Originally Posted by fortyeight

20 new 175’s to Mesa is hilarious. Republic is clearly transitioning and setting themselves up to be a Delta only carrier.

Originally Posted by JuniorFO

I think that could be accurate, Delta is going to 3 carriers, that leaves them with Endeavor, SkyWest, Republic.

Originally Posted by 3400

At least you guys own nearly all your airplanes. Ask someone at CPZ how valuable that is.

AA is on a 65 seat kick. SkyWest CRJ-700s that were at 70 seats with UA and DL are now 65 seat -700s at AA, and AA can have as many as they want under the scope.

YX has a ton of 170s that could do this too. The new 175s come in as 175SCs for UA and DL flying, the 170s move to AA and gain a whole lot of new AA flying for you guys. That’s the writing I see on the wall.

Originally Posted by Meow1215

I have no dog in this fight, FWIW - in my opinion I doubt YX pilots should be worried about losing AUX/AA flying. You still serve three important goals.
1. Whipsaw the other partners.
2. On-time performance in tough markets, thus helping goal number one.
3. Still cheaper than maineline bringing flying back in house.

You cost more than several of the other regionals sure enough, but you get put in more difficult markets because of it. Skywest and “preferred partners” cost less, they get softer markets. There is no need to start worrying.

Originally Posted by KCaviator

This has been the rumor for awhile. It could happen, but I don’t see DL and UA agreeing to transfer some aircraft off their CPA to benefit AA. Maybe if it means a newer product (175SC vs 170), but still doubtful.

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbachman/status/1204886048746201088

Apparently AA and YV are discussing putting 65 seats on the old -900s. Assuming all of the -900s are converted, that opens the door for 64 (or whatever Mesa currently has) additional 175s. Maybe this is where our 100 aircraft order comes into play?

Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8

The issue people have with your posts are that you're completely blowing a couple of things happening well out of proportion.

Yes, it's frustrating that we didn't get some of the flying we'd obviously hoped to get. Yes, we currently have a big order for planes currently without routes to fly them on.

But your implication that the "writing is on the wall" for YX as a UAX carrier is just so completely baseless it undermines your overall credibility. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest we won't get our contracts renewed when they're up, and it's totally without foundation to suppose two contracts are evidence that UA is somehow distancing itself from YX.

Firstly, a lot has changed since we placed the order for those aircraft. The situation with ExpressJet vis-a-vis Skywest created a strategic opportunity for United to invest (indirectly) in a regional with a good growth opportunity. I suspect we had hoped for a lot of that flying, but it remains to be seen exactly how big ExpressJet can get.

This new Mesa order has almost nothing to do with us. It's also a net zero aircraft for them. This is United replacing 70 seat CR7s with 70 seat 175s so they can convert the previous CR7s and give them to the only existing 550 operator. I think it's fair to say if we had CR7s, they'd probably be in talks with us, too.

The only thing that Mesa gained from this was the extension of their existing flying, which is the part we were going after. United's willingness to extend that contract certainly shows that they're willing to settle for a comparatively mediocre operation for a cheap pricetag, which we all already knew anyway.

It does not, however, indicate an unwillingness to pay for YX, or that they are otherwise unhappy with YX's position as a part of their regional network. Could that be true? I suppose, but there's nothing that's happened lately that would lend credible evidence to that.

You're putting the cart well before the horse.

Originally Posted by avi8tor614

Can you tell me how much cheaper it was. Are you A$$uming our contract is cheaper than yours. Could you pull it up and show me, I'm curious as a YV driver. I hear all this we are cheaper contracts. I would like to see some current data, contracts, or reports that we are the cheapest labor. You said United were "willing to settle for a comparatively mediocre operation for a cheap pricetag, which we all already knew anyway." A muti-billion dollar airline willing to settle hmmmm. I guess they chose correctly if they think your pilots are that arrogant to think they settled on Mesa to represent thier Multi-billion dollar product. My CEO figures out ways to save money to keep the jobs going. I disagree with his tactics but I will say this. Contracts renewed, jobs extended, pay less than the rest of the industry; yes but job security insured. I'll be waiting to see who has cheaper agreement.

Originally Posted by flynd94

Insurance costs, 401k. There you go