Denver Air Connection wins EAS away from Skywest for PIR and ATY

shamrock137 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:42 pm

TexasAirCorp wrote:
4B seems to be quite often snubbed due to poor reliability and crew shortages, especially in colder areas. They've lost quite a few contracts in northern states due to airport authorities complaining (TVF and JST come to mind) that the PC-12s are unreliable and their anti-ice systems are pretty poor, and that 4B rarely has enough flight/maintenance crews to keep operations going. Guess that's why they're putting in $0 subsidy bids.

I thought the PC-12 was known as a good all weather aircraft?

GSP psgr · Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:28 pm

I know that there's some sort of advantage to SkyWest running a lot of their EAS flying through the UAX system, but Pierre and Watertown strike me as a pair of markets that would be better served through Delta's MSP hub rather than the ORD/DEN combo. Shorter stage lengths, less congestion (especially compared to ORD), probably lower operating costs at MSP.

bomber996 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:32 pm

GSP psgr wrote:
I know that there's some sort of advantage to SkyWest running a lot of their EAS flying through the UAX system, but Pierre and Watertown strike me as a pair of markets that would be better served through Delta's MSP hub rather than the ORD/DEN combo. Shorter stage lengths, less congestion (especially compared to ORD), probably lower operating costs at MSP.

What seems to be the deal with Delta's apparent aversion to partnering with OO on some of these EAS markets? Looking at you DVL and JMS.

Peace :box:

joeblow10 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:32 pm

GSP psgr wrote:
I know that there's some sort of advantage to SkyWest running a lot of their EAS flying through the UAX system, but Pierre and Watertown strike me as a pair of markets that would be better served through Delta's MSP hub rather than the ORD/DEN combo. Shorter stage lengths, less congestion (especially compared to ORD), probably lower operating costs at MSP.

DL doesn’t want them. NW and Mesaba used to be in all of these types of markets that OO has (had) now taken over with UA. Most of the upper Midwest EAS routes seem to have transitioned over to UA and ORD, with the exception of rural MN and U.P. MI/WI.

I agree though - the “business connection” to the Cities in markets like ATY and PIR has to be a lot stronger than DEN or ORD.

Interestingly and anecdotally, I’ve always noticed the OO flights at EAS cities with service to both DEN and ORD are nearly full going to DEN and nearly empty going to ORD.

GSP psgr · Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:09 pm

joeblow10 wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
I know that there's some sort of advantage to SkyWest running a lot of their EAS flying through the UAX system, but Pierre and Watertown strike me as a pair of markets that would be better served through Delta's MSP hub rather than the ORD/DEN combo. Shorter stage lengths, less congestion (especially compared to ORD), probably lower operating costs at MSP.

DL doesn’t want them. NW and Mesaba used to be in all of these types of markets that OO has (had) now taken over with UA. Most of the upper Midwest EAS routes seem to have transitioned over to UA and ORD, with the exception of rural MN and U.P. MI/WI.

I agree though - the “business connection” to the Cities in markets like ATY and PIR has to be a lot stronger than DEN or ORD.

Interestingly and anecdotally, I’ve always noticed the OO flights at EAS cities with service to both DEN and ORD are nearly full going to DEN and nearly empty going to ORD.

I think they only keep those MI/MN/GA EAS routes around mostly as a way of currying favor with the state governments for what they need at ATL, DTW, and MSP. Otherwise, DL seems about as interested as AA is about doing EAS flying.

WA707atMSP · Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:09 pm

joeblow10 wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
I know that there's some sort of advantage to SkyWest running a lot of their EAS flying through the UAX system, but Pierre and Watertown strike me as a pair of markets that would be better served through Delta's MSP hub rather than the ORD/DEN combo. Shorter stage lengths, less congestion (especially compared to ORD), probably lower operating costs at MSP.

DL doesn’t want them. NW and Mesaba used to be in all of these types of markets that OO has (had) now taken over with UA. Most of the upper Midwest EAS routes seem to have transitioned over to UA and ORD, with the exception of rural MN and U.P. MI/WI.

I agree though - the “business connection” to the Cities in markets like ATY and PIR has to be a lot stronger than DEN or ORD.

Interestingly and anecdotally, I’ve always noticed the OO flights at EAS cities with service to both DEN and ORD are nearly full going to DEN and nearly empty going to ORD.

The business ties between North Dakota + South Dakota and Minneapolis are stronger than the business ties between the Dakotas and Chicago, too. I'm sure there would be some local traffic from MSP to ATY / PIR if the EAS flights were well timed.

As others have said, DL's aversion to EAS markets in the upper Midwest, including TVF which would be a natural DL* destination, doesn't make sense. Delta's leaders must know something that we don't.......

joeblow10 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:23 pm

WA707atMSP wrote:
joeblow10 wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
I know that there's some sort of advantage to SkyWest running a lot of their EAS flying through the UAX system, but Pierre and Watertown strike me as a pair of markets that would be better served through Delta's MSP hub rather than the ORD/DEN combo. Shorter stage lengths, less congestion (especially compared to ORD), probably lower operating costs at MSP.

DL doesn’t want them. NW and Mesaba used to be in all of these types of markets that OO has (had) now taken over with UA. Most of the upper Midwest EAS routes seem to have transitioned over to UA and ORD, with the exception of rural MN and U.P. MI/WI.

I agree though - the “business connection” to the Cities in markets like ATY and PIR has to be a lot stronger than DEN or ORD.

Interestingly and anecdotally, I’ve always noticed the OO flights at EAS cities with service to both DEN and ORD are nearly full going to DEN and nearly empty going to ORD.

The business ties between North Dakota + South Dakota and Minneapolis are stronger than the business ties between the Dakotas and Chicago, too. I'm sure there would be some local traffic from MSP to ATY / PIR if the EAS flights were well timed.

As others have said, DL's aversion to EAS markets in the upper Midwest, including TVF which would be a natural DL* destination, doesn't make sense. Delta's leaders must know something that we don't.......

Speculation on my part - but my guess is that with the transition in how OO prices EAS routes, DL (and AA elsewhere) don’t want the lower yielding traffic they think they can sell at a higher price.

It used to be absolutely outrageous to fly into EAS places like ATY and PIR when NW/DL ran service out of MSP and even into places elsewhere in the country on UA, but OO has now shifted to a strategy of selling more seats at lower prices. Many of the non-EAS cities like GFK and FSD are still very expensive on DL thru MSP. UA seems to be happy to take the traffic volume.

bomber996 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:06 pm

joeblow10 wrote:
It used to be absolutely outrageous to fly into EAS places like ATY and PIR when NW/DL ran service out of MSP and even into places elsewhere in the country on UA, but OO has now shifted to a strategy of selling more seats at lower prices. Many of the non-EAS cities like GFK and FSD are still very expensive on DL thru MSP. UA seems to be happy to take the traffic volume.

Truth. Flights into BJI, DVL, and JMS are often half the price of flying into GFK or FAR. I once was trying to get back to GFK from DEN to visit some friends and I saved upwards of $300 by flying into BJI. $256ish RT DEN-MSP-BJI and DEN-DVL, and close to $600 DEN-MSP-GFK or DEN-FAR. Outrageous. I would have flown into DVL but the rental car choices out of BJI were considerably better. Mind you this was early 2018 so well pre-pandemic.

Peace :box:

TexasAirCorp · Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:23 pm

shamrock137 wrote:
TexasAirCorp wrote:
4B seems to be quite often snubbed due to poor reliability and crew shortages, especially in colder areas. They've lost quite a few contracts in northern states due to airport authorities complaining (TVF and JST come to mind) that the PC-12s are unreliable and their anti-ice systems are pretty poor, and that 4B rarely has enough flight/maintenance crews to keep operations going. Guess that's why they're putting in $0 subsidy bids.

I thought the PC-12 was known as a good all weather aircraft?

I'm not an expert, but its de-icers aren't that great, so it's not the best aircraft to be based somewhere cold with high utilisation. 4B are currently swapping them out in colder areas for Piaggio Avantis, which have better de-icers so should allow for a more reliable operation.

WA707atMSP · Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:35 pm

TexasAirCorp wrote:
shamrock137 wrote:
TexasAirCorp wrote:
4B seems to be quite often snubbed due to poor reliability and crew shortages, especially in colder areas. They've lost quite a few contracts in northern states due to airport authorities complaining (TVF and JST come to mind) that the PC-12s are unreliable and their anti-ice systems are pretty poor, and that 4B rarely has enough flight/maintenance crews to keep operations going. Guess that's why they're putting in $0 subsidy bids.

I thought the PC-12 was known as a good all weather aircraft?

I'm not an expert, but its de-icers aren't that great, so it's not the best aircraft to be based somewhere cold with high utilisation. 4B are currently swapping them out in colder areas for Piaggio Avantis, which have better de-icers so should allow for a more reliable operation.

When will the Avantis be entering service?

I've never flown on an Avanti, and I'd assume Ironwood would be one of the first routes where the Avantis will be used, so I'd like to fly MSP-IWD-ORD to log one.

TexasAirCorp · Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:44 pm

WA707atMSP wrote:
TexasAirCorp wrote:
shamrock137 wrote:

I thought the PC-12 was known as a good all weather aircraft?

I'm not an expert, but its de-icers aren't that great, so it's not the best aircraft to be based somewhere cold with high utilisation. 4B are currently swapping them out in colder areas for Piaggio Avantis, which have better de-icers so should allow for a more reliable operation.

When will the Avantis be entering service?

I've never flown on an Avanti, and I'd assume Ironwood would be one of the first routes where the Avantis will be used, so I'd like to fly MSP-IWD-ORD to log one.

Not too sure, apparently they're having issues finding crews and obviously Covid hasn't helped.

I believe JST was meant to be the inaugural Avanti base but that's obviously not happening now 4B have lost the contract. I'd guess either IWD or PDT, possibly when the EAS contract gets renewed.

bomber996 · Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:06 pm

TexasAirCorp wrote:
WA707atMSP wrote:
TexasAirCorp wrote:

I'm not an expert, but its de-icers aren't that great, so it's not the best aircraft to be based somewhere cold with high utilisation. 4B are currently swapping them out in colder areas for Piaggio Avantis, which have better de-icers so should allow for a more reliable operation.

When will the Avantis be entering service?

I've never flown on an Avanti, and I'd assume Ironwood would be one of the first routes where the Avantis will be used, so I'd like to fly MSP-IWD-ORD to log one.

Not too sure, apparently they're having issues finding crews and obviously Covid hasn't helped.

I believe JST was meant to be the inaugural Avanti base but that's obviously not happening now 4B have lost the contract. I'd guess either IWD or PDT, possibly when the EAS contract gets renewed.

This should be interesting to see how the aircraft hold up to the 135 flying that 4B does. My understanding is that the P180 doesn't do well maintenance wise and that's what helped with the downfall of Avantair.

Peace :box:

drdisque · Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:57 pm

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:
jcwr56 wrote:
drdisque wrote:

Aerodynamics inc. did operate their E-145 from the ground board gate at the end of L when they flew ORD-YNG for a month a few years ago. Although that was back when I believe only Air Choice one used that gate. Now they're sharing it with Boutique and Cape Air. Four carriers on a single gate would be pretty intense, even if Air Choice One's schedule is way down from their peak.

I'm hearing ORD wasn't even aware of the awarding. The current EAS area is too small for this carrier to be allocated in. None of the current common use gates at ORD can handle the E145, so this mean DAC will need to approach one of the preferential carriers and as for a voluntary accommodation or expect to plan for an outside operation at Terminal 5.

I think they should approach UA as they do have interline with them, would help with connections. For the gate issue, if ORD has a bus they could use maybe they could park at a remote stand and bus them to the common use gate.

The only remote stands are off the end of T5 and may actually be gone by now due to the T5 Expansion. There's also not really a good area for a bus to come in at T1-3 other than the EAS gate on L or the existing transfer bus spaces (which don't have the ability to simultaneously used as a boarding gate).

Chuska · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:12 am

Key Lime/Denver Air Conx began service on July 1 however SkyWest did not leave. Both carriers are now at both PIR and ATY. What is up with that?

jetmatt777 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:18 am

Chuska wrote:
Key Lime/Denver Air Conx began service on July 1 however SkyWest did not leave. Both carriers are now at both PIR and ATY. What is up with that?

SkyWest probably dropped the subsidy. They will probably try and run DAC off the route, then take the EAS again.

Or United/SkyWest decided the route was worth keeping without the subsidy.

joeblow10 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:25 am

Didn’t the city “appeal” the DOT issuance? I was under the impression OO was continuing service until a final decision is made based on the city comments (though, maybe I missed that)

32andBelow · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:25 am

joeblow10 wrote:
Didn’t the city “appeal” the DOT issuance? I was under the impression OO was continuing service until a final decision is made based on the city comments (though, maybe I missed that)

You can’t leave an eas route till the new carrier starts

joeblow10 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:26 am

32andBelow wrote:
joeblow10 wrote:
Didn’t the city “appeal” the DOT issuance? I was under the impression OO was continuing service until a final decision is made based on the city comments (though, maybe I missed that)

You can’t leave an eas route till the new carrier starts

Yes but OO announced plans to continue over a month ago - even after the contract switched last week

sprxUSA · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:38 am

I believe OO (SkyWest) is trying to cause KG ( Key Lime/DAC) to lose more $$ than they maybe would have by taking away some passengers that would otherwise may have flown KG, and be counted among numbers KG assumed would be theirs since they assumed they would be the only carrier there. Then, KG might be losing too much money and need a rebid put out, then OO can come in and ridiculously over bid again and repeat the process LOL. If OO really wanted to keep the free money coming in, they should have put in a competitive bid.
Either way, nice way to fly one in and the other out for $120.00 RT!

joeblow10 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:42 am

I imagine OO gets more customers on the basis of connections alone. Granted - I think UA codeshares with KG as well, but one look at dummy booking prices shows those KG-UA connections cost much more on average

Pi7472000 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 4:03 am

Airfares are really cheap for a small, secluded town. I am going round trip from DEN for 117. One way on DAC, the other on United Express (Skywest).

Polot · Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:36 pm

joeblow10 wrote:
I imagine OO gets more customers on the basis of connections alone. Granted - I think UA codeshares with KG as well, but one look at dummy booking prices shows those KG-UA connections cost much more on average

UA interlines with KG and shows KG’s flights on their website but they do not codeshare.

RJNUT · Wed Jul 07, 2021 3:01 pm

i dont have the link but a UA spokesman , chiming in about this controversy, stated that they would continue to interline with KG "in the near term" which implied to me the possibility of cancelling that interline agreement I hope it would not be cancelled over this kerfuffle.

32andBelow · Wed Jul 07, 2021 6:38 pm

Won’t the eas just get canceled completely if there’s 2 carriers?

joeblow10 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 7:35 pm

32andBelow wrote:
Won’t the eas just get canceled completely if there’s 2 carriers?

No there’s still a contract. CNY is another good example - while OO flies both, the one to DEN is subsidized, the flight to SLC is not. I want to say WYS also is a double carrier route with one subsidized, but not sure

32andBelow · Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:40 pm

joeblow10 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Won’t the eas just get canceled completely if there’s 2 carriers?

No there’s still a contract. CNY is another good example - while OO flies both, the one to DEN is subsidized, the flight to SLC is not. I want to say WYS also is a double carrier route with one subsidized, but not sure

Why would they subsidize service on a route that has someone doing it at risk?

MO11 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:07 pm

32andBelow wrote:
joeblow10 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Won’t the eas just get canceled completely if there’s 2 carriers?

No there’s still a contract. CNY is another good example - while OO flies both, the one to DEN is subsidized, the flight to SLC is not. I want to say WYS also is a double carrier route with one subsidized, but not sure

Why would they subsidize service on a route that has someone doing it at risk?

The key is "route". Each airport has an EAS service determination; one of the requirements is connectivity to the airline network. At Plattsburgh, NY, Skywest/United Express provides service to IAD, which is the EAS service. But Allegiant also has service to Florida, which doesn't make connections.

As for Moab, both SLC and DEN are subsidized (as of April 1). WYS is also subsidized to both SLC and DEN.

dalmit · Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:31 pm

I think the point is - this is the first example where the airline that lost the EAS Service determination has stayed in the market to compete against the new entrant that had the lowest bid and won the service contract. It's unprecedented and it's not hard to imagine that once DAC has to cease operation because they are losing to much money that Skywest will jack the prices up. The prices to the EAS program and to the travelers.

joeblow10 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:57 pm

dalmit wrote:
I think the point is - this is the first example where the airline that lost the EAS Service determination has stayed in the market to compete against the new entrant that had the lowest bid and won the service contract. It's unprecedented and it's not hard to imagine that once DAC has to cease operation because they are losing to much money that Skywest will jack the prices up. The prices to the EAS program and to the travelers.

Granted It was never $69 o/w to get into ATY until KG showed up, but to be clear, OO into ATY or PIR was never expensive either. Unlike DL and it’s EAS flights out of MSP (which can go upwards of $500 RT!), UA/OO usually priced places like ATY, PIR, CNY, etc out of Denver for around $100-150 each way. Nothing unreasonable by any means

joeblow10 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 10:10 pm

MO11 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
joeblow10 wrote:

No there’s still a contract. CNY is another good example - while OO flies both, the one to DEN is subsidized, the flight to SLC is not. I want to say WYS also is a double carrier route with one subsidized, but not sure

Why would they subsidize service on a route that has someone doing it at risk?

The key is "route". Each airport has an EAS service determination; one of the requirements is connectivity to the airline network. At Plattsburgh, NY, Skywest/United Express provides service to IAD, which is the EAS service. But Allegiant also has service to Florida, which doesn't make connections.

As for Moab, both SLC and DEN are subsidized (as of April 1). WYS is also subsidized to both SLC and DEN.

This hasn’t been updated since March, so I may be totally wrong, but I was under the impression SLC from CNY was at risk. Though, to your point, now it’s 1x daily DEN and 1x daily SLC, so I guess they just split the subsidy and changed one of the destination frequencies

Also, got it backwards (assuming it didn’t change), WYS subsidizes SLC and not DEN

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 2021_1.pdf

MO11 · Wed Jul 07, 2021 10:18 pm

joeblow10 wrote:
As for Moab, both SLC and DEN are subsidized (as of April 1). WYS is also subsidized to both SLC and DEN.

This hasn’t been updated since March, so I may be totally wrong, but I was under the impression SLC from CNY was at risk. Though, to your point, now it’s 1x daily DEN and 1x daily SLC, so I guess they just split the subsidy and changed one of the destination frequencies

Also, got it backwards (assuming it didn’t change), WYS subsidizes SLC and not DEN

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 2021_1.pdf[/quote]

The latest order for WYS was dated March 12. Skywest only gets paid for 7 weekly flights in the shoulder season (first two weeks of October), so one of those flights will disappear. The order approving the alternate service pattern for CNY was dared March 4.

usxguy · Wed Jul 07, 2021 10:31 pm

$6.5 million to almost $9 million is QUITE the jump. Someone at Skywest wasn't thinking, and now they're flying at $0 subsidy?! Definitely fishy and improper.

OO - "hey, we wanna keep serving here, but we need a LOT more money"

Government - sorry, better bidder came in. They've done a decent job where they fly. Thanks but no thanks.

OO - "NO! we demand a rebid! Our numbers were off."

Government: NOPE. No do-overs.

OO - "SIKE! we can do it for free now!"

Now SkyWest is giving a very predatory approach to Key Lime Air and hope that they can be pushed out of the market. I hope/pray the DOT/DOJ are watching this.

FlyingElvii · Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:18 am

GSP psgr wrote:
joeblow10 wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
I know that there's some sort of advantage to SkyWest running a lot of their EAS flying through the UAX system, but Pierre and Watertown strike me as a pair of markets that would be better served through Delta's MSP hub rather than the ORD/DEN combo. Shorter stage lengths, less congestion (especially compared to ORD), probably lower operating costs at MSP.

DL doesn’t want them. NW and Mesaba used to be in all of these types of markets that OO has (had) now taken over with UA. Most of the upper Midwest EAS routes seem to have transitioned over to UA and ORD, with the exception of rural MN and U.P. MI/WI.

I agree though - the “business connection” to the Cities in markets like ATY and PIR has to be a lot stronger than DEN or ORD.

Interestingly and anecdotally, I’ve always noticed the OO flights at EAS cities with service to both DEN and ORD are nearly full going to DEN and nearly empty going to ORD.

I think they only keep those MI/MN/GA EAS routes around mostly as a way of currying favor with the state governments for what they need at ATL, DTW, and MSP. Otherwise, DL seems about as interested as AA is about doing EAS flying.

I recall some kind of a deal Delta had to make with the state of Michigan, assuring service to Northern Michigan cities in return for Approval of the Northwest deal, and some loans/tax breaks.

32andBelow · Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:35 am

usxguy wrote:
$6.5 million to almost $9 million is QUITE the jump. Someone at Skywest wasn't thinking, and now they're flying at $0 subsidy?! Definitely fishy and improper.

OO - "hey, we wanna keep serving here, but we need a LOT more money"

Government - sorry, better bidder came in. They've done a decent job where they fly. Thanks but no thanks.

OO - "NO! we demand a rebid! Our numbers were off."

Government: NOPE. No do-overs.

OO - "SIKE! we can do it for free now!"

Now SkyWest is giving a very predatory approach to Key Lime Air and hope that they can be pushed out of the market. I hope/pray the DOT/DOJ are watching this.

The real joke is approving any air carrier that doesn’t have a code share. Totally not good for the customer.

usxguy · Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:41 am

32andBelow wrote:
The real joke is approving any air carrier that doesn’t have a code share. Totally not good for the customer.

You don't need a codeshare if you have good interlines & distribution. Look at El Centro/Imperial with Mokulele. They're churning out numbers that are better than Skywest when they ran Brasilias there as United Express - and that was following the nightmare called SeaPort. Boutique & Southern are also having good success in many markets.

Issue with EAS and "Express" - your flights are the first to get cut when bad weather moves in or big airline has to reduce flights at a hub. And one reason why some cities have fairly challenging operational stats. Joplin was doing REALLY well under American Eagle, but daddy AA doesn't want any more at-risk/pro-rate or stuck with EAS.

32andBelow · Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:47 am

usxguy wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
The real joke is approving any air carrier that doesn’t have a code share. Totally not good for the customer.

You don't need a codeshare if you have good interlines & distribution. Look at El Centro/Imperial with Mokulele. They're churning out numbers that are better than Skywest when they ran Brasilias there as United Express - and that was following the nightmare called SeaPort. Boutique & Southern are also having good success in many markets.

Issue with EAS and "Express" - your flights are the first to get cut when bad weather moves in or big airline has to reduce flights at a hub. And one reason why some cities have fairly challenging operational stats. Joplin was doing REALLY well under American Eagle, but daddy AA doesn't want any more at-risk/pro-rate or stuck with EAS.

Small carrier still get ground holds. And when you aren’t on a single itenerary the big Carrier doesn’t have to help you out

MO11 · Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:00 am

usxguy wrote:
$6.5 million to almost $9 million is QUITE the jump. Someone at Skywest wasn't thinking, and now they're flying at $0 subsidy?! Definitely fishy and improper.

OO - "hey, we wanna keep serving here, but we need a LOT more money"

Government - sorry, better bidder came in. They've done a decent job where they fly. Thanks but no thanks.

OO - "NO! we demand a rebid! Our numbers were off."

Government: NOPE. No do-overs.

OO - "SIKE! we can do it for free now!"

Now SkyWest is giving a very predatory approach to Key Lime Air and hope that they can be pushed out of the market. I hope/pray the DOT/DOJ are watching this.

Actually -

OO bid for 2 PIR-DEN roundtrtips and one each ATY-DEN and ATY-ORD. ($4.3 million subsidy for ATY, $3.7 million for PIR)
KG bid ATY-PIR-DEN, DEN-PIR-ATY-ORD, ORD-ATY-PIR-DEN, DEN-PIR-ATY ($4.7 million subsidy)

Note that the KG proposal has less block hours than OO. DOT selected KG, not because of community preference, but because of low bid.

Watertown objected due to less seats available due to trips being combined. Pierre objected for several reasons.

KG mitigated the objections by splitting the schedule, which makes it similar to OO's schedule, but would do it for no increase in subsidy.

OO objects, claiming that there is no way KG can break even at the same subsidy level. The ball is in the DOT's court. If the DOT does not reconsider its decision, I would expect OO to end service.

maps4ltd · Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:16 am

Gotta say, I did not expect Pierre South Dakota to be a battlefield in any sort of airline skirmish.

32andBelow · Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:40 am

maps4ltd wrote:
Gotta say, I did not expect Pierre South Dakota to be a battlefield in any sort of airline skirmish.

It’s free money…

Aliqiout · Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:41 am

32andBelow wrote:
usxguy wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
The real joke is approving any air carrier that doesn’t have a code share. Totally not good for the customer.

You don't need a codeshare if you have good interlines & distribution. Look at El Centro/Imperial with Mokulele. They're churning out numbers that are better than Skywest when they ran Brasilias there as United Express - and that was following the nightmare called SeaPort. Boutique & Southern are also having good success in many markets.

Issue with EAS and "Express" - your flights are the first to get cut when bad weather moves in or big airline has to reduce flights at a hub. And one reason why some cities have fairly challenging operational stats. Joplin was doing REALLY well under American Eagle, but daddy AA doesn't want any more at-risk/pro-rate or stuck with EAS.

Small carrier still get ground holds. And when you aren’t on a single itenerary the big Carrier doesn’t have to help you out

Thats why interline agreements are important. Code shares are not required for a single ticket connection.

knope2001 · Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:48 am

Watertown story on having two airlines

https://www.thepublicopinion.com/story/ ... 799427002/

Recent objection filed to the DoT asking for Skywest to stay.

file:///C:/Users/dalem/Downloads/DOT-OST-2011-0138-0112_attachment_1.pdf

dalmit · Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:01 pm

knope2001 wrote:
Watertown story on having two airlines

https://www.thepublicopinion.com/story/ ... 799427002/

Recent objection filed to the DoT asking for Skywest to stay.

file:///C:/Users/dalem/Downloads/DOT-OST-2011-0138-0112_attachment_1.pdf

Here is a link to the docket https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT- ... 8/document - select "last 7 days" on the left to view the Watertown rebuttal.

Watertown's point seems to be that they will lose international connections if they go with Denver Air Connection which is not really true. They may lose online international single carrier (UA) fares but they will still be able to connect to international flights in DEN and ORD and I would suspect at the same or in some cases even cheaper fares.

RJNUT · Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:31 pm

dalmit wrote:
knope2001 wrote:
Watertown story on having two airlines

https://www.thepublicopinion.com/story/ ... 799427002/

Recent objection filed to the DoT asking for Skywest to stay.

file:///C:/Users/dalem/Downloads/DOT-OST-2011-0138-0112_attachment_1.pdf

Here is a link to the docket https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT- ... 8/document - select "last 7 days" on the left to view the Watertown rebuttal.

Watertown's point seems to be that they will lose international connections if they go with Denver Air Connection which is not really true. They may lose online international single carrier (UA) fares but they will still be able to connect to international flights in DEN and ORD and I would suspect at the same or in some cases even cheaper fares.

Self-connect ,hacker fares for International travel is not a feature, but moreover a necessary evil in this argument and hardly a selling point. Only the most savvy travelers would attempt it and only a few travel websites will assemble them for you anyway.

MIflyer12 · Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:22 pm

RJNUT wrote:
Self-connect ,hacker fares for International travel is not a feature, but moreover a necessary evil in this argument and hardly a selling point. Only the most savvy travelers would attempt it and only a few travel websites will assemble them for you anyway.

They don't have to be self-connect (hacker) fares. Multi-carrier, multi-fare itins are no great trick so long as carriers interline. Kayak will construct Key Lime + United itins today.

RJNUT · Fri Jul 09, 2021 5:33 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
RJNUT wrote:
Self-connect ,hacker fares for International travel is not a feature, but moreover a necessary evil in this argument and hardly a selling point. Only the most savvy travelers would attempt it and only a few travel websites will assemble them for you anyway.

They don't have to be self-connect (hacker) fares. Multi-carrier, multi-fare itins are no great trick so long as carriers interline. Kayak will construct Key Lime + United itins today.

Kayak will not produce an itinerary using DAC and UA to , say, Frankfurt , for example. Only hacker fares are available. The DAC and UA one -ticket option is at full fare of $6000 roundtrip and then when one tries to book it, it directs you to United.,com which then times out. Interline is not the "only" trick to producing these trips.Fare combinability is the other huge factor.

KCaviator · Fri Jul 09, 2021 6:05 pm

This is my new favorite rivalry.

dalmit · Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:58 pm

Okay, I see what you're saying. Forget about Kayak...even when I go to travelocity to price ATY-FRA OW, the Skywest/United fare is 2k and the DAC/United fare is about 9k.

I guess I could just buy a ticket from Denver Air Connection ATY-ORD and then buy a different ticket from United ORD-FRA. Or call a travel agent, maybe they can sell a combined itinerary ATY-FRA on DAC/UA. There has to be a way for this to work - Denver Air Connection is in about 5 or 6 other cities in MN, NE NM and I'm sure those people aren't paying 9k to go to Europe.

RJNUT · Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:27 pm

Actually United could correct this by allowing combinability of DAC's local fares with their international fares types. I know AA does this with Boutique. Example Massena to London allows MSS-BOS-LON routing and prices competitively. Also UA could just produce "through-fare" pricing whereby DAC is included in the routing . UA does this with Cape Air , Example MBL-ORD-FRA is priced as a UA fare type. So there are ways, but it requires a higher level of cooperation of the carriers than simple interline.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net