SKW in LAX

Reply Subscribe

Page 7 of 7

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

07-28-2008 | 12:51 PM

#61

JetJock16

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2006

Posts: 2,963

Likes: 0

From: SkyWest Capt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevets

No offense taken. Just wondering what your line of reasoning was. It sounds reasonable on the face of it. But if what you say is true of SFO and LAX, why wouldn't it be true of IAD or even ORD?

Well……………………that could happen.

07-28-2008 | 04:47 PM

#62

Nevets

Banned

Joined: Dec 2007

Posts: 2,934

Likes: 0

From: EMB 145 CPT

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetJock16

Well……………………that could happen.

I'm just want to know why your same reasoning of SFO and LAX was not used for IAD and ORD. What's the difference?

07-28-2008 | 05:18 PM

#63

JetJock16

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2006

Posts: 2,963

Likes: 0

From: SkyWest Capt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevets

I'm just want to know why your same reasoning of SFO and LAX was not used for IAD and ORD. What's the difference?

The main difference is the amount of flying. Additional LAX and SFO flying, caused by the parking of UAL’s 73’s, shouldn’t be enough to warrant the cost associated with bringing in a new codeshare.

Now………what are you talking about? Mesa’s contract for 380+ daily UAX departures being canceled or the parking of UAL’s 73’s and the additional flying that might create out east. If you’re talking about Mesa’s flying then they could just spread it out amongst everyone although I would expect it to go out for bid, if and when UAL finally gives JO and Co the boot. But, if you’re talking about the 73 flying out east then I’m sure the same will happen in IAD and ORD (with all UAX carriers) as will happen with SKW in LAX and SFO.