Skybus Coming Back?!?

[Cptnchia]

See, I couldn't leave this place bacause of you! I gotta bid the ER, flying a trip with you would be a blast.

[Doug Taylor]

Come on up man, we'll have a blast, seriously. Adventures to be had, and get paid!

[OneNineHundy]

Please no!!! Can't see it getting off the ground again though myself. Wrong business plan to be competitive in this environment.

[Velocipede]

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.

[coa787]

Originally Posted by blee256

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

huh?

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.

[coa787]

Originally Posted by SpiraMirabilis

It's not looked down upon at all.

I was just joking around based on what you said about the hours and salary for flying the A319 (I'm assuming you meant the A319 seeing as that's what Skybus operates)

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by SeanD

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.

Pleeeease don't give them any ideas.

Originally Posted by blee256

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

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

Originally Posted by coa787

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.

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.

[PurduePilot]

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.

[PCL_128]

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.

[Velocipede]

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.

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

Today, you might as well take the money and toss it in the dumpster.

I think that is a better investment. You can go back to said dumpster until trash day and have better return on your investment potential.

[Vyse]

Originally Posted by srleslie

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.

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).

[srleslie]

Originally Posted by Vyse

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).

Thanks for clearning that up. What's in it for the founder if he doesn't control the business?