amcnd wrote:

This isn't just a pilot shortage. The MX side is almost worse off. The only group well staffed is flight attendants… Parking 200’s that are MX hogs is a good thing going into summer..

If I remember correctly, part of the issue with CRJ’s is that Bombardier now sends every maint advisory as an Airworthiness directive, meaning it is REQUIRED to be done, no matter the cost or need, to be considered an airworthy airplane.

Embraer on the other hand, sends most advisories out as a Service Bulletin, which is a whole different legal definition.

As the CRJ’s age, this is going to become an even bigger issue for them.

I started with North Central Airlines in 1974 as a CV-589 FO. One of our routes were FAR, DVL, etc across N. Dakota and S. Dakota. We had regular passengers that were plying their wares. Ladies of the evening (I'm sure they worked all hours) and once a week we'd take 2-3 from one station to the next and pick up 2-3 mrte to continue on. I'm guessing that is how Essential Air Service got it's name.

I started with North Central Airlines in 1974 as a CV-589 FO. One of our routes were FAR, DVL, etc across N. Dakota and S. Dakota. We had regular passengers that were plying their wares. Ladies of the evening (I'm sure they worked all hours) and once a week we'd take 2-3 from one station to the next and pick up 2-3 more to continue on. I'm guessing that is how Essential Air Service got it's name.

STLflyer wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

Skywest has filed all of the 90 day intent to terminate service notices at regulations.gov.

The full list of 29 stations is:

Houghton, MI – OST-2009-0302
Muskegon, MI – OST-2009-0301

They used the same document for each filing with the full list in each. As a source for the above list here is Pueblo's filing:
https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-1999-6589-0146/attachment_1.pdf

As far as the two affected airports in my home state of Michigan, My opinion is as follows:

1. Driving from downtown Muskegon to GRR takes just under an hour. There are plenty flights leaving from GRR to many US destinations. This one is a no brainer. Taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize flights into MKG when Muskegon residents have very good flight options from GRR only 55 minutes away.

2. Driving from downtown Houghton to SAW takes approximately two hours. I still do not consider this a hardship case.


The current pilot shortage at regional carriers is a great chance to kill off many of these unnecessary EAS markets. I know others will disagree, but in my book, less than a 2.5-3 hour drive to a viable airport alternative does not constitute hardship.

I have to agree. I’m sure there are some cities that need EAS service, especially out west where things are more spread out, but if you choose to live in a rural area, then a 2 hour drive to an airport is something you just have to deal with.

A lot of these cities all seem to be within 2 hours of a major airport.

That plus many more are within one hour of another small airport. In some cases there are multiple EAS cities very close to each other like EAR is to GRI, JST to AOO, OGS to MSS, and the sw Kansas triangle, DDC and LBL rather close to GCK. This incident may trigger another reform of EAS like they had ten years ago when many cities were eliminated.

NLINK wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

I come up with Laramie, Vernal, Moab, Prescott as the only United EAS markets left off the termination list. Anybody think of any I'm missing?

Some of the top performers like JLN, CMX, SUX are on here. Prescott has done great but CNY, VEL and LAR are not superstars. And I'm sure it's not coincidence that zero DL* stations are on the list. I don't know the actual reason why but I'd guess it's probably something in the contracted relationship. DL* has some pretty strong performers like ABR, RHI, BJI, BTM but some like INL and APN are not especially strong.

With Delta the prorate agreements have to be approved and I believe United it's at will decided by the prorate carrier. Also if you look at the latest 10k from Delta they state the following "Certain of the CRJ-200 aircraft scheduled to be retired by the December 2023 quarter are operated for us by SkyWest Airlines under a revenue proration agreement". People can read that as they may but it could mean Delta has plans to get out of the EAS market fully.

Some of the EAS routes that OO flies under DL were legacy Mesaba routes that were flown without subsidy until XJ decided they wanted subsidies for those routes around 2009ish. At one point, DL had bid on contracts for some of those routes directly so they could have more flexibility as far as which regional operates said route.

If DL no longer wants OO to operate those EAS routes under DL colors, I wouldn't be surprised if OO - provided they have both the aircraft and crews available - rebid those routes to operate under their own colors with just a simple codeshare rather than full DL branding in order to maintain connections to DTW and MSP.

Based upon boardings from the FAA site some of these markets do not need to be be in EAS dollars and should stand on their own like JLN or CKB. Others like Fort Dodge even in 2019 assuming 12 weekly flights, so in a year that is 624 flights or 31,200 seats using a CRJ-200. That equals a 28.29% load factor.

2019
Alamosa 10,044
Pubelo 12,230
Fort Dodge 8,828
Mason City 8,056
Sioux City 47,116
Dodge City 4,948
Hays 14,756
Liberal 10,743
Salina 16,026
Paducah 17,982
Decatur 8,561
Houghton 24,954
Muskegon 19,728
Cape Giradeau 11,838
Ft Leonard Wood 9,666
Joplin 48,006
Meridan 19,765
Hattiesburg 11,638
Devils Lake 6,916
Jamestown 11,176
Kearney 21,305
North Platte 16,120
Scottsbluff 17,707
Johnstown 6,309
Victoria 5,734
Shenandoah 17,584
Eau Claire 24,268
Clarksburg 41,802
Lewisburg 12,858


2020
Alamosa 4,742
Pubelo 5,384
Fort Dodge 3,702
Mason City 3,503
Sioux City 17,078
Dodge City 2,698
Hays 5,388
Liberal 3,117
Salina 10,561
Paducah 6,560
Decatur 3,429
Houghton 11,774
Muskegon 5,550
Cape Giradeau 4,573
Ft Leonard Wood 5,404
Joplin 24,944
Meridan 9,447
Hattiesburg 9,008
Devils Lake 3,743
Jamestown 6,161
Kearney 11,816
North Platte 7,668
Scottsbluff 8,933
Johnstown 3,149
Victoria 2,837
Shenandoah 6,306
Eau Claire 10,118
Clarksburg 18,468
Lewisburg 3,995

JBo wrote:

NLINK wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

I come up with Laramie, Vernal, Moab, Prescott as the only United EAS markets left off the termination list. Anybody think of any I'm missing?

Some of the top performers like JLN, CMX, SUX are on here. Prescott has done great but CNY, VEL and LAR are not superstars. And I'm sure it's not coincidence that zero DL* stations are on the list. I don't know the actual reason why but I'd guess it's probably something in the contracted relationship. DL* has some pretty strong performers like ABR, RHI, BJI, BTM but some like INL and APN are not especially strong.

With Delta the prorate agreements have to be approved and I believe United it's at will decided by the prorate carrier. Also if you look at the latest 10k from Delta they state the following "Certain of the CRJ-200 aircraft scheduled to be retired by the December 2023 quarter are operated for us by SkyWest Airlines under a revenue proration agreement". People can read that as they may but it could mean Delta has plans to get out of the EAS market fully.

Some of the EAS routes that OO flies under DL were legacy Mesaba routes that were flown without subsidy until XJ decided they wanted subsidies for those routes around 2009ish. At one point, DL had bid on contracts for some of those routes directly so they could have more flexibility as far as which regional operates said route.


If DL no longer wants OO to operate those EAS routes under DL colors, I wouldn't be surprised if OO - provided they have both the aircraft and crews available - rebid those routes to operate under their own colors with just a simple codeshare rather than full DL branding in order to maintain connections to DTW and MSP.

Looking at some of these cities I remember Express Air had a few cities out of MSP, like SUX, EAU and FOD on the list while Mesaba had the others. Out of Memphis Express had JLN,PAH, PIB and MEI.

Chuska wrote:

STLflyer wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

As far as the two affected airports in my home state of Michigan, My opinion is as follows:

1. Driving from downtown Muskegon to GRR takes just under an hour. There are plenty flights leaving from GRR to many US destinations. This one is a no brainer. Taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize flights into MKG when Muskegon residents have very good flight options from GRR only 55 minutes away.

2. Driving from downtown Houghton to SAW takes approximately two hours. I still do not consider this a hardship case.


The current pilot shortage at regional carriers is a great chance to kill off many of these unnecessary EAS markets. I know others will disagree, but in my book, less than a 2.5-3 hour drive to a viable airport alternative does not constitute hardship.

I have to agree. I’m sure there are some cities that need EAS service, especially out west where things are more spread out, but if you choose to live in a rural area, then a 2 hour drive to an airport is something you just have to deal with.

A lot of these cities all seem to be within 2 hours of a major airport.

That plus many more are within one hour of another small airport. In some cases there are multiple EAS cities very close to each other like EAR is to GRI, JST to AOO, OGS to MSS, and the sw Kansas triangle, DDC and LBL rather close to GCK. This incident may trigger another reform of EAS like they had ten years ago when many cities were eliminated.

The part you are neglecting is that the smaller airports within a 2 hour drive are going to see greatly reduced (or even canceled) service as well if this trend continues. I would hardly say places like GRI and GCK, which are also EAS cities, are safe from the same sort of fate going forward. And that is when places like LBL/EAR/etc. now become 3+ hours from any decent airline service. Even then, “medium sized” places like ICT and OMA are going to see cutbacks too as the shortage gets worse.

These sorts of cities are the ones that do justify subsidy. Pueblo? Not so much. If anything, I believe this trend will actually lead to the expansion of EAS.

Some of the markets that kind of deserve EAS like Scottsbluff just can't catch a break, they had to deal with PenAir before Skywest. You can imagine it's between pilots, MX, and jet fuel costs considering the subsidies.

Chuska wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

Skywest has filed all of the 90 day intent to terminate service notices at regulations.gov.

The full list of 29 stations is:

Alamosa, CO – OST-1997-2960
Pueblo, CO – OST-1999-6589
Fort Dodge, IA – OST-2001-10682
Mason City, IA – OST-2001-10684
Sioux City, IA – OST-2006-23932
Dodge City, KS – OST-1998-3502
Hays, KS – OST-1998-3497
Liberal, KS – OST-1998-3498
Salina, KS – OST-2002-11376
Paducah, KY – OST-2009-0299
Decatur, IL – OST-2006-23929
Houghton, MI – OST-2009-0302
Muskegon, MI – OST-2009-0301
Cape Girardeau, MO – OST-1996-1559
Fort Leonard Wood, MO – OST-1996-1167
Joplin, MO – OST-2006-23932
Meridian, MS – OST-2008-0112
Hattiesburg, MS – OST-2001-10685
Devils Lake, ND – OST-1997-2785
Jamestown, ND – OST-1997-2785
Kearney, NE – OST-1996-1715
North Platte, NE – OST-1999-5173
Scottsbluff, NE – OST-2003-14535
Johnstown, PA – OST-2002-11451
Victoria, TX – OST-2005-20454
Shenandoah, VA – OST-2002-11378
Eau Claire, WI – OST-2009-0306
Clarksburg, WV – OST-2005-20736
Lewisburg, WV – OST-2003-15553

They used the same document for each filing with the full list in each. As a source for the above list here is Pueblo's filing:
https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-1999-6589-0146/attachment_1.pdf

That's airports in 15 states. Thirty senators. Not gonna happen.

Yep, another stunt like AA tried to pull in late 2020 when they announced 15 closings, I believe they were scattered over 14 states. In the end, only three cities closed.

You don't file your intention with the government if you're bluffing. The AA hoax was a threat that didn't have anything attached to it at the time. This appears much more serious.

STLflyer wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

FATFlyer wrote:

Skywest has filed all of the 90 day intent to terminate service notices at regulations.gov.

The full list of 29 stations is:

Houghton, MI – OST-2009-0302
Muskegon, MI – OST-2009-0301

They used the same document for each filing with the full list in each. As a source for the above list here is Pueblo's filing:
https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-1999-6589-0146/attachment_1.pdf

As far as the two affected airports in my home state of Michigan, My opinion is as follows:

1. Driving from downtown Muskegon to GRR takes just under an hour. There are plenty flights leaving from GRR to many US destinations. This one is a no brainer. Taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize flights into MKG when Muskegon residents have very good flight options from GRR only 55 minutes away.

2. Driving from downtown Houghton to SAW takes approximately two hours. I still do not consider this a hardship case.


The current pilot shortage at regional carriers is a great chance to kill off many of these unnecessary EAS markets. I know others will disagree, but in my book, less than a 2.5-3 hour drive to a viable airport alternative does not constitute hardship.

I have to agree. I’m sure there are some cities that need EAS service, especially out west where things are more spread out, but if you choose to live in a rural area, then a 2 hour drive to an airport is something you just have to deal with.

A lot of these cities all seem to be within 2 hours of a major airport.

Agree 100%. Look at Decatur, Illinois. 30 minutes to Springfield. 50 minutes to Bloomington. 50 minutes to Champaign/Urbana, 1.5 hours to Peoria. 1.75 hours to St Louis, 3 hours to Chicago. This route as well as many others on the list are there because of Members of Congress got the flights on the list as the town they live in needs air service so they can get to Washington to work. I have often thought a requirement of EAS should be no other airport within 2+ hours.

jscottwomack wrote:

STLflyer wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

As far as the two affected airports in my home state of Michigan, My opinion is as follows:

1. Driving from downtown Muskegon to GRR takes just under an hour. There are plenty flights leaving from GRR to many US destinations. This one is a no brainer. Taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize flights into MKG when Muskegon residents have very good flight options from GRR only 55 minutes away.

2. Driving from downtown Houghton to SAW takes approximately two hours. I still do not consider this a hardship case.


The current pilot shortage at regional carriers is a great chance to kill off many of these unnecessary EAS markets. I know others will disagree, but in my book, less than a 2.5-3 hour drive to a viable airport alternative does not constitute hardship.

I have to agree. I’m sure there are some cities that need EAS service, especially out west where things are more spread out, but if you choose to live in a rural area, then a 2 hour drive to an airport is something you just have to deal with.

A lot of these cities all seem to be within 2 hours of a major airport.

Agree 100%. Look at Decatur, Illinois. 30 minutes to Springfield. 50 minutes to Bloomington. 50 minutes to Champaign/Urbana, 1.5 hours to Peoria. 1.75 hours to St Louis, 3 hours to Chicago. This route as well as many others on the list are there because of Members of Congress got the flights on the list as the town they live in needs air service so they can get to Washington to work. I have often thought a requirement of EAS should be no other airport within 2+ hours.

The reason they are on the list is because they had airline service when the Airline Deregulation Act came into effect.
The list has been whittled away by various parameters, which apparently Decatur still qualifies.
It takes more than the 2 Illinois senators to keep EAS ongoing.
I completely agree of your thoughts on DEC. Too much service very close by to keep it onboard.

jscottwomack wrote:

STLflyer wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

As far as the two affected airports in my home state of Michigan, My opinion is as follows:

1. Driving from downtown Muskegon to GRR takes just under an hour. There are plenty flights leaving from GRR to many US destinations. This one is a no brainer. Taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize flights into MKG when Muskegon residents have very good flight options from GRR only 55 minutes away.

2. Driving from downtown Houghton to SAW takes approximately two hours. I still do not consider this a hardship case.


The current pilot shortage at regional carriers is a great chance to kill off many of these unnecessary EAS markets. I know others will disagree, but in my book, less than a 2.5-3 hour drive to a viable airport alternative does not constitute hardship.

I have to agree. I’m sure there are some cities that need EAS service, especially out west where things are more spread out, but if you choose to live in a rural area, then a 2 hour drive to an airport is something you just have to deal with.

A lot of these cities all seem to be within 2 hours of a major airport.

Agree 100%. Look at Decatur, Illinois. 30 minutes to Springfield. 50 minutes to Bloomington. 50 minutes to Champaign/Urbana, 1.5 hours to Peoria. 1.75 hours to St Louis, 3 hours to Chicago. This route as well as many others on the list are there because of Members of Congress got the flights on the list as the town they live in needs air service so they can get to Washington to work. I have often thought a requirement of EAS should be no other airport within 2+ hours.

"Look at Decatur, Illinois. 30 minutes to Springfield."

Yeah, that's ridiculous. People who live in major metro areas are often more than 30 minutes from their airport. There are people in LA who wish they were only 30 minutes from LAX. DEN is in the middle of nowhere compared to the metro area and it's at least 30 minutes from nearly everything. And you're probably spending at least 30 minutes getting from Manhattan to any of the NY airports. DEC shouldn't have EAS.

JBo wrote:

If DL no longer wants OO to operate those EAS routes under DL colors, I wouldn't be surprised if OO - provided they have both the aircraft and crews available - rebid those routes to operate under their own colors with just a simple codeshare rather than full DL branding in order to maintain connections to DTW and MSP.

I would be *very* surprised if OO did that, even if crews and aircraft weren't an issue.

jscottwomack wrote:

STLflyer wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

As far as the two affected airports in my home state of Michigan, My opinion is as follows:

1. Driving from downtown Muskegon to GRR takes just under an hour. There are plenty flights leaving from GRR to many US destinations. This one is a no brainer. Taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize flights into MKG when Muskegon residents have very good flight options from GRR only 55 minutes away.

2. Driving from downtown Houghton to SAW takes approximately two hours. I still do not consider this a hardship case.


The current pilot shortage at regional carriers is a great chance to kill off many of these unnecessary EAS markets. I know others will disagree, but in my book, less than a 2.5-3 hour drive to a viable airport alternative does not constitute hardship.

I have to agree. I’m sure there are some cities that need EAS service, especially out west where things are more spread out, but if you choose to live in a rural area, then a 2 hour drive to an airport is something you just have to deal with.

A lot of these cities all seem to be within 2 hours of a major airport.

Agree 100%. Look at Decatur, Illinois. 30 minutes to Springfield. 50 minutes to Bloomington. 50 minutes to Champaign/Urbana, 1.5 hours to Peoria. 1.75 hours to St Louis, 3 hours to Chicago. This route as well as many others on the list are there because of Members of Congress got the flights on the list as the town they live in needs air service so they can get to Washington to work. I have often thought a requirement of EAS should be no other airport within 2+ hours.

DEC is the one I haven't understood for a long time. Like you say, you have 3 airports within and hour.

All three have AA
One Delta
One Frontier
One United
Two Allegiant

There is no need for EAS there. Especially when it is flying to an airport those already have.

I am not sure what I think the time buffer should be but any airport within an hour of another airport with service from any of the big 3 should probably be cut. Further than that, maybe a little more fuzzy.

Decatur exists to open air service availabilities for equal opportunity pushes in the community.

My issue with EAS is they put them on flights TO Airports that CAN be driven under 2 hours...

Use Southern Illinois..

I do not support MWA/CGI/PAH-STL/BNA, they can all be driven under 2 hours.

I do support CGI-DFW/ORD/ATL or MWA-ORD/ATL/DFW or PAH-ORD/ATL/DFW (I am just naming Airline Hubs).

If you want to use the argument that cities under EAS near a hub or large airport should not have service, I agree and that's fine. That means CGI/MWA/PAH should lose service.

I just think it's ridiculous to have a MWA-STL route that we can easily drive it in 2 hours. It made sense when TWA/AA had the hub. Not anymore.

With Cape Air in MWA, I see them applying for CGI and PAH as perhaps a package and probably offering CGI-STL/BNA and PAH-STL/BNA too. Which as I said, I don't agree with. We don't need flights to cities we can drive to in 2 hours.

Alex

stlgph wrote:

Decatur exists to open air service availabilities for equal opportunity pushes in the community.

Decatur should not exist even based upon 2019 boardings of 8,561. That is around a 27% load factor which means it can't make money.
2020 boardings of 3,429 is about a 10.9% load factor.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

bucky707 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

I can easily see Skywest being forced to continue services. There is just no replacement services available, because Skywest decimated the other EAS carriers by jumping into all of these markets for cash flow after March 2020.

How do you force an airline to continue service when they don’t have the staff to do it?

Hopefully they go bankrupt from fines they’ll face if they attempt to leave the markets they committed to, and the public can finally see what a shady company Skywest is

The economics of the 50 seat jet are dead. That’s not being shady, it’s accepting reality. If your market can’t support a 70 seater, expect to lose service by the end of the year. Especially at these gas prices.

Fun fact about DEC, it is owned by the Decatur Park District.

NLINK wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Decatur exists to open air service availabilities for equal opportunity pushes in the community.

Decatur should not exist even based upon 2019 boardings of 8,561. That is around a 27% load factor which means it can't make money.
2020 boardings of 3,429 is about a 10.9% load factor.

Spot on. When I lived in Decatur back in the late 90's I never used the airport. The only time I ever went to the Airport was for some Travel Show Event I was invited to by a travel agent. I would drive to SPI, BMI or STL. Heck once drove to Midway to catch an ATA flight to San Juan to take a cruise. 757 take off out of Midway was CRAZY!

Kansas is certainly the biggest "loser" of this half of their commercial airports are no-longer being served in addition to Joplin near the state border. People in western Kansas will have quite the drive to the nearest airport.

DakotaFlyer wrote:

Kansas is certainly the biggest "loser" of this half of their commercial airports are no-longer being served in addition to Joplin near the state border. People in western Kansas will have quite the drive to the nearest airport.

None of these airports are losing service. Skywest will be providing service until the next provider can start. Flight options may be worse but none will lose entirely.

Scottsbluff is like just above 3 hours from DEN on a good day, you have to take some rural two-lane roads and possibly go through an area without stable cell service.

Lootess wrote:

Scottsbluff is like just above 3 hours from DEN on a good day, you have to take some rural two-lane roads and possibly go through an area without stable cell service.

If one has that much of a fear of 'rural two lane roads' (I don't) one can take NE 71 (4-lane divided) S to I-80, then west to Cheyenne on 80 and then I-25 south to DEN. Longer in mileage but probably not that much longer in elapsed time as staying on a 2-lane road from I-80 down to I-76.

atrude777 wrote:

My issue with EAS is they put them on flights TO Airports that CAN be driven under 2 hours...

Use Southern Illinois..

I do not support MWA/CGI/PAH-STL/BNA, they can all be driven under 2 hours.

I do support CGI-DFW/ORD/ATL or MWA-ORD/ATL/DFW or PAH-ORD/ATL/DFW (I am just naming Airline Hubs).

If you want to use the argument that cities under EAS near a hub or large airport should not have service, I agree and that's fine. That means CGI/MWA/PAH should lose service.

I just think it's ridiculous to have a MWA-STL route that we can easily drive it in 2 hours. It made sense when TWA/AA had the hub. Not anymore.

With Cape Air in MWA, I see them applying for CGI and PAH as perhaps a package and probably offering CGI-STL/BNA and PAH-STL/BNA too. Which as I said, I don't agree with. We don't need flights to cities we can drive to in 2 hours.

Alex

You do realize that those Cape flights are so often used for connections right? They "can" be driven in under four hours typically, but that's not the point. Oftentimes people are flying on interline connections from the majors (I saw SAT-DFW-STL-IRK the other day) or even self-connecting from the likes of Southwest and Spirit. I may have some bias (I'm employed by Cape at STL) but my point stands.

DL717 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

bucky707 wrote:

How do you force an airline to continue service when they don’t have the staff to do it?

Hopefully they go bankrupt from fines they’ll face if they attempt to leave the markets they committed to, and the public can finally see what a shady company Skywest is

The economics of the 50 seat jet are dead. That’s not being shady, it’s accepting reality. If your market can’t support a 70 seater, expect to lose service by the end of the year. Especially at these gas prices.

This is spot-on.

The average age of Skywest's CRJ2 fleet is 19.7 years, the oldest being 25 and the youngest is almost 17. The basic airframe design for the CRJ series was derived from the mid-sized Challenger business jet, which was not designed to fly for as many cycles and for this long as the CRJs have done. Maintainers keeping them flying have become challenged now that the CRJ is out of production, which makes spare parts way more expensive. Also, the CRJ2 is the least fuel-efficient aircraft in Skywest's fleet using the fuel burn per-seat mile metric. The main reason the CRJ2s (and E145s) haven't all been retired sooner is due to the major airlines' scope clauses, which restrict the number of aircraft that regionals can operate over 50 seats.

The days of expecting a regional jet to fly EAS routes should be over and Skywest is taking this stand. I'm sure they will face Congressional heat from the districts they are cutting EAS service to, but I think Skywest will make these cuts stick in the long run.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/SkyWest-Airlines

They are probably going to have to bring back multi stop service if these communities want to keep service.

maps4ltd wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

My issue with EAS is they put them on flights TO Airports that CAN be driven under 2 hours...

Use Southern Illinois..

I do not support MWA/CGI/PAH-STL/BNA, they can all be driven under 2 hours.

I do support CGI-DFW/ORD/ATL or MWA-ORD/ATL/DFW or PAH-ORD/ATL/DFW (I am just naming Airline Hubs).

If you want to use the argument that cities under EAS near a hub or large airport should not have service, I agree and that's fine. That means CGI/MWA/PAH should lose service.

I just think it's ridiculous to have a MWA-STL route that we can easily drive it in 2 hours. It made sense when TWA/AA had the hub. Not anymore.

With Cape Air in MWA, I see them applying for CGI and PAH as perhaps a package and probably offering CGI-STL/BNA and PAH-STL/BNA too. Which as I said, I don't agree with. We don't need flights to cities we can drive to in 2 hours.

Alex

You do realize that those Cape flights are so often used for connections right? They "can" be driven in under four hours typically, but that's not the point. Oftentimes people are flying on interline connections from the majors (I saw SAT-DFW-STL-IRK the other day) or even self-connecting from the likes of Southwest and Spirit. I may have some bias (I'm employed by Cape at STL) but my point stands.

The point is, Kirksville is less than a 2 hour drive from COU, which has service to DFW. They could've flown SAT-DFW-COU and then driven to Kirksville in probably less time it took them to have another connection in STL.

EAS should be reserved for cities that are at least a two hour drive from another airport with service. If you choose to live in or travel to one of these rural towns, then a long drive just goes along with the territory of living in a rural area. Airports aren't the only thing they're driving long distances for.

I went to college in Rolla. Not once did I ever fly out of TBN (which is about 40 minutes away) or know anyone who did. Everyone drove to STL because it was more convenient despite it being almost 2 hours away.

And just looking at a map, why the hell do MWA, CGI and PAH all need EAS service? CGI and PAH are each an hour away from MWA. MWA can have EAS service, people in CGI and PAH can drive the hour to MWA. An hour is nothing. There are suburbs of Chicago that are an hour from O'Hare.

maps4ltd wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

My issue with EAS is they put them on flights TO Airports that CAN be driven under 2 hours...

Use Southern Illinois..

I do not support MWA/CGI/PAH-STL/BNA, they can all be driven under 2 hours.

I do support CGI-DFW/ORD/ATL or MWA-ORD/ATL/DFW or PAH-ORD/ATL/DFW (I am just naming Airline Hubs).

If you want to use the argument that cities under EAS near a hub or large airport should not have service, I agree and that's fine. That means CGI/MWA/PAH should lose service.

I just think it's ridiculous to have a MWA-STL route that we can easily drive it in 2 hours. It made sense when TWA/AA had the hub. Not anymore.

With Cape Air in MWA, I see them applying for CGI and PAH as perhaps a package and probably offering CGI-STL/BNA and PAH-STL/BNA too. Which as I said, I don't agree with. We don't need flights to cities we can drive to in 2 hours.

Alex

You do realize that those Cape flights are so often used for connections right? They "can" be driven in under four hours typically, but that's not the point. Oftentimes people are flying on interline connections from the majors (I saw SAT-DFW-STL-IRK the other day) or even self-connecting from the likes of Southwest and Spirit. I may have some bias (I'm employed by Cape at STL) but my point stands.

Yep! You've probably boarded me many times in STL! Hahaha

I'm one of those passengers!

I fly STL-MWA when I can because it's offered.

I also see clientele transferring between Southwest in STL to Cape Air too as you said (My Dad is one of them).

My family is in Carbondale so I either took UA to CGI/PAH from ORD, or flew to STL then booked Cape Air to MWA. Trying to non rev STL-MWA is difficult.

I appreciate it and do use the service, I just never understood why we needed a flight on a route that can be driven.

STLflyer wrote:

And just looking at a map, why the hell do MWA, CGI and PAH all need EAS service? CGI and PAH are each an hour away from MWA. MWA can have EAS service, people in CGI and PAH can drive the hour to MWA. An hour is nothing. There are suburbs of Chicago that are an hour from O'Hare.

As someone who has family in MWA, I 100% SUPPORT THIS!!! :-d Hahahaha

Alex

jscottwomack wrote:

Agree 100%. Look at Decatur, Illinois. 30 minutes to Springfield. 50 minutes to Bloomington. 50 minutes to Champaign/Urbana, 1.5 hours to Peoria. 1.75 hours to St Louis, 3 hours to Chicago. This route as well as many others on the list are there because of Members of Congress got the flights on the list as the town they live in needs air service so they can get to Washington to work. I have often thought a requirement of EAS should be no other airport within 2+ hours.

Decatur is an interesting point of discussion. They once had 4 flights a day to Chicago O'Hare on American Eagle, about 10 a day to St. Louis on Trans World Express, and 3 a day to Indianapolis as USAir Express. Even neighboring Champaign had really good air service.

Decatur's decay dealt with the ever changing blue collar jobs in the community and their dissolution. Zexel & Bridgestone/Firestone had a constant flow of high-end air travelers going to & from Europe. ADM supplied a CONSTANT amount of traffic, including competitor A.E. Staleys, who even had their own travel department of 6 full time agents.

Travel from Decatur WAS mostly from Decatur for these companies until the service started getting cut or put in a hiatus, and of course the downfall of TWA. Corporate travelers started using Springfield, which had a constant flow of United Express/Great Lakes Beech 1900s/Embraers to ORD (and even Midway/Meigs) that offered better connections. Air Tran adding ATL service out of Bloomington started to draw folks who no longer had to fly thru STL, with TWA reducing service more and more. Even Peoria took hits with massive Caterpillar corporate travel reductions and then moving their HDQ out of Peoria. And now, ADM has moved most of their executives and admin functions out of Decatur.

As a kid, I remember flying to Joplin on Northwest Airlink from Memphis, and multiple TWE flights on the Jetstream 41 from St. Louis.

Its a sad state that's happening everywhere.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... 15553-0175

New bids have to be in by April 11th.

Jshank83 wrote:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2003-15553-0175

New bids have to be in by April 11th.

what a joke. who has the capacity and staffing for any of this. maybe piece meal a few carriers like DAC can add a few here and there,but even the 9 seater operations are maxed out...

RJNUT wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2003-15553-0175

New bids have to be in by April 11th.

what a joke. who has the capacity and staffing for any of this. maybe piece meal a few carriers like DAC can add a few here and there,but even the 9 seater operations are maxed out...

Air Choice One has plenty of extra space. They have lost 3 or 4 stations in the last year-ish. Cape has been bidding recently so they must have more capacity. I think there will be enough to fill it all. Southern I am sure could take some.

But hey there is always bus service!

Jshank83 wrote:

RJNUT wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2003-15553-0175

New bids have to be in by April 11th.

what a joke. who has the capacity and staffing for any of this. maybe piece meal a few carriers like DAC can add a few here and there,but even the 9 seater operations are maxed out...

Air Choice One has plenty of extra space. They have lost 3 or 4 stations in the last year-ish. Cape has been bidding recently so they must have more capacity. I think there will be enough to fill it all. Southern I am sure could take some.

But hey there is always bus service!

Boutique has and will be loosing a couple of cities in the next 6 months or so. So they should have some planes to spare as well

Will any of the 29 airports “hold out”? As mentioned, if bids come in, they will likely only be for small service (I.e via the 9 seaters). However a few of these 29 markets would likely still be viable for jet service, if the pilot shortage was not an issue. My question is if any airports can or would forego service on 9 seaters, to hold out for the return of RJs when more pilots are available.

FLALEFTY wrote:

The average age of Skywest's CRJ2 fleet is 19.7 years, the oldest being 25 and the youngest is almost 17. The basic airframe design for the CRJ series was derived from the mid-sized Challenger business jet, which was not designed to fly for as many cycles and for this long as the CRJs have done. Maintainers keeping them flying have become challenged now that the CRJ is out of production, which makes spare parts way more expensive.

In an earnings call right before Covid, OO said they were going to spend a pile of money to extend the life of the CRJ fleet. I don't know what happened with that plan.

I see a lot of negativity around the EAS program here that doesn't seem warranted. The EAS program is not about making a profit, it's public transportation. Having another airport 2 hours away is a small comfort if you can't afford a car or can't drive for medical or age related reasons. Not to mention the challenges of traveling by car in many parts of the United States in the winter.

Many places in the world have connected their airports to their existing regional and commuter rail systems so that folks in smaller towns or rural areas can more easily get to air transportation centers or the cities themselves. In the United States, right or wrong, we have chosen to subsidize air travel instead. We've seen massive reductions in rail service since the end of WWII. In some places what was originally the regional rail system has been removed entirely and converted to recreational trails.

EAS is indeed essential, and these communities will be hurt by the loss. Even if we wanted to add passenger rail to connect these communities to larger hubs, it would take decades to achieve. We need a solution to the pilot shortage and fast.

bval wrote:

I see a lot of negativity around the EAS program here that doesn't seem warranted. The EAS program is not about making a profit, it's public transportation. Having another airport 2 hours away is a small comfort if you can't afford a car or can't drive for medical or age related reasons. Not to mention the challenges of traveling by car in many parts of the United States in the winter.

Many places in the world have connected their airports to their existing regional and commuter rail systems so that folks in smaller towns or rural areas can more easily get to air transportation centers or the cities themselves. In the United States, right or wrong, we have chosen to subsidize air travel instead. We've seen massive reductions in rail service since the end of WWII. In some places what was originally the regional rail system has been removed entirely and converted to recreational trails.

EAS is indeed essential, and these communities will be hurt by the loss. Even if we wanted to add passenger rail to connect these communities to larger hubs, it would take decades to achieve. We need a solution to the pilot shortage and fast.

If it is truly about public transportation, than intercity bus routes are a much more cost effective solution. Further, the busses can stop at multiple smaller cities, and have stops that are much more accessible to low income groups than the local airport. Obviously there are a few markets in Alaska and elsewhere that are not connected to the highway system, but that is a small minority of EAS locations.

The argument for EAS is that without air service, business travelers are cut off from those market… because the argument is business travelers won’t take the bus or drive hours in a rental car. And while the extent of that is debatable, those markets are at a significant competitive disadvantage for business if commercial air service is not provided. The real question is, how significant is the disadvantage, and is it worth taxpayer dollars to mitigate.

"SkyWest’s proposed termination of service would cause all
29 communities to be left with no EAS at the conclusion of the 90-day hold-in period; therefore,
the Department is required by 49 U.S.C. § 41734 to prohibit SkyWest from terminating such
service at the end of its 90-day notice period on June 8, 2022.2 In accordance with 49 U.S.C. §
41734(b) and (c), the Department will require SkyWest to continue to maintain the level of
service required under the relevant selection orders for additional 30-day periods until a
replacement air carrier commences full EAS at the community"

Unless another air carrier swoops in and takes any of the 29 (or all), Skywest is stuck with these contracts until they expire (two are this year, both in Colorado) or they close their doors for good. The latter is not happening. EAS in these cities will continue at least for a few another year for some, and several years for others.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

"SkyWest’s proposed termination of service would cause all
29 communities to be left with no EAS at the conclusion of the 90-day hold-in period; therefore,
the Department is required by 49 U.S.C. § 41734 to prohibit SkyWest from terminating such
service at the end of its 90-day notice period on June 8, 2022.2 In accordance with 49 U.S.C. §
41734(b) and (c), the Department will require SkyWest to continue to maintain the level of
service required under the relevant selection orders for additional 30-day periods until a
replacement air carrier commences full EAS at the community"

Unless another air carrier swoops in and takes any of the 29 (or all), Skywest is stuck with these contracts until they expire (two are this year, both in Colorado) or they close their doors for good. The latter is not happening. EAS in these cities will continue at least for a few another year for some, and several years for others.

I’d be really surprised if any don’t get picked up by someone else.

kavok wrote:

Will any of the 29 airports “hold out”? As mentioned, if bids come in, they will likely only be for small service (I.e via the 9 seaters). However a few of these 29 markets would likely still be viable for jet service, if the pilot shortage was not an issue. My question is if any airports can or would forego service on 9 seaters, to hold out for the return of RJs when more pilots are available.

Seems like a good way to lose EAS service for good if you say you don’t want it. They can do 2 year contracts and then hope in 2 years RJs are back.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

"SkyWest’s proposed termination of service would cause all
29 communities to be left with no EAS at the conclusion of the 90-day hold-in period; therefore,
the Department is required by 49 U.S.C. § 41734 to prohibit SkyWest from terminating such
service at the end of its 90-day notice period on June 8, 2022.2 In accordance with 49 U.S.C. §
41734(b) and (c), the Department will require SkyWest to continue to maintain the level of
service required under the relevant selection orders for additional 30-day periods until a
replacement air carrier commences full EAS at the community"

Unless another air carrier swoops in and takes any of the 29 (or all), Skywest is stuck with these contracts until they expire (two are this year, both in Colorado) or they close their doors for good. The latter is not happening. EAS in these cities will continue at least for a few another year for some, and several years for others.

I highly doubt Skywest will be stuck. I think they should be since they are at fault by bidding on these even recently knowing they had staffing issues. The DOT has historically been weak and they only have to pay some money back as part of the penalty and I’m sure we will see tons of cancellations.

Who knows the larger markets might get picked up and run by the wholly owned regionals or partly owned ones. Maybe this will be the survival Air Wisconsin needs to stay around.

kavok wrote:

The argument for EAS is that without air service, business travelers are cut off from those market… because the argument is business travelers won’t take the bus or drive hours in a rental car. And while the extent of that is debatable, those markets are at a significant competitive disadvantage for business if commercial air service is not provided. The real question is, how significant is the disadvantage, and is it worth taxpayer dollars to mitigate.

Totally agree and also a big part of what makes it essential. It's not only business travelers, but the Federal government itself has a big need to get in and out of these places to administer Federal programs. What we spend on EAS is a tiny amount compared to the overall budget and it enables inspectors, law enforcement officials, etc to get to places without need of a wasteful private flight.

kavok wrote:

bval wrote:

I see a lot of negativity around the EAS program here that doesn't seem warranted. The EAS program is not about making a profit, it's public transportation. Having another airport 2 hours away is a small comfort if you can't afford a car or can't drive for medical or age related reasons. Not to mention the challenges of traveling by car in many parts of the United States in the winter.

Many places in the world have connected their airports to their existing regional and commuter rail systems so that folks in smaller towns or rural areas can more easily get to air transportation centers or the cities themselves. In the United States, right or wrong, we have chosen to subsidize air travel instead. We've seen massive reductions in rail service since the end of WWII. In some places what was originally the regional rail system has been removed entirely and converted to recreational trails.

EAS is indeed essential, and these communities will be hurt by the loss. Even if we wanted to add passenger rail to connect these communities to larger hubs, it would take decades to achieve. We need a solution to the pilot shortage and fast.

If it is truly about public transportation, than intercity bus routes are a much more cost effective solution. Further, the busses can stop at multiple smaller cities, and have stops that are much more accessible to low income groups than the local airport. Obviously there are a few markets in Alaska and elsewhere that are not connected to the highway system, but that is a small minority of EAS locations.

The argument for EAS is that without air service, business travelers are cut off from those market… because the argument is business travelers won’t take the bus or drive hours in a rental car. And while the extent of that is debatable, those markets are at a significant competitive disadvantage for business if commercial air service is not provided. The real question is, how significant is the disadvantage, and is it worth taxpayer dollars to mitigate.

This is exactly right, air travel has a prestige over bus routes, but for nearly all the lower 48 EAS routes, you could provide intercity bus service at frequency that are actually useful to nearby cities downtown's+airports, including additional stops. EAS does have a space but it's scope needs to be greatly reduced to greater than 2hrs by road + an ability to maintain a certain level of use. Program should be essential travel service, with a focus on providing the best transportation solution to the most people.

Lets not forget that SkyWest announced the termination of two other cities last month, OGS and PBG. So there are 31 cities at stake here, not just the 29 that were announced yesterday.

bval wrote:

kavok wrote:

The argument for EAS is that without air service, business travelers are cut off from those market… because the argument is business travelers won’t take the bus or drive hours in a rental car. And while the extent of that is debatable, those markets are at a significant competitive disadvantage for business if commercial air service is not provided. The real question is, how significant is the disadvantage, and is it worth taxpayer dollars to mitigate.

Totally agree and also a big part of what makes it essential. It's not only business travelers, but the Federal government itself has a big need to get in and out of these places to administer Federal programs. What we spend on EAS is a tiny amount compared to the overall budget and it enables inspectors, law enforcement officials, etc to get to places without need of a wasteful private flight.

And I totally agree as well. Plus we need to reinstate those cities that were wrongfully kicked out of the EAS system ten years ago because the carrier serving them did it for free and then went out of business. These cities are in some of the most remote areas of Wyoming and New Mexico and are far worse off than most of the 29, actually 31 cities being affected now. The EAS system was created to protect all of these cities.

sagechan wrote:

kavok wrote:

If it is truly about public transportation, than intercity bus routes are a much more cost effective solution. Further, the busses can stop at multiple smaller cities, and have stops that are much more accessible to low income groups than the local airport. Obviously there are a few markets in Alaska and elsewhere that are not connected to the highway system, but that is a small minority of EAS locations.

This is exactly right, air travel has a prestige over bus routes, but for nearly all the lower 48 EAS routes, you could provide intercity bus service at frequency that are actually useful to nearby cities downtown's+airports, including additional stops. EAS does have a space but it's scope needs to be greatly reduced to greater than 2hrs by road + an ability to maintain a certain level of use. Program should be essential travel service, with a focus on providing the best transportation solution to the most people.

It's not only prestige, it is about travel time as well. Where I live in the Adirondacks it's 5 hours by car to Boston or NYC. The bus adds significant time thanks to the many stops. It's 90 minutes or less depending on aircraft type to go by air to either city. That difference in travel time makes it possible to get to and from a doctor's appointment or take a business meeting. We're a big country. Unless we get serious about investing in high speed rail plus regional and commuter rail it's going to remain essential to subsidize air service. Overall it's a cheap program with huge benefits to the communities served as well as the Federal government.

Does it take 50 seat jets to do it? Absolutely not. But the 19 and 30 seaters are gone and maybe they shouldn't be. Further it's clear the 9 passenger ceiling on single ATP ops needs a review.

$20 says Ravn jumps in and bids since they can get Dash 8s pretty quickly, have Sabre, and interlines.

This is strictly a move by OO to preserve crews, parts and mechanical hours/space for their contracted operations. Reality is OO is struggling right now because of their massive attrition everywhere and while the numbers are flowing correctly to get them back to staff, training still takes time.