Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ExpressJet To Fly For AA Out Of LAX?  
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 440 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 9915 times:

Rumor going around seems to have a good chance of being legit.

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.

Anyone in the business (or over 21 years old) heard about this?

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

That'd be pretty cool, I guess they'd be flying under the American Connection banner then?

Tim you flyin for Expressjet now?


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 9892 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.

That would be a huge streach. I'm not sure how they'd mix the 121 - 135 fleet. Too many different regulations, manuals, training, Ops differences...etc, etc. etc.

I've only seen it a few times but I've heard of ExpressJet Europe being formed. I could see the planes going over there.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 9880 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 2):
That would be a huge streach. I'm not sure how they'd mix the 121 - 135 fleet. Too many different regulations, manuals, training, Ops differences...etc, etc. etc.

Why couldn't they just be 121 charter?


User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1025 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 9880 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!


Why do I fly???
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 9852 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 3):
Why couldn't they just be 121 charter?

Because Part 121 is for scheduled airlines. The regulations and guide lines the airlines fly under are very different.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 440 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 9813 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 1):
Tim you flyin for Expressjet now?

Negative... You live in the Sudan now?

ExpressJet would be nice. Not sure about the commute though, might go for it if I move to DC though. Might get a regular 9-5 job too. We shall see...


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 9784 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
User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 9754 times:

Entirely possible.

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.



Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 9721 times:

Wouldn't American's Scope Clause play a part in all this...?? They are limited to the number of seats that Eagle and Connection can fly.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineNwab787techops From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 9721 times:

If AA was going to put American Connection in LAX, it would be Trans States or Chautauqua. I know talk at CHQ that AMR was going to dump CHQ as American Connection airline and make it AE.

I don't know what express jet going to do with the A/C. 50 seat lift is cheap now and express jet's OPS are not. So, If it was me I would have gave them back to CO.


User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1025 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 9700 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....


Why do I fly???
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 9689 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
Because Part 121 is for scheduled airlines. The regulations and guide lines the airlines fly under are very different.

Tell that to ATA.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 9681 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 12):
Tell that to ATA.

What does ATA have to do with American Eagle or American Connection...?



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1025 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 9667 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 13):
What does ATA have to do with American Eagle or American Connection...?

I believe they were refering to the American Transport Association... not ATA Airlines



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 9654 times:

I just can't imagine what 60 RJs in LAX would be like!

First off, where would they schedule them to? Anywhere UA schedules X?
And then some?

I think there is more to this story that has yet to hit the fan, as it were.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 7):

Just not gonna happen - LAX absorbing another 200-300 daily ops!....unless they turn Sepulveda into the new 18/36....and make the Radisson the new remote commuter terminal.



Delete this User
User currently offlineOptionsCLE From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 9646 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.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 9613 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.


User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1025 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 9581 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...



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 9406 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.
User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 9312 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.


User currently offlineANNOYEDFA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 9272 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.



"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11973 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 9121 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.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33280 posts, RR: 71
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months ago) and read 9029 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.



a.
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6194 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months ago) and read 8965 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.

ASLAX



"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
44 Post contains images BigGSFO : Agreed.
45 Garri767 : IF XJT starts AAEX flights at LAX will this lead to cutting back flights at their other airports they currently serve? i dont the time to read this en
46 KAUSpilot : Expressjet already knows which aircraft they are retaining. It will be 44 145XR's and 25 145LR's. Why did CAL specify these particular aircraft to be
47 ANNOYEDFA : Thanks!!! KAUSPILOT...... This was released when they released the with drawl... Prepare for the cut backs on flights....
48 KAUSpilot : I am fairly confident that this turn of events will not adversely effect XJET anymore more than it already has. Management seems confident that they w
49 ANNOYEDFA : The only Airline losing out is CAL. I wonder who and what is going to fly all the 3-4 hour flights the current XR'S operate.
50 Atomother : Sounds like lots of speculation here so far but from what I understand it is looking like CO is replacing most of those 69 planes with mainline aircra
51 ANNOYEDFA : I follow ExpressJet and have many Pilot and F/A friends who fly for them. The amount and type of aircraft was stated when they initally announced them
52 Post contains images FlyXJT : alrighty, time to get the facts straightened out here. This is 100% correct Sorry pal, have to call BS on this one. First of all, XJT has trimmed a lo
53 Eos757 : Re the XJT corporate/135 charter operation: 1. Can it be 135 with 50 seats? Isn't that 125? Will these planes be reconfigured? 2. Contrary to what som
54 Atomother : I am guessing the crews with the most seniority will get these flights and the pay scale will be higher for the charter ops. That's all we need is an
55 Eos757 : Not trying to be difficult, but why is that "your guess"? Based on what? Senior people may not want to do charter flying, especially if there is not
56 Post contains images KAUSpilot : Let's just say I fly ERJ's and I'm based in IAH. From the rumors I'm hearing they will be 145XR's reconfigured to around 20 seats. I do not know if i
57 ANNOYEDFA : In the T/A the Flight Attendant's turned down last year there was added charter language and pay, a 5.00/hour over ride was offered but the hourly rat
58 Sflaflight : Agreed! Beef up pacific and Latin America. The strategy is working in JFK. YOu obviously can't copy it tit for tat, but model it. AA would then have
59 MAH4546 : AA already has a very accepetable network at LAX. They might apply for LAX-PEK or LAX-PVG in the 2007 round of China slot openings. And, don't forget
60 Sflaflight : Definitely, should have gone to top 6! No other US carrier can claim that!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CO Looking To Fly Turbo Props Out Of EWR posted Wed Oct 11 2006 22:57:56 by Nycfuturepilot
Equipment Changes For AA Out Of SFO 9/6 posted Fri Aug 4 2006 21:05:20 by Funbird1
Whats Your Favorite Airport To Fly Into Or Out Of? posted Tue Mar 16 2004 01:57:20 by Nycfuturepilot
Favorite City To Fly Into Or Out Of posted Sat Dec 20 2003 20:14:41 by COIAH99
Favorite City To Fly Into Or Out Of posted Sat Dec 20 2003 20:11:28 by COIAH99
AA Out Of MAN: Where To posted Sat Aug 5 2006 22:41:17 by BA787
NWA/UAL/Delta/AA International Services Out Of LAX posted Mon Mar 8 2004 23:56:25 by Trijetfan1
Eastern Opration Out Of LAX posted Thu Nov 9 2006 01:47:08 by 747400sp
Big Sky To Fly For Chalk's Until? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 03:29:19 by MtnWest1979
I Want To Fly For Air France posted Tue Jul 18 2006 01:05:52 by ORDTerminal1