Search

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Why??? 1X

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-11-2007, 08:58 PM
  #101  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,531
Default

Originally Posted by keiundraj
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M ASKING!!!!!!

The Pilot Group contracts Says they WON'T fly them... It's a CONTRACT!
Because mainline won't pay mainline wages to fly them. How would it benefit pilots to have $20/Hr mainline pilots?
blastoff is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 08:59 PM
  #102  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
keiundraj's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: E145 Right Side
Posts: 209
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC
I'm a bit puzzled why you're being so coy about your credentials. In your very first post on APC you announced that you are a product of Delta State University, where you received a B.S. in Aviation Management. (You had to change majors from Flight Operations due to to money -- perhaps you missed some critical areas in the switch.)

Your lack of knowledge of the aviation industry, the history of the airline industry, commuters, feeders, and regionals, and your communications skills all cast a shadow on the value of the education you received. You've got a lot to learn, and it's not going to be easy with the attitude you have here. Your first post ended with, "GET A GRIP. It's going to take me 150days to go from PPL-CFI CFII MEI. If I can do that Hats off to me, but don't be mad because it took you 4yrs." There are better ways to win friends and influence people.



Coy about credentials . . . maybe I do know. According to the Delta State website, they don't offer a Bachelor of Science in Aviation Mangement. Their College of Business has a Commercial Aviation department. They offer a Bachelor of Commercial Aviation degree. From their website, "Upon graduation, Flight Operations Majors hold at least a Commercial Pilot Certificate with Airplane Single and Multi-engine land and Instrument-Airplane ratings, along with a Flight Instructor Certificate." That sounds like what you're planning to get at ATP. I'm confused why you'd ditch that opportunity to go pay money for the same thing at ATP?

Oh, well. You're the bright one, not us.

You have a B.S.? BS!





.
You're right sir U did your Research, they do have Bachelors of Commercial Aviation, but there's 3 programs in the department. Management, Flight Ops and Airway Science. Unfortunately we're not all born into families that have money to pay for College and a 40K program on the side. I got my degree worked saved money to achieve my goal. Apparently too many of you people get a kick of proving people wrong... Guess this make up for some short comings in life. I'm not here to make enemies I tried to make a reasonable discussion to learn more about scope clauses. It's an issue in the industry that I'm trying to get into. I wanted to know more about it. I have a RIGHT to think and inquire what I please. You have the right to disagree. I'm by no means try to figure out who's the smartest here. I'm trying to learn something.
keiundraj is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:00 PM
  #103  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,531
Default

If you pay mainline wages to crews of RJ's, mainline will lose money on the RJ...so the proposition of flying RJ's mainline is a not-so-subtle attempt to lower the wages of junior pilots.
blastoff is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:02 PM
  #104  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
keiundraj's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: E145 Right Side
Posts: 209
Default

Originally Posted by blastoff
Because mainline won't pay mainline wages to fly them. How would it benefit pilots to have $20/Hr mainline pilots?
I'm just not getting the fact that you all are saying that the RJ aren't profitable. They're obviously profitable, so much so that a Major can pay another airline to fly the route and still make money for BOTH companies.
keiundraj is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:03 PM
  #105  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
keiundraj's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: E145 Right Side
Posts: 209
Default

My thought process leads me to the example of Southwest paying Continental to fly a route for them in the Same aircraft because it would be more profitable for them to do it this way.
keiundraj is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:03 PM
  #106  
Gets Off
 
md11phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Nordskog Industries Field Technician
Posts: 688
Default

RJs are not profitable.

Going to get noodles.

Phlyer, out.
md11phlyer is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:04 PM
  #107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,531
Default

Originally Posted by keiundraj
I'm just not getting the fact that you all are saying that the RJ aren't profitable. They're obviously profitable, so much so that a Major can pay another airline to fly the route and still make money for BOTH companies.
You're not getting it because you can't grasp that Regionals make money on those routes because of their low labor costs, not the equipment they fly...in fact, they were far more profitable flying turboprops.
blastoff is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:05 PM
  #108  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
keiundraj's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: E145 Right Side
Posts: 209
Default

I give up..... Apparently you guys think I'm some Young Idiot who's on here to start conflict. I know there's people out there who see where I'm coming from who's scared to speak on the topic for fear the the Geniuses will insult their intelligence.
keiundraj is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:09 PM
  #109  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
keiundraj's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: E145 Right Side
Posts: 209
Default

Originally Posted by md11phlyer
RJs are not profitable.

Going to get noodles.

Phlyer, out.
St. George, Utah—SkyWest, Inc. (“SkyWest”) (NASDAQ: SKYW) today reported operating revenues of
$789.0 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, a 6.2% increase, compared to $742.9 million for the
same period last year. SkyWest also reported net income of $34.8 million for the quarter ended March
31, 2007, an increase of 0.6%, or $0.53 per diluted share compared to $34.6 million of net income or
$0.57 per diluted share, for the same period last year. These results include the effect of SkyWest’s
adoption of FASB Statement No. 123(R), Share-Based Payments (“SFAS 123(R)”), effective January 1,
2006.
The significant items affecting SkyWest’s financial performance during the first quarter of 2007 are
outlined below:
Total operating revenues for the first quarter of 2007 increased primarily as a result of a 12.6% increase in
available seat miles (ASMs) which was offset by a reduction in yield per revenue passenger mile of 3.5%
and by a reduction in fuel cost reimbursements by SkyWest’s major partners that are recorded as
operating revenues under contract flying arrangements.
Total operating expenses and interest per ASM for the first quarter of 2007, excluding fuel charges, of
$218.1 million or $0.041 per ASM, increased approximately 1.0% to $0.099 from $0.098 for the same
quarter of 2006.
Total ASMs for the first quarter of 2007 increased 12.6% from the first quarter of 2006, primarily as a
result of SkyWest increasing its fleet size to 425 aircraft as of March 31, 2007, from 395 aircraft as of
March 31, 2006. During the quarter, SkyWest took delivery of 6 new CRJ900 regional jet aircraft and
acquired 10 CRJ700 regional jet aircraft from another operator. At March 31, 2007, SkyWest’s fleet
consisted of 352 regional jets (231 Delta, 117 United and 4 Midwest), 61 EMB-120 aircraft (48 United
and 13 Delta) and 12 ATR-72 aircraft (all Delta). During the first quarter of 2007, SkyWest generated
5.29 billion ASMs, compared to 4.70 billion ASMs during the same period of 2006.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2007, the controllable completion rates for SkyWest Airlines and
Atlantic Southeast Airlines (“ASA”) were 99.1% and 97.9% respectively. However, SkyWest Airlines’
operational on-time and baggage delivery performance was lower than expected performance for
achieving incentive payments. As a result, SkyWest was unable to collect approximately $3.9 million
(pretax) from its major partners for incentives under its capacity purchase agreements.
keiundraj is offline  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:12 PM
  #110  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cubflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Waiting for retirements
Posts: 232
Default

Originally Posted by keiundraj
I give up..... Apparently you guys think I'm some Young Idiot who's on here to start conflict. I know there's people out there who see where I'm coming from who's scared to speak on the topic for fear the the Geniuses will insult their intelligence.
Once again, You lack humility.Listen to what we are telling you! We live it day in and day out.......
cubflyer is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices