Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eagle To Change Its Name, Callsign & Code On APR15  
User currently offlinerealsim From Spain, joined Apr 2010, 645 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 months 1 day ago) and read 11953 times:

As the thread announcing the new name has been locked, I have to open a new one.

The tentative date for American Eagle Airlines name change is April 15.

* New name: Envoy
* New callsign: Envoy
* New code: ENY

The current callsign is "Eagle Flight" and the ICAO code is EGF.

Since then, the "American Eagle" brand will be the brand for all the regional flights of American Airlines (although in fact it already is). The following airlines will eventually operate as American Eagle:

- Envoy (wholly owned)
- PSA (wholly owned)
- Piedmont (wholly owned)
- Republic
- Air Wisconsin
- Mesa
- SkyWest
- ExpressJet
- Trans States

To be fair with the company which is currently known as American Eagle, it is unfair that their brand, name and reputation, which has been a product of many years of hard work, is now taken away from them and given to so many different airlines. It is clear that AA sees the value of the brand, which is, in my opinion, associated with a single airline rather than what happens with the more conventional "Express" or "Connection" brands. I hope, nevertheless, that the people at Envoy will soon build a strong reputition for their new name and brand.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (5 months 1 day ago) and read 11838 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):

I see why it's being done. I don't love it or hate it, but I get it.

As much as I look forward to the synergies of this merger, the change from AE to Envoy is pretty much a wash. The reputation of AE in the mid-late 2000s was pretty poor in comparison to AA mainline -- mainly from a delay and baggage perspective. And while they have got a lot better over the last few years from a service perspective (hiring new F/A's and 2 class RJs) the name Envoy is a vestige to keep some sort of branding of the PMUS product alive. To me it's fine, but it probably would have made more sense to brand the international First or Business class product Envoy instead.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineB727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 756 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 day ago) and read 11598 times:

There were "so many airlines" that were mashed together to make American Eagle. It's a marketing thing.


My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 11252 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
To be fair with the company which is currently known as American Eagle, it is unfair that their brand, name and reputation, which has been a product of many years of hard work, is now taken away from them and given to so many different airlines. It is clear that AA sees the value of the brand, which is, in my opinion, associated with a single airline rather than what happens with the more conventional "Express" or "Connection" brands. I hope, nevertheless, that the people at Envoy will soon build a strong reputition for their new name and brand.
Quoting B727FA (Reply 2):
There were "so many airlines" that were mashed together to make American Eagle. It's a marketing thing.

While I understand realsim's emotional sentiment, B727FA pretty much nails it on the head. American Eagle began as a number of independent regionals operating under the "American Eagle" brand, no different than than the the regionals who signed contracts to operate as "United Express," "Continental Express/Connection," "Northwest Airlink," "Delta Connection," et. al.

The difference is that American gradually began acquiring the independent Eagle operators one-by-one and merging them into a single, wholly owned entity (save for Executive Airlines, which remained a separate operating airline).

"American Eagle" was always the brand name, though it also eventually became the corporate name as well. There is far too much brand value in that name for American to use a different monniker (i.e. "American Connection") for the newcoming independent contract regionals.

Renaming the corporate entity to "Envoy" makes a great deal of sense in that it eliminates the confusion between the airline brand and the corporate entity, and also makes it easier for AA to spin off the company should it so desire.

The new chapter for Envoy should be an interesting one.  



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineSean-SAN- From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 768 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 11228 times:

At least this should help the ATC controllers. They constantly get goofed up between Endeavor (FLG) and Eagle (EGF).

User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 months 23 hours ago) and read 11203 times:

So its my understanding AA brands regional flying as Eagle; will all of their wholly-owned's eventually be consolidated into Envoy?


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2071 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 months 22 hours ago) and read 11155 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 5):
So its my understanding AA brands regional flying as Eagle; will all of their wholly-owned's eventually be consolidated into Envoy?

No, you can't whipsaw if you combine them.


User currently offlinewoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1032 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (5 months 21 hours ago) and read 10746 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 5):
So its my understanding AA brands regional flying as Eagle; will all of their wholly-owned's eventually be consolidated into Envoy?

Probably not as siletbob said, they will probably use Piedmont, PSA and Envoy against each other to drive the mechanics, pilot, and flight attendant union contracts downwards. As Skywest and Republic are giving their respective unions contract improvements in an attempt to retain employees.

Can't do that if they're all merged together.



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (5 months 16 hours ago) and read 9694 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
I hope, nevertheless, that the people at Envoy will soon build a strong reputition for their new name and brand.

Doubtful. American won't let the name see the light of day.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinedtw757 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1558 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 months 13 hours ago) and read 9318 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
Doubtful. American won't let the name see the light of day

What? It's already happening. American Eagle the airline and ground handler aka MQ will soon be Envoy retaining the MQ code. The name will see the light of day real soon despite what happens with the pilot vote. If they wind down the flying it will wind down at Envoy not American Eagle.



721,2,732,3,4,5,G,8,9,741,2,3,4,752,3,762,3,4,772,3,788,D93,5,M80,D10,M11,L10,100,AB6,319,20,21,332,3,388,146,CR2,7,ERJ,
User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1174 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 months 13 hours ago) and read 9232 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
The following airlines will eventually operate as American Eagle:

Why do we call them ''airlines'', when all they are is small lift providers on effectively long term wet lease arrangements for the majors, and who fly where they are told to fly and when to fly, and would not know how to sell a ticket on their own. and who in many cases don't even buy their own fuel. I can't get comfortable calling them ''airlines'', maybe something like 'certificated contracted air carriers' should apply to this class of companies. If the predictions of a shortage of pilots materializes in the coming years, I think most mainline pilot unions will have the power to force this small lift flying back in house.



The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11529 posts, RR: 61
Reply 11, posted (5 months 13 hours ago) and read 9150 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
To be fair with the company which is currently known as American Eagle, it is unfair that their brand, name and reputation, which has been a product of many years of hard work, is now taken away from them and given to so many different airlines.

"To be fair," it was never "their brand" to begin with. The brand has always belonged to mainline - since day one - and the brand has spent almost as much time as a collection of non-owned independent operators as it has being flown by a single (or really, two) wholly-owned subsidiary.

I feel for the Envoy employees, but the bottom line is that AA is now returning to precisely how its Eagle operations existed prior to 1998, and exactly to how every other major U.S. airline's regional feed has operated for years. The fact that for the last 16 years the legal name and marketing name of the company happen to have been the same is irrelevant from AA's perspective, and frankly I tend to doubt that most Eagle employees were under any allusions about that. I don't think many of them were too surprised to see this change.

Quoting dtw757 (Reply 9):
What? It's already happening. American Eagle the airline and ground handler aka MQ will soon be Envoy retaining the MQ code. The name will see the light of day real soon despite what happens with the pilot vote. If they wind down the flying it will wind down at Envoy not American Eagle.

I think the point being made was about the brand "never seeing the light of day" in terms of the customer. Passengers aren't really going to ever interact with the Envoy logo, and closest most of them will ever come to it is seeing "Operated by Envoy" when they buy their tickets on AA.com, or perhaps when they see the flight attendant's badge when he or she leans down to give them a can of Coke. Most passengers don't know nor care to know the specifics of the legal entity operating their flight. They'll see "American Eagle" on the side and hold "American" responsible for any positive or negative experiences - just as they always have.

Quoting Coronado (Reply 10):
Why do we call them ''airlines'', when all they are is small lift providers on effectively long term wet lease arrangements for the majors, and who fly where they are told to fly and when to fly, and would not know how to sell a ticket on their own. and who in many cases don't even buy their own fuel. I can't get comfortable calling them ''airlines'', maybe something like 'certificated contracted air carriers' should apply to this class of companies.

They're everything you say, but also "airlines" because that's how they operate from a legal perspective - just as how DOT figures still break out airport traffic statistics by operating carrier even though that really has little practice usefulness in this day and age. Nonetheless, your complaints may prove prophetic - as apparently Eagle is being rebranded as Envoy - no "Airlines" in the name - specifically because the business is viewed internally as more than just an air operator, and in fact may well turn out to be largely a ground handling business.

Quoting Coronado (Reply 10):
If the predictions of a shortage of pilots materializes in the coming years, I think most mainline pilot unions will have the power to force this small lift flying back in house.

Doubtful. This flying will not be economical at mainline cost levels. I think what's far more likely - inevitable, in fact - is just that much of this flying ceases to exist. Markets that can be upgauged from 50-seat RJs to large RJs, and from large RJs to mainline, will be, and those markets that cannot support large RJs will largely lose service altogether, or shift to smaller operators like Cape Air.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (5 months 13 hours ago) and read 9099 times:

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):
it is unfair that their brand, name and reputation, which has been a product of many years of hard work, is now taken away from them

I don't think even 1% of the passengers ever knew or realized there was a difference between "American Eagle" and "American Connection" flights.

Every regional aircraft flown for AA has been "American Eagle" to the flying public.

I've heard people comment about how nice the American Eagle CR2 aircraft (OO) compared to their ATR aircraft at DFW.


User currently offlineB727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 756 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 months 11 hours ago) and read 8818 times:

Quoting Coronado (Reply 10):
Why do we call them ''airlines'', when all they are is small lift providers on effectively long term wet lease arrangements for the majors, and who fly where they are told to fly and when to fly, and would not know how to sell a ticket on their own. and who in many cases don't even buy their own fuel. I can't get comfortable calling them ''airlines''

"But they are, Blanche, they are..."   It's still an airline regardless of what we "want" to or are "comfortable" calling them. They have certificates, training programs, crews, manuals, dispatchers...It's like when people say Allegiant isn't an airline (I know, they're a "Travel Company" with planes).    They're still an airline.



My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlinerealsim From Spain, joined Apr 2010, 645 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 months 11 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
"To be fair," it was never "their brand" to begin with. The brand has always belonged to mainline - since day one - and the brand has spent almost as much time as a collection of non-owned independent operators as it has being flown by a single (or really, two) wholly-owned subsidiary.

I feel for the Envoy employees, but the bottom line is that AA is now returning to precisely how its Eagle operations existed prior to 1998, and exactly to how every other major U.S. airline's regional feed has operated for years. The fact that for the last 16 years the legal name and marketing name of the company happen to have been the same is irrelevant from AA's perspective, and frankly I tend to doubt that most Eagle employees were under any allusions about that. I don't think many of them were too surprised to see this change.

I understand why it is being done, there's no need to justify or stand up for every single management decision.   In fact, I think it is fair to recognise that this company has been the last among all the legacies to allow regional outsourcing and to change its very restrictive scope clause, and they have done it when all their competitors had already, not only hundreds of small regional aircraft outsourced, but also dozens of large RJs as well. I've always liked the way AA operated: one big mainline airline, one big wholly owned regional airline (split in two separate certificates, but still one single airline), and the company with the least outsourcing among their competitors. However, I've always realized that it was impossible for AA to compete with the other legacies and low cost airlines with such an operating cost disadvantage, and with such a restrictive scope clause. This is why AA can't be blamed to have been forced to adopt the only business model with which it could survive these days.

That doesn't mean, however, that I approve how management is dealing with labor negotiations with their wholly owned company soon to be called Envoy (and therefore, their own employees).

[Edited 2014-03-25 08:44:10]

User currently offlineMSJYOP28Apilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 221 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 months 9 hours ago) and read 7504 times:

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 4):
At least this should help the ATC controllers. They constantly get goofed up between Endeavor (FLG) and Eagle (EGF).

Why would it help ATC? I think the question should be how does it cause confusion for ATC? Endeavor callsign is Flagship and Eagle callsign is Eagle Flight? Even Envoy callsign shouldnt be confused with Flagship.


User currently offlineual747den From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (5 months 7 hours ago) and read 6622 times:

Quoting Coronado (Reply 10):
Why do we call them ''airlines'', when all they are is small lift providers on effectively long term wet lease arrangements for the majors, and who fly where they are told to fly and when to fly, and would not know how to sell a ticket on their own. and who in many cases don't even buy their own fuel. I can't get comfortable calling them ''airlines'', maybe something like 'certificated contracted air carriers' should apply to this class of companies. If the predictions of a shortage of pilots materializes in the coming years, I think most mainline pilot unions will have the power to force this small lift flying back in house.

The problem with this is that the regional airlines are represented by the same union as the regionals. If you think that the union is looking out for anyone other then themselves you're crazy! As far as I'm concerned that's been the problem all along, the union is playing the game just as much as management is and it's not in the unions advantage to reduce membership dues by consolidating regional flying into mainline. This is a problem that could have and should have been resolved a long time ago but the current system allows for everyone to win except for the employees who are doing the work so why change it.
If you have read my posts you know that I am a pro-management guy but for a long time I have been saying that there is a way to bring all of the regional flying in-house and make it work to everyone's advantage but to make that happen you would have to have a high level of cooperation from the unions and management just can't depend on that in today's environment so it won't happen. If I were a mainline pilot I would never choose to be represented by a group of people who also represent the group of workers who are the biggest threat to my future and that is exactly what is happening in the airline industry. What union in their right mind would fight to reduce their dues by more than half? It is a major conflict and until that is resolved and the unions figure out that working with management to make a strong stable airline is the best course of action this problem will continue.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (5 months 7 hours ago) and read 6190 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
Quoting dtw757 (Reply 9):
What? It's already happening. American Eagle the airline and ground handler aka MQ will soon be Envoy retaining the MQ code. The name will see the light of day real soon despite what happens with the pilot vote. If they wind down the flying it will wind down at Envoy not American Eagle.

I think the point being made was about the brand "never seeing the light of day" in terms of the customer. Passengers aren't really going to ever interact with the Envoy logo, and closest most of them will ever come to it is seeing "Operated by Envoy" when they buy their tickets on AA.com, or perhaps when they see the flight attendant's badge when he or she leans down to give them a can of Coke.

   The name change will happen, but I suspect that AA will do as much as it can to prevent passengers from knowing which carrier they are flying on when they're on an American Eagle branded airplane. Which means not saying the carrier's name in any announcements, putting the actual carrier's name in small lettering in an area not normally seen by passengers, etc. The only way you'd know is if you look at the ticket closely or saw a crewmember's badge.

Quoting Coronado (Reply 10):
Why do we call them ''airlines'', when all they are is small lift providers on effectively long term wet lease arrangements for the majors, and who fly where they are told to fly and when to fly, and would not know how to sell a ticket on their own. and who in many cases don't even buy their own fuel. I can't get comfortable calling them ''airlines'', maybe something like 'certificated contracted air carriers' should apply to this class of companies.

Not a bad point. The definition could be pretty simple: if the company doesn't sell its own tickets, it's not an airline.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineB727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 756 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 months 6 hours ago) and read 5823 times:

What do we call it then? I think the hang up is the idea that it's essentially a charter and not an "airline" in their own right. Ok, I'll go with that. But then what do you do scheduled charters? At risk flying by OO? Are their "at risk" flights flown by an "airline" b/c they sell tickets or are they "not" an airline? If it quacks like a duck...


My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlineJohnGalt From United States of America, joined Feb 2014, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 months 6 hours ago) and read 5418 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
   The name change will happen, but I suspect that AA will do as much as it can to prevent passengers from knowing which carrier they are flying on when they're on an American Eagle branded airplane. Which means not saying the carrier's name in any announcements, putting the actual carrier's name in small lettering in an area not normally seen by passengers, etc. The only way you'd know is if you look at the ticket closely or saw a crewmember's badge.

While I suspect AA may want to try that, I doubt the FAA will let them put the company name anywhere other than near L1. The only other option may be the nose gear door, but I have not seen many (or any) regional carriers allowed to put it anywhere other than near L1 (see ZW, AX, and OO).

14 CFR 119.9(b) states:
"No person may operate an aircraft under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter unless the name of the certificate holder who is operating the aircraft, or the air carrier or operating certificate number of the certificate holder who is operating the aircraft, is legibly displayed on the aircraft and is clearly visible and readable from the outside of the aircraft to a person standing on the ground at any time except during flight time. The means of displaying the name on the aircraft and its readability must be acceptable to the Administrator."

Granted, the regulation states "clearly visible and readable from the outside of the aircraft to a person standing on the ground at any time except during flight time", so standing on the ground near the APU exhaust would fit the bill, but would that "be acceptable to the Administrator"?


User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3054 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 months 4 hours ago) and read 4481 times:

IIRC, current US policy is to only say the operating carriers name once during the flight...this usually takes place during the boarding process. In all other announcements the carrier is just known as US Airways Express.


E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineKLASM83 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 months 4 hours ago) and read 4112 times:

All I can think of with the new ICAO code is ""ENY, meeny, miny, moe".

It's all semantics in the regional airline world; and even after that, I can't help but wonder if/when another mega merger amongst these airlines is set to happen.



Don't you want to hang out and waste your life with us?
User currently offlineSalukipilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

Whoa whoa whoa....when did Trans States go back to being an AA regional?


Silver Airways Captain
User currently offlinerealsim From Spain, joined Apr 2010, 645 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 months 2 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

Quoting Salukipilot (Reply 22):
Whoa whoa whoa....when did Trans States go back to being an AA regional?

They fly dba US Airways Express (at risk), 3 times daily from PIT to each STL, RDU and BDL with 3 ERJ-145s.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 hour ago) and read 2401 times:

Quoting JohnGalt (Reply 19):
While I suspect AA may want to try that, I doubt the FAA will let them put the company name anywhere other than near L1. The only other option may be the nose gear door, but I have not seen many (or any) regional carriers allowed to put it anywhere other than near L1 (see ZW, AX, and OO).

With the prevalence of using jetways to board RJs these days, most passengers never see the outside of the plane other than the little area around the door. So the effect is the same.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 rfields5421 : The FAA doesn't care what name they put on the aircraft, or where they put it. To the FAA, an OO flight is an OO flight, no matter how the aircraft i
26 B727FA : The current DCI a/c design only requires it on the right side below the FO's window.
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...
Virgin Is Gonna Have To Change Its Name. posted Tue Apr 8 2003 07:23:01 by USAir330
AeroRepública May Change Its Name To Copa posted Mon Aug 30 2010 22:31:01 by SCL767
MSY To Change Its Airport Code? posted Mon Aug 6 2001 22:35:59 by Tom in NO
Aer Arann To Change It's Name To Stobart Air posted Wed Mar 19 2014 17:02:37 by clydenairways
Could Easyjet Change Its Name posted Wed May 19 2010 03:43:24 by f4f3a
AF Is Soon Going To Change Its Livery! posted Fri Jan 9 2009 01:34:06 by Lsgg
Breaking: Delta To Keep Its Name - Part 2 posted Fri Feb 15 2008 22:00:27 by 777ER
Air Italy Forced To Change Its "Air France"-look? posted Thu May 11 2006 19:03:09 by OwlEye
Hartsfield To Keep Its Name! posted Sat Sep 13 2003 08:47:25 by GroundStop
Should Ansett II Change Its Name posted Tue Jan 8 2002 05:56:32 by Travel