COERJ145
Topic Author
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:22 am

AA LAX-PSP?

Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:53 pm

A little while ago, I know AA operated SF3 service from LAX-PSP. I just looked up LAX-PSP flights on AA for December, and there was nothing found. What happend to this service? Did UA boot them out of this route using their EM2's?

-Jeff M
 
aaway
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:41 pm

Serivce was discontinued with the April sked change. And it wasn't a seasonal change.
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
onedude
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:28 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:03 pm

I found this out the hard way as well. Was scheduled for a trip in August. Now driving. My AA rep told me the service was dropped because it was too unprofitable, however I think from memory jet service to DFW has increased.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:59 pm

It's probably unprofitable due to the jet service from DFW, since no one wants to fly on turboprops. The UA customers seem to like them, however.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:14 am

Regional jets are simply not the answer for very short hops that require several flights per day to maintain connections. PSP-LAX is all about connections, its too short to have any signficant O&D traffic, and the route worked OK for years with 19 pax and 30 pax turboprops operating several flights per day allowing for easy connections at LAX. The regional jets are too big and too expensive for the +/- 100 mile segment and cutting frequency is not the answer.

Its a shame, routes like this are being cut as regionals move away from turboprops and standardize on regional jets, and the result is a loss of connection possibilities for travellers, less convenient schedules, and some cities are losing scheduled service altogether.
 
Wayfarer
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:32 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:42 am

That is really too bad. I see this aircraft type at PSP all the time. Now, no more - at this moment.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David J Madzelonka



Common sight at PSP.
EASTERN AIRLINES: We Are Still Here Today
 
Jetter2
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:01 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:55 am

AE used to run daily rides from DFW to ACT and TYR. I don't see how AE can replace the ACT route with anything other than a small turboprop. I used to make it a effort to fly down there, grab a burger and watch the 2x an hour S340 ride back and forth. I think that TYR can be serviced a little better by a RJ, but as far as ACT is concerned, I sure hope they dont chop the only gate they got left there!
 
AJRfromSYR
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:03 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:22 am

Im under the impression that a ERJ135 and even a 145 is cheaper on fuel then a Saab340. Maybe this doesn't include taxi and on the ground cause I know jets don't idle as efficiently as a turbo prop but..... Can someone prove me wrong on this?
-AJR-
 
Ralgha
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 6:20 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:30 am

Quoting Wayfarer (Reply 5):
That is really too bad. I see this aircraft type at PSP all the time. Now, no more - at this moment.

Whatever dude, this is a way better looking airplane anyway. Big grin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John T. Stewart

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
 
Jetter2
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:01 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:36 am

No way! That saab is way more sleek looking  Wink
 
N62NA
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:47 am

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 7):
Im under the impression that a ERJ135 and even a 145 is cheaper on fuel then a Saab340. Maybe this doesn't include taxi and on the ground cause I know jets don't idle as efficiently as a turbo prop but..... Can someone prove me wrong on this?

I remember someone posting here a while back that on a 100 mile trip, the ERJ/CRJ uses more fuel on taxi than the prop uses for the whole trip.

While that is probably an exaggeration, the turboprop will definately be more fuel efficient than the RJ.
 
AJRfromSYR
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:03 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:55 am

I remember someone posting that also talking about the Indy crj's, and so I've been trying to do some research on it, I've seen where a S340 or a E120 would get .28-.30 g/m while the ERJ 135 gets .25 ish. The CRJ is what the other poster was talking about, 50 seat CRJ's are know for losing money but a ERJ 145 = .25 while a CRJ-100 is more like .35.

I think these number are just for level flight, would be nice if someone had facts to correct me.
-AJR-
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:35 am

Average burn for PSP-LAX is 600 lbs for a an EMB-120 cruising at 12,000.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
COERJ145
Topic Author
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:22 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:33 am

I remember flying on AE from LAX-PSP on an ERD(ERJ-140) back in sept. of 03, connecting from a CO flight from CLE and the flight was full for the early afternoon flight. Wish I had been on an SF3 though. I like RJ's, but i've been on DH8's, and those props are awsome. I also want to fly on an EM2, heard those are nice.


-Jeff m
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:08 pm

the prop is more efficient at the lower flight levels on the trips, where the jet doesn't get as high, burns more fuel for the lower altitude flight to PSP.
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:16 pm

Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 14):
the prop is more efficient at the lower flight levels on the trips, where the jet doesn't get as high, burns more fuel for the lower altitude flight to PSP.

A lower burn overall like a turboprop normally should, perhaps, but on this route, the turboprop isn't getting the maximum fuel economy either. If you put the turboprop up at FL250, you will see a large difference is burn as well.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:02 am

thanks goldenshield, I wish I liked to type that much! lol
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:27 am

Quoting AJRfromSYR (Reply 7):
Im under the impression that a ERJ135 and even a 145 is cheaper on fuel then a Saab340. Maybe this doesn't include taxi and on the ground cause I know jets don't idle as efficiently as a turbo prop but..... Can someone prove me wrong on this?

Trip times are the same - 47 Minutes - Flow Control:

SAAB Burn: 600pds/90 Gallons
Per Pax: About 18pds/3 Gallons

ERJ-135 Burn: 1850pds/274 Gallons
Per Pax: 50pds/7.5 Gallons

ERJ-140 Burn: 1880pds/280Gallons
Per Pax: 43 pds/6.4 Gallons

ERJ-145 Burn: 1950pds/291 Gallons
Per Pax: 39pds/5.8gal
 
RogerThat
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:13 pm

RE: AA LAX-PSP?

Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:20 am

A long time ago (1985 perhaps) I flew an AA DC10 LAX - PSP. The flight originated in ORD. IIRC, the flight was about 33% full of Chicago area snowbirds heading to Palm Springs for the winter.

I was the only passenger boarding the flight in LAX. The stewardess asked me if I was familiar with the aircraft's emergency exits and oxygen systems. Since I said yes, they did not have to conduct the pre-flight safety brief.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alggag, Channex757, cofannyc, D328, David L, FLJ, Google Adsense [Bot], Guillaume787, HALtheAI, OldDakdriver, pugman211, Qatara340, RalXWB, springtx, TheDBCooper, usflyer123, XLA2008, zkncj and 196 guests