Knope2001 From United States, joined May 2005, 1354 posts, RR: 15 Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6815 times:
Wow...this is pretty serious news.
Big Sky is essentially getting out of the flying business, so it would seem. Their non-subsidized BOS flying is ending, and they're simply pulling up stakes in six EAS cities...Watertown (NY), Massena, Ogdensburg, Cape Girardeau, Jackson (TN) and Ownensboro. Also in the press release they say they will continue their Montana flying just until a replacement can be found. If they leave the EAS flying in the west (MT/WY) as well as these six other EAS cities, that leaves them with just a couple routes around Missoula and Boise.
I think we're reaching a point of crisis in EAS 19-seat flying. In the past 18 months or so, Air Midwest/Mesa, Scenic, Skyway, Commutair, Regions and now Big Sky have all ended (or announced an end) to their EAS flying. That essentially leaves Great Lakes for 19-seat flying, and they have already demonstrated an inability to pick up some of the routes they've been awarded in a reasonably timely manner.
Just 4 weeks ago Big Sky bid on the four northern Michigan EAS routes up for bids, and they were the only airline even bidding on two of the cities. Now it seems highly doubtful they're interested.
If this means more Saabs and Embraers in more EAS cities, that's probably good for passengers and demand. However those aircraft are a lot more expensive and may well price more EAS cities out of the network, including some really remote places. Not to mention that some airports in EAS are not readily able to handle 30+ seat aircraft.
MtnWest1979 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 948 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6600 times:
Well, this is bad news for me as I work @ BOI and have friends that work for GQ. Found out of this in a text msg. Too bad for all employees.
I wonder how long it will take to find a replacement carrier for MT EAS locations? Perhaps they will let GQ fold and leave these places without service until one is selected. Assuming, of course, anyone wants to. Maybe Great Lakes will get into Sidney,MT yet.
ScottB From United States, joined Jul 2000, 3922 posts, RR: 21 Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6587 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4): Only a handful of the routes (IIRC, just three - BOS-YFC/YQB/BGR) replaced previous DL flying.
BOS-TTN and BOS-BTV were also prior Delta Connection routes.
Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 5): I think we're reaching a point of crisis in EAS 19-seat flying. In the past 18 months or so, Air Midwest/Mesa, Scenic, Skyway, Commutair, Regions and now Big Sky have all ended (or announced an end) to their EAS flying.
Well, if you look at the numbers MAIR published for the third quarter, Big Sky's CASM was up at just under 40 cents/mile, while RASM was around 31 cents/mile. As far as I can tell, GQ was generating losses of roughly $1.4 million/month, and this is during a quarter which ought to be strong (although to be fair, they were probably incurring significant startup costs).
As I've said in other threads, their reliability out of BOS was terrible. I'd see the departures screens in Terminal A with practically every Delta & Comair flight showing at or near on-time, while the Big Sky flights would have multi-hour delays or outright cancellations.
Rcardinale From United States, joined Nov 2005, 174 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6429 times:
Wow that sucks! not even a year after they started flying out of BOS they are quitting too bad it didn't work out I enjoyed seeing their planes here. Maybe Cape Air can pick up some of the slack now that they are starting to expand their horizons to places like VT.
Knope2001 From United States, joined May 2005, 1354 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6236 times:
Most likely they'll be out of luck until another airline bids and is selected. The DoT could order Big Sky to continue to serve these markets, but I'm not sure they'll play hardball like that because Big Sky is closing up shop in that corner of the world, and seemingly, closing up in general. They can order all they want, but short of litigation there's not all that much they can do against Big Sky.
If I had to guess, it will be like the cities which lost service when Regions Air shut down in March. It was 7-8+ months for service to return.
RJNUT From United States, joined Dec 1999, 897 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6198 times:
Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 5): think we're reaching a point of crisis in EAS 19-seat flying. In the past 18 months or so, Air Midwest/Mesa, Scenic, Skyway, Commutair, Regions and now Big Sky have all ended (or announced an end) to their EAS flying. That essentially leaves Great Lakes for 19-seat flying, and they have already demonstrated an inability to pick up some of the routes they've been awarded in a reasonably timely manner
EXACTYLY!
how about this solution?
a massive order for q400s, code sharing w/ some legacy to a big hub and tag -ending the EAS cities to another mid level city and everbody's happy///..EAS pays the difference to fly from, say MBS-APN from ORD-APN and there you have it!
a re-entry of good sized turbo props will have to be part of any picture to serve these smaller communities~
the nineteen seaters are dead!
The Q400 is a 70 seat aircraft, and new aircraft are expensive as it is
Quoting RJNUT (Reply 16): code sharing w/ some legacy to a big hub and tag -ending the EAS cities to another mid level city and everbody's happy///
They are codesharing, although a city like BOS wasn't a true hub operation for DL.
Quoting RJNUT (Reply 16): a re-entry of good sized turbo props will have to be part of any picture to serve these smaller communities~
the nineteen seaters are dead!
Before we jump to a 70 seat turboprop, a 30 seater from a reliable operation may be more of the answer. The problem is that many EAS markets are not properly connected to true hubs.
Quoting RJNUT (Reply 16): EAS pays the difference to fly from, say MBS-APN from ORD-APN and there you have it!
APN isn't an EAS city and its already served from DTW on XJ. Places like ORD don't need anymore small aircraft jamming up ATC as it is at the moment.
Cubsrule From United States, joined May 2004, 8020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5884 times:
Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 5): That essentially leaves Great Lakes for 19-seat flying, and they have already demonstrated an inability to pick up some of the routes they've been awarded in a reasonably timely manner.
ZK seems to drag their feet when it suits them and move quickly when it suits them; they ramped the STL operation up from just MWA to 5 destinations surprisingly quickly.
Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 15):
If I had to guess, it will be like the cities which lost service when Regions Air shut down in March. It was 7-8+ months for service to return.
If they can work something out with the government for EAS money, ZK might be able to open CGI and MKL sooner than that. They have the much of the infrastructure in place in STL already. It would probably require a third aircraft, as ZK is currently running 20 daily flights with 2 aircraft (16 on Saturdays). Of course, that presumes that XJ isn't interested in either city (XJ provides EAS service at PAH, another 3C casualty).
Acidradio From United States, joined Mar 2001, 1554 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5812 times:
Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 19): I can see all the politicos lining up to force someone to fly these routes. Maybe this will be the impetus to overhaul the entire EAS program.
If all of these airlines cannot make it happen, even with all the subsidies, doesn't this demonstrate the lack of viability of serving these market in the first place? I'm sure that these are all remote areas, but still, if nobody wants to go there, that kind of speaks for itself. If there is no population to speak of in these places, could there be a reason for that?
I guess I have to ask - why are we spending federal tax money to subsidize porkbarrel flights to these places? Well we know the reason for that, and it's always a senator or congressman who pulls that off. Now if the individual cities, or counties or states would be willing to subsidize flights, that's alright. But why should we as a nation subsidize service to places which there is obviously little or no demand to go, and which serves very little purpose for the rest of the nation? Someone will argue that those places also pay federal taxes, like the rest of us. But I don't have federal taxes directly subsidizing the cost of fares from MSP to places that I want to go!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3037 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 22504 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 