FlyingElvii wrote:

It will be nice to see some actual traffic in that big new building MWA put up.

Hahaha, I know what you mean, but locals are used to it.

MWA gets charters of Airbus A320 and 737's and VIP's and the airport is FULL, SIU Charter's usually.

I have flown out of MWA 100+ times between Cape Air, TWE, Great Lakes, Charters, etc

I just wished MWA made room for a jetbridge, but they didn't. They built the airport without the ability to add a jetbridge, it's all ground level.

PAH's new airport terminal will have a jetbridge..sure wished MWA would have.

Assuming DOT approves it all...I am looking forward to jetting home from my apartment to my Mom's house in 45 minutes instead of Amtrak..lordy hahaha

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

Speaking of SkyWest Charters, they have submitted their first EAS Bid as SkyWest Charters.

A bid was submitted for both Moab and Vernal, Utah

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -2706-0337

Note: Of interest is this part... "SkyWest Charter, LLC (SWC) welcomes the opportunity to provide subsidized essential air service to the
Moab (CNY) and Vernal (VEL) communities for a two-year term. Service will be provided on 30-seat
CRJ200 aircraft to Denver International Airport (DEN) and Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). Flights
to DEN will be operated under a codeshare agreement with United Airlines and flights to SLC will be
operated under a codeshare agreement with Delta Air Lines. All flights will be timed to depart and arrive
DEN and SLC to facilitate seamless connections to the respective hub carrier’s network"

Thought the drawback of this was Codesharing wouldn't be allowed? Would need to figure out if this means earning miles, having the airlines paint on the aircraft etc?

Curious how this will turn out...

Alex

Quoting myself here for reference...

In a maybe, not surprising twist..DOT has REJECTED the SkyWest Charter Proposal for Vernal and Moab...more rejections coming with the other SkyWest Charter Bids?

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -2706-0338

DOT is rejecting the proposal, and submitting a rebid for proposals, now due March 21, 2023. Reason for rejecting was that SWC proposed 6 weekly until they got their certificate, and proposal requires 12 weekly.

Note: However, SWC’s proposal included a bid for 12 round trips
per week that can only be performed by a commuter air carrier. Although SWC noted that it will
conduct air taxi operations until it receives commuter authority, the Department cannot accept a
proposal where the carrier proposes to conduct operations in which it does not have authority to
perform them. It is unclear when or if SWC will receive commuter air carrier authorization. Air
carriers should prepare their proposals with every expectation that, should they be selected by the
Department, they will be able to commence full EAS as described in their proposal on the first
day of the new contract term.

I expect more rejections to come...

Alex

So what exactly does that mean? Is this merely a formality or a big deal?
Hard to keep track of this stuff as the EAS process is highly administrative and bureaucratic

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

So what exactly does that mean? Is this merely a formality or a big deal?
Hard to keep track of this stuff as the EAS process is highly administrative and bureaucratic

Both a formality and a big deal. The formality is that an airline operating five or more weekly roundtrips between any two points on a published schedule must have commuter airline authority. The big deal is that it bid on a contract that requires 12 weekly roundtrips. The DOT have not made a fitness determination for Skywest Charter's commuter authority.

The other issue, which was implied in the DOT order, is that no one in Vernal or Moab requested a waiver of the "scheduled air transportation" clause in 41732(a), which is needed in order to substitute a public charter into EAS. [Previously the community would have to request an AEAS subsidy. Apparently now, the community can request to waive "scheduled air transportation" and substitute a (scheduled) public charter in its place.]

So I am curious are airlines even able to make a profit on EAS routes or are they lucky to break even most of the time?

MO11 wrote:

The other issue, which was implied in the DOT order, is that no one in Vernal or Moab requested a waiver of the "scheduled air transportation" clause in 41732(a), which is needed in order to substitute a public charter into EAS. [Previously the community would have to request an AEAS subsidy. Apparently now, the community can request to waive "scheduled air transportation" and substitute a (scheduled) public charter in its place.]

Interesting. Will that become an option for communities that are currently AEAS (such as with Contour in CEC/Crescent City CA)? Would that option waiver to go EAS be better/easier to apply for and exercise, or is staying as AEAS the better option?

Wingtips56 wrote:

MO11 wrote:

The other issue, which was implied in the DOT order, is that no one in Vernal or Moab requested a waiver of the "scheduled air transportation" clause in 41732(a), which is needed in order to substitute a public charter into EAS. [Previously the community would have to request an AEAS subsidy. Apparently now, the community can request to waive "scheduled air transportation" and substitute a (scheduled) public charter in its place.]

Interesting. Will that become an option for communities that are currently AEAS (such as with Contour in CEC/Crescent City CA)? Would that option waiver to go EAS be better/easier to apply for and exercise, or is staying as AEAS the better option?

It won't. I haven't seen the specifics for Vernal and Moab, but waivers have been granted for pretty much all the recent Contour contracts. The waivers are time-limited. I'm assuming these 2 are the same. There has been so much upheaval in EAS lately. There have been early contract terminations by the dozen last year. This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

BangersAndMash wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

MO11 wrote:

The other issue, which was implied in the DOT order, is that no one in Vernal or Moab requested a waiver of the "scheduled air transportation" clause in 41732(a), which is needed in order to substitute a public charter into EAS. [Previously the community would have to request an AEAS subsidy. Apparently now, the community can request to waive "scheduled air transportation" and substitute a (scheduled) public charter in its place.]

Interesting. Will that become an option for communities that are currently AEAS (such as with Contour in CEC/Crescent City CA)? Would that option waiver to go EAS be better/easier to apply for and exercise, or is staying as AEAS the better option?

It won't. I haven't seen the specifics for Vernal and Moab, but waivers have been granted for pretty much all the recent Contour contracts. The waivers are time-limited. I'm assuming these 2 are the same. There has been so much upheaval in EAS lately. There have been early contract terminations by the dozen last year. This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

So this is true, but what stops DOT from saying No to say...OWB, IRK and MWA and say "No we will not allow Contour, you HAVE Scheduled Carriers bidding, and one is even dual engine, NOT requiring them to waive dual engine ops or scheduled carrier...

Why would DOT allow Contour then?

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Interesting. Will that become an option for communities that are currently AEAS (such as with Contour in CEC/Crescent City CA)? Would that option waiver to go EAS be better/easier to apply for and exercise, or is staying as AEAS the better option?

It won't. I haven't seen the specifics for Vernal and Moab, but waivers have been granted for pretty much all the recent Contour contracts. The waivers are time-limited. I'm assuming these 2 are the same. There has been so much upheaval in EAS lately. There have been early contract terminations by the dozen last year. This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

So this is true, but what stops DOT from saying No to say...OWB, IRK and MWA and say "No we will not allow Contour, you HAVE Scheduled Carriers bidding, and one is even dual engine, NOT requiring them to waive dual engine ops or scheduled carrier...

Why would DOT allow Contour then?

Alex

I hope they just say no to contour on those.

atrude777 wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Interesting. Will that become an option for communities that are currently AEAS (such as with Contour in CEC/Crescent City CA)? Would that option waiver to go EAS be better/easier to apply for and exercise, or is staying as AEAS the better option?

It won't. I haven't seen the specifics for Vernal and Moab, but waivers have been granted for pretty much all the recent Contour contracts. The waivers are time-limited. I'm assuming these 2 are the same. There has been so much upheaval in EAS lately. There have been early contract terminations by the dozen last year. This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

So this is true, but what stops DOT from saying No to say...OWB, IRK and MWA and say "No we will not allow Contour, you HAVE Scheduled Carriers bidding, and one is even dual engine, NOT requiring them to waive dual engine ops or scheduled carrier...

Why would DOT allow Contour then?

Alex

Oh it's not specific to Contour. It's a public charter thing and Contour just happens to be the major public charter operator in EAS. Rather than forcing communities into another round of paperwork by getting them to apply for AEAS grants, DOT is waiving the need for scheduled air transport. It won't last. Things will stabilise at some point and return back to normal.

BangersAndMash wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

It won't. I haven't seen the specifics for Vernal and Moab, but waivers have been granted for pretty much all the recent Contour contracts. The waivers are time-limited. I'm assuming these 2 are the same. There has been so much upheaval in EAS lately. There have been early contract terminations by the dozen last year. This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

So this is true, but what stops DOT from saying No to say...OWB, IRK and MWA and say "No we will not allow Contour, you HAVE Scheduled Carriers bidding, and one is even dual engine, NOT requiring them to waive dual engine ops or scheduled carrier...

Why would DOT allow Contour then?

Alex

Oh it's not specific to Contour. It's a public charter thing and Contour just happens to be the major public charter operator in EAS. Rather than forcing communities into another round of paperwork by getting them to apply for AEAS grants, DOT is waiving the need for scheduled air transport. It won't last. Things will stabilise at some point and return back to normal.

PS: this is not why OO Charters' bid was denied. They got sent packing because they don't have commuter authority for their public charter operation. Contour does.

atrude777 wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Interesting. Will that become an option for communities that are currently AEAS (such as with Contour in CEC/Crescent City CA)? Would that option waiver to go EAS be better/easier to apply for and exercise, or is staying as AEAS the better option?

It won't. I haven't seen the specifics for Vernal and Moab, but waivers have been granted for pretty much all the recent Contour contracts. The waivers are time-limited. I'm assuming these 2 are the same. There has been so much upheaval in EAS lately. There have been early contract terminations by the dozen last year. This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

So this is true, but what stops DOT from saying No to say...OWB, IRK and MWA and say "No we will not allow Contour, you HAVE Scheduled Carriers bidding, and one is even dual engine, NOT requiring them to waive dual engine ops or scheduled carrier...

Why would DOT allow Contour then?

Alex

Community preference is a large part of the decision process, but not the only factor.

The Skywest issue is that they have not actually been issued a commuter authority certificate yet, and likely won’t be until at least July.
They could operate it as 121 under Skywest, but that means 121 pilots and aircraft that are on the SKW certificate, not 135.

In terms of how government operates, many of these approvals have come at lightening speed recently. I imagine the less-than-five-weekly rule is just too much of a jump for them to approve.

BangersAndMash wrote:

This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

I don't agree. Although the rule hasn't changed, the interpretation has. I suspect a consultant or lawyer for some airline (select one) said "Let's try this". And some analyst at the DOT bought it. I suspect this would never fly in front of an DOT Administrative Law Judge.

BangersAndMash wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

It won't. I haven't seen the specifics for Vernal and Moab, but waivers have been granted for pretty much all the recent Contour contracts. The waivers are time-limited. I'm assuming these 2 are the same. There has been so much upheaval in EAS lately. There have been early contract terminations by the dozen last year. This is a short term fix to reduce DOT workload and expedite contract awards. The rules have otherwise not changed. Transportation by scheduled carriers remains the preferred mode, with public charters an option if there is no alternative.

So this is true, but what stops DOT from saying No to say...OWB, IRK and MWA and say "No we will not allow Contour, you HAVE Scheduled Carriers bidding, and one is even dual engine, NOT requiring them to waive dual engine ops or scheduled carrier...

Why would DOT allow Contour then?

Alex

Oh it's not specific to Contour. It's a public charter thing and Contour just happens to be the major public charter operator in EAS. Rather than forcing communities into another round of paperwork by getting them to apply for AEAS grants, DOT is waiving the need for scheduled air transport. It won't last. Things will stabilise at some point and return back to normal.

...and when the waiver does end...I imagine Contour won't be able to bid again.

They'd have to resort back to filing through AEAS correct?

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

So this is true, but what stops DOT from saying No to say...OWB, IRK and MWA and say "No we will not allow Contour, you HAVE Scheduled Carriers bidding, and one is even dual engine, NOT requiring them to waive dual engine ops or scheduled carrier...

Why would DOT allow Contour then?

Alex

Oh it's not specific to Contour. It's a public charter thing and Contour just happens to be the major public charter operator in EAS. Rather than forcing communities into another round of paperwork by getting them to apply for AEAS grants, DOT is waiving the need for scheduled air transport. It won't last. Things will stabilise at some point and return back to normal.

...and when the waiver does end...I imagine Contour won't be able to bid again.

They'd have to resort back to filing through AEAS correct?

Alex

That's what I'd expect, yes. Those contracts are due in 3 years time. You'd think that we'll be back to some kind of normality by then, with contracts actually running their course!

If OO Charters manage to sort out their mess, I'm sure DOT would grant a waiver to them too.

atrude777 wrote:

SkyWest Charters submitted a proposal for both DVL and JMS in North Dakota.

Backstory-DVL and JMS were part of the 29 communities to be dropped from SkyWest EAS Contracts. They currently see United Express to Denver.

Proposal: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -2785-0255

Notes: The paragraph in the link mentions also offering ORD-Chicago and MSP-Minneapolis in addition to Denver. The chart being used only shows ORD/DEN. Unsure if that's a typo...

Both cities are already used to a split as right now DVL/JMS share a flight. However this new contract would allow DVL to have their own flights as well as JMS. Interesting to see them offer Chicago now too.

Also offering United Codeshare to ORD/DEN or Delta to MSP.

DVL-Devils Lake has submitted their request to choose SkyWest Charters with operations to DEN/MSP. Originally DVL saw 1 non stop to Denver and 1 thru JMS.

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -2785-0259
*Scroll down until you see the entry for "Devils Lake Regional Airport"

Notes: We understand Skywest Charter LLC has not received the full regulatory authority needed to serve DVL with 12
weekly round trips as the bid documents describe, we are very hopeful that this authority will be forthcoming
via the regulatory process of the DOT in a timely manner. If it’s necessary for Skywest Charter to supply a
limited-service schedule in the interim, DVL will support the reduced service schedule in hope the authority will
be forthcoming.
As part of our Skywest Charter LLC recommendation, this letter formally requests a waiver from 49 USC 41732
(a), basic Essential Air Service (EAS) is scheduled air transportation of passengers and cargo. Skywest Charter is
an on-demand/charter, operated under Part 380 and therefore is not scheduled air transportation.

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

DVL-Devils Lake has submitted their request to choose SkyWest Charters with operations to DEN/MSP. Originally DVL saw 1 non stop to Denver and 1 thru JMS.

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -2785-0259
*Scroll down until you see the entry for "Devils Lake Regional Airport"

Notes: We understand Skywest Charter LLC has not received the full regulatory authority needed to serve DVL with 12
weekly round trips as the bid documents describe, we are very hopeful that this authority will be forthcoming
via the regulatory process of the DOT in a timely manner. If it’s necessary for Skywest Charter to supply a
limited-service schedule in the interim, DVL will support the reduced service schedule in hope the authority will
be forthcoming.
As part of our Skywest Charter LLC recommendation, this letter formally requests a waiver from 49 USC 41732
(a), basic Essential Air Service (EAS) is scheduled air transportation of passengers and cargo. Skywest Charter is
an on-demand/charter, operated under Part 380 and therefore is not scheduled air transportation.

Alex

Jamestown, ND-JMS has also now submitted their selection.

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -2785-0260

JMS is selecting SkyWest Charters, in keeping Denver and an "East Hub", but it does not specifically mention MSP or ORD.

The bids now for both JMS and DVL will unbundle the flight traffic, so that DVL and JMS both will have a non stop to DEN, and a non stop to an East Directional Hub, MSP or ORD.

Alex

SkyWest Charters has submitted a proposal for Scottsbluff, Nebraska. The proposal follows the same as the other EAS cities with offering 30 Seat CRJ Flying to two Hubs.

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... 14535-0190

Notes: SkyWest Charter, LLC (SWC) welcomes the opportunity to provide subsidized Essential Air Service (EAS) to
the Scottsbluff (BFF) community for a one-year term. Service will be provided on 30-seat CRJ200 aircraft
to Denver International Airport (DEN) and Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD). Flights to
DEN/ORD will be operated under a codeshare agreement with United Airlines. All flights will be timed to
depart and arrive DEN/ORD to facilitate seamless connections to the United’s network

Alex

New article in a Kentucky Business Journal about Owensboro seeking Contour:
"Owensboro-Daviess seeks deal with Contour Airlines as new essential service carrier"
https://www.lanereport.com/163172/2023/ ... e-carrier/

Skywest wants a subsidy increase for SUX.
They originally bid $733 per flight, but now want $3,565 per departure.

SUX is one of the cities Skywest filed to pull out of in March 2022, but they have been ordered to stay until a replacement is found. Boutique bid three a day to MSP, but that was rejected by the local council.

https://www.ktiv.com/2023/03/01/skywest ... ioux-city/

FlyingElvii wrote:

Skywest wants a subsidy increase for SUX.
They originally bid $733 per flight, but now want $3,565 per departure.

SUX is one of the cities Skywest filed to pull out of in March 2022, but they have been ordered to stay until a replacement is found. Boutique bid three a day to MSP, but that was rejected by the local council.

https://www.ktiv.com/2023/03/01/skywest ... ioux-city/

$733 to $3,565? A five fold increase?
Interesting as SUX had weened off EAS prior to Covid when AA was there. Once covid began, SUX was allowed to get back on EAS.

Interesting stuff going on regarding Dodge City and Liberal...

Dodge and Liberal both selected SkyWest Charters, and used some claims against Northern Pacific about why they chose SkyWest Charters.

Points Mentioned:
Lack of Codeshare with Northern
Inability to hire Pilots locally
Ensuring a near 100% load factor was not doable

Rebuttal's are posted...

Liberal Kansas: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -3498-0134

Dodge City: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -3502-0140

Cliff notes:

Addressing the Interline: Northern Pacific states again in its February 10 letter that it has an interline agreement with United Airlines. However, we can find no evidence on United.com that passengers can book travel on United to Anchorage and connect onward to Northern Pacific (7H).

Addressing Interline and Codeshare concerns for Part 380: We also wish to advise Northern Pacific that Contour Airlines operates 17 EAS cities in the lower-48 and
Contour has a full ticket and bag agreement with American. Part 380 operators have in the past and do today have functioning interline agreements

Check the links out for more Indepth's description and rebuttals, grab your popcorn!

Alex

Chuska wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Skywest wants a subsidy increase for SUX.
They originally bid $733 per flight, but now want $3,565 per departure.

SUX is one of the cities Skywest filed to pull out of in March 2022, but they have been ordered to stay until a replacement is found. Boutique bid three a day to MSP, but that was rejected by the local council.

https://www.ktiv.com/2023/03/01/skywest ... ioux-city/

$733 to $3,565? A five fold increase?
Interesting as SUX had weened off EAS prior to Covid when AA was there. Once covid began, SUX was allowed to get back on EAS.

For a little context, the rev guarantee OO got from TWF amounts to $2200/departure for a single daily to SLC.

atrude777 wrote:

Interesting stuff going on regarding Dodge City and Liberal...

Dodge and Liberal both selected SkyWest Charters, and used some claims against Northern Pacific about why they chose SkyWest Charters.

Points Mentioned:
Lack of Codeshare with Northern
Inability to hire Pilots locally
Ensuring a near 100% load factor was not doable

Rebuttal's are posted...

Liberal Kansas: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -3498-0134

Dodge City: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -3502-0140

Cliff notes:

Addressing the Interline: Northern Pacific states again in its February 10 letter that it has an interline agreement with United Airlines. However, we can find no evidence on United.com that passengers can book travel on United to Anchorage and connect onward to Northern Pacific (7H).

Addressing Interline and Codeshare concerns for Part 380: We also wish to advise Northern Pacific that Contour Airlines operates 17 EAS cities in the lower-48 and
Contour has a full ticket and bag agreement with American. Part 380 operators have in the past and do today have functioning interline agreements

Check the links out for more Indepth's description and rebuttals, grab your popcorn!

Alex

Is this the Northern Pacific with 757s?

KCaviator wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

Interesting stuff going on regarding Dodge City and Liberal...

Dodge and Liberal both selected SkyWest Charters, and used some claims against Northern Pacific about why they chose SkyWest Charters.

Points Mentioned:
Lack of Codeshare with Northern
Inability to hire Pilots locally
Ensuring a near 100% load factor was not doable

Rebuttal's are posted...

Liberal Kansas: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -3498-0134

Dodge City: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -3502-0140

Cliff notes:

Addressing the Interline: Northern Pacific states again in its February 10 letter that it has an interline agreement with United Airlines. However, we can find no evidence on United.com that passengers can book travel on United to Anchorage and connect onward to Northern Pacific (7H).

Addressing Interline and Codeshare concerns for Part 380: We also wish to advise Northern Pacific that Contour Airlines operates 17 EAS cities in the lower-48 and
Contour has a full ticket and bag agreement with American. Part 380 operators have in the past and do today have functioning interline agreements

Check the links out for more Indepth's description and rebuttals, grab your popcorn!

Alex

Is this the Northern Pacific with 757s?

no q300

Came across this summary of EAS activities:

https://airlinegeeks.com/2023/03/05/one ... n-request/

oosnowrat wrote:

Came across this summary of EAS activities:

https://airlinegeeks.com/2023/03/05/one ... n-request/

I enjoy seeing these updates on what's going on in the small town EAS world.
Although, I doubt OYB has yet seen a 9X King Air LOL.

sprxUSA wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

Came across this summary of EAS activities:

https://airlinegeeks.com/2023/03/05/one ... n-request/

I enjoy seeing these updates on what's going on in the small town EAS world.
Although, I doubt OYB has yet seen a 9X King Air LOL.

I don’t even tho m CDR has seen the King Air yet , looks like they are getting PC12’s, better than the C208 but still not the plane they are supposed to get. And SOW is getting C208 even tho they are supposed to get the PC12

atrude777 wrote:

DOT still hasn't shown a filing for MWA, but I went back to MWA's history and DOT hasn't posted the previous proposal submissions for MWA, going back to 2019, and 2015..how odd...so I don't expect to be able to read MWA's submission. I was genuinely curious to see how MWA came to their decision like OWB and IRK posted.

Alex

Quoting myself for references...

I finally found MWA's proposal to DOT to select Contour Airlines, it was filed under "Williamson County Airport Authority" and not Veterans Airport of Southern Illinois.

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -7881-0105

Nothing we didn't already know, but this confirms MWA's selection of Contour.

BangersAndMash wrote:

On OO Charters' alleged UA codeshare, I'll believe that one when I see it.

Not that it can't be done, but there are operational complexities and I'm curious to see how this will pan out.

Per public charter rules, UA will not be able to access the proceeds from any ticket sales until the flights have been completed. I somehow doubt UA is going to be on board with that. So what gives? Is OO going to pay UA upfront and recoup the difference from the escrow account? This could become interesting for OO budget wise.

SkyWest Charters now possibly backtracking on the use of the word "codeshare"?

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -3502-0143

Note: SkyWest Charter’s recent proposal for Essential Air Service for Dodge City and Liberal, KS indicated that flights would operate under a codeshare agreement with United Airlines. Please note the following revision to the proposal: flights will operate under an interline agreement with United Airlines.

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

Note: SkyWest Charter’s recent proposal for Essential Air Service for Dodge City and Liberal, KS indicated that flights would operate under a codeshare agreement with United Airlines. Please note the following revision to the proposal: flights will operate under an interline agreement with United Airlines.

Alex

Oye. So that means Skywest is rushing to get a reservations system in place, join ARC, get a merchant account, setup e-ticketing thru the proper GDS hubs, and get all the GDS links. That alone takes 6 months from start to finish, and that's IF they know what they are doing.

usxguy wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

Note: SkyWest Charter’s recent proposal for Essential Air Service for Dodge City and Liberal, KS indicated that flights would operate under a codeshare agreement with United Airlines. Please note the following revision to the proposal: flights will operate under an interline agreement with United Airlines.

Alex

Oye. So that means Skywest is rushing to get a reservations system in place, join ARC, get a merchant account, setup e-ticketing thru the proper GDS hubs, and get all the GDS links. That alone takes 6 months from start to finish, and that's IF they know what they are doing.

they could outsource alot of that to UA. they already have paper tkt agreement with most Star members. but yes there are challenges ahead for them.

usxguy wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

Note: SkyWest Charter’s recent proposal for Essential Air Service for Dodge City and Liberal, KS indicated that flights would operate under a codeshare agreement with United Airlines. Please note the following revision to the proposal: flights will operate under an interline agreement with United Airlines.

Alex

Oye. So that means Skywest is rushing to get a reservations system in place, join ARC, get a merchant account, setup e-ticketing thru the proper GDS hubs, and get all the GDS links. That alone takes 6 months from start to finish, and that's IF they know what they are doing.

Why do you think DDC/LBL/BBF/LBF are already a month and a half out of contract, and Salina, which is due at the end of the month, is heading the same way? Their timeline was, actually still is, way too ambitious. Any of these cities that attracts either Contour or DAC should frankly jump on it.

Owensboro Chamber of Commerce's submission is an interesting read, and makes a good point in its last paragraph. With the subsidies ballooning, anybody with a turboprop operator is going to find it increasingly difficult to stay within the cap limits. Subsidy per passenger is going up fast and Cape Air, Boutique and Southern simply cannot offer enough seats at a price point where they can offset that rise. EAS could easily be loosing some of the smaller markets in the coming years.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2000-7855-0197

Going to guess Contour doesn't win the contract the next go around. All it has been from there is complaints.

Airline delays, cancellations put strain on Ogdensburg police

“The airline itself has been the worst airline we’ve ever worked with out there. They delay, delay, delay for hours and hours and hours and so that officer I have on overtime is sitting there doing nothing,” said Ogdensburg Police Chief Mark Kearns.


https://www.wwnytv.com/2023/03/13/airli ... rg-police/

RJNUT wrote:

usxguy wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

Note: SkyWest Charter’s recent proposal for Essential Air Service for Dodge City and Liberal, KS indicated that flights would operate under a codeshare agreement with United Airlines. Please note the following revision to the proposal: flights will operate under an interline agreement with United Airlines.

Alex

Oye. So that means Skywest is rushing to get a reservations system in place, join ARC, get a merchant account, setup e-ticketing thru the proper GDS hubs, and get all the GDS links. That alone takes 6 months from start to finish, and that's IF they know what they are doing.

they could outsource alot of that to UA. they already have paper tkt agreement with most Star members. but yes there are challenges ahead for them.

IATA got rid of paper tickets in 2010, so if any paper documents still exist, they can't use the clearinghouse but have to be sent direct for payment. That *still* requires SkyWest to be a member of ARC, which they are not. And every GDS & PSS is no longer setup to accept paper tickets for an itinerary. Nor can ANY OTA issue a paper document.

For there to be an interline, OO will have to be working on its own res system (Videcom, HitIT, Zenith, Intelysis, Navitaire, Radixx) - THEN do the GDS Type A links (2 - 3 mos), and also pay for access & link to an E ticket hub (1 - 2 mos), etc etc.

The fact OO has gone from a codeshare to interline means that OO's flights will be hosted on their own PSS and not on UA's PSS (that would mean codeshare).

Jshank83 wrote:

Going to guess Contour doesn't win the contract the next go around. All it has been from there is complaints.

Airline delays, cancellations put strain on Ogdensburg police

“The airline itself has been the worst airline we’ve ever worked with out there. They delay, delay, delay for hours and hours and hours and so that officer I have on overtime is sitting there doing nothing,” said Ogdensburg Police Chief Mark Kearns.


https://www.wwnytv.com/2023/03/13/airli ... rg-police/

Contour has always had issues getting out of the evening bank in Philly on time, just like every other carrier in PHL.

One hour taxi times are not that unusual, especially when the Northeast is having weather and the routes are constricted. I have noticed them using the low altitude escapes routes out of PHL several times, but you can only do that in certain conditions. Just wait until the spring storms start.

Welcome to winter in the Northeast.

DOT has approved Key Lime Air and Southern Airways Express for Alliance and Chadron...

Alliance: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -8322-0170

Notes:By this Order, the U.S. Department of Transportation is selecting Key Lime Air Corp. d/b/a Denver Air Connection to provide Essential Air Service at Alliance, Nebraska, using 9-seat Fairchild Metroliner 23 aircraft, for the two-year term from June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2025. DAC will provide 12 weekly round trips from Alliance to Denver International Airport

Chadron: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -8322-0171

Notes: By this Order, the U.S. Department of Transportation is selecting Southern Airways Express, LLC to provide Essential Air Service at Chadron, Nebraska, using 9-seat King Air 200 (KA-200) or Pilatus PC-12 (PC-12) aircraft, for the two-year term from June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2025. Southern will provide 12 weekly round trips to Denver International Airport

Alex

LOL at least Chadron MAY get to have a pressurized plane now.....if Southern keep their promise haha.

What's going on at APN now? I hate using Simple Flying as a source for obvious reasons, but they're reporting that DTW-APN has been cut, and I can't find flights for the summer on DL's website. Anyone have any clue as to what's going on?

https://simpleflying.com/delta-air-line ... -schedule/

Also seems to be some shake ups in ESC and IMT with their routings. No longer are the MSP turns. Everything to/from DTW with a short ESC-IMT tag.

Peace

sprxUSA wrote:

LOL at least Chadron MAY get to have a pressurized plane now.....if Southern keep their promise haha.

When Pueblo was launched, the PUB airplane shares with CDR. It's always a PC-12 now (when it runs). It's also not a good schedule for CDR.

bomber996 wrote:

What's going on at APN now? I hate using Simple Flying as a source for obvious reasons, but they're reporting that DTW-APN has been cut, and I can't find flights for the summer on DL's website. Anyone have any clue as to what's going on?

https://simpleflying.com/delta-air-line ... -schedule/

APN has runway closed for construction: https://www.thealpenanews.com/news/loca ... t-subsidy/.

Interesting recruiting email popping up in the inboxes for Skywest Charter, I presume. Is this from Brookfield?

Quarter of a million dollars first year (including bonus for experienced, type rated Direct Entry CRJ captains, and $217,000 first year for FO’s with 500 hrs+ 121 time.
(OUCH….)

“On behalf of our client, one of the biggest FAR 121 operators in the US, we are currently hiring CL-65 Type Rated and Non-Type rated Captains and High Experienced FOs. This is a wonderful opportunity for Captains and High Experienced First Officers, who are looking for a quick upgrade or a Direct Entry as captains.

· Sign-on Bonus of up to 100.000 USD
· Fast-track applications and absolute priority is given to Brookfield Candidates

We offer competitive salaries and a long-term agreement, where you will be able to make:
· Direct Entry Captains earn up to 242.000 USD the 1st year including Bonus.
· First Officers earn up to 217.000 USD the 1st year including Bonus.

Pre-Hire Pay
· Our client is offering PRE-HIRE pay. All Pilots that are given an offer will receive pay from the employer until they start their training class.
· 75 guaranteed hours of pay
· Must start training within 6 months

Position:
· Looking for CL-65 Type Rated and Non-Type Rated pilots - Part 121 captains and First officers.
· Pilots with experience on Part 135 (PAX only) are eligible to join.
· Pilots will be covering regional flights.

· Training Paid 100%
· Monthly block hours guaranteed: 75 hrs
· Quick upgrade time for high experienced FOs.

Requirements:
· Direct Entry Captains: minimum 950 hours FAR-121
· Senior First Officers: Minimum 500 – 949 hours FAR- 121
· Pilots with experience on FAR 135 (PAX only) are eligible to join.

· Total time: 2,500 hrs
· PIC time: 500 hrs or SIC time: 1.000 hrs (Part 121 or 135)
· ME-Turbine: 500 hrs
· FCC restricted Radio Operator Permit.
· ATP - CTP eligible for application if meets the minimum requirements.

AA will serve GRI-DFW for another 2 year term. And the airport is getting an upgauge from E145 to CR7!

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2002-13983-0161

BangersAndMash wrote:

AA will serve GRI-DFW for another 2 year term. And the airport is getting an upgauge from E145 to CR7!

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2002-13983-0161

AA* has actually been using a CR7 at GRI for several years, even used a CR9 at times back in 2017. I guess the DOT is now making it official. GCK also now has CR7 service.

Chuska wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

AA will serve GRI-DFW for another 2 year term. And the airport is getting an upgauge from E145 to CR7!

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2002-13983-0161

AA* has actually been using a CR7 at GRI for several years, even used a CR9 at times back in 2017. I guess the DOT is now making it official. GCK also now has CR7 service.

Oh I know. But technically, they could change it any time since the old contract said E145 up to now. It's just nice to see that baked into the new contract. DOT are typically just rubber-stamping whatever aircraft operators pitch so I'd guess this is an AA move, not a DOT one. At a minimum, they wouldn't impose the change unless AA was on board.

BangersAndMash wrote:

Chuska wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

AA will serve GRI-DFW for another 2 year term. And the airport is getting an upgauge from E145 to CR7!

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2002-13983-0161

AA* has actually been using a CR7 at GRI for several years, even used a CR9 at times back in 2017. I guess the DOT is now making it official. GCK also now has CR7 service.

Oh I know. But technically, they could change it any time since the old contract said E145 up to now. It's just nice to see that baked into the new contract. DOT are typically just rubber-stamping whatever aircraft operators pitch so I'd guess this is an AA move, not a DOT one. At a minimum, they wouldn't impose the change unless AA was on board.

ER145s are no longer flying from DFW; this is definitely an AA move. You are correct, as long as seat numbers are in line, DOT doesn't really care what aircraft is serving an EAS market.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

ER145s are no longer flying from DFW; this is definitely an AA move. You are correct, as long as seat numbers are in line, DOT doesn't really care what aircraft is serving an EAS market.

DFW still sees 2 MQ E145s a day on DFW-CMI turns.

-R

theAviationGeek wrote:

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

ER145s are no longer flying from DFW; this is definitely an AA move. You are correct, as long as seat numbers are in line, DOT doesn't really care what aircraft is serving an EAS market.

DFW still sees 2 MQ E145s a day on DFW-CMI turns.

-R

Yes, you are correct- I knew those 2x daily flights were a vestige, but thought they'd been switched by now. It definitely seems odd that that single DFW route still has the -145, but from the schedules, the aircraft doesn't RON at DFW. It's been discussed on other threads, but I'm curious how long the -145 will stick around. As long as the aircraft doesn't stay at DFW for an extended period of time, I guess it could remain as long as MQ is still flying -145s.

Interesting article about how Williamsport lost the qualification for an EAS subsidy due to some U.S. Air shenanigans with DOT back in 2011. Now that the city has no air service, they suddenly care about it, and want back in to the EAS program.

https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-new ... issioners/