WA707atMSP wrote:

Good idea, SYR. I think this should be a thread for EAS topics that don't merit a separate thread.

Also, please do NOT turn this into a discussion of whether or not the government should fund EAS. The issue of government funding for EAS has been discussed far too much on this website, and further arguments pro / con won't add any value to this thread.

I'll get the thread started with my first question: When will Advanced Air be moving to PHX T 3? I'm planning a trip on them in May ABQ-SVC-PHX, to log them and SVC, and I'd prefer to relax post flight at the FBO rather than at T3.

WA707atMSP wrote:

Good idea, SYR. I think this should be a thread for EAS topics that don't merit a separate thread.

Also, please do NOT turn this into a discussion of whether or not the government should fund EAS. The issue of government funding for EAS has been discussed far too much on this website, and further arguments pro / con won't add any value to this thread.

I'll get the thread started with my first question: When will Advanced Air be moving to PHX T 3? I'm planning a trip on them in May ABQ-SVC-PHX, to log them and SVC, and I'd prefer to relax post flight at the FBO rather than at T3.

gdavis003 wrote:

WA707atMSP wrote:

Good idea, SYR. I think this should be a thread for EAS topics that don't merit a separate thread.

Also, please do NOT turn this into a discussion of whether or not the government should fund EAS. The issue of government funding for EAS has been discussed far too much on this website, and further arguments pro / con won't add any value to this thread.

I'll get the thread started with my first question: When will Advanced Air be moving to PHX T 3? I'm planning a trip on them in May ABQ-SVC-PHX, to log them and SVC, and I'd prefer to relax post flight at the FBO rather than at T3.

The proposal for Show Low, AZ from January states that they would have moved to T3 at PHX by the time that they start service to Show Low (date TBD), so I presume that they are in the process of undergoing the shift currently, which really goes against their marketed business model. See the second paragraph on page 4 of the proposal: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -4409-0146

drdisque wrote:

gdavis003 wrote:

When the airport built their expansion to T3, they built a special area for EAS/Commuter Carriers. It's likely that PHX is pushing them to start using that area instead of the FBO and giving them a good deal on the rent in order to do so.

MD8090orDRIVE wrote:

Great idea for a thread. I long remember service to many city's that no longer get EAS service as they have been removed from being EAS for one reason or another. I do feel for city's that Great Lakes either took out of EAS and no longer can come back (Farmington NM a great example) Other EAS city's have become profitable and no longer in need of a subsidy. The bottom line in almost every EAS city is if an airline can deliver on time service with a dispatch percentage, more people fly on the flights. Sadly there are bad apples like Great Lakes and others that make booking a flight from smaller city's like playing Russian roulette. I know we are trying to avoid a debate over the merit of should the government subsidize air service but I am a supporter of EAS to many of the city's that get it. Some not so much but I have always found it fascinating and have done years of research and flown to many of the airports that are EAS.

MD8090orDRIVE wrote:

Farmington NM is the poster child for What Great Lakes did wrong. I flew in there a few times (Pinion Hills is one of the best municipal golf courses in the nation) and there was usually 5 to 8 flights per day to Denver and and I know Mesa had up to 10 or 11 flights to Albuquerque at the same time. I know a Beech 1900 is no longer profitable but when a city has 15 to 20 flights per day (almost 400 seats) There has to be traffic out of there. The area has some boom and bust oil business in the four corners region but this is a city that should have air service. It is 3hrs to ABQ in a car, I know Durango is about 1hr and that is close to my drive to SLC airport but I still feel that Farmington should have commercial air service and has supported it in the past. My guess if it was back in the EAS with a good airline the subsidy would be very low.

sprxUSA wrote:

Also, if an airline states an aircraft type in bid, should be made to have it from day one. Still awaiting King Air to Chadron LOL. If airport is deficient, dont bid what you cant deliver. Is Southern Air giving money back due to cheaper plane used on their winning bid,

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Somewhat old news, but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere on A.NET: Boutique has lost the contract for McCook, NE to Key Lime Air. 12x weekly Metroliner service to DEN will operate from June.

It seems McCook were satisfied with Boutique, and Key Lime's bid was similar in cost to Boutique's, however the city manager "talked with the airport manager at Alliance, Neb., that also switched to Denver Air, who said that they are extremely happy with their service"

https://www.mccookgazette.com/story/2928912.html

bomber996 wrote:

What happened with Boutique? 5 years ago they seemed to be the future of what some of these small communities were getting with EAS and nearly everyone seemed pleased. Man have the tides turned.

TWA302 wrote:

Can someone please explain to me how Boutique is able to get Muscle Shoals (MSL) to Pensacola (PNS) as an EAS route?

TexasAirCorp wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

Can someone please explain to me how Boutique is able to get Muscle Shoals (MSL) to Pensacola (PNS) as an EAS route?

I believe its a route that they operate on their own accord without EAS funding. They've lost the MSL contract anyway so it won't be around for much longer.

TWA302 wrote:

Can someone please explain to me how Boutique is able to get Muscle Shoals (MSL) to Pensacola (PNS) as an EAS route?

BangersAndMash wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

Can someone please explain to me how Boutique is able to get Muscle Shoals (MSL) to Pensacola (PNS) as an EAS route?

I believe its a route that they operate on their own accord without EAS funding. They've lost the MSL contract anyway so it won't be around for much longer.

No, it was covered by the EAS contract. That contract has seen quite the game of destination musical chairs, with ATL/BNA, then ATL alone, ATL/BNA again, and ATL/PNS being served in succession (BNA was also flown at risk after the ATL/PNS switch). That switch to PNS landed Boutique into hot water with other carriers trying to get them disqualified on account that PNS is not a hub airport but DOT let it slide. It's all ending March 1. Hopefully, MSL will find some stability with Contour.

You can have fun reading the filings!

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2000-7856/document?postedDateFrom=2019-12-01

SLCLAXKIXKHH wrote:

A while back, I remember Skywest dropping Vernal and Moab from SLC because neither of those airports could handle the CRJ and Skywest was retiring the Embraer 120s. Yet Skywest later started those two destinations from DEN using the CRJ. What changed?

BangersAndMash wrote:

Pendleton and Altoona are being re-tendered later this year, and Massena is due early next year. They could get completely wiped out. Although they have a shot at Ogdenburg where they've bid after OO has announced they're leaving.

FlyingElvii wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

No, it was covered by the EAS contract. That contract has seen quite the game of destination musical chairs, with ATL/BNA, then ATL alone, ATL/BNA again, and ATL/PNS being served in succession (BNA was also flown at risk after the ATL/PNS switch). That switch to PNS landed Boutique into hot water with other carriers trying to get them disqualified on account that PNS is not a hub airport but DOT let it slide. It's all ending March 1. Hopefully, MSL will find some stability with Contour.

You can have fun reading the filings!

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2000-7856/document?postedDateFrom=2019-12-01

Ah, my mistake, I knew one of BNA/PNS was being flown at risk. LF should be a good match for them.

Going to Charlotte, and then tagging Greenville to DFW and back makes a lot of sense to me.
GLH- MSL-CLT-MSL-GLH-DFW-GLH-MSL-CLT-MSL-GLH

One aircraft, two crews, plenty of schedule slack for repos to Smyrna, and improved service for both cities.
So what am I missing?

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:

MD8090orDRIVE wrote:

Farmington NM is the poster child for What Great Lakes did wrong. I flew in there a few times (Pinion Hills is one of the best municipal golf courses in the nation) and there was usually 5 to 8 flights per day to Denver and and I know Mesa had up to 10 or 11 flights to Albuquerque at the same time. I know a Beech 1900 is no longer profitable but when a city has 15 to 20 flights per day (almost 400 seats) There has to be traffic out of there. The area has some boom and bust oil business in the four corners region but this is a city that should have air service. It is 3hrs to ABQ in a car, I know Durango is about 1hr and that is close to my drive to SLC airport but I still feel that Farmington should have commercial air service and has supported it in the past. My guess if it was back in the EAS with a good airline the subsidy would be very low.

I absolutely agree that Farmington should have service. I know Skywest/United said they have intentions on starting service there but that was a long time ago and nothing has been heard from since. I’m sure some of those pax drive to Cortez, Colo. for flights as well.

The problem is there is plenty on what can get a city disqualified, but there is no set of rules to get a city re-entered into the program. Jamestown, NY has tried many times to get back in and failed each with each attempt

TexasAirCorp wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Pendleton and Altoona are being re-tendered later this year, and Massena is due early next year. They could get completely wiped out. Although they have a shot at Ogdenburg where they've bid after OO has announced they're leaving.

I'd be surprised if they keep Altoona/Massena, word on the street is that neither airport has been happy with Boutique's service (plus Boutique wants more money from Massena). Haven't heard any complaints from Pendleton, but it was rumoured that Contour were considering bidding, think a E135 or a PC12 is a pretty easy choice.

They've got a good shot at Ogdensburg, surprisingly the only other bidder is the mysterious Air Charter Express with a pretty lacklustre 11x weekly ALB service. Anyone know why Cape Air or Southern (or even Air Choice One & Contour) didn't bid?

RJNUT wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Ah, my mistake, I knew one of BNA/PNS was being flown at risk. LF should be a good match for them.

Going to Charlotte, and then tagging Greenville to DFW and back makes a lot of sense to me.
GLH- MSL-CLT-MSL-GLH-DFW-GLH-MSL-CLT-MSL-GLH

One aircraft, two crews, plenty of schedule slack for repos to Smyrna, and improved service for both cities.
So what am I missing?

the missing piece is the communities themselves have input and what looks good and logical to "a netters" is overridden by irrational choices put forth by communities such as BNA over CLT because it sounds better to them without considering connectivity and pricing and such

sprxUSA wrote:

Plus I doubt they want to share a plane with another city. What good would it do for GLH to have 20 MSL pax going thru onto DFW? Company gets paid for each town seperately so each should reap their own flights. And since company is getting guaranteed amount, what do they care about common sense items? LOL

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Haven't heard any complaints from Pendleton, but it was rumoured that Contour were considering bidding, think a E135 or a PC12 is a pretty easy choice.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Pendleton and Altoona are being re-tendered later this year, and Massena is due early next year. They could get completely wiped out. Although they have a shot at Ogdenburg where they've bid after OO has announced they're leaving.

I'd be surprised if they keep Altoona/Massena, word on the street is that neither airport has been happy with Boutique's service (plus Boutique wants more money from Massena). Haven't heard any complaints from Pendleton, but it was rumoured that Contour were considering bidding, think a E135 or a PC12 is a pretty easy choice.

They've got a good shot at Ogdensburg, surprisingly the only other bidder is the mysterious Air Charter Express with a pretty lacklustre 11x weekly ALB service. Anyone know why Cape Air or Southern (or even Air Choice One & Contour) didn't bid?

Chuska wrote:

PIR is an interesting case. DL* pulled out on 11/20/2011 leaving Great Lakes as the only carrier. By 2012, Great Lakes route maps distinguished EAS cities and non-EAS cities, PIR was listed as "non-EAS". So it looks like PIR was taken off the EAS program in the 2012 EAS reform but somehow they got back on it. PIR is definitely a city that needs to have EAS being as isolated as they are but does anyone have any insight on what happened here, how they went from non-EAS to EAS?

drdisque wrote:

Cape had OGS about a decade ago and had a falling out with the communities. At the time they held OGS, MSS, and ART.

ART really wanted a bigger aircraft and opted for AA. Cape was really only willing to fly these routes if they had the contract to all 3 as they're quite far from BOS so a stop in ALB was necessary and thus BOS-ALB had to be operated at-risk. However, they soldiered on. Then both communities selected OO for jet service. However, OO couldn't get FAA approval to operate the CRJ into MSS and MSS begged for 9K to come back. That's how they ended up with Boutique. 9K has basically been dicked around for so long by these 3 communities they don't want anything to do with them anymore.

bval wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Cape had OGS about a decade ago and had a falling out with the communities. At the time they held OGS, MSS, and ART.

ART really wanted a bigger aircraft and opted for AA. Cape was really only willing to fly these routes if they had the contract to all 3 as they're quite far from BOS so a stop in ALB was necessary and thus BOS-ALB had to be operated at-risk. However, they soldiered on. Then both communities selected OO for jet service. However, OO couldn't get FAA approval to operate the CRJ into MSS and MSS begged for 9K to come back. That's how they ended up with Boutique. 9K has basically been dicked around for so long by these 3 communities they don't want anything to do with them anymore.

9K did keep their maintenance base at ALB despite only retaining SLK in upstate NY. Now they are the sole bidder to replace OO at PBG. PBG and SLK were also part of their operation in NY along with OGS, MSS, and ART, plus the ALB base flown at risk.

Recent public comments on the OO drawdown bids indicate the folks who ran the PenAir SF3s out have regrets. I'm starting to think the entire industry has big regrets about retiring the SF3, 1900D, Metroliner etc right about now.

SLCLAXKIXKHH wrote:

A while back, I remember Skywest dropping Vernal and Moab from SLC because neither of those airports could handle the CRJ and Skywest was retiring the Embraer 120s. Yet Skywest later started those two destinations from DEN using the CRJ. What changed?

Chuska wrote:

PIR is an interesting case. DL* pulled out on 11/20/2011 leaving Great Lakes as the only carrier. By 2012, Great Lakes route maps distinguished EAS cities and non-EAS cities, PIR was listed as "non-EAS". So it looks like PIR was taken off the EAS program in the 2012 EAS reform but somehow they got back on it. PIR is definitely a city that needs to have EAS being as isolated as they are but does anyone have any insight on what happened here, how they went from non-EAS to EAS?

WA707atMSP wrote:

Chuska wrote:

PIR is an interesting case. DL* pulled out on 11/20/2011 leaving Great Lakes as the only carrier. By 2012, Great Lakes route maps distinguished EAS cities and non-EAS cities, PIR was listed as "non-EAS". So it looks like PIR was taken off the EAS program in the 2012 EAS reform but somehow they got back on it. PIR is definitely a city that needs to have EAS being as isolated as they are but does anyone have any insight on what happened here, how they went from non-EAS to EAS?

PIR and HON are among the many cities who had their passenger counts severely depressed by ZK's unreliability. Although it's debatable, I think even HON should have EAS because of its remote location.

When I visited PIR in August, 2012, PIR was in the process of building a new jetway equipped terminal to accommodate RJs. I think if PIR had an airline as reliable as Mesaba or Western were, passenger traffic would recover to pre-ZK levels once passengers felt confident their flights wouldn't be cancelled.

JBo wrote:

SLCLAXKIXKHH wrote:

A while back, I remember Skywest dropping Vernal and Moab from SLC because neither of those airports could handle the CRJ and Skywest was retiring the Embraer 120s. Yet Skywest later started those two destinations from DEN using the CRJ. What changed?

Are there differences in ARFF coverage requirements for the CRJ over the EM2?

FlapOperator wrote:

Honestly, I think the answer to EAS in the current crewing crisis facing specifically regional airlines, the lack of new built aircraft with efficiencies to serve these and other factors is for the Federal Government to tie slotting at high demand/high revenue airports to service at the EAS cities. If a Legacy3 wants that slot bad enough, then ensuring service at the EAS is the price of doing business. Otherwise, EAS is a really hard problem.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect a better criteria for essential air services could be revised:

1. Top tier medical including trauma care as well as at least a second tier national airport.
2. If possible an airport with some international service.

Criterium 1 almost automatically describes a city with major economic, cultural, and other big city opportunities. I also do not see why taxpayers should support more than this, perhaps only one round trip a day.