Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner

No flaming from me. But, I think you were, just maybe, flying for a failing business. I'm not sure you could directly attribute it to EAS. Chances are, the city was set up as EAS well before the charter company started, anyway, so they should have been aware of that fact and planned for that, prior to setting up the business. There is a little market overlap, I admit, but I don't believe it would be enough to send a charter company to the grave. I worked for a charter company (not as a pilot), before I flew for Lakes, that was within a 20 minute drive of one of the largest hubs in the country. They had no issue making money, and felt very little direct competition from the major airlines. A lot of smaller charter companies actually compensate their workers pretty poorly, and provide zero benefits. The one I worked for compensated their King Air pilots less than I am compensated in the 1900. In the 1900, I can think of only a few destinations that we serve, that are served by a charter company, as well. I don't believe the actual effect is quite as dramatic as you make it out to be, but I admit, there may be a little market overlap, and a small negative effect to the charter industry. But, we probably have 2-3 pilots jobs created, for every charter pilot job that may, or may not have been lost, as a result of EAS. We do need to negotiate higher compensation; I have no excuse for that. It should be directly in-line with industry average on type/ aircraft size. We're working on that. Final point. How many major airline jobs are created as an indirect result of EAS? I would reckon that the number is pretty significant. Remember, almost all EAS providers have code shares, or fly as express carriers for major airlines. We feed people to the hubs, to travel on the majors. Most of our business doesn't involve people just looking for a flight to the hub. They are looking at going to another final destination, which will involve flying on a major airline. Charter companies aren't specifically established to feed people to the hubs, like the EAS program is, and they don't have code share agreements, which provides the majors with money and passengers. How many major airline jobs would be eliminated, if we abandoned EAS, and charter expanded to the point where it was actually taking away major airline jobs; Example: It would be cheaper and faster to charter an aircraft to get a group of executives to a final destination, over chartering a bus to drive your executives 300 miles, to the hub, so they could hop on a major airline, and eventually fly to their final destination. Without EAS, not only would you miss out on the direct feed to the majors, more people would completely bypass the airline system to get to their final destination, both resulting in the elimination of major airline jobs in significant numbers.

Originally Posted by Copperhed51

Yeah, that's what I've heard. I've heard from multiple people that ORD won't even allow turboprops to service that airport, but I doubt there's much truth to that. I would think that if we're codesharing with United, we could use some of their gates, but I have experience with that and it's ridiculous. We'd spend an insane amount of time in the penalty box.

Originally Posted by Copperhed51

Yes, but when you add the cost of EAS to the cost of our illegal war in Iraq, you just increase the national debt. Just because you aren't adding as big of a chunk doesn't mean it's ok to add it...though most of Congress seems to disagree with that view.........

As you know, we codeshare with United and Frontier. They both have a very very tiny presence in STL. AA also barely has any flights in STL. Southwest has a bunch but nobody codeshares with them. Point is, there are hardly any codeshare connections on us into STL. If we went to ORD, I think we'd have a ton more people flying.

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner

This is a little political and falls into the realm of personal belief, but I, personally, believe you have to look at government spending from an investment standpoint. There are good investments, and bad investments. When the government invests in roads and bridges where they are needed, that is a good investment. It opens up the ability for increased, or better transportation, and the increase in business and opportunity that goes along with that.

Originally Posted by TPROP4ever

Just curious who your source is, cause my sources are saying somthing else? Just curious cause
I did see that local 12 reported that the airport board recomended going with Cape air but still subject to a county or city board vote??? Cant find any new reports of Marion Ill going with Cape air though.

Originally Posted by USN(Ret)

Local newspapers. The local boards/commissions, whatever, have spoken. I suppose DOT could go with something else, however all indications are Cape Air will get the contract. At any rate Great Lakes is out of these markets.


:: TheSouthern.com - Southern Illinois' Homepage ::

seMissourian.com: Story: Cape airport board recommends Massachusetts carrier

Originally Posted by TPROP4ever

Yes, I have since found those articles, thanks, guess time will tell Im sure Cape Air will get those cities, but I wonder where that leaves the other four, doubt Cape Air was prepared to do all 6.

Originally Posted by USN(Ret)

I forsee alot of 402's flying around empty on the taxpayer's dime. Aviation literacy is not great among the locals in these parts. Many are "scared" to ride the 1900's, or even the Saabs at PAH. The 402's are much further down on the food chain.

This is a different market than flying New England intellectuals to the area resort islands.