Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA Drops More Mesa Flying - All CRJ200's Are Out!  
User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11130 times:

in addition to the Dash8's in DEN now they have lost the deal for 26 CRJ200's

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mesa-A...es-prnews-1562196731.html?x=0&.v=1

After the retirement of the Dash8's and these 26CRJ's, how many aircraft will Mesa have with UA still?

-m

  

[Edited 2009-11-06 17:25:23]

[Edited 2009-11-06 17:34:46]

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11097 times:



Quoting UnitedTristar (Thread starter):
how many aircraft will Mesa have with UA still?

20 CRJ 700s will still be in service....This is bad news for Mesa thats 18% of their revenue that just went poof.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11083 times:



Quoting United1 (Reply 1):
20 CRJ 700s will still be in service....This is bad news for Mesa thats 18% of their revenue that just went poof.

WOW...so thats the last of the 50 seat flying for Mesa at UA ha?

-m

 airplane 


User currently offlineAV8AJET From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1310 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11087 times:

I wonder who will pick up this flying? Could EV (ASA), OO (Skywest) or (Express Jet) get it or is UA just dumping 50 seat flying?


"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
User currently offlineYVPHX From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11084 times:

well on the upside, whenever there is a MX problem at PHX, sounds like they will have ample planes on standby.

User currently offlinePgtravel From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 446 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11066 times:



Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 3):
I wonder who will pick up this flying? Could EV (ASA), OO (Skywest) or (Express Jet) get it or is UA just dumping 50 seat flying?

Hopefully they're just dumping it, because there's too much out there. Otherwise they'll probably find someone else to do a prorate deal so they don't have to take any risk.

This means Mesa will be down to 100 aircraft. They were above 160 last year.


User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11038 times:



Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 3):
I wonder who will pick up this flying?

wasn't there an announcement not too long ago about UA and EV starting an express deal?

-m

 airplane 


User currently offlineAV8AJET From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1310 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10981 times:



Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 6):
wasn't there an announcement not too long ago about UA and EV starting an express deal?

Yes starting with 8 -200's out of mainly IAD and a few flights from ORD. Will be 13 -200's with 1 spare, for a 5 year contract. Hopefully EV could purchase some additional -700's for UA just depends on how this new flying works out.



"To fly or not to fly there is no question!"
User currently offlinePWMRamper From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10938 times:

Yay no more Dispatch downgrading our planes when both the inbound and outbound were already overbooked!

United DID put out an RFP for more Express flying a while ago, I wonder if this is why...and I don't think ASA's few CR2's covers their RFP.


It will never happen, but I'd love to see ZW start flying for UA again. Won't be until ZW gets new planes though.


User currently offlineYVPHX From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10938 times:

Actually what I meant to say is this is horrible news!

User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10741 times:

Ugh. Well, maybe UA will order more CR7s or E170s to pick up the slack.


"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineCWAFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 657 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10629 times:



Quoting PWMRamper (Reply 8):
Yay no more Dispatch downgrading our planes when both the inbound and outbound were already overbooked!

I guess you'd rather have a cancel when something goes on mechanical.


User currently offlinePWMRamper From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10511 times:



Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 11):

I wasn't really being negative, more joking around but three times this summer YV Dispatch called the night before and said the aircraft would be better served elsewhere...when both the inbound and outbound were overbooked. Now I'm no dispatcher (yet anyways), but if there's no MX problem, how can a CR7 be better utilized than both flights almost certianly going out with 100% Load Factor. If it was weather, I can understand aircraft positioning. Makes perfect sense. Instead of sending the aircraf to a line station where it could get stuck and potentially disservice passengers for two days, you keep it in the hub and minimize the problems. But to my recollection the weather was fine. The planes were early.

Unless Mesa can predict mechanicals almost a full day in advance, I doubt it was a mechanical issue.

Regardless, it wasn't meant as a YV bash. Since all we get in PWM are CR2's and CR7's, we now won't have to worry about equipment substitutions any longer, that's all.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4124 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10117 times:



Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 3):
I wonder who will pick up this flying? Could EV (ASA), OO (Skywest) or (Express Jet) get it or is UA just dumping 50 seat flying?

Well, remember that ASA recently announced the deal with UA to put 50 seaters into service with UA as part of that Skywest transaction. My guess is that these planes are going into service at the expense of Mesa. It is getting really complicated at UA though.

Quoting PWMRamper (Reply 8):

It will never happen, but I'd love to see ZW start flying for UA again. Won't be until ZW gets new planes though.

It may though. Remember that UA still has an RFP out on the table that they haven't awarded the contract on. ZW is a very aggressive participant in that RFP, and financially may be in the best position to acquire airplanes to fulfil this RFP. The RFP in question is likely for 70 seat lift, and this is going to likly come at the expense of either Mesa or Shuttle America. That being said, given the recent developments at Mesa, their days with UA may be numbered. But Shuttle America, as a Republic Subsidiary, also has reasons for UA to want to be done with them too.


User currently offlinePensacolaguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10065 times:

I'm sorry, but I do not understand this announcement..

According Mesa's website (http://www.mesa-air.com/fleet.asp) they operate 35 CRJ 100/200 and 16 DASH 8-200.
And they operate 47 regional jet and 6 turboprop aircraft for United Airlines as United Express.

Mesa flies 47 regional jets and 6 turboprop's under its code-share agreement with United.
Which means the Mesa contracts with United to fly aircraft with its own aircraft,crew (Pilot,F/A) and ground crew (baggage,gate)? So this means that UA chose not to fly the DASH 8s and 26 CRJ-200 jets?
What does this mean for yet started service by Mesa (EX: IAD-PNS)?

I hope someone is able to help me understand.
Thanks


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9973 times:



Quoting Pensacolaguy (Reply 14):
Mesa flies 47 regional jets and 6 turboprop's under its code-share agreement with United.
Which means the Mesa contracts with United to fly aircraft with its own aircraft,crew (Pilot,F/A) and ground crew (baggage,gate)? So this means that UA chose not to fly the DASH 8s and 26 CRJ-200 jets?
What does this mean for yet started service by Mesa (EX: IAD-PNS)?

Mesas numbers are a little off... they operate 10 DHC-8-200s, 26 CRJ-200s and 20 CRJ-700s for UA. This announcement affects the CRJ-200s and DHCs which UA has decided that they no longer want operated as part of the UAX Network. UA does not actually code share with Mesa Airlines instead they operate under a capacity purchase agreement with United. In essence UA tells Mesa that they would like X number of flights a day between point A and point B and Mesa sends UA a bill... Smile It's a bit more complicated then that however thats the nuts and bolts of it. When this agreement terminates UA will have another UAX airline take over the flights for Mesa.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7383 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9831 times:

I wonder what this will mean for ROC? We get Mesa -200's and -700's to ORD & IAD.


'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineRJFLYER From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9228 times:

ASA is going to be doing a lot of flying for them now starting Feb 10 2010 our base opens at IAD. we will have (14 planes 13 active 1 spare) in service by May 2010. They have already hired reserve FAs to go to the base and sent out an initial bid awards for our pilots who want to go. If the need arises they will open a base in Chicago but they have yet to confirm that. So that's where some of the slack will be picked up.

User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3799 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8933 times:

The new ASA flying for UA is NOT apart of the RFP. The ASA flying is a part of the recent deal Skywest Inc. and UA entered in to. Apparently the winner of the RFP will be announced soon.

User currently offlinePilotfox From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

I'm hearing rumblings that Express Jet got the RFP, we shall see.

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12413 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pgtravel (Reply 5):
This means Mesa will be down to 100 aircraft. They were above 160 last year.

I wish the Mesa staff well. That is quite the reduction during a time when the majors are not hiring.

Quoting Tommy767 (Reply 10):
Well, maybe UA will order more CR7s or E170s to pick up the slack.

I rather like the CR7, but I'd love to see more E170 UA (express)! Either way, I do not see good economics with 50 seaters.

Quoting Pilotfox (Reply 19):
I'm hearing rumblings that Express Jet got the RFP, we shall see.

With this I would assume E145's? The only advantage is a slightly lower fuel burn. To expand on my comment on 50 seat jets, they do not (to me) make sense at oil > $50/bbl. So I'll wonder at the wisdom of replacing the CR2's with more 50 seaters. I have a different opinion with turboprops or CR7's...

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4124 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8391 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 20):
Quoting Pilotfox (Reply 19):
I'm hearing rumblings that Express Jet got the RFP, we shall see.

With this I would assume E145's? The only advantage is a slightly lower fuel burn. To expand on my comment on 50 seat jets, they do not (to me) make sense at oil > $50/bbl. So I'll wonder at the wisdom of replacing the CR2's with more 50 seaters. I have a different opinion with turboprops or CR7's...

This would not make sense at all. No one seems to know what the parameters of the RFP are, but most people seem to think its for 70 seat lift. ExpressJet is not flying any 70 seat A/C at the moment, and I am not sure if the CO scope would prevent them from getting 70 seaters for anyone. The ASA and Skywest developments in recent weeks take care of most of the 50 seat needs for United, so I doubt its for more 50 seat life. As much as I hate to say this because of the love for the 170's on here, the CRJ 700's are more economical from both a fuel and a training standpoint, and it will much more cost efficient for a current CRJ operator to add the 700. This would give the advantage to someone like an Air Wisconsin or Pinnacle, neither of whom operate the 700 currently but both have some cash and could easily acquire some metal for this flying and are already existing CRJ operators.


User currently offlineIndyWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7857 times:



Quoting Apodino (Reply 13):
Shuttle America, as a Republic Subsidiary, also has reasons for UA to want to be done with them too.

Pure speculation. UA has never said "We want to be rid of Shuttle America." Besides the fact the Shuttle America has not violated the contract in any way, shape, or form so UA can't just drop them without a major $ penalty. And the contract still has years to go!

I love everyone's idea that all the RAH partner airlines they fly for now want to drop them. Not one of them has made ANY statement to this fact at all...this is 100% speculation until an airline actually drops them or makes a press release about dropping them.

Besides, good luck to UA to find at least 35 more 70 seat a/c immediately. And one people actually ENJOY compared to the CR7.


User currently offlineACElite From Canada, joined Oct 2009, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7798 times:

I much prefer Mesa's RJ-700 service over Shuttle America's E170's.. I hope they don't axe those anytime soon!

User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15454 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7331 times:



Quoting ACElite (Reply 23):
I much prefer Mesa's RJ-700 service over Shuttle America's E170's..

Why? The E-170s are more comfortable in pretty much every respect.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 KGAIflyer : Your statement is interesting because most flyers can't tell if the CR-7 they are flying on is a Mesa frame, a GoJet frame, or a Skywest frame (IIRC
26 BMI727 : If you can feel your legs when you get off the plane, it means you were on an Embraer.
27 CrimsonNL : Well I gotta say the legroom in Y+ was very generous on the Mesa CR7 I flew on!
28 Tommy767 : Yeah not a fan of the 50 seater CRJ. The -700 are nice but no matter what you still feel like your on a RJ. The E-170 however is a GREAT ride....
29 DeltaMD90 : Good riddance! The less of those things the better!
30 PI731 : If United was smart, they would get some Q400's for ORD!
31 Saab2000 : Why? Not disputing the economics of that airplane, but there are likely scope issues for one. Second, even though everyone here thinks it's a stupid
32 DurangoMac : The only scope the UA pilots have is on jets not turboprops from my understanding. I kind I remember a UA official asking for a regional to fly Q400'
33 JBAirwaysFan : There's a problem if UA/Mesa CRJ-200s are out...IIRC, the new PNS station is supposed to be operated by Mesa CRJ-200s. Are they going to use another r
34 SLUAviator : And then AA will dust off their old "we're all jet at O'Hare" adds until the Qs go elsewhere.
35 BMI727 : ...or UA could offer the real facts to the public who would hopefully be smart enough to realize that on many segments the Dash 8 is as good or bette
36 CWAFlyer : [ Each time they downgraded, that's the best explanation they could give you? I really hope a supervisor or your station manager called or emailed a s
37 AV8AJET : My guess would be ASA (EV).
38 Post contains links Tjwgrr : Here's a link that works: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-newsArticle&ID=1352498&highlight=
39 Par13del : Another poster has given a couple reasons, I could add another one, "bean counters". These are the folks sitting at computer terminals, looking at bo
40 Rjnut : Have you asked Continental In Newark about all that and their frequent flyers?! one is probably either an on-line self booker, in which price drives
41 Hiflyer : This thread echoes similar past threads re supposed conflict between Republic and UA. Is this more of another anet urban myth? It looks like acceptanc
42 Goldenshield : Look at it how you want to, but Republic is FAR from the favorite son at UA. OO has nearly 60% of ALL UAX flights. When it comes to their operational
43 KGAIflyer : ---------------------------------------------------- In a perfect fantasy world, the answer would be for Skywest to branch out into Embraer -- perhap
44 CWAFlyer : That's not a reason for equipment subs, day of. The bean counters looking at this stuff do so for futhre schedules or how they decide what type to pu
45 CWAFlyer : They might want more E170's, but they aren't in a position to dictate that when they aren't the ones buying the airplanes. They just borrowed a bunch
46 Skyrat : Reduce the CRJ700? I find that to be a very bad idea. The ERJ170 is a nice plane to fly in, but that's the only advantage over the CRJ700. In my mind
47 Pellegrine : I guess they got a few of my complaint letters! I cannot stand flying on Mesa or CR2s of any airline. The last time I flew them was because of an invo
48 Tommy767 : The other option I have to ask since UA has rid their 737 fleet is how many options does UA have on the 319s? I'm thinking they might need a few more
49 Goldenshield : You write a complaint letter each and every time you fly on a CRJ-200? I'm surprised that they bother to write you back at all then.
50 Eraugrad02 : I think their best thing to do is have Air Whiskey fly 20 CR9's and that would help cities that lost 737-500 service. Then you're lef with more CR7's
51 As739x : Please refer to above "scope clause" with the United pilots on jet size.
52 PWMRamper : Since CR9's are certified to hold more than 85 Passengers (86-90), ZW couldn't fly them. ZW could only fly planes certified 85 seats or less. So the
53 Pellegrine : No, I don't have that much time. I used to take a route out of IAD often, two actually, that were always Mesa's CRJ-200 (then they were someone else,
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...
UA Adding More Red-eyes @ PDX posted Sun Mar 19 2006 07:54:12 by RampRat74
UA To Drop Mesa. posted Sun Aug 15 2004 12:26:02 by Crjboy
UA Adding More Flights To EUG posted Tue Mar 2 2004 21:59:13 by Flyboy80
Mesa Flying For United posted Thu Jan 29 2004 07:26:36 by Socalatc
NWA Gives Away More Intl Flying posted Tue Jan 27 2004 04:40:22 by Nwfltattendant
Where UA Needs To Be Flying posted Fri Jan 16 2004 15:39:18 by UNITED777300
UA Peddles More 744s posted Fri May 9 2003 22:57:39 by ConcordeBoy
UA Ground More Planes.. posted Mon Mar 24 2003 22:06:01 by Ba319-131
UA Needs More Cuts posted Sat Aug 10 2002 02:29:02 by Aa777flyer
Why UA Charges More For F-class On 3-class Plane? posted Thu Jan 31 2002 23:59:57 by Bobcat