Pro and Cons for organizing?

It doesn't clearly state anything. If you have to read between the lines, it's not clear. Lowest cost structure does not mean lowest paid employees, and having a lower cost structure prior to growth does not mean that lower cost structure will still be lower after growth.

Determining which company will have a better cost structure for operating future aircraft is not as simple as looking at the current numbers. It takes in depth analysis of many different factors, and yes, even some guessing.

P.S. That's not a memo either.:)
 
"SkyWest, Inc. will be in the unique position of allocating resources, including growth aircraft to the two carriers, so it is imperative that both carriers have competitive cost structures to support future growth opportunities"

How much clearer can they get?

The allocation of aircraft (they use future growth) will go to the airline with the most competitive cost structure. Plain and simple words right there in English. I guess I"m reading it wrong.?????
 
Well...it's not really that easy. For instance Delta controls all of the routes even though they own neither ASA or Skywest. If they want to fly a new route between ATL and Podunk, Wherever.....who do you think will be chosen??? Pretty easy call. Same with Salt Lake and a lot of the west coast flying. ASA can probably do east coast operations more efficiently simply because they are already established and have the infrastructure in place....and vice versa. And sort of by default, since Delta owns the routes, they indirectly are in control of aircraft allocation and future growth.
 
I dunno man. Last I checked, Shuttle America was this small airline flying DHC-8's on the east coast, next thing I know they're flying SLC to Cancun... Half of the SKYW jumpseats from SLC-PHX I ride, the crew asks "What the HELL is that thing?" while looking at an an E-170 flown by Shuttle America.
 
cime_sp said:
...since Delta owns the routes, they indirectly are in control of aircraft allocation and future growth.
Click to expand...
Delta is in direct control of where the aircraft go, however, there's a reason SkyWest hasn't closed the ASA SLC domicile, I think. If DAL wants a 70-seater out of SLC (other than those eeeevil shuttle-crafters ;)) we're back to the whipsaw question. Just because ASA does that flying now, doesn't mean it would be at all difficult for SkyWest to do it. We have 70-lines out of SLC for the UAL side already, it'd be totally seamless to transition to DAL 70-flying.

Ralgha, while the FAQ didn't "clearly" state that mgmt will allocate aircraft as either a reward or punishment to cooperative pilot groups, the implication is clear to me. I don't think of it as some sort of evil conspiracy against the pilots, it's just good business sense for them.

There are many other areas that determine cost-effectiveness, but many of them can be controlled directly by mgmt. Once the pay agreements on both sides are the last big obstacle, what is to stop them from allocating aircraft based on who is willing to fly them for the least?
 
I've heard murmurings of Q400s possibly flying under the SkyWest banner sometime in the not-to-distant future.
 
aloft said:
I've heard murmurings of Q400s possibly flying under the SkyWest banner sometime in the not-to-distant future.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Been hearing that for a couple years. I'll believe it when I see it. But I don't want to fly it for Brasilia pay!
 
Then you should have voted "yes" on the pay proposal...right? :)
No, you're absolutely right, a "propeller" rate is only slightly better than our 50-99 seat jet rate. Both of those need to go bye-bye when we are finally done with pay discussions.
 
The "bro" pays more than the CRJ's?

I can't name a regional that hasn't had grumblings of the Q400. Besides Horizon who actually flies them.

In fact, I saw a Q400 over on the north ramp in ATL about a year ago. But then I saw 20 boxes of A318/319/320 materials in our simulator building about six years ago... ;)
 
No, poor choice of words on my part. Our rates are not based on specific aircraft but rather general aircraft categories; "Turboprop" and "50-99 seat jet" for example. My point was that having a "Turboprop" rate is bad, but not quite as bad as having a "50-99 seat" generic jet rate (especially since it's based on our original 50-seat rate!)

The SkyWest EMB guys are ridiculously underpaid and the paltry 1.2% they offered would have done little to remedy that situation. Comparing pay-checks with a few guys from my newhire class, as a jet FO on 3rd year pay, I take home roughly the same as they do as EMB Captains.
 
And have a better QOL!

I don't know. Going from 30 to nearly 60 seat props is just as bad, I think, as a 50-99 seat jet rate!
 
I actually flew on a demo flight for the Q400 at MDW for Chicago Express. They came out, served drinks and cookies, we went on an hour-long flight, go to see all the traits of the airplane; it was a whole shindig. Now Chicago Express doesn't exist anymore.

I don't believe it until I see it.
 
jdflight said:
And have a better QOL!

I don't know. Going from 30 to nearly 60 seat props is just as bad, I think, as a 50-99 seat jet rate!
Click to expand...
Yeah, better QOL but no career progression. I guess that's why I'm more concerned about the 50-99 seat jet rate as well. I don't think it's right, but I'm not as concerned about mainline jobs being effectively transferred to the regional to fly a prop, even one as shiny as the Q-400. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see new props at SkyWest (I'd prefer them over any more jets!) but not without an appropriate pay-scale to go with them.
 
funny this thread should come up, I read it this morning, tonight the GF and I went downtown for dinner where I listened in on a 59 year old (I assume united, ex eastern for sure) captain explain the virtues of ALPA to a guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top