Originally Posted by
dera
Hope it's false, but that's exactly what Great Lakes did 6 months prior...
I didn't know that, but in Great Lakes' case it seems plausible. Great Lakes had been doing an end-run around the ATP minimums by pulling all but 9 seats out of their 1900's so that they could operate scheduled service under part 135, and avoid the part 121 atp requirement. Wouldn't be too terribly surprising if the the FAA put the kibosh on that, or someone discovered that it's not in compliance with the Essential Air Services contracts which were what kept the lights on at Great Lakes, or some other reason why they couldn't continue operating their 9 seat 1900's under part 135.
I can at least imagine reasons for Great Lakes requiring 121 minimums. Hagelands actually does operate under 135 so that would be an odd step with no apparent benefit for them.