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

TBN is a shame as they just recently started that route

PUB, MKG, DEC are all really short flights.

MCW and FOD are pretty close to each other. It might be helpful to coordinate service between those two markets.

Could they not run some as tag flights and save the extra plane and crew? There is probably more to this story.

jetblastdubai wrote:

Could they not run some as tag flights and save the extra plane and crew? There is probably more to this story.

A lot of these communities prefer fewer nonstops to more frequent tag flights. Seems counterintuitive but that's the way it is.

So is it prudent to assume they will not take full subsidy since they aren't fulfilling the agreed to contracts?
Seems if I were a western Kansas airport leader, I'd prefer 2 DEN-DDC-LBL-DEN flights as opposed to only one to each. I know they have no say, but if they did....

Worth noting that OO attempted to totally withdraw from Ogdensburg and Plattsburgh, according to a DOT document from a few weeks back (https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -2842-0442). DOT ultimately said no and forced them to reduce the frequency and come to this compromise.

I still dont get how Pueblo even qualifies for EAS, especially with how many flights are operating out of COS now

VEL does not surprise me at all. I’ve heard that flight goes out a lot of times with around six passengers.

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

Skywest jumped big into EAS when the pandemic hit, for the revenue, obviously. They took routes that were largely flown by Boutique and Cape.

Now that pilots are short, they want to redeploy them to other, higher-paying runs. This is a huge disservice to those communities.

The folks at Muskegon (MKG) are going to scream, but they're only an hour's drive from Grand Rapids. Still, they might be able to salvage some kind of service. Cape Air (9K) is now handling service between Manistee County Blacker Field (MBL) and Chicago, so maybe the folks at MKG can work out something with 9K.

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.

It’s weird that they dislike PBG so much. It has as high subsidy and more passengers than the stuff out of DEN

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.

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.

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

A very remote station for the Skywest network. Any mechanical or crew issue is going to mean an airplane stranded far from a CRJ base.

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?

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 forum has the ongoing, long thread on the future of U.S. regional flying.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1469799

This SkyWest action shows the future: less regional flying. What fraction goes mainline and what gets dropped entirely is difficult to predict at this point.

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?

The subsidy is established by competitive bid, were per-enplanement caps. The subsidy could be $75 per person on a 300-mile flight, or it could be $175.

https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... ir-service

Thanks to Knope2001 for parsing the dry regulations.gov postings for detail like this.

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).

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).

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.

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?

The airline has to bid for the subsidy that they think will generate about a 5% profit margin. They have to show a rough calculation of how they got there - (expected loads * expected fares) + subsidy - expected costs. If any of these are off, they can lose money on the flying. One issue is that your projected loads have to be over the EAS minimum of 10 pax/day.

The reason OO wants to drop OGS and PBG is because they want to close their IAD base. OGS are PBG are their only routes only tied to IAD. JST, LWB, CKB, SHD are all routed from ORD.

Finally I think another reason that they want out of OGS and PBG is because in their bid they projected a lot of Canadians using the service, especially in PBG. This wasn't allowed for about a year and a half and even now I bet the number of Canadians using PBG is way down.

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?

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).

Theoretically, the airline must provide notice to the DOT that it is ending EAS service. The DOT will then require the airline to stay while the service is rebid. It is likely someone will bid something, but it may not be TBN-ORD or BTM-DEN/SLC (as examples). In an extreme situation, if nobody steps up to the plate, service ends.

There have been cases where an airline bails, the DOT orders then to resume service; whether it does is a different matter.

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.

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

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..

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..

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.

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..

IIRC - the list used to be far more extensive, and had cities on there that were far more worthy of EAS service due to the nature of their location. But, some airlines (ZK for example) offered to fly the service at risk, and so the cities were eliminated from EAS.

What remains are cities that often seem rather counterintuitive given their proximity to major airports. And instead, the communities that really need it (EKO comes to mind) are left to fend for themselves, and will be the ones to suffer when service is cut back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

International Falls should do a tag flight with Hibbing and then on to MSP
Skywest does/use to do a Devils Lake (ND) to Jamestown (ND) to Denver

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.

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.

Honestly it probably couldn't. Having flown it, it never seemed more than a 15 minute flight and with OO already having everything needed no reason not to fly the CGI turn. From the time I pull into the parking lot, it takes me MAX 15 minutes to get through security. That counts walking, check in, bathroom, and possibly waiting at TSA.

AndoAv8R wrote:

I still dont get how Pueblo even qualifies for EAS, especially with how many flights are operating out of COS now

I had no idea that Pueblo even had EAS service. I agree that, unlike some other EAS cities on the list, the Pubelo service doesn't seem essential with COS relatively close by.

my guess is this is related to CRJ-200/e145 retierment?

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.

I THINK I understand what you're getting at..however...

The Tag Flight was done as a response to COVID.

Prior to COVID, both CGI and PAH had their OWN flights to Chicago and were holding their own (in terms of EAS Definition)

In a way to consolidate the flying, they did what pinto described above.

I think however..to use the Bus you're claiming..CGI needs Bus service to STL, not PAH.

If we are going to use CGI, they need service by Bus, Bus Service wouldn't be feasible for CGI-PAH to connect, and vice versa.

CGI-ORD was doing well before COVID hit, and it's unfortunate to see CGI got hit harder then PAH did.

I flew the CGI route a lot, the schedule was always all over the place too which didn't help for consistency while PAH was pretty standard.

Right now this week, CGI has no RON's, and 2 turns. The second flight departs at 6pm, who the heck is flying a 6pm departure to Chicago when there is no connection to be made.

That sets up the route for failure.

I am flying CGI-ORD tomorrow at 6pm, as they cancelled CGI and PAH today due to weather, we got slammed with 4-8 inches of snow, sleet and ice down here.

Alex

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.

Aww, I loved the CGI Crew! I think a lot has changed in the personal too.

I fly in and out of CGI once or twice a month. Carbondale to Paducah is too much of a drive for my family and they prefer to get me at CGI instead of PAH if they can. Plus as I mentioned, free parking at CGI!!

Be curious if SkyWest will rebid for PAH this year, their contract is up in 2022.

CGI just renewed their contract with SkyWest.

Alex

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.

I should clarify that I mean a commercial airport where the service doesn't receive EAS subsidies.

Cardude2 wrote:

my guess is this is related to CRJ-200/e145 retierment?

No, this is more related to the current pilot shortage.
It’s pretty simple. They can make more money putting that crew on a Fee Per Departure trip, than by crewing at at-risk EAS run.

Skywest used the allure of jets and branding to win the contracts at a time that they were desperate for revenue, running out the smaller competitors for these routes. IMHO, they should be forced to operate what they contracted for. Unlike a Boutique or Air Choice, they have deeper pockets. These cities should sue the hell out of them for compliance.

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.
Scottsbluff
CYS (Cheyenne) 99 miles, 1:37 drive time.
DEN (Denver) 195 miles, 2:57 drive time.
CPR (Casper) 184 miles, 2:59 drive time.
RAP (Rapid City) 199 miles, 3:07 drive time.
Dodge City
ICT (Wichita) 148 miles, 2:27 drive time.
Fort Dodge
DSM (Des Moines) 101 miles, 1:40 drive time.
OMA (Omaha), 161 miles, 2:55 drive time.
Hays
ICT (Wichita) 187 miles, 2:37 drive time.
Laramie
CYS (Cheyenne) 52 miles, 0:50 drive time.
DEN (Denver) 136 miles, 2:09 drive time.
CPR (Casper) 151 miles, 2:21 drive time.
HDN (Hayden/Steamboat) 148 miles, 2:50 drive time.
North Platte
DEN (Denver) 258 miles, 3:33 drive time.
LNK (Lincoln) 225 miles, 3:09 drive time.
Liberal
AMA (Amarillo) 163 miles, 2:45 drive time.
Pueblo
COS (Colorado Springs) 44 miles, 0:42 drive time.
DEN (Denver) 133 miles, 2:02 drive time.
Vernal
SLC (Salt Lake City) 176 miles, 2:57 drive time.
GJT (Grand Junction) 142 miles, 2:35 drive time.
Cape Girardeau
STL (St. Louis) 127 miles, 2:02 drive time.
MEM (Memphis) 182 miles, 2:44 drive time.
Decatur
SPI (Springfield) 40 miles, 0:49 drive time.
CMI (Champaign/Urbana) 48 miles, 0:57 drive time.
BMI (Bloomington/Normal) 52 miles, 1:03 drive time.
PIA (Peoria) 90 miles, 1:34 drive time.
STL (St. Louis) 127 miles, 2:09 drive time.
MDW (Chicago) 174 miles, 2:53 drive time.
Mason City
RST (Rochester,MN) 81 miles, 1:25 drive time.
DSM (Des Moines) 126 miles, 2:05 drive time.
MSP (Minneapolis/St. Paul) 131 miles, 2:02 drive time.
CID (Cedar Rapids) 143 miles, 2:21 drive time.
Muskegon
GRR (Grand Rapids) 54 miles, 0:54 drive time.
Fort Leonard Wood
SGF (Springfield/Branson) 97 miles, 1:37 drive time.
STL (St.Louis) 149 miles, 2:42 drive time.
International Falls
DLH (Duluth) 160 miles, 2:42 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.

Before anyone gets up in arms against me, I used to live in Dolores, Colorado. I enjoyed the EAS service at Cortez (CEZ), saved me a drive to DRO. But even then, most of the time there were better deals/times to be had by flying out of ABQ or SLC. UA/AA were more reliable at DRO than Boutique or Great Lakes ever were at CEZ. I loved living in the middle of nowhere, and understood that was part of the price to pay. I support the EAS system in principle, but some cities are more wasteful than others. SkyWest with it's staffing situation is obviously looking at how to have the smallest impact to the bottom line, and how to effect the smallest amount of passengers possible. Given the current state of the industry, they obviously made the decision that this would have the least impact on their operations and finances - it makes sense.

'902

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:

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?

And Skywest is filing that they aren't fit to do the flying in some cases, and yet the DOT won't let them leave. A very, very small percentage of OO's revenue comes from EAS. They're not going to sacrifice FFD flying to operate some crap EAS flying.

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.

Have you seen their stock price today? Ouch. Down about 22% at the moment.

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.

I agree 100% and have said the same thing for years. EAS at least in the lower 48 is a waste of money. I almost say the same thing now for Alaska that use the oil revenues to fund air service instead of giving it to the citizens.

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.

I just went off the list of these SkyWest markets that are being reduced. There are many more EAS cities of course.

The program can really help some communities but at the same time it's low-hanging fruit for politicians to get votes and/or campaign contributions.

I live in Alaska now. Many EAS communities here that if they didn't have air service, you'd be using snowmobile or dog sled in the winter to get to the next closest village with air service. It makes sense here.

'902

I support EAS but the whole program is collapsing. There isn’t going to be anyone reasonable to fly these routes if SkyWest leaves them.