Hello All!

I was just reading that with the pull out of PenAir from multiple midwest markets that Skywest was chosen by the Kearney, NE City Counsel to be the new EAS provider at KEAR. I also read that Skywest has bids in for EAS service to other markets that PenAir is pulling out from such as North Platte, NE (KLBF) and Scottsbluff, NE (KBFF). Routes would be flown 12/week with CRJ-200s. Obviously these bids still have to have final approval from the Feds but this seems to be a trend with Skywest taking an at-risk approach with some EAS markets and having marketing agreements with one of the big three.

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/sk ... 2dfb4.html

http://www.starherald.com/news/local_ne ... 4cc5d.html

What routes does Skywest do at-risk flying? Are these all the flights with a 7xxx number regardless if its UA, DL, or AA? How much does the marketing agreement with DL, AA, and UA do for these communities vs. the likes of Boutique, ADI, or CapeAir?

I just booked a flight into BJI as it saved me over $300 rt vs. flying into GFK and noticed this seems to be one of the at-risk markets Skywest flies.. Thats worth a 200 mile round trip drive for me.

Peace

I've lost track of what routes Skywest flies at-risk outside of the EAS program, but they are in about 30 EAS markets (current and newly awarded) with another half dozen or so bids out there. Here's the list including markets awarded but not yet started (noted with *) and markets bid but not yet awarded (noted with **). Those of course could go elsewhere but Skywest has generally been winning when they bid.

Aberdeen SD
Alpena MI
Bemidji MN
Brainard MN
Butte MT
Cape Girardeau MO *
Cedar City UT
Clarkburg WV *
Cody WY
Decatur IL **
Devil's Lake ND
Dodge City KS **
Eau Claire WI
Escanaba MI
Greenbrier WV **
Hays KS
Hibbing MN
Houghton MI
International Falls MN
Iron Mountain MI
Jamestown ND
Kearney NE **
Laramie WY
Laurel MS
Liberal KS **
Merdidian MS
Moab UT *
Muskegon MI
North Platte NE **
Paducah KS
Pellston MI
Pueblo CO *
Quincy IL *
Rhinelander WI
Sault Ste Marie MI
Scottsbluff NE **
Staunton VA **
Vernal UT *
West Yellowstone MT

Skywest has been very active in the EAS arena as of late. It will be interesting to see how far down they go in bidding for small markets and if they are universally successful. Recently both Burlington IA and Decatur IL came up for bid, both being served by 9-passenger single engine aircraft. Skywest bid on Decatur but passed on Burlington.

I'm not sure what non-EAS markets are at-risk but if i can come up with a list I'll post.

Skywest didn't bid on Dodge City.

bomber996 wrote:

What routes does Skywest do at-risk flying? Are these all the flights with a 7xxx number regardless if its UA, DL, or AA? How much does the marketing agreement with DL, AA, and UA do for these communities vs. the likes of Boutique, ADI, or CapeAir?

From a passenger standpoint, there is absolutely zero difference. SkyWest flights operated into EAS cities are flown under the UA, DL, or AA brand depending on which carrier's hub the flights are operating into (I think many of these are UAX), and passengers buy their tickets through United, Delta, or American and enjoy all the same benefits as they would flying on a non-EAS SkyWest flight under one of their brands.

The only difference between this "at-risk" EAS flying and the typical regional flying is on the financial accounting end. Under the typical "capacity purchase agreement" that most regional flights operate under, SkyWest is paid a set fee from UA, DL, or AA to operate flights under their brand, compensating for their operating expenses with little to no "risk" to the regional operator.

These EAS cities are instead operated "at risk" by SkyWest, which means that SkyWest is assuming the operating costs for these routes. Tickets are still being purchased through AA, UA, or DL, but instead the revenues are typically split between the major and the regional based directly on the number of tickets being sold.

MO11 wrote:

Skywest didn't bid on Dodge City.

I think they did bid for Dodge City but the docket is is not on regulations.gov. That's because (a) when they first were posted I believe Liberal was out there twice, and (b) the Liberal proposal says six flights weekly will be nonstop and six will be one-stop. Liberal and Dodge City have been served round-robin in a loop . So my assumption is that they did bid for Dodge City but it is erroneously not posted.

I could of course be wrong and the six on-stop flights go via Hays or Pueblo. However usually the requires DoT and community approval unless their EAS bid specifies "no upline restrictions" which I don't think Skywest typically does.

It would seem odd to bid Liberal but not Dodge City as they are pretty identical in their traffic generation. Perhaps they feel Dodge City doesn't have much stimulation potential because it's only an hour from Garden City's RJ flights to Denver, but then again Liberal is only about ten minutes farther from Garden City.

OO has been active. They’ve used this to add flights at ORD and to follow AA at ORD for small / underserved markets.

DEC makes sense for them to ORD (still some corporate business).

They’ve been doing Cody and Iron Mountain as well.

knope2001 wrote:

It would seem odd to bid Liberal but not Dodge City as they are pretty identical in their traffic generation. Perhaps they feel Dodge City doesn't have much stimulation potential because it's only an hour from Garden City's RJ flights to Denver, but then again Liberal is only about ten minutes farther from Garden City.

I meant to type Dallas, not Denver. Garden City is AA* to DFW, and if I recall correctly Dodge City supported Garden City's bid to lure AA* years back, saying they would continue to seek props to Denver (Great Lakes at the time) but the region would benefit from Garden City getting RJ's to Dallas.

The MW cities seem to have done well from DFW and ORD on AA. Probably part of Parker’s strategy at ORD.

knope2001 wrote:

I've lost track of what routes Skywest flies at-risk outside of the EAS program, but they are in about 30 EAS markets (current and newly awarded) with another half dozen or so bids out there. Here's the list including markets awarded but not yet started (noted with *) and markets bid but not yet awarded (noted with **). Those of course could go elsewhere but Skywest has generally been winning when they bid.

Aberdeen SD
Alpena MI
Bemidji MN
Brainard MN
Butte MT
Cape Girardeau MO *
Cedar City UT
Clarkburg WV *
Cody WY
Decatur IL **
Devil's Lake ND
Dodge City KS **
Eau Claire WI
Escanaba MI
Greenbrier WV **
Hays KS
Hibbing MN
Houghton MI
International Falls MN
Iron Mountain MI
Jamestown ND
Kearney NE **
Laramie WY
Laurel MS
Liberal KS **
Merdidian MS
Moab UT *
Muskegon MI
North Platte NE **
Paducah KS
Pellston MI
Pueblo CO *
Quincy IL *
Rhinelander WI
Sault Ste Marie MI
Scottsbluff NE **
Staunton VA **
Vernal UT *
West Yellowstone MT

These all look correct to me.

bomber996 wrote:

What routes does Skywest do at-risk flying? Are these all the flights with a 7xxx number regardless if its UA, DL, or AA?

Here is the full list both EAS and non-EAS flying the SkyWest does separated by hub and carrier. As well as flight numbers. I'll only do the cities that are currently operating not the recently awarded EAS contracts.

This list is current as of September 2017. By next month it will change.

For Delta Express flight number range from 4277-4296 and 7359-7439

From SLC:
BTM - Butte, MT
CDC - Cedar City, UT
COD - Cody, WY
CPR - Casper, WY
EKO - Elko, NV
GJT - Grand Junction, CO
LWS - Lewiston, ID
PIH - Pocatello, ID
SGU - St George, UT
TWF - Twin Falls, ID
WYS - West Yellowstone, MT (Summer Seasonal)

From MSP:
ABR - Aberdeen, SD
BJI - Bemidji - MN
BRD - Brainerd, MN
HIB - Hibbing, MN
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
INL - International Falls, MN
LSE - La Crosse, WI
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MN
RHI - Rhinelander, WI

From DTW:
APN - Alpena, MI
BGM - Binghamton, NY
CIU - Sault Ste Marie, MI
ERI - Erie, PA
ESC - Escanaba, MI
IMT - Iron Mountain, WI
ITH - Ithaca, NY
MQT/SAW - Marquette, MI
PLN - Pellston, MI
SCE/UNV - State College, PA
SWF - Newburgh, NY

For United Express flight numbers range from 5000-5175

From SFO:
ONT - Ontario, CA
OTH - North Bend, OR
PSC - Pasco, WA
SBP - San Luis Obispo, CA
SMF - Sacramento, CA

From LAX:
MRY - Monterey, CA
SBA - Santa Barbara, CA

From DEN:
DVL - Devils Lake, ND
GCC - Gillette, WY
HYS - Hays, KS
JMS - Jamestown, ND
LAR - Laramie, WY
RKS - Rock Springs, WY
SGU - St George, UT

From ORD:
AVL - Asheville, NC
CMX - Houghton/Hancock, MI
DLH - Duluth, MN
EAU - Eau Claire, WI
FWA - Fort Wayne, IN
MBS - Saginaw, MI
MKG - Muskegon, MI
PAH - Paducah, KY
SPI - Springfield, IL

For American Eagle flight numbers range from 3110-3134

From PHX:
SGU - St George, UT

From DFW:
MEI - Meridian, MS
PIE - Hattiesburg, MS

From ORD:
CHO - Charlottesville, VA
ICT - Wichita, KS
MEI - Meridian, MS
MKE - Milwaukee, WI
PIE - Hattiesburg, MI
YUL - Montreal, Canada

bomber996 wrote:

How much does the marketing agreement with DL, AA, and UA do for these communities vs. the likes of Boutique, ADI, or CapeAir?

With the brand recognition and the easier connection opportunities I'm sure it doesn't hurt to be able to market and sell these flights as DL, AA, UA flights. As long as Fuel Prices are low enough I expect SkyWest to continue to make bids and look at all opportunities for additional at-risk flying.

LAX-SBP is also a SkyWest at-risk flight missing from that list.

And I agree that SkyWest will continue to look for additional at-risk flights. It has been giving a lot of these CRJ200's some new business.

And at what point does/can the legacy decide to take it from an at-risk to a normal CPA flight? SFO-SMF is one example that has gained a mainline UA flight alongside at-risk flights. SFO-ONT has been one I was curious at as it is flown almost 10x a day by SkyWest on CRJ200's and can easily be consolidated down or at least have some 2-class RJ's or mainline put on it.

Thanks for the list, mountainwest90!

I wondered the same thing as ericm2031 -- I'm curious how the United situations work where SkyWest has at-risk flying in a city pair but there are other carriers -- mainline and/or Commutair, Air Wisconsin, etc -- in the same market. MKE-ORD has a fairly fluid mix of carriers including SkyWest, for example. Does United still do the scheduling and frequency determination and the only difference is that SkyWest isn't paid as CPA but as at-risk for their particular segments?

Not sure if you know or not but thought I'd ask out of curiosity. Thanks again for the information!

That list is interesting, on the Delta side. There are a number of destinations that were previously (within 6-10 months) flown by DCI carriers who didn't do any pro-rate flying. Places like ERI, SCE/UNV, BGM, MQT, LSE and SWF. I wonder if they're simply using those flight numbers in an effort to consolidate the numbers and they truly aren't at risk markets.

ericm2031 wrote:

And at what point does/can the legacy decide to take it from an at-risk to a normal CPA flight? SFO-SMF is one example that has gained a mainline UA flight alongside at-risk flights. SFO-ONT has been one I was curious at as it is flown almost 10x a day by SkyWest on CRJ200's and can easily be consolidated down or at least have some 2-class RJ's or mainline put on it.

I don't have an answer for that, but SUN is an example of that happening. OO served the market at-risk with Brasilias until the CR7s were brought in. Now all the SUN flying is CPA.

ericm2031 wrote:

LAX-SBP is also a SkyWest at-risk flight missing from that list.

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that one.

ericm2031 wrote:

And at what point does/can the legacy decide to take it from an at-risk to a normal CPA flight? SFO-SMF is one example that has gained a mainline UA flight alongside at-risk flights. SFO-ONT has been one I was curious at as it is flown almost 10x a day by SkyWest on CRJ200's and can easily be consolidated down or at least have some 2-class RJ's or mainline put on it.

That's a good question and I don't have any answer for that either. My guess is that there is some kind of gentlemen's agreement between
OO and the mainline carrier. Since all at-risk flying is done on CRJ2's I'd say that when the mainline carrier wants to upgrade to larger aircraft
is when it goes under CPA. I could see SFO - ONT getting to that point soon. In addition I could see AA ORD - ICT, UA ORD - DLH, AA ORD - MKE, and maybe DL SLC - GJT, and SLC - SGU (this one is complicated).

What would be interesting if a carrier say UA comes to OO and says, "Hey, we are going to put ORD - DLH under CPA, but we are going to have XXX regional fly it and not OO. But hey, thanks for developing the market for us!"

knope2001 wrote:

MKE-ORD has a fairly fluid mix of carriers including SkyWest, for example. Does United still do the scheduling and frequency determination and the only difference is that SkyWest isn't paid as CPA but as at-risk for their particular segments?

For UA MKE - ORD is under CPA so they determine everything for that route.

The at-risk flying that SkyWest does between MKE-ORD is for AA which is far as I can tell OO is the only carrier flying for AA between the cities.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

That list is interesting, on the Delta side. There are a number of destinations that were previously (within 6-10 months) flown by DCI carriers who didn't do any pro-rate flying. Places like ERI, SCE/UNV, BGM, MQT, LSE and SWF. I wonder if they're simply using those flight numbers in an effort to consolidate the numbers and they truly aren't at risk markets.

No I'm pretty sure that all these flights are at-risk by OO. Another clue is that nearly all these stations are handled by OO ground handling.

mountainwest90 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

LAX-SBP is also a SkyWest at-risk flight missing from that list.

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that one.

ericm2031 wrote:

And at what point does/can the legacy decide to take it from an at-risk to a normal CPA flight? SFO-SMF is one example that has gained a mainline UA flight alongside at-risk flights. SFO-ONT has been one I was curious at as it is flown almost 10x a day by SkyWest on CRJ200's and can easily be consolidated down or at least have some 2-class RJ's or mainline put on it.

That's a good question and I don't have any answer for that either. My guess is that there is some kind of gentlemen's agreement between
OO and the mainline carrier. Since all at-risk flying is done on CRJ2's I'd say that when the mainline carrier wants to upgrade to larger aircraft
is when it goes under CPA. I could see SFO - ONT getting to that point soon. In addition I could see AA ORD - ICT, UA ORD - DLH, AA ORD - MKE, and maybe DL SLC - GJT, and SLC - SGU (this one is complicated).

What would be interesting if a carrier say UA comes to OO and says, "Hey, we are going to put ORD - DLH under CPA, but we are going to have XXX regional fly it and not OO. But hey, thanks for developing the market for us!"

knope2001 wrote:

MKE-ORD has a fairly fluid mix of carriers including SkyWest, for example. Does United still do the scheduling and frequency determination and the only difference is that SkyWest isn't paid as CPA but as at-risk for their particular segments?

For UA MKE - ORD is under CPA so they determine everything for that route.

The at-risk flying that SkyWest does between MKE-ORD is for AA which is far as I can tell OO is the only carrier flying for AA between the cities.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

That list is interesting, on the Delta side. There are a number of destinations that were previously (within 6-10 months) flown by DCI carriers who didn't do any pro-rate flying. Places like ERI, SCE/UNV, BGM, MQT, LSE and SWF. I wonder if they're simply using those flight numbers in an effort to consolidate the numbers and they truly aren't at risk markets.

No I'm pretty sure that all these flights are at-risk by OO. Another clue is that nearly all these stations are handled by OO ground handling.

I can 100% tell you that OO does not run ground handing in ERI, SCE, SWF or LSE. They are DGS stations and I'd be willing to bet they aren't at risk. As little as 6 months ago they were flown by 9E, which obviously isn't an at risk carrier. But, its painfully obvious that you work for OO and are trying to make your company look better than it really is, the drag on the unified labor that the airline world needs.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

I can 100% tell you that OO does not run ground handing in ERI, SCE, SWF or LSE. They are DGS stations and I'd be willing to bet they aren't at risk. As little as 6 months ago they were flown by 9E, which obviously isn't an at risk carrier. But, its painfully obvious that you work for OO and are trying to make your company look better than it really is, the drag on the unified labor that the airline world needs.

All four of those stations are on the OO at-risk route map for the DL system. Three are OO ground handled (LSE is DGS).

oosnowrat wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

I can 100% tell you that OO does not run ground handing in ERI, SCE, SWF or LSE. They are DGS stations and I'd be willing to bet they aren't at risk. As little as 6 months ago they were flown by 9E, which obviously isn't an at risk carrier. But, its painfully obvious that you work for OO and are trying to make your company look better than it really is, the drag on the unified labor that the airline world needs.

All four of those stations are on the OO at-risk route map for the DL system. Three are OO ground handled (LSE is DGS).

Well that's surprising, must have changed within the last 3-5 months. Just another peg on OO's attempt to kill this industry.

Just a thought on some cities switching from CPA flying to at-risk:

It could be that the changes are deliberately made by the major carrier. Maybe pax numbers aren't great enough to keep serving the city at a blanket CPA rate, so they "downgrade" the route to a regional willing to operate it at-risk. That way, the major has less skin in the game if the route makes money or not.

JBo wrote:

Just a thought on some cities switching from CPA flying to at-risk:

It could be that the changes are deliberately made by the major carrier. Maybe pax numbers aren't great enough to keep serving the city at a blanket CPA rate, so they "downgrade" the route to a regional willing to operate it at-risk. That way, the major has less skin in the game if the route makes money or not.

Most of the markets that have switched from CPA to at-risk are a result of less than stellar margins. The at-risk operation gets all the benefit of the connecting customers but with the acceptance of the fact that the margin will be lower.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Well that's surprising, must have changed within the last 3-5 months. Just another peg on OO's attempt to kill this industry.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

Basically, when OO launched ORD-DLH and AVL back in 2009, it was with the understanding that they would be guaranteed the opportunity to fly it "pro-rate" for a certain period of time, I believe 36 months. After that UA can ask for the route back and put it under CPA

FWA and SGU are tricky because of maintenance bases, as MKE was (MKE on UAX was 100% at-risk OO from late 2008 to the close of the merger - a very large station to be completely pro-rate). The merger meant that MKE-EWR/IAH/CLE were CPA and made the bandaid easier to rip off, especially when MKE-DEN became lucrative again after F9 closed the MKE focus city.

KGRB wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Well that's surprising, must have changed within the last 3-5 months. Just another peg on OO's attempt to kill this industry.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

I agree. SkyWest is definitely a very well run operation compared to the other regionals. I doubt they are the cheapest, but it shows in what you pay for.

Is OO the only carrier that operates these kind of at-risk markets? Does 9K's GUM operation fall under the same agreement? I really see this as the best way for some of these communities to up their passenger numbers.

Peace

KGRB wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Well that's surprising, must have changed within the last 3-5 months. Just another peg on OO's attempt to kill this industry.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

They, the employees, continue to vote in sub-par, sub market average contracts (well, they aren't contracts because they're non-union) to accumulate more flying at the expense of their other company within the holding company. Putting many very senior and quality employees out on the street, meanwhile OO continues to get away with paying less than a fair wage.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

KGRB wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Well that's surprising, must have changed within the last 3-5 months. Just another peg on OO's attempt to kill this industry.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

They, the employees, continue to vote in sub-par, sub market average contracts (well, they aren't contracts because they're non-union) to accumulate more flying at the expense of their other company within the holding company. Putting many very senior and quality employees out on the street, meanwhile OO continues to get away with paying less than a fair wage.

How are they paying less than a fair wage? A quick comparison of pay scales shows SkyWest pilots to be at most years $1-2 per hour higher than Expressjet. Apart from the legacy XJT B-fund that no other regional has, SkyWest pilots are right in line with other top regionals and have well above average work rules for a regional.

drdisque wrote:

FWA and SGU are tricky because of maintenance bases.

There is no MX base in SGU. OO rotates the AA at-risk SGU aircraft either back and forth from the DL system into SLC or upgrades a flight to SGU and downgrades a flight to PSP or FAT to get the plane into an MX base.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

KGRB wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Well that's surprising, must have changed within the last 3-5 months. Just another peg on OO's attempt to kill this industry.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

They, the employees, continue to vote in sub-par, sub market average contracts (well, they aren't contracts because they're non-union) to accumulate more flying at the expense of their other company within the holding company. Putting many very senior and quality employees out on the street, meanwhile OO continues to get away with paying less than a fair wage.

I applied for an HR job at OO, that required a college degree. At that time I had about 8 years working in HR. They offered me a salary of $27,000/year, a joke.

'902

Alias1024 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

KGRB wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

They, the employees, continue to vote in sub-par, sub market average contracts (well, they aren't contracts because they're non-union) to accumulate more flying at the expense of their other company within the holding company. Putting many very senior and quality employees out on the street, meanwhile OO continues to get away with paying less than a fair wage.

How are they paying less than a fair wage? A quick comparison of pay scales shows SkyWest pilots to be at most years $1-2 per hour higher than Expressjet. Apart from the legacy XJT B-fund that no other regional has, SkyWest pilots are right in line with other top regionals and have well above average work rules for a regional.

There's no security in that wage, the company could come in tomorrow and slash their pay rates. There is no safety factor in manning 3 types of CRJ's with the same pilot group. There's no protection from the company doing whatever they want to meet profitability, including gutting benefits. No limit in how much that the company can schedule crews (other than legal limits), causing OO crews to be pushed more and more and more as they have to absorb more flying with fewer pilots.

Skywest does not have well above average work rules, they have no work rules. Without a CBA, they can't have a defined set of rules.

Skywest may start serving SHD ( Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport in Staunton, Virginia) to either IAD or ORD if the DOT approves it. Currently Via Air serves the airport, but airport leaders are not happy with the airline.

http://www.whsv.com/content/news/SHD-mi ... 32773.html

knope2001 wrote:

MO11 wrote:

Skywest didn't bid on Dodge City.

I think they did bid for Dodge City but the docket is is not on regulations.gov. That's because (a) when they first were posted I believe Liberal was out there twice, and (b) the Liberal proposal says six flights weekly will be nonstop and six will be one-stop. Liberal and Dodge City have been served round-robin in a loop . So my assumption is that they did bid for Dodge City but it is erroneously not posted.

I could of course be wrong and the six on-stop flights go via Hays or Pueblo. However usually the requires DoT and community approval unless their EAS bid specifies "no upline restrictions" which I don't think Skywest typically does.

It would seem odd to bid Liberal but not Dodge City as they are pretty identical in their traffic generation. Perhaps they feel Dodge City doesn't have much stimulation potential because it's only an hour from Garden City's RJ flights to Denver, but then again Liberal is only about ten minutes farther from Garden City.

Liberal endorsed Skywest's bid, and in their reply referenced that one flight would stop in Pueblo. That suggests that it wasn't a posting error but that most likely Dodge City was 1bid for by Skywest. It will be interesting to see what comes of Dodge City.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

There's no security in that wage, the company could come in tomorrow and slash their pay rates.

Sure. If management wants a mass exodus of pilots, the operation to grind to a halt, and a union quickly certified they could try that. If they want to keep running a successful and profitable airline they won't. There would also likely be legal challenges as employment law often recognizes an employee handbook or similar manual as legally binding.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

There is no safety factor in manning 3 types of CRJ's with the same pilot group.

I guess there is also no safety factor at AA, UA, and DL since all three have the same pilot group fly 757s and 767s. No safety factor at WN with their pilots switching between 733s, 73Gs, and 738s. There was no safety at NW when they ran multiple variants of DC-9, including the -10 that lacked leading edge devices like the CRJ-200, etc...

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Skywest does not have well above average work rules, they have no work rules. Without a CBA, they can't have a defined set of rules.

Again, this is wrong. It's defined right there in the policy manuals. If it's in the manual it's generally legally binding under employment law in this country. It's not like scheduling can just make up a rule or disregard what's in the manual to change your schedule or take away pay.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

No limit in how much that the company can schedule crews (other than legal limits), causing OO crews to be pushed more and more and more as they have to absorb more flying with fewer pilots.

Skywest does not have well above average work rules, they have no work rules. Without a CBA, they can't have a defined set of rules.

I worked in crew scheduling for a large regional airline that flies CRJs for about two years. In my experience contract work rules rarely came into play, as FAR117 was far more restrictive in most cases than the contract. Just to give you an example, the contract allowed rest reduced to 8 hours - not legal under FAR117.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

There's no security in that wage, the company could come in tomorrow and slash their pay rates. There is no safety factor in manning 3 types of CRJ's with the same pilot group. There's no protection from the company doing whatever they want to meet profitability, including gutting benefits. No limit in how much that the company can schedule crews (other than legal limits), causing OO crews to be pushed more and more and more as they have to absorb more flying with fewer pilots.

Skywest does not have well above average work rules, they have no work rules. Without a CBA, they can't have a defined set of rules.

SkyWest has some of the best employees in the business. They are by far the best regional carrier in the world.

Given those two things your comment sounds more like a Union pitch rather than a well reasoned reply.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

KGRB wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Well that's surprising, must have changed within the last 3-5 months. Just another peg on OO's attempt to kill this industry.

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

They, the employees, continue to vote in sub-par, sub market average contracts (well, they aren't contracts because they're non-union) to accumulate more flying at the expense of their other company within the holding company. Putting many very senior and quality employees out on the street, meanwhile OO continues to get away with paying less than a fair wage.

Nothing wrong with that as long as shareholders like myself are happy.

WesternA318 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

KGRB wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why do you have such a negative opinion of SkyWest? I have worked in the airline industry for a number of years and I've always found SkyWest to be one of the better-run and more professional regionals.

They, the employees, continue to vote in sub-par, sub market average contracts (well, they aren't contracts because they're non-union) to accumulate more flying at the expense of their other company within the holding company. Putting many very senior and quality employees out on the street, meanwhile OO continues to get away with paying less than a fair wage.

Nothing wrong with that as long as shareholders like myself are happy.

So then sell your stock now, while its at nearly an all time high. Because Skywest simply won't be able to keep this growth and staffing level up. They can't absorb the 200's their adding this year, plus add Alaska 175/CRJ flying, plus add the Delta 175 flying, plus try to add more rumored flying. They simply can't find that many pilots, yet for some reason they just decided to dump a vast resource of pilots on the street at XJT, simply because they're organized labor and want to lookout for themselves. Former XJT pilots would much rather watch SGU burn to the ground than take the joke of employment benefits they'd get by moving to OO.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

WesternA318 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

They, the employees, continue to vote in sub-par, sub market average contracts (well, they aren't contracts because they're non-union) to accumulate more flying at the expense of their other company within the holding company. Putting many very senior and quality employees out on the street, meanwhile OO continues to get away with paying less than a fair wage.

Nothing wrong with that as long as shareholders like myself are happy.

So then sell your stock now, while its at nearly an all time high. Because Skywest simply won't be able to keep this growth and staffing level up. They can't absorb the 200's their adding this year, plus add Alaska 175/CRJ flying, plus add the Delta 175 flying, plus try to add more rumored flying. They simply can't find that many pilots, yet for some reason they just decided to dump a vast resource of pilots on the street at XJT, simply because they're organized labor and want to lookout for themselves. Former XJT pilots would much rather watch SGU burn to the ground than take the joke of employment benefits they'd get by moving to OO.

My family's held stock in OO since the mid-80's, it's not going anywhere. If the pilots dont like what they are offered, they should stay on the street.

...Meanwhile, back to the subject of EAS flying, not employee relations...

Can anyone confirm if the 7xxx series flight numbers are the at-risk flights? Or are there others aswell?

Peace

bomber996 wrote:

Can anyone confirm if the 7xxx series flight numbers are the at-risk flights? Or are there others aswell?

I posted them in reply #9 but I'll be happy to post again.

Delta flights are 4277-4296 and 7359-7439
United flights are 5000-5175
American flights are 3110-3134

Skywest might be returning to LMT too.

"A team of city and community leaders are “cautiously optimistic” about returning commercial air service to Klamath Falls through SkyWest after pitching an incentive package to the airline on Tuesday valued at $850,000 in revenue guarantees and services.

The team, represented by City Manager Nathan Cherpeski, Crater Lake-Klamath Regional Airport Director John Barsalou, Discover Klamath Executive Director Jim Chadderdon, Klamath County Economic Development Association Executive Director Greg O’Sullivan, and Sky Lakes Medical Center Chief Executive Officer Paul Stewart, traveled to St. George, Utah, the home base of SkyWest, to make the pitch.

The pitch includes a commitment of $250,000 from the city of Klamath Falls, $250,000 from Klamath County, and $250,000 from Sky Lakes Medical Center, as well as $100,000 of in-kind marketing services from an unnamed resource, according to Barsalou."

https://www.heraldandnews.com/klamath/k ... c195d.html

https://www.heraldandnews.com/news/loca ... 42182.html


Not sure how well it will work out long-term though. Wish they could get this airport part of the EAS.

ORD-CHO is interesting because it used to be operated by American Eagle/Envoy and was thus a CPA route (although owned carrier). It then became At-risk for OO and then subsequently UA added it as a CPA route (currently operated by Trans States).

Looks like Skywest is/was in the running for Decatur, IL. Currently served by Air Choice One. In a straw poll vote it is 3 votes for Cape Air to take over and 2 for Skywest. Obviously, only needs 1 to flip by Friday or have DOT decide on Skywest instead.

http://www.wandtv.com/story/36741133/pa ... ir-service

Does Cape air drop off pax at a FBO??

amcnd wrote:

Does Cape air drop off pax at a FBO??

Cape operates within the secure airside at STL, and I assume the same will be in Chicago if they get the bid.

On a separate note SkyWest was awarded North Platte, Scottsbluff and Liberal. No word on Kearney yet -- they want Skywest but the runway improvements needed won't be ready until much later in 2018 so they are asking the DoT to award to Skywest and go without service until the airport is ready.