Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United And Air Wisconsin  
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

Someone explain this one to me? Apparently five of the CRJ's that Air Wisconsin has in service for USAirways are actually owned by United. This raises a few points.

1. I know that at the time, ZW was an express carrier for UA. But why would UA want to retain ownership on these planes afterwards when they are only making money for a competitor?

2. Why wouldn't UA sell the leases on these things to someone else to raise some cash, especially with them in a cash crunch?

3. If they owned these things, wouldn't it make more sense for UA to keep ZW around flying planes that they own?


On a related Note. Air Wisconsin owns half of the planes in service. Given the trend away from 50 seaters, would it help them, as well as airways to sell some of them and replace them with bigger airplanes?

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3546 times:



Quoting Apodino (Thread starter):
But why would UA want to retain ownership on these planes afterwards when they are only making money for a competitor?

Maybe the leases are profitable for them. Plus, the depreciation of owned aircraft can be written off, so that may have something to do with it.

Quoting Apodino (Thread starter):
If they owned these things, wouldn't it make more sense for UA to keep ZW around flying planes that they own?

Not when Skywest and GoJet are willing to do the same for less money apparently.

Quoting Apodino (Thread starter):
Given the trend away from 50 seaters, would it help them, as well as airways to sell some of them and replace them with bigger airplanes?

Perhaps, if that is what US Airways wants and doing so will not violate their scope clause. The BAe 146s were retired during the transition from UA to US because the pilot's contract would not allow it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAznCSA4QF744ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3415 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
The BAe 146s were retired during the transition from UA to US because the pilot's contract would not allow it.

That has nothing to do with United decision to retire those BAe's. Actually the BAe's was included in the scope clause. As the BAe's can only be used for service into ASE. Those aircraft were too expensive to operate and they burn more fuel than the CRJ's.


User currently offlineFlymli From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

the 146/s flew many routes over the zw system.not just ase...had 18 of them at one time.before ua went cheap....

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22731 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2742 times:



Quoting AznCSA4QF744ER (Reply 2):
Actually the BAe's was included in the scope clause.

...the UA scope clause, not the US scope clause (though the US scope clause DOES permit Mesa to fly 86-seat CR9s).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2619 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
...the UA scope clause, not the US scope clause

Correct. UA may have wanted them to be retired but the transition to US Airways sealed the 146s' fate as the US pilot contract would not allow them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22731 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2606 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
Correct. UA may have wanted them to be retired but the transition to US Airways sealed the 146s' fate as the US pilot contract would not allow them.

...though they could have put in F (a la the XJ AR8s) and operated them for US, I think.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2460 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
...though they could have put in F (a la the XJ AR8s) and operated them for US, I think.

Probably, but those planes were beginning to get long in the tooth anyway and I have read that BAe-146s were rather maintenance intensive. Plus, this happened before the first class on RJs trend really got started.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2394 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
...though they could have put in F (a la the XJ AR8s) and operated them for US, I think.

What the US scope says is that any plane that has been in service at the mainline level can never be flown by contractors. Thus the 146 could not be flown for US. Those things were fuel guzzlers anyways, and the US contract started when Oil was very expensive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Perhaps, if that is what US Airways wants and doing so will not violate their scope clause

I was thinking CRJ 700's myself. These don't violate scope, and wouldn't take much effort to get the pilots qualified on them. I am not sure about the 900's though. I think the Mesa 900's may be grandfathered, but I am not sure.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22731 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2368 times:



Quoting Apodino (Reply 8):
What the US scope says is that any plane that has been in service at the mainline level can never be flown by contractors

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 8):
I am not sure about the 900's though. I think the Mesa 900's may be grandfathered, but I am not sure.

AFAIK, YV has an exclusive contract for PHX (which would also preclude ZW from operating -200s or -700s at PHX), but there are no other restrictions on -900 flying.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2277 times:



Quoting Apodino (Reply 8):
What the US scope says is that any plane that has been in service at the mainline level can never be flown by contractors.

That's right, I remember now. Since PSA had them they can't be flown by ZW or any other regional.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCWAFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2165 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Not when Skywest and GoJet are willing to do the same for less money apparently.

The pilot payscales are nearly identical. The top of ZW's pay-scale at 18 years is $95 and $99 for SkyWest.


User currently offlineDispatchguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1249 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2007 times:



Quoting AznCSA4QF744ER (Reply 2):
As the BAe's can only be used for service into ASE.

Wrong. They were the only jet that could do ASE at the time, and still were the BEST aircraft from an operational standpoint to be able to serve ASE. The CRJ7 goes there, but it still has more warnings about ops in ASE then the BA46 did.

When I dispatched at ZW, we had a few lines of BA46s serving ORD, a line that ran ATW-MKE-DEN-SBA, a flight to PDX (or EUG, dont remember now), a weekend flight that ran LAXASE (for the pretty people, according to a flight crew), and of course a bunch of DENASE turns. The ASE jumpseat was by far the most interesting jumpseat leg I have yet to fly.



Nobody screws you better than an airline job!
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...
Mesa And Air Wisconsin..who Wins? posted Sun May 22 2005 05:54:28 by Flyibaby
United Express (Air Wisconsin) CRJs posted Thu Sep 16 2004 07:39:29 by FlightLover
United Express/Air Wisconsin At ORD Question posted Fri Dec 12 2003 00:14:05 by BMIA330
United And Air New Zealands Plans posted Tue Jul 9 2002 23:55:12 by Alitalia777
Wisconsin Tax Bill Status: Midex And Air Wisconsin posted Mon Aug 7 2000 15:51:32 by DC-9CAPT
Air Wisconsin (Past, Present, And Future) posted Sun Jun 29 2008 13:07:58 by ZWZWUnited
Air Wisconsin And It's Role With The New US posted Wed Sep 28 2005 20:43:48 by ATWZW170
Air Wisconsin, New Colors, And The BAE-146 posted Thu Jul 14 2005 06:41:37 by PiedmontINT
United Creditors Want $ Paid Out To Air Wisconsin posted Thu Mar 31 2005 22:41:09 by KarlB737
Air Wisconsin And CRJ-700s posted Tue Sep 30 2003 05:59:40 by Flyboy80