Would Skywest Sell ExpressJet?
03-16-2014, 03:35 PM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,071
So, you're comparing yourself to mainline???
Half-ass, would be XJT's operation both before and after Inc's purchase...
03-16-2014, 09:20 PM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJT Pilot
Man I wish they could find someone to buy us because SKYWEST has no idea how to run an airline that doesn't return to the hub after every flight. They just cant grasp that they bought 50% of Continental Airlines and it was being run as a airline. So what did they decide to do? Dumb it down to something they could comprehend! A regional!
Yeah Skywest Hasn't known how to run an airline for the last 40yrs I have no idea how they're profitable Has XJT EVER turned a profit??? If so, why did Inc buy you all so cheap???
Originally Posted by XJT Pilot
Man I wish they could find someone to buy us because SKYWEST has no idea how to run an airline that doesn't return to the hub after every flight. They just cant grasp that they bought 50% of Continental Airlines and it was being run as a airline. So what did they decide to do? Dumb it down to something they could comprehend! A regional!
Yeah Skywest Hasn't known how to run an airline for the last 40yrs I have no idea how they're profitable Has XJT EVER turned a profit??? If so, why did Inc buy you all so cheap???
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRJ100
I believe that ExpressJet, as a restructured entity, could be viable as a 100% pro-rate carrier. The reason that most 50 seat contracts are now loss making is that the majors believe that they are doing the regional carriers a favor by extending their contracts so that they do not have any tail risks or overstaffing. However, today's pilot crunch is going to break this model. There is a possibility that a profitable 50 seat contract may never be signed again.
By flying pro-rate, ExpressJet would be able to share directly in the success of failure of the route. They would also be able to choose where they fly. Without it, the chance that ExpressJet would be profitable by 2015 is almost zero.
Would SkyWest sell XJT? Hahah. SkyWest would sell SkyWest! And that's a publicly stated comment by the head about 12 years ago. I'm paraphrasing but basically they are always looking to buy and they will sell anything at the right price. Even the golden goose. It's just going to be at a lot higher price than XJT. In my opinion you'll see all the leadership in atl reshuffled before anything is sold. The more likely scenario is the profitable routes will be distributed to ASA/SkyWest and the 145 side will be used as a tax write off. Like RAH did with ChQ it's possible SkyWest would accelerate the closing of the loss driving side in order to mitigate attrition.
Originally Posted by CRJ100
I believe that ExpressJet, as a restructured entity, could be viable as a 100% pro-rate carrier. The reason that most 50 seat contracts are now loss making is that the majors believe that they are doing the regional carriers a favor by extending their contracts so that they do not have any tail risks or overstaffing. However, today's pilot crunch is going to break this model. There is a possibility that a profitable 50 seat contract may never be signed again.
By flying pro-rate, ExpressJet would be able to share directly in the success of failure of the route. They would also be able to choose where they fly. Without it, the chance that ExpressJet would be profitable by 2015 is almost zero.
Would SkyWest sell XJT? Hahah. SkyWest would sell SkyWest! And that's a publicly stated comment by the head about 12 years ago. I'm paraphrasing but basically they are always looking to buy and they will sell anything at the right price. Even the golden goose. It's just going to be at a lot higher price than XJT. In my opinion you'll see all the leadership in atl reshuffled before anything is sold. The more likely scenario is the profitable routes will be distributed to ASA/SkyWest and the 145 side will be used as a tax write off. Like RAH did with ChQ it's possible SkyWest would accelerate the closing of the loss driving side in order to mitigate attrition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAMushroom
The more likely scenario is the profitable routes will be distributed to ASA/SkyWest and the 145 side will be used as a tax write off.
The tax write off is not useful if you are losing real money. The ideal tax write off would generate losses based on non-cash expenses only. I do not think that OO would complain about a company making paper losses and generating real cash.
As part of my draft proposal, I envision transferring the Delta CR7s and CR9s to OO. The pilots could follow the jets or opt to fly new EV CR9s that would be brought in for at-risk flying. I am still trying to figure out whether 70 CR2s could be transferred to EV to replace the CR7s/CR9s on an interim basis. I am guessing that the CR7s and CR9s at EV are based at DTW and ATL. In order to make this work, a maintenance base swap may have to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRM114
I do think it's ridiculous to suggest that contract extensions throughout the industry are done as "favors".
What would you call below cost flying that DL doesn't need, but can use?
Originally Posted by JustAMushroom
The more likely scenario is the profitable routes will be distributed to ASA/SkyWest and the 145 side will be used as a tax write off.
The tax write off is not useful if you are losing real money. The ideal tax write off would generate losses based on non-cash expenses only. I do not think that OO would complain about a company making paper losses and generating real cash.
As part of my draft proposal, I envision transferring the Delta CR7s and CR9s to OO. The pilots could follow the jets or opt to fly new EV CR9s that would be brought in for at-risk flying. I am still trying to figure out whether 70 CR2s could be transferred to EV to replace the CR7s/CR9s on an interim basis. I am guessing that the CR7s and CR9s at EV are based at DTW and ATL. In order to make this work, a maintenance base swap may have to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRM114
I do think it's ridiculous to suggest that contract extensions throughout the industry are done as "favors".
What would you call below cost flying that DL doesn't need, but can use?
Oh, and BH transfers over with his seniority as well!
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJT Pilot
XJT is not Mainline. I never said that. I'm not gonna explain it to you because till you work for an operation or at a mainline carrier you will have no idea what im talking about because your used to half-ass.
**you're****
So, you're comparing yourself to mainline???
Half-ass, would be XJT's operation both before and after Inc's purchase...
Originally Posted by XJT Pilot
XJT is not Mainline. I never said that. I'm not gonna explain it to you because till you work for an operation or at a mainline carrier you will have no idea what im talking about because your used to half-ass.
**you're****
So, you're comparing yourself to mainline???
Half-ass, would be XJT's operation both before and after Inc's purchase...
Last edited by Nevets; 03-16-2014 at 09:31 PM.
03-16-2014, 10:47 PM
#23
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Nevets
Just to clarify, if they transfer those aircraft, starting with the first one, 5 captains and 5 first officers per aircraft go with them to Skywest with longevity and seniority.
Oh, and BH transfers over with his seniority as well!
Oh, and BH transfers over with his seniority as well!
03-17-2014, 04:52 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,951
EV went independent? You must be referring to the Twin Otters in the late 70s? EV is ASA and hasn't been independent since about then. If you're referring to legacy Expressjet, it's XE.
SkyWest Airlines. (and I'm not talking about the pro rate (NON CPA) flying.
Another news flash: WE'VE LANDED ON THE MOON!
Delta owns ALL the CRJ-900s so you won't be transferring any of those, Delta will just take them and place them at whichever operator is the cheapest. You're "guessing" the 700/900s are ATL and DTW based??? For someone who claims on his 11th post that he has it all figured out, you don't seem to have done much basic research if you have to guess at the answer to this question.
Are "likely" profitable? Again, have you done any research? SkyWest financials are out there, available, and dissected at every quarterly conference call.
Risk = yield. Isn't OO's EMB-120 flying profitable? In order to boost yields, regional airlines may have to accept more risk. After all, the majors bought regionals in the 1990s and early 2000s because they were making lots of money and they wanted in. Regional pro-rate flying can be profitable across the nation provided that those carriers adjust to the new financial realities of the flying. Although fuel was much cheaper in the past, that did not stop numerous airlines from going bankrupt.
As part of my draft proposal, I envision transferring the Delta CR7s and CR9s to OO. The pilots could follow the jets or opt to fly new EV CR9s that would be brought in for at-risk flying. I am still trying to figure out whether 70 CR2s could be transferred to EV to replace the CR7s/CR9s on an interim basis. I am guessing that the CR7s and CR9s at EV are based at DTW and ATL. In order to make this work, a maintenance base swap may have to happen.
Are "likely" profitable? Again, have you done any research? SkyWest financials are out there, available, and dissected at every quarterly conference call.
03-17-2014, 04:58 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Grounded
Posts: 451
I'm guessing this was directed at me. You are probably right since I have nothing else to compare it to but did you work for mainline prior to XJT or now? Your thought process is that since you guys were wholly owned at one point that you were never a regional but something better -mainline.
03-17-2014, 05:17 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 495
You can quote that little gem from your contract all you want, it will never happen. All they have to do it return the aircraft to the lessor, and then re-lease them. But keep holding onto that little sliver of hope you have.
03-17-2014, 06:23 AM
#28
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 23
Captain Tony, what is the difference to DL if the CR7s and CR9s if they are at OO or EV? I don't want them. The only reason I care about them is to factor in whether maintenance assets from EV have to go to OO to support them or not. Although Skywest Holdings financials are public, they do not publish profitability by contract. I know what they are asking for in EAS contracts and it is unlikely that they are getting that number from the majors. I doubt that you have seen those actual documents either.
Amcnd, which codeshare partner specified that? DL, UA, or both?
The last conference call made it seem that it would not be a big deal to move equipment from EV to OO if needed.
Amcnd, which codeshare partner specified that? DL, UA, or both?
Originally Posted by PerpetualFlyer
You can quote that little gem from your contract all you want, it will never happen. All they have to do it return the aircraft to the lessor, and then re-lease them. But keep holding onto that little sliver of hope you have.
03-17-2014, 06:32 AM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,071
Correct, they can move aircraft IF needed but like Perp said, they just have to give the aircraft back and re-lease them and OO mitigates having to flow pilots over. You can apply if you really want to be on OO's seniority list.
03-17-2014, 07:05 AM
#30
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 72
get off your high horse
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
