Seaport discontinues service in CA and KS

Stryker172 said:
I know I did. For the first six months or so I was perfectly happy with my job. That all started to change around the time Athens went away. Morale was dropping, per diem started lagging, pay checks started getting light. Then the disciplinary letters and the nasty PRIA remarks started coming out and I lost my hooah.
Click to expand...

Yeah we've got a couple of knuckle heads and I'm sorry that you had that sort of experiance. Not saying I haven't seen some of that crap. Morale is bad but I'm not going to do any good adding to the poor morale so I'm going to come in every day and give my 100%. One day they are going to say they don't need me anymore or I am going to say I don't need them any more. Then I am going to go give the next company my 100%.
 
M20B_pilot said:
As others have said, it's sickening that they blame these closures on a pilot shortage. I can't tell you how many people have told me that their friends have tried to get on with SeaPort and couldn't get a call or response from anybody there. There are plenty of low time pilots that would be lining up to work there and build their time. When they mistreat so many guys for so long, it appears it's finally started to catch up to them. I'm sorry for the CSA's losing their jobs and the communities who have suffered from SeaPort's broken promises. Looks like karma is finally catching up to them. You can only abuse pilots for so long before you get burned.

I do find it strange that @av8tr1 isn't here trying to defend the company.
Click to expand...

Yeah I hate our recruiting efforts. They suck and I've and others have tried to change it but it's owned by someone who has no business doing it and wont release control to someone who can do a better job. I put a lot of work into recruiting at Oshkosh and had the rug pulled out from under me a few days before the show. There have been a few others that haven't gone anywhere. I agree our recruiting effort just sucks.

Having said that, we need captains not FOs. Lots of those low time guys can't help us right now. We've got something like 15 low timers in the pipeline but without captains we can't get them in the air. We have so many FOs that most are getting around 15 hours a week at best.
 
av8tr1 said:
I'm on a cross country trip and having to work off my cell. Was waiting till I got home to respond.

I've never said SeaPort was perfect. We've made some decisions that didn't pan out like we hoped. So we are resetting and trying a different tack. We've got some great people working hard for SeaPort and its customers. Things arent over yet for SeaPort. But 89 people lost their jobs last week. How about you stop dancing on their graves.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone is dancing on graves here...
 
FloridaLarry said:
Roger Squared is nearly right.

There are, however, three (and a half) to keep an eye on. (1.) The Pilatus PC-12 would work out well. Pressurized retractable, but initial cost is pretty high. Seaport leased some, until they were repossessed. Think Lexus vs Toyota / Caravan. Single PT-6 variant turboprop. (2.) Viking Air of Canada bought the rights and tooling for the Twotter from Bombardier and now makes the 400 series with partial composites, glass cockpit, etc. STOL capability, non-retracting gear (can get floats or skiis !) and tough as a tank. Two PT-6 series turbos. Cost is similar to the PC-12, I think. (3.) The Spanish are still building a version of the CASA 212, definitely in the running for the ugly airplane list, two Garrett turboprops. I'd look carefully at the accident list - seems like a lot of bent metal.

(The half, as in half-built) A very interesting aircraft to watch is the Italian-designed & (still being) built Tecnam P2012 Traveller. Cape Air has partnered with Tecnam on the design, and has ordered a hundred to replace their aging 402s. Not vapor-ware; this will happen. High wing twin, piston engines which will run on damn near anything that'll burn, not pressurized, fixed gear, glass cockpit and lots of composites. It even looks Italian (No CASA 212 here!). First flight later this year. Take a peek: www.tecnam.com/aircraft/p2012-traveller Maybe you can build time on a Vespa for it? Time will tell if it gets a significantly larger market than just Cape Air, but I'm betting on it.

I think you can order a new variant of the B-N Islander from companies in Belgium and Romania (who bought the rights and tooling after several bankruptcies), should you be so inclined. But no Trislander.

None of these are exact replacements for the Caravan, which is probably why Cessna will still sell you a new one. The market is a group of specialized needs, including freight, executive transport , parachuters, smaller EAS, various military roles, search & rescue and medevac, etc. What there is no replacement for, is the Beech 1900 (actually, could use a Twotter or Casa - maybe. Capacity is about the same), except for something in the Soviet Union (or whatever it's being called this week). They'd love to export it for you, but parts might be a problem.
Click to expand...
The CASA and twin otter are both good airplanes, though looking at them one wonders if they handle ice much better than a caravan. I want to believe in the Traveler, I really do, but I've been hearing about it my entire career.
 
Roger Roger said:
... I want to believe in the Traveler, I really do, but I've been hearing about it my entire career.
Click to expand...

When I see metal being cut and bent, my faith goes up. Not necessarily to the top story, but to a higher floor with a better view. Ditto, a hundred-plane order from folks who know what they're doing. Fun to watch!
 
Inverted said:
I'm not sure anyone is dancing on graves here...
Click to expand...

Sure their are. People are celebrating or encouraging the end of SeaPort and its employees. The company tries to provide a valuable resource to remote communities. We've had some issues, some self inflicted and some external. But we are trying to correct these issues.

In the meantime it's very unfortunate that 89 people lost their jobs. Some of the posts here seem to imply that is a good thing, that's not cool. Unless you are completely inept its never a good thing that someone loses their job. These people weren't in charge of the company they were hard workers following direction from management.

I've been fortunet to be part of a great group of people at SeaPort. My job allows me to interact with a lot of these people on a regular basis and I am very appreciative of the hard work they did/do to keep SeaPort going in troubling times.

We have a couple of knuckle heads but for the most part this is a great company with a lot of potential.
 
av8tr1 said:
Sure their are. People are celebrating or encouraging the end of SeaPort and its employees. The company tries to provide a valuable resource to remote communities. We've had some issues, some self inflicted and some external. But we are trying to correct these issues.

In the meantime it's very unfortunate that 89 people lost their jobs. Some of the posts here seem to imply that is a good thing, that's not cool. Unless you are completely inept its never a good thing that someone loses their job. These people weren't in charge of the company they were hard workers following direction from management.

I've been fortunet to be part of a great group of people at SeaPort. My job allows me to interact with a lot of these people on a regular basis and I am very appreciative of the hard work they did/do to keep SeaPort going in troubling times.

We have a couple of knuckle heads but for the most part this is a great company with a lot of potential.
Click to expand...

I hope you understand that with what I'm saying, I'm not "dancing on the grave" or advocating for people to lose their jobs. I think it sucks, terribly. I'm just not a fan of EAS in most cases.
 
mshunter said:
IMO, that's an illogical extension, having a highway system that everyone uses. So by your account, they are being subsidized twice. Eisenhower built our current freeway system not just for the free flow of commerce, but to allow our military to also travel expeditiously from one side of the country to the other, hence the name "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways." Back when it was designed and envisioned, there was no way to get from one side of the country to the other quickly.

Point being, the rest of the nation shouldn't be on the book for a guy in Chico, or Fresno, or Booney, so he can further his business. There are plenty of pop up charter operations now that are using small airplanes, on the cheap, like a Cirrus. In many cases, time wise, and dollar wise, you can do it just as well, and avoid the major airports all together.
Click to expand...

Eisenhower, no fan of the defense industry, used defense budget money to invest in infrastructure as he was philosophically opposed to the spending on and buildup of the defense industry in lieu of domestic improvement. In order to use defense funds he engaged the various services and as a result design features were incorporated at their request, for example long, straight reinforced stretches of highway for SAC to be used for aircraft disbursement. He believed, as I do, connecting our communities more critical than writing huge checks to North American, Douglas, Boeing and Vought, or whatever contemporary defense contractor was taking handouts at the time.

So, he gave rural America a handout, connecting us with DOD funds. God forbid we give our communities a double handout through downright cheap seat subsidies on single engine turboprops, or even worse, triple handouts when those airplanes file IFR and use the system on a clearance. Quadruple handout when the FAA inspects and maintains the associated navaids, should we count each weather report and forecast as a separate handout from NOAA? Maybe tornado warnings should be handout squared. Oh wow, levy maintenance along rural waterways....big handout.

But we just philosophically disagree, the amount spent on EAS isn't even a dust speck in the federal budget, it makes a difference to the communities it serves, and connects people to the air transportation system. You call it a handout, I call it investment. Sadly, since our leaders like to appear tough on spending while allowing our hard earned public funds to be raided in corporate welfare, the EAS program is designed to fail, to look bad, and enable catchy sound bites rather than serve the American public.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
av8tr1 said:
Sure their are. People are celebrating or encouraging the end of SeaPort and its employees. The company tries to provide a valuable resource to remote communities. We've had some issues, some self inflicted and some external. But we are trying to correct these issues.

In the meantime it's very unfortunate that 89 people lost their jobs. Some of the posts here seem to imply that is a good thing, that's not cool. Unless you are completely inept its never a good thing that someone loses their job. These people weren't in charge of the company they were hard workers following direction from management.

I've been fortunet to be part of a great group of people at SeaPort. My job allows me to interact with a lot of these people on a regular basis and I am very appreciative of the hard work they did/do to keep SeaPort going in troubling times.

We have a couple of knuckle heads but for the most part this is a great company with a lot of potential.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake. I never want to see my pilot brothers and sisters put on the street. But let's call it like it is. Seaport is a bottom feeder. When your checks are shorted or not on time, anyone with half a brain should be fleeing and not looking back. Is the fact 89 people were put on the street a HUGE surprise? Come on now...

It's great that you keep a positive attitude and a favorable impression of the company. But it's easy to lose sight of reality, and sink with the ship.
 
Inverted said:
Make no mistake. I never want to see my pilot brothers and sisters put on the street. But let's call it like it is. Seaport is a bottom feeder. When your checks are shorted or not on time, anyone with half a brain should be fleeing and not looking back. Is the fact 89 people were put on the street a HUGE surprise? Come on now...

It's great that you keep a positive attitude and a favorable impression of the company. But it's easy to lose sight of reality, and sink with the ship.
Click to expand...
I have a simple agreement with my employers, check stops showing up, I stop showing up. Bank fails to honor the check, I fail to honor the schedule.

Simple.
 
Cazadores said:
I have a simple agreement with my employers, check stops showing up, I stop showing up. Bank fails to honor the check, I fail to honor the schedule.

Simple.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I had it happen only one time. And I stopped showing up until I got that check. They received my two week notice a week later (timing was very fortunate). I don't play that BS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It is historically accurate to think of EAS as a Government correction under the law of unintended consequences. Alfred Kahn's airline deregulation had the (I think unintended) effect of allowing the then allowed-to-exist airlines, both trunk and regional, to suspend service where they thought it was not economical to provide it. They could go where they wanted (a plus), and not go where they didn't want to go. This had the unintended result of dozens of smaller and mid-size cities losing airline service. People screamed, "The government took away our airline service. Without it, we can't attract industry, we can't go visit the kids who didn't stay down on the farm," and more. Enter EAS, for two reasons: The political fall-out was heavy, and legislators from rural areas have tended to stay in Washington longer, thereby amassing more clout. Which they used to correct their unintended consequence, since the government no longer could make the airlines serve unprofitable places. The second reason is that access to air service had become, like the telephone, a part of modern society. Turning the clock back seldom works.

Technology helped: larger planes could go farther, and people preferred non-stops to the 'vomit comets,' jumping from puddle to puddle. This, in turn, led to hub-and-spoke systems, because, after all, larger non-stops are a cheaper way to fly people. Just ask Freddie Laker.

Then came commuters to fill in parts of the country, in the early 1960s. Code-sharing with larger airlines started in 1967. Marketing blurred the names, and as the 'commuter' planes grew, airline executives discovered it was cheaper to out-source that flying. Now the planes could go half way across the country, for lower cost per airline seat mile, and we're in today's pickle.

Sure, lots of other contributing factors, the latest of which today is the 1,500 hour requirement, with the unintended consequences of pilot shortage. Government tweaks things to fix mistakes more often than it dis-assembles and re-builds. Plus, people like choices - it's a part of freedom in the US. Two thousand dollar costs to fly one dude 200 miles once a week? Require minimums of number of people served, airline mile separation between airports. The EAS concept isn't wrong, just some of the way it's working. This is the same Government who brought you the $5,000 NASA toilet seat after all. Fix the toilet seat and its price, don't try to re-engineer how people p--- and s---.

The economic model of major airlines and regionals will get sorted out eventually, tweak by tweak. One of the tweaks is unfortunately bankruptcy and adjusted employment patterns.
 
Anyone know the company that owned the repo'd SeaPort airplanes?

Even a tail number can help me out. PM if needed....
 
This letter is about EAS service to Visalia, CA(VIS) who until the early 80s had mainline United service followed by commuter service by various airlines until the early 2000s(ending with SkyWest doing FAT-VIS to connect pax on to LAX and SFO) at which point it received EAS service from Air Midwest, Great Lakes, and then Seaport who all sort of left them high and dry. VIS is close enough to FAT that a drive wouldn't be all that big a deal and in this case I agree that EAS money is better spent elsewhere. But what stuck out to me:

“If we had one airline that couldn’t make it due to a shortage of pilots, how can another?” he asked.

There is, however, some controversy whether it was really a nationwide shortage of pilots, for SeaPort’s discontinuation of service not only to Visalia, but four other California airports as well as Kansas City, MO and two Kansas airports. Many pilot blogs and discussion websites sited financial problems with planes being repossessed.
Click to expand...

Looks like this "pilot shortage" is so real cities are starting to fear no airline can complete it's scheduled flights...
 
ChasenSFO said:
This letter is about EAS service to Visalia, CA(VIS) who until the early 80s had mainline United service followed by commuter service by various airlines until the early 2000s(ending with SkyWest doing FAT-VIS to connect pax on to LAX and SFO) at which point it received EAS service from Air Midwest, Great Lakes, and then Seaport who all sort of left them high and dry. VIS is close enough to FAT that a drive wouldn't be all that big a deal and in this case I agree that EAS money is better spent elsewhere. But what stuck out to me:



Looks like this "pilot shortage" is so real cities are starting to fear no airline can complete it's scheduled flights...
Click to expand...


Not a pilot shortage at all. The cities with the crappiest companies serving them are losing service. It's not science, however it's a great lobbying effort that has succeeded to dupe the public into believing there is an actual shortage of pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top