We would have been fine with SKW purchasing XJT, only problem was SKW wanted to run us separately like ASA which our contract does not allow. We were not willing to waive that because we did not want to be a part of the 3-way whipsaw. A strong union contract with strong scope language is a great thing, you guys at SKW should try it sometime.

None of you know what is going to happen to the regionals and most your "educated guesses" are so far off from what will most likely happen.

Check your facts Bucko. The MEC said it would put it to a vote but did not have a chance because the BOARD OF DIRECTORS did not accept SkyWest's proposal. If you want verification of this a quick google search will yeild your results.

You guys can be very brainwashed.

As of May 1, XJT will have 32 A/C flying for UAL...with the 10 "temporary" jets looking not so "temporary."

So you're saying that Hanley having been VP United Express and US Air Express, and the man who spearheaded RAH's purchase of E170's has nothing to do with it. Seeing as its no secret that XJT's board of directors desperately want: 1) UAL flying, 2) US Air Flying 3) E170's and you still can't see why they chose him?

He restructured a coal company and that's what you're basing your opinion on? "Specialized" in bankruptcy after taking one Coal Company back to profitability...right.:cool:

You need to do more research on this subject, and more research on XJT. You are unaware of a lot of facts. I wonder how CAL felt about republic flying CRJ200's (also 50 seats) for them? Oh, thats right, they are gone now. XJT quickly replaced that flying too, hows that for being a burden. The only burden for CAL is the 50 seat scope, otherwise XJT provides an awesome product for cheap.

Uncontinited Air Lines?

It all comes down to the contract with ALPA at CAL right now. No one knows what will happen until 1) the merger is finalized, 2) CAL group signs a contract (may not happen now until after the merger), and 3) both seniorities are merged under a single contract.

We're talking years of work here. If anything, we may see slow paring down UA 50 seat ops out of their hubs and of the XJT CLE fleet.

Again, this will be a loooooooong, drawn out process. No one is going anywhere for the time being.

Just my two cents. But what do I know.

CLE isn't going anywhere. Just like Delta and CVG, CLE will be "right sized" but CAL has been able to draw CLE down to a profitable mini-hub that is supported with O&D passengers as well as connections. It might get a bit smaller as some connections are sent to IAD and ORD but if they relinquish control, another airline will swoop in to take the market share.

Why did they sign brand new 10 year deals with UFS and TSA only to unceremoniously dump them shortly thereafter? We are talking about the black widow of commuter aviation here. SkyWest has the longest continuous 'relationship' with United and it only dates back 13 years. Even TSA had 15 years with TWA before the AA deal(whom they've continued on with). UA has left many a regional high and dry before with little thought to their respective carrier(s) size, service level, or network concentration levels. They did it during periods of expansion (Mesa, UFS, TSA, GLA), they've done it during periods of contraction (ACA, AirWis). All this without a merger over the period that would make such capacity reductions easier and more appropriate.

Given the history of the industry in general and UA in particular with feeders, I don't think any carrier can ever truly feel comfortable with their position relative to UAL-although plenty have over the years and likely continue to do so. Especially when you consider that in any merger of this size, there's usually a war chest of financing that comes about. Theoretically, it's there to safely support the cost of integration and provide appropriate reserve funds to the new larger entity. In reality we all know that it usually gets squandered on bonuses and other bs vs. anything operationally related, but it also could provide something relative to this discussion. Any moves to terminate or modify the current express contracts(outside of Mesa's BK) would likely be met by legal opposition from the respective carriers. The size of the new UA's war chest would likely allow them to haggle longer in court relative to their opponent and could basically serve as a catalyst for a deal being struck to reduce or eliminate service voluntarily.

UA's always has played dirty pool with feeders and there seems little reason to believe that this will be any different. Especially with capacity reductions likely and recalcitrant mainline groups needing to be appeased for the merger to go through smoothing. It's gets even more interesting when you look at what Republic has done by purchasing Frontier and Midwest. While I'm sure they haven't said much publicly about it for labor reasons, I find it hard to believe UA was anymore excited about those deals than they were when ACA bent them over the barrel in early 2002 on the FPD rate increases. Internally, they said that would deal with it in time and they most certainly did. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if history repeats itself there.

Delta is "right sizing" CVG into non-existance. It will be gone as a hub in the next year or two. The ER category will be moving to SEA in the next few months. DET is too close and a much better hub.