Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
YX/YX* Info On The Potential End Of BE1  
User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2895 posts, RR: 30
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

No surprise that Midwest Connect has been awarded again the EAS contract for Escanaba service. They were the only ones to apply this time.

What's interesting is that they tipped their hand a little more on the eventual end of the Beech 1900. They stated in their negotiations their intent to eliminate the 1900:

--Rather than the traditional two-year term, Midwest Connect requested a contract that runs only thirteen months -- April 2006 through May 2007. Normally it would go through March of 2008.

--During this shortened term, they requested -- and received -- the option to substitute the 19 weekly BE1 round trips with 12 FRJ round trips. So even during this short contract (it expires in just over 11 months from now) they have requested the flexbility to substitute RJ's into Escanaba on a reduced frequency for the same level of subsidy.

This suggest to me a few things:

(1) The numbers of Beech in the fleet might drop pretty rapidly. With only four EAS cities they could cover them with only a hanful of aircraft, yet they asked to be allowed to substitute FRJs already in the next 11 months. If they were still certain to have 5 or 6 Beech this time next year, there'd be no reason to ask for this exception.

(2) Replacements for FRJ's (the 50-seat RJ's) might be coming pretty quickly as well so that an FRJ could be sent up to Escanaba.

(3) Midwest Connect might be looking to get out of EAS. The 5/31/07 expiration for Escanaba matches the 5/31/07 expiration for Iron Mountain, Manistee and Ironwood. By getting all of their EAS maret contracts to expire at the same time, they can make a cleaner decision on what they will do.

I wonder if they are thinking of sending the FRJ into Escanaba for a few months to see how the market responds. A perpetual EAS problem is local passengers gonig to other airports for larger aircraft. Escanaba is fairly remote, and the biggest traffic-pullers of Marquette/Sawyer and Green Bay don't have all that much more to offer. MQT is mostly Saab 340s, and Green Bay is mostly RJs. So two daily FRJ's into Escanaba might be a good fit and a good way to keep more traffic their.

If I had to guess, Escanaba and Iron Mountain have a good shot at keeping Midwest Connect as their EAS provider when the FRJ is the smallest aircraft they have. Ironwood and Manistee don't look so promising, however both are remote enough (more than 210 miles from the nearest medium hub) to get a higher subsidy. All this assumes, of course that Midwest Connect finds it viable and worth the effort to send the FRJ into these places.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSkywayDriver From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

You will never see the DoJet flying into Ironwood (IWD) or Manistee (MBL) - problem of airport limitation and certification. Could be wrong but I don't believe IWD or MBL are certified for aircraft operating under Part 25 - only those under Part 23 (the Beech).

Personally, I'd expect to see ESC dropped from service too if the DoJet completely replaces the Beech. Only RHI and MQT would be Jet service, along with CWA, GRB, ATW, MSN, GRR, and maybe MKG.

But, those decisions are way above my paygrade. I'm just a lowly line pilot peon.


User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

I don't know about the certification for IWD or MBL, but at least for MBL there's the issue of having only 5400 feet of runway to contend with in winter weather. IWD and all other EAS cities have at least 6500 ft. of runway.

MKG could fill the jets...last summer we had 1900s bursting at the seams.

What about FNT? You didn't mention them.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2895 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

From what I recall, there have been a few EAS cities that had to come up with money to improve their airports when a larger aircraft was picked, including when Simmons brought the Shorts 360 to Manitowoc WI, when Mesaba brought the Saab 340 to Devils Lake ND and when Great Lakes brought the EM2 Dickinson ND. Things like improved fire protection. Not big outlays, but not free, either. Hard to know if the IWD or MBL communities would pony up.

User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It not about runway length, it has to do with aircraft size. If an airport has schedule air service with an aircraft that has more than 19 seats then that airport must have a full time Crash/Fire Rescue team. IWD, and MBL do not have full time CFR teams, so therefore they cannot see the jet.


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2895 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 2):
I don't know about the certification for IWD or MBL, but at least for MBL there's the issue of having only 5400 feet of runway to contend with in winter weather. IWD and all other EAS cities have at least 6500 ft. of runway.

MKG could fill the jets...last summer we had 1900s bursting at the seams.

What about FNT? You didn't mention them.

Driver, do you know how much runway the FRJ reasonably needs?

As for Flint, it's not a fsubsidized EAS market. It probably could support the FRJ on its own, although the GM-related traffic that supported it over the years has slowed down. On the other hand a FRJ in the market could siphon more local traffic away from DTW-MKE.


User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2895 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3570 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 4):
It not about runway length, it has to do with aircraft size. If an airport has schedule air service with an aircraft that has more than 19 seats then that airport must have a full time Crash/Fire Rescue team. IWD, and MBL do not have full time CFR teams, so therefore they cannot see the jet.

Thanks AirTran737...I thought that's what MTW, DIK and DVL did when they got upgraded EAS equipment. MBL and IWD would have to be willing to do the same. Of course this is all speculative.

I wonder if perhaps they antiicpate being "stuck" with their EAS markets for awhile and are preparing early to get out of them. If they do not rebid for the four EAS cities after 5/31/07, they are still likely to be stuck flying them for a number of months until a replacement is found and comes in.


User currently offlineMlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 5):

As for Flint, it's not a fsubsidized EAS market. It probably could support the FRJ on its own, although the GM-related traffic that supported it over the years has slowed down. On the other hand a FRJ in the market could siphon more local traffic away from DTW-MKE.

For that matter, why YX has never been able to crack into the DTW market is an enigma to me. In some respects, I'm a hub-captive to NW, as DTW is far more convenient geographically to where I need to go. FNT is certainly an option, just not as convenient. Plus, DTW fares are incredibly outrageous, but flying is, again, far more convenient. Yields could still stay profitable. Though fares dropped slightly when YX entered MSP, same-days are still about ~$550.



I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mlsrar (Reply 7):
For that matter, why YX has never been able to crack into the DTW market is an enigma to me. In some respects, I'm a hub-captive to NW, as DTW is far more convenient geographically to where I need to go. FNT is certainly an option, just not as convenient. Plus, DTW fares are incredibly outrageous, but flying is, again, far more convenient. Yields could still stay profitable. Though fares dropped slightly when YX entered MSP, same-days are still about ~$550.

YX did serve DTW at one point if my memory serves correct. I have heard talk that a gentleman's agreement was formed between YX an NW for YX to stay out of DTW, don't ask me what YX got in return, because NW has been anything but gentlemanly to YX in MKE.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 4):
It not about runway length, it has to do with aircraft size. If an airport has schedule air service with an aircraft that has more than 19 seats then that airport must have a full time Crash/Fire Rescue team. IWD, and MBL do not have full time CFR teams, so therefore they cannot see the jet.

Not true, capacity is irrelivant. It has to do with aircraft length and the number of operations. A BE1900 and 328Jet are both less than 90' in length. With such few operations, a local agreement covers the ARFF Index A requirement.

Part 139.315

§ 139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination.

(a) An index is required by paragraph (c) of this section for each certificate holder. The Index is determined by a combination of—

(1) The length of air carrier aircraft and

(2) Average daily departures of air carrier aircraft.

(b) For the purpose of Index determination, air carrier aircraft lengths are grouped as follows:

(1) Index A includes aircraft less than 90 feet in length.

(2) Index B includes aircraft at least 90 feet but less than 126 feet in length.

(3) Index C includes aircraft at least 126 feet but less than 159 feet in length.

(4) Index D includes aircraft at least 159 feet but less than 200 feet in length.

(5) Index E includes aircraft at least 200 feet in length.

(c) Except as provided in §139.319(c), if there are five or more average daily departures of air carrier aircraft in a single Index group serving that airport, the longest aircraft with an average of five or more daily departures determines the Index required for the airport. When there are fewer than five average daily departures of the longest air carrier aircraft serving the airport, the Index required for the airport will be the next lower Index group than the Index group prescribed for the longest aircraft.

(d) The minimum designated index shall be Index A.

(e) A holder of a Class III Airport Operating Certificate may comply with this section by providing a level of safety comparable to Index A that is approved by the Administrator. Such alternate compliance must be described in the ACM and must include:

(1) Pre-arranged firefighting and emergency medical response procedures, including agreements with responding services.

(2) Means for alerting firefighting and emergency medical response personnel.

(3) Type of rescue and firefighting equipment to be provided.

(4) Training of responding firefighting and emergency medical personnel on airport familiarization and communications.


[Doc. No. FAA–2000–7479, 69 FR 6424, Feb. 10, 2004; Amdt. 139–26, 69 FR 31522, June 4, 2004]

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....4.26&idno=14#14:2.0.1.4.26.4.11.8

[Edited 2006-06-22 09:34:07]

User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2895 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 8):
YX did serve DTW at one point if my memory serves correct. I have heard talk that a gentleman's agreement was formed between YX an NW for YX to stay out of DTW, don't ask me what YX got in return, because NW has been anything but gentlemanly to YX in MKE.

Yup, Midwest did MKE-DTW for about 3-4 years ending in 1992. They flew it 3 times each weekdy (no Saturday, 1x on Sunday) with 60-seat DC9. In all those months they rarely even hit an average of 20 pax per flight.

A few things were different back then versus today:

(1) Northwest generally flew 8 trips per day versus Midwest's 3. These days NW flies 5 1/2 round trips. Of course NW might up the frequency in the market if Midwest enters, but they didn't really do so in MKE-MSP.

(2) Northwest was by far the market share leader in Milwaukee then, and Midwest wasn't even #2, surpassed by American, Delta, United and USAir.

(3) Midwest did very little weekend flying except for Sunday afternoon, and so they didn't get much non-business traffic. Business traffic is definitely higher yield, but MKE-DTW in particular saw many Midwest flights on Tuesdays and Wednesdays with fewer than 10 passengers with virtually no leisure traffic to supplement. And with only 3 flights versus 8 on Northwest, it was an uphill battle to wrestle business traffic away from NW.

If Midwest does go into MKE-DTW, I'd guess it would be with RJ's rather than 717's. A big piece of that is simply that they don't have a lot of spare 717 lift. But also important is that compared to MSP, Detroit will have fewer good connecting traffic opportunities. MSP-MKE carries significant local traffic but also relies quite a bit on thru and connecting traffic going to places like Washington and Philadelphia. There are several big Midwest Airlines destinations from MSP for which MKE is "on the way". From Detroit that is less true.


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 4):
It not about runway length, it has to do with aircraft size. If an airport has schedule air service with an aircraft that has more than 19 seats then that airport must have a full time Crash/Fire Rescue team. IWD, and MBL do not have full time CFR teams, so therefore they cannot see the jet.

All the more reason for them to resume service to TVC again.

[Edited 2006-06-24 04:40:38]

User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

I doubt Skyway makes enough from the EAS grants to keep flying the BE1s to them. At the same time, it seems uneconomical for the airports to upgrade to handle a jet. It would also be very difficult for the airline to fill up jets. All of the flights to MBL and IWD are routed through MKG and RHI respectively, and IMT is via ESC or MQT with (I think) one Nonstop daily. It's been made clear though that YX wants the 1900s gone.

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...
Info On The Crash Of Hughes Airways Flight 706 posted Mon Jun 11 2001 07:54:04 by FedExHeavy
Any Further Info On The DL Shtl Smoke In Cabin? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 18:23:41 by Cpos
New Info On The Venezuela MD82 Crash In August posted Mon Jan 23 2006 12:52:37 by DeC
Awesome Info On The Genx posted Sun Dec 4 2005 01:49:40 by Radelow
Info On The Florida "joyride" Jet posted Wed Oct 19 2005 02:22:45 by KCMike
Any Updates On The Status/loaction Of TMA Fleet? posted Fri Oct 7 2005 18:11:27 by B727
Is It Me Or Does UA Get The Short End Of The Stick posted Fri Aug 26 2005 20:34:52 by Tony1477
SIA Update On The A380 + Photo Of New Aerobridge posted Sat Aug 20 2005 04:39:37 by Vivek0072
Any Updated Info On The Olympic Airlines Bidders? posted Sat Jul 2 2005 22:56:24 by WesternA318
Any Info On The Oakley Corporate Jet: N701WH posted Sat Feb 5 2005 18:32:55 by CaptainTim