View Single Post
Old 02-13-2007, 04:58 PM
  #7  
Nick
Line Holder
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 80
Default

Originally Posted by POPA View Post
Shaun, I believe Nick is a Big Sky FO who - clearly - is less than thrilled about his current position.
Sorry, not a Big Sky FO... just know a little about Big Sky's background and how they repeatadly start up somewhere and then pull out because they are too cheap to advertise they are even there. Big Sky has and will always be an EAS carrier. They are commited to EAS over passenger operations and they prove this daily during their operations and throughout the years by pulling out of profitable markets.

What airline pulls out of Great Falls, Kalispell, and Spokane when 95% of the time that airplane is filled to the ceiling with people and bags? Pocatello, Walla Walla, and Jackson Hole are soon to go also. How can United and Delta fill up 757's out of Jackson Hole and Big Sky can't put a profitable load of 10 passengers on the 1900?

Maybe this Boston crap will be a success simply because of one reason... it is EAS. This food stamp provided to Big Sky by the government is the only thing keeping Big Sky alive. As far as this bigger airplane talk, I don't believe a word of it. Why in the hell will Big Sky need bigger airplanes if they will go to Boston, not advertise, and not even come close to filling the seats on the 1900's the few times they will operate on time?

Just my $.02
Nick is offline