City stays with Great Lakes; expects improvement

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

McCOOK, Nebraska -- The McCook City Council approved a recommendation to the Department of Transportation to continue with the airport's current air service provider, Great Lakes Airlines, but not without making it clear there were those that expected the quality of service to improve.

Councilman Bruce McDowell said Monday evening he agreed with the recommendation from the Airport Advisory Commission to continue with Great Lakes, considering their flight destination to Denver, Colorado, was preferred by local air travelers over SeaPort Airlines proposal to shift the destination east, but he expected Great Lakes to do a better job of predicting and communicating cancellations in the future.

McDowell said passengers had complained about being told within 24 hours of their scheduled flight that everything was fine, only to arrive at the airport to find their flight had been cancelled. McDowell said he heard from others that had a similar experience when flying into McCook from Denver and were left scrambling at the last minute to find alternate transport for the final leg of their trip.

"I would like to put them [Great Lakes] on notice that I'm not happy with their service," said McDowell, adding that he was aware of the pilot shortage issue but also struggled with claims it caught some airlines by surprise when they were given three years notice the changes were going into effect.

McDowell referenced reports of a national shortage of pilots, which city stiff has credited with causing a slew of local flight cancellations beginning in September. During the October Airport Advisory Board meeting, board members credited higher experience requirements for pilots, implemented last summer, with having a trickle down effect and causing a pilot shortage which airports across the nation are experiencing.

McDowell indicated airlines that were not competitive with wages, signing bonuses and compensating pilots for school time, were likely being hit harder than other airlines. He said, based on Great Lakes federal filings he had seen, they were experiencing significant revenue loss in recent quarters.

McDowell said he understood Denver was the preferred destination for local air passengers but hoped to see improved service from Great Lakes in the future.

He also said he knew the federal experience changes contributed to the situation, but said the changes were brought about by an airline crash on the east coast that killed 50 people and was caused by a lack of training.

Public Works Director Kyle Potthoff recapped steps the airline had taken in recent weeks, including physically removing seats from planes and reducing the number of flights, in an effort to increase quality of service. Potthoff said the airline hoped to be back to two flights a day within 90 days.

Council members subsequently approved the recommendation on a unanimous vote.

Comments
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • It makes no difference where, when, how big the airport is or how many flights you have if they do not fly you are not going to have many customers. I have been screwed three times and will think twice before booking with Great lakes. Besides canceling my flights i had to cancel all my connections before they would give me a refund which cost me another 150.00 because flights went up in price from the time i booked them till i rebooked. Obviously not one of the council members have flown out of McCook to connect with other flights.

    -- Posted by ph2856 on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, at 5:21 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
  • Every time it comes time too look at a new provider for air service they city sticks with Great Lakes knowing the service has had issues with flight cancelations. Last time it was several flights canceled due to mechanical issues. Now it's because they have no one to fly the planes.

    It's been known for a couple years now that the required hours were going to change and that the regional airlines were going to be hit the hardest since they don't pay well and the big airlines do.

    At what point to you ask yourself, is this the best service for McCook?

    -- Posted by npwinder on Tue, Feb 18, 2014, at 8:25 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
  • Great Lakes was warned about its poor service last time they got the contract but they were the only applicant so there was no other choice. Prior to that, they came within one vote of losing their contract to SeaPort on the last vote because of poor service. The fact is that once they have the contract, they don't really take warnings about their service seriously. They know the city will put up with their poor service because of a lack of competition.

    If the city really wanted to scare them, they would hold hearings on the possibility of going somewhere other than Denver on a consistent schedule and how to make it work for the passengers as opposed to going west occasionally. It would also prepare the city if going somewhere else becomes the only option at some point in the future. It would take a few meetings to investigate the possibility and put it on the agenda every 6 months to keep updated on changes in the industry. That way when its time to renegotiate, the council is better educated on what to expect and we may attract new competition when they see just how serious we are about exploring all possibilities at the top level.

    The days of tolerating poor air service and hoping for something better in two years is not working for us. Great Lakes has had more than their fair share of warnings. It's time to start looking at how we can replace Great Lakes as opposed to how we can change Great Lakes. The latter has been proven to fail every time we tried and frankly, we have a better chance at the former.

    -- Posted by Aaron Kircher on Wed, Feb 19, 2014, at 4:49 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
    Response by Bruce Baker:
    Aaron,

    An interesting point, pertaining to your comment about "tolerating poor air service," the airport experienced significant increases in commercial passengers last year, best since at least 2007. Almost all service complaints relate to flight cancellations and yet last year the airport boarded more passengers than it has in a long time. Council comments this week related primarily to Great Lakes improving how they handled/communicated those cancellations and the airport advisory board has also been communicating with both airline options on a regular basis in pursuit of improving the situation. I think they are already doing what you are calling for, just in their own fashion.

  • Thanks Bruce. People are free to their own opinions but not their own facts. Very glad the paper is doing facts checks on posts now. Keep it up.

    -- Posted by dennis on Fri, Feb 21, 2014, at 6:56 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
  • Many businesses increase their number of customers despite poor service so I never disputed their increase in enplanements. Poor service regarding flight cancellations has been a recurring issue with Great Lakes. I remember constantly receiving complaints about their cancellations, how cancellations were handled, poor customer service when they were called and the questionable reasons given for many cancellations, that was 4 years ago.

    We got away from Great Lakes once (with great relief) only to have the new carrier go under and we had no choice but to take back Great Lakes. Then when their contract was up in 2010, we were dealing with a large increase in flights being cancelled by Great Lakes and the complaints that followed. We tried working with them then we tried warning them and now we're back to requesting they do the same thing we tried getting them to do 4 years ago.

    Yes, they do have their own way. The way I described is just going a step beyond the way it's always been done.

    -- Posted by Aaron Kircher on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 12:58 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
  • Not sure what you're referring to, Dennis. Bruce was referencing a line that was clearly stated as an opinion so what part of that is my own fact?

    -- Posted by Aaron Kircher on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:23 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
  • Aaron are you saying your opinions are not based in fact?

    -- Posted by dennis on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 4:45 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
  • You implied I was coming up with my own facts, not opinions, in the line referenced by Bruce. Then, when asked to back up your assertion, you reply with that? Now, I don't mind helping you practice to avoid questions but we're not going to get anywhere dodging questions, Dennis.

    I don't like dodging questions myself though, so I'll answer your question. My opinions are based on facts and personal experience dealing with Great Lakes over the course of several years on the council. Including meetings with staff, public meetings, personal research and the numerous complaints I received from citizens during those years.

    -- Posted by Aaron Kircher on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 5:49 PM
    ! Report comment to editor
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: