|
Originally Posted by TogaParty
(Post 2142765)
I actually agree with you that UA is trying to greatly reduce their reliance on regional feed, which includes OO as is evident in the fact that our 700s aren't getting renewed.
The scope clause for the 50 seaters is tied to total narrow body fleet. More narrow bodies means more room for 50 seaters. As long as we can staff them, there will be 50 seater flying - either because UA wants us to, at risk or EAS. Why turn money away? |
Originally Posted by JB22
(Post 2142771)
They have also never had one of their biggest partners come to them and say "hey, just a heads up, but in a few years we will be taking our flying back". Unchartered territory lies ahead.
|
I'm actually a little surprised they haven't announced the start of 700 at risk flying. Parking them does help staffing.
|
Originally Posted by WesternSkies
(Post 2142813)
I'm actually a little surprised they haven't announced the start of 700 at risk flying. Parking them does help staffing.
Two reasons: 1. scope limitation - at least for UA. they are decked out with 175s once it is all set and done and cannot add more 70 seaters. At risk doesn't happen outside scope if it is operated under a UA flight number 2. most at risk markets / EAS markets barely fill a 200. No need for a 700. I expect that most of the 700s are gone for good. INC is taking one time charge for early lease terminations on them (refer to last earning calls), i.e. there is no reasonable plan to keep them flying - at least no plan that complies with US GAAP and SEC rules. |
Originally Posted by zondaracer
(Post 2142762)
Skywest has never furloughed pilots. If and when Skywest shrinks, they would just stop hiring most likely. |
Originally Posted by N1234
(Post 2142823)
Two reasons:
1. scope limitation - at least for UA. they are decked out with 175s once it is all set and done and cannot add more 70 seaters. At risk doesn't happen outside scope if it is operated under a UA flight number 2. most at risk markets / EAS markets barely fill a 200. No need for a 700. I expect that most of the 700s are gone for good. INC is taking one time charge for early lease terminations on them (refer to last earning calls), i.e. there is no reasonable plan to keep them flying - at least no plan that complies with US GAAP and SEC rules. As far as at-risk/EAS goes, I was under impression that while many at-risk routes are EAS they weren't one and the same. I won't publicaly post city pairs but some of those shouldn't be EAS. |
Originally Posted by N1234
(Post 2142823)
Two reasons:
1. scope limitation - at least for UA. they are decked out with 175s once it is all set and done and cannot add more 70 seaters. At risk doesn't happen outside scope if it is operated under a UA flight number 2. most at risk markets / EAS markets barely fill a 200. No need for a 700. I expect that most of the 700s are gone for good. INC is taking one time charge for early lease terminations on them (refer to last earning calls), i.e. there is no reasonable plan to keep them flying - at least no plan that complies with US GAAP and SEC rules. |
Originally Posted by WesternSkies
(Post 2142813)
I'm actually a little surprised they haven't announced the start of 700 at risk flying. Parking them does help staffing.
|
Originally Posted by ClickClickBoom
(Post 2142831)
If and when SKYW shrinks/stops hiring, reserve suicides will skyrocket......
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:18 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands