CAL negotiates CPA with Skywest, will let XJT CPA expire

casey said:
its not as ridiculous as it sounds. Read letter 1 in our CBA, it deals with scope between us and whoever owns us. Skywest's purchase would be contingent on us giving up some of the language in that letter.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm well aware of that letter. It's what we call a "holding company letter." It guarantees that your contract is binding on all holding companies and successors. The fact that it binds Skywest to your scope language is the whole point of that letter in the first place! Skywest's purchase is not contingent upon you giving up your letter, Skywest's purchase is contingent upon them honoring that letter and complying with your contract. Don't give it up!
 
PCL_128 said:
Oh, I'm well aware of that letter. It's what we call a "holding company letter." It guarantees that your contract is binding on all holding companies and successors. The fact that it binds Skywest to your scope language is the whole point of that letter in the first place! Skywest's purchase is not contingent upon you giving up your letter, Skywest's purchase is contingent upon them honoring that letter and complying with your contract. Don't give it up!
Click to expand...

Bingo. Ask Pinnacle Holdings how that letter will hold up in arbitration, too......
 
Chris_Ford said:
Yes but you're comparing the 145 to the 700. Try comparing the 170 to the 700... No comparison. From a pax standpoint, EMBs win. Although a 145 vs 200 could go either way.
Click to expand...

Eh.... I dont think the 700 to the E170 is fair... however E170/175 to a CRJ 900 is... And quite honestly I could care less either way.... CRJ9 is rather comfy and so is the 170/175..... However when I only pay 200 for a ticket from BOS-LAX I could care less..... When pax pay a fair price maybe the airlines will care about comfort again...
 
Clocks said:
How will it hold up? I'm not familiar enough with Pinnacle's issues.
Click to expand...

It won't hold up in BK, it may hold up in arbitration, but if you can be open to the idea of coming to a solution without letting it go to an outside "decision maker" then you could maintain more control over the end result.
 
Bumblebee said:
It won't hold up in BK, it may hold up in arbitration, but if you can be open to the idea of coming to a solution without letting it go to an outside "decision maker" then you could maintain more control over the end result.
Click to expand...

ExpressJet isn't going into bankruptcy. That's a red herring. As for arbitration, it's iron-clad. ALPA has done enough of these now that they have perfected the language. Letter 1 is a work of contractual art. The successful Pinnacle/Colgan arbitration is based on bare-bones scope language that was developed in 1999 before the holding company trend was even a glimmer in Johnny O's eye. Even with that miniscule scope language, ALPA achieved a major victory in arbitration. The Mesa pilots also won a similar case during the Freedom-A fiasco, for those of you that have been around long enough to remember Freedom-A. Their scope language was also minimal. In the years since then, ALPA Legal has focused intense efforts on perfecting scope language, and the ExpressJet Letter 1 is a great example of those efforts. The Mesaba letter is also a great example, in addition to many others. There are no worries in arbitration over these holding company letters.
 
PCL_128 said:
ExpressJet isn't going into bankruptcy. That's a red herring. As for arbitration, it's iron-clad. ALPA has done enough of these now that they have perfected the language. Letter 1 is a work of contractual art. The successful Pinnacle/Colgan arbitration is based on bare-bones scope language that was developed in 1999 before the holding company trend was even a glimmer in Johnny O's eye. Even with that miniscule scope language, ALPA achieved a major victory in arbitration. The Mesa pilots also won a similar case during the Freedom-A fiasco, for those of you that have been around long enough to remember Freedom-A. Their scope language was also minimal. In the years since then, ALPA Legal has focused intense efforts on perfecting scope language, and the ExpressJet Letter 1 is a great example of those efforts. The Mesaba letter is also a great example, in addition to many others. There are no worries in arbitration over these holding company letters.
Click to expand...
cool . . .anybody have a copy of the xjet letter? could you pm me a link? thanks Dale
 
PCL_128 said:
Oh, I'm well aware of that letter. It's what we call a "holding company letter." It guarantees that your contract is binding on all holding companies and successors. The fact that it binds Skywest to your scope language is the whole point of that letter in the first place! Skywest's purchase is not contingent upon you giving up your letter, Skywest's purchase is contingent upon them honoring that letter and complying with your contract. Don't give it up!
Click to expand...

im not planning on giving it up, i only brought it up because word around us is that part of skywest completing the transaction would be be giving up that letter, ie part of the terms of sale. I dont know if that holds any water but it would make sense that they would want relief from the letter, rather than honoring and complying with it.

I know that it doesnt have (and shouldnt) change because of the sale, just that its likely to be a sticking point in negotiations between the two companies. They dont want to be bound by our scope, the language is too strong for their liking.
 
This is really simple, guys.

Skywest doesn't want to abide by the Letter 1 language? Fine. No acquisition, then. When they're ready to play by the rules that are in your CBA, they can come back to make a deal. Don't ever give up your scope language in order to facilitate a business deal. It will only bite you in the ass.
 
surreal1221 said:
80% of all DCI flying into/out of Atlanta must be under the ASA banner.

So bring a new DCI company into ATL, and ASA will see an increase in flying as well. So it works to just give that flying to ASA. . .

Just wanted to give that 80% number.
Click to expand...

Sort of, the 80% rule for Skywest INC. If you look it us it says it works for both.

and as far as this "Deal" goes.

Basically XJT has no choice in this matter, they can say no and have cal cancel their contract and liquidate or they can say yes and keep things status quo with maybe only a few furloughs as long as they remove the merger languge. If they say no, skywest gets the flying just a few years later, if they say yes skywest gets flying but is done by xjt pilots and jerry gets his cal flying 2 years earlier. Either way Jerry is getting his cal flying one way or another. If I were xjt I would take this offer seriously and not squander this chance at saving your "troubled" airline.
 
pat84106 said:
Sort of, the 80% rule for Skywest INC. If you look it us it says it works for both.

and as far as this "Deal" goes.

Basically XJT has no choice in this matter, they can say no and have cal cancel their contract and liquidate or they can say yes and keep things status quo with maybe only a few furloughs as long as they remove the merger languge. If they say no, skywest gets the flying just a few years later, if they say yes skywest gets flying but is done by xjt pilots and jerry gets his cal flying 2 years earlier. Either way Jerry is getting his cal flying one way or another. If I were xjt I would take this offer seriously and not squander this chance at saving your "troubled" airline.
Click to expand...

Affirmative on it being Skywest Inc. I have "heard" though that the big wigs in Utah said that it doesn't make sense to have the two airlines in ATL and eventually want to pull SKW out.
 
meyers9163 said:
I'd have to argue... I think the 2x2 seating is what makes the CRJ. IN addition I personally hate the flight desk of a ERJ.... So compact and cramped.... At least in the RJ you have more room. However I personally could care less about the back. As long as the front is comfy. In addition the only Rj with the window below is the 200.... yeah bad design but oh well.... The CRJ7/9 arent like that and are just find..... Flew on my first 900 the other day. I really found it quite comfy myself.....
Click to expand...



My RJ sux less than your RJ. Face it, ALL RJs and everything that they represent suk.
 
Clocks said:
How is an RJ any more miserable than 23E in a 737/757?
Click to expand...

You don't have the board the 737 by walking across the ramp and up the air stairs. You aren't suffocating on the ground in the 737 because the APU and PACKs can't provide enough bleed air for decent air conditioning at low power settings. There isn't a 1 in 10 chance that the APU will be broken on a 737 like there is on the RJs in the summer months. You don't have to throw your expensive carry-on luggage in the cargo bin on a 737. Need I go on? RJs suck. They're not bad as a pilot's airplane, but for passengers, the RJ experience is tantamount to torture.
 
PCL_128 said:
You don't have the board the 737 by walking across the ramp and up the air stairs. You aren't suffocating on the ground in the 737 because the APU and PACKs can't provide enough bleed air for decent air conditioning at low power settings. There isn't a 1 in 10 chance that the APU will be broken on a 737 like there is on the RJs in the summer months. You don't have to throw your expensive carry-on luggage in the cargo bin on a 737. Need I go on? RJs suck. They're not bad as a pilot's airplane, but for passengers, the RJ experience is tantamount to torture.
Click to expand...

board some RJ's not based in ATL :)

And have you been on a 737 with a deferred APU in the summer? I used to commute on one out of houston and if the APU was dead it was a sauna in the cabin until we took off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top