rickair7777

DAL is not big in MKE... As long as SKW keeps it out of ATL (and other DAL hubs) it should not be an issue.


This is really just more traditional regional feed, with more risk assumed than in the past.

But I sure hope those guys have some scope...

Hawaii50

Hmmm. I think NW looked at MKE as their home turf. I guess we'll find out soon enough what the combined DL/NW thinks. One thing that is clear is that SKW is trying desperately to find a home for the 50 seat flying. Wonder if DL will insist on an at-risk deal when their contract comes up for renewal?

PropDriver

Are you saying that in the at-risk agreements with UAL and DAL, SKW is flying branded operations as a code share?

MD80

True, but will SKW stop at 50 seat flying? Because this is a code-share type agreement can SkyWest bring some bigger equipment on to other AirTran routes.

This could be Airtran outsourcing flying to cheaper labor

If Republic did it, so can SkyWest.

Killer51883

in some ways this is airtran being outsourced by cheaper labor mixed with air tran trying desperately to maintain their market share in MKE. The routes that they are flying are routes that compete directly with the larger cities chautauqua flies in the midwest paint. Also these are cities that airtran randomly announced in an effort to compete with midwest that were simply there to provide feed to the main midwest operation. In some ways its good that they realized they cant sustain a PIT-MKE or IND-MKE with a 717 but I doubt there is that much of a market between those cities or even connections on the midwest or airtran systems that could justify the routes when your already competeing with your own route structure via ATL and MCO along with the other airlines that serve those cities (ie, EVERYONE)

JetJock16

In the PDX and SLC EMB systems (as well as some of the flying in the LAX, SFO, DEN and ORD EMB/CRJ systems) SKW assumes the risk and therefore has control of the scheduling and pricing, UAL and DAL just sell the tickets.

The main difference here, that I understand, is that we will actually be able to call ourselves SkyWest even though the passengers purchased the tickets through AirTran. In our Agreement with UAL and DAL they still want the flight to be called “United Express” or “Delta Connection.”

Regardless I see the setup being fundamentally the same.

JetJock16

Cheaper? Yes and no. Per hour.....yes. Per seat....no.

Not all of them are current AirTran routes. I know they operate LAX, SFO, LAX, PHX, DCA, TPA, BOS, ATL, BWI, RSW, STL, MSP, PIT, LGA, IND, MCO and DEN but CAK, DSM and OMA are all new routes. The rest (PIT, IND and STL) add no-risk frequency support to their current system (currently FL’s 1 flight a day doesn't do much for customer flexibility).

I don’t see this as outsourcing since, from what I understand, FL doesn’t plan on pulling their current flights. What’s to stop AirTran from going further? Hopefully their pilots………Hopefully.

Also your comment about competing route structure's make some but little sense. ATL and MCO are quite aways from MKE. Unlike DAL (DTW, CLE, LGA, JFK, CVG, ATL, MEM.....). Or American (DFW, STL, ORD......). UAL (LAX, SFO)....... SWA (yeah)........ Etc. Yes DAL, AMR, Etc may be cutting back a little but to date they’re not shutting them down.

The MKE market has turned out to be very profitable for FL and their growth their will continue.

TonyWilliams

With a contract with DAL until 2020, held with a $150-ish million dollar "bond", I'd say ASA/SKW are gunna be fine for a while.

Koolaidman

With American pulling the CHQ (American Connection) flights out of St. Louis in April, this will be the only STL-MKE flights available. When I was based in MKE, most flights between the two cities were not that full, but there were seven flights a day back then. This could be one route that works. If I remember correctly, the IND and PIT flights were usually pretty full, but the others I don't remember.

CHQ Pilot

Outsourcing depends on which side you are on. An AirTran pilot will say any flight flown by another airline that could generate revenue for AirTran is outsourcing. A regional pilot may have a definition of of a one for one flight replacement, or even less with the argument that a fifty seater will generate revenue on routes that a 717 won't. If you don't want AirTran from expanding a codeshare type agreement, then why does it fall on the AirTran pilots to put limits? The way the press announcements reads is that this could drag down the revenue of SkyWest if things go bad. If you think this is a bad idea for SkyWest, then that is your living management is gambling with. If you want limits placed because you think it is wrong for AirTran management to replace AirTran flights with SkyWest service, then that is a whole different debate. You'll always find heated ideas on both sides on the fence for that argument.