# Should Regionals Fly Under Their Own Colors?



## GBNorman (Oct 3, 2018)

Here's a thought as I ponder my upcoming "squishable" experience this Friday; flying to RIC on an ERJ-145 (well Aft for "flightseeing" Left side single seat, so I need not "be nice" to anyone)!!!

Should the various Regional airlines that fly as "partners" with all the majors except Southwest, fly under their own corporate identities?

Without touching the hot button of flight safety, the regionals just seem to me to be simply more "slipshod" than their major "partners". What with "on time" at Flight Status, becoming a CX fifteen minutes before scheduled departure ("no crew") or the terrible PR debacle for which United "took the fall", I would think it's time for the majors to tell the regionals "you can livery your aircraft and uniform your staff any way you like, so long as it is not in our colors".

Now I realize I could be called a "United apologist" around here, but hey my first flight during '57 was on them, they had the corporate travel teleprinter at the MILW (even if more of my flights over my eleven years there were on NWA than not), and I know my way around ORD Terminal 1, and not too many other places out there.

But think of how United took the brunt for the May '17 incident that actually occurred on Republic Airlines. Republic were the ones who chose to displace already boarded passengers when they should have called for an air taxi to get their Flight Crew down to SDF. That they picked a belligerent one rather than a "yes sir" is how it went down; expect displacing ("bumping") any passenger to be that. That they called Department of Aviation goons - not even sworn peace officers - before the "real cops" got there, was simply "Keystone Kops" - and for which "big Brother" airline took the PR fallout - and apparently made a pecuniary settlement with the affected passenger.

In short, the Regionals should fly under their own flags. Naturally, joint ticketing and code sharing should not be disturbed. The major "partners" will still dictate the requirements for insurance and "operated by..." will still be on a passenger's ticket.

We have many around here who are stakeholders in the air transport industry. Beyond putting some $5K a year into United's till, I'm not. I gladly defer with discussion to those "closer to the core" than am I.


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 3, 2018)

Quite frankly, I don't think it makes much difference. And by doing business as a much bigger airline it's much easier to get customers and distribution. So I think it makes a lot of sense for small regional airlines to fly under the umbrella of much larger airlines with a wider reach. JMO.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Oct 3, 2018)

I suspect many travelers are unaware that the smaller planes are flown by other carriers under contract with the larger carrier. They may be confused & worried when a SkyWest plane pulls up to their gate when their expecting a Delta plane.

Would your suggestion include having the smaller carrier listed on the arrivals/departures screens in the airport? If so, more confusion which could result in pax missing their flights.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2018)

Well, one reason that United et al, contract with Regionals to fly using the larger carrier's brand is so that the larger carrier can claim breadth and depth of its network without incurring the cost of maintaining the infrastructure for smaller stations themselves. They have absolutely no reason to give that up because they had to tkae the brunt of an incident or two here and there.


----------



## ehbowen (Oct 3, 2018)

Well, for what it's worth, if I were named Transportation Dictator I would establish a hard and fast rule for domestic departures: A maximum of five gates per airline per airport. Ten gates at the one airport you name your airline's "home airport". International flights, including domestic extensions of international flights (for the first entirely domestic leg) would be exempt. No more "fortress hubs". So at St. Louis, say, American could have five gates, TWA could have five gates, Ozark could have ten gates, Eastern could have five gates, USAir could have five gates...and so forth.

Yes, I would decree this in order to push the major airlines into breakup and divestiture. I would allow common ownership, after the model of GN-NP-Burlington-SP&S, as long as the carriers were independently managed and operated competitively. I'd like to see some genuine choices offered to me as a traveler....


----------



## railiner (Oct 3, 2018)

On the contrary to the above opinion, the only change I would like to see, would be that in cases where the regional carrier is wholly owned by the mainline carrier, they should be fully integrated into the major carrier....such as Envoy, PSA, and Piedmont into AA, and Endeavor into DL. I think that would be better if the operation's were completely unified, both for the employees and the public.

Not so sure about the stockholder's though, so probably will never happen....


----------



## BCL (Oct 3, 2018)

Using subcontractors is pretty common. Even with Amtrak, there are arrangements made to varying degrees. Amtrak branded thruway bus service is always performed by a subcontractor. Even some Amtrak trains may be operated by Amtrak employees, but the underlying service is that of a state or regional authority such as Amtrak California or the three states/provinces that own the Cascades route/equipment.


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 3, 2018)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Would your suggestion include having the smaller carrier listed on the arrivals/departures screens in the airport? If so, more confusion which could result in pax missing their flights.


Well they are; I couldn't help but notice how both flights overseas I used last August, United 952 and 953, had code share flight numbers for both Air Canada and Lufthansa listed on departure boards.


----------



## BCL (Oct 3, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Would your suggestion include having the smaller carrier listed on the arrivals/departures screens in the airport? If so, more confusion which could result in pax missing their flights.
> ...


I've been on some flights where there were maybe 4 codeshare partners and the electronic displays were flashing through all of the codeshare flight numbers.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Would your suggestion include having the smaller carrier listed on the arrivals/departures screens in the airport? If so, more confusion which could result in pax missing their flights.
> ...


The codeshare relationship is looser than the contract carrier relationship. A codeshare flight segment usually cannot be checked into at the original carrier's checnkin. It has to be handled at the carrier whose iron the flight is on. Typically the seat assignment and other such are also not as seamless as with contract carriers like the Regionals. So no, Code Share like Lufthansa and Air Canada on UA flights is nothing at all like the Regional United Express flights.

From a long time sufferer of the code share scam.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Oct 3, 2018)

I don't think it makes much difference as to whether my regional airline flight's plane from DAY to ORD has the colors/logo of UAL or AA or their own company's colors/logo. I think that most of us who fly in 2018 from smaller airports realize that the CRJ (or whatever small plane it may be) we board is not flown by the mainline airline, but by their subsidiary. I'm OK with that until there is some problem with getting crew for the subsidiary's flight, my flight is delayed or cancelled, and the mainline airline's crew cannot be used if some might be available.


----------



## BCL (Oct 3, 2018)

Dakota 400 said:


> I don't think it makes much difference as to whether my regional airline flight's plane from DAY to ORD has the colors/logo of UAL or AA or their own company's colors/logo. I think that most of us who fly in 2018 from smaller airports realize that the CRJ (or whatever small plane it may be) we board is not flown by the mainline airline, but by their subsidiary. I'm OK with that until there is some problem with getting crew for the subsidiary's flight, my flight is delayed or cancelled, and the mainline airline's crew cannot be used if some might be available.


It's not a subsidiary in most cases. A subsidiary would be like when United had its "Ted" division. It's almost always going to be a separate company with a contract to operate under a bigger airline's livery and uniforms.

The arrangements are really complicated. Republic and SkyWest work under United, Delta, and American. I'm not 100% sure of how it all works, but I'm thinking they have the flexibility to move employees to their arrangements with different main airlines.


----------



## Trogdor (Oct 3, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Well, for what it's worth, if I were named Transportation Dictator I would establish a hard and fast rule for domestic departures: A maximum of five gates per airline per airport. Ten gates at the one airport you name your airline's "home airport". International flights, including domestic extensions of international flights (for the first entirely domestic leg) would be exempt. No more "fortress hubs". So at St. Louis, say, American could have five gates, TWA could have five gates, Ozark could have ten gates, Eastern could have five gates, USAir could have five gates...and so forth.
> 
> Yes, I would decree this in order to push the major airlines into breakup and divestiture. I would allow common ownership, after the model of GN-NP-Burlington-SP&S, as long as the carriers were independently managed and operated competitively. I'd like to see some genuine choices offered to me as a traveler....


If you think that's going to give you more "choices," then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

All that will do is make carriers less efficient, less reliable (fewer alternatives in the event if IRROPS), and you're still not going to see more than 2 or, maybe, 3 carriers on the busiest routes. And you'd have to buy a ticket across several different airlines in order to make connections across the country.

From Chicago, United might fly to LA, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Washington, DC, Denver, Seattle, and Houston. But what about those that want to fly to Portland? Or maybe it means the carriers cut frequency, but as one who travels routinely for business, I love the fact that I can fly from Chicago to San Francisco with basically my choice of time slots (and the fares aren't even all that high, either). What good does your proposal do me if United can only get me there at 9 am and I want to leave at noon? If the noon flight was only available on a different carrier, that still doesn't give me "genuine choices." Further, what if the plane assigned to the noon flight has a mechanical problem? When an airline has 60 or 70 planes on the ground at the airport at once, they can easily start shuffling things around (plane swapping) to get me out within a reasonable time frame. Or, I can be booked onto the next flight an hour later. If the airline only has five gates, that really means only five planes. It's much harder to financially justify an operational spare for a small fleet like that, so that mechanical delay will just grow significantly, or the airline will have to have a lot more fleet dedicated to spares (which, ultimately, I would have to pay for through higher ticket prices).

Long story short, I'm glad you're not transportation dictator.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2018)

All roads to Utopia are lined with disasters bad enough that no one ever gets to the end of it


----------



## trainman74 (Oct 3, 2018)

I've actually been on a United Express flight on an aircraft that was in a SkyWest paint scheme -- apparently they have a few of those so they can swap them to any of their routes if needed for operational reasons.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Oct 3, 2018)

Subsidiary or not, I came close to a cancelled flight after my delay caused by weather in the Chicago/Green Bay region on UAL. UAL had flight crews available as back-ups. They could not be used! But, my plane's crew, on a regional carrier, could not get to Chicago because of the weather. The plane was at the gate and had been for hours. Just no crew! Finally, they were able to make it to ORD and I arrived home quite late.

I must say, however, that UAL did keep us in the gate area well informed and even provided snacks and beverages as the delay kept getting longer.


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 3, 2018)

trainman74 said:


> I've actually been on a United Express flight on an aircraft that was in a SkyWest paint scheme -- apparently they have a few of those so they can swap them to any of their routes if needed for operational reasons.


Yeah, I've seen those multiple times (though I've never flown on one).


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 3, 2018)

Dakota 400 said:


> Subsidiary or not, I came close to a cancelled flight after my delay caused by weather in the Chicago/Green Bay region on UAL. UAL had flight crews available as back-ups. They could not be used! But, my plane's crew, on a regional carrier, could not get to Chicago because of the weather. The plane was at the gate and had been for hours. Just no crew! Finally, they were able to make it to ORD and I arrived home quite late.
> 
> I must say, however, that UAL did keep us in the gate area well informed and even provided snacks and beverages as the delay kept getting longer.


Well, if it were a subsidiary, they almost certainly could have used one of those spare crews. Because your plane was owned and operated by a different company, they could not have used a United crew for many reasons. So you can't really say "subsidiary or not" like it doesn't matter, because it very much does.


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 3, 2018)

trainman74 said:


> I've actually been on a United Express flight on an aircraft that was in a SkyWest paint scheme -- apparently they have a few of those so they can swap them to any of their routes if needed for operational reasons.


Undeniably, there are some Skywest aircraft liveried in their own colors. For as noted, Skywest is "partner" with each of the Big Three.


----------



## cuppb001 (Oct 3, 2018)

I find when flying that the airlines are fairly transparent about the planes being operated by another company. For example on the PA, thank you for choosing Delta Connection or SKY partner.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2018)

I think it has more to do with the seamlessness of the customer experience as far as handling of ticketing, checkin and baggage and such goes, more than what livery the plane is striped in.


----------



## Trogdor (Oct 3, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> > Subsidiary or not, I came close to a cancelled flight after my delay caused by weather in the Chicago/Green Bay region on UAL. UAL had flight crews available as back-ups. They could not be used! But, my plane's crew, on a regional carrier, could not get to Chicago because of the weather. The plane was at the gate and had been for hours. Just no crew! Finally, they were able to make it to ORD and I arrived home quite late.
> ...


Subsidiary doesnt mean operational interchangeability. It just means corporate ownership of another corporation.

Some majors used to have regional partners (maybe AA still does?) as wholly-owned subsidiaries. Still had separate labor agreements, separate workforces, separate operations teams, etc.

Horizon Air is a subsidiary of Alaska, but you cant take a flight attendant from one and staff the others plane.

Heck, up until this week, a United flight attendant that came from Continental couldnt work a plane that came from pre-merger United (or vice versa). So, being a subsidiary wouldnt help any.


----------



## railiner (Oct 3, 2018)

Curious about the uniforms...I have only flown on one of AA's wholly owned American Eagle carrier's (Envoy), who wear basically the same uniform as their parent company.

So I wonder if the other's do the same, or wear their own uniforms. That would mean Republic or Skywest crew's might need up to three different sets, if they 'cross-bid' routes....


----------



## Dakota 400 (Oct 3, 2018)

jis said:


> I think it has more to do with the seamlessness of the customer experience as far as handling of ticketing, checkin and baggage and such goes, more than what livery the plane is striped in.


Your post accurately describes my opinion. If I book a flight on Delta, United, or American: I care not what the regional carrier is. (I do care about the equipment used will be and will adjust my booking accordingly.) My ORD-DAY flight was booked on United. I feel they had an obligation to get me to my destination in a timely manner. If issues beyond my control occur between my booking airline and the airline company that is to get me to my destination, that is none of my business. UAL's job was to get me to my destination in a more timely manner than they did. The "big" airline has an obligation to insure that the "small" airline provides the "seamless" customer service of which you speak.


----------



## Blackwolf (Oct 3, 2018)

Hey, the "code share scam" has proven to be fruitful at times. Me and Mrs. Blackwolf are currently in Nova Scotia due to a family emergency; 18 hours before departure for an international flight, a new booking is made. I look at Air Canada and see a round trip for two is $9k in Y (coach) class, no advance seat selection option, no included checked luggage. 4 legs, long layovers.

I log into my United MileagePlus account.

For 100k points (which I have) I can book last-minute J (business) round-trip tickets with lounge, seat selection, two checked bags at 70lbs per passenger, meals and libations.

The monetary breakdown is about $1400 based off the active point sale on United.

It pays to know the system. And realize 2/3rds of the flights are on Air Canada Jazz, which is the SkyWest of the Great White North.


----------



## railiner (Oct 3, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> Some majors used to have regional partners (maybe AA still does?) as wholly-owned subsidiaries. Still had separate labor agreements, separate workforces, separate operations teams, etc.
> 
> Horizon Air is a subsidiary of Alaska, but you cant take a flight attendant from one and staff the others plane.
> 
> Heck, up until this week, a United flight attendant that came from Continental couldnt work a plane that came from pre-merger United (or vice versa). So, being a subsidiary wouldnt help any.


AA owns 3 of the American Eagle carrier's: Envoy, Piedmont, and PSA. Delta owns Endeavor.

As for mainline flight attendants, legacy AA and legacy USAir only now (1 October), have achieved Flight Attendant Operational Integration into one system, and can bid on any flight or aircraft they are qualified on.


----------



## BCL (Oct 4, 2018)

cuppb001 said:


> I find when flying that the airlines are fairly transparent about the planes being operated by another company. For example on the PA, thank you for choosing Delta Connection or SKY partner.


It's always been on my itinerary and on the boarding pass. I've flown "Delta" multiple times on the SFO-SEA route, and it's always mentioned somewhere that it's Compass/Skywest "dba Delta Connection". This photo show it clearly on the boarding pass:


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 4, 2018)

Gottaluvit; this morning, there is a text from United saying "we've swapped your seat". Instead of my booked 23A - aft of the wing good for flightseeing and all to myself on the ERJ-145, it is now 21D - limited flightseeing, and have to "play nice" to someone.

Thank you, Express Jet.

I'd upgrade to Econo-plus in a heartbeat if anything Left side forward was open. But it's not; or at least at this time.

The funny thing is they say they'd swapped aircraft. But it is just one 145 for another. So enquiring mind wonders why his seat needed to be changed?

I'm at a loss to know why any Mainline carrier allows their name to be downgraded to the level of these puddle-jumpers.

I admit I pay what I must to insulate myself on Mainline United from this crap by flying First or Business, and maybe it goes on there as well, but darned if I know and I guess darned if I care.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 4, 2018)

While not an International Flight, the Full United 737 I flew on AUS-EWR for the Gathering ( I was able to choose an Exit Seat with More Room for $7) had a really great Flight and Cabin Crew,(Very Friendly and Great Service)and we even arrived 30 minutes early,plus had TSAPre, so all in it was the Best Flight I've had in several years.

I'm planning a Flight to London this Winter to ride Eurostar,the Night Train to Scotland and the High Speed French Trains, so we'll see how United or British does on this Route( British Airways is once again flying a 747,my favorite,

on this Route!)

I can't afford Biz Class so will be in Steerage but with the Really Cheap Fares being offered by Norweigan Air, Ill get a good Fare due to competition.


----------



## jis (Oct 4, 2018)

Blackwolf said:


> Hey, the "code share scam" has proven to be fruitful at times. Me and Mrs. Blackwolf are currently in Nova Scotia due to a family emergency; 18 hours before departure for an international flight, a new booking is made. I look at Air Canada and see a round trip for two is $9k in Y (coach) class, no advance seat selection option, no included checked luggage. 4 legs, long layovers.
> 
> I log into my United MileagePlus account.
> 
> ...


Oh Code Shares work fine most of the time. It is just that each one is slightly different from the other in the details of who handles what, and also sometimes depending on the fare class and the interline agreement underlying the code share, it may not be possible to preselect seats on the code share partner airline's iron until 24 or 48 hours before departure, and such other minor irritants.

The most seamless codeshares I have been on are through the UA-LH JV though still with preselection of seats restrictions on some LH segments. The not so good is UA-9W, even though 9W surprisingly is able to issue boarding cards for UA segments upon checking in at any podunk airport in India where they have their own chackin terminals.


----------



## PerRock (Oct 4, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> Gottaluvit; this morning, there is a text from United saying "we've swapped your seat". Instead of my booked 23A - aft of the wing good for flightseeing and all to myself on the ERJ-145, it is now 21D - limited flightseeing, and have to "play nice" to someone.
> 
> Thank you, Express Jet.
> 
> ...


I believe "UA" has a 2 different configurations of their ERJ-145s, so chances are you got the other configuration.

peter


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 4, 2018)

Well, I was able to upgrade ($44) to Econo+ and got Seat 3D. I will still have to "play nice" with someone, and there is no underseat storage. But hopefully with the higher Boarding Group inherent to Econo+, I will have overhead space available.

I got my flightseeing back, and I'll keep looking to see if an A (single seat Left) opens up.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Oct 4, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> Well, I was able to upgrade ($44) to Econo+ and got Seat 3D. I will still have to "play nice" with someone, and there is no underseat storage. But hopefully with the higher Boarding Group inherent to Econo+, I will have overhead space available.
> 
> I got my flightseeing back, and I'll keep looking to see if an A (single seat Left) opens up.


You’re right. Sitting silently next to someone on public transport is just the worst thing.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Oct 5, 2018)

Bob Dylan said:


> While not an International Flight, the Full United 737 I flew on AUS-EWR for the Gathering ( I was able to choose an Exit Seat with More Room for $7) had a really great Flight and Cabin Crew,(Very Friendly and Great Service)and we even arrived 30 minutes early,plus had TSAPre, so all in it was the Best Flight I've had in several years.
> 
> I'm planning a Flight to London this Winter to ride Eurostar,the Night Train to Scotland and the High Speed French Trains, so we'll see how United or British does on this Route( British Airways is once again flying a 747,my favorite,
> 
> ...


On the Norwegian leg I would buck up to premium economy if I were you. Recently they've been leasing a Hi-Fly ex Singapore A380-800 with the Singapore interior. So the premium economy guests are getting the former business class lie flats.


----------



## saxman (Oct 7, 2018)

Back in the day, the regionals, then called commuters, did fly under their own brand. SkyWest flew out of places like SLC to smaller towns. As Delta built up it's SLC hub, they started codesharing so passengers could make a seamless connection to St George or Elko. You knew that you were on Delta and then connecting to a SkyWest flight. Then came the regional jet to Comair out of CVG. The larger airlines actually wanted to fly these 50 seaters themselves to smaller markets, but the pilots didn't want the pay cut, so they were contracted out to the current commuter airlines. The 90's and early 00's saw an explosion in 50 seat regional jets. At first they continued to serve small markets, but when fuel started going up and the mainline jets like the 727's and older 737's the mainline carriers started putting the 50 seater on longer and longer flights and into bigger cities. It cost way less. Slowly things morphed into that mainline wanted even more seamless travel for their customers. You are now Delta Connection and nothing else. Thats what it has become now. Some regional airlines, when they lost contracts, tried to go at on their own. When Atlantic Coast Airlines lost their contract with Delta and United, they rebranded as Independence Air and tried to be on their own. I thought it was a good idea but they didn't last long. Neither did ExpressJet's branded flying. Now you are seeing much more comfortable large RJ's doing longer thin routes or trunk routes that require frequency. Comfort wise, I prefer the ERJ-170 to even some mainline planes. Large seats, big aisle, either a window or an aisle.

You're never going to see the mainline legacies require that their regional partners operate on their own brand. It's totally opposite of what they want and what is in the contract. I do agree that having multiple regionals doing the same route leads to inefficiencies. I remember being hours delayed in MSP because the flight was operated by Comair. MSP wasn't a Comair crew base even though it's a Delta hub.


----------



## railiner (Oct 7, 2018)

I think the mainline pilot's were very short-sighted in their resistance to operating the regional aircraft. They could have had a lot more flight's to work, albeit at a lower rate. So, they eventually lost those flight's to the regional airlines, and lost member's (along with their dues). So what did they gain?

At least on American, the pilot's on their wholly owned regional's enjoy "flow-through" opportunity onto their mainline carrier's, as they gain experience...


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 9, 2018)

railiner said:


> At least on American, the pilot's on their wholly owned regional's enjoy "flow-through" opportunity onto their mainline carrier's, as they gain experience...


This goes back a few years - as in '08, where job security in the airline industry was a "not too much of".
At KDEN, waiting for and riding their tram with a young woman American FO; she shared that her days as a Flight Officer with American were numbered. I said "can you get on with Eagle?". "Not a chance, they have their own seniority list, they're whacking heads as well, and 'they just plain don't like us much'". "Where could you go to fly airplanes for a living?". "I could go over to Lithuania where several freight carriers would offer me Captain, but Dallas is my home, and I'll just wait it out waiting tables. I did it in college and I'll do it again." "Good luck, dear". "Nice talking with you".


----------



## railiner (Oct 9, 2018)

I don't recall what things were like in "'08", but things look pretty promising today....there is an industry wide need for a whole lot of new pilot's ....

https://www.envoyair.com/pilots/


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 9, 2018)

I'm certain the lady today is a Captain with American Airlines.


----------



## BCL (Oct 9, 2018)

railiner said:


> I don't recall what things were like in "'08", but things look pretty promising today....there is an industry wide need for a whole lot of new pilot's ....
> 
> https://www.envoyair.com/pilots/


Especially the freight carriers.


----------



## saxman (Oct 10, 2018)

'08 was pretty bleak. American didn't hire a single pilot between 2001 and 2013 while the regionals exploded. It's different now. Pilot's are now being hired everywhere like mad. It's really unprecedented. Many regionals are having trouble filling training classes, but it is causing salaries to do go sharply up, and bonuses to be put on. The legacies are going to retire 2/3rd's of their pilot group in the next 10 years.


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 10, 2018)

Turns out, both flights were "good enough". Going to RIC, it took 40 min to take off, but the best surprise was this wonderful "fiftysomething" gal in 3B. She was joining up with two other college sorority sisters for a "girls weekend" somewhere along I-64 in WVA. She had a new carryon bag, but could not find her driver's license. Even though one of her compainions was renting the car, returning on an airplane without such "could be problematic". But after we both ordered "White" (forgettable French "vin ordinaire" - but for which the Attendant "comped" for Econo+), I suddenly felt something "slick" on the floor. "Dear, somehow the photo on this Missouri Driver's License looks a lot like this lady I have the pleasure to be sitting next to". Hugs.

For the return I had my single seat aft on the ERJ-145 - and my flightseeing. But now for the "reward" for an early landing - 25 minute hold in the Penalty Box for a gate.

All told, "more positives than negatives".


----------



## Pere Flyer (Oct 10, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> Turns out, both flights were "good enough". Going to RIC, it took 40 min to take off, but the best surprise was this wonderful "fiftysomething" gal in 3B. She was joining up with two other college sorority sisters for a "girls weekend" somewhere along I-64 in WVA. She had a new carryon bag, but could not find her driver's license. Even though one of her compainions was renting the car, returning on an airplane without such "could be problematic". But after we both ordered "White" (forgettable French "vin ordinaire" - but for which the Attendant "comped" for Econo+), I suddenly felt something "slick" on the floor. "Dear, somehow the photo on this Missouri Driver's License looks a lot like this lady I have the pleasure to be sitting next to". Hugs.
> 
> For the return I had my single seat aft on the ERJ-145 - and my flightseeing. But now for the "reward" for an early landing - 25 minute hold in the Penalty Box for a gate.
> 
> All told, "more positives than negatives".


I’m glad you survived. Pity about the libations. Sitting next to someone on a plane is hard enough, but drinking complimentary mediocre wine in close quarters, oh my…Then again, where would that Missourian be now were it not for your seating mix-up? Divine providence may have been at play here.


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 10, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> > Turns out, both flights were "good enough". Going to RIC, it took 40 min to take off, but the best surprise was this wonderful "fiftysomething" gal in 3B. She was joining up with two other college sorority sisters for a "girls weekend" somewhere along I-64 in WVA. She had a new carryon bag, but could not find her driver's license. Even though one of her compainions was renting the car, returning on an airplane without such "could be problematic". But after we both ordered "White" (forgettable French "vin ordinaire" - but for which the Attendant "comped" for Econo+), I suddenly felt something "slick" on the floor. "Dear, somehow the photo on this Missouri Driver's License looks a lot like this lady I have the pleasure to be sitting next to". Hugs.
> ...


No kidding.


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 11, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> .
> 
> Pity about the libations. Sitting next to someone on a plane is hard enough, but drinking complimentary mediocre wine in close quarters, oh my


Off to Atlanta for weekend Oct 20 with an en route stop in Nashville. My "traveling companion" will be Gustav (I have new recordings of his 2nd and 10th), and whoever SXM Ch 76 decides I get.

Of course, no en route libations.


----------



## me_little_me (Oct 19, 2018)

My feeling is that unless the carrier you book with takes full and complete responsibility for dealing with anything (whether a complaint, delay, lawsuit, etc) whether they, in fact, pay the cost of the issue themselves or collect it from the responsible third party, the customer should be told in the advertising, in the on-line selection, on the ticket, on the boarding pass and everywhere else, that they are booked on and must deal with the other airline or third party for any complaints. Doesn't matter whether it is code-share, "partner", subsidiary, or someone with the permission to use logo and paint.

One should not have to deal with third parties, basically, unless it is completely transparent up front.

It should be more like insurance subrogation. Your insurance company determines resolution (and can be disputed) and they in turn take it up with the other party's insurer. That second airline screws up? Let the carrier you booked with compensate you and they try and collect from the other company.


----------



## railiner (Oct 19, 2018)

me_little_me said:


> My feeling is that unless the carrier you book with takes full and complete responsibility for dealing with anything (whether a complaint, delay, lawsuit, etc) whether they, in fact, pay the cost of the issue themselves or collect it from the responsible third party, the customer should be told in the advertising, in the on-line selection, on the ticket, on the boarding pass and everywhere else, that they are booked on and must deal with the other airline or third party for any complaints. Doesn't matter whether it is code-share, "partner", subsidiary, or someone with the permission to use logo and paint.
> 
> One should not have to deal with third parties, basically, unless it is completely transparent up front.
> 
> It should be more like insurance subrogation. Your insurance company determines resolution (and can be disputed) and they in turn take it up with the other party's insurer. That second airline screws up? Let the carrier you booked with compensate you and they try and collect from the other company.


I tend to agree with you on this, but I'm sure that the "fine legal mind's" in the booking carrier's law department makes sure that there is plenty of fine print and disclaimer's in the passage contract to avoid that...


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 20, 2018)

me_little_me said:


> It should be more like insurance subrogation. Your insurance company determines resolution (and can be disputed) and they in turn take it up with the other party's insurer. That second airline screws up? Let the carrier you booked with compensate you and they try and collect from the other company.


From Holiday Inn Express Antioch TN (route of The Georgian right behind the hotel)

I'm certain the existing language on your ticket to fly a regional co branded with a major, as well as the insurance required, covers the major from legal liability. For example, I don't know which major Colgan Air was flying for, but somehow I think that the combination of legal language as well as insurance required by the major protected them.

Now regarding the Republic 2017 incident at ORD, United wasn't legally on tap for anything as they did not do anything tortuous to the injured passenger, but the damage to their image and reputation was, let us say, "priceless".


----------



## PVD (Oct 20, 2018)

When you hire a contractor and provide them access to services and facilities and sell their services jointly, and they perform work on your behalf, it is extremely difficult to avoid some degree of liability. If you look at the most recent large cases Comair/US air Colgan/Pinnacle/Continental the mainline carrier shared liability. What you do as a defensive move, when you use contractors, is require large insurance policies with carefully written provisions. Joint and several liability applies in many jurisdictions, even a finding of a few percent of the liability could be devastating if the primarily responsible party did not have the means to pay a judgement. since the party with deep pockets would be on the hook. As soon as the federal courts decided the case would be heard using NY Law, and not VA law, the impetus to settle became greater, NY law does not cap punitive damages, VA does.


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 23, 2018)

These puddle jumpers, now Skywest, are just going to be the "death" of United:

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2018/10/22/united-turned-a-flight-around-mid-air-due-to-lack-of-ground-equipment

Once again, fly under their own colors; they can take the blowback from their own SNAFUed flight operations.


----------



## railiner (Oct 23, 2018)

What a ridiculous situation that was...I mean, even after they realized their mistake, couldn't they come up with a better (and cheaper) solution? The article makes it sound like Skywest realized in midflight that the aircraft was 'too large' for them to handle at their Chattanooga station. I am assuming that they meant their jetbridge couldn't 'mate up' with the aircraft?

A much better solution would have been to either use a portable airstair, or if worse came to worse, 'eat crow', and arrange to use one of the other carrier's gates there for just that round trip flight...


----------



## PVD (Oct 23, 2018)

A few years ago American accidently dispatched a non ETOPS A-321 on a Hawaii flight. It had to return to origin airport,passengers had to be put on the correct type. They had to get the correct plane to Hawaii, since once the pilot was aware, he could not carry passengers back. They were well into the flight when this ws discovered, Even the mainlines do stupid stuff.


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 23, 2018)

American "owns" that one; their aircraft, their Flight Crew (should have known what acft they were to fly), their "black eye".

Even if they "comped" the passengers "from here to heaven", more likely than not, they were on vacation - and if in the workforce, that meant a lost vacation day.


----------



## PVD (Oct 23, 2018)

They flew the aircraft that dispatch assigned them. It is usually marked with a big sticker in the logbook, and a label on the nosewheel doors. Besides the older former USAir A-321, AA has newer A-321 both ETOPS and non ETOPS that are equipped and laid out the same way, in is the maintenance and inspection requirements that would differ. Actually in re reading the record, they completed the flight since they were past the point of no return, cancelled the return flight, and flew back empty as a ferry flight since they could not fly it as a passenger flight.


----------



## jis (Oct 23, 2018)

Their flight dispatching system screwed up big time. If set up correctly it should not have permitted the use of that aircraft for that route. Either that, or some helpful human overrode the system and force assigned the aircraft. Never discount the possibility of human ingenuity leading to a screwup.


----------



## railiner (Oct 23, 2018)

PVD said:


> They flew the aircraft that dispatch assigned them. It is usually marked with a big sticker in the logbook, and a label on the nosewheel doors. Besides the older former USAir A-321, AA has newer A-321 both ETOPS and non ETOPS that are equipped and laid out the same way, in is the maintenance and inspection requirements that would differ. Actually in re reading the record, they completed the flight since they were past the point of no return, cancelled the return flight, and flew back empty as a ferry flight since they could not fly it as a passenger flight.


This has me wondering...how much difference in cost is there in the same aircraft being maintained to a higher standard for ETOPS certification as opposed to not?

Apparently enough to make it only cost effective to certify only the number of aircraft actually needed for that service, plus perhaps some reserve...

This is something I was never aware of, so thanks for bringing it up.

As for that example...at least the passenger's on the flight were not inconvenienced, since they were past the "point of no return"...(cue theme from "The High and The Mighty"



)

Only those bumped from the cancelled return were affected.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 23, 2018)

Blackwolf said:


> It pays to know the system.


Except the system is constantly changing. There are so many levels and variations of cooperation, each with their own rules and pricing, that I never really know what to expect anymore. Code sharing, contracting, and interlining seem to be in a state of perpetual flux these days. Two airlines that were enemies yesterday are acting like best friends today only to ignore each other tomorrow. United once sold me a trip with connecting "partners" that refused to accept each other's paperwork or luggage and needed airport staff to help bridge the divide. The era of the global travel alliance has turned out to be much more frustrating and far less cooperative than I originally envisioned.


----------



## Trogdor (Oct 23, 2018)

railiner said:


> What a ridiculous situation that was...I mean, even after they realized their mistake, couldn't they come up with a better (and cheaper) solution? The article makes it sound like Skywest realized in midflight that the aircraft was 'too large' for them to handle at their Chattanooga station. I am assuming that they meant their jetbridge couldn't 'mate up' with the aircraft?
> 
> A much better solution would have been to either use a portable airstair, or if worse came to worse, 'eat crow', and arrange to use one of the other carrier's gates there for just that round trip flight...


While the exact situation hasn't been revealed, discussion on other sites gives a lot of insight (or at least speculation) into why the return to ORD was the best course of action.

The "too big" comment was probably a throwaway comment by a pilot not wanting to bore passengers with all of the technical specifics. However, the speculated cause on these other websites is that Chattanooga did not have a tow bar compatible with the E-175. Therefore, there would be no way to get the plane out of the gate once it parked. I'm not familiar with that airport, but it's also possible that it doesn't have the proper setup to put an airline flight on a remote stand and bus passengers to/from the terminal. Portable airstairs might also not be the right height, either (the E-175 is pretty low to the ground, but not low enough to just hop off, and the plane probably doesn't have built-in airstairs).

Dispatching the wrong airplane type was dumb, but once they discovered the problem, returning to origin and swapping out with the correct type was probably the best course of action given the limited time they had in which to make a decision.


----------



## saxman (Oct 23, 2018)

^Basically what he said.

I'm trying to get some inside information, but basically it's probably a combination of not having the right equipment and the ground personal not being properly trained on working the ERJ-175. The FAA is very strict about this sort of thing and perhaps the cheapest and easiest solution was to just turn back to Chicago. If they had landed, it may have taken hours to get a set of stairs together, or the plane could have parked at the gate, they might not have been able to push it back with out the right tow bar. Certainly, in an emergency the aircraft could divert to CHA and they could work out something then, but this wasn't an emergency. Had it landed, the aircraft would have probably been stuck there for awhile.


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 24, 2018)

PVD said:


> They flew the aircraft that dispatch assigned them. It is usually marked with a big sticker in the logbook, and a label on the nosewheel doors. Besides the older former USAir A-321, AA has newer A-321 both ETOPS and non ETOPS that are equipped and laid out the same way, in is the maintenance and inspection requirements that would differ.


 One must wonder why didn't the First Officer on the walk around note the absence of the ETOPS marking on the nosewheel door?


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 24, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> > They flew the aircraft that dispatch assigned them. It is usually marked with a big sticker in the logbook, and a label on the nosewheel doors. Besides the older former USAir A-321, AA has newer A-321 both ETOPS and non ETOPS that are equipped and laid out the same way, in is the maintenance and inspection requirements that would differ.
> ...


Certain pilots and first officers can forget a lot of important things.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45584300


----------



## GBNorman (Oct 24, 2018)

Here is all you'll ever want to know regarding the AA LAX-HNL non-ETOPS incident, which occurred AUG 31-15:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=594907

Oh and finally, ETOPS - Engines Turn Off, Passengers Swim


----------



## railiner (Oct 24, 2018)

Actually, after reading thru all four pages of those posts, my question was still not answered....what more does it cost, either actual, or as a percentage, to certify an otherwise identical type to ETOPS?

While I did learn a few things about ETOPS, the gist was partisan's arguing over what fines or other remedies should be done in that case...


----------



## PVD (Oct 25, 2018)

If I buy an otherwise identically equipped plane the initial cost is minimal. The differences would arise in a more stringent inspection schedule, so depending on where the airline does those inspections and maintenance routines, the need to cycle a particular aircraft to a location it might not be required to visit as often, particularly in its role as an ETOPS ship matters. Where does AA service VF2500 engines, that's what their newer A-321 were purchased with. The legacy USAir 321 have CFM-56


----------



## railiner (Oct 25, 2018)

Besides the maintenane schedule, ETOPS certified also have to have longer fire-suppressant capability, as well as longer lasting medical oxygen...


----------



## PVD (Oct 25, 2018)

That's part of the requirement, but nothing stops you from just specifying them on all of the ones you buy. It makes parts stocking and maintenance training easier. I do not know if AA did that or not.


----------

