Has anyone heard about this? Skywest and AA
12-18-2012 | 06:30 AM
#11
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Careful paxhauler... we're dealing with a badass here.
Tony - as I said, they got it for a steal of a price - MAYBE at a loss. The general understanding at AA/AE (where I work) is that Skywest operates them at a loss. Now, over on the Skywest side, they may be taking AA to the bank for what they are charging. Who knows, but with the current climate of 50 seat flying, the price to operate those -200s would have to be pretty low, don't you think? Especially since the Skywest LAX deal is only a 4 year contract.
Tony - as I said, they got it for a steal of a price - MAYBE at a loss. The general understanding at AA/AE (where I work) is that Skywest operates them at a loss. Now, over on the Skywest side, they may be taking AA to the bank for what they are charging. Who knows, but with the current climate of 50 seat flying, the price to operate those -200s would have to be pretty low, don't you think? Especially since the Skywest LAX deal is only a 4 year contract.
Here we go again: "general understanding" means nothing. Show me the contract. Oh, nevermind, it's confidential.
So which do you work for? AA or Eagle. Because you make it sound like they're one in the same.
Again, if people didn't make stuff up to sound smart, these forums wouldn't exist. Just fly the airplane and let the MBAs worry about this stuff. You're just a pilot like the rest of us.
12-18-2012 | 06:32 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: CRJ700 F/O
Careful paxhauler... we're dealing with a badass here.
Tony - as I said, they got it for a steal of a price - MAYBE at a loss. The general understanding at AA/AE (where I work) is that Skywest operates them at a loss. Now, over on the Skywest side, they may be taking AA to the bank for what they are charging. Who knows, but with the current climate of 50 seat flying, the price to operate those -200s would have to be pretty low, don't you think? Especially since the Skywest LAX deal is only a 4 year contract.
Tony - as I said, they got it for a steal of a price - MAYBE at a loss. The general understanding at AA/AE (where I work) is that Skywest operates them at a loss. Now, over on the Skywest side, they may be taking AA to the bank for what they are charging. Who knows, but with the current climate of 50 seat flying, the price to operate those -200s would have to be pretty low, don't you think? Especially since the Skywest LAX deal is only a 4 year contract.
Here we go again: "general understanding" means nothing. Show me the contract. Oh, nevermind, it's confidential.
So which do you work for? AA or Eagle. Because you make it sound like they're one in the same.
Again, if people didn't make stuff up to sound smart, these forums wouldn't exist. Just fly the airplane and let the MBAs worry about this stuff. You're just a pilot like the rest of us.
12-18-2012 | 06:35 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
12-18-2012 | 06:40 AM
#14
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,131
Likes: 797
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
It's unlikely that SKW would bid anything at at loss baring very unusual circumstances. They could afford to park 200's rather than fly them at a loss, depending on what made more sense.
They can probably outbid mesa due to the massive economy-of-scale advantage. Also rumored that mesa has big maintenance bills coming on engines that they would have to amortize into a short-term contract, jacking the price. Also possible the Airways is finally just making good on it's threats to boot mesa...easy to do with the 200's, but harder with the 900's since OJ owns them and there's no excess inventory in the desert that SKW could acquire on short notice. Those 900's (and the fact that there aren't any surplus laying around in the desert) are the only thing keeping mesa alive.
They can probably outbid mesa due to the massive economy-of-scale advantage. Also rumored that mesa has big maintenance bills coming on engines that they would have to amortize into a short-term contract, jacking the price. Also possible the Airways is finally just making good on it's threats to boot mesa...easy to do with the 200's, but harder with the 900's since OJ owns them and there's no excess inventory in the desert that SKW could acquire on short notice. Those 900's (and the fact that there aren't any surplus laying around in the desert) are the only thing keeping mesa alive.
12-18-2012 | 06:43 AM
#15
Does NOT get weekends off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: ERJ - 145
It's unlikely that SKW would bid anything at at loss baring very unusual circumstances. They could afford to park 200's rather than fly them at a loss, depending on what made more sense.
They can probably outbid mesa due to the massive economy-of-scale advantage. Also rumored that mesa has big maintenance bills coming on engines that they would have to amortize into a short-term contract, jacking the price. Also possible the Airways is finally just making good on it's threats to boot mesa...easy to do with the 200's, but harder with the 900's since OJ owns them and there's no excess inventory in the desert that SKW could acquire on short notice. Those 900's (and the fact that there aren't any surplus laying around in the desert) are the only thing keeping mesa alive.
They can probably outbid mesa due to the massive economy-of-scale advantage. Also rumored that mesa has big maintenance bills coming on engines that they would have to amortize into a short-term contract, jacking the price. Also possible the Airways is finally just making good on it's threats to boot mesa...easy to do with the 200's, but harder with the 900's since OJ owns them and there's no excess inventory in the desert that SKW could acquire on short notice. Those 900's (and the fact that there aren't any surplus laying around in the desert) are the only thing keeping mesa alive.
12-18-2012 | 06:51 AM
#16
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
You're funny too. Nice technique to claim you were just flamebaiting when someone else tells you you don't know what you're talking about.
12-18-2012 | 07:19 AM
#17
*********
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
Common knowledge"? Bahahaha. Show me the contract. Oh wait, it's confidential, so I guess "common knowledge" really isn't that common. But then web forums wouldn't exist if people didn't just make stuff up to sound smart either.
Oh yeah, I'm Billy Badass in the Internet. My momma must be so proud.
Here we go again: "general understanding" means nothing. Show me the contract. Oh, nevermind, it's confidential.
So which do you work for? AA or Eagle. Because you make it sound like they're one in the same.
Again, if people didn't make stuff up to sound smart, these forums wouldn't exist. Just fly the airplane and let the MBAs worry about this stuff. You're just a pilot like the rest of us.
Oh yeah, I'm Billy Badass in the Internet. My momma must be so proud.
Here we go again: "general understanding" means nothing. Show me the contract. Oh, nevermind, it's confidential.
So which do you work for? AA or Eagle. Because you make it sound like they're one in the same.
Again, if people didn't make stuff up to sound smart, these forums wouldn't exist. Just fly the airplane and let the MBAs worry about this stuff. You're just a pilot like the rest of us.
Just going off of the buzz on these very forums back when SKW was awarded the airways contract.
Think what you will, but if you think any of these airlines won't do anything and everything they have to - to compete and stay in business, you're crazy.
They inked this agreement during a horrific financial downturn, so this idea of flying at a loss isn't exactly inconceivable. But you would know, since your one of their pilots.
12-18-2012 | 07:36 AM
#18
Underpaid...
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,101
Likes: 0
From: French-Canadian
Your "understanding" about the 200s is incorrect. If you think SkyWest Inc will ever bid a contract below cost, you know nothing about SkyWest Inc.
IF (big if) this rumor about the 900s is true, it's probably because SkyWest named their price and AA shot it down. Which means they either go back to the table, or SkyWest places the airplanes with someone who WILL pay the asking price.
Go ahead and name a few.
IF (big if) this rumor about the 900s is true, it's probably because SkyWest named their price and AA shot it down. Which means they either go back to the table, or SkyWest places the airplanes with someone who WILL pay the asking price.
Go ahead and name a few.
12-18-2012 | 07:51 AM
#19
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Skywest places the airplanes with someone who will pay the asking price? You do understand that it will likely be AA who leases the airplanes and subleases them to SKW! AA lives this game it does it at Eagle and I would think it will keep the accounting games moving forward. Also no more Delta 900s since they are going to pinnacle so that only leaves United as the other option and if AA announces larger RJs going elsewhere United will be able to get their way with SKW or there will be no future for SKW likely after the contracts expire. SKW is not immune to the gene. Great company, smart management but they are still subcontractors in a regional whipsaw scheme
12-18-2012 | 07:52 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Skywest places the airplanes with someone who will pay the asking price? You do understand that it will likely be AA who leases the airplanes and subleases them to SKW! AA lives this game it does it at Eagle and I would think it will keep the accounting games moving forward. Also no more Delta 900s since they are going to pinnacle so that only leaves United as the other option and if AA announces larger RJs going elsewhere United will be able to get their way with SKW or there will be no future for SKW likely after the contracts expire. SKW is not immune to the gene. Great company, smart management but they are still subcontractors in a regional whipsaw scheme
