Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA ORF-MIA Route And Trans States  
User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

How is AA's MIA-ORF route doing?

Wasn't there talk of this route going twice daily?

Also, I see the route is now operated by Trans States, it seems Trans States has taken over a couple of routes out of MIA. What's behind this? Doesn't AA have plenty of their own hardware they could use for these routes? Isn't it cheaper to localize Chautauqua and TSA solely out of STL?

Just wondering...


Go Cubs!
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRandyWaldron From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 324 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

You ask the following question:

Quoting Highliner2 (Thread starter):
How is AA's MIA-ORF route doing?

Yet, through your following statement:

Quoting Highliner2 (Thread starter):
Also, I see the route is now operated by Trans States

You answer your initial question.

ORF-MIA is a poor performing route which AA has deemed only warrants a 100-seat or less aircraft.



"Flaps 20, gear down, landing checklist please..."
User currently offlineAJMIA From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

MIA -ORF is not a poor performer. AA would very much like to make MIA-ORF 2x daily if they only had the equipment.

The route does fairly well and increasing it to 2x daily will help with business passengers.

Changing from Eagle to Trans States was actually an upgrade because the Trans States ER4 is a 50 seater where as the Eagle ERD they were using only had 44 seats. Most likely and new RJ capacity at MIA will come at the expense of STL.

AA would most like to operate this route with a 70-100 seat aircraft, but none are available in the fleet.

AJMIA



Lady it's a jet... not a kite.
User currently offlineRandyWaldron From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 324 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2823 times:



Quoting AJMIA (Reply 2):
MIA -ORF is not a poor performer. AA would very much like to make MIA-ORF 2x daily if they only had the equipment.

No, you're wrong. This route is indeed a poor-performer when operated by a "Super 80" (nothing "Super" about it) or the 737-800.

Quoting AJMIA (Reply 2):
AA would most like to operate this route with a 70-100 seat aircraft, but none are available in the fleet.

The lack of a 70-120 seat mainline jet is AA's fundamental problem right now. The idiots in the ivory tower who removed the F100 from service should be hung out to dry (they're also the idiots who have eroded the pay and benefits of AA's front-line employees while lining their pockets and sewing up their golden parachutes).



"Flaps 20, gear down, landing checklist please..."
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 681 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2806 times:



Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 3):
No, you're wrong. This route is indeed a poor-performer when operated by a "Super 80" (nothing "Super" about it) or the 737-800.

The route has never been operated by a 737 or a Super80. All RJs all the time. The only mainline AA route out of ORF is to DFW.


User currently offlineUSXguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2797 times:

Weren't those Fokkers (grin) maintenance nightmares?


xx
User currently offlineExaauadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

just because a route doesnt warrant a MD-80 or 738, doesnt mean it is a poor performer

User currently offlineRandyWaldron From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 324 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2747 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 4):
The route has never been operated by a 737 or a Super80.

Ocracoke, I never stated that it was. I was simply making a comparison of route performance based on aircraft type.

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 6):
just because a route doesnt warrant a MD-80 or 738, doesnt mean it is a poor performer

It's a matter of semantics at this point. In my opinion and training, a route can be a stellar performer when operated with the right type of aircraft. If you care to re-read what the original poster stated, he basically states (incorrectly) that AA should use mainline equipment on a route now currently served by the RJ types. It may be an excellent performing route on an ERJ/CRJ but a poor performer with a 737/M80.

Personally, I could care less what AA operates on whatever routes they fly. I think they're a dying horse and a mismanaged airline running a shabby operation.



"Flaps 20, gear down, landing checklist please..."
User currently offlineExpressjet_erj From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2741 times:



Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 3):
The lack of a 70-120 seat mainline jet is AA's fundamental problem right now. The idiots in the ivory tower who removed the F100 from service should be hung out to dry (they're also the idiots who have eroded the pay and benefits of AA's front-line employees while lining their pockets and sewing up their golden parachutes).

F100 removal was a good move, the removal of the new 717s now that was stupid!



ETOPS...Engines Turn Or People Swim
User currently offlineRandyWaldron From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 324 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2725 times:



Quoting Expressjet_erj (Reply 8):
F100 removal was a good move

A good move? I somewhat agree with you, considering the aircraft could be a mechanical nightmare and with the closure of the Fokker Co. However, the lack of a 100-120 seat aircraft (like the 717) left American without a dance partner when oil prices rose and load factors declined.

However, ask Gerard how is bonus is.



"Flaps 20, gear down, landing checklist please..."
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 681 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2659 times:



Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 7):
Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 4):
The route has never been operated by a 737 or a Super80.

Ocracoke, I never stated that it was. I was simply making a comparison of route performance based on aircraft type.

Sounds like you said it by using "is". Perhaps you want to edit it to say...."This route would be a poor-performer....."

Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 3):
This route is indeed a poor-performer when operated by a "Super 80" (nothing "Super" about it) or the 737-800.



User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2595 times:



Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 7):
It's a matter of semantics at this point. In my opinion and training, a route can be a stellar performer when operated with the right type of aircraft. If you care to re-read what the original poster stated, he basically states (incorrectly) that AA should use mainline equipment on a route now currently served by the RJ types. It may be an excellent performing route on an ERJ/CRJ but a poor performer with a 737/M80.

Did you actually read my post? In no way at all did I imply that the route was a poor performer because it was operated by RJs. When I stated they could use their own hardware I was referring to Eagle, which is also owned by AMR, instead of outsourcing the flying to TSA.

ORF probably has not matured to a point where the route could be handled by mainline, and even if it was, it would'nt be on an MD80 as AA does not operate that type out of MIA.

That leaves the 738, way too big at this point.

ORF seems like an odd station of AA, they dropped ORD, leaving the market to UA and WN. DFW still sees 3x MD80 service, presumably due to the gov't contract.

The MIA service being 1x would seem to limit their ability to capture the high-yield business traveler which is vital to making the economics work on a 50 seat RJ. On the flip side, they have zero competition on the route.

So either AA doesnt have the RJ lift to spare, or the market just isn't there. Sounds like the former is the case, if that's true - with AA triming service back this fall, that should open up some RJ capacity to increase the frequency if AA wants.

As for the 100 seat arena, bouncing the F100s was a good move, they were mtc hogs. The 717 was a pefect fit, but IIRC the lease agreements TWA had with Boeing were ridiculous.

Hindsight being 20/20, I imagine AA would've liked to have kept the 717s, what I've always wondered is if AA made an attempt to renegotiate the leases on TWAs 717s?

Boeing was looking to bank a huge 717 order at the time and with the exception of NWA, there was no better candidate than AA.



Go Cubs!
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2568 times:



Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 7):
If you care to re-read what the original poster stated, he basically states (incorrectly) that AA should use mainline equipment on a route now currently served by the RJ types.

I never once thought that was what he was stating. Those of at a.net pretty much knew ORF-MIA was never a mainline flight.

When he stated "AA's ORF-MIA" route, He meant the route as pointed out was previously operated by American Eagle, which is owned by AMR/AA, which can rightfully say AA's ORF-MIA.

Moving on, when he said doesn't AA have their own hardware, I also took it as the assumption he meant American Eagle, since once again Eagle is owned by AMR, also AA too.

Anyhow, my thought was AA switched' Eagle to TSA/CHQ for the "upgrade" in seats and for better contracts perhaps not sure specifically.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7603 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 3):
No, you're wrong. This route is indeed a poor-performer when operated by a "Super 80" (nothing "Super" about it) or the 737-800.

The route has never been operated by anything other than an RJ. Youre comparing it to what it would be if it were flying on a mainline aircraft is beyond me. You might as well say "MIA-ORF is a poor preformer since its not operated by a 777".

[Edited 2008-08-29 16:13:39]


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineMoMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1054 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2547 times:



Quoting Highliner2 (Reply 11):
As for the 100 seat arena, bouncing the F100s was a good move, they were mtc hogs. The 717 was a pefect fit, but IIRC the lease agreements TWA had with Boeing were ridiculous.

Hindsight being 20/20, I imagine AA would've liked to have kept the 717s, what I've always wondered is if AA made an attempt to renegotiate the leases on TWAs 717s?

Even though this has been discussed 100s of times on here, the TWA leases were not good but AA was able to work out a deal to lease them from Boeing in exchange for the F100s. The deal fell through when AA forbid Boeing from leasing the F100 to anyone who could use them against AA (DC Air maybe?). Hence, AA is now left between a rock and a hard place.

ORF is not and will never be a large station for AA. I can't see them putting AE equipment on this route as then they would have to accept the risk vs. Trans States.



AA Platinum Member - American Airlines Forever
User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2519 times:



Quoting MoMan (Reply 14):
ORF is not and will never be a large station for AA. I can't see them putting AE equipment on this route as then they would have to accept the risk vs. Trans States.

It's an issue of available aircraft. MQ doesn't have anywhere near enough aircraft with the removal of the Saab 340 fleet. St. Louis shrank a little, again, and where better to run those aircraft than Miami, one of two hubs that is still growing. The ERJ-145s give American a capacity boost, and free -140s for LAX ops on the former SF3 routes.

Not really an issue of risk, it's a proven route, which is why they are using a bigger plane on it.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32781 posts, RR: 72
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2517 times:



Quoting MoMan (Reply 14):
I can't see them putting AE equipment on this route as then they would have to accept the risk vs. Trans States.

MQ was just on the route until the end of May.

AA is the process of transferring most, if not all, MQ flying at MIA to Trans State. The ERJ-145s are better equipped to handle the routes, seats six more people, and it saves cost by not having to have any MQ equipment at MIA.

Ideally, AA would like to get 70-100 seaters to fly MIA-ORF/RIC/SDF, etc. Though current pilot clauses don't allow it at competitive rates.



a.
User currently offlineMoMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1054 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2509 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 16):
AA is the process of transferring most, if not all, MQ flying at MIA to Trans State. The ERJ-145s are better equipped to handle the routes, seats six more people, and it saves cost by not having to have any MQ equipment at MIA.

Ideally, AA would like to get 70-100 seaters to fly MIA-ORF/RIC/SDF, etc. Though current pilot clauses don't allow it at competitive rates.

Interesting. I thought that the MQ pulldown had some to do with putting more MQ at DFW, and also to prepare for the spinoff of MQ into another X9. I figured once AA spun off MQ they would ditch them for Trans States as much as possible.



AA Platinum Member - American Airlines Forever
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22995 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2508 times:



Quoting Highliner2 (Reply 11):
So either AA doesnt have the RJ lift to spare, or the market just isn't there. Sounds like the former is the case, if that's true - with AA triming service back this fall, that should open up some RJ capacity to increase the frequency if AA wants.

I think the piece you're missing in this puzzle is STL. STL has been underperforming, meaning that AA felt they had too much 50-seat capacity at STL. The question then became where to put the capacity.

The ideal places would be those where a handful of lines could replace existing MQ flying, and the two logical places were probably RDU and MIA. RDU was contractually precluded (MQ must operate p2p flights ex-RDU), so they sent the aircraft to MIA.

As pointed out above, the choice to send AX instead of CHQ meant that AA got 6 more seats on these flights, something they desperately need with the paucity of 70-125 seat aircraft.

I don't think the outsourcing of the route has anything to do with its performance. It's simply somewhere to use the AX planes that will make more money than additional flying to MKE or TUL, and with no MQ employees at MIA and plenty of opportunities to bridge aircraft to MIA over CLT, ORF, and JAX, it's fairly operationally straightforward.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2463 times:



Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 15):
It's an issue of available aircraft. MQ doesn't have anywhere near enough aircraft with the removal of the Saab 340 fleet. St. Louis shrank a little, again, and where better to run those aircraft than Miami, one of two hubs that is still growing. The ERJ-145s give American a capacity boost, and free -140s for LAX ops on the former SF3 routes.

This may explain why Trans States is returning 10 ERJ145s to American Eagle before the end of the year, I'm assuming the 140s operated by Chautauqua are also owned by Eagle. It will be interesting to see if they call some of those 140s back as additional limbs are hacked off of STL.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 18):
I think the piece you're missing in this puzzle is STL. STL has been underperforming, meaning that AA felt they had too much 50-seat capacity at STL. The question then became where to put the capacity.

The ideal places would be those where a handful of lines could replace existing MQ flying, and the two logical places were probably RDU and MIA. RDU was contractually precluded (MQ must operate p2p flights ex-RDU), so they sent the aircraft to MIA.

As pointed out above, the choice to send AX instead of CHQ meant that AA got 6 more seats on these flights, something they desperately need with the paucity of 70-125 seat aircraft.

I don't think the outsourcing of the route has anything to do with its performance. It's simply somewhere to use the AX planes that will make more money than additional flying to MKE or TUL, and with no MQ employees at MIA and plenty of opportunities to bridge aircraft to MIA over CLT, ORF, and JAX, it's fairly operationally straightforward.

Interesting points, I guess I was wondering why AMR did'nt just recall all of the ERJs from TSA or the140s from CHQ, put the birds back under Eagle - and fly with that hardware.

The lack of MQ employees at MIA is a compelling argument.

As STL is drawn down further, that will (I would imagine at least) limit those bridging opportunities, and IIRC TSA maintaines domiciles in STL, RIC, with a new domicile in IAD opening this fall. If AA is serious about using TSA out of MIA, at some point TSA may have to take a hard look at a MIA crew domicile IF STL is shrunk to a point where bridging aircraft becomes difficult.

I wonder how the spike in the price of fuel has affected the cost of operating the aircraft under Eagle versus outsourcing it to a TSA or Republic.

On one hand, TSA is bouncing 10 RJs back to Eagle in the next 4 months, on the other hand, the RJ expansion at MIA seems to be solely with TSA. Chautauqua ops seem static. It seems very difficult to guage just what exactly AMR's plan for Eagle/Connection ops is going forward.



Go Cubs!
User currently offlineDoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

Off topic but I wish the North Terminal in Miami had more than 2 designated rj gates although the shape of the terminal leads it self to be easily expanded if traffic warrants it.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22995 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2430 times:



Quoting Highliner2 (Reply 19):
As STL is drawn down further, that will (I would imagine at least) limit those bridging opportunities, and IIRC TSA maintaines domiciles in STL, RIC, with a new domicile in IAD opening this fall. If AA is serious about using TSA out of MIA, at some point TSA may have to take a hard look at a MIA crew domicile IF STL is shrunk to a point where bridging aircraft becomes difficult.

IIRC STL-ORF has a government contract, STL-JAX seems to have a fair amount of Anheuser-Busch traffic, and there's now some Wachovia traffic on STL-CLT, so at least one of those routes could probably remain even with no connections. That's really all AX needs (and they could also use RIC crews ex-ORF).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 681 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2422 times:



Quoting Highliner2 (Reply 11):
ORF seems like an odd station of AA, they dropped ORD, leaving the market to UA and WN. DFW still sees 3x MD80 service, presumably due to the gov't contract.

AA has been in ORF for a long time now, and the one consistent flight has been ORF-DFW. RDU was there for a while, as was BOS (after the BizEx buyout). STL came with the TWA purchase (TW still flew mainline on the ORF-STL route, but for some reason, AA was never really interested in TW's commuter flights to JFK). ORD and MIA are fairly new in the AA scheme of things at ORF. Now that AA is down to DFW, MIA, STL, they still have more than the three daily DFW flights from long ago.
Sounds like a typical spoke station to me.


User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2369 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 22):
AA has been in ORF for a long time now, and the one consistent flight has been ORF-DFW. RDU was there for a while, as was BOS (after the BizEx buyout). STL came with the TWA purchase (TW still flew mainline on the ORF-STL route, but for some reason, AA was never really interested in TW's commuter flights to JFK). ORD and MIA are fairly new in the AA scheme of things at ORF. Now that AA is down to DFW, MIA, STL, they still have more than the three daily DFW flights from long ago.
Sounds like a typical spoke station to me.

I guess what surprised me was the axing of the ORD-ORF route. I'm surmising here BUT, with SWA taking the low-yield leasure travelers and UA holding the gov't contract on the route, the yields just were'nt there to support the service.

Still, with ORD being a large hub, the fact there wasn't even enough connecting traffic to warrant 1x or 2x daily was surprising. Then again, this may have been a perfect example of EGF just not having enough hardware to go around. Perhaps another example of this is the PVD station which is closing completely in November.

Not too terribly long ago, ORD-PVD was served with 3x MD80 service IIRC...



Go Cubs!
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...
AA Inagurates MIA-MAN And MIA-UVF Today posted Mon Nov 1 2004 18:14:48 by MAH4546
Trans-States And AA Flying posted Tue Nov 6 2007 14:45:44 by ATWZW170
Why Only AA And AF On CDG-MIA Route? posted Mon Oct 29 2007 12:21:02 by LY777
Trans-States And Gojets posted Sun Sep 3 2006 23:37:08 by ATWZW170
AA Adds 777 MIA-LAX And Takes It Away! posted Mon Jul 10 2006 01:36:41 by N62NA
AA Upgrades MIA And JFK To EZE posted Thu Jul 6 2006 02:45:09 by ContinentalEWR
AA-LGW? (MIA And RDU Questions?) posted Tue Nov 22 2005 15:21:11 by Fbm3rd
AA's MIA Hub And Its Banks: posted Sun Jun 26 2005 07:36:53 by SHUPirate1
AA Launching MIA-MEM/ORF/SDF; More IND, CMH posted Sat Apr 2 2005 20:01:28 by MAH4546
Piedmont, Trans States, And Mesa Q400's posted Fri Jul 23 2004 19:31:14 by Cumulonimbus