![]() |
Originally Posted by schmohawk
(Post 3027321)
Back of napkin math , let’s say they do 45 flights a day in a slow down, multiplied by 30 days a month, divided by the number of requires flights per station as per the final order that was just issued (approx 14 at 3 a week) = 96 stations. I think in a 45 flights a day slow down , they could support flying to 96 stations , and keep in mind , international stations are excluded. I’m sure some routes will have higher yields than others , but they’ll probably ask for specific route exemptions like the Greensboro’s Richmond’s , and Asheville’s etc. If the service requirements are the main concern, I’d bet they take the money
Fly ORD-DTW three times a week and that covers it for all flight requirements in and out of those two airports? Maybe FLL-MCO-TPA-RSW-FLL circle three times a week would fulfill the requirement for all those airports? Something like that would be the best way to minimize operating costs. If we only need three flights a week in or out of FLL that would be a HUUUUUUUUGE savings. (Or DTW or LAS or any other “point”) Either way the requirements of this law are not very well thought out. |
Originally Posted by NKSpilot
(Post 3027462)
So every market we serve once daily - we would still have to go three times a week? This would only be a 57% cut in service. I can’t see this working with single digit passenger numbers. We are already at 90%.
And for the big airlines that are serving a market five flights a day - they only need to serve five times a week now. =86% reduction Prepare for the bad news and furloughs https://www.transportation.gov/sites...er%20FINAL.PDF |
Looks like we are asking for a lot of exemptions. Trying to cut 26 cities. Bold move.
https://www.regulations.gov/document...2020-0037-0049 |
Originally Posted by stevo22
(Post 3027525)
Looks like we are asking for a lot of exemptions. Trying to cut 26 cities. Bold move.
https://www.regulations.gov/document...2020-0037-0049 |
Using ATL as an example. WN operates 431 per week and only has to operate 5. NK operates 73 per week and has to operate 3? The whole list is like this. Unless it means NK is getting a larger chunk of aid, that's some kind of sh!t.
|
Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot
(Post 3027377)
It’s to keep the economy moving. Without the clause all the airlines would just shutdown for the next couple months and then no one would fly causing a kink in the commerce flow
|
Originally Posted by Silver02ex
(Post 3027495)
It’s more like 75%-80% cut. You’re assuming we have to serve those “routes” which is not the case, however we just need to serve hose stations 3 times a week. Which is similar to our May’s schedule. We just need to do 3 flight per week to that station. For example we do LAS-BOS 7 days a week. We can still drop that route and serve BOS from FLL. The issues is places like Plattsburgh that only see 7 flight per week, and we have to do 3. Here’s a few examples of the stations that we don’t serve now, but what we did per week: MSP-81, IND-28, DEN-84. We only need 3 Flights to these places. The cuts are much higher than you think even if we have to start those stations back up. Here is the final ruling from the DOT which shows who operate to each cities by airlines.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites...er%20FINAL.PDF Wow, thank you for the link to the actual “Final Order”. Looks pretty reasonable and I was completely wrong. Maybe we will end up in good shape with the grant money after all. |
Originally Posted by NKSpilot
(Post 3027580)
Wow, thank you for the link to the actual “Final Order”.
Looks pretty reasonable and I was completely wrong. Maybe we will end up in good shape with the grant money after all. |
$50 we take the money and no furlough till October.
|
Originally Posted by Macjet
(Post 3027670)
Seriously? Frontier, Allegiant, Sun Country, and Spirit got !@#$% on this in a Federal pound me in the !@# sort of way.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:10 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands