frmrCapCadet wrote:

Part of an extended market failure. We need for isolated and rural areas to have modern timely affordable transportation available. Those fly-over dimly lighted areas are that way for a reason. Regulations and costs of training and lousy entry work life for pilots. Regulations limiting one pilot operations, the dynamics of ultra efficiency pricing aviation out of all but metropolitan areas. That 1500 hour rule is just one of the absurdities that has resulted in the majority of counties in the US losing population. You don't want to get me started on the other major market failure - medical care. Another poster and I have toyed with the idea of what might be done with aviation. And actually there is a connection between the aviation and medical market failures for rural and isolated communities.

I don't think the 1500 hour rule is causing counties to loose population. Lots of the younger people are leaving the rural areas because they dream about a car free lifestyle, walking everywhere, multiple off shops, healthcare close by, etc. That is a generational thing not the 1500 hour pilot rules.

I have family that live in a rural areas (around 5,000 in the county) to those that live in 5 million plus metro areas. Medical care is not as available for a lot of things unfortunately in the smaller areas.

EAS is broke in the current form and needs to be re thought. I think most of the smaller markets should be ran by a smaller carrier, such as like Cape Air and the Tecnam P2012 Traveller. There needs to be a limit on the max payout per flight (not what Skywest is getting for jets to run for 5 or 10 people per day). The flights need to run from the airports to one of the 10 or so large hubs, operate without TSA (money savings verse risk), arrive at a non secure location at the hub airport, clear TSA at this location and continue on to the next flight.

Part of this require all the major airlines at the hub airport to interline (tie it to no government contracts if they don't) Let the major airlines operate at those airports that can operate without a subsidy.

AirlineBob wrote:

There has to be some percentage of regional flying that would still be profitable even if brought to mainline.

I'd imagine each mainline carrier has a plan for bringing regional flying in-house, and trimming the schedules to only serve city pairs that are profitable at the mainline cost structure.

I mean, a CR9 is basically a modern day DC-9-10, and I can remember flying GSP-DTW in one of those, so yes, it probably can be done profitably. Same goes for E75 flying. Below 70 seats....that probably depends on fuel.

nlink - good post, I think those sparsely populated areas are dying for a thousand different cuts. There are a lot of folks, particularly in retirement, who would really like to do that sort of thing. But it is pretty impractical.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

nlink - good post, I think those sparsely populated areas are dying for a thousand different cuts. There are a lot of folks, particularly in retirement, who would really like to do that sort of thing. But it is pretty impractical.

I agree about in being impractical. There is 2 schools of thought on how it could be approached (never will change with current congress).

Way 1. It would need requirements to be set up as a small business, not associated with a large company, not public. They would get a grant amount to pay to break even. I think for reliability there would be a minimum amount each position would be paid in the grant/ contract. There would be a set number of sectors where you would operate from. No merging with other companies. Strict requirements on spares, scheduling, etc. A minimum of a a 5 to 10 year contract so the communities get stable service which they all need.

Way 2. With the grant/ contract similar requirements as above but instead be a not for profit (this will get some people upset) where they are a allowed to keep x amount of dollars for capital expenses but if they make to much money it would be returned as it was not really needed. The pros here is they would be guaranteed a profit and stability. Cons is a lot of the pubic (50%) would not like that in the USA. (I didn't say I did before people ask, just a thought)

The end of the day the communities keep getting torn apart by constant changing air service, poor service usually by penny pinching, flying jets in cities that do not need them and in turn they loose more service. These communities need stable service to bring in that link when needed for business, medical and economy.

EAS is something that could be re done in my opinion for no more money (maybe less) and be a much more viable product for these communities.

evank516 wrote:

Wondering if more airlines will consider purchasing the A220? Is it really as cost efficient as it was marketed to be?

I can't speak for American or Delta but the A220 will not be flying for any UAX carrier and unless Airbus offers a Killer deal to United to replace the A319's and/or A320's? I do not see it happening. the a220 appears to be a good airplane. though? I have no idea whether the airplane has the costs or the reliability of the A319/A320. to replace them I would think the A321would replace the A320 and the A319 NEO might then replace the A319 if not a 737 similar sized airplane.

mesasurf wrote:

At risk flying is what I think is in the most trouble of disappearing. I’m concerned that OO/DL will be dropping TWF, LWS, PIH, CDC, CNY, and EKO from SLC.

They said on an earlier call they planned to exit markets that had risk. CDC and CNY are EAS markets. EKO, PIH, and TWF ponied up rev guarantees. (TWF is even getting a second flight this month.) OO's LWS-DEN service is still subsidized (I think), so I would imagine the SLC route is OK for now, too.

NLINK wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

nlink - good post, I think those sparsely populated areas are dying for a thousand different cuts. There are a lot of folks, particularly in retirement, who would really like to do that sort of thing. But it is pretty impractical.

I agree about in being impractical. There is 2 schools of thought on how it could be approached (never will change with current congress).

Way 1. It would need requirements to be set up as a small business, not associated with a large company, not public. They would get a grant amount to pay to break even. I think for reliability there would be a minimum amount each position would be paid in the grant/ contract. There would be a set number of sectors where you would operate from. No merging with other companies. Strict requirements on spares, scheduling, etc. A minimum of a a 5 to 10 year contract so the communities get stable service which they all need.

Way 2. With the grant/ contract similar requirements as above but instead be a not for profit (this will get some people upset) where they are a allowed to keep x amount of dollars for capital expenses but if they make to much money it would be returned as it was not really needed. The pros here is they would be guaranteed a profit and stability. Cons is a lot of the pubic (50%) would not like that in the USA. (I didn't say I did before people ask, just a thought)

The end of the day the communities keep getting torn apart by constant changing air service, poor service usually by penny pinching, flying jets in cities that do not need them and in turn they loose more service. These communities need stable service to bring in that link when needed for business, medical and economy.

EAS is something that could be re done in my opinion for no more money (maybe less) and be a much more viable product for these communities.

Way 3, create a reverse auction.
"Requirements are x, bidding starts at y. Best bid under y wins."

The real thing is that the requirements should be set in such a way that all modes of transport should be available. If someone could meet requirement x with a DMU self propelled rail car or bus that interlines with an airline, fantastic!

Should EAS be about air service, or connectivity?

Mainline used to fly 110 seater’s everywhere.

But fares were double what they are today, adjusted for inflation.

crjflyboy wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Wondering if more airlines will consider purchasing the A220? Is it really as cost efficient as it was marketed to be?

on an ASM cost, the 220 is much better, however many of the markets SKYWEST flies into can not come close to breaking even using a 220 bird.

Oh no no, I was thinking more about the majors purchasing the A220 in place of having to fly regionals. I know there’s clauses and whatnot, but if they can’t fly the routes…

ADent wrote:

Mainline used to fly 110 seater’s everywhere.

But fares were double what they are today, adjusted for inflation.

Flew Florida Express from CMH to MCO back in the 80's for $ 49 each way back on BAC 111'S ... nonstop

evank516 wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Wondering if more airlines will consider purchasing the A220? Is it really as cost efficient as it was marketed to be?

on an ASM cost, the 220 is much better, however many of the markets SKYWEST flies into can not come close to breaking even using a 220 bird.

Oh no no, I was thinking more about the majors purchasing the A220 in place of having to fly regionals. I know there’s clauses and whatnot, but if they can’t fly the routes…

DL cities ... example FWA do not have the passenger count to bring in a 220 to feed a DL hub ... DL has not ordered any more aircraft from AIRBUS that I'm aware of this ... neither has UA or AA which I find strange on their parts

crjflyboy wrote:

ADent wrote:

Mainline used to fly 110 seater’s everywhere.

But fares were double what they are today, adjusted for inflation.

Flew Florida Express from CMH to MCO back in the 80's for $ 49 each way back on BAC 111'S ... nonstop

LOVED flying FE from Indy and SDF, did it often. I still remember walking down the circular staircases to the planes in rows on the ramp.

I also flew them as Pacific Express once.

FlyingElvii wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

ADent wrote:

Mainline used to fly 110 seater’s everywhere.

But fares were double what they are today, adjusted for inflation.

Flew Florida Express from CMH to MCO back in the 80's for $ 49 each way back on BAC 111'S ... nonstop

LOVED flying FE from Indy and SDF, did it often. I still remember walking down the circular staircases to the planes in rows on the ramp.

I also flew them as Pacific Express once.

No frills .. on a 2 1/2 hour flight ... who cares ?

NameOmitted wrote:

NLINK wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

nlink - good post, I think those sparsely populated areas are dying for a thousand different cuts. There are a lot of folks, particularly in retirement, who would really like to do that sort of thing. But it is pretty impractical.

I agree about in being impractical. There is 2 schools of thought on how it could be approached (never will change with current congress).

Way 1. It would need requirements to be set up as a small business, not associated with a large company, not public. They would get a grant amount to pay to break even. I think for reliability there would be a minimum amount each position would be paid in the grant/ contract. There would be a set number of sectors where you would operate from. No merging with other companies. Strict requirements on spares, scheduling, etc. A minimum of a a 5 to 10 year contract so the communities get stable service which they all need.

Way 2. With the grant/ contract similar requirements as above but instead be a not for profit (this will get some people upset) where they are a allowed to keep x amount of dollars for capital expenses but if they make to much money it would be returned as it was not really needed. The pros here is they would be guaranteed a profit and stability. Cons is a lot of the pubic (50%) would not like that in the USA. (I didn't say I did before people ask, just a thought)

The end of the day the communities keep getting torn apart by constant changing air service, poor service usually by penny pinching, flying jets in cities that do not need them and in turn they loose more service. These communities need stable service to bring in that link when needed for business, medical and economy.

EAS is something that could be re done in my opinion for no more money (maybe less) and be a much more viable product for these communities.

Way 3, create a reverse auction.
"Requirements are x, bidding starts at y. Best bid under y wins."

The real thing is that the requirements should be set in such a way that all modes of transport should be available. If someone could meet requirement x with a DMU self propelled rail car or bus that interlines with an airline, fantastic!

Should EAS be about air service, or connectivity?

A LOT of this problem could be settled by a cross-ticketing arraignment, like what used to exist before about 2000-ish when electronic ticketing took over.

It would be even simpler now with widespread computers, but it would require some legislative involvement, because the majors aren’t going to voluntarily accept the small expenses and trouble required to make it work.

The majors were required to accept connecting tickets on “Regional Service Airlines” if they were part of the Air INC (??) settlement system. That paper ticket was legally a Bearer-On-Demand Check, meaning it had to be paid in cash at the moment it was presented to the settlement house or bank.

What this means is that Britt Airways, a travel agent, or some other participating airline could write you one ticket from Muncie, Indiana to London. If they wrote the original ticket, Britt would retain the portion of the fare from Muncie to ORD, plus a small percentage of the rest to cover the cover expenses like CC fees, Air Inc settlement fees, and a small commission, depositing the rest with Air Inc. In many cases, it would be a published fare from MIE to LHR, offered by the last carrier traveled. (IIRC, ZED Fares?)

Britt was responsible for getting your bags to either your departing gate, or the noted acceptance point for transfer bags to United in the bag room, it varied by airport. You walked to the United gate, presented the next coupon of your ticket to the agent, and they verified the ticket matched the reservation. Then off to New York you went.

When you arrived in New York, United transferred your baggage, while you went to the gate agent at BA to repeat the process.

United and BA would then send the paper ticket coupons you presented to HQ, where it was batched with other tickets, and sent to Air, Inc for payment.

Today, all of this could be automatically and daily with the press of a key, most computer systems are able to talk to each other.

FlyingElvii wrote:

A LOT of this problem could be settled by a cross-ticketing arraignment, like what used to exist before about 2000-ish when electronic ticketing took over.

It would be even simpler now with widespread computers, but it would require some legislative involvement, because the majors aren’t going to voluntarily accept the small expenses and trouble required to make it work.

The majors were required to accept connecting tickets on “Regional Service Airlines” if they were part of the Air INC (??) settlement system. That paper ticket was legally a Bearer-On-Demand Check, meaning it had to be paid in cash at the moment it was presented to the settlement house or bank.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Today, all of this could be automatically and daily with the press of a key, most computer systems are able to talk to each other.

Interlining is still a thing, its just much less common and airlines can interline with pretty much whatever airline they choose. Its rare, but those agreements are still maintained and can be used. (Even though its all electronic now, there are E-tickets that are issued on a specific carriers "stock", just how old physical paper tickets were issued.)

I think the one sticky widget would be IRROPS, if a passenger misconnects due to a carrier issue, it then becomes a game of who is responsible for taking care of the passenger, no one wants the costs involved with that.

That being said, I do agree with you that perhaps for EAS routes or some subset of flights carriers should be required to interline.

USAirKid wrote:

I think the one sticky widget would be IRROPS, if a passenger misconnects due to a carrier issue, it then becomes a game of who is responsible for taking care of the passenger, no one wants the costs involved with that.

There's an IATA standard for that that's been around a long time. There is no uncertainty - it's the carrier that delivered the passenger late to the connecting point.

As of a decade ago, IIRC, DL still had interlining agreements with more than 80 carriers, and AA more than 100.

crjflyboy wrote:

evank516 wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

on an ASM cost, the 220 is much better, however many of the markets SKYWEST flies into can not come close to breaking even using a 220 bird.

Oh no no, I was thinking more about the majors purchasing the A220 in place of having to fly regionals. I know there’s clauses and whatnot, but if they can’t fly the routes…

DL cities ... example FWA do not have the passenger count to bring in a 220 to feed a DL hub ... DL has not ordered any more aircraft from AIRBUS that I'm aware of this ... neither has UA or AA which I find strange on their parts

DL firmed up a top off order of A220s back in July. Granted it was for the -300, and it was only for 12 additional aircraft.

Interesting to note that SkyWest just got an approval for a new callsign for their charter division under the callsign of "Charter West". Something to note.

Peace:box:

FlyingElvii wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

NLINK wrote:

I agree about in being impractical. There is 2 schools of thought on how it could be approached (never will change with current congress).

Way 1. It would need requirements to be set up as a small business, not associated with a large company, not public. They would get a grant amount to pay to break even. I think for reliability there would be a minimum amount each position would be paid in the grant/ contract. There would be a set number of sectors where you would operate from. No merging with other companies. Strict requirements on spares, scheduling, etc. A minimum of a a 5 to 10 year contract so the communities get stable service which they all need.

Way 2. With the grant/ contract similar requirements as above but instead be a not for profit (this will get some people upset) where they are a allowed to keep x amount of dollars for capital expenses but if they make to much money it would be returned as it was not really needed. The pros here is they would be guaranteed a profit and stability. Cons is a lot of the pubic (50%) would not like that in the USA. (I didn't say I did before people ask, just a thought)

The end of the day the communities keep getting torn apart by constant changing air service, poor service usually by penny pinching, flying jets in cities that do not need them and in turn they loose more service. These communities need stable service to bring in that link when needed for business, medical and economy.

EAS is something that could be re done in my opinion for no more money (maybe less) and be a much more viable product for these communities.

Way 3, create a reverse auction.
"Requirements are x, bidding starts at y. Best bid under y wins."

The real thing is that the requirements should be set in such a way that all modes of transport should be available. If someone could meet requirement x with a DMU self propelled rail car or bus that interlines with an airline, fantastic!

Should EAS be about air service, or connectivity?

A LOT of this problem could be settled by a cross-ticketing arraignment, like what used to exist before about 2000-ish when electronic ticketing took over.

It would be even simpler now with widespread computers, but it would require some legislative involvement, because the majors aren’t going to voluntarily accept the small expenses and trouble required to make it work.

The majors were required to accept connecting tickets on “Regional Service Airlines” if they were part of the Air INC (??) settlement system. That paper ticket was legally a Bearer-On-Demand Check, meaning it had to be paid in cash at the moment it was presented to the settlement house or bank.

What this means is that Britt Airways, a travel agent, or some other participating airline could write you one ticket from Muncie, Indiana to London. If they wrote the original ticket, Britt would retain the portion of the fare from Muncie to ORD, plus a small percentage of the rest to cover the cover expenses like CC fees, Air Inc settlement fees, and a small commission, depositing the rest with Air Inc. In many cases, it would be a published fare from MIE to LHR, offered by the last carrier traveled. (IIRC, ZED Fares?)

Britt was responsible for getting your bags to either your departing gate, or the noted acceptance point for transfer bags to United in the bag room, it varied by airport. You walked to the United gate, presented the next coupon of your ticket to the agent, and they verified the ticket matched the reservation. Then off to New York you went.

When you arrived in New York, United transferred your baggage, while you went to the gate agent at BA to repeat the process.

United and BA would then send the paper ticket coupons you presented to HQ, where it was batched with other tickets, and sent to Air, Inc for payment.

Today, all of this could be automatically and daily with the press of a key, most computer systems are able to talk to each other.

Res interlining. The passenger needs to buy (or have included in the price) trip insurance covering weather, acts of God, and even illness. Here is where a not-for-profit insurance company could play a needed role. The insurance could cover cost of rescheduling, maybe living expenses, and always a trip home. These are real costs which an airline rightfully can say need to be covered by the person buying the interlined flight. To reduce costs flying could agree to higher deductibles or by being willing to be flexible -i.e. extending the stay for a few days before going home.

As an example, my wife and I decide to fly around the world. So the travel agent (needed), sets up an agenda and routing. Some things go wrong - war, volcano, hurricane - so agent reroutes and redoes hotels. I pay for the insurance, and some happy airline happens to have a couple seats at that later date and now has a customer. I'm getting old to do the standard back packing sort of international travel I prefer, but a good travel agent could likely plan that sort of trip for us.

MIflyer12 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

I think the one sticky widget would be IRROPS, if a passenger misconnects due to a carrier issue, it then becomes a game of who is responsible for taking care of the passenger, no one wants the costs involved with that.

There's an IATA standard for that that's been around a long time. There is no uncertainty - it's the carrier that delivered the passenger late to the connecting point.

As of a decade ago, IIRC, DL still had interlining agreements with more than 80 carriers, and AA more than 100.

Ah, I can see this being why the smaller carrier wouldn't want to interline. Thats a bigger risk if one of their planes is late.

bomber996 wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Oh no no, I was thinking more about the majors purchasing the A220 in place of having to fly regionals. I know there’s clauses and whatnot, but if they can’t fly the routes…

DL cities ... example FWA do not have the passenger count to bring in a 220 to feed a DL hub ... DL has not ordered any more aircraft from AIRBUS that I'm aware of this ... neither has UA or AA which I find strange on their parts

DL firmed up a top off order of A220s back in July. Granted it was for the -300, and it was only for 12 additional aircraft.

Interesting to note that SkyWest just got an approval for a new callsign for their charter division under the callsign of "Charter West". Something to note.

Peace:box:

While a220 is nice there is still planes like MRJ and e75e2 which can be used if the regionals go away

32andBelow wrote:

bomber996 wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

DL cities ... example FWA do not have the passenger count to bring in a 220 to feed a DL hub ... DL has not ordered any more aircraft from AIRBUS that I'm aware of this ... neither has UA or AA which I find strange on their parts

DL firmed up a top off order of A220s back in July. Granted it was for the -300, and it was only for 12 additional aircraft.

Interesting to note that SkyWest just got an approval for a new callsign for their charter division under the callsign of "Charter West". Something to note.

Peace:box:

While a220 is nice there is still planes like MRJ and e75e2 which can be used if the regionals go away

I would bet a few dollars neither come to fruition. MRJ development has been mostly wound down, and E2-175 keeps getting delayed due to lack of customer interest.

crjflyboy wrote:

evank516 wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

on an ASM cost, the 220 is much better, however many of the markets SKYWEST flies into can not come close to breaking even using a 220 bird.

Oh no no, I was thinking more about the majors purchasing the A220 in place of having to fly regionals. I know there’s clauses and whatnot, but if they can’t fly the routes…

DL cities ... example FWA do not have the passenger count to bring in a 220 to feed a DL hub ... DL has not ordered any more aircraft from AIRBUS that I'm aware of this ... neither has UA or AA which I find strange on their parts

Oh absolutely, but if they upgauge routes that do have the passenger count leaving the RJs for cities like FWA. My thought is there’s plenty of routes in most airlines’ route networks that could be upgauged so that RJs can handle flying where the pax count warrants it better.

32andBelow wrote:

bomber996 wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

DL cities ... example FWA do not have the passenger count to bring in a 220 to feed a DL hub ... DL has not ordered any more aircraft from AIRBUS that I'm aware of this ... neither has UA or AA which I find strange on their parts

DL firmed up a top off order of A220s back in July. Granted it was for the -300, and it was only for 12 additional aircraft.

Interesting to note that SkyWest just got an approval for a new callsign for their charter division under the callsign of "Charter West". Something to note.

Peace:box:

While a220 is nice there is still planes like MRJ and e75e2 which can be used if the regionals go away

Don't look for MRJs nor E75E2s at mainline. If the economics of 76-seat jets don't work at regionals then 90-seat jets surely won't be economical at mainline.

This is a tangent since it would not be for EIS level of service but for slightly larger destinations. Is it a violation of anti-trust rules for ab regional to have a capacity agreement with multiple majors on the same aircraft?

As an example, could SkyWest fly both Alaska and United passengers into a place that both might want to have in their network, but that would not warrant two separate flights?

NameOmitted wrote:

This is a tangent since it would not be for EIS level of service but for slightly larger destinations. Is it a violation of anti-trust rules for ab regional to have a capacity agreement with multiple majors on the same aircraft?

As an example, could SkyWest fly both Alaska and United passengers into a place that both might want to have in their network, but that would not warrant two separate flights?

I mean the regional could start an unbranded operation and interline, but I imagine a CPA agreement by two airlines for the same aircraft would be squirrley with accounting issues. As for the legal issues… IANAL, but it’d get reviewed pretty closely. I could see it in a situation where one airline has left the spoke a few years ago, but it would truly have to be an exceptional issue. If you look at newspapers, having one publisher take over the printing and ad sales operations, but not he editorial operations of a local competitor, so that a weaker competitor could survive took an act of congress to create an exemption to antitrust law.

I’d also question which airports this could work at? You’d want an airport that is a hub for both airlines... So ORD, SEA, LAX? Where else?

32andBelow wrote:

bomber996 wrote:

crjflyboy wrote:

DL cities ... example FWA do not have the passenger count to bring in a 220 to feed a DL hub ... DL has not ordered any more aircraft from AIRBUS that I'm aware of this ... neither has UA or AA which I find strange on their parts

DL firmed up a top off order of A220s back in July. Granted it was for the -300, and it was only for 12 additional aircraft.

Interesting to note that SkyWest just got an approval for a new callsign for their charter division under the callsign of "Charter West". Something to note.

Peace:box:

While a220 is nice there is still planes like MRJ and e75e2 which can be used if the regionals go away[/quotIt's getting past the time that regionals are tied to any major airline. it was a good idea when it started but just like many ideas? the idea has run its course and needs to go to the trash heap! it could be time or airports to have regional terminals apart from the mainline terminals. and be planned as such. Some airports right now have LCC terminal areas so? It can't be that hard tp plan for regional terminals. Or? Pretty soon? there won't BE any regionals and People who don't live near a Major airport? will be SOL. I can think of 50 Airports right now that could be regional Hubs. One that comes to mind right away is CMH, plus others like OMA. DLH, HPN, ORF,JAX, Batton Rouge, PWM, DSM. ELP, SAN. BFL BOI, MSP, BHM. and PIT off the top of my head. they'd need a passenger base near them that is underserved and has a regional need within a 100 miles. Most of the cities I mentioned are near major throughfares like interstate Highways. but? the idea isn't new. there were pretty sizeable regional operators at many of these airports in the past that did pretty well for themselves before the Express/ Connection "experiment" happened. Many of you might not even remember when Air Wisconsin and Mississippi Valley Airlines or Ransome. Suburban, and Altair all duked it out or Golden West,Golden Gate. and Air Oregon were flying the west coast. Turboprops flew all over the USA and many people enjoyed them That is? Until the big LIE happened that Turboprops were Noisy and Unsafe. It was like some mass Hysteria. They weren't unsafe then? and they're not unsafe NOW. But? you're going to wind up paying through the NOSE anyway one way or the other and there won't be one doggone thing you can do about it! It's taken a long time to do? But you got suckered!

MIflyer12 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

I think the one sticky widget would be IRROPS, if a passenger misconnects due to a carrier issue, it then becomes a game of who is responsible for taking care of the passenger, no one wants the costs involved with that.

There's an IATA standard for that that's been around a long time. There is no uncertainty - it's the carrier that delivered the passenger late to the connecting point.

As of a decade ago, IIRC, DL still had interlining agreements with more than 80 carriers, and AA more than 100.

Mist of the interline agreements are still in place. That's not the problem. The problem is many major airlines have changed their fate rules to prohibit end-on-end ticketing. You used to be able to ticket practically any fare together with any other fare between airlines. DL, UA, and AA don't seem to alow this at all anymore.

There are still fares like this being sold though. I just bought an AS-AC interline ticket.

USAirKid wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

This is a tangent since it would not be for EIS level of service but for slightly larger destinations. Is it a violation of anti-trust rules for ab regional to have a capacity agreement with multiple majors on the same aircraft?

As an example, could SkyWest fly both Alaska and United passengers into a place that both might want to have in their network, but that would not warrant two separate flights?

I mean the regional could start an unbranded operation and interline, but I imagine a CPA agreement by two airlines for the same aircraft would be squirrley with accounting issues. As for the legal issues… IANAL, but it’d get reviewed pretty closely. I could see it in a situation where one airline has left the spoke a few years ago, but it would truly have to be an exceptional issue. If you look at newspapers, having one publisher take over the printing and ad sales operations, but not he editorial operations of a local competitor, so that a weaker competitor could survive took an act of congress to create an exemption to antitrust law.

I’d also question which airports this could work at? You’d want an airport that is a hub for both airlines... So ORD, SEA, LAX? Where else?

Something similar has happened before. Around 1999 Delta was using Trans World Express (op by TSA IIRC) for feed at JFK. The flights operated from T5 and the aircraft said Trans World on the side, but carried both TW and DL codes. Around the same time, American Eagle flights from LAX (and specifically Eagle, no AA mainline flights) carried CO codes.