Why do airlines outsource the same route to multiple carriers?
Jul 29, 2013 | 10:44 pm
#1
Original Poster
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,708
Why do airlines outsource the same route to multiple carriers?
For example, I did a search for BWI-PHL on US.
A typical weekday has 8 different departures operated by 4 airlines with 2 departures each (Piedmont, PSA, Air Wisconsin, and US Airways itself).
Is there some reason for spreading them out and forcing each one to have their own staff and facilities at the airport? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to put these routes up for bid together?
A typical weekday has 8 different departures operated by 4 airlines with 2 departures each (Piedmont, PSA, Air Wisconsin, and US Airways itself).
Is there some reason for spreading them out and forcing each one to have their own staff and facilities at the airport? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to put these routes up for bid together?
Jul 30, 2013 | 4:26 am
#6
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DTW or FNT
Programs: DL GM
Posts: 635
Why do airlines outsource the same route to multiple carriers?
In the event of irregular operations at one carrier, (or even worse, meltdown at one carrier) then the entire schedule for a city is not obliterated. Check out the Wikipedia article on comair. When the pilots went on strike in march 2001 and lasted 90 days, or the computer meltdown around Christmas 2004 that stranded 30000 people. If the flying was spread better in Cincinnati, less people may have been affected.
Jul 30, 2013 | 2:11 pm
#8
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,090
For example, I did a search for BWI-PHL on US.
A typical weekday has 8 different departures operated by 4 airlines with 2 departures each (Piedmont, PSA, Air Wisconsin, and US Airways itself).
Is there some reason for spreading them out and forcing each one to have their own staff and facilities at the airport? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to put these routes up for bid together?
A typical weekday has 8 different departures operated by 4 airlines with 2 departures each (Piedmont, PSA, Air Wisconsin, and US Airways itself).
Is there some reason for spreading them out and forcing each one to have their own staff and facilities at the airport? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to put these routes up for bid together?
Aug 4, 2013 | 7:53 pm
#10
Original Poster
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,708
Confused by these replies. Please elaborate.
That's a fair point, but I doubt airlines would go to that much trouble to plan for irrops. Weather puts a halt to an airport's operations far more frequently than meltdown of a regional.
CVS and Walgreens compete against each other. Different regional airlines flying for the same carrier aren't competing, because the mainline airline is selling the tickets.
In the event of irregular operations at one carrier, (or even worse, meltdown at one carrier) then the entire schedule for a city is not obliterated. Check out the Wikipedia article on comair. When the pilots went on strike in march 2001 and lasted 90 days, or the computer meltdown around Christmas 2004 that stranded 30000 people. If the flying was spread better in Cincinnati, less people may have been affected.
CVS and Walgreens compete against each other. Different regional airlines flying for the same carrier aren't competing, because the mainline airline is selling the tickets.
Aug 5, 2013 | 9:25 am
#11
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ORD
Posts: 991
Nope, they are competing. The mainline airline is their client. If one airline consistently screws up, the contract will go to others the next time.