Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ExpressJet To Keep All 69 Aircraft.  
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2805 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4899 times:

ExpressJet has decided they will keep the 69 ERJs on lease, and will use them to pursue other opportunities outside their agreement with CO. This begs two questions.

What are they planning for the aircraft?

What is Chatauqua going to fly?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060505/daf034.html?.v=25


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12150 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

My take is posturing on both sides!


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4876 times:

you bet it's posturing... could become further pressure on Comair employees to accept the company's requirements to become competitive among other options.

User currently offlineS5FA170 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 534 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4876 times:

Well, Delta has been steadily shifting our ERJ flying that Chautauqua does in Florida. We recently removed several aircraft from our US and UA 145 programs. I suppose we could transfer some of those aircraft (if they are still sitting around - that I am not sure?) to the Continental side. We could even order new aircraft. And this could be the "out" that both Delta and Brian Bedford have been waiting for for our Delta flying. From the sound of his weekly updates this year you'd thing Delta looked at our 145 contract like it was the plague!

-Tony



Prepare doors for departure and cross-check.
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4864 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Thread starter):
What are they planning for the aircraft?

What is Chatauqua going to fly?

They will still fly for Continental...

Chautauqua was just a pawn in the game between ExpressJet and mainline Continental. "Oh yea, if you don't play our game we'll let CHQ flew those planes...!!" Agreemnet reached, CHQ deal is dead.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2692 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):
Chautauqua was just a pawn in the game between ExpressJet and mainline Continental.

Exactly.

I would bet a large sum of money that ExpressJet ends up flying for CO in its current fashion and that Chautauqua just ends up being used as a bargaining tool in the process. I would be very surprised if anything ended up actually changing.


User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4725 times:

Hello

I am not so sure those 69 A/C will remain within CO´s system. Expressjet clearly states that it wants to keep those A/C after the capacity purchase agreement between CO and XJ is finished on December. Which means XJ agreed on the new (higher) lease rates to those aircraft for them to do whatever they want with those planes. Besides, CO and XJ reached an agreement on the capacity purchase (cost plus) for 2006. It definitely means both companies have completed negotiations for the year.

My guess is Mesa will get rid of their remaining 20 or so 145´s and sublease them to Chautauqua while Chautauqua will take out some A/C from UA contract completing the 69 for CO.

XJ will fill in the gap, taking lower pay rates but spreading its risk.

Anyway there won´t be any new order for 145´s. There are just too many CRJ´s baking in the sun for that.



No mention of further negotiations under way whatsoever.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

One step closer to EJets.

CO will work out something in the scope clause with the pilots similar to what DL did, where there are a limited fleet of 76 seat jets that can be flown. Right now the scope is 69 seat max for Express. Raising that by 7 seats for 40 jets with the same 2 for 1 deal (mainline increase to EJet increase) would replace the 69 E145 capacity they would lose. With 2 777s, 6 738s and 10 788s coming by 2009, that's 8 additional 76 seaters.

In the short term, CO could contract CRJ705s until the E175s came online.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

From upper Xjet management:

Keeping those 69 airplanes in the Continental system is "Very unlikely at this point".


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2805 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4672 times:

I'm not so sure it is all just part of negotiating. I'm hearing things like 20 of the aircraft will go to the subsidiary ExpressJet is setting up in Europe. I've also heard that ExpressJet plans to move their headquarters back out near IAH. They can't reasonably expect to fly for any other majors if their headquarters are in the same building as Continental. Perhaps they are just moving because the rent is cheaper near IAH, but I would think that if CO is going to be your only customer, you want to be in the same building. Easier to coordinate things from a scheduling and operational standpoint.

Of course, this is aviation. 95 percent of the rumors are false. That said, I think CO will switch to CHQ if it will save them enough money.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineNLINK From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

ExpressJet did put in a bid to NW flying, could mean the end of XJ.

User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4501 times:

Quoting NLINK (Reply 10):
ExpressJet did put in a bid to NW flying, could mean the end of XJ.

I doubt NW would want to give up all their Saabs. If XJ (Mesaba, to avoid the confusion here) did go away, they'd still want to find someone else to fly those things. I don't see how Expressjet could be a drop in replacement for Mesaba. Northwest seems an unlikely customer for Expressjet, since they seem bent on starting a new company where they can pay everyone at year 1 rates, probably with 70 seat or larger aircraft to replace DC9's.


User currently offlineFlyHoss From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4405 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
One step closer to EJets.

CO will work out something in the scope clause with the pilots similar to what DL did, where there are a limited fleet of 76 seat jets that can be flown. Right now the scope is 69 seat max for Express. Raising that by 7 seats for 40 jets with the same 2 for 1 deal (mainline increase to EJet increase) would replace the 69 E145 capacity they would lose. With 2 777s, 6 738s and 10 788s coming by 2009, that's 8 additional 76 seaters.

In the short term, CO could contract CRJ705s until the E175s came online.

Unless, I missed it (just now) reviewing the scope section, you're incorrect. "Small jets" are limited to 50 seats ("small turboprops" are limited to 79 seats).

That's not to say that CO management won't attempt to change the scope section of the contract. You may well be right, this could be the beginning of of the effort to introduce 70 and/or 90 seat E-jets.



A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4338 times:

I don't see CAL going for E-Jets. They are stuck with the leases on their 737-500's until 2012 I believe. The E170/E190 are too similair in size to the 735's to really be a viable option for them right now IMO. Not to mention they'd have to give the mainline pilot's something in return for loosening the scope clause if they wanted Republic to fly them.

User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4322 times:

Quoting Rainmaker (Reply 6):

CO never had a deal with Mesaba... XJ = Mesaba Airlines...


User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3308 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4255 times:

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 11):
I doubt NW would want to give up all their Saabs. If XJ (Mesaba, to avoid the confusion here) did go away, they'd still want to find someone else to fly those things. I don't see how Expressjet could be a drop in replacement for Mesaba. Northwest seems an unlikely customer for Expressjet, since they seem bent on starting a new company where they can pay everyone at year 1 rates, probably with 70 seat or larger aircraft to replace DC9's.

Mesaba doesn't have a lot to be scared of regarding XJT. Pinnacle, OTOH,, does. NWA holds the leases for the CRJ fleet, which is currently up for rebid. NWA has dragged their collective feet on making a decision on the CRJ flying. This has the potential to allow NWA to reject another 69 CRJ leases.

As far as Mesaba goes, I fully expect the saab flying to be put out for bid after the CRJ flying is settled. Colgan could bid, Commutair is looking at the Saab, and I believe the plane is still on the Shuttle America ticket. Mesaba management acts as though the saab flying is theirs, but I don't think its a guarantee.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4172 times:

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 13):
I don't see CAL going for E-Jets. They are stuck with the leases on their 737-500's until 2012 I believe. The E170/E190 are too similair in size to the 735's to really be a viable option for them right now IMO. Not to mention they'd have to give the mainline pilot's something in return for loosening the scope clause if they wanted Republic to fly them.

You are welcome to your opinion, but CO would very much like an E175.

An E175 is NOT similar in size to a 735. It is not even close. We are talking 76 two class seats vs. 114. That's 38 freaking seats, or put another way

E145 = 50 seats. 50 x 150% = 75 seats.
E175 = 76 seats. 76 x 150% = 114 seats.
B735 = 114 seats.

Each jet in that progression is 50% larger than the previous, not exactly redundant as you imply. You threw in the E190 to boost your argument, but I never mentioned it. One would assume that in the future, however, you could see CO putting it into the fleet as the 735s go out, assuming they flew it mainline with mainline pilots.

Having the current gap of 50 - 114 seats is a huge hole in the fleet.

CO is going to lose 69 x 50 seat jets. Economics don't add up to replace those with MORE 50 seat jets in the long term. And they aren't going to buy 736s.

They have needed a jet between 50 and 100 seats for a long time now. They have routes that can support that jet. That jet just wasn't available in an economical way, at least not enough to push for a change in scope with the pilots.

I truly believe you will see 76 seat E175s as well as Q class turboprops (single class) entering the CO brand in the not to distant future.

Quoting FlyHoss (Reply 12):
Unless, I missed it (just now) reviewing the scope section, you're incorrect. "Small jets" are limited to 50 seats ("small turboprops" are limited to 79 seats).

A different thread had said the jet scope was 69. I guess they were mistaken.

I still don't think that matters. The scope will still be modified, and the reason I say this is that in this situation, CO is not looking to cut mainline by adding E170 series jets. They are replacing lost 50 seaters. And as long as they work the same sort of "2 mainline per 1 additional 76 seater" deal that DL did, there is precedent in the union world for changing the scope in this way.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4143 times:

You could be right, but if CAL management really does want aircraft of that size, they certainly haven't hinted about it, other than bringing Republic into the Foray. Only time will tell I suppose.

Continental Pilots' scope clause does not allow regional affiliates to fly jets with that hold more than 59 passenger seats on routes involving a Continental hub (CLE, EWR, IAH).

You say a precedent has been set with DAL and NWA's new scope clause. Remember, these scope clauses were modified in bankruptcy. Relaxed scope may be a tough sell to the CAL pilots outside of bankruptcy; management will have to give up something significant in return if they really plan on flying 170's or 190's at the regionals. If they want to fly them at mainline, they will probably need to at least meet or exceed Jetblue's payscale.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
You are welcome to your opinion, but CO would very much like an E175.

You speak with such confidence. Unless you have some kind of connection to CAL management (I sincerely doubt this, given your lack of knowlege regarding scope), your statement is also just an opinion.


User currently offlineCactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2450 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4):

Admittedly I'm not an industry expert, just an observer, but I don't see it as posturing. And I know what goes in a press release is just a glimpse of reality, but when CO announced CHQ they put this in the press release

"ExpressJet is required to notify Continental by Sept. 28, 2006 whether it will return any or all of the aircraft to Continental, or continue to sublease the aircraft at increased lease rates from Continental and fly them outside of Continental's hubs under a brand other than Continental Express, as permitted by the capacity purchase agreement."

The way I'm reading that....if XJet keeps the 69 planes they essentailly have to repaint them and promise to never land them in EWR, IAH or CLE, and they're going to pay a sh**load more for that lease than they do now.

So... assuming what you're saying is true and CO will stick with XJet and those 69 planes.... then CO just convinced Xjet to keep flying for them at the same pay or less, but Xjet is going to pay an increased lease rate on those 69 planes? That doesn't seem to be all that good for ExpressJet...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
You are welcome to your opinion, but CO would very much like an E175.

So assuming your right and CO does add the 170 or 175.....I'm assuming that flying would go to a Republic company... but which one? Republic? Shuttle? CHQ? Or, would they have to create yet another airline for CO 170 flying? If I remember right they had to bring Shuttle America in so they could move the UA 170 flying there to get aorund a contract they had with someone else (AA?) Correct me if I'm wrong...

 coffee 



You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Quoting Cactus739 (Reply 18):
The way I'm reading that....if XJet keeps the 69 planes they essentailly have to repaint them and promise to never land them in EWR, IAH or CLE, and they're going to pay a sh**load more for that lease than they do now.

So... assuming what you're saying is true and CO will stick with XJet and those 69 planes.... then CO just convinced Xjet to keep flying for them at the same pay or less, but Xjet is going to pay an increased lease rate on those 69 planes? That doesn't seem to be all that good for ExpressJet...

Yes, the lease rates will be increased, just how much no one really knows at this point. The capcity purchase agreement between CAL and XJT specifies this, and that is a confidential document.

Apparantly XJT feels that the increased lease rates aren't enough of a problem to prevent them from utilizing these 69 aircraft in a capacity outside of the CAL system. Rumor has it that CAL wanted XJet to cut it's 109 million/yr profit down to 9 million in order to keep the full CPA in effect. This wasn't acceptable to XJT as a pubilicly traded company. Apparantly they feel that they are better off pursuing other opportunities than agreeing to that deal.

Quoting Cactus739 (Reply 18):
So assuming your right and CO does add the 170 or 175.....I'm assuming that flying would go to a Republic company... but which one? Republic? Shuttle? CHQ?

The whole scope clause with CAL pilots would have to be revamped before this could even happen. The terms of that new scope clause would probably determine whether or not Republic would need a new operating certificate for the CAL E-jets. I still say you won't see E-Jet's at CAL before the 737-500's leave the fleet.


User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4927 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3947 times:

As well as Europe, I think it was mentioned on here a few weeks ago ExpressJet were looking at Asia


Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 14):
CO never had a deal with Mesaba... XJ = Mesaba Airlines...

XJ is an acronym for Expressjet.

The funny thing on all this turmoil is that XJ's still getting brand-new 145's until June.


User currently offlineRainmaker From Brazil, joined Jan 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

This press release from Continental is much clearer on the way things are going between Continental and Expressjet:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060505/daf046.html?.v=1

Excerpt:

The aircraft will be withdrawn from the capacity purchase agreement over a six-month period beginning in December 2006 and ending in June 2007.

Continental expects to replace some or all of the capacity currently provided by the 69 regional jets. Continental believes that there are ample regional jets and other aircraft available to Continental to replace this capacity at a lower cost.

"We have the time and flexibility to pursue a number of options for our future regional flying needs," said Larry Kellner, Continental Airlines chairman and CEO.


User currently offlineTurnit56N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3809 times:

The planes will not be flown for CAL. In a way, I think its a compliment to ExpressJet that so many people think in the end nothing will change. ExpressJet's philosophy as Continental Express was always to provide a seamless product so that its client's passengers didn't know they weren't on a Continental aircraft. Since so many people (from investors to customers) can't imagine anyone else flying as Continental Express, I'd say that ExpressJet did a good job of delivering. As has been pointed out a lot, ExpressJet has pretty low name recognition considering that it's one of the largest regional airlines in the world. That's another side effect of ExpressJet trying hard to blend in with Continental's product. All that good stuff aside, management on both sides has been clear that the 69 aircraft withdrawn from the CPA will NOT be flown by ExpressJet in the Continental network. Whatever ExpressJet does with them, the flying will not be for CAL. That was settled completely in January.

Larry's been telling the CAL pilots that at least some of the regional flying will probably still go to CHQ, but has been hinting strongly that a lot of it will go back to the 737 domestic fleet. I have to say, I think that's a good idea with the growing fuel costs. One 737 is much more efficient than two ERJs. CHQ or CAL will have to find aircraft (with fewer than 59 seats) to pick up what doesn't go back to mainline.

CAL management might want larger "regional" jets (which I haven't heard a peep from CAL about), but they can't just toss aside scope. It's a HUGE issue for CAL pilots. They're militant when it comes to their scope clause because they've seen how giving it up has affected other pilot groups. I don't think that EMB jets will come to CAL. If they do, I think they'll be flown by CAL mainline itself. Of all the pilots I've spoken to at CAL, none of them are willing to budge an inch on scope, but they wouldn't be opposed to seeing EMB jets added to their own fleet. Again, I think that's unlikely. I don't expect to see anything sized between a 50-seater and a 737 flown in CAL colors.


User currently offlineUSPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

Quoting Turnit56N (Reply 23):
The planes will not be flown for CAL. In a way, I think its a compliment to ExpressJet that so many people think in the end nothing will change. ExpressJet's philosophy as Continental Express was always to provide a seamless product so that its client's passengers didn't know they weren't on a Continental aircraft. Since so many people (from investors to customers) can't imagine anyone else flying as Continental Express, I'd say that ExpressJet did a good job of delivering. As has been pointed out a lot, ExpressJet has pretty low name recognition considering that it's one of the largest regional airlines in the world. That's another side effect of ExpressJet trying hard to blend in with Continental's product. All that good stuff aside, management on both sides has been clear that the 69 aircraft withdrawn from the CPA will NOT be flown by ExpressJet in the Continental network. Whatever ExpressJet does with them, the flying will not be for CAL. That was settled completely in January.

RU has done a great job feeding CO over the last decade, but I'd have to disagree with you about them not having great name-recognition. Airline people know who ExpressJet and American Eagle (another superb regional) are. Trust me. I agree that the 69 planes being pulled from CO's system is all posturing. Why would CO want to ruin such a great relationship, unless there's something about RU I haven't heard.



It's a Great Day for Hockey!
25 KAUSpilot : I think CAL really is planning to replace a lot of the ERJ flying with 737's. They have several dozen on order. I could easily routes like: IAH-IAD I
26 Turnit56N : CHQ is cheaper. It all comes down to finances, and although Larry has said that while CO is very pleased with the performance of ExpressJet, they wan
27 TokyoNarita : My money is also on additional B737 flying at Continental... I think It's already too late in the game to be negotiating with the pilots for 70 seat s
28 Azjubilee : NLINK - I wouldn't be so comfortable saying that XJ is done for... you kids at PNCL better watch out. When NWA is done kicking XJ, they'll come for a
29 Bels13 : First off, XJ does not mean Express Jet. XJT does. Get the facts right. Second, Chautauqua will not fly for Continental. As a matter of fact, an insid
30 Jetdeltamsy : All of you arm chair quarterback make me chuckle. NOBODY knows what is going on internally between Continental and Express Jet. I think it is entirel
31 EssentialPowr : A "confidential document?" Are you kidding? Why do people make things up to fill in the blanks of their ignorance? XJT and CAL are both public compan
32 Commavia : Any further details on who this myster suitor might be? AA? DL?
33 KAUSpilot : Give me a link, bro. I'd be glad to look at it. I sure as heck can't find it.
34 EssentialPowr : Sorry that that came off a bit harsh. Try Investor Relations on XJT site, then SEC filings. I had it yesterday, and the link was 1000 letters long. I
35 FutureFO : We are still going to fly for CO regardless. And there is no threat of a contract cancellation from any of our mainline partners. Also we did not und
36 Commavia : ... and if AA were to drop the CHQ Connection contract in favor of ExpressJet, CHQ could force AA to assume the leases on 15 EMB140s that it is curre
37 FutureFO : We are up for a buyout very soon from AA for the 140 operation. It sux if that were to happen because of all the ex-TW people that are in STL that wou
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
American To Keep All 3 Maintenance Facilities posted Fri Oct 24 2003 18:43:25 by Atcboy73
US Planning To Keep All Airbus Shuttle Fleet posted Tue Feb 11 2003 07:22:20 by Gigneil
Why Is SAS Moving "all" Aircraft To LN- Reg? posted Mon Jul 9 2001 14:41:00 by TR
WMU & ExpressJet To Ink Employment Agreement posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:52:03 by KarlB737
Air India To Lease 4 Boeing Widebody Aircraft posted Mon Nov 13 2006 21:50:35 by B742
Garuda Plans To Close All Int'l Flight From Bali posted Sat Nov 4 2006 12:06:27 by Palladium
QF Reports Profit And To Keep A380 Order posted Mon Oct 23 2006 15:02:04 by Mptpa
Boeing Aims To Keep Airbus @ Bay No 787 Delays! posted Fri Oct 20 2006 04:26:05 by Coelacanth
Customers Back A380 To Keep Airbus Solvent posted Thu Oct 12 2006 02:07:15 by N328KF
Carson: Boeing To Keep Cool In Hot Market posted Thu Sep 28 2006 16:31:04 by Leelaw