Skybus Coming Back?!?

Cptnchia said:
Now there's a great idea! Thank God I had the good fortune to be a poor FO and could actually use that excuse. Seemed to cut that conversation right off at the knees.
Click to expand...

;)

I guess I shouldn't kid about that so I don't get knifed in JFK, eh?
 
Doug Taylor said:
;)

I guess I shouldn't kid about that so I don't get knifed in JFK, eh?
Click to expand...

That is a hot button issue. For a group of people who need to be on the above average intelligence level to do this job, pilots are dumber than a box of turnips when it comes to investments. Unless your name is Spank, then it's just "Goooollllddd."
 
coa787 said:
Maybe it will work if they propose a new business model that is actually reputable. I don't see any logic in returning to service with the failed model that they were using previous to going TU.

Edit: A union would probably be in their best interest as well.
Click to expand...

It is never in the best interest of a business to have a union.


coa787 said:
Right, so I guess that the only feasible option would be to incorporate a new business model and have a union.
Click to expand...

huh?
 
See, I couldn't leave this place bacause of you! I gotta bid the ER, flying a trip with you would be a blast.
 
Come on up man, we'll have a blast, seriously. Adventures to be had, and get paid! ;)
 
Please no!!! Can't see it getting off the ground again though myself. Wrong business plan to be competitive in this environment.
 
Funny how they compare it to Allegiant, another non-Union carrier. The major difference? Allegiant carries passengers to/from LAS. Skybus did it from Columbus.

Big difference, but those Yahoos can't see it.
 
blee256 said:
coa787 said:
Maybe it will work if they propose a new business model that is actually reputable. I don't see any logic in returning to service with the failed model that they were using previous to going TU.

Edit: A union would probably be in their best interest as well.
Click to expand...

It is never in the best interest of a business to have a union.

coa787 said:
Right, so I guess that the only feasible option would be to incorporate a new business model and have a union.
Click to expand...

huh?
Click to expand...

Okay, so then what do you think? Remember, I'm here to learn about this stuff in order to gain a better understanding of the industry, so if I say something that doesn't make any sense, correct me and elaborate your reasoning.
 
SeanD said:
New business model - Seat auctions. Show up at the gate on any given day their is Skybus Service. The gate agent is a quick talking auctioneer. The bids start at $5. Window seats $10. If the plane sells out above the overhead cost, the pilots and F/As split the profit. :)
Click to expand...

Pleeeease don't give them any ideas. ;)

blee256 said:
It is never in the best interest of a business to have a union.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is, but the MBA buffoons don't realize it.

coa787 said:
Okay, so then what do you think? Remember, I'm here to learn about this stuff in order to gain a better understanding of the industry, so if I say something that doesn't make any sense, correct me and elaborate your reasoning.
Click to expand...

You made perfect sense. The problem is that the average MBA graduate has been brainwashed with anti-labor nonsense. Take a look at SWA. The most heavily unionized airline that has ever existed, and it's also the most successful. The reason is that the airline's management isn't filled with traditional MBA morons. The management team at SWA is smart enough to realize that unions can be beneficial, and they work together with their unions rather than against each other.
 
Their plan was abysmal to begin with. After taking a look at their plan soon before they started operations, I couldn't believe they found backers. Then again, a quick glance at airliners.net shows a TON of people who thought this was the best thing since the discovery of electricity.

I mean did they do any market research because their choice in destinations was perplexing. I mean they flew from CMH to various GA airports miles from where anyone wanted to go. They didn't fly to any vacation destinations either, except until the last few months of their existence.

I hope that this airline doesn't see the light of day again, because it's bad for the industry all the way around, but unfortunately chances are that it will get revived.
 
I'm not so sure that it will get revived. I think investment capital has probably dried up for at least the next year or two while the economy stabilizes and oil settles down. With five airlines out of business in the last couple of weeks, even the dumbest investors will hold on to their money a little longer before throwing it at an airline.
 
Actually, I found it hard to believe people would invest in startup airlines BEFORE oil was $110 a bbl. Today, you might as well take the money and toss it in the dumpster.
 
srleslie said:
I realize I'm new to aviation, but if Weikle founded the company, why did he not have a say so in the direction the business went? Wouldn't he have the final work? That doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

It's not the Founder who decides how a business is run. It's the investors/venture capitalists who put up the money who do (or did, in this case).
 
Vyse said:
It's not the Founder who decides how a business is run. It's the investors/venture capitalists who put up the money who do (or did, in this case).
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearning that up. What's in it for the founder if he doesn't control the business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top