Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Will We See Larger RJs At AA?  
User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6941 times:

With the pilot contract secured weeks ago, I was expecting we would see some decisions regarding regional flying and possibly an order announcement for larger RJs.

Have I missed something, or is AMR waiting for other issues to be worked out?

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1604 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6899 times:

Quoting seatback (Thread starter):

Have I missed something, or is AMR waiting for other issues to be worked out?

I think at this point there are still bigger fish to fry - namely, the future direction of AA as-is or a merger with US. Beyond that, you're at a point where (if you're AA mgmt) you have to decide between throwing in E-Jets and/or a few more CR7s now, or just going with larger next-gen planes as they become available (C-Series, MRJ, E-Jet NEO) and keeping what you have with CR7s for the time being. In a US merger you'd get access to a rather large fleet of CR7/9s and E-Jets, so you could always go the UA/CO route of running some of those to AA stations. I do think a large RJ order will be coming in the nearish future, but they are probably still working out the major issues before that at this point.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6709 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 1):
In a US merger you'd get access to a rather large fleet of CR7/9s and E-Jets, so you could always go the UA/CO route of running some of those to AA stations. I do think a large RJ order will be coming in the nearish future, but they are probably still working out the major issues before that at this point.

You would think the branding efforts would have been a smaller fish to fry in the overall scheme of things! However, speculation has it that the 319 will probably go to to ORD first, but there's still a capacity gap between the CRJ700 and the A319 which you would think that it would be a priority.


User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6664 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 2):
You would think the branding efforts would have been a smaller fish to fry in the overall scheme of things! However, speculation has it that the 319 will probably go to to ORD first, but there's still a capacity gap between the CRJ700 and the A319 which you would think that it would be a priority.

For where AA is at right now, the investment of rebranding your corporate image and emerging from bankruptcy is more important than making a hasty fleet decision. As you stated in your original post, the pilot contract was secured WEEKS ago. It takes longer than a few weeks to secure any sort of aircraft order, any order that comes as a result of this new pilot agreement probably won't be announced for several months.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

Here is the question I have? Is an order for larger RJ's going to be made by AA themselves, or is it going to be made by what ever regional wins the contract for said flying? Delta went the route of ordering the CRJ-900's themselves. But usually it is the operating carrier who orders the RJs.

Which also begs the question....how much regional lift is Eagle going to be doing post bankruptcy and will AA seek out addtional partners? They already have Skywest and Expressjet, plus Chautauqua was doing some flying for them as well. Do they give them more flying? Do they bring in someone like an Air Wisconsin, Mesa or GoJet? Or do they wait for a merger and then use PSA and rearrange some flying.


User currently offlinedoulasc From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6366 times:

I am hoping to see E-170 or E-190s come to American Eagle.

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6250 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 2):
However, speculation has it that the 319 will probably go to to ORD first, but there's still a capacity gap between the CRJ700 and the A319 which you would think that it would be a priority.

I suspect that's probably right. ORD is the place where the need for a jet between the CRJ700 and MD80 was most chronic, so it's only logical the A319 would go there first.

Quoting apodino (Reply 4):
Is an order for larger RJ's going to be made by AA themselves, or is it going to be made by what ever regional wins the contract for said flying? Delta went the route of ordering the CRJ-900's themselves.

My guess is that AA will follow the Delta approach - buy the planes themselves, and then lease them to operators to fly.

Quoting apodino (Reply 4):
how much regional lift is Eagle going to be doing post bankruptcy

Quite a lot, most likely, at least for the first few years.

Quoting apodino (Reply 4):
and will AA seek out addtional partners?

Absolutely.

Quoting apodino (Reply 4):
They already have Skywest and Expressjet, plus Chautauqua was doing some flying for them as well. Do they give them more flying? Do they bring in someone like an Air Wisconsin, Mesa or GoJet? Or do they wait for a merger and then use PSA and rearrange some flying.

It will all come down to money, just like it has at Delta, United and USAirways for years. AA will put out the RFP and award the flying to the "best" bidder (who will in most cases likely be the cheapest).


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1604 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6208 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 3):

Going off JBo's point, you can always rejigger a/c placement pretty quickly, but fleet renewal/replacement is a longer-term issue. Assuming for our purposes AA does merge in some form with US, you'd also see some economies of scale in terms of freed up large RJ's from combined routes, so in effect you'd increase the available 2-cabin ASMs throughout the combined network. For instance, routes like DCA-DFW and DCA-ORD would likely consolidate into mostly-mainline service from the combined demand. US currently runs E-Jets to DFW, but they'd probably dump most of those onto AA or US mainline metal running that flight (similar to how UA offers a couple RJ trips to ORD each day but mostly mainline), and likewise to ORD you'd probably see AA upgauge some of the CR7 flights to mainline to fold in the US business that previously had to take UA.

Quoting apodino (Reply 4):

I think the market is now going toward the mainline carrier buying/owning the planes and then divvying them up as they see fit. IIRC CO even owned all, or at least mostly all, of the their ERJ fleet, and DL at one time owned a good bit of their CR7s and CR9s. These days with the regional fragmentation and movement away from in-house regionals, it makes more sense to own the planes yourself so you can distribute them as you see fit and hold that leverage in your negotiations with potential regional partners. You might see the big boys like Republic order some, but overall I'd think a majority will be mainline-owned going forward.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20732 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

What is the status of Eagle these days? I've not really kept up with all of the sell it/don't sell it business. Is AMR planning on owning and operating Eagle going forward as it has in the past?


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6129 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 2):
making a hasty fleet decision. As you stated in your original post, the pilot contract was secured WEEKS ago. It takes longer than a few weeks to secure any sort of aircraft order,

It wouldn't be a hasty decision. My point is they probably or at least should have been preparing or prepping for when they got the desired contract to pull the trigger on a enacting a RJ strategy. AA knew they were going to get a contract that would serve their advantage.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 7):
CO even owned all, or at least mostly all, of the their ERJ fleet

It was called ExpressJet.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1604 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6090 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 9):
It was called ExpressJet.

Right, but didn't CO actually own XJ's planes, at least at one point?


User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 8):
Is AMR planning on owning and operating Eagle going forward as it has in the past?

Last I heard their plan was to sell off Eagle at some point but when they did they (AMR) were going to keep the Eagle name as the regional and force whoever bought out Eagle to change their name. They were also going to start to bring Chautauqua under the Eagle name and get rid of the Connection brand.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

I think E190s might be too large for contract flying, but then again, US was able to get a mainline payscale for it that made it profitable to fly. Before anyone says "then why did US cut the fleet?", they only cut it because they wanted to cut capacity and the E190 wasn't protected from minimum number in the fleet. There are a lot of places where AA could put CR9 on current S80 and CR7 routes and move CR7s to E14X routes and allow A319s for growth in other markets, especially out of LAX and ORD.


kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5743 times:

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 11):
Last I heard their plan was to sell off Eagle at some point but when they did they (AMR) were going to keep the Eagle name as the regional and force whoever bought out Eagle to change their name. They were also going to start to bring Chautauqua under the Eagle name and get rid of the Connection brand.

American Eagle as a corporate entity will most likely adopt a new name should they be divested from AMR (I suggest resurrecting the Simmons name, since Eagle is using the old Simmons certificate), however I think it is a smart move to use the "American Eagle" brand name across the board for all regional operations instead of using both Eagle and Connection.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3768 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 10):
Quoting seatback (Reply 9):
It was called ExpressJet.

Right, but didn't CO actually own XJ's planes, at least at one point?

First off, XE was the old ExpressJet IATA code prior to the merger with ASA and adoption of ASA's EV code. XJ was the code for Mesaba Airlines prior to their consolidation with Pinnacle Airlines (9E).

And yes, XE was once a wholly-owned CO subsidiary, and CO once owned the leases to XE's planes. IIRC, after the split from CO, CO rejected leases and contracts for many of XE's aircraft, which led to the short-lived DL LAX contract, the independent flying experiment, and the PMUA DEN contract.

[Edited 2013-01-22 13:46:33]


"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3768 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5628 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 13):
American Eagle as a corporate entity will most likely adopt a new name should they be divested from AMR (I suggest resurrecting the Simmons name, since Eagle is using the old Simmons certificate)

AMR has said that American Eagle Airlines (MQ) will get a new name regardless of whether AA divests it or not. This is because the American Eagle brand will be more than just MQ.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4605 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

Quoting JBo (Reply 13):
American Eagle as a corporate entity will most likely adopt a new name should they be divested from AMR (I suggest resurrecting the Simmons name, since Eagle is using the old Simmons certificate), however I think it is a smart move to use the "American Eagle" brand name across the board for all regional operations instead of using both Eagle and Connection.

Indeed. So if/when this does happen those holding cushy seniority numbers need to jump to mainline quick before they are just another contract nightmare like what Delta did to the connection ground folks.

I do wonder in all of this how much the merger is also playing a part when it comes to MQ's future. If the merger happens, you have two more subsidiaries in PSA and Piedmont that you are going to play with. They are going to need to decide if they want to merge the 3 into one or keep them all separate.


User currently offlineSJUSXM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 294 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5523 times:

Stated with the rebranding last week...

AMR looks to increase large regional capacity in 2013.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...lines-planes-idUSL1E9CHFH520130117



AT7, ER3, ER4, ER5, CR7, E70, E75, F100, M82, M83, 722, 732, 738, 752, 762, 763, AB6, 320, 321, 772, 77W
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1604 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5521 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 14):
First off, XE was the old ExpressJet IATA code prior to the merger with ASA and adoption of ASA's EV code. XJ was the code for Mesaba Airlines prior to their consolidation with Pinnacle Airlines (9E).

And yes, XE was once a wholly-owned CO subsidiary, and CO once owned the leases to XE's planes. IIRC, after the split from CO, CO rejected leases and contracts for many of XE's aircraft, which led to the short-lived DL LAX contract, the independent flying experiment, and the PMUA DEN contract.

Thanks for the info and clearing all that up!   


User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 15):


Which we are oh so thrilled about, as you can imagine.  


User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1581 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 7):
IIRC CO even owned all, or at least mostly all, of the their ERJ fleet
Quoting LHCVG (Reply 10):
Right, but didn't CO actually own XJ's planes, at least at one point?

Pretty sure the majority of them are leased and then sub-leased to ExpressJet.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 14):
IIRC, after the split from CO, CO rejected leases and contracts for many of XE's aircraft, which led to the short-lived DL LAX contract, the independent flying experiment, and the PMUA DEN contract.

As I understand it, ExpressJet (I'll call them XE for the pre-merger entity) was given the option to relinquish the planes (which CO would then have leased to another operator, presumably Chautauqua) or keep them and find other things to do with them (as long as they weren't flown to CO Hubs). This was done with 60-odd planes, out of a fleet of nearly 300, at the time. XE chose to keep the leases on the planes and operated them independently, for Delta, and for United, eventually. The United contract put all or most of those planes back to work under contract flying. Then they merged into EV. So Continental (the subsidiary of United Continental Holdings that exists for contract purposes) still owns or leases those aircraft and sub-leases them to ExpressJet, unless those titles/leases have been transferred to a different subsidiary or directly to ExpressJet (of which, I believe the former to be more likely).



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 12):
I think E190s might be too large for contract flying

How about a 90-seat CRJ1000 with 18F + 72Y? Big enough to offer extra capacity but small enough to be allowed as a regional aircraft?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1604 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 21):
How about a 90-seat CRJ1000 with 18F + 72Y? Big enough to offer extra capacity but small enough to be allowed as a regional aircraft?

Something in that range would be very doable as long as it's kosher with scope - AC Jazz runs those in an 86-seat config I believe. While I too am a fan of large RJs with big F cabins for those routes that can't support mainline but do have decent F traffic, I don't see 18F working here though. You'd probably have to do something like the 12F AC config. 18F is an awful lot of F for anything under 150ish seats that isn't a niche variant for an uber premium market.

Personally I am a bit surprised we haven't seen more CR1Ks, particularly in the US where I'd think it would slot nicely between the 76ish-seat E75/CR9s and the 73G and 319 size, given that carriers don't seem too thrilled with E90s and 717s are hard to come by unless you're DL.

Keep in mind though that the flip side to this coin is that such planes would most definitely be mainline replacements, so while it's nice idea it may not be good insofar as it would be a further reduction in mainline flying. Thus, the pilot's unions are probably unlikely to approve scope that would allow such a plane barring some major concessions elsewhere.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5272 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

AMR was in talks with Embrear and Canadair about larger aircraft (170/190 and C-Series) before the bankruptcy filing. I would assume that those talks would have continued during the course of bankruptcy.

Depending on how quickly AMR/AA/Eagle exits Chapter 11, as well as the decision on a merger with US, will probably dictate when some sort of order for larger RJs is announced.


User currently offlinejsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2041 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4407 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 21):
How about a 90-seat CRJ1000 with 18F + 72Y? Big enough to offer extra capacity but small enough to be allowed as a regional aircraft?

Selfishly (as an AA frequent flier) I hope AA goes with the E-Jets, simply because the overhead bins can take rollaboards. Waiting in the jetway for a "Valet" checked bag is fine on an ERJ, becomes less enjoyable with a CR7-sized load of passengers and downright miserable on a CR9 when you've got passengers lined up the jetbridge all the way to the terminal door. The E-Jets and the C-Series have more of that "mainline" aircraft feel, where the CRJ-series looks and feels like a regional jet that's been stretched and stretched and stretched. I've been flying CR7s on ORD-IAH-ORD every week for the last four months, and I definitely wouldn't mind something with more headroom, larger windows and bigger bins. Now that it's winter, that queue in the jetway at ORD waiting for Valet bags is one of the lowest (and coldest) parts of my week.

At the end of the day, though, AA will go with the most competitive and cost-advantageous option (as they should), not necessarily the most comfortable one. They've got Embraer and Bombardier aircraft already in the stable, so it seems like a toss up for now.


User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 21):
Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):

If they can get a mainline pay scale for the CR10, then it would definitely be feasible, albeit with maybe 12F, maybe 15F if they use them in the right markets. Operating 15 or even 18F ORD-RIC or ORD-TUL would be loss making. However, an OKC-LAX or DFW-IAH with 18F might be profitable........ For scope purposes, it would have to be E175 or CR9 as the large RJs with probably 12F72Y at the upper end, but thats just speculation as I haven't seen what the capacity limits of the large RJs are yet.

Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 24):

Either way, I prefer CR7/9 and E75/90 to any mainline jet if I'm by myself either in F or Y, but love the big jets when my wife travels with me. I usually carry my small flight bag when I travel, so it doesn't bother me with the small bins on the CR7/9.



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

I guess this answers the question:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americ...gns-agreement-begin-113000359.html

This should be just the beginning.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4126 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 26):
I guess this answers the question:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americ...gns-agreement-begin-113000359.html

This should be just the beginning.

Several thoughts/notes:

* At least now it's finally official - AA shopping around for large RJs has been well known and expected for years

* As a customer, I am thrilled that AA went with the EJet as opposed to the CRJ

* My earlier prediction was wrong - Republic is purchasing these aircraft and holding them on their books, not AMR

* Based on the wording of the AA press release, it sounds like these jets will not feature Main Cabin Extra

* Embraer's press release indicates that Republic (and thus Eagle) will be the launch customer/operator for the enhanced E175 with reduced fuel burn, maintenance costs and more advanced systems

* Amazingly, the AA press release says the first of these new jets will be in service by "mid-2013," which seems to be only mere months away - I wonder if the 5 1st generate E175s will enter first, followed by the newer jets later in the year?

* Network speculation: where are these jets headed? I still would guess that ORD and LGA are probably the first places these jets would go, as the E175 is going to be a very competitive product for those very competitive markets


User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4036 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 26):

Interesting is all I can say. It looks like MQ missed the boat on this one. Are their costs still overly bloated that they can't compete with OO and RP for contract flying? If so, then how soon/long will it be before they go the way of OH? With 207 EMB's, can they make in this environment?



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3998 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
Based on the wording of the AA press release, it sounds like these jets will not feature Main Cabin Extra

In-fact they will---

• Through the agreement, Republic will acquire and staff all 53 Embraer-175 jets featuring a two-class cabin with 12 First Class seats and 64 seats in the Main Cabin. In the Main Cabin, 20 of those seats will feature Main Cabin Extra, which offers customers more legroom and priority boarding


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
* My earlier prediction was wrong - Republic is purchasing these aircraft and holding them on their books, not AMR

You're not wrong yet. The Republic agreement is only for 50 airplanes. AA needs a lot more than that.

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 28):
Interesting is all I can say. It looks like MQ missed the boat on this one. Are their costs still overly bloated that they can't compete with OO and RP for contract flying? If so, then how soon/long will it be before they go the way of OH? With 207 EMB's, can they make in this environment?

Maybe they haven't been able to grow, or expand large RJ flying because of the restrictive pilot clauses at the APA. With that out of the way, lower costs (achieved through BK), we now could see a large RJ order. Although that wouldn't address AA immediate needs.

Additionally MQ is going to have to order larger airplanes if it hopes to compete with Skywest, Republic etc... No airlline is going to be attractive to a E135/E145 product line.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 29):
In-fact they will---

• Through the agreement, Republic will acquire and staff all 53 Embraer-175 jets featuring a two-class cabin with 12 First Class seats and 64 seats in the Main Cabin. In the Main Cabin, 20 of those seats will feature Main Cabin Extra, which offers customers more legroom and priority boarding

Ah - interesting. Thanks. It makes sense these jets would get the MCE product, as they will be flying in and out of ORD on plenty of highly competitive routes up against UA and UAX jets that have E+.

Quoting seatback (Reply 30):
Additionally MQ is going to have to order larger airplanes if it hopes to compete with Skywest, Republic etc... No airlline is going to be attractive to a E135/E145 product line.

Well Eagle (the company) is heading in the right direction. The 135s will be gone by the end of this year. I'd imagine the 140s and the oldest 145s (which this spring will be 15 years old) won't be far behind.


User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3895 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 30):
Additionally MQ is going to have to order larger airplanes if it hopes to compete with Skywest, Republic etc... No airlline is going to be attractive to a E135/E145 product line.

I think there is a business case that would make probably 40-60 E35/45 sensible. I think those small number of markets may be able to in the future handle CR7 sized aircraft with current levels of frequency.



There are a lot of the routes AA currently has them on is ludicrous. For instance, ORD-RIC sees 3x ER4 from AA, while UA operates 2 CR7, 2 ER4 and 1 73G....



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 32):
There are a lot of the routes AA currently has them on is ludicrous. For instance, ORD-RIC sees 3x ER4 from AA, while UA operates 2 CR7, 2 ER4 and 1 73G....

Cincinnati could also use some larger airplanes to both DFW and ORD!


User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 33):

That's one thing I miss about DL is being able to fly OKC-CVG-ORD on CR7/9. There is no more OKC-CVG, but I can still get just about where I want domestically on DL on CR7/9.......



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3768 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3841 times:

When I first saw the AA/RAH deal, I immediately thought "If some of these E-Jets will be based at DFW, the two daily FWA-DFW frequencies will probably get upgraded to E-Jets". FWA-DFW does really well at 2x daily and sometimes goes up to 3x, even with both flights on ER4s. And I suspect that if the flight is upgraded to E175s, it will do even better.

And it now looks like two carriers may be introducing larger RJs at FWA this year: 9E (DL) and RW (AA). FWA's master plan from last year didn't anticipate 70/76-seaters arriving until 2015, so FWA may need the terminal expansion found in the plan sooner rather than later.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1249 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Just saw this tweet. Interesting. Made me think of this thread.

https://twitter.com/airchive/status/294458251020488704



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3703 times:

Republic Airways to fly 76 seat Embraers for American

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Ameri...ys-for-some-flights-188202791.html

53 aircraft to be painted in American Eagle colors starting 2 or 3 per month in mid-2013

EDIT

More info - E-175s

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01...ts-from-brazil-planemaker-embraer/

EDIT #2

Republic Press Release

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....-newsArticle&ID=1777459&highlight=

[Edited 2013-01-24 07:57:40]

User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

Just wondering if this is the beginning of the end for Eagle... They need to do something and fast. They cannot be competative in any way shape or form with all those 44 seat ERJ's. They dont have enought CRJ's to do much.

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 38):
Just wondering if this is the beginning of the end for Eagle...

I've been certain for about three years that the AMR board intends to shut down Eagle.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3768 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 38):
They need to do something and fast. They cannot be competative in any way shape or form with all those 44 seat ERJ's. They dont have enought CRJ's to do much.

The RAH deal is only the first of many 70-76 seat deals for AA/Eagle. More contracts will be coming, and I wouldn't be surprised if American Eagle Airlines (or whatever it will be called) gets their piece of the pie in exchange for ERD/4 retirements, much like what is happening right now with DL and 9E.

Wouldn't be surprised if EMBRAER does a buyback and exchange program for Eagle like the one that Bombardier is doing for 9E... E175s in exchange for ERJ-140/145s.

[Edited 2013-01-24 08:05:22]


"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

There is one thing that could complicate the RAH deal down the road. The Pilots at Republic have been working under a bad contract for many years and have trying to negotiate a better contract for five years. There have been a lot of issues at play here, but they have been getting federal mediating. This past week the federal mediator felt the two sides were hopelessly apart that she send everyone home and doesn't feel like a deal can be reached. You have RAH pilots who are now angry with the Teamsters union for their impotence in these negotiations, and this is getting ugly real quick. This could potentially turn into a labor strike in a couple of years if things keep going the way they are.

User currently offlinedoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

I hope that Miami will fit in some where in this equation.It opens up a lot of possibilities network wide going forward its good to read positive press lately about American keep it up.

User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3474 times:

I think this is the start to the end of American Eagle they will never be able to compete with regionals like this. They have already started a ground handling company paying 9 bucks a hour no benifits. I give American Eagle 3-4 years before they are not flying for American anymore.

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 32):
I think there is a business case that would make probably 40-60 E35/45 sensible.

I agree. There may yet be a viable business case for AA to hang onto some of those ERJs for some time longer - not another 20 years, but maybe another 10. Some of the new ones are less than 10 years old now, and in markets where AA/Eagle has a monopoly and/or dominates, their high costs may be sustainable if the network can generate high revenue to match. Not sure ... only time will tell.

Quoting seatback (Reply 33):
Cincinnati could also use some larger airplanes to both DFW and ORD!

CVG is, at least to me, an obvious market for these jets. This will offer a very competitive product in a reasonably large corporate/premium travel market. I could realistically see all or some of the CVG flights - at least to DFW and ORD - transitioning to 2-class large RJs.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 35):
When I first saw the AA/RAH deal, I immediately thought "If some of these E-Jets will be based at DFW, the two daily FWA-DFW frequencies will probably get upgraded to E-Jets". FWA-DFW does really well at 2x daily and sometimes goes up to 3x, even with both flights on ER4s. And I suspect that if the flight is upgraded to E175s, it will do even better.

Absolutely. There are multiple Midwest markets where I could see a 2-class large RJ, either the new EJets or displaced CR7s - being used to reduce frequency and boost yields. FWA, GRR and MSN, for example, I could all see moving from 3x daily ERJ to 2x daily CR7/E75.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 40):
The RAH deal is only the first of many 70-76 seat deals for AA/Eagle.

   Yep

With or without a merger, there are almost certainly more large RJs coming.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 40):
More contracts will be coming, and I wouldn't be surprised if American Eagle Airlines (or whatever it will be called) gets their piece of the pie in exchange for ERD/4 retirements, much like what is happening right now with DL and 9E.

  

Exactly. I suspect AMR is going to use the precise template Delta laid out for them with respect to Pinnacle.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 40):
Wouldn't be surprised if EMBRAER does a buyback and exchange program for Eagle like the one that Bombardier is doing for 9E... E175s in exchange for ERJ-140/145s.

There is still plenty of money left on the table as AMR restructures their regional fleet, and both Embraer and Bombardier know it. I suspect both are going to be willing to work with AMR on cutting deals that help AMR draw down its 44-/50-seater fleet if that's what it takes to win billions in new orders.

And, not to mention, I could also see an order - with or without a merger - for a not-insignificant number (50-75+) of large turboprops, either Q400s or ATR72s. There are plenty of markets Eagle flies to now where the ERJ is no longer economically viable but a 2-class CR7/E75 is probably too much. A Q400 or ATR72 might be just the right fit. And if there is a merger, USAirways Express has tons of old DHC8s that are going to need replacing.


User currently offlineloggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 35):
When I first saw the AA/RAH deal, I immediately thought "If some of these E-Jets will be based at DFW, the two daily FWA-DFW frequencies will probably get upgraded to E-Jets". FWA-DFW does really well at 2x daily and sometimes goes up to 3x, even with both flights on ER4s. And I suspect that if the flight is upgraded to E175s, it will do even better.

And it now looks like two carriers may be introducing larger RJs at FWA this year: 9E (DL) and RW (AA). FWA's master plan from last year didn't anticipate 70/76-seaters arriving until 2015, so FWA may need the terminal expansion found in the plan sooner rather than later.

LOL. I can think of at least 100 routes that would get the EJets before DFW-FWA. But good luck to you and I hope it works out.



There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3768 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3355 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 44):
And, not to mention, I could also see an order - with or without a merger - for a not-insignificant number (50-75+) of large turboprops, either Q400s or ATR72s. There are plenty of markets Eagle flies to now where the ERJ is no longer economically viable but a 2-class CR7/E75 is probably too much. A Q400 or ATR72 might be just the right fit.

Eagle once operated the ATR72-212 and -500, which means that Eagle has experience with the type, so I think that an order for ATR72-600s is more likely than one for Q400s. And since Eagle Flight 4184 almost 20 years ago, improvements have been made to ATR cold-weather performance to the point where it could work in ORD snowstorms without crashing.

Still, I could see either the ATR72-600 or the Q400 in the Eagle fleet. Either one would work wonders on sub-250 mile routes from MIA and especially ORD. In particular, ORD has a lot of very short ERJ routes like MKE, MLI, IND, CMI, GRR, FWA, BMI, PIA, MSN, and AZO. All would greatly benefit from an economical modern turboprop as opposed to a fuel-guzzling ERJ. And if they use them on 250-500 mile routes, I could even see them putting in a F cabin up front and Main Cabin Extra much like what UA is doing with their Q400s.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33038 posts, RR: 71
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

I can see these going to all the hubs sans JFK.

From LaGuardia on busy business routes to Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville.

From O'Hare to right-size markets like Reagan, Newark, Hartford, Oklahoma City.

From Los Angeles to open mid-continent markets like Kansas City, Colorado Springs, Tulsa, as well as replacing CR7s to Houston, Oklahoma City.

From Dallas to some of the longer, busier regional markets like Milwaukee.

From Miami to replace ERJ-145s to Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh and open mid-size markets like Milwaukee, Buffalo and Ottawa.



a.
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33038 posts, RR: 71
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3238 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
* Based on the wording of the AA press release, it sounds like these jets will not feature Main Cabin Extra

They will. First five rows on Y will be MCE.



a.
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 47):
From O'Hare to right-size markets like Reagan

How could anything less than mainline be considered right size on ORD-DCA?


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33038 posts, RR: 71
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 49):
Quoting mah4546 (Reply 47):
From O'Hare to right-size markets like Reagan

How could anything less than mainline be considered right size on ORD-DCA?

The marketplace thinks different, as both UA and AA use RJs on this route. Eagle has two daily RJs and UA has six.



a.
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3076 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3128 times:

Just a slight tangent here, but my partner (DM with DL) flew AA Eagle DFW-LIT a month or so back and came away VERY impressed with the a/c interior and service on the E135/E145 he flew on vs the comparable DL Connection a/c he's used to. There was actually a (limited) drinks service and a small breakfast "cookie" was provided on this short flight.

Is that pretty much standard for Eagle or is this kind of thing hit-or-miss?



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33038 posts, RR: 71
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3128 times:

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 51):
There was actually a (limited) drinks service and a small breakfast "cookie" was provided on this short flight.

Is that pretty much standard for Eagle or is this kind of thing hit-or-miss?

That's standard. Also, PLATs and EXPs flying Eagle in coach get free large snack/alcohol.



a.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3106 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 47):
I can see these going to all the hubs sans JFK.

From LaGuardia on busy business routes to Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville.

From O'Hare to right-size markets like Reagan, Newark, Hartford, Oklahoma City.

From Los Angeles to open mid-continent markets like Kansas City, Colorado Springs, Tulsa, as well as replacing CR7s to Houston, Oklahoma City.

From Dallas to some of the longer, busier regional markets like Milwaukee.

From Miami to replace ERJ-145s to Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh and open mid-size markets like Milwaukee, Buffalo and Ottawa.

Yep - agree with all of the above. AA will now be operating exactly 100 "large" 2-class RJs, and that's before the additional large RJs that would come if AA and US merge. That is going to provide lots of flexibility - flexibility AA desperately needs, and has needed for 5 years - to flow these competitive jets through their system in markets where it matters. I see ORD and LGA being the most pressing need for the EJets, as they are a better product, and that might free some of the CR7s to go to DFW and MIA and beef up flying there in markets where Eagle currently has smaller, single-class airplanes flying.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 50):
The marketplace thinks different, as both UA and AA use RJs on this route. Eagle has two daily RJs and UA has six.

True, although if AA and US do merge, I suspect ORD-DCA is one market (along with other hub-to-hub routes in and out of PHL, DCA and CLT) that are in for a substantial boost in capacity and frequency. I could see ORD-DCA going to at least 12-14 daily, all mainline.

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 51):
Just a slight tangent here, but my partner (DM with DL) flew AA Eagle DFW-LIT a month or so back and came away VERY impressed with the a/c interior and service on the E135/E145 he flew on vs the comparable DL Connection a/c he's used to. There was actually a (limited) drinks service and a small breakfast "cookie" was provided on this short flight.

I agree - I have honestly always been fairly impressed with Eagle, and I think Eagle sometimes doesn't get all the credit it deserves given all the constraints it has been operating under as a company and yet the impressive successes it has managed in various ways in recent years.

Considering it's a regional operator, and given all of the normal issues that brings with it, I've always found Eagle to deliver a generally quite professional, reliable operation for a regional. Part of that has probably been a result of Eagle being owned, controlled and closely integrated with mainline - the systems and training are the same, hub operations are closely coordinated, etc. I remember people used to say the same about ExpressJet when it was CO-owned. I think that does make a difference.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

According to ALPA,

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/

the planes are going to ORD. It now make sense that some of the A319 may be deployed to MIA.


User currently offlinedeltairlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8904 posts, RR: 12
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2842 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 54):
the planes are going to ORD. It now make sense that some of the A319 may be deployed to MIA.

Makes complete sense - ORD is the market in the network that truly needs the range and capacity of the E-175. This can allow the ORD CR7s to slide over to LGA, where the range is not as necessary compared to ORD (yes, LGA-MSP would be nice on the E175 over a CR7, but for ssing priority for these planes than New York due to the fact that it can penetrate the Northeast, which the CR7 cannot do.


User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 47):
From O'Hare to right-size markets like Reagan, Newark, Hartford, Oklahoma City.

From Los Angeles to open mid-continent markets like Kansas City, Colorado Springs, Tulsa, as well as replacing CR7s to Houston, Oklahoma City.

I think ORD-OKC will remain a mix of CR7 and ER4 while OKC, MCI, COS, TUL, and IAH will remain CR7 for the time being. The reason I say this is because the CR7 has better fuel burn numbers on these routes than the E75 would. On the other hand, they may remain CR7 because as of yet, nobody operates the E70/75 off the west coast.



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineflyCMH From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 10
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 47):
I can see these going to all the hubs sans JFK.

From LaGuardia on busy business routes to Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville.

From O'Hare to right-size markets like Reagan, Newark, Hartford, Oklahoma City.

From Los Angeles to open mid-continent markets like Kansas City, Colorado Springs, Tulsa, as well as replacing CR7s to Houston, Oklahoma City.

From Dallas to some of the longer, busier regional markets like Milwaukee.

From Miami to replace ERJ-145s to Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh and open mid-size markets like Milwaukee, Buffalo and Ottawa.

I was thinking along the same lines. However, taking it a step further, I wonder what the initial placement for these new birds will be and where the displaced aircraft will go.

General consensus seems to point to the E75's setting up shop in ORD, and LGA at first. In which case, I imagine the above-mentioned cities are very good candidates for introductory service. In addition, I would think CMH, IND, SDF, and PIT are also possibilities. All are maintenance and/or crew bases for RP/RW/S5 and generally seem to have aircraft routed to them via scheduled service.

So if the E75's are placed in LGA and ORD, what happens to the CR7's? Will the E75's simply augment existing CR7 service, or will this allow American to move the fleet into other markets, such as basing the majority out West at the LAX cornerstone, return CR7 service to DFW, or possibly introduce large RJ service into MIA?

Either way, there are certainly a lot of exciting changes happening with the whole American Eagle brand.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

If they percieve the need for larger RJ's, I'm betting the person who made the decision to axe the F100 fleet is feeling dumb these days...   


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 53):
Considering it's a regional operator, and given all of the normal issues that brings with it, I've always found Eagle to deliver a generally quite professional, reliable operation for a regional. Part of that has probably been a result of Eagle being owned, controlled and closely integrated with mainline - the systems and training are the same, hub operations are closely coordinated, etc. I remember people used to say the same about ExpressJet when it was CO-owned. I think that does make a difference.

YES!
That's why when I moved to AA, I was decently content with all the RJ flying from BDL, because I knew it was, essentially, mainline American Airlines' division of smaller jets.
With other regionals, all's well and good until something goes wrong, and then the cross-finger pointing occurs between the contractor and the mainline.

Eagle service has been very enjoyable and for a 2hr flight, the EMBs are quite comfortable, and even a little classy with their metal plate Eagle mascots on the bulkheads.

This "wind down" of Eagle is quite sad. (Yeah, most likely it will be a slow wind down).


User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 799 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 2340 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 47):
From Dallas to some of the longer, busier regional markets like Milwaukee.

From Miami to replace ERJ-145s to Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh and open mid-size markets like Milwaukee, Buffalo and Ottawa.

It's going to be rather interesting to see if/how AA chooses to deploy these new aircraft in the MKE airport. MKE is an all eagle operation on the ground (so I think I read it's is limited to max 7 mainline flights a day under previous contracts) but has seen numerous equipment changes over the last few years.

Best example being MKE-DFW which has had all of the following over the last few years:

5 or 6x daily ERJ
5 x daily CR7
3x daily CR7, 2x daily ERJ
3 x daily MD80 (I can't remember off hand if at one point it was 4x daily MD80) back to
5 x daily ERJ Nov. 2011
2 x daily MD80, 2x daily ERJ currently
2 x daily MD80, 2x daily ERJ, 1x daily CR2 starting in April 2013

So I'm not sure if anyone can tell anything from the above pattern except there seems to be a trend towards higher frequency at the expense of mainline.

My personal bias is that 4-5 daily A319s to DFW would be the sweet spot based on observations that there is some paid premium demand but it seems to be rather light and it's not uncommon for Y cabins on the MD80s to be sold at >90% or oversold knowing there will be several upgrades from Y to F. As for the midday Eagle flights, they often go out full which explains why AA is adding another midday flight with the new CR2s in April.

(As an aside, I find it a bit unusual that on all the CR2 flights from MKE row 1,3,4 are completely blocked - could it be they intend to have an F row and MCE on this planes?)


OTOH .... MKE-ORD which was at one point 7 or 8 daily ERJ has been holding steady around 4 flights daily (x6) for over a year now. If AA does choose to expand at ORD we might see an additional flight or two but I doubt we'll ever see anything larger on the route even though AA has put some CR7s on it in the past.

If MKE ever sees direct flights to MIA - I think AA would almost have to make it mainline. Again my bias it that MKE consumers have shown time after time that they prefer larger planes to RJs and mainline flights are a more attractive pull for the N. IL crowd.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 59):
YES!
That's why when I moved to AA, I was decently content with all the RJ flying from BDL, because I knew it was, essentially, mainline American Airlines' division of smaller jets.
With other regionals, all's well and good until something goes wrong, and then the cross-finger pointing occurs between the contractor and the mainline.

Eagle service has been very enjoyable and for a 2hr flight, the EMBs are quite comfortable, and even a little classy with their metal plate Eagle mascots on the bulkheads.

This "wind down" of Eagle is quite sad. (Yeah, most likely it will be a slow wind down).
Quoting crAAzy (Reply 60):
Best example being MKE-DFW which has had all of the following over the last few years:

5 or 6x daily ERJ
5 x daily CR7
3x daily CR7, 2x daily ERJ
3 x daily MD80 (I can't remember off hand if at one point it was 4x daily MD80) back to
5 x daily ERJ Nov. 2011
2 x daily MD80, 2x daily ERJ currently
2 x daily MD80, 2x daily ERJ, 1x daily CR2 starting in April 2013

So I'm not sure if anyone can tell anything from the above pattern except there seems to be a trend towards higher frequency at the expense of mainline.

My personal bias is that 4-5 daily A319s to DFW would be the sweet spot based on observations that there is some paid premium demand but it seems to be rather light and it's not uncommon for Y cabins on the MD80s to be sold at >90% or oversold knowing there will be several upgrades from Y to F. As for the midday Eagle flights, they often go out full which explains why AA is adding another midday flight with the new CR2s in April.

I think 4-5 A319s would be too much - more likely 3 A319s, or maybe 2 A319s and 2 CR7s/E175s.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 60):
OTOH .... MKE-ORD which was at one point 7 or 8 daily ERJ has been holding steady around 4 flights daily (x6) for over a year now. If AA does choose to expand at ORD we might see an additional flight or two but I doubt we'll ever see anything larger on the route even though AA has put some CR7s on it in the past.

MKE-ORD is a perfect Q400 or ATR72 route.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 60):
Again my bias it that MKE consumers have shown time after time that they prefer larger planes to RJs and mainline flights are a more attractive pull for the N. IL crowd.

I think MKE consumers are just like virtually all but the most informed and particular of air travel consumers in the rest of the country. They'll get on just about any plane if the schedule is convenient and the price is right. MKE doesn't seem to have any problem stepping foot on the dozens of daily flights leaving MKE for cities all around the U.S. and various airlines. Indeed, I suspect that the majority of flights out of MKE these days are on RJs, not mainline.

In the case of MIA specifically, I actually do agree that mainline (A319) would probably be the right bet merely because of the competitive market dynamics and AA's ability to use MIA as a nexus to the Caribbean (MKE is, in my mind, one of the biggest gaping domestic holes AA has at MIA, along with SAN, AUS and MCI). But, nonetheless, whether MKE-MIA happens on AA, and if it is flown with mainline or an RJ, it is not going to be one way or another because of consumer preference for RJs vs mainline.


User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2046 times:

So now that part of the orginial question has been answered, speculation begins as to what other deals are coming down the pike. 53 RJ won't cut it.

I would imagine Republic's role has been identified and will serve mostly ORD.

My guess is Skywest will be next with their focus being DFW and further West (growing LAX).

Would classic Eagle keep the east?


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3543 posts, RR: 5
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 62):
I would imagine Republic's role has been identified and will serve mostly ORD.

My guess is Skywest will be next with their focus being DFW and further West (growing LAX).

Would classic Eagle keep the east?

I think you are over labeling. The days of one airline for one hub ended with the Comair CVG mess a decade ago. You will likely see Republic in LGA/JFK/ORD. This will mix in with Eagle ERJs and CRJs.

And you will likely see another carrier with large RJs...but I wouldn't put money on Eagle


User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 63):

I think you are over labeling. The days of one airline for one hub ended with the Comair CVG mess a decade ago. You will likely see Republic in LGA/JFK/ORD. This will mix in with Eagle ERJs and CRJs.

But this way adds a lot of cost to the regional partners, because then it requires them to open more crew domiciles, more MX bases...etc, and makes switching things when a line goes bad difficult. I think the majors could save money by going back to this model.

That being said....lets see what happens if there is a strike at RAH. At least AA won't be the only one affected by such a move.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13257 posts, RR: 100
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've been reading this thead and now feel there is enough new information to comment.

AA must be more flexible and the 50-seat era is coming to a close. I do find it interesting how this deal has galvanized a.net interest in Republic's union negotiations. That will be interesting to follow.

Quoting SJUSXM (Reply 17):
AMR looks to increase large regional capacity in 2013.

It is good to see AMR finally making changes. A319s... larger RJs...

Quoting seatback (Reply 26):
I guess this answers the question:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americ...gns-agreement-begin-113000359.html

This should be just the beginning.

That it should. The US/AA deal will handicap AA for a bit...

Quoting seatback (Reply 30):
The Republic agreement is only for 50 airplanes. AA needs a lot more than that.

Agreed. But how will AMR structure the US deal? I suspect they'll be operated separately to maximize allowed large RJs.

Quoting commavia (Reply 44):
There may yet be a viable business case for AA to hang onto some of those ERJs for some time longer - not another 20 years, but maybe another 10.

For some yes. But how many?

Quoting seatback (Reply 54):

According to ALPA,

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/

the planes are going to ORD.

That makes sense. DFW could use them too.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

A few points. First, we (real Eagle) are not being shut down and the plans for divestiture are off the table. We will be getting larger planes but not yet, that negotiation is still being finalized. We are still in the process of trying to hire 500 pilots as the first of us start to flow to AA soon. We were not awarded this flying because we didn't even put a bid on it. We don't have a training program for the E-Jet so we couldn't submit a bid realistically. Expect an announcement involving Compass soon. Any other questions please feel free to ask.

User currently offlineseatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1710 times:

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 66):

Compass? Care to elaborate?


User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1681 times:

Quoting seatback (Reply 67):

Many rumors are floating about from multiple sources that the outsourcing isn't finished and an agreement is/will soon be signed with Compass to provide feed. I don't have a time line but that's what I'm hearing. I also heard the UCC is furious because AMR didn't get permission before signing the agreement with RP. Don't know if that will affect anything but that's all I know at this point in time.


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...
When Will We See AA's New 77w? posted Thu Jul 5 2012 20:19:57 by aacun
When Will We See E-Jets At LAX? posted Sun Aug 14 2005 04:23:53 by PPVRA
When Will We See AirTran At SEA? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 19:35:38 by BCAInfoSys
When Will We See An A380 In Alliance Livery? posted Fri Jan 13 2012 02:25:27 by MCO2BRS
When Will We See A Plane Like Concorde Again? posted Fri Oct 14 2011 12:44:37 by LGWflyer
When Will We See A Delta A330-200 posted Sat Aug 22 2009 09:36:01 by Blueman87
When Will We See PR's 777-300ER? posted Fri Jul 31 2009 19:32:10 by JetBlue777
When Will We See A320s In Delta Colors posted Sun Jul 13 2008 21:29:21 by Rwex414
When Will We See Europe - HNL Non-stop Service? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 12:03:50 by HNL-Jack
When Will We See LAX-GRU Again? posted Thu Jan 25 2007 07:23:57 by LAXdude1023