Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

CAL and Mokulele

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Because RP is not going to go out on its own just to code share... Who would that benifit?
 
Exactly my point. What stops CAL from "code sharing" with Republic in the lower 48. Removing CAL planes and replacing them with Republic Airlines e170/190. .

They can't because CALALPA's scope does not allow jets with more than 50 seats. We already code share with Republicshuttletaqua so I guess I'm still confused as to what you are trying to say.
 
I think I know what he is saying but I believe he is wrong. There is a difference in the code share with Republic and code share with say delta. On the Delta flight, delta is covering the cost of operating the flight. On a Republic flight, Continental is covering the cost of the flight. I would continue but my kid is calling.
 
CAL codeshares with Hawaiian not Mokulele. Their agreement with MW is an interline agreement which is very different. An interline agreement allows flight information to populate when a search is made and the ticket can be purchased but the flight is listed as a separate carrier. A codeshare agreement is very different.
 
Poahi, congratulations for actually having a basic understanding of these types of agreements, everyone else needs to go back and do some homework. Unlike a codeshare agreement (pro-rate or revenue-guarantee) an interline ticketing agreement does not involve any sharing of revenue. it is essentially an agreement to sell eachothers tickets.
 
Poahi, congratulations for actually having a basic understanding of these types of agreements, everyone else needs to go back and do some homework. Unlike a codeshare agreement (pro-rate or revenue-guarantee) an interline ticketing agreement does not involve any sharing of revenue. it is essentially an agreement to sell eachothers tickets.

This is correct. However, at some large airlines, it still has to pass the "sniff" test of their scope and get the approval of the mainline pilot group.

Some of the things that were condidered in the past were: is it competition, size of airplanes flown, size of operation, routes, markets, and is it more beneficial to permit the agreement than to do the flying ourselves? In many cases it is allowed, because it is a way to get access without risk, especially in markets, that due to economics, would not be served. Many times it is in the best interest of the mainline pilot group to permit the agreement.
 
Last edited:
In many cases it is allowed, because it is a way to get access without risk,

There are only two reasons this agreement was made IMHO. It worked for CAL because MW is going to pay them a fee for the very few tickets they actually sell (most of which will be to MKK and LNY) and secondly, it was an opportunity for a press release to get people to think that MW has a marketing network when it does not.

It is not a threat to CAL scope IMHO. Did anyone miss the fanfare at CAL when they acknowledged this agreement?
 
Looks like 2 E190's (MIGHT) be going to Mokulele this year...
FAA issued 2 N numbers on 2 190's with the HQ aka RP on 4/10/2009.
 
These airplanes are not registed to Republic. You are basing you info on the fact that Republic also has tail numbers of HQ. These airplanes have not been sold yet inside the US.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top