Mesa 09 and Airways?

Some people just wanna own thier own Major airline one day.

These people go through Regional CEO to Major CEO or Executive transition courses at a cost of a few million dollars.

Just the way things are. . .
 
His name is George Casey. He's not anyone's buddy. I believe the middle initial is A. so you can have all the fun with that you want.

The PCL MEC has a long tradition of calling him Buddy-Fu--er, because he'll be nice to your face and act like your buddy, but then stab you in the back at first opportunity. Sorry, but I refuse to call him George. Sounds too respectful for that scumbag. :)
 
I actually disagree with you here. Trenary is an idiot on many levels, but he's always been firm in not bidding a contract that won't turn at least a small profit. When Bedford was bidding contracts that didn't stand a chance of turning a profit, just to "get his foot in the door," Trenary refused to play that game. Buddy-f---er might be a different story, but I don't think Trenary will bid at a loss.

Then how come RAH is raking in bags of cash if their contracts aren't turning a profit? BB doesn't like JO and I wouldn't be suprised if the HNL thing is just an attempt to push Mesa closer to the brink of BK.

On a side note watch the last 10 seconds of this clip and it seems that there may be more to the HNL flying than we know. http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/10533/108/
 
Also SKY has more money then you at RAH. For some reason in the many years they have been around, Skywest has yet to dish out such large amounts of money, or have they?


Well they invested $5 mil in a Brazilian airilne. But I don't think that's the same kind of dishing you're talking about.
 
I actually disagree with you here. Trenary is an idiot on many levels, but he's always been firm in not bidding a contract that won't turn at least a small profit. When Bedford was bidding contracts that didn't stand a chance of turning a profit, just to "get his foot in the door," Trenary refused to play that game. Buddy-f---er might be a different story, but I don't think Trenary will bid at a loss.

I'm a little concerned what he might do in the face of losing flying to our (once again) only customer. Although, if it's down to a golden parachute or a flying contract that looses money, he'll probably do what every other CEO does in that situation: leave the workers hanging out to dry. Shockey and Co will probably go right with him.
 
The PCL MEC has a long tradition of calling him Buddy-Fu--er, because he'll be nice to your face and act like your buddy, but then stab you in the back at first opportunity. Sorry, but I refuse to call him George. Sounds too respectful for that scumbag. :)
Ah! I see your point. Yeah I had a bad boss named Jorge (he always said it as "George") so it was a natural transition. I just think the whole "buddy" thing makes people think he's a good guy but we awful pilots who've had to deal with him don't understand he's really a good guy.. blah blah blah. So I've come up with the George A---o--- Casey (middle name A).

Maybe we could just call him "G"? Pull a little fresh prince?
 
Which ones are you talking about other than Midwest?

I'm 99% sure the CRJ program for CAL doesn't make money either.

You are correct, sir! Pinnacle was bidding on this flying and bid an absolute bare-bones rate. We had the lowest block-hour costs in the industry, and we were bidding at just a sliver of a profit that was below Bedford's block-hour costs. He came in and underbid us, taking a loss, because he wanted to "get his foot in the door" for flying with CAL. His belief was apparently that he could take a reasonable loss on the first bit of flying in order to prove their performance to CAL to pick up future flying on larger replacement jets. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
 
Nope...it's got 86. I didn't know the Mesa 900's had 86 seats... I'm probably thinking about the SKW 900's...less seats due to their scope.
US Airways 900s have 86 seats because our scope with America West was 86. Delta 900s (dont have them anymore though) were in a 2 class configuration to keep it under scope.
 
You are correct, sir! Pinnacle was bidding on this flying and bid an absolute bare-bones rate. We had the lowest block-hour costs in the industry, and we were bidding at just a sliver of a profit that was below Bedford's block-hour costs. He came in and underbid us, taking a loss, because he wanted to "get his foot in the door" for flying with CAL. His belief was apparently that he could take a reasonable loss on the first bit of flying in order to prove their performance to CAL to pick up future flying on larger replacement jets. It hasn't quite worked out that way.

Maybe CHQ runs a leaner operation, last I heard we were making good money on the CAL stuff. But who knows...


Star Alliance with Mokulele... you heard it here first...
 
Maybe CHQ runs a leaner operation, last I heard we were making good money on the CAL stuff. But who knows...

Like I said, we were basing it off of CHQ's block-hour costs. If it was a leaner operation, then that would be reflected in the block-hour cost. Bedford is losing money on the CAL agreement, although I'm sure he'd never admit it to the pilots.
 
Like I said, we were basing it off of CHQ's block-hour costs. If it was a leaner operation, then that would be reflected in the block-hour cost. Bedford is losing money on the CAL agreement, although I'm sure he'd never admit it to the pilots.

Wow...it's amazing that you're so "in the know"!!! Maybe a perk for a former ALPA member, no?

:bandit:
 
Like I said, we were basing it off of CHQ's block-hour costs. If it was a leaner operation, then that would be reflected in the block-hour cost. Bedford is losing money on the CAL agreement, although I'm sure he'd never admit it to the pilots.

Luckily it seems that the majority of CAL pilots (who are in contract negotiations) realize that a 170 in CAL paint being flown by CHQ would be detrimental to their careers. I even see guys on furlough pleading for CAL-ALPA not to give up scope. BB has said he wants to get out of the 50 seat market within the last year and given the fact that CHQ/CAL relationship isn't that old, I have no doubt one of the goals for CHQ was to place 170's with CAL.
 
Luckily it seems that the majority of CAL pilots (who are in contract negotiations) realize that a 170 in CAL paint being flown by CHQ would be detrimental to their careers. I even see guys on furlough pleading for CAL-ALPA not to give up scope. BB has said he wants to get out of the 50 seat market within the last year and given the fact that CHQ/CAL relationship isn't that old, I have no doubt one of the goals for CHQ was to place 170's with CAL.

Yep, he even said something along the lines of: "...with a strong performance with this 50 seat contract that will give us an upper hand when it comes to placement of 70 seat jets for continental..." in one of his press releases. He was very definitive about it, either on some grandiose ego trip, or completely ignorant of CAL's scope.

That got circulated around the CAL pilot group real fast. Even I heard about it from the old man, and he is pretty quiet about that stuff.
 
Back
Top