Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
American/AmericanEagle Long Term At O'Hare & Miami  
User currently offlineGSP psgr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 163 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

I was wondering what everyone sees for American long term at Chicago/O'Hare and Miami? They're certainly going in different directions right now-Miami is growing while O'Hare is sinking, and in my opinion its because AA lacks the right fleet; particularly for O'Hare but the 738s are too big for some markets out of Miami also and the ERJs are too small and range limited for several missions they could do with a 90-110 seat mainline jet.

For Chicago/O'Hare, I think a lot rides on what their future fleet decisions are, especially in the 70-110 seat range. Of all of American's hubs, the one most profoundly hurt by the retirements of the F-100 fleet was O'Hare, which had a lot of markets like Buffalo, Providence, Albany, Rochester (both of them), and Harrisburg that were too big for ERJs and too small for the MD-80s. By getting an E-190 type a/c, American could better serve the Northeast as well as some longer, thinner Western markets from O'Hare like Portland, Reno, El Paso, Albequerque, and Tuscon.

The other side of the RJ coin is that Eagle probably needs a high capacity turboprop like the Q400 for the short haul markets from Chicago to places like Madison, Dayton, Evansville, and Cedar Rapids (think basically every market in MN, MO, IA, IL, WI, IN, MI, Northern KY, and Western OH that isn't DTW, MSP, STL, MCI, or OMA).

The fleet situation also plays a role in Miami's future also, but to a lesser extent. That E-190 type aircraft would also give American the ability to serve longer thinner Northeast and Midwest markets from Miami as well-think Miami-Buffalo/Austin/Kansas City/San Antonio as well as rightsizing markets like Miami-Pittsburgh/Columbus/Cincinnati where the ERJs are far from ideal aircraft. Then Eagle could use the ERJs displaced from Chicago and the longer Miami routes to start service to some Southeastern markets like Birmingham, Charleston, Greenville/Spartanburg, and Pensacola among others.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25166 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

How about AE long term prospects on the West Coast?

We continue to see reductions - first is was retrenchment at SJC focus city, then pulling the Saab's out, now further trimming of SJC flying. Add in the mix of AE loosing its LAX terminal.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineElmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4145 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
We continue to see reductions - first is was retrenchment at SJC focus city, then pulling the Saab's out, now further trimming of SJC flying. Add in the mix of AE loosing its LAX terminal.

It makes more sense for QX to takeover for MQ in California out of LAX. ERJs just aren't made for the short routes Eagle is running them on out of LAX after the Saabs were dropped.

Or Eagle ought to pursue this option:

Quoting GSP psgr (Thread starter):
The other side of the RJ coin is that Eagle probably needs a high capacity turboprop like the Q400 for the short haul markets from Chicago to places like Madison, Dayton, Evansville, and Cedar Rapids (think basically every market in MN, MO, IA, IL, WI, IN, MI, Northern KY, and Western OH that isn't DTW, MSP, STL, MCI, or OMA).

People have said here that Eagle won't look at the Q-400 because of the SAS issues, but it's a superb aircraft that ought to replace most of the ERJs on shorter routes and the ATRs in DFW.

Quoting GSP psgr (Thread starter):
By getting an E-190 type a/c, American could better serve the Northeast as well as some longer, thinner Western markets from O'Hare like Portland, Reno, El Paso, Albequerque, and Tuscon.

The problem is the unions. American is limited to only 25 50+ seat regionals. They can't bring in anything bigger unless it's flown by (uncompetitive cost wise) mainline crews.


User currently offlinePUDFW From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

I disagree, American will not go back to turbo props at ORD. There is a safety issue which may be more of a perception for passengers that flying these things in the winter is not a good idea. Thats reinforced by the crash in Buffalo from the CO Express plane.

American made a big deal when they went all jet out of ORD in 97 and 98 and if I remember correctly it took United several years to do the same. There is no way they would go back.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4454 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3805 times:



Quoting PUDFW (Reply 3):
American made a big deal when they went all jet out of ORD in 97 and 98 and if I remember correctly it took United several years to do the same. There is no way they would go back.

CO made the same big deal about going all jet.... and now they're back to a mix. So, never say never!  Smile


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7148 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

I don't think the demographics of ORD and MIA are the same, runs to the Caribbean and the America's require a/c with good cargo capacity, RJ's are of limited use. AA could use them but they will loose revenue. Within Florida the ATR's are more economic than RJ's, the main issue appears to be poor management of Eagle, if they get their house in order, the relationship between both would be a model other legacies dream of and scope issues would go away.

User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3058 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3681 times:



Quoting GSP psgr (Thread starter):

If AA had E190'S, we'd see ALB/PVD-ORD/DFW/MIA. AE could not compete with 3x ERJ



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

When AA gets a pilot contract, that's when you can expect a large order for jets between the CRJ and the MD-80. Until then, ORD is going to be in a no-growth or little-growth situation.

AA won't do away with ORD. It gained too many corporate contracts during the summer of 2000 and into 2001, becasue companies were livid with the pilot sick-out at UA.


User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3346 times:



Quoting PUDFW (Reply 3):
American made a big deal when they went all jet out of ORD in 97 and 98 and if I remember correctly it took United several years to do the same. There is no way they would go back.

12 years ago in aviation might as well be one million years ago. It's cool to be green now, and turboprops are as green as it gets in the sky, not to mention that you can still offered covered board with the Q400s.

Quoting PUDFW (Reply 3):
I disagree, American will not go back to turbo props at ORD. There is a safety issue which may be more of a perception for passengers that flying these things in the winter is not a good idea. Thats reinforced by the crash in Buffalo from the CO Express plane.

That's the drive by media and the talking heads. The vast majority of people don't care about what plane they are on. While most people whine about turboprops, if the price is right the turboprop is going to be the plane they'll fly. Money talks. Loudly.


User currently offlineAkizidy214 From Jamaica, joined Sep 2006, 408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3346 times:



Quoting Elmothehobo (Reply 2):
The problem is the unions. American is limited to only 25 50+ seat regionals. They can't bring in anything bigger unless it's flown by (uncompetitive cost wise) mainline crews.

MQ is now able to take an additional 22 or 23 more CRJ's and will do so when the economic environment is more stable. I think it is 22 but I do not remember the exact number.



DCA
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22924 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3245 times:



Quoting N62NA (Reply 4):
CO made the same big deal about going all jet.... and now they're back to a mix. So, never say never!

CO doesn't have a competitor who would rub it in their face at any hub. I'm certain UA would (they'd be dumb not to, though they have looked at the Q400).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9196 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3160 times:



Quoting GSP psgr (Thread starter):
That E-190 type aircraft would also give American the ability to serve longer thinner Northeast and Midwest markets from Miami as well-think Miami-Buffalo/Austin/Kansas City/San Antonio as well as rightsizing markets like Miami-Pittsburgh/Columbus/Cincinnati where the ERJs are far from ideal aircraft.

I would love to see mainline aircraft on PIT - MIA again. Isn't AA the only airline flying into MIA now? I think they can do better than a few lousy rjs daily on that route courtesy of MQ...

AA flies DFW-PIT-DFW with MD80s now, and they're easily over 90% full from what I hear...

Regarding ORD-PIT flying, I would think that UA pretty much has that market cornered. They have at least 6 flights on that route -- as in 6 mainline flights ranging from A319s to 757s... MQ isn't going to do what US did and pull out of ORD are they?



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineNomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

As mentioned by others on this post and other posts, AE at ORD is growing and would continue to grow if the 100 seat plane issue were addressed. AA is limited to the number of "larger RJs" due to union contracts.

User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2929 times:



Quoting Akizidy214 (Reply 9):
MQ is now able to take an additional 22 or 23 more CRJ's and will do so when the economic environment is more stable. I think it is 22 but I do not remember the exact number.

IIRC that was a tentative agreement that fell through. As it stands, American cannot add any more 50+ seat jets beyond the 25 they have now to Eagle or Connection.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 10):
CO doesn't have a competitor who would rub it in their face at any hub. I'm certain UA would (they'd be dumb not to, though they have looked at the Q400).

United Express carriers operated Dash 8s, Saab 340s out or Dulles and O'Hare, not to mention that United codeshares with Gulfstream and Great Lakes.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 11):
As mentioned by others on this post and other posts, AE at ORD is growing and would continue to grow if the 100 seat plane issue were addressed. AA is limited to the number of "larger RJs" due to union contracts.

In the strictest sense Eagle is growing, but in the grand scheme of things - Eagle replacing mainline flying with 49 and a handful of 70 seaters is anything but growth - it's retrenchment and downgauging of service, quality and choice.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22924 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2786 times:



Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 13):
United Express carriers operated Dash 8s, Saab 340s out or Dulles and O'Hare, not to mention that United codeshares with Gulfstream and Great Lakes.

UA is currently all-jet at ORD, and has been for six years or so (since ZK left ORD).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFlyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2723 times:



Quoting Akizidy214 (Reply 9):
MQ is now able to take an additional 22 or 23 more CRJ's and will do so when the economic environment is more stable. I think it is 22 but I do not remember the exact number.

22 is the number. AMR won an arbitration, but the whole thing was shady. I doubt MQ will be getting any new a/c until after APA has signed a contract. If APA agrees to let Eagle fly E170 type a/c then maybe Eagle will park all CRJs and replace with E170s. If APA says no to E170s at Eagle then I would expect those additional 22 CRJs to be purchased.



These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineGSP psgr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Long term internationally from O' Hare, I was wondering what anyone thinks of the following ideas:

ORD-HEL (763)-Link up with Finnair's Scandinavian network as well as destinations in the Baltic and Russia. It wasn't so long ago that AA served ARN, and HEL only has service from JFK and MIA (seasonally).

ORD-TLV (777)-Assuming they could settle the TWA issues, ORD might make more sense than JFK given the fact that there are four east coast services to Israel and none from the Midwest.

ORD-HKG (777)-This one has been rumored since about the beginning of time, with AA even doing test flights to study the economics of it; such a flight would link up nicely to Cathay's hub services and improve connectivity to Asia for OneWorld.


User currently offlineAAjfksjubklyn From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

First off...AA is SINKING? This makes no sense. I think AA is comfy with their routes and schedules out of ORD and what you are seeing is a reaction to market conditions. Just like personal finances and budegting, you sometimes can do things, you sometimes can not. I think the observations made here are over dramatic....

Miami, they have a strong market, and a destination in and of itself intern of the US, and a perfect location geographically to make things work and work efficiently internationally.

Do I think the AA brand is sinking...yes...they let things go, absolutely. Its the same philospohy as taking the olive out of the salad to save money.....the Crandel years....they still think that way...although they need to do something with their 757's domestically....


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...
Airbus Looks At Long Term Options To Counter 7E7 posted Thu Mar 13 2003 00:41:59 by AvObserver
Long Term Parking At ORD posted Wed Jul 31 2002 21:33:17 by Vw
American Eagle Parked ERJ''s At CMI posted Fri Apr 17 2009 09:17:56 by N83SF
Long Term Effects Of The 787/A350 posted Sat Feb 28 2009 23:40:30 by BMI727
Long-Term Aircraft Assignment: Chance Or Not? posted Tue Dec 23 2008 22:07:32 by Lincoln
Three Month-Long Layover At MEX posted Sun Nov 23 2008 03:37:59 by Flynavy
Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT… posted Wed Nov 5 2008 21:25:10 by Ikramerica
Crew Rest Areas On American Carriers Long Haul Rou posted Sun Oct 19 2008 18:58:54 by L1011buff
American Connection To End STL-BWI & CMH posted Wed Jul 30 2008 07:06:05 by AJMIA
Another Runway Incursion At O'Hare International posted Wed Jul 23 2008 13:52:37 by AmricanShamrok
Qantas Official Long Term Plans To 2021 posted Mon Dec 12 2011 17:54:55 by sierrakilo44
Incident At O'Hare Bag Room - 1NOV11 posted Tue Nov 1 2011 10:35:39 by bhmdiversion
Spirit At O'Hare - A Success? posted Tue Oct 18 2011 10:53:11 by TWA1985
American Flt 180 Emergency At JFK Right Now posted Tue Jan 4 2011 21:34:56 by canyonblue17
Does Anyone Remember Term 4 At ORD? posted Sat Jul 17 2010 19:15:01 by boeingkid
Spirit's Long-term Viabilty? posted Tue Mar 2 2010 22:35:42 by jmc1975
MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan posted Wed Feb 10 2010 20:03:43 by SNCntry32