|
We already have the contract if we want it.
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
(Post 394316)
With a newly-minted contract with CAL worth $, why would Jerry not go after it??
Because we like you say already have the contract. CAL is the owner of the 145 aircraft that XJT operates and will provide SKYW with airplanes. There will be plenty of 145 drivers to hire or we train if necessary and the contract does not start untill 2009. If we buy XJT and the branded operation and/or the rest of the operation gets worse then it can cost more to keep XJT operating than the profit of buying it. We can diverse and operate CAL flying without XJT and in these times it is better to be careful and not go for too much. Nothing negative ment against XJT or their pilots. |
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394460)
[/b]
What:confused:??? Dont you know by now that Skywest can get CAL flying without buying XJT? Talk about not opening newspaper. CAL has already negotiated a contract with Skywest and Skywest has already the E-145 certificate from the FAA. It is not only Skywest that wants diversity. CAL is also looking for other operators for the regional lines as they also want diversity and not having to rely on just a couple of operators. What I know it was CAL that approached SKYW not the other way around. Buying XJT is taking responsability for them in the future and why do that? SKYW can get CAL flying without XJT. Nothing negative against XJT. I wish them the best. |
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394465)
[/b]
Because we like you say already have the contract. CAL is the owner of the 145 aircraft that XJT operates and will provide SKYW with airplanes. There will be plenty of 145 drivers to hire or we train if necessary and the contract does not start untill 2009. If we buy XJT and the branded operation and/or the rest of the operation gets worse then it can cost more to keep XJT operating than the profit of buying it. We can diverse and operate CAL flying without XJT and in these times it is better to be careful and not go for too much. Nothing negative ment against XJT or their pilots. |
I do think Skywest is wise to pursue additional flying w/ Continental...It's like being a fund manager for a mutual fund in that an operator should look to diversify their codeshare flying w/ as many different airlines as possible. In other words, don't put all of your eggs in one basket. It minimizes risk. Right now it does look like Delta (think Mesa lawsuit) and United will be trying to trim domestic capacity substantially to keep costs as low as possible. Last I checked, much of Skywest's flying is contracted out by these two carriers. So they're being pro-active and going after flying w/ Continental. They're mitigating risk, which is what well managed companies do.
|
Originally Posted by tpersuit
(Post 394461)
Well good luck with that. RAH got the flying from them last year and now it is being pulled and given to you. So go ahead and take it, it's not XJT that is losing it right now, its RAH. Who do you think is playing who here?
The game has been going on for ever and the Big airlines has always done what they are doing with the regionals. The question was why SKYW should buy XJT and someone said for the CAL flying. I said SKYW can get the CAL flying without buying XJT and taking long term risk. Just that. If XJT is not loosing the flying CAL is giving to SKYW then even better. I am glad for XJT. |
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394465)
[/b]
Because we like you say already have the contract. CAL is the owner of the 145 aircraft that XJT operates and will provide SKYW with airplanes. There will be plenty of 145 drivers to hire or we train if necessary and the contract does not start untill 2009. If we buy XJT and the branded operation and/or the rest of the operation gets worse then it can cost more to keep XJT operating than the profit of buying it. We can diverse and operate CAL flying without XJT and in these times it is better to be careful and not go for too much. Nothing negative ment against XJT or their pilots. http://i13.picdrive.com/2e9dqb6x2d6a.jpg |
Originally Posted by Bond
(Post 394468)
You are clearly not familiar with our CPA with CAL. We get first rights on the aircraft released from service by CAL, what makes you think we would just hand them over. We kept all 69 last time. I think you're getting ahead of yourself here, the CPA that CAL established with skw was heavily relying on buying out XJT...which is no longer an option on the table if you've been reading....so again where are the frames coming from?
|
RAH hasnt lost anything we havent known about since the beginning. the CRJs have been on this schedule since they were leased. End of story. The ERJ flying is thru 2012 at the earliest.
|
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394470)
[/b]
The game has been going on for ever and the Big airlines has always done what they are doing with the regionals. The question was why SKYW should buy XJT and someone said for the CAL flying. I said SKYW can get the CAL flying without buying XJT and taking long term risk. Just that. If XJT is not loosing the flying CAL is giving to SKYW then even better. I am glad for XJT.
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
(Post 394475)
RAH hasnt lost anything we havent known about since the beginning. the CRJs have been on this schedule since they were leased. End of story. The ERJ flying is thru 2012 at the earliest.
|
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394460)
[/B]
What:confused:??? Dont you know by now that Skywest can get CAL flying without buying XJT? Talk about not opening newspaper. CAL has already negotiated a contract with Skywest and Skywest has already the E-145 certificate from the FAA. It is not only Skywest that wants diversity. CAL is also looking for other operators for the regional lines as they also want diversity and not having to rely on just a couple of operators. What I know it was CAL that approached SKYW not the other way around. Buying XJT is taking responsability for them in the future and why do that? SKYW can get CAL flying without XJT. Nothing negative against XJT. I wish them the best. The deal that CAL negotiated with SKY was CONTINGENT on the buyout of XJT. This is DIRECTLY from the people at CAL. That contract that has "already" been negotiated referenced it in the original, no? Like I said, if there has been a new release or letter, please post it. |
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394474)
Well what I know is that CAL is very interested of seing SKYW operate for them so they probably will find a way. CAL is looking for more diversity and knows that SKYW is the most solid of the regionals right now. That's a fact.
|
From Tpersuit: Hermann I noticed you fly the CRJ-900, heres one for you...
Thanks for the nice pic but that is not a 900. It is our old aniversery 200 and I have not seen it since I was based in ORD. And yes I fly the 900 on the Delta side. |
Either way...stop acting like they have arbitrarily pulled the flying from CHQ, when the REALITY is our company knew going in that these airframes and flying would go away slowly starting this fall. I dont think it is in dispute that RAH mgt was hoping for ( not promised as some idiots on this board have stated ) that scope might be relaxed at CAL, that hasnt happened ( yet ... and anybody who uses the word NEVER is just delusional, I dont want it relaxed but never say never or you might just eat your words ) so we are living up to our end of th agreement....flying comes and goes in this business.... hell we had nearly 350 hours of DAL open time appear on our ATL open time reports AFTER the bids were published, it was flying that obviously somebody else couldnt cover and we could. Flying as a contractor as we all do comes and goes every month to some extent. When it all shakes out in the end I suspect the likes of SKW, XJT, AWAC and RAH will still be around.
|
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394482)
Thanks for the nice pic but that is not a 900. It is our old aniversery 200 and I have not seen it since I was based in ORD. And yes I fly the 900 on the Delta side.
|
Originally Posted by dojetdriver
(Post 394479)
Has there been a new press release or letter put out by CAL's people that I missed?
The deal that CAL negotiated with SKY was CONTINGENT on the buyout of XJT. This is DIRECTLY from the people at CAL. That contract that has "already" been negotiated referenced it in the original, no? Like I said, if there has been a new release or letter, please post it. When I read that letter I found it very hard and could almost not believe CAL would send that to XJT. |
Originally Posted by Bond
(Post 394480)
There is no available aircraft in the market, and you're telling me that papa CAL will magically make them appear out of thin air? Whether or not CAL has interest in diversifying more feed is irrelevant, if the frames are not available, I suspect Colgan will be seeing more Q400 flying....welcome to reality my brother.
|
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394490)
What I saw in the letter from CAL to XJT it said clearly that CAL wanted XJT to accept SKYW offer or they would loose the flying anyway. Maybe I read it wrong or did not understand it clearly...................
When I read that letter I found it very hard and could almost not believe CAL would send that to XJT. "In connection with your consideration of such offer, we wanted to inform you of our understanding with SkyWest regarding a new capacity purchase agreement (“CPA”) and our intentions regarding our existing contractual relationship. First, we confirm that we have negotiated a new CPA with SkyWest, which would become effective if SkyWest is successful in acquiring ExpressJet (which, in turn, is subject to due diligence, among other things), and that we would consent to the change of control that would occur upon such an acquisition." Like I said, if they have negotiated something SINCE then, please post it. As far as being surprised that CAL would do that, we weren't. Not after they elected to exercise the option to pull the first 25%. Many guys thought that "CAL would never do that to us, they like us too much". Whatever, it's business, XJT was LUCKY to be operating under the umbrella of a CPA that was exclusive to CAL, kinda like AE for the relative "security" that it provided. CAL simply elected to do what just about every other legacy has done to their regional feed with the means that were at their disposal. Put the squeeze on and get the cost down, and diversify in the process. |
Originally Posted by tpersuit
(Post 394492)
You LAX based?
|
I dont think it is in dispute that RAH mgt was hoping for ( not promised as some idiots on this board have stated ) that scope might be relaxed at CAL, that hasnt happened ( yet ... and anybody who uses the word NEVER is just delusional It's no secret that adding a new fleet type (CRJ 200) is an expensive task, and it was a gamble.....it didn't work and as you say easy comes, easy goes. |
Who said anything about dreaming. And I am on the record...SEVERAL times as saying that I would prefer scope not be relaxed. But let me also say I was at a meeting in 1993ish when the then Head of APA of which Eagle at the time was a part said in the most terse terms... that EAGLE pilots would NEVER ..NEVER ....NEVER fly jets for AMR.....
just saying NOTHING in this life or job is 100%. We can only hope the status quo stays what it is. |
Originally Posted by Bond
(Post 394499)
Talk to any CAL pilots lately? Not going to happen brother, but hey dreaming is free.
They (CAL pilots) conceded last time. And look how well CAL did on the backs of their employees. But how high can they keep the bar this time around? I hope they keep it, but god it's going to suck if they give. Even in the littlest bit. Not really much to brag about, but how ironic would it be if the little ol' regional pilots at XJT stayed firm on scope to prevent a buyout by a non-union carrier, but the CAL guys decided to give it up? |
Originally Posted by dojetdriver
(Post 394507)
Like I said, it's not over till it's over. I'm not singling out CAL, but many other legacies talked tough on scope and caved anyway. CAL can't play the same cards that most others played for scope relief. But more and more, the deck is stacked in CAL management's favor.
They (CAL pilots) conceded last time. And look how well CAL did on the backs of their employees. But how high can they keep the bar this time around? I hope they keep it, but god it's going to suck if they give. Even in the littlest bit. Not really much to brag about, but how ironic would it be if the little ol' regional pilots at XJT stayed firm on scope to prevent a buyout by a non-union carrier, but the CAL guys decided to give it up? Would be ironic, but the fact is that over one third of their current work force came from XJT, and over half from the regionals...all those guys have been able to witness the byproducts of scope relaxation. Although not impossible, improbable is a better word, heck, lately I've been jumpseating and even the old guys have truly surprised me. They're p!ssed enough as it is on account of the Q's, I guess we'll see, they start section 6 next month. |
Originally Posted by Bond
(Post 394497)
Negative...H-town, but LAX is my second home :D
guess it was, good last name to have though. edit: nevermind, your first name start with a F? |
[quote=Bond;394480]There are no available aircraft in the market, and you're telling me that papa CAL will magically make them appear out of thin air? Whether or not CAL has interest in diversifying more feed is irrelevant, if the frames are not available, I suspect Colgan will be seeing more Q400 flying....welcome to reality my brother.[/quote
I never said that. I may not be right in what I am about to say but I think that if CAL do not renew a contract with any operator it would free aircraft that was flown under that contract. Also, MESA is clearly using the last tube of oxy, now they may last a few months more but not years for sure. TSA is trying to sell some of their 145s, Embraer itself have 145s from other operators not only in the US but also around the world for sale so to say that there are no 145s on the market is strange. By 2009 there may be a lot of 145s for sale if SKYW would like to lease or own any and would not be provided the aircraft by CAL from whatever contract they did not renew (strange). Do you say that XJTs contract (even if CAL does not renew the contract)prevents CAL from giving any airplanes to any other operator that they might sign a contract with? So even if CAL does not renew a contract with XJT, XJT gets to keep the aircraft under that contract that was not renewed? aircraft that are owned by CAL? That sounds a bit to strange to me................. |
[quote=HermannGraf;394548]
Originally Posted by Bond
(Post 394480)
There are no available aircraft in the market, and you're telling me that papa CAL will magically make them appear out of thin air? Whether or not CAL has interest in diversifying more feed is irrelevant, if the frames are not available, I suspect Colgan will be seeing more Q400 flying....welcome to reality my brother.[/quote
I never said that. I may not be right in what I am about to say but I think that if CAL do not renew a contract with any operator it would free aircraft that was flown under that contract. Also, MESA is clearly using the last tube of oxy, now they may last a few months more but not years for sure. TSA is trying to sell some of their 145s, Embraer itself have 145s from other operators not only in the US but also around the world for sale so to say that there are no 145s on the market is strange. By 2009 there may be a lot of 145s for sale if SKYW would like to lease or own any and would not be provided the aircraft by CAL from whatever contract they did not renew (strange). Do you say that XJTs contract (even if CAL does not renew the contract)prevents CAL from giving any airplanes to any other operator that they might sign a contract with? So even if CAL does not renew a contract with XJT, XJT gets to keep the aircraft under that contract that was not renewed? aircraft that are owned by CAL? That sounds a bit to strange to me................. As a I said earlier the CPA that was struck with skywest was contingent upon a purchase of XJT, rightfully allowing the holding company to shift assets. No purchase, no assets, and now you guys got to get creative! Furthermore, you're assuming that CAL is not going to renegotiate with us, and that the CPA with skywest is a done deal...it's not, if it is someone please post the release, this is all speculation guys, and we're not going to find out who will be flying for CAL, and with what aircraft for a while. |
[quote=Bond;394557]
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394548)
I'm not going to copy and paste our whole CPA, but here's how it works, under the provisions of the current contract, which is still in effect for a few more years; we have first rights to the aircraft that are released from the CPA. Two years ago we exercised such option, and that's how Branded, Charter, and Delta came into existence. Again, whether they renew the CPA or not, it is irrelevant as we will operate under such terms until the last aircraft is gone. So as you can see, it's a bit of a gamble...CHQ took it, and suddenly found themselves fishing out old CRJ's out of the junkyard. The question now becomes, does J.A. gamble that we will return the frames? If we find folks to fly them for, we will, and guess what? You better hope other carriers are selling them by the dozen. As a I said earlier the CPA that was struck with skywest was contingent upon a purchase of XJT, rightfully allowing the holding company to shift assets. No purchase, no assets, and now you guys got to get creative! Furthermore, you're assuming that CAL is not going to renegotiate with us, and that the CPA with skywest is a done deal...it's not, if it is someone please post the release, this is all speculation guys, and we're not going to find out who will be flying for CAL, and with what aircraft for a while. |
Originally Posted by tpersuit
(Post 394531)
Just saw a person on the LAX FO list that has that last name. Thought your name was a nickname, but it seemed too coincidental :rolleyes:
guess it was, good last name to have though. edit: nevermind, your first name start with a F? |
Originally Posted by Bond
(Post 394514)
Would be ironic, but the fact is that over one third of their current work force came from XJT, and over half from the regionals...all those guys have been able to witness the byproducts of scope relaxation. Although not impossible, improbable is a better word, heck, lately I've been jumpseating and even the old guys have truly surprised me. They're p!ssed enough as it is on account of the Q's, I guess we'll see, they start section 6 next month.
But with all those guys at CAL you mentioned, there are ALSO guys that may not be to that way of thinking. The class of the mid 80's, corporate/135 dudes, mil guys, or the FO's from (insert regional airline here) that went over. They may have little, or NO experience with negotiations. IE, they haven't been through it before. Not picking on CAL pilot's specifically, or the guys I mentioned, just pointing it out. SOME just simply may not be armed with the experience this whole process. And no, I haven't been in the front of a CAL plane lately. I spent plenty of in the front on DAL/UAL BOTH pre 9/11 and post 9/11. Pre 9/11, it was interesting to hear the conversations of what they wanted and what they wouldn't settle for. Although they got A LOT in those CBA's, some of the talk would make you laugh. After 9/11, it was the same. Guys would talk about what they want and what they won't settle for. It doesn't matter sector of the airlines guys work, or what company they work for. We pilots are all human. We will talk a tough game, but when the info in presented, the vote is made, you'd be surprised with how the chips fall. At my previous employer we went through plenty of negotiations. Some good, some not. It was the same, all of us talking, at the end making the decision that may or may not have been what it was before we had the info/facts. I remember at my company, and UAL, and CAL when they took concessions, hearing guys always say "I voted no". I always wondered, if EVERYBODY seemed to vote NO, how did ANYTHING get passed? |
To the original question on this thread, I vote no.
|
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
(Post 394660)
To the original question on this thread, I vote no.
|
Why?
Why would any of us care at SKYW about xjet? Who cares. Another SkyW'r who sets the parking brake, turns off the cell phone and goes home to play with my kids.
And to the tool who posted the picture and "unionism" under it.... Ah, forget it. You'll never understand. |
On one hand, I would like the additional growth and job security. On the other, I certainly don't want it at the expense of someone losing their jobs or going back to first year pay, like Skyway. Like someone else said, how long will it be before it is me worrying about losing my job? If getting expressjet meant upgrades, who wouldn't want it? But at the expense of someone losing their jobs, I would rather not know that I am flying an airplane at the expense of someone who is now on the street.
I have come to believe that it is all a crap shoot. A year ago, Trans States is running one year upgrades and now those guys are back in the right seat. From what I have seen in three years in the 121 world, it is all luck. So to answer your question I believe is a catch 22. |
Originally Posted by dontsurf
(Post 394062)
i don't know why i waste my time. "thank you for playing"??? at least you made my point for me. good lord. thanks for hijacking the thread, guys. at least i got one real response. i still would like to know from the rest of the skywest pilots where your feelings fell on this thing...
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394161)
talk about needing to relax.
Who do you think made the money for Skywest Inc. yes Skywest Airlines,....and the money that they paid for ASA?, Yes Skywest Airlines. And who do you think made all the cash that Skywest Inc is trying to invest in buying another company? Yes Skywest Airlines and in the future hopefully ASA too. So when any of our pilots say that "we bought" another company like when we bought ASA it is because it was done with money that we among others working at Skywest Airlines made for Skywest Inc. Without Skywest Airlines and the money from its operation Skywest Inc would not exist in the first place. Skywest Airlines and Skywest Inc being two different companies is just a financial strategic (for tax, investment and financial protection) issue and we (at least me) does not see it like two different companies but more like two departments of the same company.
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 394166)
It is not over.
Lets no forget that CAL announced their plans to pull 51 aircraft from XJT, and to let their CPA expire in the next 4 years. Because I have lots of friends still at Expressjet, I was hoping that the Skywest buyout would go through. XJT is losing money and their cash balance is starting to reach a critical phase. I think the Skywest buyout could have been successful if done any one of several ways. An all out merger of Skywest, ASA, and XJT A merger of ASA/XJT and keeping non-union Skywest separate What if XJT pilots traded the merge the seniority list scope for a scope clause that said "any and all future flying done by Skywest Inc on behalf of CAL will be done by XJT pilots." There are plenty of ways this buyout could have been successful. I just wish a few of the XJT pilot APC members would have gone into this situation with an open mind. Looking at the current scenarios, the best future for XJT pilots is to be bought by Skywest. Rather than trying to fight the buyout, XJT pilots should be negotiating with Skywest to ensure their future. If Skywest says no to an all-out merger, then come up with another offer. Offer XJT to be a separate company, but have them sign a LOA stating the XJT certificate cannot have less than 274 aircraft, or 25% of all Skywest Inc flying. There are plenty of solutions out there. Don't give up yet. I would hate to see XJT liquidate. Honestly, the best thing for Skywest pilots is to see XJT fail and have SKW fly their 145's for CAL. But it sounds like most the Skywest pilots on this board (except Slaphappy) do want to see the XJT pilots treated better than that. Also, the buyout scenarios are fine but the SKW didn't want that. They wanted the Holding Letter gone. Its too bad that SKW management didn't have an open mind to the XJT MEC's proposals. So its all moot now.
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
(Post 394275)
Did Jerry pee in your Cheerios or something?? Hell, I wouldn't blame him...
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394294)
I do not think that JA would say anything negative about ASA to us. What would be the point in that?
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
(Post 394332)
If our roles were reversed, I assure you I'd be echoing your exact sentiments. But what has you convinced that huge concessions would have been on your horizon??
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394460)
What I know it was CAL that approached SKYW not the other way around. Buying XJT is taking responsability for them in the future and why do that? SKYW can get CAL flying without XJT.
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394474)
Well what I know is that CAL is very interested of seing SKYW operate for them so they probably will find a way. CAL is looking for more diversity and knows that SKYW is the most solid of the regionals right now. That's a fact.
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 394490)
What I saw in the letter from CAL to XJT it said clearly that CAL wanted XJT to accept SKYW offer or they would loose the flying anyway. Maybe I read it wrong or did not understand it clearly...................
When I read that letter I found it very hard and could almost not believe CAL would send that to XJT. |
Originally Posted by Nevets
(Post 395584)
Somehow I question your sincerity seeing as that Skywest pilots have their own private forum which you could post your question if you only want Skywest pilots responding.
|
Originally Posted by dontsurf
(Post 395619)
well that sure makes a lot of sense. "question your sincerity" = "you're lying". so let's see here. do you have access to skywest's private forums? if so, what is your name on there, since you claim to not work for skywest, i'd be very interested to know how you have access to it. given that you probably don't have access to it, how is it that you think you know whether i posted this question on that forum? given that maybe 1/2 of 1% of skywest pilots read that private skywest forum, or even know of its existence, i thought i'd get a better turnout here. is that too complicated for you to understand? why in the world would you question my sincerity? how ludicrous. i may think your fascination/obsession with skywest is bizarre, and i may disagree with your neo-communist rantings regarding unions, but i certainly don't "question your sincerity". you're amazing.
By the way, I don't care one way or the other if you or anyone else here questions my sincerity or questions anything I write here. I don't take it personal. |
but do you take it personally?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands