Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Questions After The Airbus And Boeing Orders  
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5155 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8299 times:

Here are some questions after AA's orders with Airbus and Boeing.

1. The talk since the retirement of the F100 fleet is that AA needs a 100-seat airplane. That made sense in 2004, when the CRJ 700s had 70 seats and the MD-80s had 129 seats (MRTC). Now the CRJ 700s have 66 seats in a 2-class cabin, and the MD-80s now have 140 seats, so that talk makes even more sense.

If AA orders A319s and/or 737-700s, there will still be a gap between the CRJ 700 and the A319/737-700 at about 125 seats.

Does AA still need to order 100-seat jets? Or, will AA and APA agree to larger aircraft flying for regional carriers under the scople clause? If management and labor agree, does that mean regional affiliates will then fly the Embrear 170/190 and/or the Canadair C-Series?

2. AA has firm orders for 460 narrowbody aircraft. If we call the A319 and the 737-700 the "short narrowbody", the A320 and the 737-800 the "standard narrowbody", and the A321 and the 737-900 the "stretch narrowbody", how will AA split the 460 narrowbodies among the 3 sizes?

3. How is AA going to assign the Airbuses and 737s among the hubs? For a time, AA pulled the 737-800s out of ORD, until the 737-800s deliveries started in 2009. At the same time, MD-80s were pulled out of MIA. Is it safe to assume that some cities will be Airbus bases, while others will be 737 bases? I seem to recall in the early 90s that AA flew the 727, the MD-80, and the F100 into ORD, DFW, BNA, and RDU. However, only DFW and ORD were crew bases for all 3 types. Will AA do something like that with the narrowbody fleet as the MD-80s are phased out?

4. I heard Tom Horton, AMR president, say on CNBC that the 767-200s will be phased out on the trans-cons and replace with A321s/737-900s in 3-class configurations. Does that really make sense? Another possibility would be to take some of the 763s and reconfigure them in 3-classes. There are several routes in which both the 763 and the 777 fly, including ORD-LHR and MIA-GRU. Putting first class in some of the 763s would allow AA to fly widebodies on the trans-cons while rotating them onto routes that use a mix of 777 and 763. This would make sense as the 787s arrive, freeing some 763s to handle domestic trans-cons.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3730 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8202 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Hi ckfred,

I am not a real AA insider but I will try to answer your questions the best I can:

1. There have been talks about buying a 100 seat airplane since the F100 retirement back in 2004, but that still depends on whether the APA will agree that Eagle pilots fly 100 seat airplanes whilst still staying on their current pay scales. On the other hand if APA decides that any pilot flying, whether as captain or F/O any aircraft carrying 100 passengers or more, should be considered as a mainline pilot then AA mainline will order the aircraft if they still want a 100 seat aircraft, either the E190/195 or the new Bombardier C Series. This being said, I doubt the APA will let Eagle pilots fly planes with 100 seats, these should be flown by mainline pilots. Also, American is thinking of selling its Eagle affiliate, so there would be no more issue as to whether 100 seat aircraft will be flown by AA mainline or Eagle pilots.

2. It was said in other thread that AA doesn't really want the 737-700 because it has a higher CASM, less capacity for the same cost of operation. DL and CO ordered a small fleet of those only for selected markets, but I don't think American is willing to add a small subfleet of 700s. The 900ER is still being considered for 757 and 762 replacement , but the A321NEO is also being seriously looked at. So as far as the 737 is concerned, they are probably looking at adding 800 series only and maybe the RE version of the 800. The 800 has become so successful since its entry in service in the late 90s because of its superior economics and performance.
I think that they will definitely choose the A319 over the 73G, so they could order a large A319 fleet to replace the remaining 200+ MD-80s between now and 2017. Again, the 739ER and 321NEO are both still being evaluated.

3. I was going to post a thread about this but I will discuss what I think about this here:
I don't see AA making MIA a base for the Airbus fleet because those are meant to replace the MD-80s and American has pulled out the MD-80 out of MIA a long time ago already. No they will probably base the additional 800s they are buying, or at least a good part of the fleet, in MIA. I see the future large Airbus fleet being based in ORD and DFW like the MD-80s were during the 90s and 2000s. Can you imagine DFW full of silver AA A319s? Hard to imagine. I just can't imagine DFW full of A32Xs, but it can happen. So to be clear: MIA would see only the 737s as far as narrow-bodies are concerned (and of course the remaining 757s until they are all gone mid 2020s), DFW and ORD will see both the A320s and the 737s. MIA wouldn't be an A320 hub and neither would JFK, except maybe A321NEOs if that's what will replace the 757 and the 762 on transcon flights to LAX and SFO.
Today, the ORD-DFW and ORD-LGA busy routes see hourly MD-80 flights, in a few years from now ORD-DFW and ORD-LGA will probably see hourly A319 flights.

4

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
Does that really make sense?

I've been asking myself the same question. I don't see AA configuring a narrowbody aircraft with a three class layout for selected premium markets although it is possible that they do so with the 321NEO or 739ER, because they never considered configuring some of the 757s to a three-class layout. I believe United did this but I'm not positive. I know Delta didn't and neither did US Airways. Yes I also thought that configuring part of the 763 fleet to a three-class layout would make sense so that those aircraft can be flown on international long haul segments where the 777s are flown.
Here is what AA should do: reconfigure all 58 763s in a three-class config, replace the 762s with those on transcons in three-class service, offer three classes of service on international flights where the 777s are also flown (example ORD-LHR), and offer two classes of service on all other international and domestic flights, the C class cabin of the aircraft would be considered as Y cabin like when the 777 is flown domestic. So the part of the 763 fleet would replace the 762 fleet when the latter is retired (mid 2010s or so when the 787s start arriving), and AA would schedule 787s on some of the intercontinental flights previously flown with 763 equipment. Flights to Hawaii would continue to see 763s with two classes of service offered. The youngest 763 is only 8 years old.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12784 posts, RR: 100
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting American 767 (Reply 1):
There have been talks about buying a 100 seat airplane since the F100 retirement back in 2004, but that still depends on whether the APA will agree that Eagle pilots fly 100 seat airplanes whilst still staying on their current pay scales. On the other hand if APA decides that any pilot flying, whether as captain or F/O any aircraft carrying 100 passengers or more, should be considered as a mainline pilot then AA mainline will order the aircraft if they still want a 100 seat aircraft, either the E190/195 or the new Bombardier C Series.

While I would love to see a ~100 seat fleet at AA, I do not think the allowed operating costs (by the union) would justify the fleet economics. Heck, I don't really understand AA going with the 73G or A319 with AA's cost structure.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7982 times:

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
2. AA has firm orders for 460 narrowbody aircraft.

You know ... I am not sure they have 460 narrowbody orders.
There is no indication on an order for B737 in Boeing's updated spreadsheet.
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm


I know they have 50+ B737 orders from earlier, but the B737RE is definitely pending because it's not launched.
So at most they have some 150++ B737NG on orders, but like I said: Boeing shows no sign of the 100 from the split mega order.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16796 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7711 times:

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
2. AA has firm orders for 460 narrowbody aircraft. If we call the A319 and the 737-700 the "short narrowbody", the A320 and the 737-800 the "standard narrowbody", and the A321 and the 737-900 the "stretch narrowbody", how will AA split the 460 narrowbodies among the 3 sizes?



I think the break down of the order order will be something like this;

A319NEO
A320
737-700
737-800
737-800RE
A321NEO

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
4. I heard Tom Horton, AMR president, say on CNBC that the 767-200s will be phased out on the trans-cons and replace with A321s/737-900s in 3-class configurations. Does that really make sense? Another possibility would be to take some of the 763s and reconfigure them in 3-classes.



A couple points with regards to the JFK-LAX/SFO flights;

First UA has proven that a three class 757 size aircraft can be quite profitable on the JFK-LAX/SFO routes, also the other competition VX, DL and B6 are all flying narrobodies. What premium, if any, does AA enjoy from flying widebodies on these routes? I doubt much, in fact there was that controversial thread that quoted reports that AA's JFK-LAX/SFO route were unprofitable. There are some that will make the "but what about all that lucrative cargo" comment , however as proven with the retirement of the AA A300s cargo is not the driving force for US passenger carriers. That's what Fed Ex and UPS's core business, no US passenger airline is going to be able to make inroads in the US domestic cargo business.

A brand new three class A321NEO or 737-900ER with Skyinteriors would be a better product offering for AA customers than 20 year old 763s, also they would burn less fuel and have overall lower CASM than the 763. At this point considering what DL, UA, VX are doing with their Trans-Con offerings what advantage does a 763 offer other than the proverbial "widebody is better" mentality. Better is better, as in a brand new A321NEO or 737-900ER with a refreshed three class product.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8255 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7489 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting American 767 (Reply 1):
3. I was going to post a thread about this but I will discuss what I think about this here:
I don't see AA making MIA a base for the Airbus fleet because those are meant to replace the MD-80s and American has pulled out the MD-80 out of MIA a long time ago already. No they will probably base the additional 800s they are buying, or at least a good part of the fleet, in MIA. I see the future large Airbus fleet being based in ORD and DFW like the MD-80s were during the 90s and 2000s. Can you imagine DFW full of silver AA A319s? Hard to imagine. I just can't imagine DFW full of A32Xs, but it can happen. So to be clear: MIA would see only the 737s as far as narrow-bodies are concerned (and of course the remaining 757s until they are all gone mid 2020s), DFW and ORD will see both the A320s and the 737s. MIA wouldn't be an A320 hub and neither would JFK, except maybe A321NEOs if that's what will replace the 757 and the 762 on transcon flights to LAX and SFO.
Today, the ORD-DFW and ORD-LGA busy routes see hourly MD-80 flights, in a few years from now ORD-DFW and ORD-LGA will probably see hourly A319 flights.

Miami probably will stay primarily a 737 base and not an A320 base. That begs the question what will replace the 757 on medium haul South America routes ? Santa Cruz and Lima will need the A321neo as six hours with all that luggage could be a challenge for a 737-800.


User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7428 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 5):
First UA has proven that a three class 757 size aircraft can be quite profitable on the JFK-LAX/SFO routes, also the other competition VX, DL and B6 are all flying narrobodies. What premium, if any, does AA enjoy from flying widebodies on these routes? I doubt much, in fact there was that controversial thread that quoted reports that AA's JFK-LAX/SFO route were unprofitable. There are some that will make the "but what about all that lucrative cargo" comment , however as proven with the retirement of the AA A300s cargo is not the driving force for US passenger carriers. That's what Fed Ex and UPS's core business, no US passenger airline is going to be able to make inroads in the US domestic cargo business.

Can't remember where I saw the quote, but Horton stated Transcon replacement could be either 737/321 or 763.
As far as cargo goes, we'll probably never go back to the day when US majors operated their own cargo-only flight(see NW recently, and others before), but belly cargo isn't something that can be laughed at, especially when it could be the difference between a route losing money and making a profit (or very unprofitable to slightly in the red). The 762s of course have containerized cargo, so that's a big advantage for AA compared to a 757 or 738. On a high frequency, high yield route like JFK-LAX, that's a real potential for big cargo bucks. I haven't seen the cargo numbers lately, but there's a reason those planes fly that route. Is it enough of a reason for widebodies to continue on there? We'll see.



Next
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7354 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
A brand new three class A321NEO or 737-900ER with Skyinteriors would be a better product offering for AA customers than 20 year old 763s, also they would burn less fuel and have overall lower CASM than the 763. At this point considering what DL, UA, VX are doing with their Trans-Con offerings what advantage does a 763 offer other than the proverbial "widebody is better" mentality. Better is better, as in a brand new A321NEO or 737-900ER with a refreshed three class product.

I agree that it's probably a good move for AA. My only real question is about capacity. WOuldn't they be shedding a lot of seats if they switched over to a 3 class narrowbody?

Not that it would necessarily be a bad thing. I'm just curious about how large a reduction it would be.


User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

Does the 321 have the range for JFK-LAX? Im sure the NEO will, but I thought the current 320/321 was a bit of a dog when it comes to range


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11387 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
1. The talk since the retirement of the F100 fleet is that AA needs a 100-seat airplane. That made sense in 2004, when the CRJ 700s had 70 seats and the MD-80s had 129 seats (MRTC). Now the CRJ 700s have 66 seats in a 2-class cabin, and the MD-80s now have 140 seats, so that talk makes even more sense.

If AA orders A319s and/or 737-700s, there will still be a gap between the CRJ 700 and the A319/737-700 at about 125 seats.

Does AA still need to order 100-seat jets? Or, will AA and APA agree to larger aircraft flying for regional carriers under the scople clause? If management and labor agree, does that mean regional affiliates will then fly the Embrear 170/190 and/or the Canadair C-Series?

Yes - AA absolutely still needs a 90-100-seater. It would be of particular strategic value in Chicago. The problem, of course, is that AA does not believe it can make money flying 90-100-seaters if the APA insists on having 90-100-seaters flown by APA (mainline) pilots at APA scales and benefits. My own personal solution would be for the APA to agree to a new, proportionally lower, pay scale for the 90-100-seaters, and keep the mainline benefits the same, so that net-net the APA pilots don't divide their workgroup into two distinct classes, but are still cost-competitive with the 90-100-seater pilots at JetBlue/USAirways/Delta Connection, and AMR in turn agrees that APA gets all that flying. Win-win, in my mind.

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
AA has firm orders for 460 narrowbody aircraft. If we call the A319 and the 737-700 the "short narrowbody", the A320 and the 737-800 the "standard narrowbody", and the A321 and the 737-900 the "stretch narrowbody", how will AA split the 460 narrowbodies among the 3 sizes?

My personal guess is that the Airbus order will primarily A319s and A321s, with the A319s replacing MD80s in smaller/thinner markets, and on some missions where the smaller jet has better performance, and the A321s/A321NEOs replacing 757s on some of the longer missions and on the premium transcons. Any A320s would likely be used to replace MD80s more quickly.

As for Boeing, I think the bulk of the 737 order will still be in the core 737-800 area. In addition, AA may go for some 737-900ER as my understanding is that the -900ER is a materially better economic performer in some missions versus an A321.

Thus, all said and done, my guess is that the overall order could end up looking something roughly like:

80 - A319/A319NEO
130 - A320/A320NEO
150 - 737-800/800RE*
50 - 737-900ER
50 - A321/A321NEO

*By the time the -800RE comes around, it may well end up replacing some of AA's early-build 737-800s, which by that point will be right around 20 years old

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
How is AA going to assign the Airbuses and 737s among the hubs? For a time, AA pulled the 737-800s out of ORD, until the 737-800s deliveries started in 2009. At the same time, MD-80s were pulled out of MIA. Is it safe to assume that some cities will be Airbus bases, while others will be 737 bases? I seem to recall in the early 90s that AA flew the 727, the MD-80, and the F100 into ORD, DFW, BNA, and RDU. However, only DFW and ORD were crew bases for all 3 types. Will AA do something like that with the narrowbody fleet as the MD-80s are phased out?

With fleets this large, it will be difficult to completely wall off certain hubs/stations - beyond perhaps Miami, which actually can be segmented from the rest of the network fairly easily from a fleet standpoint.

Other than that, I would expect the rest of these planes to flow freely through the rest of the network once they are delivered in large enough quantities - there will absolutely be tons of 737s and A320s going through DFW, and Chicago.

Quoting ckfred (Thread starter):
4. I heard Tom Horton, AMR president, say on CNBC that the 767-200s will be phased out on the trans-cons and replace with A321s/737-900s in 3-class configurations. Does that really make sense? Another possibility would be to take some of the 763s and reconfigure them in 3-classes.

I believe AA will maintain the 3-class layout, but it looks as though it will be on a narrowbody, not a 767. The point here is to reduce capacity in the lower-yielding Coach segment in these markets.

Quoting delimit (Reply 7):
I agree that it's probably a good move for AA. My only real question is about capacity. WOuldn't they be shedding a lot of seats if they switched over to a 3 class narrowbody?

Not that it would necessarily be a bad thing. I'm just curious about how large a reduction it would be.

Depends on how they do the schedule - but if they keep the current schedule, and just switch to an A321, that will be a substantial reduction in seats/capacity - probably somewhere on the order of 20%+. I do believe, however, that one way or another, they will try and - at a minimum - retain the 10x JFK-LAX and 4-5x JFK-SFO schedule, as schedule is a very important competitive component in these premium-heavy markets.


User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7204 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 7):
I agree that it's probably a good move for AA. My only real question is about capacity. WOuldn't they be shedding a lot of seats if they switched over to a 3 class narrowbody?
Quoting delimit (Reply 7):
Not that it would necessarily be a bad thing. I'm just curious about how large a reduction it would be.

The current 767-200ERs seat 168 (10/30/128). Of course we don't know how AA will choose to configure a potential 3-class A321, but by comparison UA's p.s. 757s seat 110 (12/26/72). The 757 is larger than the 321, but United has all-economy plus which takes up more room so AA might get roughly the same seats into the A321.

If so, AA would end up losing around 60 seats per flights - a total of 600 daily across the ten flights, or 35% of total capacity. However, they'd only lose around 20 daily premium seats, just 5% of the total, which is probably where they make their money. By cutting out a lot of the lower fare traffic, retaining most of the premium traffic and using a far more efficient plane, AA could really improve the performance of the JFK-LAX route.

Alternatively, AA could choose a more balanced configuration and still maintain their total capacity by increasing frequency, possibly creating an hourly JFK-LAX "shuttle", as they have with BA on LHR-JFK. That would require around 4-5 more daily flights which would almost completely offset the capacity loss by switching from 762s to 321s. Such a service would likely be attractive to a lot of the more profitable passengers and might attract more revenue for AA.



Ryan / HKG
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7156 times:

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 11):
If so, AA would end up losing around 60 seats per flights - a total of 600 daily across the ten flights, or 35% of total capacity. However, they'd only lose around 20 daily premium seats, just 5% of the total, which is probably where they make their money. By cutting out a lot of the lower fare traffic, retaining most of the premium traffic and using a far more efficient plane, AA could really improve the performance of the JFK-LAX route.

Thanks! That's exactly the breakdown I was hoping to see.

Assuming they keep their current schedule, or slightly adjust it to balance out that 5% loss of premium seats, that's a lot of capacity out of those markets. That could be very good news for their yields.

It could also have an interesting knock-on effect on everyone's transcon fares, unless one of AA's decides to fill in the lost capacity.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6819 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
There are some that will make the "but what about all that lucrative cargo" comment , however as proven with the retirement of the AA A300s cargo is not the driving force for US passenger carriers. That's what Fed Ex and UPS's core business, no US passenger airline is going to be able to make inroads in the US domestic cargo business.

You forget that AA is one of the mail carriers for the Postal Service, which AA worked very hard to keep its contract. Even though AA has scaled back its SJU hub, it still carries a lot of cargo to the Caribbean through MIA, as well as cargo to and from Latin America.

Quoting commavia (Reply 10):
Yes - AA absolutely still needs a 90-100-seater. It would be of particular strategic value in Chicago. The problem, of course, is that AA does not believe it can make money flying 90-100-seaters if the APA insists on having 90-100-seaters flown by APA (mainline) pilots at APA scales and benefits. My own personal solution would be for the APA to agree to a new, proportionally lower, pay scale for the 90-100-seaters, and keep the mainline benefits the same, so that net-net the APA pilots don't divide their workgroup into two distinct classes, but are still cost-competitive with the 90-100-seater pilots at JetBlue/USAirways/Delta Connection, and AMR in turn agrees that APA gets all that flying. Win-win, in my mind.

A friend of mine is an AA pilot. Now, he is opposed to any pay scheme that smacks of B-scale. He does, however, agree that paying pilots to fly an Emrear 170/190 or a Canadair C-Series on the same pay scale as the rest of the mainline fleet would cause that flying to have little if any profit. The scale has to be relaxed for the 100-seat jet, in order to make those flights profitable as mainline flying.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 1):
Also, American is thinking of selling its Eagle affiliate, so there would be no more issue as to whether 100 seat aircraft will be flown by AA mainline or Eagle pilots.

The plan is to spin Eagle off to AMR shareholders. But, whether AMR owns Eagle, contracts with Eagle as a separate company, or contacts with other regional carriers, it still has to work out a scope clause with APA. Obviously, the spin-off of Eagle may have some impact on negotiations, but it eliminate the questions of who flies 100-seat jets, mainline or regional affiliates.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11387 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5819 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 13):
A friend of mine is an AA pilot. Now, he is opposed to any pay scheme that smacks of B-scale. He does, however, agree that paying pilots to fly an Emrear 170/190 or a Canadair C-Series on the same pay scale as the rest of the mainline fleet would cause that flying to have little if any profit. The scale has to be relaxed for the 100-seat jet, in order to make those flights profitable as mainline flying.

Well your friend's perspective is hardly unique, but with respect, I do think it's stupid and short-sighted.

The pilots are totally missing the massive opportunity they could have in front of them. They have to stop looking at paying mainline pilots to fly 90-seaters as a B-scale - it's just lower pay for a smaller plane, just as how an MD80 CPT makes less than a 777 CPT, etc. But the key for the APA is that if APA could get the contract language in protecting all future AMR-branded flying down to, say, 77 seats, with APA-represented mainline pilots, they would remove AMR management's ability to continually play mainline and regional pilots off against each other.

The APA has to accept the reality that what they would be agreeing to in this hypothetical scenario would be precedent-setting (in a good way) for their "profession" as they love to say. In the U.S., the other airlines flying 90-seaters are generally either regionals (Delta Connection, etc.) or JetBlue - in either case, getting paid way, way less than APA pilots with far fewer benefits and work rule protections.

If APA would agree to payscales for 90-seaters that were, say, 5% below the base pay scales for comparable aircraft pilots at other regional/low-fare airlines, compensated for by the higher APA benefits/work rules, the company should take that deal in a second and order 100 Embraer 190s or C-Series the next day.

APA could preserve the unity of their contract, but still be price competitive with lower-cost operators of those jets in U.S. service, expand the network reach and competitiveness of their employer, and again - most importantly - bring a whole new segment of flying into the mainline fold where it would like then stay forever.

Win-win.


User currently offlinepylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5706 times:

SSJ-100-95B should be also considered.
It is more advanced and fuel/cost effective than E-190.
And has 2-3 cofig + more cargo.

As first 3 month service experiece with Armavia and Aeroflot - it is a good aircraft for thinner routes.
A-319 and B-737-700 are too heavy and expensive for very many desinations.
Armavia gave up lease one of their A-319 and going to do the same on arrival of their second SSJ.

Anyway, SSJ takes part in UA/CO tender.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 14):
The APA has to accept the reality that what they would be agreeing to in this hypothetical scenario would be precedent-setting (in a good way) for their "profession" as they love to say. In the U.S., the other airlines flying 90-seaters are generally either regionals (Delta Connection, etc.) or JetBlue - in either case, getting paid way, way less than APA pilots with far fewer benefits and work rule protections.

If APA would agree to payscales for 90-seaters that were, say, 5% below the base pay scales for comparable aircraft pilots at other regional/low-fare airlines, compensated for by the higher APA benefits/work rules, the company should take that deal in a second and order 100 Embraer 190s or C-Series the next day.

another example of how unions run a perfectly good airline into the ground (another example would be DFW-PEK)

not to mention AA getting stuck with Eagle instead of having the flexibility to choose which regional partner on which route (thus able to pit one against another, like how DL does it)


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2171 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5120 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 10):
Yes - AA absolutely still needs a 90-100-seater

How about introducing the CRJ1000 into Eagle's fleet or as a special fleet at mainline? I know the CRJs are not the biggest favourites among Americans, but Bombardier claim the CRJ1000 operating costs are 15% lower than the E190 and you get the synergy effect with the existing CRJ700 fleet, so that may offset higher pilot wages...? Two-class CRJ1000 with 90-93 seats.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 14):
Well your friend's perspective is hardly unique, but with respect, I do think it's stupid and short-sighted.

The pilots are totally missing the massive opportunity they could have in front of them. They have to stop looking at paying mainline pilots to fly 90-seaters as a B-scale - it's just lower pay for a smaller plane, just as how an MD80 CPT makes less than a 777 CPT, etc. But the key for the APA is that if APA could get the contract language in protecting all future AMR-branded flying down to, say, 77 seats, with APA-represented mainline pilots, they would remove AMR management's ability to continually play mainline and regional pilots off against each other.

Here's my friend's thinking. Many pilots think that if APA were to suggest reducing the pay for a 100-seat jet, then managment could try to move negotiations in the direction of a B-scale. It's not a case of the union being stupid and short-sighted, but rather, being cynical of management and it's willingness to negotiate in good faith.

Here is what my friend, as well as some of the pilots he flies with, would consider. The current pay scale is fairly linear. Thus, if a new aircraft type is introduced to the fleet before a contract becomes amendable, the aircraft weight is plugged in, and the pay rate is determined. You can plug the weights of the A319, A320, and A321 right now and figure out how much Captains and F/Os would make, if AA started taking deliveries tomorrow.

So, with a 100-seat jet, there is willingness to set the pay rate below what the pay scale would otherwise dictate for an aircraft of that weight. Obviously, they don't want the pay rate lowered to the Eagle pay scale. But, they are willing to look at lower pay rates for mainline pilots flying planes like the Embrear 170/190 or the C-Series, in order to expand flying opportunities for mainline pilots.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 16):
not to mention AA getting stuck with Eagle instead of having the flexibility to choose which regional partner on which route (thus able to pit one against another, like how DL does it)

If AMR didn't have some kind of agreement to keep Eagle as the primary regional affiliate for some time, then it would be pointless to spin off Eagle. Chapter 11 or 13 would be a foregone conclusion. Giving Eagle a long-term contract gives the carrier time to prepare for when AA will bid out flying, as well as competing with other regionals to fly for DL, UA, etc. Right now, Eagle's costs are such that it probably can't compete with the likes of SkyWest or Republic for new business.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11387 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17):
Many pilots think that if APA were to suggest reducing the pay for a 100-seat jet, then managment could try to move negotiations in the direction of a B-scale. It's not a case of the union being stupid and short-sighted, but rather, being cynical of management and it's willingness to negotiate in good faith.

I get that, and that cynical mistrust of AMR management is not totally unfounded. But, alas, that's why it's a negotiation. APA can make clear that they will only entertain lower pay scales for 90-seater pilots and 90-seater pilots alone, and not a full-out B-scale, and if the company decides to go there anyway, the APA can just say no.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17):
So, with a 100-seat jet, there is willingness to set the pay rate below what the pay scale would otherwise dictate for an aircraft of that weight. Obviously, they don't want the pay rate lowered to the Eagle pay scale. But, they are willing to look at lower pay rates for mainline pilots flying planes like the Embrear 170/190 or the C-Series, in order to expand flying opportunities for mainline pilots.

Well God I hope you're right that the APA is willing to deal on the issue. If the APA really were willing to make a deal based on the broad outlines of what you described above, then I think AMR should take that deal and run in a second - that is an absolutely fantastic deal for both sides.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5155 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 18):
Well God I hope you're right that the APA is willing to deal on the issue. If the APA really were willing to make a deal based on the broad outlines of what you described above, then I think AMR should take that deal and run in a second - that is an absolutely fantastic deal for both sides.

I don't know if APA has proposed anything in terms of a lower pay scale for 100-seat jets, but there are pilots who believe that the concept should be explored further. Management has said, prior to the announcement of the Eagle spin-off, that it didn't care who flew the smaller jets, as long as they can be flown profitably.

I know enough about negotiations to see that AMR management's language is indicating some willingness to work with APA on reaching a deal on 100-seat jets that will work for both sides.


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...
Between Airbus And Boeing Orders posted Thu Dec 15 2005 19:25:06 by Aileron11
June 16 Airbus And Boeing...Orders posted Wed Jun 15 2005 17:51:12 by AirbusDriver
New Airbus And Boeing Orders... posted Wed Jul 21 2004 11:10:55 by Windshear
Airbus And Boeing Orders In 2004 posted Wed Dec 3 2003 02:13:40 by MEA321
The Number Of Orders Airbus And Boeing In 2001 posted Sun Jan 21 2001 05:46:32 by United Airline
Official: AA Order 460 Airbus And Boeing (Part 2) posted Wed Jul 20 2011 14:37:59 by moderators
Official: AA Order 460 Airbus And Boeing posted Wed Jul 20 2011 04:18:22 by moderators
KLM Orders Extra Airbus And Boeing posted Wed Nov 21 2007 23:13:55 by KL577
Airbus And Boeing, 2004 Orders So Far posted Sat Nov 6 2004 19:18:53 by Teahan
Updated Orders For Airbus And Boeing Up To Now posted Wed Jun 27 2001 06:13:09 by United Airline