HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7322 times:
That would be a HUGE boost in capacity for AA out of LAX... are we sure that their ready to deploy that kind of capacity???? I'd honestly even doubt if they have that many a/c deployed on the westcoast period.... However I'd love to see ExpressJet show Eagle how to run a regional airline... they need some lessons!
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7226 times:
While I would not question AA switching things around for AE in LAX, absorbing a 59 aircraft operation would be out of the question.
59 aircraft operating 4-5 daily departures would equal 250-300 departures, something not AA, nor any other LAX airline could absorb with current facilities.
Matter of fact, AA will in the next two years loose its remote AE terminal and further down the road its entire maintenance base at LAX due to approved expansion work, so if anything I could see AA pull back AE ops at the airport, not expand them.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Jetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2984 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7196 times:
Eagle is expensive for AA. AA could farm out much of what Eagle flies for much lower rates than they are currently paying. Eagle currently flies on contract about 235 jets for AA. ExpressJet's 67 (?) jets that will become available at the end of their contract with CO could resplace upto..what...30% of Eagle's flying?
And the notion that AA would somehow lose control over quality should they farm out the flying is nonsense. AA is a very strong and well managed company. They wouldn't enter into any flying agreement that would be without minimum standards of performance required of the new feeder carrier. And besides, ExpressJet is an extremely well run feeder airline in its own right. They have excellent equipment (if you like ERJ's) and very well trained employees.
I think it might be a great fit for AA in its search to lower costs wherever possible.
AA is looking to cut costs $1 billion in the next 12 months. That won't come without some dramatic and out of the box thinking. I think anything is on the table right now.
Worked for too many airlines to list. Banktupcy after bankruptcy after bankruptcy.
HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7142 times:
Its only fair to point out that Arpey did just say in the Q1 confrence call that he was in favor of keeping eagle and their flying in house, he brought up a simple point that by farming out flying you have to pay another companies profiet... with eagle, the profiets stay inhouse with AMR... I do agree that MQ could learn a thing or two about how not to cancel flights and run an ontime operation, I don't think that that would be enough cause to add an extra 59 jets to the operation....
OptionsCLE From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 467 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7088 times:
Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 8): AA is looking to cut costs $1 billion in the next 12 months
Well one thing's for sure, they're NOT going to do that with ExpressJet. That's the reason that CO is partially dropping them, they're just too damn expensive!!! Continental told ExpressJet that their costs were too high and XJT refused to make the same cost cuts that every other airline - mainline and regional, alike - have had to make. XJT is a very safe and high quality regional carrier, there's no debating that, but there costs are too high with jet fuel at the price that it is. Only time will tell if ExpressJet can be successful without CO, but at this point in time, I don't see this being the right choice for AA.
WorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7055 times:
When compared with flying MD80s, XJ's airplane trip costs are very favorable to AA's. I would hate to see AA pull a bunch more capacity from their system but the fact that they are parking MD80s during the peak summer season says they want alot less capacity in their system.
As for LAX, the remote parking observation is interesting but I'm sure if AA puts in more RJ flying, it won't be to the same destinations they serve now... RJs will be used to substantially increase AA's size in LAX. LAX is alot like BOS... no real dominant carrier and no one really pulling away from the pack. This could be AA's opportunity to do that.... move some 777s from elsewhere in their system (not sure how) and beef up the Pacific and make LAX much more of a hub operation.
HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7023 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 17): I would hate to see AA pull a bunch more capacity from their system but the fact that they are parking MD80s during the peak summer season says they want alot less capacity in their system.
I think that it can't be refuted Less Capacity = higher fares, which Arpey went on record saying today that Fares must increase in order for airlines to return to profitablitly
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 17): This could be AA's opportunity to do that.... move some 777s from elsewhere in their system (not sure how) and beef up the Pacific and make LAX much more of a hub operation.
Exaclty, were are they going to come from? at any rate, I think AA has shown were their pacific/Asian stratagy is being setup, ORD and DFW... between the two they've launched several new routes in the past year... in addition If you were going to beefup your service to those regions wouldn't you be looking for 1 stop service? if you launch new service to Asia from LAX you would need larger a/c to connect most of the US from LAX... thus the MD80's would be better.... UA seams to use their service there as overflow for ORD and SFO... looking more of O&D traffic...
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4717 posts, RR: 26 Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6848 times:
Quoting OptionsCLE (Reply 16): Only time will tell if ExpressJet can be successful without CO
Can anyone see the similar Atlantic Coast Airline cost issue with United a few years ago, they became Independence Air and now GONE! I sure hope this doesn't happen with ExpressJet as they make a superb and seamless transition to CO and vice versa.....it's like flying the same exact airline so lets not see LAX and Eagle be part of this picture.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6754 times:
Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 11): I do agree that MQ could learn a thing or two about how not to cancel flights and run an ontime operation, I don't think that that would be enough cause to add an extra 59 jets to the operation....
A friend of mine flies for AA, and part of Eagle's problem is ORD. If ORD gets backed up, which happens so often, then Eagle takes the brunt of it, because the average Embrear flies more segments than an MD-80 on a daily basis.
The other problem is that because the FAA raised the passenger and carry-on bag weights for weight and balance calculations, the Embrears now bump up against max. payload weight with less-than full flights.
So, if a mainline flight is late in arriving at a hub, letting Eagle flights go may not be an option. Even if later Eagle flights have open seats, they may not be able to accomodate passengers, because of weight and balance issues. Thus, Eagle winds up holding flights.
ANNOYEDFA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 451 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6714 times:
Actually there have been talks of flying for AA out of CALI not LAX specifically, and also UAL out of DAL to start nit picking some of AA'S preimum pax. They can do that since they have the XRJ and those planes have the range and easily sail through the problem with the wright agreement over the airport. Talk's of the charter operation are also on going and also ExpressJet Europe. ExpressJet has a advantage with the XRJ and also talk of excerising some of the XRJ options "might" be needed. Long thin routes are what this plane is going to be focusing on for other airlines that Continental will be losing. Most of the jets being extracted from the COEX flying are 145XRJ'S. So Continental could find themselves losing quite a few flight's and route's in the future.
As for ExpressJet being too expensive to operate that's nothing short of bull. Just because ExpressJet doesn't do their flying at a loss such as those at Mesa and CHQ it doesn't mean they are too expensive it just means Continental is now looking for anyway possible to cut costs deeper. Passenger's will notice the difference soon enough. Especially with those lovely new props flown by Colgan and Executive. As a little tid bid that new prop service by Exec sure will soil the "Clean,Safe, and realiable" service they are none of the three.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6563 times:
Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 8): AA is looking to cut costs $1 billion in the next 12 months
$700M of that $1B is already identified. It's really $300M more they are now looking for actively.
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9): Wouldn't American's Scope Clause play a part in all this
American's Scope clause with its mainline pilots allows some regional flying by outside vendors, in addition to Eagle. The Eagle pilots would be the main concern -- they would no doubt be furious about losing this flying. However, if this deal also included some flying from ExpressJet replacing Chautauqua out of STL, then Eagle would likely be forced to take possession of 15 Chautauqua RJs and could use those to backfill most of the losses in pilot jobs that a pull-down in LAX flying would entail.
Quoting Nwab787techops (Reply 10): I know talk at CHQ that AMR was going to dump CHQ as American Connection airline and make it AE.
Possible, and I think that has been rumored by many for a while, but AMR would then have to take back much of the Chautauqua American Connection fleet of EMB-140s.
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 17): When compared with flying MD80s, XJ's airplane trip costs are very favorable to AA's
Maybe, but certainly not when compared with Eagle's SAAB 340Bs on >1 hr flights to SBA, SBP, FAT, SAN, etc. On these routes, regional jets would have absolutely horrible economics, and would be hardly competitive with United Express' SkyWest Embraers.
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 17): As for LAX, the remote parking observation is interesting but I'm sure if AA puts in more RJ flying, it won't be to the same destinations they serve now... RJs will be used to substantially increase AA's size in LAX. LAX is alot like BOS... no real dominant carrier and no one really pulling away from the pack.
I doubt that. If Eagle is going to grow at LAX, why would they add to routes they already serve with RJs? Besides, what routes does AA mainline now fly from LAX that could be increased in frequency with RJs? Not DFW, not ORD, certainly not BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, or MIA. That leaves LAX, DEN, SAT, SFO, SJD, and I really can't see any of those besides maybe SFO going RJ. If, hypothetically, Eagle were to boost RJ flying out of LAX with ExpressJet or by any other means, it would likely be new growth in new markets. They tried this twice before -- once in 2000-2001 when they dramatically ramped up LAX flying with MD80s going to PHX, DEN, OAK, etc. 9/11 killed those. Then, around 2002-2003, they tried again with RJs flying to PHX, OAK, SMF, ABQ, etc., and that also failed. So, I would guess that any new RJ flying out of LAX for American would probably include cities like PHX, TUS, COS, SMF, OAK, etc.
Quoting Ckfred (Reply 20): If ORD gets backed up, which happens so often, then Eagle takes the brunt of it, because the average Embrear flies more segments than an MD-80 on a daily basis.
Yep, not to mention that if ORD ATC is dealing with an OSO and has a 777 waiting to take off for LHR and an Eagle EMB waiting to take off for MKE, guess which one is getting the clearance first?
Quoting ANNOYEDFA (Reply 21): UAL out of DAL to start nit picking some of AA'S preimum pax
That will never happen, and if it did, it would be laughable. United has a miniscule presence in Dallas compared with AA, and the market for them to fly 50-seat RJs up against AA's MD80s is a joke. It would be Delta 2002 all over again -- flying regional jets while AA has mainline flights. Yes, there is a certain competitive advantage to being able to fly nonstop out of Love and thus attract premium travel and poach "some of AA's premium pax," but that is completely outweighed by the fact that a lack of First Class, and flying on a tiny jet for 3+ hours, doesn't stack up to well when AA has more flights, with more seats, more times per day, with First Class, and when probably 2/3 of the Metroplex has an AAdvantage account.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31104 posts, RR: 74 Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6471 times:
Quoting Atomother (Thread starter):
59 a/c to fly routes for AA out of LAX and then the other 10 to be used in a 135 charter type thing.
59? No way. That is not needed out of LAX. Now, I wouldn't find the rumour hard to believe if Express was to fly 59 planes for AA in general, maybe base them out of MIA, LAX, and BOS, which would allow them to build-up LGA/DFW/ORD.
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5816 posts, RR: 23 Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6407 times:
Mah4546/ Laxintl...Agreed.....thats just to much capacity here. There is no where to put that many planes at LAX. LAX couldn't handle that many more flights arriving. Also, its not economical to fly the ERJ on a majority of AAEagle routes. Some routes are so short lile LAX-SAN. Every 1/2 hr with a ERJ?
I think there is a better chance of Horizon taking over some of the local routes from LAX.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
25 S5FA170: Excuse me, but what do you mean you don't do your flying at a loss like those of us at CHQ? I'm pretty sure we are one damn profitable airline... -To
26 SABE: I hope the rumor is true and AA brings back the former Reno Air TUS-LAX service. Sure would be nice to do TUS-LAX-HNL with AA all the way. Nowadays I'
27 WorldTraveler: The point is that if AA started flying more RJs from LAX it would be to open NEW routes from LAX, not replace what they have. I also would be very su
28 Humberside: Plans are fairly well advanced I think. However it will be a small operation at least to begin with. The airline is presently based in Cork ExpressJe
29 ATLAaron: No way, I think everyone in the industry learned their lesson from Flyi. A fleet of regionals as a stand alone carrier, does not work.
30 Pilot3033: Like...? I can't think of any route that is not either already served, or would not make money from LAX.
31 WesternA318: How bout making the Sheraton the new CO Pres Club?
32 WorldTraveler: so... I'm guessing you don't work in AA's network analysis dept. There are dozens of cities within 1000 miles of LAX that could make money and are no
33 OptionsCLE: Can someone else confirm this for us please? I would really doubt that CO is releasing any of the XRJ's, my guess would be a mix of the SRJ's and LRJ
34 ANNOYEDFA: So you think........ you'll see.......
35 FCYTravis: LAX will never be a true domestic hub for anyone because it's in a horrible place to connect traffic, tucked off in the extreme southwestern corner o
36 Modesto2: Actually, the majority of the 69 airplanes are the XRJ's. Who knows what CO was thinking when they released the aircraft but XJT is happy!
37 KAUSpilot: I would not be surprised to see some of the 69 airplanes stay with Continental after all the huffing and puffing is done, with Expressjet assuming the
38 FLY777UAL: It's California. Signed, Everyone from the state
39 WesternA318: Exactly. CO nor ExpressJet are getting rid of the Xrj's. I am assumming the majority will be SRJ'S, but thats just my opinion.
40 ANNOYEDFA: Ummmmm, get a life... Signed ME and Cali.
41 Stirling: The only people who use "Cali", are those who don't live here, but want to sound they're "hip". We call it California. And sometimes Kalee-fornia. But
42 OptionsCLE: Well according to a couple of people on this thread, the rejected leases are mostly on XRJ's. Interesting...
43 FATFlyer: I hate it too, just shows someone isn't from here or is trying to be cool. Until people elsewhere start saying they are from "the york" or "flori" or