dude - you really have no idea what you are talking about.

what costs are there for a major to add an incremental EAS flight in their reservation system? It’s zero.

Scope is wide open for 50 seaters. Nothing stops anyone to add more of them other than lack of pilots aka current state of the industry. They will be back the minute it makes economic sense. And yes, SkyWest charter is enabling that.

Well, considering you are making the argument that the major partners take on no costs shows you are 100% absolutely CLUELESS. Scream until you are blue in the face , stomp your feet, flop on the floor like a fish, and you are still wrong. EVERYTHING INCURS a cost.


Nothing stops anyone from bringing back the Metro either, but its days are done....just like the 50 seat market. Thank GOODNESS you are not handling any business decisions for anyone.

why don’t you educate me what those costs are? And how are they not easily covered by incremental revenue?

any idea what brought the Bro to an end? Hint - it wasn’t the customer experience

I already gave you a simple one, and you are hell bent on denying it. If you cannot even comprehend the res system costs, then anything else would be so far over your head.

I know exactly what brought the bro to an end, it was the lack of finding prop blade replacements, AND customer experience. Also notice that Delta shooed the bro off while they could still get parts? Yea, that is because Delta knew people hated them.

you realize that there is more than DL.

and what exactly are the reservation system cost? The cost of adding a flight? How about you try explaining it. What are the MARGINAL cost of adding flights. Look up marginal cost and why would incremental revenue not far exceed whatever minimal cost there are?

Yea, of course I know there is more than DL.

OK, so you are obviously not either reading what I have said, or you cannot seem to wrap your head around the concept. You said before what other costs to they have besides adding a flight number? In your mind, are you saying that is the cost of it? After that is done, boom. No other money is required to maintain anything?

for the major? Pretty much. What else does UA or DL have to pay for a pro-rate flight? To and outstation that is operated by OO?

and a hub where OO would pay for handing cost to whoever does the ground handling - most of the time it’s outsourced anyway.

If those pilots cost the mainline pilots they want to staff their planes with, that makes no sense. Besides, the other majors will steal those pilots, anyway.

remember what this thread is all about - SkyWest charter and how it uses 65+ pilots that couldn’t fly 121.

every CEO in their right mind would want to get all the capacity they can at the lowest cost possible

So who foots the bill for the equipment? Computers, servers, etc etc
Who foots the bill for the person who is to install and maintain that equipment?
Who foots the bill for the revenue management analysis who have to monitor fares, seat inventory, denied boardings, weight and balance, seat caps...etc etc?
Who foots the bill for the customer service oversight from the major partner?
Who foots the bill for the contracted ground handling in major hubs?
Who foots the bill the security oversight from the major partner over the route and airport(s) served.


Hint. There is only one right answer here, and its not the regional flying the at risk route.