Comments

  • The Airline isn't the problem here - its the customer service you get from the current manager. Keep the airlines but change out management!!!!

    April 8, 2011 at 4:20 p.m.
  • spriteman...Those are some good fares......IF you want to go to some podunk town in Arkansas. How much to get you to Boston, Miami, Salt Lake City or Omaha?

    March 29, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
  • In 2009 seaport started service in the Memphis area. They had $49 flights to several Arkansas cities. It's 2011 now, and the cheapest flights are $54. I would assume due to the cost of fuel. You can't beat that.

    March 29, 2011 at 5:21 p.m.
  • TheflyingJ70...You make some good points. I'll agree with you that a twin can be very deadly if it loses an engine on takeoff at or near gross weight. The point has been made that if an engine fails on takeoff, the remaining engine is only good to fly the plane to the crash site. If the single loses it's engine on takeoff, it settles straight ahead and if there is nothing in the way, will belly land. However, if both planes are at cruise altitude and an engine decides that it has lived long enough, the twin has a decided advantage. A single without a working powerplant will come down. The PC-12 can glide a ways, but it's headed for the ground. A twin can probably maintain altitude, or at worst, ease it's way down to a lower altitude and stabilize, thus giving the crew time to sort out the problems and decide on course of action from a list of options. I remember when an EMB-120 lost an engine after leaving Larado bound for IAH, the pilot declared an emergency and diverted to Victoria. The only problem when he landed was some of the passengers needed to change clothes. If the pilot of a single had lost his engine, he would have been looking for the closest place to land, not the closest airport. A highway might be the best choice, followed by a cow pasture. Hopefully there wouldn't be trees in the way. Understand, this is NOT a criticism of the PC-12. It is an excellent airplane. I'm just saying that sometimes, redundant power can save the day -- and the airplane.

    March 28, 2011 at 8:52 p.m.
  • My first recommendation is that everyone do their homework and make an educated suggestion. Throwing out misguided information without doing any research first only confuses people. For example, when comparing the aircraft. Single-engine doesn't mean less safe. Take a look at these stats, which came from a gentleman who runs Pilatus Australia, a service that uses 16 Pilatus PC-12 air ambulances:

    Australian statistics were provided by ATSB for the period 1986 to 1996.

    Fatal accident rate single engined aeroplanes: 0.31 per 100,000 hours.

    Fatal accident rate multi-engined aeroplanes: 0.98 per 100,000 hours.

    (Note that a fatal accident for the purpose of the rate above is an accident in which there was at least one fatality. It does not reflect total people killed)

    Total accident rates were similar at 9.54 per 100,000 hours for singles and 8.39 per 100,000 hours for multis. The difference is that accidents in multi-engined aeroplanes were around 3 times more likely to result in a fatality.

    Total reported hours flown were 1,299,900 for singles, and 2,647,300 for multis.

    From my experience, you are much more likely to witness a fatal crash due to pilot error or the safety procedures of the company. Not to mention that in many cases, a single-engine will be lighter and able to glide to safety with engine failure, and a twin-engine would have much more difficulty, even with one engine working. Especially when you are talking a Pilatus PC-12, with its incredible engine. Colgan Air, listed here as Pinnacle, had a crash as recently as 2009 (Continental flight 3407). Watch this Frontline for more information: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli....

    My second recommendation is to consider where the frequent fliers of the community are actually making a connection to, when they fly, and whether the airlines available at either airport will get them to those destinations, and at an affordable price. Who cares if you can connect onto to Amsterdam or Singapore easily if what you really need is to go to New York every other week, and at an affordable price?

    My other recommendation would be to ask either of the airlines how consistent their fares will be over the next two years. If they're offering a fare decrease now, are they planning on hiking it back up a month or two after they've been selected?

    What sort of customer service record does each airline have?

    Also, is anyone considering additional fees for each airline? How much more will it cost you to check a bag? park? change fees? Many airlines make a good deal off fees from this and that. Someone should ask the airlines how much it ACTUALLY costs to fly. It doesn't make one bit of difference if you can catch a connection to every city in the US if you can't actually afford the price of the trip to begin with....

    March 28, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.
  • N4796V
    Second: Safety. Both aircraft are safe, but the PC-12 has ONE engine.

    ......
    Your knowledge of aircraft safety is limited at best. There are many single engine aircraft with better safety records than multi-prop or even jet. I've been flying for years, and not just commercial carriers. I have wide array of flight experiences, and the PC-12 is surprisingly comfortable and quiet.

    March 27, 2011 at 9:05 p.m.
  • Please stay connected with Houston.

    March 27, 2011 at 8:16 p.m.
  • Now you've done it. By using a photo of a Boeing 737, you'll have people all excited thinking THAT is the kind of airplane on which they'll be flying. It's really not difficult to find a picture of a SF-340 or a Pilatus PC-12; a few mouse clicks in Google will do it. Using side-by-side pictures of the two airplanes that are actually in the competition would have been more representative of the story.

    March 27, 2011 at 11:42 a.m.
  • To bad you didn't use a picture of one of the two planes that are being offered by the two companys rather than a 737 it appears.

    March 27, 2011 at 9:57 a.m.
  • Ok, I'll start the conversation.

    First: Price. Pinnacle should lower their the cost-but with the larger aircraft, bigger crew, landing fee, and operation cost(s)-I don't see that being feasible.

    Second: Safety. Both aircraft are safe, but the PC-12 has ONE engine.

    Third: Which field-Dallas or Houston- do most travellers frequent? Yes, we didn't have a choice before, bur, now we do.
    (it wouldbe nice if BOTH could service San Antonio).

    These are just a few points to ponder. I know there are many more and I'm sure they will be addressed.

    Obviously, SAFETY and COST should be the main concerns. Operating an airline these days is profitable when performed effectively.

    I'm sure the right decicion will be made.

    Just a few of my points of view

    --------------------oh, well--------------------------------------------------

    March 27, 2011 at 6:55 a.m.
  • einy, meany, miney, moe! Which one gets to go, go, go! At least we are big enough to have a regional airport.

    March 27, 2011 at 6:54 a.m.