What's new

Air Wisconsin - The Runaway Bride?

I thought the deal was that AWAC was going to be providing the service at or below the current affiliate contracts?

A penguin on a bicycle would provide better service than Mesa.
 
Light Years said:
Can you guys pull on your landing gears, or each other's or compare them or whatever through the PM function? What an obnoxious thread.

Here I was looking for an update about Air Wisconsin and such, but instead two pages of boys in the sandbox fighting over toys they neither own or have any control of.

🙄
[post="261809"][/post]​


YES!!! Let's get back to what this thread's really all about...Bashing MESA!

LightYears, you continue to crack me up
 
the turtle said:
YES!!! Let's get back to what this thread's really all about...Bashing MESA!

LightYears, you continue to crack me up
[post="261883"][/post]​

Light Years must not look at Airways stats much. Last or near last in almost every columm. :down: -Cape
 
PineyBob said:
With no help from Mess-up, I mean Mesa.
[post="261973"][/post]​

Bob, As you know, what Mesa does has nothing to do with Airways stats. To bad though, as these days we might help. -Cape
 
Hmmm, well maybe US Airways would have less cancelations if they, like Mesa, were getting paid a guaranteed profit as long as the flight takes off within a week or so.
 
Id personally like to see more Air Wisconsin and less Mesa aircraft in our fleet

I know this is going to sound terribly old fashioned, but what would be so bad about seeing your aircraft in your colors?

Back in the olden days.....some airlines published connections with each other, but they clearly identified TW as TW and AL as AL and LC as LC and MO as MO and TT as TT and BN as BN and so on and so forth.

When USAirways has Mesa, or Air Wisconsin, or Mom's Airlines, or whoever operate a flight for them under their code and in their colors......the customer sees the experience as indicative of USAirways.

However, USAirways lacks one key ingredient to making things work.....quality control.

The naysayers go on and on about how you have to have nonstops from Zanesville and Franklin/Oil City and Erie to a hub in order to feed the lucrative flights to Rome and Athens and Istanbul (not Constantinople).

I would argue that you are a whole lot better either operating flights yourself or not operating them at all.

And when you guarantee somebody a profit on a fee-for-departure basis, you have effectively removed any incentive for that carrier to do a good job.

And the routes that get downsized to the smaller code-share partners....sheesh. Before long I would not be surprised to wake up and find out that the flying from LAX to PHL had been outsourced to Mesa......a transcon RJ with a fuel stop at Farmington, NM. Bob and Art and the rest of the loyal FFocus members had better spend some serious time in the club before THAT departure......killing off the extra brain cells while trying to determine if the liver is a muscle or an organ. Yuck.

Bethune was right when he said that airlines were like food, and it was quite possible to make a pizza so cheap that nobody will want to eat it. And before somebody points a finger at me and says "hey, you like Southwest, you'll eat any cheap pizza you can find" I might suggest that my airline/pizza might be simple, but it is elegant in its simplicity as it is made with good ingredients.

Bottom line: airlines need to drift away from the code share/commuter partner biz. It's unhealthy.
 
ELP_WN_Psgr said:
...

Bottom line: airlines need to drift away from the code share/commuter partner biz. It's unhealthy.
[post="262041"][/post]​

That's rich. Southwest codeshares with ATA!
 
ELP_WN_Psgr said:
Bottom line: airlines need to drift away from the code share/commuter partner biz. It's unhealthy.
[post="262041"][/post]​

I think you need to separate the two. Codeshare partner is not the same as commuter fee for departure partner. I will agree that the fee for service contracts probably hurt the 'mother' airline more than they help, but codeshares with other airlines probably have a net benefit. If you want I will dig up links, but WN has been quoted as saying their TZ codeshare will add 50 million in revenue this year, US's codeshare with UA will add 300 mil in revenue, and the oneWorld carriers collectively generated over 1.5 billion in additional revenue due to interlining with each other. Interestingly, as a group, OneWorld was the only alliance to be profitable as a whole and collectively they earned, you guessed it, 1.5 billion last year.

However, I think commuter partnerships should be structured more like US and Colgan or UA/F9 and ZK if the commuter carrier is not a wholly owned carrier.
 
Back
Top