AntonioMartin wrote:

Wow..didnt see that coming! Wonder who will take Great Lakes' extensive service from Phoenix to outer Arizona cities such as Prescott and Show Low, or if they too will be laid to rest alongside Great Lakes.

Although not a major airline, Great Lakes was a presence for many years-decades actually, becoming a legend of its own, specially in the commuter airline world. RIP GLA!

jetstream3399 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

MO11 wrote:

Border Coast Regional Airport Authority is the one that needs to worry about filling planes. It is chartering the aircraft from Contour, so Contour should have figured out how much it would take to run that schedule, and passed the appropriate cost on to the Authority. And moving the airplanes between Crescent City and Smyrna for maintenance would have to be a somewhat extraordinary expense.

Then you are in Oakland with no code shares. Please. Everyone will continue to use ACV.

The service is actually doing extremely well - booked to over a 50% load factor in April already and with 30+ more days to continue to add traffic. I don't know that this is the best option for connecting travelers but for local O&D to the Bay Area, of which there is plenty from the region, this represents a welcome change from the $300+ one way fares that United has been charging from ACV and MFR. In fact, the newspaper article that came out shortly after tickets went on sale quoted one of the first passengers that booked as from ACV and willing to drive just to to CEC just to save the extra money. Say what you will about Contour but their TUP-BNA service runs about 80% full and MCN-BWI runs about 70% full on a 30-seat ERJ with twice daily service. Filling a 30-seat ERJ with an inexpensive daily flight should not be particularly difficult since the traffic study that was done actually showed the Bay Area as the largest traffic market from the CEC area.

wjuddsonk wrote:

It's a sad day that anyone loses their job in aviation and an airline dies.

flight152 wrote:

wjuddsonk wrote:

It's a sad day that anyone loses their job in aviation and an airline dies.

It’s also a sad story of an airline that took advantage of its employees for years and paid barely living wages.

QXAS wrote:

Well this is a shame. I use them to get home from school in Prescott because I hate taking the shuttle to Phoenix. Connecting in LAX was so easy because they used T6 and I fly AS exclusively between LAX and SEA. Sad to see them go. Crossing my fingers QX brings back the LAX-PRC-FLG tag. Coincidentally my first ever QX flight was when they were introducing that flight. It was on the magazine cover. I was on the Portland shuttle that day. Thought nothing of it. Now I’m hoping they bring it back. But it’s more for convinience than anything. It’s certainly not “essential”.

Frontier14 wrote:

There are a lot of Big 3 pilots out there that got there start with Great Lakes. The FAA change in Part 135 pilot flight hour requirements really did Lakes in. Their service after that collapsed, as was evident in the loss of so much of the EAS flying. Good memories of flying the Rockies in the ol' Beechs.

Frontier 14

lightsaber wrote:

Where can pilots without an ATP gain hours now in the USA?

FlyingElvii wrote:

Frontier14 wrote:

There are a lot of Big 3 pilots out there that got there start with Great Lakes. The FAA change in Part 135 pilot flight hour requirements really did Lakes in. Their service after that collapsed, as was evident in the loss of so much of the EAS flying. Good memories of flying the Rockies in the ol' Beechs.

Frontier 14

Great Lakes is a LONG story with many ups and downs.
As far as paying "Living Wages", as has been noted before, if you still have resumes arriving on the desk, there is no need to raise wages. Sucks, but there it is.

The destruction of the economy in the Mid-2000's, as well as the complete lack of any suitable replacement aircraft in that segment were major contributors to the fall, IMHO. GL's planes weren't just old, they were OLD..., with everything that entails. Between Clinton's Mid-90's "Reforms", and the arbitrary hours rule, I am surprised that they made it this long.

wedgetail737 wrote:

One would think QX would be on top of this for hiring pilots and 1st officers. QX brought in almost all of the Island Air's pilots fairly quickly.

lightsaber wrote:

Where can pilots without an ATP gain hours now in the USA?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

One would think QX would be on top of this for hiring pilots and 1st officers. QX brought in almost all of the Island Air's pilots fairly quickly.

All 17 of them? They'll go where they want.

Varsity1 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Where can pilots without an ATP gain hours now in the USA?

Non-turbojet 135 doesn't have the same hour rules as TJet135 and 121 (1500). You can fly in the right seat of normal 135 at 500 hours and be a captain at 1200 hours.

Great lakes was literally just THAT bad. Flying super expensive B1900's doesn't help when your competition is flying Pc-12's with exactly half the fuel burn.


Had they bought PC-12's, ZK would still be here today.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Where can pilots without an ATP gain hours now in the USA?

Non-turbojet 135 doesn't have the same hour rules as TJet135 and 121 (1500). You can fly in the right seat of normal 135 at 500 hours and be a captain at 1200 hours.

Great lakes was literally just THAT bad. Flying super expensive B1900's doesn't help when your competition is flying Pc-12's with exactly half the fuel burn.


Had they bought PC-12's, ZK would still be here today.

Of course the PC-12's have exactly half of the fuel burn of the 1900's...the PC-12's have exactly half the engines of the 1900's. PC-12's have less than half of the passenger capacity as well.

Varsity1 wrote:

Great lakes was literally just THAT bad. Flying super expensive B1900's doesn't help when your competition is flying Pc-12's with exactly half the fuel burn.


Had they bought PC-12's, ZK would still be here today.

Varsity1 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Non-turbojet 135 doesn't have the same hour rules as TJet135 and 121 (1500). You can fly in the right seat of normal 135 at 500 hours and be a captain at 1200 hours.

Great lakes was literally just THAT bad. Flying super expensive B1900's doesn't help when your competition is flying Pc-12's with exactly half the fuel burn.


Had they bought PC-12's, ZK would still be here today.

Of course the PC-12's have exactly half of the fuel burn of the 1900's...the PC-12's have exactly half the engines of the 1900's. PC-12's have less than half of the passenger capacity as well.

ZK flies alot of their B1900's on the EAS routes sched 135 (9 seats).

rajincajun01 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Great lakes was literally just THAT bad. Flying super expensive B1900's doesn't help when your competition is flying Pc-12's with exactly half the fuel burn.


Had they bought PC-12's, ZK would still be here today.

Very short sighted comment. Boutique Air has lost out on many of their EAS bids (especially from DEN) due to only having one engined aircraft. It’s not ideal in a mountainous area to many communities. Hence why they have invested in King Air 350s.

The other issue is weight limitations. GLA’s passengers often had heavier baggage items (ie skis and coolers) that the PC-12 is limited with.

GLA had its issues, but solely putting blame on not buying PC-12s wasn’t a sole decision that could have saved them.

Varsity1 wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Great lakes was literally just THAT bad. Flying super expensive B1900's doesn't help when your competition is flying Pc-12's with exactly half the fuel burn.


Had they bought PC-12's, ZK would still be here today.

Very short sighted comment. Boutique Air has lost out on many of their EAS bids (especially from DEN) due to only having one engined aircraft. It’s not ideal in a mountainous area to many communities. Hence why they have invested in King Air 350s.

The other issue is weight limitations. GLA’s passengers often had heavier baggage items (ie skis and coolers) that the PC-12 is limited with.

GLA had its issues, but solely putting blame on not buying PC-12s wasn’t a sole decision that could have saved them.

uh, no bud. Try again!

rajincajun01 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

Very short sighted comment. Boutique Air has lost out on many of their EAS bids (especially from DEN) due to only having one engined aircraft. It’s not ideal in a mountainous area to many communities. Hence why they have invested in King Air 350s.

The other issue is weight limitations. GLA’s passengers often had heavier baggage items (ie skis and coolers) that the PC-12 is limited with.

GLA had its issues, but solely putting blame on not buying PC-12s wasn’t a sole decision that could have saved them.

uh, no bud. Try again!

Where are your facts then? Research what I stated and come back with an answer better than a 16 year old would give.

bomber996 wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

uh, no bud. Try again!

Where are your facts then? Research what I stated and come back with an answer better than a 16 year old would give.

Great Lakes could have in no way afforded the PC-12. They could barely keep their fleet aloft as it was. None of their aircraft had GPS and at least the 1900s did not have autopilot. Air Traffic Control would constantly have to vector aircraft for shortcuts. If you cannot afford GPS, how could you afford a much newer aircraft? This not even considering the debt they defaulted on back in 2015.

http://www.kgwn.tv/home/headlines/Great ... 73861.html

They were doomed when they pulled 10 seats out of their 1900s. Only a matter of time once they did that.

Peace

RJNUT wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

bomber996 wrote:

Great Lakes could have in no way afforded the PC-12. They could barely keep their fleet aloft as it was. None of their aircraft had GPS and at least the 1900s did not have autopilot. Air Traffic Control would constantly have to vector aircraft for shortcuts. If you cannot afford GPS, how could you afford a much newer aircraft? This not even considering the debt they defaulted on back in 2015.

http://www.kgwn.tv/home/headlines/Great ... 73861.html

They were doomed when they pulled 10 seats out of their 1900s. Only a matter of time once they did that.

Peace

What do the seats have to do with it? They were EAS routes that wouldn't fill a 19 seater anyways. They were bid as such and subsidized.

I assumed they pulled the seats in order to operate under PART 135 which had lowered pilot qualifications. Someone help me out there?!

RJNUT wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

bomber996 wrote:

Great Lakes could have in no way afforded the PC-12. They could barely keep their fleet aloft as it was. None of their aircraft had GPS and at least the 1900s did not have autopilot. Air Traffic Control would constantly have to vector aircraft for shortcuts. If you cannot afford GPS, how could you afford a much newer aircraft? This not even considering the debt they defaulted on back in 2015.

http://www.kgwn.tv/home/headlines/Great ... 73861.html

They were doomed when they pulled 10 seats out of their 1900s. Only a matter of time once they did that.

Peace

What do the seats have to do with it? They were EAS routes that wouldn't fill a 19 seater anyways. They were bid as such and subsidized.

I assumed they pulled the seats in order to operate under PART 135 which had lowered pilot qualifications. Someone help me out there?!