routeplanner wrote:

I do hope this company can become a strong player in the market, and I would say they are very brave to try an accomplish making CLD a major passenger draw for 50-70 passenger jets with the 2X frequency daily they are endeavoring to do. Realistically this company would do far better to make CLD a minor or focus airport, and concentrate on building business services to PHX/Mesa 2X daily from many of the cities they are serving and proposing service to. At this point PHX/Mesa is probably one of the most underserved business markets out there with "daily" service from major markets with the caliber of aircraft CalPac is utilizing.

Additionally they need to get a loyalty flyer program out there immediately.

I’ve been thinking the same thing about AZA. One thing I’m curious about is if there is a market for some sort of “CanadaPass” that a carrier could sell in Canada to those wintering in the east valley that would entice them to fly [California Pacific] on side trips to, say, Disneyland, San Diego, or the Bay Area?

Total sidetrack I know. However, just tying it in to the idea of CPA flying to AZA.

[/quote]

I’ve been thinking the same thing about AZA. One thing I’m curious about is if there is a market for some sort of “CanadaPass” that a carrier could sell in Canada to those wintering in the east valley that would entice them to fly [California Pacific] on side trips to, say, Disneyland, San Diego, or the Bay Area?

Total sidetrack I know. However, just tying it in to the idea of CPA flying to AZA.[/quote]

Many business travelers to the East Valley find that they lose 3-6 hours of a business day because of traffic and the time constraints at PHX airport. Our research shows that many don't want to overnight, but find it is almost impossible to get a 2 hour business meeting in after 1pm, and yet make an early flight home, and find they are either overnighting or catching a flight that gets them home after 9pm. That market is virtually wide open from end city markets in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Utah.

Im not sure about the Canada side, or the less profitable leisure side, but Im sure Bay area, Los Angles, Seattle and San Diego would produce some hefty same day loads to AZA. But it has to be daily, not leisure driven like G4.

routeplanner wrote:

I’ve been thinking the same thing about AZA. One thing I’m curious about is if there is a market for some sort of “CanadaPass” that a carrier could sell in Canada to those wintering in the east valley that would entice them to fly [California Pacific] on side trips to, say, Disneyland, San Diego, or the Bay Area?

Total sidetrack I know. However, just tying it in to the idea of CPA flying to AZA.[/quote]

Many business travelers to the East Valley find that they lose 3-6 hours of a business day because of traffic and the time constraints at PHX airport. Our research shows that many don't want to overnight, but find it is almost impossible to get a 2 hour business meeting in after 1pm, and yet make an early flight home, and find they are either overnighting or catching a flight that gets them home after 9pm. That market is virtually wide open from end city markets in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Utah.

Im not sure about the Canada side, or the less profitable leisure side, but Im sure Bay area, Los Angles, Seattle and San Diego would produce some hefty same day loads to AZA. But it has to be daily, not leisure driven like G4, and it has to be aircraft sized to the market, which makes CalPac perfect. Im really surprised they haven't more aggressively taken this stance, but apparently Mr Vallas is dead set on making CLD something big.

routeplanner wrote:

routeplanner wrote:

I’ve been thinking the same thing about AZA. One thing I’m curious about is if there is a market for some sort of “CanadaPass” that a carrier could sell in Canada to those wintering in the east valley that would entice them to fly [California Pacific] on side trips to, say, Disneyland, San Diego, or the Bay Area?

Total sidetrack I know. However, just tying it in to the idea of CPA flying to AZA.

Many business travelers to the East Valley find that they lose 3-6 hours of a business day because of traffic and the time constraints at PHX airport. Our research shows that many don't want to overnight, but find it is almost impossible to get a 2 hour business meeting in after 1pm, and yet make an early flight home, and find they are either overnighting or catching a flight that gets them home after 9pm. That market is virtually wide open from end city markets in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Utah.

Im not sure about the Canada side, or the less profitable leisure side, but Im sure Bay area, Los Angles, Seattle and San Diego would produce some hefty same day loads to AZA. But it has to be daily, not leisure driven like G4, and it has to be aircraft sized to the market, which makes CalPac perfect. Im really surprised they haven't more aggressively taken this stance, but apparently Mr Vallas is dead set on making CLD something big.[/quote]

Well I was just thinking about the huge Canadian winter population down here in the east valley and if they would make more regional trips while here if it were more convenient or there was a prepaid discount pass of some sort that they could buy before leaving Canada and use for a side trip to, say, CLD. Not sure how that all works.

I like the premise of what they’re trying to do in CLD, but I’m not sure if they should try too hard to focus there. I like the AZA idea and I think that there are opportunities intra-California. SBA-SMF, for example. Who knows - I’m neither rich nor educated in this stuff.

Looks like CPA has canceled all flights out of CLD through December 31. They haven't run any of their west coast routes since December 24. Additionally, their Denver-based flights are all canceled December 27-28. This is all according to their website: https://www.mycpair.com/flight-status.html. It looks like no flights are able to be booked on their reservation system, even after the new year. Anyone know what's going on?

CLD is the closest commercial airport to my hometown and, as much as I'd like to see this service succeed, things aren't looking good. I was surprised when their ERJ-145s passed low over my parents' house, since it's not often that equipment that large lands at CLD.

Also, first post on Airliners.net! I've learned a lot on this site over the past few years, and figured it's about time to join.

Jeremynolan94 wrote:

Looks like CPA has canceled all flights out of CLD through December 31. They haven't run any of their west coast routes since December 24. Additionally, their Denver-based flights are all canceled December 27-28. This is all according to their website: https://www.mycpair.com/flight-status.html. It looks like no flights are able to be booked on their reservation system, even after the new year. Anyone know what's going on?

CLD is the closest commercial airport to my hometown and, as much as I'd like to see this service succeed, things aren't looking good. I was surprised when their ERJ-145s passed low over my parents' house, since it's not often that equipment that large lands at CLD.

Also, first post on Airliners.net! I've learned a lot on this site over the past few years, and figured it's about time to join.

Blizzard in the Dakotas Thursday and Friday.
Also, xcling biz routes during Christmas Week is a no brainer, and allows time to catch up on the maint issues.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

routeplanner wrote:

routeplanner wrote:

I’ve been thinking the same thing about AZA. One thing I’m curious about is if there is a market for some sort of “CanadaPass” that a carrier could sell in Canada to those wintering in the east valley that would entice them to fly [California Pacific] on side trips to, say, Disneyland, San Diego, or the Bay Area?

Total sidetrack I know. However, just tying it in to the idea of CPA flying to AZA.

Many business travelers to the East Valley find that they lose 3-6 hours of a business day because of traffic and the time constraints at PHX airport. Our research shows that many don't want to overnight, but find it is almost impossible to get a 2 hour business meeting in after 1pm, and yet make an early flight home, and find they are either overnighting or catching a flight that gets them home after 9pm. That market is virtually wide open from end city markets in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Utah.

Im not sure about the Canada side, or the less profitable leisure side, but Im sure Bay area, Los Angles, Seattle and San Diego would produce some hefty same day loads to AZA. But it has to be daily, not leisure driven like G4, and it has to be aircraft sized to the market, which makes CalPac perfect. Im really surprised they haven't more aggressively taken this stance, but apparently Mr Vallas is dead set on making CLD something big.

Well I was just thinking about the huge Canadian winter population down here in the east valley and if they would make more regional trips while here if it were more convenient or there was a prepaid discount pass of some sort that they could buy before leaving Canada and use for a side trip to, say, CLD. Not sure how that all works.

I like the premise of what they’re trying to do in CLD, but I’m not sure if they should try too hard to focus there. I like the AZA idea and I think that there are opportunities intra-California. SBA-SMF, for example. Who knows - I’m neither rich nor educated in this stuff.[/quote]

I think if you see anything like SBA-SMF or SBA-SJC that's not AA Eagle or UA Express, it would be Contour Airlines, which is doing SBA-OAK and SBA-LAS. From what I've seen, they've been much for reliable than CA Pacific.

With the real lack of reliability, I don't think CA Pacific is going to last much longer. I'm just glad I took to opportunity to fly on their inaugurals.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I like the premise of what they’re trying to do in CLD, but I’m not sure if they should try too hard to focus there.

What you’re saying probably makes sense from a business perspective, but that’s not what this airline is about. CP Air is about the founder’s desire to have airline service at CLD.

routeplanner wrote:

Im not sure about the Canada side, or the less profitable leisure side, but Im sure Bay area, Los Angles, Seattle and San Diego would produce some hefty same day loads to AZA. But it has to be daily, not leisure driven like G4.

I'd love to see that because I can almost throw a rock from my house and hit Gateway, but I just don't think there's enough business traffic in the far east valley to support such a venture.

The other problem is that Sky Harbor really is a wonderfully easy to use airport, so there isn't much incentive to try and avoid it by using AZA.

I tried to book a flight but to both destinations I wanted they were sold out and no available dates for booking. Something seems off

From their facebook Page:
California Pacific Airlines has temporarily suspended Carlsbad flights and ticket sales due to being impacted by the nationwide pilot shortage. We are in the process of training new qualified pilots who will allow us to relaunch services soon. We apologize for the inconvenience and look forward to flying again soon. January flights will be refunded.

Who wants to bet that the CLD flights never restart?

It's over, doors are closing.

atcsundevil wrote:

xpfg wrote:

They had an aircraft out of service after an accident. More here: https://www.capjournal.com/news/cpair-s ... 101f4.html

Just a minor note of clarification: damage caused like that would be referred to an incident. An accident implies something far, far worse! An "accident" in aviation generally implies a fatality and/or serious damage to the fuselage.

In any event, damage caused to an aircraft like that would put it out of service for a few days even at a major carrier. Certainly not helpful when you've got a limited fleet to work with.

Actually, that is an aircraft accident.

Per 49 CFR 830.2:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 2&rgn=div8

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Major repairs: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... a&rgn=div9

According to Mickey Bowman, cited in the article as Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer for CPA,

It took a month to get the necessary repair information from Embraer, the Brazilian company that makes the 50-passenger jets, Bowman said. The repair work on the jet began last week at an Embraer-approved repair facility in Springfield, Missouri, Bowman said.

“We are very hopeful that it will be back next week” flying out of Pierre, Bowman said last week.

Not a quick fix. The article, and Bowman, refer to it as an "accident."

The best part of the article isn't the damage or the delay. It's Bowman's statement regarding the pilot:

On Friday, Oct. 26, as the CPAir jet was taxiing on the runway to prepare for takeoff, the tip of a wing clipped a small backhoe type excavator parked along the runway near where work was being done near a new hangar.

“It definitely was not pilot error,” Bowman told the Capital Journal last week. “We were told all the equipment was safely off the throughway for the taxiway. Unfortunately they had parked it with part of the (excavator) outside the area assigned to (the construction work). We are dealing with insurance folks with that backhoe, so we will be settling for that, over time.”

Definitely not pilot error? Who was taxiing the airplane? Garden gnomes? Of course it was pilot error. The backhoe didn't jump out there and bite. The pilot put the aircraft there.

14 CFR 91.3:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 3&rgn=div8

§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

That comes with being the captain. Yes, the pilot is responsible.

747Whale wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

xpfg wrote:

They had an aircraft out of service after an accident. More here: https://www.capjournal.com/news/cpair-s ... 101f4.html

Just a minor note of clarification: damage caused like that would be referred to an incident. An accident implies something far, far worse! An "accident" in aviation generally implies a fatality and/or serious damage to the fuselage.

In any event, damage caused to an aircraft like that would put it out of service for a few days even at a major carrier. Certainly not helpful when you've got a limited fleet to work with.

Actually, that is an aircraft accident.

Per 49 CFR 830.2:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 2&rgn=div8

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Major repairs: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... a&rgn=div9

According to Mickey Bowman, cited in the article as Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer for CPA,

It took a month to get the necessary repair information from Embraer, the Brazilian company that makes the 50-passenger jets, Bowman said. The repair work on the jet began last week at an Embraer-approved repair facility in Springfield, Missouri, Bowman said.

“We are very hopeful that it will be back next week” flying out of Pierre, Bowman said last week.

Not a quick fix. The article, and Bowman, refer to it as an "accident."

The best part of the article isn't the damage or the delay. It's Bowman's statement regarding the pilot:

On Friday, Oct. 26, as the CPAir jet was taxiing on the runway to prepare for takeoff, the tip of a wing clipped a small backhoe type excavator parked along the runway near where work was being done near a new hangar.

“It definitely was not pilot error,” Bowman told the Capital Journal last week. “We were told all the equipment was safely off the throughway for the taxiway. Unfortunately they had parked it with part of the (excavator) outside the area assigned to (the construction work). We are dealing with insurance folks with that backhoe, so we will be settling for that, over time.”

Definitely not pilot error? Who was taxiing the airplane? Garden gnomes? Of course it was pilot error. The backhoe didn't jump out there and bite. The pilot put the aircraft there.

14 CFR 91.3:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 3&rgn=div8

§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

That comes with being the captain. Yes, the pilot is responsible.

rdb98 wrote:

From their facebook Page:
California Pacific Airlines has temporarily suspended Carlsbad flights and ticket sales due to being impacted by the nationwide pilot shortage. We are in the process of training new qualified pilots who will allow us to relaunch services soon. We apologize for the inconvenience and look forward to flying again soon. January flights will be refunded.

There is no pilot shortage. If CPA is having a problem finding pilots, they can stop making excuses and admit that they're the problem.

rdb98 wrote:

From their facebook Page:
California Pacific Airlines has temporarily suspended Carlsbad flights and ticket sales due to being impacted by the nationwide pilot shortage. We are in the process of training new qualified pilots who will allow us to relaunch services soon. We apologize for the inconvenience and look forward to flying again soon. January flights will be refunded.

I read that as 'Many of our few pilots have quit, Right now we don't have anyone to fly the planes. Once we find some other suckers that are type rated and willing to fly for nothing we will be back in service."

They claim they do not have pilots, their planes seem to be continuously in maintenance, they have continued flight cancellations and their Carlsbad flights are suspended for January. In addition, their loads, from comments made, are that there are under 10 passengers per flight. This certainly does not put confidence in anyone that wants to fly with them. I would infer that what they are saying, in a polite way, is that they are out of business.

Whilst there may be a nationwide pilot shortage, this shortage did not suddenly appear in the last few weeks.

bennett123 wrote:

Whilst there may be a nationwide pilot shortage, this shortage did not suddenly appear in the last few weeks.

Maybe their pilot shortage is a result of pilots quitting on them, due to their concern about CP's future, and they have moved on to greener pastures.

IMHO what CLD really needs is just a non-stop to LAX on an actual airline, essentially providing a one-stop itinerary to almost anywhere in the world. AA (S340) and UA (OO E120 until retirement) both did that previously for many years and although the HP Q200 to PHX was convenient for some, it wasn't sustainable for obvious reasons.

The "terminal" has gone from a converted hodgepodge of double wide trailers to a state-of-the-art facility that is arguably the nicest airline terminal this side of YVR on the west coast. There are literally ocean shells engrained in the pavement; it's a far cry from T1 at SAN, for example.

As a resident of Carlsbad it's frustrating the city has neglected such a new facility given the local resources. Someone here please tell me how an A300 can easily lift off at SNA but CLD isn't even able to "manage" a RJ? Is the field not able to because it sits atop a converted waste dump?

The mayor of Carlsbad, M.H., has direct business ties to the NIMBY'S who live in Bressi Ranch, directly southeast of CLD. Most living there hate any and all aviation-related noise and yet still willingly buy multimillion dollar homes directly under a flight path that has been there for a hell of a lot longer than they have been. Hmmm, wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that growing the airport has been so difficult...

KLM11

Sad to say, but this is probably the end for CPA. If Alaska were to start turboprop service to LAX they might be able to make it work as you can make connections there. But an airline with no codeshares flying to airports no non-aviation person has ever heard of (Mesa) just isn’t going to work. Their only hope (and that’s slim as it is) is to begin flights to Denver, San Francisco, or LAX and to codeshare with United.

Alot of money spent for nothing...Why do folks keep playing this game. I'm starting an airline, but it fails. Is fall a bad time to start. Spring into summer better??

When CP started flying they were paying the pilots typical salaries. At the beginning of December that switched to a 'day rate' pay system. If you don't fly, you don't get paid. The impacts to the schedule have created havoc and nobody seems to be in charge.

Most of the pilots quit as a result.

It would seem to me that if you had a type rating in a regional jet finding a new job should be fairly easy. I wonder if they had problems cashing thier checks?

This reeks of bounced checks. That would cause an exodus of pilots like this since every regional in America is hiring with union protection and some sort of career progression.

travaz wrote:

It would seem to me that if you had a type rating in a regional jet finding a new job should be fairly easy. I wonder if they had problems cashing thier checks?

Having a type rating is totally not a thing to get hired in the USA. If you have the hours and licenses you’ll get hired by any regionally immediately right now. The only time it could help is if your trying to hire on as a street captain. It’s not like Europe where you have to get your own type rating.

bennett123 wrote:

Whilst there may be a nationwide pilot shortage, this shortage did not suddenly appear in the last few weeks.

There training pipeline issues right now at almost every regional. I do know Envoy has been booking all of the E145 simulator time they can find.

KLM11 wrote:

IMHO what CLD really needs is just a non-stop to LAX on an actual airline, essentially providing a one-stop itinerary to almost anywhere in the world. AA (S340) and UA (OO E120 until retirement) both did that previously for many years and although the HP Q200 to PHX was convenient for some, it wasn't sustainable for obvious reasons.

The "terminal" has gone from a converted hodgepodge of double wide trailers to a state-of-the-art facility that is arguably the nicest airline terminal this side of YVR on the west coast. There are literally ocean shells engrained in the pavement; it's a far cry from T1 at SAN, for example.

This would be a great opportunity for AA to launch 2-3x/day PHX-CLD nonstop with OO CR7s.

jmc1975 wrote:

KLM11 wrote:

IMHO what CLD really needs is just a non-stop to LAX on an actual airline, essentially providing a one-stop itinerary to almost anywhere in the world. AA (S340) and UA (OO E120 until retirement) both did that previously for many years and although the HP Q200 to PHX was convenient for some, it wasn't sustainable for obvious reasons.

The "terminal" has gone from a converted hodgepodge of double wide trailers to a state-of-the-art facility that is arguably the nicest airline terminal this side of YVR on the west coast. There are literally ocean shells engrained in the pavement; it's a far cry from T1 at SAN, for example.

This would be a great opportunity for AA to launch 2-3x/day PHX-CLD nonstop with OO CR7s.

IMHO I don't see AA going back to CLD, granted it was pre-takeover days I ams sure the numbers are still floating around some where. I also think UA and DL have tried CLD before no one has made it work

AA747123 wrote:

jmc1975 wrote:

KLM11 wrote:

IMHO what CLD really needs is just a non-stop to LAX on an actual airline, essentially providing a one-stop itinerary to almost anywhere in the world. AA (S340) and UA (OO E120 until retirement) both did that previously for many years and although the HP Q200 to PHX was convenient for some, it wasn't sustainable for obvious reasons.

The "terminal" has gone from a converted hodgepodge of double wide trailers to a state-of-the-art facility that is arguably the nicest airline terminal this side of YVR on the west coast. There are literally ocean shells engrained in the pavement; it's a far cry from T1 at SAN, for example.

This would be a great opportunity for AA to launch 2-3x/day PHX-CLD nonstop with OO CR7s.

IMHO I don't see AA going back to CLD, granted it was pre-takeover days I ams sure the numbers are still floating around some where. I also think UA and DL have tried CLD before no one has made it work

With UA’s recent 50 seat expansion into small markets in the west I wouldn’t completely rule it out. Extremely unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibilities.

jetmatt777 wrote:

With UA’s recent 50 seat expansion into small markets in the west I wouldn’t completely rule it out. Extremely unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibilities.

The lack of leading edge slats on the CRJ-200 give it pretty severe performance problems at CLD, and United doesn’t have ERJ-145s on the west coast. Lacking turboprops, United would be looking at having to use a CRJ-700 or E-175 and that’s a lot more seats to fill, making it that much more difficult to make it work.

Mayors of Pierre and Watertown tell Feds California Pacific is delinquent on bills and ask if they can't straighten up to let them choose a new carrier.
https://www.capjournal.com/news/mayors- ... 60cd5.html

hawaiian717 wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

With UA’s recent 50 seat expansion into small markets in the west I wouldn’t completely rule it out. Extremely unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibilities.

The lack of leading edge slats on the CRJ-200 give it pretty severe performance problems at CLD, and United doesn’t have ERJ-145s on the west coast. Lacking turboprops, United would be looking at having to use a CRJ-700 or E-175 and that’s a lot more seats to fill, making it that much more difficult to make it work.

The E-145's do not have leading-edge slats either.