money if you have to, you can always get that back later...but scope is like the genie in the bottle, no way to stuff it back in after it's out
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 12:30 PM
  #105  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Under normal circumstances, no I don't think any mainline group is likely to give up much scope going forward. I'm just asking you to remember this conversation the NEXT time things get really tough, and the company comes looking for concessions. Give 'em some money if you have to, you can always get that back later...but scope is like the genie in the bottle, no way to stuff it back in after it's out

You got it! I never wanted it to get out in the first place, and I'm sure you didn't either. Money will come and go, but seniority and scope are forever. I learned early to always remember that, even if you're flying the widebodies.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 09:05 PM
  #106  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Oh, OK. So are you saying that non-union pilots are not "real" pilots?

What about ex-union pilots who left the fold after the union proved it was unable to protect basic working conditions, contractual provisions, and human dignity?

Answer carefuully, you're on thin ice here...
You insinuated that US Airways was not union. Your conversation with SAABaroowski was about union pilots. US Airways is unionized, just not ALPA. That is all I was trying to say. A better example you could've used is Virgin America.
Nevets is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 09:41 PM
  #107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

Originally Posted by Nevets View Post
Our Holding Letter would require him to merge seniority list. That would lead to a representation vote. That is what he does not want.


We're saying the same stuff over and over. Yes, the status quo is exactly what you claim. But that's not what JA is offering.



I don't think it has anything to do with the SKW pilots' wishes. As for sueing, you quickly forget that a federal judge had to put an injunction on SKW management to force them to comply with federal laws during the last drive.


I doubt we'll come to a meeting of the minds on this issue.



Let me state categorically that JA will not cut any deal which will encumber SKW Inc. He is a very astute businessman. If the deal is right, he would do whatever was best for the shareholders regardless of his "at-will" employees.


And we probably won't agree on this either. But, I'd be happy to bet a sizable amount of money on your assertion.

I claim that JA will not disregard the workforce, any more than he has in past airline purchases. Obviously, JA has a duty to the shareholders. Again, I'm confident enough on that to put my money where my mouth is.

I'd be happy to put the money in an escrow account, winner take all. How confident are you ? Say, $1000 ? You pick the date by which all the horrors will happen to us bad "at-will" employees.



You keep forgetting that the CAL letter has kept the door open on XJT to come to terms with CAL with savings on the magnitude that SKW was offering and stay independent. There wont be any pieces in that case.


No, haven't forgotten. Sure, if that works out for you guys better than a buyout, go for it. I foresaw three options... buy on JA's acceptable terms, buy the pieces, or DON"T BUY AT ALL.




Kind of sounds like the FAA NATCA relationship. But you wouldn't have given being part of NATCA just because "those 'rights' get trampled on." Its not a sound bite and your prior union experience should tell you that.


The US government air traffic controllers have voluntarily voted in an open shop union every time is was offered. And for good reason. Pilots at most airlines have a closed shop union, presumably for equally good reasons or fears. So far, those reasons or fears haven't manifested themselves at SkW.

In ATC, those rights are trampled, disregarded, or violated in a manner that would make Mesa's Mr. Ornstein blush. The ATC union is largely powerless for over 600 days now to stop unilaterally imposed work and pay rules, and return to the contract.

None of this has, or is happening at SkW. So, your question is would I give up the parts of the ATC contract to be "bought out". Don't know... anything is probably better than what is currently in place.

The more logical question is would I make the changes JA wants if I were an XJT guy ? Don't know. Sorry, too personal of a decision to put myself in your shoes.



But even if he wasn't, if there was a SKW/XJT seniority integration, it would be negotiated between XJT MEC and SKW management. Much different than when two pilot groups try to negotiate between themselves.


Ya, I agree it would be much different than recent ALPA seniority integrations. Thankfully so.



There wouldn't be a union drive a week later. It would trigger be a representation election immediately. Which means they can decertify if the majority would be "cool with that, if thats what they choose." If the union drive fails, you would have at least less than 50% p*ssed off anyways. Kind of like you had 35% of SKW pilots p*ssed off right now.

We don't have 35% P/O'd. That many did vote for a union, but they didn't have one taken away (that presumably they wanted) like would be the case with XJT pilots.

Again, JA won't do this if the only option is basically forcing SkW pilots into a union that we don't want. How much ya willing to bet ?
TonyWilliams is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 11:37 PM
  #108  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Default

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
We're saying the same stuff over and over. Yes, the status quo is exactly what you claim. But that's not what JA is offering.
Well, you were saying you have the right to organize. I was just saying JA doesn't want to integrate because that would trigger that right again. This is thee only reason why he doesn't want to.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
I doubt we'll come to a meeting of the minds on this issue.
Nothing to agree on. I stated fact on the federal judge's injunction against SKW management during the last drive.


Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
And we probably won't agree on this either. But, I'd be happy to bet a sizable amount of money on your assertion.

I claim that JA will not disregard the workforce, any more than he has in past airline purchases. Obviously, JA has a duty to the shareholders. Again, I'm confident enough on that to put my money where my mouth is.

I'd be happy to put the money in an escrow account, winner take all. How confident are you ? Say, $1000 ? You pick the date by which all the horrors will happen to us bad "at-will" employees.
JA will do what is best for the shareholders. In this case, I agree that he wont disregard the pilots (because thats in the best interest of the shareholders). There is a good reason why he doesn't want any of this labor groups unionized and its not because he is looking out for them as much as the shareholders.

As for "horror stories." I only hear the real bad ones like DD. It seems like only judges can make SKW do the right thing sometimes.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
The US government air traffic controllers have voluntarily voted in an open shop union every time is was offered. And for good reason. Pilots at most airlines have a closed shop union, presumably for equally good reasons or fears. So far, those reasons or fears haven't manifested themselves at SkW.

In ATC, those rights are trampled, disregarded, or violated in a manner that would make Mesa's Mr. Ornstein blush. The ATC union is largely powerless for over 600 days now to stop unilaterally imposed work and pay rules, and return to the contract.

None of this has, or is happening at SkW. So, your question is would I give up the parts of the ATC contract to be "bought out". Don't know... anything is probably better than what is currently in place.

The more logical question is would I make the changes JA wants if I were an XJT guy ? Don't know. Sorry, too personal of a decision to put myself in your shoes.
By law, federal government employees can only have open shops (if they can even unionize at all). Not so with airlines. But most airlines are open shops or union shops.

Anyways, I guess you are right. As at-will employees you don't have many rights and since you don't have a contract, there is nothing for management to trample, disregard, and violate. So it kind of solves the whole problem to begin with. But just imagine if you did have a contract with your current management that honors whatever work rules they have that day. They wouldn't trample, disregard, or violate it.

But as an air traffic controller you would be willing to be bought out by the lowest bidder? Then you would be working for LM.

As for what JA wants, it depends on what he could offer us in return. It could be a good deal in the long run for the XJT pilots.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
Ya, I agree it would be much different than recent ALPA seniority integrations. Thankfully so.
The fact that it would only involve one pilot group would make all the difference in the world.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
Again, JA won't do this if the only option is basically forcing SkW pilots into a union that we don't want. How much ya willing to bet ?
I agree that JA wont do this if the only option is basically forcing SKW pilots into a union. But its not because the pilots don't want it. Its because JA doesn't want it.
Nevets is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 05:14 AM
  #109  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

Originally Posted by Nevets View Post
Well, you were saying you have the right to organize. I was just saying JA doesn't want to integrate because that would trigger that right again. This is thee only reason why he doesn't want to.

The union choice (right) is ongoing. A vote is an action. We've executed our ongoing right on 3 occasions with action... via a vote.

We both agree that neither JA, the SkW board, nor most shareholders want a union. What you don't seem to fully acknowledge is that collectively, the pilots here don't want a union either. Our company and its employees are consistent on this issue.

Introducing a scenario that would most probably alter that would not be appreciated by any of the stake holders listed above.


As for "horror stories." I only hear the real bad ones like DD. It seems like only judges can make SKW do the right thing sometimes.

We all agree that Don was a bad deal. The former chief pilot who fired Don is now just a lowly pilot with the rest of us. A judge didn't force SkW to reassign him. Management did, for hopefully obvious reasons.

With the very rare exception of that former CP, the pilots feel that we have a largely good group running the show. Sounds like XJT pilots feel the same way.

Don's situation was an exception, and not the rule. And in the end, whether Don was at SkW or XJT, the process was similar. A third party adjudicated the end result. I predict you'll want to then point out that ALPA would have paid for his legal bills, but also point out that he didn't spend two decades paying dues either. And all his legal bills are covered as part of the judgment (to my knowledge, anyway).


Anyways, I guess you are right. As at-will employees you don't have many rights and since you don't have a contract, there is nothing for management to trample, disregard, and violate.

Tired old rhetoric. You're entitled to you opinion, and so are we.


But as an air traffic controller you would be willing to be bought out by the lowest bidder? Then you would be working for LM.

Lockheed treats their employees better than the FAA. My opinion. But I'm not a proponent of privatized government and user fees.

The biggest issue in the change over from government to private is the grotesque way employees are treated... yes, union employees. Guys with 24 years and 364 days of federal service... sorry Charlie, no retirement pension for you !

It should be law to offer a pro rata pension. Don't worry, if we get McSame in the White House, you will see LockMart, Boeing, or whoever sucking off the government teet for ATC services.

To bring this back to XJT guys coming to SkW, the union issue will be the single biggest issue for we SkW pilots. Not list integration... that would be easy. So, again, I predict that XJT (if bought) would be held separate, like ASA, or merged with ASA. You and I can disagree on the reasons why that might transpire.


As for what JA wants, it depends on what he could offer us in return. It could be a good deal in the long run for the XJT pilots.

This potentially brings value to SkW shareholders, with the associated risks. For line pilots at SkW, there's not much in it. Our pay isn't going up or down, and according to you, the only thing we have to look forward to is a union that 65% of us don't want.

While I don't foresee your outcome, I do see greater benefits for XJT pilots than SkW pilots.

Last edited by TonyWilliams; 05-03-2008 at 05:30 AM.
TonyWilliams is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:24 AM
  #110  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: A-320
Posts: 6,929
Default

Guys its very simple, If SkyWest buys us, we would remain a separate airline, owned by "SkyWest" holdings. Apparently some of our savvy lawyers have dissected our contract and we could remain a separate pilot list if we are bought, without changing any part of our contract
JoeyMeatballs is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
SkyWest
16
04-19-2015 08:19 AM
Jack Bauer
Regional
25
11-01-2008 02:29 PM
meritflyer
Regional
36
01-14-2008 08:32 PM
Brown
Regional
20
11-21-2007 04:37 PM
Tech Maven
Money Talk
9
05-27-2006 06:19 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