Great Lakes 135 approval

I think it has to do with multi engine ops being a safety barrier for operations in mountainous areas. Not to mention 121 requires multi engine aircraft and that's what Great Lakes mostly is / used to be.

The EAS 9 seat stuff would be done on a part 135 certificate. I think there is a requirement for Multi-eninge aircraft but I haven't found it in the regs to reference yet. I know you can do 135 in single engine aircraft but I believe the seats need to be reduced even further.

Anyone have the reg reference.
 
JustinS said:
I think it has to do with multi engine ops being a safety barrier for operations in mountainous areas....
True. Mountains bend metal.

... Not to mention 121 requires multi engine aircraft and that's what Great Lakes mostly is / used to be.
No longer true, as of the last Fed'l authorization bill.

The proposal from an airline for EAS service (a two-year contract) specifies the aircraft, number of flights, etc. To change mid-contract would require approval of the EAS troops, but in these cases - that or nothing - would probably be approved. GLA lists 6 Embraer 120s and 28 B-1900Ds in the fleet. Nothing with a single engine, and it would be iffy for them to be able to start-up another aircraft type (financing or lease; FAA approvals of the infrastructure, which take an inordinant amount of time; training, etc.) right now. Only way would be to buy a smaller airline (!) or code-share down with one. No one in that position would want to try it, since they want to pick up the shards of GLA when it goes psssssst.

I give them credit for trying a solution with what they do have. Time alone will tell whether they succeed at overcoming the worsening customer relations problems from cancellations due to too few pilots.

Cities & airports have been grouching at them for years about GLA's delays & cancellations. They try, but do not fix the basic problem: They see themselves as an entry point for flight staff, and their business plan therefore has lower than McD's wages. They think the PAX don't have a choice, and will put up with a lot. That's less and less true - both our impatient, instant-gratification world today. Cities and airports also have Shiny Jet Syndrome, and some larger Regionals are ready to put their semi-surplus 135s and CJR-200s to work in larger EAS markets.

Kansas is a microcosm: First Manhattan, then Garden City got jet service, and PAX growth happened. Now Hays is jumping on the bandwagon - their patience with GLA was up as it drifted to a 61% completion rate. Enter Skywest, with 200s it has but are increasingly surplus. Places like Great Bend, loading an average of 4 PAX per day last time I looked and a half hour from Hays, will never get jet service: Hello Caravans / Pilatii. It's working in Salina, more people climbing onto the Pilatii, despite being just too close to Wichita to support larger aircraft (and therefore also EAS-ineligible).

We haven't seen the last of changes here, either!
 
No longer true, as of the last Fed'l authorization bill.

Can you show me the regulation on that? That's news to me. I was just going off of FAR 121.159.

121.159 "Single-engine airplanes prohibited. No certificate holder may operate a single-engine airplane under this part."

As far as 135 single engine operations being allowed in general I am aware, but I don't think the FAA would approve single engine aircraft on their certificate since they operate into such mountainous areas.

As @FloridaLarry said as well, they don't have the metal to operate SE. They would have to aquire new aircraft, which I don't think they're really in a good position to do right now.
 
Can you show me the regulation on that? That's news to me. I was just going off of FAR 121.159.

121.159 "Single-engine airplanes prohibited. No certificate holder may operate a single-engine airplane under this part."

As far as 135 single engine operations being allowed in general I am aware, but I don't think the FAA would approve single engine aircraft on their certificate since they operate into such mountainous areas.

As @FloridaLarry said as well, they don't have the metal to operate SE. They would have to aquire new aircraft, which I don't think they're really in a good position to do right now.
Plenty of single engine 135 operators out there, don't see why it would be an issue with the reliability of engines these days (as long as you can show that you have the performance).
 
The EAS 9 seat stuff would be done on a part 135 certificate. I think there is a requirement for Multi-eninge aircraft but I haven't found it in the regs to reference yet. I know you can do 135 in single engine aircraft but I believe the seats need to be reduced even further.

Anyone have the reg reference.
Scheduled IFR passenger carrying ops under part 135 can be conducted with at least 9 seats.
 
The EAS 9 seat stuff would be done on a part 135 certificate. I think there is a requirement for Multi-eninge aircraft but I haven't found it in the regs to reference yet. I know you can do 135 in single engine aircraft but I believe the seats need to be reduced even further.

Anyone have the reg reference.
SeaPort has EAS routes with single engine. I don't know the regs, but I know they fly them.
 
Several people asked for a reference for EAS with less than 15 seats:

"...Subsequently, the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012” (Public Law No: 112-55, November 18, 2011) waived the requirement that communities receive EAS on 15-seat or larger aircraft...."

From DOT's website: http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service. Yes, it's a secondary citation, but includes the primary. Public Law trumps Administrative Regulations, once Congress acts. Regs that are against the law go down in flames!

The engines to seats ratio pretty much guarantees that this includes single-engine for some, and IMHO, that makes sense. Today, engines are that reliable. I don't know of any single-engine 19 PAX A/C - Anyone? Cape Air, which pre-dates the 2012 changes, uses Cessna 402 twins in the lower 48 (Alaska & Hawaii are, by statute, exempt from certain rules since it's a different world up/out there). Cape Air's business and customer service models work. Well! I haven't heard of their cancelling flights for lack of flight crew.

If it were starting up today, I'll bet Cape Air would probably be using a single-engine airframe.

No one objects to larger aircraft. Economics ==> losses starting Day 2. The losses are greater than the now-capped subsidy. Hello, Chapter(s) 7 and 11, goodbye bigger aircraft.
 
I know we bid for EAS somewhere out there this last fall and we are almost an exclusively PC-12 fleet. People love the freaking thing.
 
sp238882 said:
I know we bid for EAS somewhere out there this last fall and we are almost an exclusively PC-12 fleet. People love the freaking thing.

PAX are far more likely to love newer planes like the PC-12 than older, likely to look clapped-out Caravans and B-1900Ds.

That said, it doesn't explain Cape Air. Could it be the personal touch and - gasp - real service?
 
Could it be the personal touch and - gasp - real service?

You-Shut-Your-Mouth-When-Youre-Talking-to-Me.gif
 
sp238882 said:


PAX are far more likely to love newer planes like the PC-12 than older, likely to look clapped-out Caravans and B-1900Ds.

That said, it doesn't explain Cape Air. Could it be the personal touch and - gasp - real service?
You do realize that they are still building Caravans, right? And that after a 402 goes through Cair's deep cycle maintenance it's as close to a brand new 402 as you'll ever find?
 
Roger Ditto said:
You do realize that they are still building Caravans, right? And that after a 402 goes through Cair's deep cycle maintenance it's as close to a brand new 402 as you'll ever find?

Actually, I didn't realize that Cessna was still building Caravans, but there are clapped-out ones still flying, including PAX.

Roger makes the point that after a D check, planes are very much like new. and certainly safe. But some lower-end Regionals don't re-furbish the cabin to the same degree that they re-furnish the nacelles & their content. Or their terminal facilities & ground equipment. Customers' perceptions include older chipped paint, tray tables that dangle, rump-sprung seats, thread-bare carpet, leather seat covers re-installed by a dyslexic chimpanzee with a dripping-wet A&P ticket, and more.

I guess I wasn't clear enough: I do admire Cape Air and what they do so well. I was holding them up as a successful example, not as a mini-maintenance bottom feeder. When they take over an EAS or other route from a B-1900D operator, damn near every route has (a.) Happier PAX, (b.) More of them, (c.) More flights. They have created win-wins, and made money where others have failed, often abysmally.
 
The management of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the “Company”) has determined that the Company is unable to file its Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2013 within the prescribed time period, without unreasonable effort and expense. Management needs additional time to accurately evaluate and disclose the risks and circumstances pertaining to the Company, including the Company’s non-compliance with a leverage ratio covenant in its credit agreement with GB Merchant Partners, LLC and Crystal Capital LLC, and the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Company expects to file its Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2013 by April 15, 2014.

New Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) pilot qualification rules imposed as part of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 in combination with revised FAR Part 117 (Flight Crew Member Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements) pilot rest and duty time rules, has created a shortage of qualified pilots and negatively affected our operations and financial condition.

The lack of available pilots to hire has caused the Company to curtail operations and reduce capacity in the fourth quarter of 2013, and is expected to continue into 2014 or until the Company can hire and train a sufficient number of pilots. The curtailment of operations has had a negative impact on revenue, operating income and liquidity. As of December 31, 2013 the Company was not in compliance with a leverage ratio covenant contained in our senior credit facility’s credit agreement.

On March 18, 2014, the FAA granted the Company authority to operate our Beechcraft 1900D aircraft in a restricted operational configuration which has allowed us to hire pilots under FAR Part 135. The significance of this change is that it now enables the Company to rebuild pilot staffing levels. The Company believes that this authorization has improved its ability to hire new pilots. The Company requires additional time to analyze the impact of this change and make adjustments to forecasted operations.

Until the Company is able to re-staff qualified pilots, in sufficient quantity, it is expected that the Company will not have sufficient forecasted liquidity to service our existing debt obligations which raises substantial doubt on the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. We are engaged in discussions with the lenders of our senior credit facility and are pursuing additional or alternative sources of financing.
 
Wow. So much bull.

New Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) pilot qualification rules imposed as part of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 in combination with revised FAR Part 117 (Flight Crew Member Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements) pilot rest and duty time rules, has created a shortage of qualified pilots and negatively affected our operations and financial condition.

...you mean, "has created a shortage of qualified pilots willing to work for our ridiculously low wages."

On March 18, 2014, the FAA granted the Company authority to operate our Beechcraft 1900D aircraft in a restricted operational configuration which has allowed us to hire pilots under FAR Part 135. The significance of this change is that it now enables the Company to rebuild pilot staffing levels. The Company believes that this authorization has improved its ability to hire new pilots. The Company requires additional time to analyze the impact of this change and make adjustments to forecasted operations.

"Further, we expect to continue this practice until a fatal accident occurs and forces us into bankruptcy."
 
NewYorkophile said (in part):
Wow. So much bull.

It's finance-speak, not bull. Their financing (read: mortgage) requires certain financial benchmarks be maintained. Like your mortgage requires you to keep a roof on your house, and insurance in force. For a combination of reasons - pilot desertions, inability to hire at their pay scales, inability by now to raise their pay scales - they've been in a declining spin that has taken them below (financial) minimums.

They now have to convince their lenders to avoid foreclosing, and/or find some more / replacement financing. To be successful, they have to convince financial bean-counters that their beans will be safe and profitable invested in GLA.

Big challenge!
 
I'll be very happy when this shakes down. I don't wish ill on their employees, just their management. And since all their employees have pretty well packed it in, only management is left. Ipso Facto, I have no problems sleeping at night.
 
Back
Top