Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   The latest Pinnacle RUMOR!!... (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/65070-latest-pinnacle-rumor.html)

ShyGuy 01-31-2012 01:03 PM


Originally Posted by etflies (Post 1126596)
You took flying at a loss to mean they're going to divest one entire certificate and a chunk of another?

You took "Those losses cannot continue" to mean we'll keep all of them in our fleet? You're in for a rude awakening very soon.



Not to feed the troll, but if that did happen, wouldn't getting rid of the props and some 900s put Pinnacle at a disadvantage?
Of course it would! But Phildo specifically under-bid the ATL 900 contract thinking it would only be a shoe-in and the rest of the flying gained from Delta would make up for it. That never materialized. The same thing with Colgan's Q operation. It was underbid, and bid based on wage rates of Colgan pre-JCBA. Now the labor rates are much higher and we pay for the fuel of the Qs and Saabs. The money coming in is not eualing the expenses to operate the props.

And no, cutting them wouldn't put us at a disadvantage, in fact, it would give us an advantage by increasing net liquidity $ of the company. Selling off assets raises money.

Fly782 01-31-2012 01:09 PM

Backruptcy by the end of 2011! O wait it is 2012 now...I actually think the opposite will happen, and were getting more Qs!

SHYGUY in 3....2.....1 . I can see it now, him running to the computer screaming NOOOOOO!!! Need to stop the madness with my FACTS...

O the huge manatee

2StgTurbine 01-31-2012 01:09 PM


Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 1126601)
Of course it would! But Phildo specifically under-bid the ATL 900 contract thinking it would only be a shoe-in and the rest of the flying gained from Delta would make up for it. That never materialized. The same thing with Colgan's Q operation. It was underbid, and bid based on wage rates of Colgan pre-JCBA. Now the labor rates are much higher and we pay for the fuel of the Qs and Saabs. The money coming in is not eualing the expenses to operate the props.

And no, cutting them wouldn't put us at a disadvantage, in fact, it would give us an advantage by increasing net liquidity $ of the company. Selling off assets raises money.

And then what happens when fuel goes up again and there is even more of an effort to get rid of 50 seat jets?

etflies 01-31-2012 01:10 PM


Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 1126601)
You took "Those losses cannot continue" to mean we'll keep all of them in our fleet? You're in for a rude awakening very soon.

I took it to mean something has to be done to fix it. What exactly that is, I don't know, but I do know better than to post something as "fact" when I have nothing concrete to back it up with except my own inferred conclusion.

I hope you're wrong, but I wouldn't discount the possibility either.

Silver02ex 01-31-2012 01:12 PM


Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 1126593)
It has been announced partially. The flying is at a complete loss, and those losses cannot continue. This isn't flamebait, this is based on factual statements.

Ok if this is fact, why does it matter what people on APC thinks? Is any of our opinion going to chnge anything? You seem to think you know everything with your post the last few months about the whole "bk will happen, you just watch, I told you so" figure it out yourself and not ask everyone about what they think.

Airsupport 01-31-2012 01:15 PM

This thread should be merged with the other pinnacle thread. Nothing new here. Shy just started a new one because we quit paying attention to him in the other and needed a headline grabber to feed his epeen. At minimum the thread title should be changed to "old pinnacle rumor thats been floating around since December but i thought i would create a new thread about it and act like its the latest and greatest."

mooney 01-31-2012 01:30 PM


Originally Posted by Airsupport (Post 1126609)
This thread should be merged with the other pinnacle thread. Nothing new here. Shy just started a new one because we quit paying attention to him in the other and needed a headline grabber to feed his epeen. At minimum the thread title should be changed to "old pinnacle rumor thats been floating around since December but i thought i would create a new thread about it and act like its the latest and greatest."

Careful...Shy just sent up PNCL stock up 50% today because some investors read this thread and like these facts......:rolleyes:

jayray2 01-31-2012 01:43 PM

How do you divest two airlines that are losing money? What does that mean anyway, divest? Isn't that what American has been trying to do for 10 years with Eagle? Doesn't someone have to buy this flying? Why would you buy flying that has the potential to put you out of business?

mooney 01-31-2012 02:31 PM


Originally Posted by jayray2 (Post 1126634)
Why would you buy flying that has the potential to put you out of business?

Same reason you would waste money to get a downtown skyscraper address rather than a 3 story building in Olive Branch at 1/2 the price.....ego got too big for his britches...

The Juice 01-31-2012 02:33 PM


Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 1126601)
we pay for the fuel of the Qs and Saabs. The money coming in is not eualing the expenses to operate the props.

United pays for the fuel for the Qs under the CPA.

Also, the Saabs receive a "passenger connect fee," from United. It varies and increases to help offset rising costs such as fuel. In IAH, this connect fee is renegotiated every 6 months depending on increased fuel and other costs.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands