Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA MFR To PDX Ending  
User currently offlineUnitedFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4787 times:

Looks like UA/Skywest is ending MFR-PDX? Anybody know what the reason is?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_V...lley_International-Medford_Airport

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6194 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4764 times:

I believe this was posted last week. United will most likely continue to down size PDX. The EMB's will be at a premium soon as well and they will continue to be deployed into the SFO/LAX hubs.


"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4670 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 1):
United will most likely continue to down size PDX.

UA can't downsize the PDX EMB network (what's left of it  it's not their call.  



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinecic777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4660 times:

This doesn't really surprise me. A lot of competition from QX on that route, and QX uses larger aircraft. I don't see how MFR can sustain all the flights it has now. However, the traffic must be there or the airlines wouldn't continue the service. Having said that, I've seen a few airlines come and go from MFR.

User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6132 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 2):
Quoting as739x (Reply 1):
United will most likely continue to down size PDX.

UA can't downsize the PDX EMB network (what's left of it  it's not their call.  

Exactly...this is part of the at risk flying done by Skywest.

Quoting UnitedFlyer (Thread starter):
Looks like UA/Skywest is ending MFR-PDX? Anybody know what the reason is?

Probably a combination of needing to deploy the EMB-120s to LAX/SFO and Skywest no longer making a profit on the flights...



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinen7371f From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1750 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 2):
UA can't downsize the PDX EMB network (what's left of it  it's not their call.  

To translate this post: the PacNW EMB flying is doing at-risk by SkyWest. United merely markets it and sells it but the financial risks are all on SkyWest.

Having lived in Medford at one point in time I'm surprised by this cut. UA Express, at one form or another, has run the PDX route for many years. And I believe Horizon is down to just a few runs a day as well.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4556 times:

Quoting n7371f (Reply 5):
United merely markets it

UA shouldn't be the one to market this particular segment, but I'm sure that they throw out the knowledge of a PDX connection alongside the SFO and DEN flight advertising.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinecic777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

As I think about it this isn't the first market out of MFR from which UA has withdrawn. UA once upon a time flew MFR - EUG, MFR - LMT, and MFR - LAX. The EUG service continued on to DEN. I flew that once one a 727. The LAX service was on a 737. UA is ceding the regional market of the Pacific Northwest to the likes of QX. I'm guessing the load factors to PDX weren't very good. Otherwise this may have been upgraded to an RJ. Anyone know what the loads were like?

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26145 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4071 times:

Skywest is also pulling SEA-GEG in February.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineUSXguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

GEG is going alongside MFR as it will reduce the SEA base by 1 line of flying (aka- 1 airplane).


xx
User currently offlineramprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

I was the one that posted this info last week. The mods deleted my post for not enough informantion?? They said it was rumor or what not? It's in the system, it wasn't a rumor.

We UA don't have enough lift out of PDX these day to support a mini UAX operation. They can funnel these passengers down to SFO, where they can connect to a whole lot more destinations with one stop rather then two stops. We have a few employee's that still live in MFR and commute up to PDX for work. I don't know what they will do now. I wouldn't to pay $52.00 a day for a zed fare to go to work.


User currently offlinenwaesc From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3408 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3959 times:

I realize times change, but it still seems sad for me. I can remember when the UAX operation at PDX (it was YV then) had almost 50 departures daily...

Separately, does OO still have crew bases there? How about MX or GSE shops?



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3953 times:

Quoting nwaesc (Reply 11):

Separately, does OO still have crew bases there? How about MX or GSE shops?

Yes for both, but probably not for much longer. The PDX MX base had already been told to relocate once in the last 5 years, but that was nixed.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6194 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 2):

I didn't say SkyWest was making the decision. As said above by others the is a continuing trend in the PacNW and it's not SkyWest doing this is UAL.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlinen7371f From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1750 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3889 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting USXguy (Reply 9):
GEG is going alongside MFR as it will reduce the SEA base by 1 line of flying (aka- 1 airplane).

Ouch. That really reduces the number of connections on UA out of GEG. A healthy portion of itinerary options on UA use the GEG-SEA route to connect. Having SFO back helps. But this will further reduce the options to the east out of GEG unless ORD comes back regularly. That said...I can't believe that people specifically chose UAE on a EM2 when flying GEG-SEA only with AS/QX and WN flying alongside.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 13):

I didn't say SkyWest was making the decision. As said above by others the is a continuing trend in the PacNW and it's not SkyWest doing this is UAL.

Yes, you didn't say it was. However, like I said above, it's not being done by UA. It may be in response to decreasing connections available on UA metal, but it's not being done by UA. They don't control those markets.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineberyllium From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 13):
I didn't say SkyWest was making the decision. As said above by others the is a continuing trend in the PacNW and it's not SkyWest doing this is UAL.
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 15):
Yes, you didn't say it was. However, like I said above, it's not being done by UA. It may be in response to decreasing connections available on UA metal, but it's not being done by UA. They don't control those markets.

The decision to drop MFRPDX was a mutually agreed decision of both - UA and OO.
Even though OO flies MFRPDX at their own risk (under UA Express brand name) they still had to ask UA for a permission to cancel it. OO could not make the decision to drop the route on their own, because MFRPDX leg is not only a local route managed by OO in its own right, but also a traffic contributor for other MFR-via-PDX routes in UA mainline network (like MFR-PDX-ORD, or MFR-PDX-IAD), which are managed not by OO, but by UA.
Hence, before proceeding with the cancellation, OO had to ask UA whether it would be OK to drop the route, and only after UA consented, saying "Go ahead, we are OK with that", OO finally announced that the route is going to be dropped.
The story with GEGSEA is of a similar nature - mutually agreed by UA and OO...

[Edited 2010-12-17 14:37:29]

User currently offlineCWAFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 669 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 12):
Yes for both, but probably not for much longer. The PDX MX base had already been told to relocate once in the last 5 years, but that was nixed.

PDX hasn't had a mx base for quite awhile. It is only a line mx station now.


User currently offlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cic777 (Reply 7):
As I think about it this isn't the first market out of MFR from which UA has withdrawn. UA once upon a time flew MFR - EUG, MFR - LMT, and MFR - LAX. The EUG service continued on to DEN. I flew that once one a 727. The LAX service was on a 737. UA is ceding the regional market of the Pacific Northwest to the likes of QX. I'm guessing the load factors to PDX weren't very good. Otherwise this may have been upgraded to an RJ. Anyone know what the loads were like?

UA also operated one MFR-ACV-SFO and a MFR-RDD-SFO 737 in mid '85 (IIRC). Also the same oout of EUG. This was during their all 50 state time.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6194 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

Quoting beryllium (Reply 16):

Thats what I said above. OO didn't cancel the service and could not make the decision.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 19):
Thats what I said above. OO didn't cancel the service and could not make the decision.

No it's not. A mutual agreement is not "100% decided by one party."



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6194 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 20):



Your confusing me. I'm saying exactly that. It was not OO decision and no where did I say it was all UAL. Are you rebutting what I say just to do it? Your agreeing, not agreeing? You said it was not being done by UAL, did you not? (see below)

Quoting as739x (Reply 13):

me:I didn't say SkyWest was making the decision. As said above by others the is a continuing trend in the PacNW and it's not SkyWest doing this is UAL.

you: Yes, you didn't say it was. However, like I said above, it's not being done by UA. It may be in response to decreasing connections available on UA metal, but it's not being done by UA. They don't control those markets.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 21):

Your confusing me. I'm saying exactly that. It was not OO decision and no where did I say it was all UAL.

So, if it wasn't OO's decision, but it was not all UA's, then who else was involved? AS? AA? WN? The FAA?

My point is that even though UA had a say in agreeing to cancel the market (as per Beryllium's statement,) it was only due the marketing involved (including Res data) because of the label on the side of the plane. OO figured the flight no longer viable for one reason or another, and therefore decided to pull out of the market. That said, it would not be in UA's best legal interest to put themselves in a position of liability by denying OO the right to cancel a poorly performing city pair (if indeed this is the case)---and thus furthering a possibly previous negative cash flow---despite it being 100% (figuratively, or otherwise) on OO's shoulders to brunt the cost of running and marketing the flight.



[Edited 2010-12-18 11:04:54]


Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineCWAFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 669 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

This has to do with planned Brasilia retirements after the first of the year as much as anything else.

User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6194 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 23):

Exactly!



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineUSXguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (4 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2539 times:

I've worked in a few positions that gave me full access to pro-rate agreements at 3 airlines (before finally getting out of the business all together). There is NO decision by the mainline carrier as to if a carrier ENDS service in a market. the only time permission is needed is prior to start of service - for instance, do you REALLY think USAirways had to approve any of Air Midwest's flying? No. the only restrictions on Air Midwest had to deal with east coast flying (USX ops at PHL had to be with "cabin class" airplanes, same with DCA).

Gulfstream Intl can cancel ANY CO-branded flight it wants, however to start it must get approval, which is why most of the new 3M EAS bids are all done "as an independent airline". 3M has to get permission from CO to put their flight #s on their flights, or they have to link to an approved CO "connection point" or hub.

With the SkyWest Pro Rate agreement, there may be a clause in it requiring notification of United to terminate service, at which point United can convert the route to a Capacity Purchase Agreement. However, trust me on this one. United wouldn't force SkyWest to keep flying in unprofitable markets on a pro-rate basis.



xx
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...
UA-CO To Use UAX Flights Between BWI And ORD? posted Thu Dec 16 2010 02:49:46 by 777fan
UA(CO) To Start SFO/LAX To Hilo posted Wed Dec 15 2010 12:52:16 by UnitedTristar
UA & CO To Merge! #3 posted Wed May 5 2010 23:26:35 by SA7700
UA & CO To Merge! #2 posted Mon May 3 2010 12:24:13 by SA7700
UA & CO to Merge! posted Mon May 3 2010 02:56:01 by UA191
Deranged Woman On UA Flight To DC Area posted Thu Apr 8 2010 07:44:17 by contrails
UA 777 To BOS Today 3/15 posted Mon Mar 15 2010 08:16:46 by UAORD2000
Passenger Charged In HA Diversion Back To PDX posted Sat Jan 9 2010 01:28:22 by Halfa
HAL39 KPDX-PHOG Diverts Back To PDX? posted Wed Jan 6 2010 13:36:30 by ZKNBS
Any Potential New UA Svc To CO Stations? posted Mon Oct 26 2009 20:11:27 by Sldispatcher