Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is The Future Of Republic Airways?  
User currently offlineReuschAir From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 36 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8037 times:

Flying to DC last week out of Milwaukee with Midwest Airlines, I was surprised to see an aircraft in Republic Airways livery. Flying back the aircraft had NO livery. These were both E170 jets. Now that Republic owns Midwest, Frontier, US Air Express, does anyone know what the future plan will be for them in trying to merge all of these names into one large operation under one name and one livery? The Republic craft we took out of Milwaukee had 2 rows of first class seats (which we were fortunate to get due to swap with a different aircraft) and I really enjoyed the flight on that Republic titled aircraft (which I cannot find any picture of in the database). What about the current structure is advantageous to Republic and why wouldn't they want to merge all four airlines into one major carrier and get a greater market share? By the way, this was my first time on the E170 and I LOVED LOVED LOVED this regional aircraft and hope more come out like it for future flying. Seems you can't swing a dead cat anywhere now these days without getting on a regional in the U.S. and I'm glad Embraer has such a great product.

Thanks for any words!
Reusch

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1324 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8015 times:

All "Branded" flights will be Frontier Airlines. All Embraers and Airbus aircraft will be Frontier. All Airbus aircraft and Embraer E170/E190 aircraft will have the Stretch seating. Midwest will be gone at the end of the process. The aircraft you flew on were previously spare aircraft. There is no Republic brand to merge into the carriers.

They will still have Republic Airlines flying for US Airways and Frontier. They will have Shuttle America flying for United and Delta. They will still have Chautauqua flying for American, Continental, Delta, United, US Airways, and Frontier.



"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1572 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8007 times:

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 1):
They will still have Chautauqua flying for American, Continental, Delta, United, US Airways, and Frontier.

And man does that get confusing at airports they all fly to.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7870 times:

Please check out the Frontier Airlines thread, now @ #7. We openly talk about all the RJET airlines.


Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3508 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7746 times:

"They will still have Republic Airlines flying for US Airways and Frontier. They will have Shuttle America flying for United and Delta. They will still have Chautauqua flying for American, Continental, Delta, United, US Airways, and Frontier."

The days of this flying for other major airlines is surely numbered. Now that Republic (or whatever name du jour is) is a competitor, I would imagine regional flying will be farmed out elsewhere.

CO flying is done shortly.

AA flying ends in 2012 IIRC.

Frontier and Chataqua are now one and the same airline.

Delta/US/UAL are the wild cards but if I was a betting man, I wouldn't place $$ on Republic being a regional feeder for these airlines a few years from now.


User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7591 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 4):
Delta/US/UAL are the wild cards but if I was a betting man, I wouldn't place $$ on Republic being a regional feeder for these airlines a few years from now.

Chautauqua is a small carrier for Delta, I wouldn't be surprised to see them disappear because Delta is still looking to cut down the number of 50 seat jets and the number of DCI carriers. I seriously doubt the ERJ contract will be renewed by Delta.

The US and UA 50 seat flying is a little harder to figure out.


User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1324 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7528 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 4):
Frontier and Chataqua are now one and the same airline.

How are they one and the same airline?? They still fly for other airlines. They fly less aircraft for Midwest/Frontier than some of their other partners.



"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23074 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7469 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 5):
The US and UA 50 seat flying is a little harder to figure out.

Presumably, the E90 transaction between RW and US wouldn't have shaken out how it did if US was mad at RAH.

And I'm not sure that the outcome of the F9 sale was or is so bad for UA, at least as compared to WN being twice the size they are now.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7416 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 4):
Frontier and Chataqua are now one and the same airline.

Don't they have separate certificates? If so, although they are both owned by RAH, surely they must be considered as two carriers?

Basically, the future of RAH is in building up, and probably then selling, F9 (or a stake in F9, at least). Their contract flying will probably remain largely the same, with the exception of DL as and when that contract is up. They have a very good relationship with US, so that contract should be fine. Not sure about UA, as UA and F9 compete so much at DEN. But if RAH are doing a good job flying for UA Express, I don't see why UA would just dump them, especially if RAH simply then re-deploy the a/c for F9, competing directly with UA.


User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7359 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):

Presumably, the E90 transaction between RW and US wouldn't have shaken out how it did if US was mad at RAH.

That doesn't mean they'll keep 50 seaters though. I wouldn't say DL is mad at Mesaba, but they are having a ton of aircraft parked. It all comes down to business and 50 seaters don't work for a lot of the routes they are currently serving. There is a huge downsizing of the regional industry coming (unless scope is relaxed further which is unlikely)

With only 10 ERJ-145s in the US Airways Express fleet, it is an easy cut for them to make. Just like only 22 ERJ-145s for Delta is an easy cut to make.

I doubt the larger E-Jets are in danger with US. Those contracts aren't due for awhile anyways.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
And I'm not sure that the outcome of the F9 sale was or is so bad for UA, at least as compared to WN being twice the size they are now.

I think it's immaterial, WN would have expanded the way they did anyways. Maybe they did it a little more aggressively but at this point it doesn't really matter, UA has lost big time in DEN.

I just checked and it looks like UA doesn't have any 50 seaters from RAH. Who knows what will happen with the E-Jets. Currently there is no one else that can provide E-Jet like service. Trans States might be able to do it when they get their MRJs. Again those contracts aren't due for awhile and it's hard to guess or predict what will happen between now and then.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23074 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7300 times:

Quoting norcal (Reply 9):
That doesn't mean they'll keep 50 seaters though. I wouldn't say DL is mad at Mesaba, but they are having a ton of aircraft parked. It all comes down to business and 50 seaters don't work for a lot of the routes they are currently serving. There is a huge downsizing of the regional industry coming (unless scope is relaxed further which is unlikely)

Agreed - but the thing to remember here is that it's completely independent of RAH's purchase of F9 (or YX).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinefloridaflyboy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7231 times:

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 1):
They will still have Chautauqua flying for American, Continental, Delta, United, US Airways, and Frontier.

On a side note as well, Chautauqua no longer flies for United at all. The only ERJ-145 operators in the United Express system are Trans States and ExpressJet.



Good goes around!
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7204 times:

If you look up Republic's Annual Report, it explains in detail all of its regional contracts. I was just researching it the other day.

AA still has 15 ERJ's flying with Chautauqua, and cannot enact an early termination before March 2012. There's also language in the agreement regarding AA potentially assuming posession of the aircraft upon termination/ending of the agreement.

When/if AA ends their agreement with CHQ, it will widely open up their scope as it is AA's agreement that has CHQ limited to 50 seat and fewer aircraft.

-----------------

US has 9 ERJ's with CHQ, and that agreement is in place until 2014. US' agreement with Republic for the E170s is until Sept 2015 for 20 of the 170s and 8 of the 175s, the other 30 175s are contracted for 12 years from entry into service.

-----------------

United ended the ERJ flying with CHQ at the beginning of this year. The 7 aircraft have been transfered over to F9 ops. They still have 38 E170s under contract with Shuttle America until 2019. However, United's ability to terminate the agreements does not appear overly restrictive, however, and they could assume ownership/leasehold of the aircraft under certain conditions of "wrongful termination" or breach of contract.

-----------------

Continental's agreement with CHQ has 15 ERJs flying on a term of 3-5 years. The CRJs were removed from service earlier this year.

-----------------

Delta's agreement has 24 ERJs with CHQ and 16 E175s with Shuttle. The agreement for the ERJs is until May 2016 and the E175s are contracted until January 1019. Delta cannot terminate the agreements early until after November 2009 for the ERJs and July 2015 for the 175s, and the agreement is very specific on the restrictions concerning early termination with Delta.

-----------------

You can read the details by pulling up Republic's 2009 annual report on their investor relations page:
http://www.republicairways.com/investorrelations.html



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3756 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6545 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 12):
When/if AA ends their agreement with CHQ, it will widely open up their scope as it is AA's agreement that has CHQ limited to 50 seat and fewer aircraft.

Or Republic could merge the RP and YX or the RP and S5 certificates together, based on scope clauses at the time. There's a lot of options.

Quoting JBo (Reply 12):
There's also language in the agreement regarding AA potentially assuming posession of the aircraft upon termination/ending of the agreement.

AA also required AX to do the same once they stopped AmericanConnection flying. The AX ERJs are now flying for Eagle, and I suspect that's what will happen to the 15 ORD-based ERJs that RP operates.

Quoting JBo (Reply 12):
Continental's agreement with CHQ has 15 ERJs flying on a term of 3-5 years. The CRJs were removed from service earlier this year.

The CO agreement stated in July 2006. Based on that, COEx ops by RP should be over soon (and not a moment too soon with the UA/CO merger).

Quoting JBo (Reply 12):
United's ability to terminate the agreements does not appear overly restrictive, however, and they could assume ownership/leasehold of the aircraft under certain conditions of "wrongful termination" or breach of contract.

I have a feeling that a merged CO/UA will try to cut all ties with RP, and I feel it could be under breach of contract (F9 at the DEN hub, to be exact). I know an ex-UAer that I'll be seeing shortly, so I'll ask him.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1324 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6417 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 13):
and I feel it could be under breach of contract (F9 at the DEN hub, to be exact)

The F9 hub is not cause for cancellation according to their contract. If the contract is dropped, it will be dropped at the expiration date, or RAH will get a nice fee, and some shiny planes that could be repainted in Frontier livery...



"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6341 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 13):
Or Republic could merge the RP and YX or the RP and S5 certificates together, based on scope clauses at the time. There's a lot of options.

At first I was going to reply and inform you that the YX certificate is already gone, but then I remembered that RW is now using the YX code.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6780 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6268 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
And I'm not sure that the outcome of the F9 sale was or is so bad for UA, at least as compared to WN being twice the size they are now.

It's tough to say. If memory serves, Southwest's intent for DEN was for an operation that was somewhat smaller than the combined operations of WN and F9 as of last summer. Having both around means that Southwest has continued to add capacity in DEN which they might not have otherwise. By the same token, some of the Frontier Airbuses have been shifted to MKE which does take some seats out of the DEN market. But Frontier has also entered certain DEN markets which had been monopoly non-stop markets for UA -- like SBA-DEN, GRR-DEN and MSN-DEN (as well as indirect competition on SGF-DEN via BKG). The fate of the routes served by Lynx with Q400's also is a factor, since many were only served otherwise from DEN by United Express (but then again, did Southwest have plans for L4?).


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25328 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
Presumably, the E90 transaction between RW and US wouldn't have shaken out how it did if US was mad at RAH.

Or Delta, who owned 40% of Midwest and gave that shareholding to Republic - after Republic's bid for Frontier was announced.

 

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3508 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

"The F9 hub is not cause for cancellation according to their contract. If the contract is dropped, it will be dropped at the expiration date, or RAH will get a nice fee, and some shiny planes that could be repainted in Frontier livery..."

Do not ever fool yourself into thinking that RP would be in a good position if any of these carriers dropped them and they got an influx of "shiny new planes." They would lose a guaranteed revenue source and be forced to fly a lot of planes into new markets with a branded operation that IS NOT A GUARANTEED PROFIT.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25328 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
Do not ever fool yourself into thinking that RP would be in a good position if any of these carriers dropped them and they got an influx of "shiny new planes."

But they would.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
They would lose a guaranteed revenue source and be forced to fly a lot of planes into new markets with a branded operation that IS NOT A GUARANTEED PROFIT.

Since many see believe that contract flying will eventually be seriously reduced, for Republic to do nothing might be worse.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
Do not ever fool yourself into thinking that RP would be in a good position if any of these carriers dropped them and they got an influx of "shiny new planes." They would lose a guaranteed revenue source and be forced to fly a lot of planes into new markets with a branded operation that IS NOT A GUARANTEED PROFIT.

That's why the language in some of the contracts states that the mainline carrier may, under certain circumstances, be required to take posession of the aircraft RAH flew for them upon premature termination of the contract.

AA's agreement is that way, UA's agreement is that way, and I think DL's may be too.

Even so, you do make a point in that the loss of contracted flying will reduce RAH's guaranteed revenues, making them more reliant upon the less-guaranteed Frontier operation.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25328 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4286 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JBo (Reply 20):
That's why the language in some of the contracts states that the mainline carrier may, under certain circumstances, be required to take posession of the aircraft RAH flew for them upon premature termination of the contract.

That may be, But they can't just take the Republic owned aircraft for nothing, without any recompense.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1324 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 18):
Do not ever fool yourself into thinking that RP would be in a good position if any of these carriers dropped them and they got an influx of "shiny new planes." They would lose a guaranteed revenue source and be forced to fly a lot of planes into new markets with a branded operation that IS NOT A GUARANTEED PROFIT.

Their 50 seat jets are all leased. If their contracts are terminated early (without cause) then the terminating carrier either pays the remainder of the lease, or the lease cancellation. But like I said, they get a big fee too if cancelled early. I dont know why everyone here is so keen on the idea that all the majors hate Bryan Bedford and RAH, and will cancel their contracts immediately. I just havent seen it yet, and I dont think I will...



"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25532 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

My take is that like other fee for departure RJ operators, Republic Holdings saw the writing on the wall that their business model did not have a rosy future.

With fuel prices making the economics of 50-seaters unbearable, large RJs bumping into scope clauses at the majors and continued industry mergers, the decline of contract flying seems undeniable.

While I am not sure running their own scheduled airline was really ever their first choice, the bankruptcies of Frontier and Midwest presented some unique opportunities to take hold of ones destiny and certainly diversify the Republic business model.

Whether in the long run this works out is for Republic is still very much a question mark, but sitting back and not doing anything while flying contracts dry up one after another without much replacement opportunity surely was like watching a sinking ship take on water.
So for better or worse Republic has reinvented itself.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCrosscheck007 From Poland, joined Jan 2010, 278 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 13):
AA also required AX to do the same once they stopped AmericanConnection flying.

That is because MQ leased them to AX. They were bought and owned by Eagle, and leased to AX for the Connection flying. Check out the histories of these tails. As an aside, these a/c were nearly destroyed by AX...   

Cheers,

007



Je l'attends pas un homme. J'apporte le parti, j'apporte le feu d'artifice.
25 Post contains images mariner : In the end, it's easy. What fascinates me is the assumption by so many that Republic did not discuss this with it's contracting airlines - especially
26 Crosscheck007 : Everyone on here keeps using the words "CONTRACT" "CONTRACT" "CONTRACT", but something tells me that if the major carriers REALLY wanted to, they cou
27 FRNT787 : Republic, can afford those same lawyers. You keep seeing "Contract" because they are quite binding, if RAH does not violate their terms. Thus far, no
28 Crosscheck007 : I am just saying, I don't think anything is ever set in stone in this industry. Contracts were made to be broken. Cheers, 007
29 LAXintl : Sure contracts can be broken (I have an attorney friend that takes pleasure in doing so), but there are prescribed damages that need to be paid out. M
30 Crosscheck007 : Exactly. I just don't think it is wise for anyone, Republic or otherwise, to think that their contracts are solid just because there are penalties. C
31 Post contains images mariner : I think Republic is very aware of that. LOL. Frontier broke contract with Republic for the E170's - and did it with the approval of the bk court - an
32 Post contains images Crosscheck007 : LMAO, the moral of the story: Don't anger RAH, they will bankrupt you and buy you! *muahahahaha* Cheers, 007
33 Cubsrule : It'll be interesting to see what happens with the AA agreement because of that. With it expiring in 2013, it may behoove AA to keep RP until then so
34 FRNT787 : My reading of the contract, I do not believe they have to take them if it is allowed to expire. They have the option, should they choose to exercise
35 Cubsrule : That's my recollection too, but I thought they had to take them if they terminated early. Maybe my memory isn't right.
36 FRNT787 : Republic has the option to force AA to take the aircraft or pay the remainder of the lease if the contract is terminated early.
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...
What Is The Future Of The 50 Seater? posted Mon May 25 2009 08:13:43 by LHCVG
What Is The Future Of Meigs Field? posted Mon May 21 2007 21:49:55 by Alberchico
What Is The Future Of DCA? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 19:04:48 by KDCA
What Is The Future Of FWA? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 14:19:34 by SmithAir747
What Is The Status Of JAT- Airways In Belgrade? posted Sun Sep 11 2005 08:08:05 by Beaucaire
What Is The Future Of FWA? posted Fri May 20 2005 11:12:28 by SmithAir747
What Is The Future Of Russian Airliners. posted Sat Apr 23 2005 20:11:23 by Georgiabill
What Is The Future Of Gulf Air? posted Fri Dec 26 2003 15:07:11 by AF022
What Is The Future Of This Aircraft? posted Mon Oct 6 2003 19:40:52 by Kevin752
What Is The Future Of The 747? posted Sat Nov 9 2002 01:26:56 by CX747