Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Trans States To Discontinue US Express J41 Flying  
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

Trans States Airlines will discontinue its at-risk Jetstream 41 flying for US Airways Express.

To be discontinued on 6/4/05:
PIT-TYS

To be discontinued on 7/2/05:
PIT-GSO

To be discontinued on 8/31/05:
PIT-RDU
PIT-RIC
BWI-GSO
BWI-RIC
BWI-SYR

US Airways Express will no longer serve the PIT-TYS, PIT-GSO, BWI-RIC markets.

US Airways Express will continue to serve the PIT-RIC market with 3x ERJ, and the PIT-RDU market with 1x ERJ + 2x DH8

US Airways Express carrier Colgan Air will begin service in the BWI-GSO and BWI-SYR markets on 9/1/05, with 3x daily BE1 roundtrips in each market.

Trans States currently operates 8 Jetstream 41 aircraft for US Airways Express. I do not know whether Trans States intends to retire the aircraft or move them to its AmericanConnection operation.

[Edited 2005-06-05 08:48:50]


I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

Not good news for US Airways. It is absolutely impossible for US Airways to lose any money on at-risk flying. Why most airlines have their regional flights fee-per-departure rather than at-risk is so far beyond my comprehension, other than the almighty control and market share, I fail to understand how Albert Einstein could figure this one out. Fee-per-departure flying is nearly-guaranteed money-losing, at-risk is nearly-guaranteed money-making. Well, market-share over bottom-line is what got many of the legacies to this point...


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineEjmmsu From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Hopefully these J41's will be moved to American connection. Adding more props to their routes will only help AA's bottom line.


"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they will have to be disposed of"
User currently offlineFlypdx From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3803 times:

Sorry for the stupid question, but what is at risk flying?

User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3801 times:

Basically, Flypdx, take Air Wisconsin for example. They choose a route to fly. Let's say they choose to fly PHL to CAK. They pay US Airways a fee to use the US Airways Express brand name, their reservation systems, ground handling and so on and so forth. However, Air Wisconsin gets all of the revenues from that flight, minus of course the fee they pay US Airways.

FEE-PER-DEPARTURE

  • The mainline carrier pays the express carrier a fee.
  • The mainline carrier sets the schedule.
  • The mainline carrier keeps all profits from the flight.
  • Almost always profitable for the express carrier.


AT RISK FLYING

  • The express carrier pays the mainline carrier a fee.
  • The express carrier sets the schedule.
  • The express carrier keeps all profits from the flight, minus the fee they pay the mainline carrier.


Hope I Helped,
AAndrew


User currently offlineFlypdx From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3768 times:

Ah, thank you very much  Smile

User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 1):
Not good news for US Airways. It is absolutely impossible for US Airways to lose any money on at-risk flying. Why most airlines have their regional flights fee-per-departure rather than at-risk is so far beyond my comprehension, other than the almighty control and market share, I fail to understand how Albert Einstein could figure this one out. Fee-per-departure flying is nearly-guaranteed money-losing, at-risk is nearly-guaranteed money-making. Well, market-share over bottom-line is what got many of the legacies to this point...

Actually, I'm in favor of this move. It certainly *is* possible for US to lose out on this flying. It's very difficult for US to lose money directly, that I grant you. (And the Trans States operation was so small, US did not make a whole lot of money on it.)

But the indirect losses to the US brand can be big. It hurts the US brand when you have Air Midwest and Trans States flying planes that look like this:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Robbins
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Wheeler



To use an extreme example, it *really* hurts the US Airways brand when Air Midwest (and, to a lesser extent, Colgan) are involved in plane crashes. And, the reason I'm most in favor of this, it hurts US to have many different carriers operating different types of airplane, because there is no standardization and customers don't know what to expect. In the last year, US has gone from 6 carriers operating 4 types of 30-to-37 seat planes to 2 carriers operating 2 types of planes. That is a good thing.

And the two routes that were actually making money are being picked up by Colgan, so there is not much loss to the US network. (Colgan's Saab fleet is stretched pretty thin right now, but I expect the routes to be upgraded at some point.)



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlinePHLAUA From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

For some reason I thought they stopped using J41s a while ago. Guess I hadn't been keeping up with USX-TransStates operations. It's been a while since I've seen one of them here in PHL.

Jeff


User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Jeff-All of US Airways Express' turboprop operations at Philadelphia are wholly-owned, and US Airways will not allow any at-risk operations under their banner at Philadelphia. Also worth noting is that the only at-risk operations at Charlotte are Air Midwest's 2x daily to Athens, Georgia, and 1x daily to Lewisburg, West Virginia, and both of those cities are EAS cities.


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlinePHLAUA From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

That makes sense. Is there a specific reason that's the case at PHL and not PIT, BWI and the 3 flights from CLT?

Jeff


User currently offlineLoggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

For what it's worth... from the inside...

Most of the J41 leases are expiring this year and the planes are being returned to the lessors. By Sept '05, any remaining J41's will be transferred to the AA side in STL. All J41 flying (both US and AA) is a loss maker for Trans States Airlines. If, and only if, the lease agreements can be reworked to lower the lease costs to TSA, the J41 service will continue, or we can expect to see all J41's leave the fleet.

We still currently operate 13 ERJ-145 aircraft on the USX banner, but we will see what happens to those once things pan out with US/AWAC.



There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3847 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3540 times:

Quoting A330323X (Reply 6):
And the two routes that were actually making money are being picked up by Colgan, so there is not much loss to the US network. (Colgan's Saab fleet is stretched pretty thin right now, but I expect the routes to be upgraded at some point.)

are they getting more saabs? if njot what type of upgrade are you reffering to?


User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 8):
Also worth noting is that the only at-risk operations at Charlotte are Air Midwest's 2x daily to Athens, Georgia, and 1x daily to Lewisburg, West Virginia, and both of those cities are EAS cities.

Air Midwest can fly all the flights they want to out of CLT, no one is stopping them. The reason they've dropped all the non-EAS flying is because they can't make any money doing it. They've only got 3 non-EAS subsidized routes left in the whole US system.

Quoting PHLAUA (Reply 9):
That makes sense. Is there a specific reason that's the case at PHL and not PIT, BWI and the 3 flights from CLT?

US only lets Piedmont operate props at PHL right now to help ameliorate the capacity-related air traffic delays and also a shortage of gate space.

Quoting Loggat (Reply 10):
We still currently operate 13 ERJ-145 aircraft on the USX banner

I believe the number is 17.

Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 11):
are they getting more saabs? if njot what type of upgrade are you reffering to?

Yes; while I don't know of any specific plans, Colgan has been adding more Saabs for a while now. Also, they should have a few aircraft free up after the ACK/MVY high season ends. Alternatively, they could add additional Beech frequencies. Or they could move the Saabs off of another route if the new ones perform well.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1541 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3373 times:

Yeay, RDU gets the Dash 8 back to PIT. I love that airplane


Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6787 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 13):
Yeay, RDU gets the Dash 8 back to PIT. I love that airplane

It was previously 2 J41 and 2 DH8... the DH8 remain.. the 2 J1 changed to 1 ERJ...



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1541 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 14):
It was previously 2 J41 and 2 DH8... the DH8 remain.. the 2 J1 changed to 1 ERJ...

I stand corrected. I haven't spent much time as I'd like in RDU recently and it seems the only flights I'd ever seen on ASD from PIT to RDU are the J41s.



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

Quoting A330323X (Reply 12):
Air Midwest can fly all the flights they want to out of CLT, no one is stopping them. The reason they've dropped all the non-EAS flying is because they can't make any money doing it.

Why is some of that EAS flying (I'm referring more to Colgan's Staunton and Bluefield flights than anything else) going to Northern Virginia then, as opposed to Charlotte, even when you consider that Northern Virginia is a United hub, rather than a US Airways hub? I'm not disputing what you are saying, just wondering what Colgan is thinking...



Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 16):
Why is some of that EAS flying (I'm referring more to Colgan's Staunton and Bluefield flights than anything else) going to Northern Virginia then, as opposed to Charlotte, even when you consider that Northern Virginia is a United hub, rather than a US Airways hub? I'm not disputing what you are saying, just wondering what Colgan is thinking...

LOL, I should've known that would be your next question.  Smile

The answer is that Air Midwest can fly all the flights they want to out of CLT. I said nothing about Colgan. Colgan can't fly the Beech into CLT because Air Midwest's contract allows them to be the exclusive 19-seat provider for US Airways Express at CLT. It dates back to the CCAir days. Similarly, Colgan is the exclusive 19-seat operator for US Airways Express at BOS. I'm not sure whether or not Colgan could fly the Saab into CLT; I would guess not, since CCAir and Mesa previously operated the Dash-8 at CLT.

As for why IAD, I'd note that Colgan is headquartered near IAD, and that US Airways Express historically has had a large presence at IAD, much larger than what they have now. And, of course, the obvious reason being the United codeshare.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7765 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3197 times:

Colgan is stretched very thin right now in terms of aircraft, crews, and resources due to the rapid build-up of IAH CoConex ops down in IAH. They are busy obtaining additional Saabs for this flying, hiring/training crews and now running operations half way across the country. They may run into some serious crew shortages later on this year as their training department is max-ed out and crews time-out.

User currently offlineLoggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3178 times:

Quoting A330323X (Reply 12):
Quoting Loggat (Reply 10):
We still currently operate 13 ERJ-145 aircraft on the USX banner

I believe the number is 17.

You believe incorrectly, it's 13. N801HK-N812HK, plus N829HK.



There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6825 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 16):
Why is some of that EAS flying (I'm referring more to Colgan's Staunton and Bluefield flights than anything else) going to Northern Virginia then, as opposed to Charlotte

To add to this, I believe that the EAS subsidies are tied to routes, not just small airports. If memory serves, the Colgan routes (from the smaller cities in VA & WV) can go to either PIT, IAD, or CMH. They'd have to file for a different route when the EAS award expires if they wanted to fly to CLT instead.

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 1):
Why most airlines have their regional flights fee-per-departure rather than at-risk is so far beyond my comprehension, other than the almighty control and market share, I fail to understand how Albert Einstein could figure this one out. Fee-per-departure flying is nearly-guaranteed money-losing, at-risk is nearly-guaranteed money-making.

Actually, it really depends on how well the large airline prices and markets the fee-for-departure flying. If they do a good job of it, they can make far more money since they keep all the profits over and above what they pay the regional partner to operate the flights. Looking at US Airways in 2000, the Express portion of the business made over $100 million.


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...
STL News - Trans States To C Concourse - Tomorrow! posted Mon Jul 31 2006 23:04:55 by Boeing Nut
UA (Trans States) To End 2 OKC Links-SAT/MSY posted Fri Jul 28 2006 07:14:55 by Lt-AWACS
Trans States Agrees To Fly RJs As United Express posted Fri Jul 11 2003 17:29:59 by Vector
New Trans States US Air Express Operation.. posted Sun Dec 10 2000 00:23:20 by TWAneedsNOhelp
Flying To The US posted Thu Oct 19 2006 14:46:15 by NORTHSEATIGER
UA To Discontinue Some SAT Flying posted Tue Aug 29 2006 05:29:27 by Uadc8contrail
STL-Trans States Ordered To Keep COU For Now. posted Mon Apr 24 2006 14:41:15 by STLtower
Hapag-Lloyd Express To Fly To The US? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 21:44:12 by LTU932
US Express New Service To PIT posted Thu Sep 8 2005 04:56:38 by KITH
Site Of South Africans Flying To The US In Cessnas posted Thu Jan 6 2005 04:17:35 by Donder10