Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jetblastdubai wrote:Could they not run some as tag flights and save the extra plane and crew? There is probably more to this story.
knope2001 wrote:Further evidence of the squeeze at Skywest, they have filed notice with the DoT to reduce frequency in 20 markets:
These are planned to reduce from 12/week to 10/week
Alamosa
Scottsbluff
Dodge City
Fort Dodge
Hays
Laramie
North Platte
Liberal
Pueblo
Vernal
Cape Girardeau
Decatur
Mason City
Muskegon
Fort Leonard Wood
International Falls
All of these are UA* markets (largely DEN) except INL is DL*,
Most of them are among the lowest load factors in the Skywest EAS network, which makes sense. There are a lot of EAS markets they are not trimming but this is still notable.
These are planned to reduce from 12/week to 7/week, and they are markets OO has already announced an intention to drop.
Ogdensburg
Plattsburgh
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -0304-0091
jetblastdubai wrote:Could they not run some as tag flights and save the extra plane and crew? There is probably more to this story.
Pinto wrote:
The morning flight went CGI - PAH - ORD
The midday flight went ORD - PAH - CGI - ORD
The night flight went ORD - PAH - CGI.
jetblastdubai wrote:Pinto wrote:
The morning flight went CGI - PAH - ORD
The midday flight went ORD - PAH - CGI - ORD
The night flight went ORD - PAH - CGI.
CGI-PAH is bus territory at 44 miles. UA runs several buses between Ft. Collins and DEN and that's 45 miles with traffic.
There are a lot of very small cities that would be better served with a quick bus ride to a nearby "not quite as small" city instead of wasting the resources of a flight they can't fill on their own.
32andBelow wrote:It’s weird that they dislike PBG so much. It has as high subsidy and more passengers than the stuff out of DEN
IFlyVeryLittle wrote:Does an EAS subsidy pretty much cover the cost of flying the contracted route empty or is there some kind of formula that adds the subsidy to an expected passenger load? In other words, is it possible to still lose money on an EAS route even with a full subsidy?
DiamondFlyer wrote:My guess is that by the end of 2022, most of the EAS flying done by FFD airlines will be severely reduced or totally cut. There simply aren't crews to fly it.
joeblow10 wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:My guess is that by the end of 2022, most of the EAS flying done by FFD airlines will be severely reduced or totally cut. There simply aren't crews to fly it.
The two big questions will be: does the DOT allow them to back out of all this flying, and if so, who steps in to cover?
I would have thought OO simply wouldn’t rebid in many of these markets, but they have been awarded EAS renewals even in the past couple of months (TBN, BTM as two examples).
IFlyVeryLittle wrote:Does an EAS subsidy pretty much cover the cost of flying the contracted route empty or is there some kind of formula that adds the subsidy to an expected passenger load? In other words, is it possible to still lose money on an EAS route even with a full subsidy?
DiamondFlyer wrote:The DOT may not have to allow them to back out of it. If Skywest isn't allowed out of it, they'll simply just cancel the flights day after day after day after day, until the local city wants to be able to rebid the flying. But then again, no one will step in to cover it.
joeblow10 wrote:The two big questions will be: does the DOT allow them to back out of all this flying, and if so, who steps in to cover?
I would have thought OO simply wouldn’t rebid in many of these markets, but they have been awarded EAS renewals even in the past couple of months (TBN, BTM as two examples).
Pinto wrote:jetblastdubai wrote:Could they not run some as tag flights and save the extra plane and crew? There is probably more to this story.
I used to fly out of Paduxah and for a while it was part of a triangle route.
The morning flight went CGI - PAH - ORD
The midday flight went ORD - PAH - CGI - ORD
The night flight went ORD - PAH - CGI.
The midday flight was my most frequest and was problematic. The CGI stop was always an issue because the crews would swap out during the midday flight and a couple times the crew made passengers get off of the plane (even though they were allowed to stay on for the stop). Also if there was weather at O'Hare passengers from PAH could get stranded in CGI. While overall it was great when it worked out because it was an extra flight a day for each station, it just had the issue of not wanting to work out. I think ultimately we will start to see tag flights as they might be the only way to keep service.
Regarding the nonstop vs tag flights. It really wasn't a big issue because you never get off the plane and it add 45 minutes to a flight. So still fast than driving. Also the way the routing work for PAH and CGI there was atleast 1 flight a day with nonstop service to ORD. PAH got it in the morning and CGI got it in the afternoon.
Seat1F wrote:The EAS program is largely a waste of money IMHO. I'm in favor of the entire program being canned...at least at a federal level. Let states step in to fund flying for "un-served/under-served communities" if they so choose. If Muskegon wants nonstop air service, the state of Michigan can pay the cost if they want to. I'm sorry but the US government should not be funding this program except in maybe some unique/extreme cases (no other airport within a 4 hour drive maybe). I do not consider a 2-3 hour drive to get to an airport with commercial air service to be a hardship. From where I live in Michigan (not considered metro Detroit), it takes me roughly 90 minutes to get to DTW. For me, it's an easy trip...not at all a hardship. FNT is about the same time distance but I never fly from there due to their limited flight options.
MILakes wrote:Seat1F wrote:
Completely agree. Having lived in both Michigan and Colorado, it is beyond all common reasoning that both MKG and PUB are "EAS worthy." Both about 45 miles on a single interstate to GRR and COS respectively. I agree with many on these EAS discussions about AK and some truly remote areas (mostly western states) being worthy of some taxpayer subsidies for air service in 2022- but the vast majority have turned into political and community status arguments..
MILakes wrote:Seat1F wrote:The EAS program is largely a waste of money IMHO. I'm in favor of the entire program being canned...at least at a federal level. Let states step in to fund flying for "un-served/under-served communities" if they so choose. If Muskegon wants nonstop air service, the state of Michigan can pay the cost if they want to. I'm sorry but the US government should not be funding this program except in maybe some unique/extreme cases (no other airport within a 4 hour drive maybe). I do not consider a 2-3 hour drive to get to an airport with commercial air service to be a hardship. From where I live in Michigan (not considered metro Detroit), it takes me roughly 90 minutes to get to DTW. For me, it's an easy trip...not at all a hardship. FNT is about the same time distance but I never fly from there due to their limited flight options.
Completely agree. Having lived in both Michigan and Colorado, it is beyond all common reasoning that both MKG and PUB are "EAS worthy." Both about 45 miles on a single interstate to GRR and COS respectively. I agree with many on these EAS discussions about AK and some truly remote areas (mostly western states) being worthy of some taxpayer subsidies for air service in 2022- but the vast majority have turned into political and community status arguments..
Seat1F wrote:I agree with your comment on AK. That would fall in the category of unique/extreme cases that I mentioned. I wonder how many of the current EAS airports have alternative commercial airport options within a 2-hour drive of the EAS community. Start by cutting those as it's a no-brainer.
N383SW wrote:jetblastdubai wrote:Pinto wrote:
The morning flight went CGI - PAH - ORD
The midday flight went ORD - PAH - CGI - ORD
The night flight went ORD - PAH - CGI.
CGI-PAH is bus territory at 44 miles. UA runs several buses between Ft. Collins and DEN and that's 45 miles with traffic.
There are a lot of very small cities that would be better served with a quick bus ride to a nearby "not quite as small" city instead of wasting the resources of a flight they can't fill on their own.
Well the tag isn’t there to fly anyone from PAH-CGI (as an example) it serves a purpose to provide air service to Chicago and beyond for both.
MIflyer12 wrote:Seat1F wrote:I agree with your comment on AK. That would fall in the category of unique/extreme cases that I mentioned. I wonder how many of the current EAS airports have alternative commercial airport options within a 2-hour drive of the EAS community. Start by cutting those as it's a no-brainer.
On a per-capita basis by traveler, EAS can be expensive. But the total expense (about $300 million in FY2021) in the context of the Federal budget is just nothing. Don't forget, a lot of the EAS airports that you consider worthy are in very lightly populated states (see the map in this Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service ), and they all get two U.S. Senators, too, just like the 40 million people of California. Start cutting EAS and watch those senators scream.
atrude777 wrote:Pinto wrote:jetblastdubai wrote:Could they not run some as tag flights and save the extra plane and crew? There is probably more to this story.
I used to fly out of Paduxah and for a while it was part of a triangle route.
The morning flight went CGI - PAH - ORD
The midday flight went ORD - PAH - CGI - ORD
The night flight went ORD - PAH - CGI.
The midday flight was my most frequest and was problematic. The CGI stop was always an issue because the crews would swap out during the midday flight and a couple times the crew made passengers get off of the plane (even though they were allowed to stay on for the stop). Also if there was weather at O'Hare passengers from PAH could get stranded in CGI. While overall it was great when it worked out because it was an extra flight a day for each station, it just had the issue of not wanting to work out. I think ultimately we will start to see tag flights as they might be the only way to keep service.
Regarding the nonstop vs tag flights. It really wasn't a big issue because you never get off the plane and it add 45 minutes to a flight. So still fast than driving. Also the way the routing work for PAH and CGI there was atleast 1 flight a day with nonstop service to ORD. PAH got it in the morning and CGI got it in the afternoon.
I am from Carbondale, Illinois and live in Chicago working for United. I actually got my United career back in 2012 by working for SkyWest in PAH!
That Tag Flight was a PAIN to fly as Stand By because for awhile the tag flights didn't work for us as non revs.
I send myself and the family to CGI mostly because of the Free Parking at CGI.
CGI and PAH are both One Hour Drives from Carbondale, so I am a bit flexible.
Glad that PAH is still sticking around, sad to see that CGI is taking a hit.
If EAS ends entirely...and they have to pull out of CGI and PAH...I am back on Amtrak, as it's too much work to travel ORD-STL-MWA on Cape Air.
Alex
jetblastdubai wrote:N383SW wrote:jetblastdubai wrote:
CGI-PAH is bus territory at 44 miles. UA runs several buses between Ft. Collins and DEN and that's 45 miles with traffic.
There are a lot of very small cities that would be better served with a quick bus ride to a nearby "not quite as small" city instead of wasting the resources of a flight they can't fill on their own.
Well the tag isn’t there to fly anyone from PAH-CGI (as an example) it serves a purpose to provide air service to Chicago and beyond for both.
I'm well aware that the short flight isn't for O&D pax but to get people to Chicago and points beyond. My point is that a bus could perform the CGI-PAH leg much more efficiently than any plane. No one is taking the bus from Ft. Collins to DEN just get to Denver either. If the point is to connect these small communities to hub airports then it shouldn't make any difference what mode of transportation it is as long as travel time is competive.
At 44 miles, total travel time from your home/office is far less via ground transportation than air transportation when you factor in check-in, TSA and all other things involved in flying.
AndoAv8R wrote:I still dont get how Pueblo even qualifies for EAS, especially with how many flights are operating out of COS now
jetblastdubai wrote:N383SW wrote:jetblastdubai wrote:
CGI-PAH is bus territory at 44 miles. UA runs several buses between Ft. Collins and DEN and that's 45 miles with traffic.
There are a lot of very small cities that would be better served with a quick bus ride to a nearby "not quite as small" city instead of wasting the resources of a flight they can't fill on their own.
Well the tag isn’t there to fly anyone from PAH-CGI (as an example) it serves a purpose to provide air service to Chicago and beyond for both.
I'm well aware that the short flight isn't for O&D pax but to get people to Chicago and points beyond. My point is that a bus could perform the CGI-PAH leg much more efficiently than any plane. No one is taking the bus from Ft. Collins to DEN just get to Denver either. If the point is to connect these small communities to hub airports then it shouldn't make any difference what mode of transportation it is as long as travel time is competive.
At 44 miles, total travel time from your home/office is far less via ground transportation than air transportation when you factor in check-in, TSA and all other things involved in flying.
Pinto wrote:atrude777 wrote:Pinto wrote:
I used to fly out of Paduxah and for a while it was part of a triangle route.
The morning flight went CGI - PAH - ORD
The midday flight went ORD - PAH - CGI - ORD
The night flight went ORD - PAH - CGI.
The midday flight was my most frequest and was problematic. The CGI stop was always an issue because the crews would swap out during the midday flight and a couple times the crew made passengers get off of the plane (even though they were allowed to stay on for the stop). Also if there was weather at O'Hare passengers from PAH could get stranded in CGI. While overall it was great when it worked out because it was an extra flight a day for each station, it just had the issue of not wanting to work out. I think ultimately we will start to see tag flights as they might be the only way to keep service.
Regarding the nonstop vs tag flights. It really wasn't a big issue because you never get off the plane and it add 45 minutes to a flight. So still fast than driving. Also the way the routing work for PAH and CGI there was atleast 1 flight a day with nonstop service to ORD. PAH got it in the morning and CGI got it in the afternoon.
I am from Carbondale, Illinois and live in Chicago working for United. I actually got my United career back in 2012 by working for SkyWest in PAH!
That Tag Flight was a PAIN to fly as Stand By because for awhile the tag flights didn't work for us as non revs.
I send myself and the family to CGI mostly because of the Free Parking at CGI.
CGI and PAH are both One Hour Drives from Carbondale, so I am a bit flexible.
Glad that PAH is still sticking around, sad to see that CGI is taking a hit.
If EAS ends entirely...and they have to pull out of CGI and PAH...I am back on Amtrak, as it's too much work to travel ORD-STL-MWA on Cape Air.
Alex
I flew standby as well and it sucked. There was one time I talked to crew because I was told and I didn't have to get off the aircraft and they ended up shutting the door and never "boarded me". CGI was just a mess and never really seemed a nice station.
I don't think PAH will loose service as the flights usually have a decent load. I bet OO makes some good money from that route.
DaveMetroD wrote:If you want to move to the middle of nowhere in Alaska, what right do you have to expect flights on commercial airlines?
If flying commercial airlines is important to you, live closer to a commercial airport.
Cardude2 wrote:my guess is this is related to CRJ-200/e145 retierment?
Seat1F wrote:The fact that EAS represents only a small share of the Federal budget, isn't a reason to not consider the sensibility of the program. If you eliminate the program entirely (except for true hardship cases) and then put the onus on the individual States to fund it or not, some of the so-called EAS communities can still get service if the state deems it a worthwhile use of state funds. As you say, it has become a political issue with representatives in Washington wanting to be seen to be supporting these smaller communities...whether it makes financial sense or not. My argument is to push the program's funding closer to where it is actually happening...in the States. Let Lansing decide how sensible it is to use State funds to underwrite service to the nine current EAS communities in Michigan.
MIflyer12 wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:The DOT may not have to allow them to back out of it. If Skywest isn't allowed out of it, they'll simply just cancel the flights day after day after day after day, until the local city wants to be able to rebid the flying. But then again, no one will step in to cover it.
The DOT has plenty of lawyers. EAS carriers have an ongoing responsibility to demonstrate they are fit, willing, and able to perform the service or transportation.
What fraction of SklyWest's revenues is EAS? Would they dare to put it all at risk?
TWA902fly wrote:To paint a bigger picture : drive times and distances according to Google Maps to non-EAS airports from all of these:
Alamosa
COS (Colorado Springs) 165 miles, 2:37 drive time.
SAF (Santa Fe) 149 miles, 2:35 drive time.
DRO (Durango) 145 miles, 2:53 drive time.
...
Some of these make more sense than others. Muskegon, Decatur, etc seem like excessive waste of EAS resources. Some smaller towns out west are more understandable, especially given that the mountain passes can close and those drive times can be much longer.
MIflyer12 wrote:Seat1F wrote:The fact that EAS represents only a small share of the Federal budget, isn't a reason to not consider the sensibility of the program. If you eliminate the program entirely (except for true hardship cases) and then put the onus on the individual States to fund it or not, some of the so-called EAS communities can still get service if the state deems it a worthwhile use of state funds. As you say, it has become a political issue with representatives in Washington wanting to be seen to be supporting these smaller communities...whether it makes financial sense or not. My argument is to push the program's funding closer to where it is actually happening...in the States. Let Lansing decide how sensible it is to use State funds to underwrite service to the nine current EAS communities in Michigan.
And my retort is that terminating EAS and leaving states to fund it is a political non-starter. You may as well wish for unicorns. There are bigger budget battles to fight in DC.
MIflyer12 wrote:TWA902fly wrote:To paint a bigger picture : drive times and distances according to Google Maps to non-EAS airports from all of these:
Alamosa
COS (Colorado Springs) 165 miles, 2:37 drive time.
SAF (Santa Fe) 149 miles, 2:35 drive time.
DRO (Durango) 145 miles, 2:53 drive time.
...
Some of these make more sense than others. Muskegon, Decatur, etc seem like excessive waste of EAS resources. Some smaller towns out west are more understandable, especially given that the mountain passes can close and those drive times can be much longer.
You have omitted some EAS cities like:
Augusta, Maine, to PWM: 59 miles by Interstate, 1:11
Bar Harbor, Maine, to BGR, 51 miles, 1:22
Some eligible cities are a real joke - but eligible they are.