FlyASA

Personally I think the fuel hike summer '08 made them realize that the -200 is about as valuable as an empty beer can. The vast majority are going to disappear as quickly as Delta can make them since there are only a few to no routes that -200s can make money on when oil is that expensive. I think management wanted to diversify our portfolio by getting -900s. I've heard rumors of more 2-1 swaps, I have no idea where these -900s would come from but if given the opportuninty I wouldn't be surprised to see us take them.

The United RFP rumor has been around for awhile and I just don't see us getting it for a couple of reasons.

1. We aren't an established UAX carrier
2. I believe 9E is bidding and they are cheaper and put up better performance numbers than us

I really really hope I am wrong but I just can't get my hopes up about anything in this industry anymore. On the bright side though I can never be disappointed if I set my expectations low.

Trip7

Quick question for you, where will 9E get the airplanes if they win the flying?

Skywest Inc is one of the best managed companies I've ever seen. They do an excellent job. I don't think they would have went ahead with the 900 deal if they didn't think they could find a home for the 20 200s. The key fact is why Delta agreed to 2010 for the pull back date and not 2009. I spoke to JA. He's a very smart guy. He knows there are a couple regionals out there on their deathbed and he knows the opportune time to move in.

Skywest has nearly 1 billion in cash and is by far in the best shape financially. Look at it this way, in 5 years not all the regionals you see today will exist, but Skywest surely will. My prediction, by the end of October, ASA pilots will be VERY happy.

Also, if Delta decides to sell Compass, Skywest will win that bidding war hands down no questions asked end of story

Panama Jones

I'm cautiously optimistic about finding flying for the 20 airframes in the Spring. Naturally most of the rumours focus on UAX flying out of Dulles, based on the RFP that went out. ASA may also choose to fly at-risk for Delta, something I understand Skywest Airlines is doing now for a portion of their fleet. I relatively confident those airframes will not be sent to the desert, but you never know. I doubt we'll know for sure for some months to come. United may tell Mesa to stop flying their 20 or so CRJ-200s tomorrow, and ASA may win the RFP, but I don't expect it to be announced right away.

As for the no-furlough clause, I am also confident that management will not cross this line unless things are extremely dire. It would be in violation of the contract, which is quite clear. This will precipitate a lawsuit and likely a court injunction, earning the company nothing but ill will and legal expenses in the short run. The only way around this is if the union grants relief, which I believe (hope) they would only do if things were truly catastrophic, like Delta threatening to pull our contract in 2010.

ASA may not be as beloved as SkyWest by Inc., but Inc. is a publicly traded company and has a definite vested interest in making ASA successful, and not just SkyWest Airlines.

Banshee365

I've been all ove ALPA and their reps about the no-furlough clause and all have personally assured me they will not give up what they have bargained for regarding the no furlough clause. Whether that means something or not it at least makes me feel better. I made sure that they all knew that's what we're all paying dues for.

TP199

this is killing me. have any of you even read the no furlough section of the contract. in the first sentence, it says the company will not furlough any pilot.........except in circumstances over which the company has no control. the term 'circumstances over which the company has no control' includes, [B]but is not limited too[B].......

the company has 'no control' over a lot of things. they have no control how many block hours delta gives us mainly. they could furlough as many as they wanted right now if delta cut our hours enough. and it would be perfectly acceptable under the agreement.

im not saying that they are going to furlough, im just saying they could and it would be legal, and there is nothing we would be able to do about it.

JetPipeOverht

Too much of the contract was written in language that can be best understood by someone with a law degree and has delta as the signee of their paychecks. Every single word/area that you speak of has terms that can be contrued in any way possible by the company, while the pilots are the ones to pay for it or deal with the situation at hand. This last contract was signed and voted in way too early by people who left directly afterwards and got their bonus checks and did not have to operate under said contract...

Banshee365

Maybe you should read a little further...

The term “circumstances over

current operations.

What other reason than those would the company furlough? They could try and say they are doing more furlough for future operations but even that has alot of grey area where the contract would be given the benefit of the doubt in court as it's obvious they would just be trying to get around it somehow.

Bottom line is, if it was as easy to get a hole in the contract as YOU say it is then ASA wouldn't have furloughed 57 on the last round. They would have went further than the VERY FIRST pilot hired after the contract was signed.

Alot of you guy's complain about the no furlough clause no being with a piece of toilet paper or whatever you guy's try and cleverly come up with. But the truth is the clause has already saved ALOT of our butts. Quit acting like it is worthless becaues it's not.

TP199

i didnt say it was worthless and i agree that it has saved a few pilots' jobs. but instead of saying, we are furloughing because the economy sucks, they will say, we are furloughing because delta has reduced our hours. this clause will be a lot easier to circumnavigate than we think.

afterburn81

The highlighted sentence falls under a category in which the company has full control over. You are thinking exactly like any corrupt management would like you to think. So what you are saying is that the company did NOT make the decision to keep all of it's eggs in one basket? It totally slipped the minds of the bean counters when they committed to selling every seat to Delta and Delta only. They have full control over the situation ASA is currently in. The reason they would have to furlough would be due to the financial status of the company (lost block hours = less revenue) as a result of the economy. Which is written in pretty powerful language and agreed to by the company that this is a circumstance in which the company has control.

You need to be a little more creative or less naive.

FlyASA

I really hope we find a home for those 20 CRJs in the spring. I'd hope that if we do that would give us some recalls, but who knows?