Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DOT Selects EAS Carriers At PKB/CKB/MGW, HGR  
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

The DOT today made carrier selections in two EAS cases.

The DOT selected RegionsAir to provide EAS at PKB/CKB/MGW, operating 3 daily PKB-CVG roundtrips and 3 daily MGW-CKB-CVG roundtrips, with the Saab 340A, for an annual subsidy of $1,051,333. Air Midwest currently provides service at PKB/CKB/MGW to PIT as US Airways Express. The RegionsAir flights will not be codeshared with a major carrier; they will simply operate as RegionsAir.

The DOT selected Air Midwest d/b/a US Airways Express to provide EAS at HGR, operating 3 daily HGR-PIT roundtrips, with the Beech 1900D, for an annual subsidy of $649,929. Air Midwest currently operates HGR-PIT service, but at only 2x daily.

The West Virginia proposals were thoroughly discussed here.

The Hagerstown proposals were discussed here.

For the DOT order in the West Virginia cases, see http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf93/344932_web.pdf.

For the DOT order for Hagerstown, see http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf93/344946_web.pdf.


I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5418 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

Quoting A330323X (Thread starter):
The RegionsAir flights will not be codeshared with a major carrier; they will simply operate as RegionsAir.

There has been discussion within DOT and publicly about subsidized feeders running multiple codeshares, as a condition of the subsidy - basically codesharing with any willing airline that serves the "hub" end of the route.

Makes sense to me; if the government is subsidizing the flight, let's get as many pax onboard as possible.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 1):
There has been discussion within DOT and publicly about subsidized feeders running multiple codeshares, as a condition of the subsidy - basically codesharing with any willing airline that serves the "hub" end of the route.

Makes sense to me; if the government is subsidizing the flight, let's get as many pax onboard as possible.

Oh, you'll get no argument from me. This lack of a codeshare is just going to absolutely ruin air service for these three communities, all of which have historically had very good enplanements and haven't required subsidy until now. Connectivity will be nonexistant, enplanements will fall through the floor, the amount of subsidy required will skyrocket, the service levels will be cut, and then the vicious cycle will repeat.

Now, of course, the communities did all ask for the RegionsAir service. But you must hold the DOT responsible here, too. The idiots in these small towns don't know any better. The people in the DOT do know better, but they let these small towns get their choices, even when the DOT knows it'll ruin their air service. They did it here with PKB/CKB/MGW, giving access to a "large hub" when that access will be completely useless because of the need to buy two seperate tickets and transfer yourself from RegionsAir to Delta. They did it with BLF/BKW and with HON/BKX, giving access to "low fares", ruining connectivity by sending the flights to small airports where WN operates, even though WN doesn't interline with anyone anyway, so you're forced to buy two tickets and transfer yourself, and hardly offering low fares.

Someone should be responsible enough to stop this nonsense. I just don't understand it.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6606 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2339 times:

I believe the reason they DOT allowed this is because there are talks about FORCING companies to codeshare on these EAS routes. The DOT may force DL to codeshare on these routes.

User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3813 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

wow. this is going to make prices for flying from these cities rediculous if they dont get a codeshare. Looks like more folks will be driving elsewhere.

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17443 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2289 times:

Quoting A330323X (Thread starter):
The RegionsAir flights will not be codeshared with a major carrier; they will simply operate as RegionsAir.

Why don't they just burn the money instead? It'll provide more benefit that way.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2281 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 3):
I believe the reason they DOT allowed this is because there are talks about FORCING companies to codeshare on these EAS routes. The DOT may force DL to codeshare on these routes.

The DOT isn't going to force anyone to codeshare.

And I don't think I'd want them to start meddling like that, even if it would be a good thing here.

The correct decision here was for the DOT to give Air Midwest the contract, but they insisted on following the communities' misguided wishes.

As an aside, the reason RegionsAir didn't apply for the routes as AmericanConnection (or that Air Midwest operates some routes as Mesa Airlines, and so on) is that these codeshares don't come for free. I don't know the specifics of RegionsAir's deal with AA, but Colgan, for example, pays US about $12 per passenger plus 6% of revenue for the right to operate as US Airways Express. RegionsAir was doubtless concerned that if they operated the flights as AmericanConnection, the added costs would increase the subsidy requirements too much, and they wouldn't get the contract.

I'll also note that RegionsAir still doesn't have any Saab 340As, nor does it have FAA approval to fly the type yet. I can't recall ever seeing the DOT award a contract like this contingent on the carrier acquiring the necessary aircraft and receiving certification to operate those aircraft.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineOH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1436 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Independent airlines aren't always the end of the world...

when SkyWest Airlines started up - they were small and just ran one route, and now they've morphed into the largest regional airline in the world.

Independent airlines can make money too... one of the business models SkyWest wanted to adopt at one point in time was to operate flights and let whomever wanted to codeshare and buy seats to do so. I could see NationsAir doing something of a similar vein.

Case in point, Great Lakes out of DEN. They codeshare simultaneously with UA and F9. The money isn't great, but they are squeaking out in the black, so that's better than the red  Smile It also points out independent regional carriers free of a major partner can operate efficently as well.

NationsAir, just like many smaller airlines has IT&B agreements with many larger airlines, and can file joint fares and through fares with other carriers. Yes, there won't be a big name airline signage at the airport, but most people won't overly worry about that.

Delta can't serve a lot of markets with the RJ's it has under the DLC banner that would be better suited to a prop, like so many cities SkyWest serves out in the West Coast. I've heard rumors DL is looking for a prop DLC operator in the East Coast. You never know...

Kai



Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2229 times:

Quoting OH-LGA (Reply 7):
when SkyWest Airlines started up - they were small and just ran one route, and now they've morphed into the largest regional airline in the world.

That was then. Things are different now.

Quoting OH-LGA (Reply 7):
Case in point, Great Lakes out of DEN. They codeshare simultaneously with UA and F9. The money isn't great, but they are squeaking out in the black, so that's better than the red It also points out independent regional carriers free of a major partner can operate efficently as well.

Hey, if RegionsAir (not NationsAir) were going to be operating independently, but carrying other airlines' codes, like Great Lakes or Big Sky does, that'd be a completely different story. But that's not what they'll be doing.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

Quoting A330323X (Thread starter):
The DOT selected RegionsAir to provide EAS at PKB/CKB/MGW, operating 3 daily PKB-CVG roundtrips and 3 daily MGW-CKB-CVG roundtrips, with the Saab 340A, for an annual subsidy of $1,051,333. Air Midwest currently provides service at PKB/CKB/MGW to PIT as US Airways Express. The RegionsAir flights will not be codeshared with a major carrier; they will simply operate as RegionsAir.

WOW. That may be the worst news I've ever heard. Part of the Air Midwest bid was the routing... CLT probably would have been better than PIT at this point, as by air CLT isn't very far at all from MGW/CKB/PKB. Too bad Commutair didn't apply for routings to CLE, I'd probably start flying home via MGW instead of driving on weekends I come home to visit the folks. (Yeah I know... US currently... but a Saab from ABE to PIT then getting on another prop to MGW isn't appealing)

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 5):

Why don't they just burn the money instead? It'll provide more benefit that way.

Leave it to the government to piss away our tax money.

Quoting A330323X (Reply 2):
Now, of course, the communities did all ask for the RegionsAir service. But you must hold the DOT responsible here, too. The idiots in these small towns don't know any better. The people in the DOT do know better, but they let these small towns get their choices, even when the DOT knows it'll ruin their air service. They did it here with PKB/CKB/MGW, giving access to a "large hub" when that access will be completely useless because of the need to buy two seperate tickets and transfer yourself from RegionsAir to Delta. They did it with BLF/BKW and with HON/BKX, giving access to "low fares", ruining connectivity by sending the flights to small airports where WN operates, even though WN doesn't interline with anyone anyway, so you're forced to buy two tickets and transfer yourself, and hardly offering low fares.

I could see MGW et al being concerned about losing their connectivity in PIT, but this is probably the worst option of all of them. Because now you have to fly to CVG, then buy a Delta ticket out of CVG... where Delta is notoriously expensive. Honestly, I bet a DLC CRJ going CVG-MGW-CKB-CVG (or replace CVG with ATL) would probably cost the government less money in the long run... and be immensely more profitable to the cities themselves. The CRJ's could easily get off of MGW's runway for the short hop to CKB, where they'd have plenty of runway. Once again... can't give a contract to someone who doesn't apply though. CVG is notoriously high fares... no LCC's... wow, I'm at a loss of words to describe my disgust in this. I'd rather they just routed the B1900's we have currently over to PHL... and coming from ME that means ALOT!

Quoting A330323X (Reply 6):

I'll also note that RegionsAir still doesn't have any Saab 340As, nor does it have FAA approval to fly the type yet. I can't recall ever seeing the DOT award a contract like this contingent on the carrier acquiring the necessary aircraft and receiving certification to operate those aircraft.

I'll pray to God that they DON'T get the planes/certifications and it has to be rebid.

Quoting OH-LGA (Reply 7):
I've heard rumors DL is looking for a prop DLC operator in the East Coast. You never know...

That could be a saving grace as well.

Quoting A330323X (Reply 2):
This lack of a codeshare is just going to absolutely ruin air service for these three communities, all of which have historically had very good enplanements and haven't required subsidy until now. Connectivity will be nonexistant, enplanements will fall through the floor, the amount of subsidy required will skyrocket, the service levels will be cut, and then the vicious cycle will repeat.

Sounds a little wacky, I know, BUT... Could Air Midwest, Commutair, or someone realize that money COULD be made on this route if it was publicized (even 99% of the people here in Uniontown - I'm "home" this weekend - don't realize you can fly commercially out of MGW) better, and the fares were proportional... and run this say MGW-CLE, MGW-CLT, or even still MGW-PIT without the subsidies?? You say they haven't required subsidies till now... so is it at all feasible. Hell, my parents flew to ORD for my graduation in December on US for $39 a person cheaper by flying MGW-PIT-ORD than flying directly PIT-ORD on the same flight... if pricing fiascos like these were changed... and then the route was heavily advertised a la NW @ LBE (I'm sure you've seen those commercials too while in the 'Burgh A330323X), I'd be willing to say a real-codeshared flight could make a few bucks from MGW. CKB is probably a lost cause though. For God's sake, the Feds gave 4,000 resident BFD advertisement monies... why not MGW??

Hell, give me some startup cash and a Codeshare with US or CO, and I'll run the damn airline from MGW  Smile

Better yet, bring a real airline and a DH-8 or something to MGW, and drop CKB all together. Considering the CKB airport is on the north (MGW) side of town by a few exits... you can literally drive from CKB's airport to Hart Field (MGW) in less than 30 minutes on nothing but 70mph speed limited interstate highways (79 and 68).

This news is the most appropriate use of this smilie ever:  banghead 


User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2217 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 9):
Leave it to the government to piss away our tax money.

The waste of money doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that these communities depend on their air service, which is about to turn to crap.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 9):
Sounds a little wacky, I know, BUT... Could Air Midwest, Commutair, or someone realize that money COULD be made on this route if it was publicized (even 99% of the people here in Uniontown - I'm "home" this weekend - don't realize you can fly commercially out of MGW) better, and the fares were proportional... and run this say MGW-CLE, MGW-CLT, or even still MGW-PIT without the subsidies??

Nothing is stopping anybody that wants to fly to any of these places without a subsidy. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen, though.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 9):
You say they haven't required subsidies till now... so is it at all feasible.

As sad as it is...I can't remember a single instance off the top of my head of an EAS-subsidized community growing traffic and becoming able to completely wean itself off of subsidy. There are a few instances of places that don't qualify for EAS subsidy, lost service, and then regained service--places like LBE--but I could count airports like that on one hand. By contrast, I could rattle off a number of communities whose subsidy requirements grew to the point where they exceeded the $200/pax cap and thus lost air service altogether.

These communities have the odds against them as it is; it's not fair that the DOT gives them an additional handicap like this.



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

Quoting A330323X (Reply 10):
There are a few instances of places that don't qualify for EAS subsidy, lost service, and then regained service--places like LBE--but I could count airports like that on one hand

Good ol' LBE, their dreams of Southwest shattered by WN going to PIT, so they countered by recruiting NW.

CKB especially (and guilt by association to MGW) has some pretty strong political clout with people like Byrd, Rockefeller, etc. After all, those guys had Comair running CKB-CVG prior to 9/11, but with 9/11 it was axed. PKB might be on their own, but I wouldn't write off MGW/CKB just yet. The thing is if they'd already have this halfassed service to CVG, they wouldn't recruit competing services on Comair. However ASA to ATL? UA-X to IAD? Retaining US (possibly switching it to CLT?). I understand CKB/MGW fearing cutbacks at PIT, but I'll be kind of surprised if Northern WV is down to just this Regions Air crap when it comes time for "it" to hit the proverbial fan... there's too much clout there, and they'll throw monies (be it state or federal) to get someone else in there, at least at CKB. Attempts have already been made, see following links I found while Googling.

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg25720.html
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg25701.html
http://www.kciaviation.com/travel_info.htm


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...
DOT Selects USX-Air Midwest To Provide EAS At COU posted Wed Jun 21 2006 22:00:21 by A330323X
Low Cost Carriers At BRU - Will It Ever Happen? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 20:27:59 by GayrugbyMAN
European Carriers At Santiago-SCL posted Thu Jul 20 2006 19:58:43 by Eastern023
EAS Update At LNS, Air Midwest & RegionsAir Bid posted Tue Jul 11 2006 21:12:57 by A330323X
Asian Carriers At YYZ posted Fri Jun 9 2006 16:04:05 by Legallykev
International Carriers At BOS posted Mon Mar 20 2006 08:42:26 by Zrs70
Help Identify These Carriers At MSY posted Wed Jan 4 2006 18:14:47 by ConcordeBoy
Cargo Carriers At Heathrow posted Tue Sep 6 2005 00:51:13 by Lazyshaun
Abscence Of South American Carriers At London posted Mon Jul 18 2005 16:06:13 by Orion737
Carriers At SVO posted Wed Sep 8 2004 08:48:44 by Aa777jr