Originally Posted by TonyWilliams (Post 698222)

Who didn't see that one coming !!!! For the very survival of SkyWest (in it's current form) they have to keep UAL going, whether a cash handout, "investment", buy out, etc.

Originally Posted by JetJock16 (Post 697409)

It's United..........they don't care about what makes good business sense [fifty seat regional jets]. They only care about screwing their own labor groups.

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams (Post 698233)

I remember at a meeting with Jerry/Chip that UAL actually liked the 50 seaters in some markets, 'cuz they made sense. Sending in a 70, or 90, or 110, or whatever machine that has lower per seat cost doesn't make sense if the plane isn't mostly full.

It's still cheaper to have 40 pax in a 50 seat CRJ, than 40 pax in a E-175 or B737. Some of those pax want to get on a big bird to somewhere on a ticket that cost beau coup bucks. If UAL doesn't provide it, somebody no doubt will.

Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 698153)

I can't remember, but wasn't that flying restricted to the SPECIFIC tail numbers of the AVRO? Thought I saw that on a commute one time.

Originally Posted by UAL ALPA Scope Section

1-C-1-d Number of Block Hours of Feeder Flying
In each calendar year, the number of scheduled block
hours of Feeder Flying may not exceed the number of
scheduled block hours of Company Flying.

1-C-1-f Feeder Carrier Operation of Small Jets Larger than 50 Seats (jets for jobs)
A Feeder Carrier may perform Feeder Flying operating
Small Jets with a certificated seating capacity in excess of
fifty (50) seats if it also provides job opportunities to
furloughed United Pilots in accordance with Letter of
Agreement 03-22.

1-K-10 "Feeder Carrier" means a Domestic Air Carrier that,
when engaged in code sharing with the Company:
1-K-10-a Does not operate any aircraft that utilizes an
engine with an external propeller ("Turbo/Prop Aircraft")
other than Turbo/Prop Aircraft that are certificated for
seventy-eight (78) or fewer seats and have a maximum
permitted gross takeoff weight of less than seventy-five
thousand (75,000) pounds; and
1-K-10-b Does not operate any aircraft that utilizes a
turbine-driven engine without an external propeller ("Jet
Aircraft"), other than Small Jets.

1-K-22 "Small Jets" means (a) Jet Aircraft that are
certificated in the United States of America for seventy (70)
or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight
of less than eighty thousand (80,000) pounds and (b) up to
eighteen (18) specific aircraft with certificated seating
capacity in excess of seventy (70) seats operated by Feeder
Carrier Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. ("AWAC"). These
eighteen aircraft are identified as the "AWAC Quota".
Currently, the AWAC Quota is filled by BAe-146 aircraft with
the following tail numbers: N463AP, N179US, N181US,
N183US, N606AW, N607AW, N608AW, N609AW, N610AW,
N611AW, N612AW, N614AW, N615AW, N616AW, N290UE,
N291UE, N292UE, and N156TR. AWAC may replace any
aircraft within the AWAC Quota with: (i) any other BAe-146 or
AVRO 85 aircraft each with no more passenger seats than
were carried in the actual operation of the replaced aircraft,
or (ii) any other aircraft with a maximum certificated seating
capacity in the United States of eighty-five (85) seats and a
maximum certificated gross takeoff weight in the United
States of up to ninety thousand (90,000) pounds.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 698323)

I'm pretty sure (but not 100% sure) that language is from UAL ALPA's post-BK contract.

Originally Posted by blastoff (Post 697850)

likewise, just because 13 ac are announced for ASA, don't assume UAL is done awarding flying, otherwise all the Mesa folks would be on here celebrating UAL not cancelling them.

Originally Posted by NightHawk (Post 698648)

Just want to clarify, there is nothing to cancel and nothing to renew. The contract is up. End of story. The flying will go to regionals who are willing fork out money, followed by the cheapest bidders.

Originally Posted by Lambourne (Post 698633)

The "loan" from SKYW will never have to be repaid by UAL. Seeing as how the amount is not that great. I am guessing this was UAL's estimate of the amount of monetary penalties that ASA would pile up for lack of performance in the new UAX operation.

L

Originally Posted by Lambourne (Post 698633)

The "loan" from SKYW will never have to be repaid by UAL. Seeing as how the amount is not that great. I am guessing this was UAL's estimate of the amount of monetary penalties that ASA would pile up for lack of performance in the new UAX operation.

L

Originally Posted by Gunga Galunga (Post 698941)

kindly do us all a favor and keep your ignorant, baseless remarks to your UAL threads. I doubt anyone at ASA who has worked hard over the past few years trying to turn around the operation appreciates your .02

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 697596)

Skywest is getting 11% ROI on their $80M investment

Originally Posted by ERJFO (Post 698977)

It's not really an 11% ROI. You need to account for opportunity cost and inflation. Even if the opportunity cost is zero it's more line 8%-9% ROI. Also not mentioned is the risk of the deal. Don't get me wrong, I think it was a good deal for SKYW but it's not an 11% ROI.