Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Big Sky /DL Temp Suspending SLK & PBG  
User currently offlineN6168E From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

I just got a call from my sister in FLA that she got a call from DL advising her that her flight from SLK to BOS in Jan has been canceled and there was no alternative. Knowing that Big Sky had just started this service on Oct 31, she questioned the agent. The agent told my sister that she would double check with a supervisor about the service. When DL called her back, they told he that Big Sky was suspending service from Jan 3 through Feb 13 and they had received notification on Nov 3. I checked the DL web site and found that there are no flights for sale for either SLK or PBG (PLB). What is Big Sky up to here? Since this is an EAS route, I'm sure the DOT is not going to be very happy about this and I can't wait for the reaction from the local communities for this to happen less than a week after their ribbon cutting ceremonies: http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise...nclude/articles.asp?articleID=9203 Not the best way to start off a long-term relationship "deLeeuw said it was a big day for Delta, too. He said that Wednesday was the beginning of a 'long-term, very solid relationship' between Big Sky and the Adirondack Regional Airport." My sister called the Saranac Lake Chamber of Commerce and they had not heard anything.

On a side note, the couple travel sites that I looked at do not recognize the airport code of PBG, while the DL site does not recognize the city code of PLB. I was under the impression that the City code would remain PLB even with service out of Plattsburgh International (PBG).

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineACVitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

The airport code for the Plattsburgh service is PBG. No service appears under the PLB code.

As for the SLK and PLB service suspension.. Bizzare...

I wish they kept the CO service. It was reliable, Would have preferred it went to EWR in leiu of BOS but a double connect is better then no service.

Big Sky seems to have had a series of issues that are still not resolved to this day. Not enough planes, not enough pilots and abuse of the DL code.


User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

that didnt take long..anything in the plattsburg newspaper

User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

Does the new G4 service affect PBG's eligability for EAS service?


Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineN6168E From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

Quoting ACVitale (Reply 1):
wish they kept the CO service. It was reliable, Would have preferred it went to EWR in leiu of BOS but a double connect is better then no service.

Yes, Commutair was reliable and EWR would have been much prefered as there was a lot of O/D traffic to NYC, but CO didn't want the Beech's in EWR. Personally, I liked the 1900. (Disclamer, my brother is retired from them and I worked with a lot of their people at Air North/Brockway Air/Metro Air Northeast)

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 2):
that didnt take long..anything in the plattsburg newspaper

No, it sure didn't take long. Since the schedule was loaded on 03Nov, the knew this when they had the ribbon cutting ceromonies on 31Oct. Nothing in either the Plattsburgh or Saranac Lake papers. I will check tomorrow and report if anything come up.


User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Quoting N6168E (Reply 4):
CO didn't want the Beech's in EWR.

And how does CO have the right to dictate what aircraft fly into and out of EWR????? Unless, the Beech 1900s are flying as a CO Express carrier what busienss is it of theirs? Do they have something against prop planes..???

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineN6168E From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 5):
And how does CO have the right to dictate what aircraft fly into and out of EWR????? Unless, the Beech 1900s are flying as a CO Express carrier what busienss is it of theirs? Do they have something against prop planes..???

Commutair was flying as a CO Express. When Commutair was a USAirways Express carrier, they flew PLB/SLK-ALB-EWR. When Commutair went to Continetal Express, CO was going all jet in EWR (including RJ's from ALB).


User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Quoting N6168E (Reply 6):
When Commutair went to Continetal Express, CO was going all jet in EWR (including RJ's from ALB).

Hmm..in other words, if the communities cannot be served by a Jet Aircraft, then they are considered less important and there fore are dropped.... If these communities were being flown with Beech 1900s in the first place, whhat was the problem? Was CO so anal about prop planes that they simply couldnt deal with them anymore? Hardly seems that uinless CO actually owns the entire EWR airport (Last time I checked it was owned by the NYC/NJ Port Authority) they have no basis for banning ANY prop planes....sheesh.....When will we ever get over this aversion to these small but important aircraft???/

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6577 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 7):
Hardly seems that uinless CO actually owns the entire EWR airport (Last time I checked it was owned by the NYC/NJ Port Authority) they have no basis for banning ANY prop planes

If the plane is flying for CO, then they have every right to ban them. Obviously, they can't ban other airlines.

The bottomline is that there is only so much capacity available at EWR and using very small props isn't a very efficient use of that capacity.

[Edited 2007-11-05 12:59:12]

User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3888 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

This is what happens when Delta contracts with a bottom feeding airline. No more Mesaba Airlines to support the horrendously unprofitable BigSky anymore... this is what you get. Awww 'cmon MAIR, why don't you use the hundres of millions you siphoned from Mesaba Airlines and fix BigSky! I mean after all, you've had since 2002 to do it.




AZJ


User currently offlineUSFlyer MSP From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 8):
The bottomline is that there is only so much capacity available at EWR and using very small props isn't a very efficient use of that capacity.

I believe Newark actually banned planes with less than than thirty seats a few years ago in an attempt to reduce congestion.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 5):

And how does CO have the right to dictate what aircraft fly into and out of EWR????? Unless, the Beech 1900s are flying as a CO Express carrier what busienss is it of theirs?

They have the right to dictate the carriers that fly their flag. Since Commutair was by then a strictly CO Connection operation, CO can tell them where they can and cannot fly flights with the CO code, paint, name, etc. USAirways does the same thing with Saabs/Beeches at PHL. It's really no big deal.

As for your question about CO's hatred of props... that's pretty funny. Have you paid any attention to the CLE and IAH hubs? How about the Q400 order for EWR ops?


User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 11):
As for your question about CO's hatred of props... that's pretty funny. Have you paid any attention to the CLE and IAH hubs? How about the Q400 order for EWR ops?



Quoting N6168E (Reply 6):
When Commutair went to Continetal Express, CO was going all jet in EWR (including RJ's from ALB).



Quoting USFlyer MSP (Reply 10):
I believe Newark actually banned planes with less than than thirty seats a few years ago in an attempt to reduce congestion.

Isn't another concern the fact that Be1900s would need a tarmac boarding? Would that be a problem at Terminal C?

I think also speed in the pattern/approach was also a concern.

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 7):

As others have said, with the aircraft flying in CO colors, CO calls the shots. If they feel turboprop/EAS services don't fit in at EWR, that is their call. They have CLE to serve these markets.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineACVitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 12):
As others have said, with the aircraft flying in CO colors, CO calls the shots. If they feel turboprop/EAS services don't fit in at EWR, that is their call. They have CLE to serve these markets.

I would have loved CO to service these markets from CLE.

They however served them from BOS which meant either a US-CO or DL-CO connection or a double connect for CO-CO-CO to get to SLK from Florida markets (a large portion of the traffic is Florida bound) but either way unless you were going to BOS/IAH/CLE/EWR it was a double connection on line CO.


User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1639 times:

Quoting ACVitale (Reply 13):
would have loved CO to service these markets from CLE.

They however served them from BOS which meant either a US-CO or DL-CO connection or a double connect for CO-CO-CO to get to SLK from Florida markets (a large portion of the traffic is Florida bound) but either way unless you were going to BOS/IAH/CLE/EWR it was a double connection on line CO.

That is true. I forgot Commutair routed a lot of their EAS routes that way. I stand corrected.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
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...
Big Sky Airlines & Delta Connection posted Thu Aug 16 2007 02:00:25 by SpencerII
More Big Sky As DL Connection This Summer posted Mon Apr 2 2007 22:05:13 by PVD757
Question About Big Sky's Upcoming DL Connection Services posted Fri Feb 16 2007 06:06:20 by SpencerII
Big Sky To Help DL Expand BOS posted Thu Dec 21 2006 19:27:13 by WorldTraveler
Big Sky & Calgary posted Wed Sep 28 2005 19:41:26 by SunValley
Big Sky To Serve Calgary & Jackson WY posted Wed Aug 3 2005 23:52:29 by SunValley
Big Sky To Serve Calgary & Jackson WY posted Wed Aug 3 2005 23:47:17 by SunValley
Big Sky Reliability TTN-BOS posted Tue Oct 2 2007 16:16:28 by BigOrange
DL Brazil: ATL-GIG & ATL-GRU 9x Weekly On Jan/08 posted Tue Jul 31 2007 06:11:55 by LipeGIG
Big Sky 1900 In New Delta Livery posted Fri Jul 20 2007 14:47:29 by AviationAddict