Captain Tony

You mean the United Corporations of America?

PeezDog

That would be the one!

Nevets

At least one person gets it.

Nevets

I haven't taken the time to look it up and I wouldn't put past attorneys to get away with unethical practices regardless, but it seems to me that the question to ask to see if there is a valid comparison, is to ask if Mesaba reported their earnings separately from Big Sky or any other company owned by Mair Holdings?

Flycameron

It's more like Disneyland. They might not make money at Disneyland but do make money at disneyworld. They are a corporation and can cut the losses at one without affecting or closing the other.

Same with PepsiCo. They might loose money on Pizza Hut but Make money on Pepsi soda. Being corporate America they can cut their losses on the one product and leave the other intact.

bedrock

If Disneyland is a money loser, they just shut it down. If they opt for bankruptcy, does that affect the credit rating of Skywest? What creditors are going to come after them. They do have a contract to provide lift for UAL, so BK could be the only way out of that, but that might severely affect their ability to borrow in the future. A wind-down allows them an orderly transfer of lift elsewhere. Now, it may be worthwhile to shrink XJT, THEN bankrupt it, as it will be near non-entity by that time.

xjtpilot

Why does INC waste money on 2 set's of management teams, 2 set's of office staff, 2 sets of office leases, etc? Why not combine Skywest Airlines with ExpressJet Airlines and save money with synergies? If the company is not looking to save money ANYWAY it can than why should I subsidize them with a concessionary TA?

NVUS

Lots of factors, the least of which are the financial burden of SkyWest to build and then maintain the facilities required to house such an operation in one location, and that's before you start mixing union and nonunion work groups.

ross9238

Isn't express jet part of the Atlantic Southeast Holdings or something of that sort...ultimately which is also part of the Skywest, Inc. umbrella. So they can dissolve the other holding company and its components in order to stay "profitable".

By the way, Nevets, I sincerely hope that you are not one to break any moral or ethical standards because you sure seem to act like you never have or never will. If indeed that is the case, you are a better person than most of us. If you haven't learned yet that corporate America does not care about the employees, you have been living a sheltered life thus far. It doesn't make it right but that's the way it is run so getting on here and constantly repeating the same rhetoric about morality is not going to change a damn thing.

Don't mistake what I said above to say that I'm willing to accept concessions and some of you on the L-XJT need to understand that the 83% didn't just comprise of the L-XJT group. Carry On...

Nevets

They don't have to combine operations into one set of facilities for dispatch and scheduling. In fact, they don't need to have one air carrier certificate. They would just need to consolidate management, HR, support staff, etc. Although in the long run, they would save more money by combining everything. The same reasons they touted to the investors the savings of $70M/yr by merging ASA and XJT, apply to Skywest Airlines as well. I don't think it's so much combining non-union/union work groups as it is just maintaining their whipsaw business model. Even all the employee groups at Skywest Airlines were union, they would still want to keep us separate in order to perpetuate that whipsaw business model.