UA748i wrote:

GVZZZ wrote:

G-LCYD/E/F are at Macon, GA
G-LCYG/H/I are at Norwich.

Any word on their reg#? Anything AAG has reserved?

Here are the next sequential reg numbers and who has them reserved; N294NN - Republic, N295NN - American, N296NN - Republic, N297NN - Republic, N298NN - unassigned, N299NN - unassigned, N300NN - American, N301NN - American. Since Republic has already renumbered the six E175s they just received, I don’t really see them using the NN sequence they have reserved. Not sure if AAG/Envoy would renumber the seemingly random sequence they used as the six E175s were sold off to Republic.

jgcotter wrote:

UA748i wrote:

GVZZZ wrote:

G-LCYD/E/F are at Macon, GA
G-LCYG/H/I are at Norwich.

Any word on their reg#? Anything AAG has reserved?

Here are the next sequential reg numbers and who has them reserved; N294NN - Republic, N295NN - American, N296NN - Republic, N297NN - Republic, N298NN - unassigned, N299NN - unassigned, N300NN - American, N301NN - American. Since Republic has already renumbered the six E175s they just received, I don’t really see them using the NN sequence they have reserved. Not sure if AAG/Envoy would renumber the seemingly random sequence they used as the six E175s were sold off to Republic.

298, 299, 300 and 302 already exist in the system, they were special regs for key people at Envoy. For example 299JJ recognized a mechanic that had been at Envoy for I believe 60 years. Highly doubt they would repeat numbers, more likely they will start at 303 (current highest is 302RN, named after their SOC Director and a few others with the same initials)

alasizon wrote:

jgcotter wrote:

UA748i wrote:

Any word on their reg#? Anything AAG has reserved?

Here are the next sequential reg numbers and who has them reserved; N294NN - Republic, N295NN - American, N296NN - Republic, N297NN - Republic, N298NN - unassigned, N299NN - unassigned, N300NN - American, N301NN - American. Since Republic has already renumbered the six E175s they just received, I don’t really see them using the NN sequence they have reserved. Not sure if AAG/Envoy would renumber the seemingly random sequence they used as the six E175s were sold off to Republic.

298, 299, 300 and 302 already exist in the system, they were special regs for key people at Envoy. For example 299JJ recognized a mechanic that had been at Envoy for I believe 60 years. Highly doubt they would repeat numbers, more likely they will start at 303 (current highest is 302RN, named after their SOC Director and a few others with the same initials)

Ah that makes sense, I wondered why they had deviated from the NN regs. If they do that 303NN, 304NN, 305NN, 306NN, 307NN and 308NN are all available and unassigned.

G-LCYE > N760xx
G-LCYF > N761xx
G-LCYG > N762xx
G-LCYH > N763xx
G-LCYI > N764xx
G-LCYJ > N765xx

The last two (xx) are undetermined.

FabianxFlyguy wrote:

G-LCYE > N760xx
G-LCYF > N761xx
G-LCYG > N762xx
G-LCYH > N763xx
G-LCYI > N764xx
G-LCYJ > N765xx

The last two (xx) are undetermined.

I think you're off an aircraft there.

Do you have a source on these?

n797mx wrote:

FabianxFlyguy wrote:

G-LCYE > N760xx
G-LCYF > N761xx
G-LCYG > N762xx
G-LCYH > N763xx
G-LCYI > N764xx
G-LCYJ > N765xx

The last two (xx) are undetermined.

I think you're off an aircraft there.

Do you have a source on these?

Not without breaking NDA

FabianxFlyguy wrote:

n797mx wrote:

FabianxFlyguy wrote:

G-LCYE > N760xx
G-LCYF > N761xx
G-LCYG > N762xx
G-LCYH > N763xx
G-LCYI > N764xx
G-LCYJ > N765xx

The last two (xx) are undetermined.

I think you're off an aircraft there.

Do you have a source on these?

Not without breaking NDA

I mean sounds like that NDA is already broken by providing this information?

FabianxFlyguy wrote:

n797mx wrote:

FabianxFlyguy wrote:

G-LCYE > N760xx
G-LCYF > N761xx
G-LCYG > N762xx
G-LCYH > N763xx
G-LCYI > N764xx
G-LCYJ > N765xx

The last two (xx) are undetermined.

I think you're off an aircraft there.

Do you have a source on these?

Not without breaking NDA

The list is still wrong, as it is missing G-LCYD, and G-LCYJ is an E190 and not leaving the fleet!

Crosswind wrote:

FabianxFlyguy wrote:

n797mx wrote:

I think you're off an aircraft there.

Do you have a source on these?

Not without breaking NDA

The list is still wrong, as it is missing G-LCYD, and G-LCYJ is an E190 and not leaving the fleet!

Ouch! Looks like the source made a typo

In that case.. my best educated guess is,

G-LCYD > N760xx
G-LCYE > N761xx
G-LCYF > N762xx
G-LCYG > N763xx
G-LCYH > N764xx
G-LCYI > N765xx

G-LCYG is ferrying to Macon today/tomorrow.

I want this to be put squarely in the rumors category but the rumor over at OH is that they will be opening up bases at DFW and PHX and taking over the AA flying currently done by YV.

Does AA own any of the YV birds or are they all owned by YV?

Vctony wrote:

I want this to be put squarely in the rumors category but the rumor over at OH is that they will be opening up bases at DFW and PHX and taking over the AA flying currently done by YV.

Does AA own any of the YV birds or are they all owned by YV?

Very much a rumor - OH can barely support what they have and if anything the flying would be given to OO in PHX and MQ in DFW. Not to even mention the issues with MX bases being on the wrong side of the country.

All of the YV birds are leased/owned by YV.

Vctony wrote:

I want this to be put squarely in the rumors category but the rumor over at OH is that they will be opening up bases at DFW and PHX and taking over the AA flying currently done by YV.

Does AA own any of the YV birds or are they all owned by YV?

All owned (or leased) by YV.

Vctony wrote:

I want this to be put squarely in the rumors category but the rumor over at OH is that they will be opening up bases at DFW and PHX and taking over the AA flying currently done by YV.

Does AA own any of the YV birds or are they all owned by YV?

This would explain the 33% dump MESA stock has taken since March

Vctony wrote:

I want this to be put squarely in the rumors category but the rumor over at OH is that they will be opening up bases at DFW and PHX and taking over the AA flying currently done by YV.

Does AA own any of the YV birds or are they all owned by YV?

That being said, AA has a history of removing YV birds, whenever they have the option.. Although every so often they add a few, but with the ability to remove them with minimal notice.

USAirKid wrote:

Vctony wrote:

I want this to be put squarely in the rumors category but the rumor over at OH is that they will be opening up bases at DFW and PHX and taking over the AA flying currently done by YV.

Does AA own any of the YV birds or are they all owned by YV?

That being said, AA has a history of removing YV birds, whenever they have the option.. Although every so often they add a few, but with the ability to remove them with minimal notice.

Those soul crushing generic MESA liveries are a drag.

N242LR in particular. Basic AA grey, no titles. Faded in a few areas. I call that particular tail# the "Plane of Shame."

I think they are doing that to maintain scope?

UA748i wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Vctony wrote:

I want this to be put squarely in the rumors category but the rumor over at OH is that they will be opening up bases at DFW and PHX and taking over the AA flying currently done by YV.

Does AA own any of the YV birds or are they all owned by YV?

That being said, AA has a history of removing YV birds, whenever they have the option.. Although every so often they add a few, but with the ability to remove them with minimal notice.

Those soul crushing generic MESA liveries are a drag.

N242LR in particular. Basic AA grey, no titles. Faded in a few areas. I call that particular tail# the "Plane of Shame."

I think they are doing that to maintain scope?

The all gray aircraft (242 & 945) are just gray decals over the AA livery.

Has nothing to do with scope, it has to do with YV trying to maintain a flying fleet - they currently have 40 aircraft under the CPA plus five additional short-term aircraft but are using 56 aircraft to cover that operation due to their maintenance operation. The generic liveries are the 7 aircraft that were removed from the AA fleet pre-COVID.

alasizon wrote:

UA748i wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

That being said, AA has a history of removing YV birds, whenever they have the option.. Although every so often they add a few, but with the ability to remove them with minimal notice.

Those soul crushing generic MESA liveries are a drag.

N242LR in particular. Basic AA grey, no titles. Faded in a few areas. I call that particular tail# the "Plane of Shame."

I think they are doing that to maintain scope?

The all gray aircraft (242 & 945) are just gray decals over the AA livery.

Has nothing to do with scope, it has to do with YV trying to maintain a flying fleet - they currently have 40 aircraft under the CPA plus five additional short-term aircraft but are using 56 aircraft to cover that operation due to their maintenance operation. The generic liveries are the 7 aircraft that were removed from the AA fleet pre-COVID.

Actually it has everything to do with scope.

Same reason why Republic repainted 4 175’s to House livery from AA paint.

In January, and I think still, MESA is operating 5 900s on a temporary contract that could be terminated with little notice. Add to that that during 2021 AA has the right to reduce their contract by 10 of the 40 aircraft in the just signed contract with YV, a full 25%, followed by only 5 a year in the next four years. So, at most, PSA is in a position to gain only 15 large RJ spots. Where the aircraft would come from is a whole different pickle. It's far more likely that SkyWest could step in with 900s just freed from Delta Connection service and offer to operate them for AA, than that AA could source and pay for 900s for PSA, or new 175s for Envoy given that they had Republic take and pay for five that had been set for MQ so recently.

eugdjinn wrote:

In January, and I think still, MESA is operating 5 900s on a temporary contract that could be terminated with little notice. Add to that that during 2021 AA has the right to reduce their contract by 10 of the 40 aircraft in the just signed contract with YV, a full 25%, followed by only 5 a year in the next four years. So, at most, PSA is in a position to gain only 15 large RJ spots. Where the aircraft would come from is a whole different pickle. It's far more likely that SkyWest could step in with 900s just freed from Delta Connection service and offer to operate them for AA, than that AA could source and pay for 900s for PSA, or new 175s for Envoy given that they had Republic take and pay for five that had been set for MQ so recently.

Or YX could add 15 from their order of 100 they placed 3 years ago /s

KCaviator wrote:

eugdjinn wrote:

In January, and I think still, MESA is operating 5 900s on a temporary contract that could be terminated with little notice. Add to that that during 2021 AA has the right to reduce their contract by 10 of the 40 aircraft in the just signed contract with YV, a full 25%, followed by only 5 a year in the next four years. So, at most, PSA is in a position to gain only 15 large RJ spots. Where the aircraft would come from is a whole different pickle. It's far more likely that SkyWest could step in with 900s just freed from Delta Connection service and offer to operate them for AA, than that AA could source and pay for 900s for PSA, or new 175s for Envoy given that they had Republic take and pay for five that had been set for MQ so recently.

Or YX could add 15 from their order of 100 they placed 3 years ago /s

YX? They don't operate any CRJs...

As far as AA finding 900s for OH? Perhaps they lease them from SkyWest or find somewhere else in the market for them..

Who knows, perhaps even YV would want to lease them...

USAirKid wrote:

Who knows, perhaps even YV would want to lease them...

Not sure anyone would ever want to lease ex-YV aircraft that have been so poorly maintained for years.

USAirKid wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

eugdjinn wrote:

In January, and I think still, MESA is operating 5 900s on a temporary contract that could be terminated with little notice. Add to that that during 2021 AA has the right to reduce their contract by 10 of the 40 aircraft in the just signed contract with YV, a full 25%, followed by only 5 a year in the next four years. So, at most, PSA is in a position to gain only 15 large RJ spots. Where the aircraft would come from is a whole different pickle. It's far more likely that SkyWest could step in with 900s just freed from Delta Connection service and offer to operate them for AA, than that AA could source and pay for 900s for PSA, or new 175s for Envoy given that they had Republic take and pay for five that had been set for MQ so recently.

Or YX could add 15 from their order of 100 they placed 3 years ago /s

YX? They don't operate any CRJs...

As far as AA finding 900s for OH? Perhaps they lease them from SkyWest or find somewhere else in the market for them..

Who knows, perhaps even YV would want to lease them...

I think they meant 76 seaters in general for YX, being the 175s they have on order.

I think if there will be any new 76 seat jets added, they will be 175s. It’s a better product, customers prefer it, and it’s still in production.

PSA’s play might be to find used CRJ-700s. They are crucial to replacing the 50 seat fleet and scope generously allows 65-seat jets flying the American colors.

MLIAA wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

Or YX could add 15 from their order of 100 they placed 3 years ago /s

YX? They don't operate any CRJs...

As far as AA finding 900s for OH? Perhaps they lease them from SkyWest or find somewhere else in the market for them..

Who knows, perhaps even YV would want to lease them...

I think they meant 76 seaters in general for YX, being the 175s they have on order.

I think if there will be any new 76 seat jets added, they will be 175s. It’s a better product, customers prefer it, and it’s still in production.

PSA’s play might be to find used CRJ-700s. They are crucial to replacing the 50 seat fleet and scope generously allows 65-seat jets flying the American colors.

The 900 still has its place at AA in PHX crucially, the E175's performance in the summer all about guarantees that PHX will be CRJs in the middle of the summer until a new RJ comes along.

I dont see OH being able to find that many 700s out there, SkyWest has cornered the market on 700s and had been actively adding every frame they can get their hands on between the actual airline side and the leasing side.

alasizon wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

YX? They don't operate any CRJs...

As far as AA finding 900s for OH? Perhaps they lease them from SkyWest or find somewhere else in the market for them..

Who knows, perhaps even YV would want to lease them...

I think they meant 76 seaters in general for YX, being the 175s they have on order.

I think if there will be any new 76 seat jets added, they will be 175s. It’s a better product, customers prefer it, and it’s still in production.

PSA’s play might be to find used CRJ-700s. They are crucial to replacing the 50 seat fleet and scope generously allows 65-seat jets flying the American colors.

The 900 still has its place at AA in PHX crucially, the E175's performance in the summer all about guarantees that PHX will be CRJs in the middle of the summer until a new RJ comes along.

Do you have a source for this performance deficit on the 175?

Envoy has been regularly operating in PHX for a while now and hasn’t had any problems, and Compass had an E175 base in PHX for years flying all the way up to SEA from PHX. Performance charts on the 175 go up north of 120 degrees F.

I’d also imagine DEN regularly has a higher density altitude in the summer than PHX and SkyWest doesn’t seem to have any issues there.

MLIAA wrote:

Do you have a source for this performance deficit on the 175?

For the ERJ-175, you're good up until 38°C at standard pressure. Above 38° your MTOW drops off.

You can max out at 50°C in the -175 in PHX at standard pressure, but at that point your MTOW is taking a 10,000lb hit.

The mean max temp for Phoenix in July is 45.8°C according to Wikipedia. You'd be taking that 10,000lb hit on every flight into PHX in those conditions.

MLIAA wrote:

alasizon wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

I think they meant 76 seaters in general for YX, being the 175s they have on order.

I think if there will be any new 76 seat jets added, they will be 175s. It’s a better product, customers prefer it, and it’s still in production.

PSA’s play might be to find used CRJ-700s. They are crucial to replacing the 50 seat fleet and scope generously allows 65-seat jets flying the American colors.

The 900 still has its place at AA in PHX crucially, the E175's performance in the summer all about guarantees that PHX will be CRJs in the middle of the summer until a new RJ comes along.

Do you have a source for this performance deficit on the 175?

Envoy has been regularly operating in PHX for a while now and hasn’t had any problems, and Compass had an E175 base in PHX for years flying all the way up to SEA from PHX. Performance charts on the 175 go up north of 120 degrees F.

I’d also imagine DEN regularly has a higher density altitude in the summer than PHX and SkyWest doesn’t seem to have any issues there.

Performance charts on the E175 go to 118.4F (48C) but they start taking weight restrictions at about 104-108F (40-42C) depending on the distance. Envoy has been operating the aircraft in PHX since the winter, this is the first "summer month" that they have been operating and almost every day the 1PM GJT and 3PM SBA (their only afternoon flights currently) take weight restrictions. There are also landing weight issues the higher density altitude goes but that is usually less of a limiting factor other than into places like ABQ.

The CP base was for crew and MX, they had very limited mid-day flights other than a mid-day PHX-LAX for DL that was always capped at 72 pax in the reservation system. DEN's benefit is their seemingly endless runways, DEN's shortest runway is 2,000 ft longer than PHX's normal departure runway.

Take the 3PM METAR today, temp was 45C, altimeter 29.75, dewpoint -10C; that would put the density altitude at 5,000 feet, at Flaps 1 that should give you a MTOW around 78-79,000lbs off a 10,000 ft runway. A 1.5 hour flight should take about 9,000 lbs of fuel plus reserves and that leaves you with about 17,000 lbs of payload (76pax & 85 bags), plenty of weight. Now increase the stage length to 2.5 hours, you're looking at 14-15,000 lbs of fuel which cuts your available payload to 14,000lbs which isn't even enough for 76 passengers (14,440lbs) before any checked baggage.

The E175 isn't a terrible aircraft but reality is, the CRJ just performs better in the heat (it helps that AA spent money back in 2018 for increased performance numbers up to 123F). You can't build a hub using the E175 2/3 the day and the CRJ the rest. I work with both aircraft every day and spent the time working with Ops Engineering to figure out the limitations for the E175 in PHX in the summer and it was pretty much determined 1:45 is about the effective max block time that you can have from 1300-1700 to not get smacked with weight restrictions in the summer as that gives you a little buffer for minor MEL weight penalties or the need for an alternate.

I wrote specifically to address the idea that OH(PSA) was salivating at the idea of Mesa's potential departure. Their contract is only potentially going to offer up 15 frames of flying this year for PSA to grab, and if that happened, I don't see an avenue for them to find CRJ 900 aircraft with which to operate those lines. Chip Childs will almost certainly never lease aircraft that he could operate. Well, not at a rate that would be economically viable, and he has used SkyWest's deep pockets to grab up every 700 and 900 frame available as fast as he can (most certainly every 700 on any continent.) Chip is very clear that the AA scope clause and the added wing spar plate that allows the 700 to live on for many more than 25 years, makes that a money-printing machine. With that said, Mesa's loss will likely spell only gain for SkyWest in PHX: OO has 900's available or will likely be able to persuade Delta to sell them or swap them for 175s.

What Republic has to offer, and where it will grow in the AA system is with the 170, again, they have them, and AA scope makes them an asset. As UA and DL opt for 175s with 70 seats, the 170s can get Eagle paint, 65 seats and replace the increasingly tired 145s. Anywhere they cannot operate, a 700 can, given how much more nimble they are. And just like SkyWest won't be stupid and sell 700s or 900s to AA, Republic won't let go of the 170s, while they can operate them themselves. Unless AA is in a serious money pinch (like with those five 175s) new 175s should land at Envoy. [although, some argue those five aircraft were another pointed message to Envoy ALPA]

My quiet bet is that Mesa will be told they lose the ten aircraft, and then, well, oh, gosh, I guess you can keep the five as a consolation prize. But, clean up your act!! And suddenly, SkyWest will make an announcement. We shall see. If that happens, every single one of the Eagle carriers should sit up and take notice. All three of the wholly owned carriers continue to act as though on-time performance is 'nice' but not necessary. That's WRONG. OT:0 is the metric on which the Capacity Purchase Agreement carriers are judged on, and paid by. When a CPA flight leaves even 30 seconds late due to something judged the operating carrier's fault, said carrier loses a substantial portion of their fee for operating the flight. Enough to take the flight from profitable to potentially a loss. Hence, SkyWest especially is on-time, everytime, or darn near. Republic also. Mesa, eh. Watch for "controllable" delays. Envoy, PSA and Piedmont do not have a culture or a clear emphasis on OT zero performance.

How does AA show that they do care about OT:0? What fleets have retired from the Eagle skies in the last two years? PSA's CRJ 200s. Envoy's EMB 140s. Who grew? SkyWest to 90 700s, and 25 due to be delivered 175s, Republic by 16 170s and 5 175s at the last minute.
Note also that Mesa was reduced again and while they survive are down from 64 aircraft to just 45, due to... performance.

alasizon wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

alasizon wrote:

The 900 still has its place at AA in PHX crucially, the E175's performance in the summer all about guarantees that PHX will be CRJs in the middle of the summer until a new RJ comes along.

Do you have a source for this performance deficit on the 175?

Envoy has been regularly operating in PHX for a while now and hasn’t had any problems, and Compass had an E175 base in PHX for years flying all the way up to SEA from PHX. Performance charts on the 175 go up north of 120 degrees F.

I’d also imagine DEN regularly has a higher density altitude in the summer than PHX and SkyWest doesn’t seem to have any issues there.

Performance charts on the E175 go to 118.4F (48C) but they start taking weight restrictions at about 104-108F (40-42C) depending on the distance. Envoy has been operating the aircraft in PHX since the winter, this is the first "summer month" that they have been operating and almost every day the 1PM GJT and 3PM SBA (their only afternoon flights currently) take weight restrictions. There are also landing weight issues the higher density altitude goes but that is usually less of a limiting factor other than into places like ABQ.

The CP base was for crew and MX, they had very limited mid-day flights other than a mid-day PHX-LAX for DL that was always capped at 72 pax in the reservation system. DEN's benefit is their seemingly endless runways, DEN's shortest runway is 2,000 ft longer than PHX's normal departure runway.

Take the 3PM METAR today, temp was 45C, altimeter 29.75, dewpoint -10C; that would put the density altitude at 5,000 feet, at Flaps 1 that should give you a MTOW around 78-79,000lbs off a 10,000 ft runway. A 1.5 hour flight should take about 9,000 lbs of fuel plus reserves and that leaves you with about 17,000 lbs of payload (76pax & 85 bags), plenty of weight. Now increase the stage length to 2.5 hours, you're looking at 14-15,000 lbs of fuel which cuts your available payload to 14,000lbs which isn't even enough for 76 passengers (14,440lbs) before any checked baggage.

The E175 isn't a terrible aircraft but reality is, the CRJ just performs better in the heat (it helps that AA spent money back in 2018 for increased performance numbers up to 123F). You can't build a hub using the E175 2/3 the day and the CRJ the rest. I work with both aircraft every day and spent the time working with Ops Engineering to figure out the limitations for the E175 in PHX in the summer and it was pretty much determined 1:45 is about the effective max block time that you can have from 1300-1700 to not get smacked with weight restrictions in the summer as that gives you a little buffer for minor MEL weight penalties or the need for an alternate.

While it's heavier, the wing on the 175 is better for field performance than the CRJ. Embraer offers hot/high Flaps-4 performance data for sale with higher V-Speeds. To my knowledge only TAME Ecuador has bought it, for their former fleet of 170's.

eugdjinn wrote:

Chip Childs will almost certainly never lease aircraft that he could operate. Well, not at a rate that would be economically viable, and he has used SkyWest's deep pockets to grab up every 700 and 900 frame available as fast as he can (most certainly every 700 on any continent.) Chip is very clear that the AA scope clause and the added wing spar plate that allows the 700 to live on for many more than 25 years, makes that a money-printing machine. With that said, Mesa's loss will likely spell only gain for SkyWest in PHX: OO has 900's available or will likely be able to persuade Delta to sell them or swap them for 175s.

This is probably the most accurate description of Chip's approach I've ever seen. Chip knows AA will print money for OO with the 700s due to scope and their performance.

eugdjinn wrote:

What Republic has to offer, and where it will grow in the AA system is with the 170, again, they have them, and AA scope makes them an asset. As UA and DL opt for 175s with 70 seats, the 170s can get Eagle paint, 65 seats and replace the increasingly tired 145s. Anywhere they cannot operate, a 700 can, given how much more nimble they are. And just like SkyWest won't be stupid and sell 700s or 900s to AA, Republic won't let go of the 170s, while they can operate them themselves. Unless AA is in a serious money pinch (like with those five 175s) new 175s should land at Envoy. [although, some argue those five aircraft were another pointed message to Envoy ALPA]

The E170 also has the benefit of fitting in all the existing CRJ gates since it doesn't have the extended wing tips

eugdjinn wrote:

Envoy, PSA and Piedmont do not have a culture or a clear emphasis on OT zero performance.

This is the only piece I'll disagree with you on, Piedmont does have that focus and routinely is #2 or #3 in D:0 depending on how OO performed for the month.

alasizon wrote:

This is the only piece I'll disagree with you on, Piedmont does have that focus and routinely is #2 or #3 in D:0 depending on how OO performed for the month.

I'm glad to hear you think so, and that there is a focus on it. That said, with <60 aircraft, and all of them 50 seaters, Piedmont should be a consistent #1, regardless of how SkyWest performed. With 45, Mesa has no excuse either. SkyWest doesn't have any real magic, they just focus, together, every flight, every time. There is nothing OO does that the rest of us cannot do. And there is no excuse for us (Envoy, Piedmont, PSA). Honestly, a fifty seat aircraft is easier to turn, having done it from nearly every position. (And from within SkyWest, as well.)

eugdjinn wrote:

alasizon wrote:

This is the only piece I'll disagree with you on, Piedmont does have that focus and routinely is #2 or #3 in D:0 depending on how OO performed for the month.

I'm glad to hear you think so, and that there is a focus on it. That said, with <60 aircraft, and all of them 50 seaters, Piedmont should be a consistent #1, regardless of how SkyWest performed. With 45, Mesa has no excuse either. SkyWest doesn't have any real magic, they just focus, together, every flight, every time. There is nothing OO does that the rest of us cannot do. And there is no excuse for us (Envoy, Piedmont, PSA). Honestly, a fifty seat aircraft is easier to turn, having done it from nearly every position. (And from within SkyWest, as well.)

You sound like you're from AA management and you're flat wrong.

The E145 and CRJ200 are the slowest to turn. Even with 26 less seats, almost all 50 people gate check a bag.

That means there are 50 people walking down the jet bridge unsure if they should leave their bag, unsure if it fits.

Again in reverse, 50 people come off and stand on the jet bridge waiting for their bags. You can't board the next flight until those 50 people get off the jetbridge. It's a total circus and AA's minimum on ground time doesn't account for it.

Another blatant disconnect from the accountants running things over on sky view drive.

eugdjinn wrote:

I wrote specifically to address the idea that OH(PSA) was salivating at the idea of Mesa's potential departure. Their contract is only potentially going to offer up 15 frames of flying this year for PSA to grab, and if that happened, I don't see an avenue for them to find CRJ 900 aircraft with which to operate those lines. Chip Childs will almost certainly never lease aircraft that he could operate. Well, not at a rate that would be economically viable, and he has used SkyWest's deep pockets to grab up every 700 and 900 frame available as fast as he can (most certainly every 700 on any continent.) Chip is very clear that the AA scope clause and the added wing spar plate that allows the 700 to live on for many more than 25 years, makes that a money-printing machine. With that said, Mesa's loss will likely spell only gain for SkyWest in PHX: OO has 900's available or will likely be able to persuade Delta to sell them or swap them for 175s.

What Republic has to offer, and where it will grow in the AA system is with the 170, again, they have them, and AA scope makes them an asset. As UA and DL opt for 175s with 70 seats, the 170s can get Eagle paint, 65 seats and replace the increasingly tired 145s. Anywhere they cannot operate, a 700 can, given how much more nimble they are. And just like SkyWest won't be stupid and sell 700s or 900s to AA, Republic won't let go of the 170s, while they can operate them themselves. Unless AA is in a serious money pinch (like with those five 175s) new 175s should land at Envoy. [although, some argue those five aircraft were another pointed message to Envoy ALPA]

My quiet bet is that Mesa will be told they lose the ten aircraft, and then, well, oh, gosh, I guess you can keep the five as a consolation prize. But, clean up your act!! And suddenly, SkyWest will make an announcement. We shall see. If that happens, every single one of the Eagle carriers should sit up and take notice. All three of the wholly owned carriers continue to act as though on-time performance is 'nice' but not necessary. That's WRONG. OT:0 is the metric on which the Capacity Purchase Agreement carriers are judged on, and paid by. When a CPA flight leaves even 30 seconds late due to something judged the operating carrier's fault, said carrier loses a substantial portion of their fee for operating the flight. Enough to take the flight from profitable to potentially a loss. Hence, SkyWest especially is on-time, everytime, or darn near. Republic also. Mesa, eh. Watch for "controllable" delays. Envoy, PSA and Piedmont do not have a culture or a clear emphasis on OT zero performance.

How does AA show that they do care about OT:0? What fleets have retired from the Eagle skies in the last two years? PSA's CRJ 200s. Envoy's EMB 140s. Who grew? SkyWest to 90 700s, and 25 due to be delivered 175s, Republic by 16 170s and 5 175s at the last minute.
Note also that Mesa was reduced again and while they survive are down from 64 aircraft to just 45, due to... performance.

And yet SkyWest is leasing CRJ-700s to GoJet to operate as CRJ-550s.

I think also the aircraft that have been retired are both uneconomical (E140) and unpopular (CRJ2), Envoy just got finished taking delivery of its 98 E175s and is still taking 6 more E170s, and PSA was getting brand new -900s until recently. I think it’s more the fleet were retired because of their own characteristics and less likely because of their operators.

SkyWest AA 700’s have a special performance package for isa +40°.... (126° F in PHX). Vs the ERJ isa +35°...

Varsity1 wrote:

eugdjinn wrote:

alasizon wrote:

This is the only piece I'll disagree with you on, Piedmont does have that focus and routinely is #2 or #3 in D:0 depending on how OO performed for the month.

I'm glad to hear you think so, and that there is a focus on it. That said, with <60 aircraft, and all of them 50 seaters, Piedmont should be a consistent #1, regardless of how SkyWest performed. With 45, Mesa has no excuse either. SkyWest doesn't have any real magic, they just focus, together, every flight, every time. There is nothing OO does that the rest of us cannot do. And there is no excuse for us (Envoy, Piedmont, PSA). Honestly, a fifty seat aircraft is easier to turn, having done it from nearly every position. (And from within SkyWest, as well.)

You sound like you're from AA management and you're flat wrong.

The E145 and CRJ200 are the slowest to turn. Even with 26 less seats, almost all 50 people gate check a bag.

That means there are 50 people walking down the jet bridge unsure if they should leave their bag, unsure if it fits.

Again in reverse, 50 people come off and stand on the jet bridge waiting for their bags. You can't board the next flight until those 50 people get off the jetbridge. It's a total circus and AA's minimum on ground time doesn't account for it.

Another blatant disconnect from the accountants running things over on sky view drive.

I believe AA CR7 and CR9 operators gate check all traditional carry-on sized bags even the recently delivered OH CR9s with larger overhead bins. Allotted turn times are scheduled shorter for the 50 seaters vs CR7 and CR9s.

I worked in a station that could consistently turn a 200 in 7 minutes flat, full in, full out, with valet tagged carry-ons. It's really not rocket science. And that was, yes, -consistently-. It takes a willingness to work the problem, be clear with your passengers, and work as a solid unit. It also takes a desire to do it. But no, it isn't impossible, or really, all that tricky, you just have to hump it. And no, I'm not in management or sitting in a cubicle. At the time I turned 200s and 145s, I was a station supervisor, and trainer. Now, I am just a part of a large dysfunctional team muddling through... and convincing itself that it just isn't possible to be half as good as the non-union player in the game. Why is that?

eugdjinn wrote:

I worked in a station that could consistently turn a 200 in 7 minutes flat, full in, full out, with valet tagged carry-ons. It's really not rocket science. And that was, yes, -consistently-. It takes a willingness to work the problem, be clear with your passengers, and work as a solid unit. It also takes a desire to do it. But no, it isn't impossible, or really, all that tricky, you just have to hump it. And no, I'm not in management or sitting in a cubicle. At the time I turned 200s and 145s, I was a station supervisor, and trainer. Now, I am just a part of a large dysfunctional team muddling through... and convincing itself that it just isn't possible to be half as good as the non-union player in the game. Why is that?

I’m sorry but that is just not simply realistic. Unless the plane is on fire it takes longer than 3 minutes for everyone to get off, and certainly longer than 3 minutes for everybody to get on. And it takes more than 1 minute for the FA to reset the cabin (including a light clean/trash sweep) before boarding. Did it happen a few times? Probably. But it is not safe, nor realistic to say that they can be turned routinely in 7 minutes. Maybe your station was Liberal, KS where the average bag and pax count is in the single digits. I could believe that. Full flight in and out there’s no way 7 minutes is realistic.

I turn 200’s all day long in a busy hub, and 18-19 minutes is about the best you can hope for on an average load quick turn for a 200, and the company gives us 23 minutes. There’s just too many things that need to happen, especially in a hub that a line station may not need to deal with.

O.k., true, we didn't have to cater the aircraft, and we did have the option to bring the inbound valet bags into the terminal 100 feet past the jetway, so that we could get inbound passengers out of the way of outbound passengers. Beyond that, we could and did tag and get outbound valet bags down to the ramp ahead of the aircraft arrival so they were ready to load, by working with our passengers ahead of time. And no, it wasn't unsafe, or in any way single digits. Fifty passengers inbound, fifty out, 7 minutes. Routine. Not easy, not fun, doable, consistent. and I think we could very well have done it with catering only adding a minute. Four people, one gate, three ramp, one team. It really CAN be done. We helped the crew pick up the cabin, we changed the trash, we unloaded, we loaded. We ran the bags to bag claim, No great magic tricks, no 15 people. Sometimes with 5, mostly with 4. That's all. It really can happen.

I will give you this, we didn't do it one after another, after another. Clearly, your mileage may vary. I'm sorry you don't have a team that can make it happen. If you are working with SkyWest crews who have flown 200s long enough to remember when SkyWest managed EUG, ask them, they will remember what we did.

eugdjinn wrote:

O.k., true, we didn't have to cater the aircraft, and we did have the option to bring the inbound valet bags into the terminal 100 feet past the jetway, so that we could get inbound passengers out of the way of outbound passengers. Beyond that, we could and did tag and get outbound valet bags down to the ramp ahead of the aircraft arrival so they were ready to load, by working with our passengers ahead of time. And no, it wasn't unsafe, or in any way single digits. Fifty passengers inbound, fifty out, 7 minutes. Routine. Not easy, not fun, doable, consistent. and I think we could very well have done it with catering only adding a minute. Four people, one gate, three ramp, one team. It really CAN be done. We helped the crew pick up the cabin, we changed the trash, we unloaded, we loaded. We ran the bags to bag claim, No great magic tricks, no 15 people. Sometimes with 5, mostly with 4. That's all. It really can happen.

I will give you this, we didn't do it one after another, after another. Clearly, your mileage may vary. I'm sorry you don't have a team that can make it happen. If you are working with SkyWest crews who have flown 200s long enough to remember when SkyWest managed EUG, ask them, they will remember what we did.

I have one of the best crews at the airport. We turn these all day long without having to say a word to each other. We are tight, and we can load and offload bags in no time. But we also don't break security rules by taking valet bags ahead of time. That is technically a security violation, as gate-checked valet bags are to be immediately loaded and offloaded; otherwise, they need to be checked and screened as checked luggage if they are to be held in the secure area staged for departure. So, that is nice that you have the luxury of doing that in a small station with little oversight. In a large hub we cannot get away with taking everyone's bags and having them staged prior to aircraft arrival. It is impractical and it is definitely bending the rules past their limits on what a gate claim valet bag is. But, great job. I am sure your baggage claim is 100 yards from the airplane; ours is literally a mile away from my gate. That person who runs bags to baggage claim is gone for usually the full turn, coming back just in time to help close up for push.

A lot of things are easier in a slow line station. Come to a hub with 500+ flights a day, 70 gates, and an endless supply of airplanes waiting for a gate; and then tell us about how we don't have good crews capable of these mythical 7 minute turns.

eugdijnn wrote:

and I think we could very well have done it with catering only adding a minute

Clearly you've never catered an aircraft before. Even the most efficient catering for a CR2 is going to take four to five minutes due to the amount of loose loaded items and the atlases that are at ground level in the very back of the galley and there is no way to get them out other than your hands and knees and for whatever reason they are always the most banged up and bent and drawers never fit in them correctly.

I agree that 7 min might have happened once or twice but routinely not a chance, especially not 50 in, 50 out. For reference you stated 3 minutes to board, even with no valet bags and nothing going in the overhead bins, that means you were boarding 18 pax per minute which is 3 seconds per passenger, it takes passengers more than ten seconds to self-navigate the aircraft and get in their seat.

Don't forget it is no longer the FA's job to clean the cabin and the cabin gets a full cleaning now and apparently for you in EUG there were never wheelchair or aisle chair passengers.

17-20 minutes on a CR2 isn't a problem, tight but not an issue, anything under 15 is rare.

flightsimer wrote:

alasizon wrote:

UA748i wrote:

Those soul crushing generic MESA liveries are a drag.

N242LR in particular. Basic AA grey, no titles. Faded in a few areas. I call that particular tail# the "Plane of Shame."

I think they are doing that to maintain scope?

The all gray aircraft (242 & 945) are just gray decals over the AA livery.

Has nothing to do with scope, it has to do with YV trying to maintain a flying fleet - they currently have 40 aircraft under the CPA plus five additional short-term aircraft but are using 56 aircraft to cover that operation due to their maintenance operation. The generic liveries are the 7 aircraft that were removed from the AA fleet pre-COVID.

Actually it has everything to do with scope.

Same reason why Republic repainted 4 175’s to House livery from AA paint.

The four house liveries were very welcome at YX, giving us flexible system spares that we didn’t have since the BK.

MLIAA wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

Or YX could add 15 from their order of 100 they placed 3 years ago /s

YX? They don't operate any CRJs...

As far as AA finding 900s for OH? Perhaps they lease them from SkyWest or find somewhere else in the market for them..

Who knows, perhaps even YV would want to lease them...

I think they meant 76 seaters in general for YX, being the 175s they have on order.

I think if there will be any new 76 seat jets added, they will be 175s. It’s a better product, customers prefer it, and it’s still in production.

PSA’s play might be to find used CRJ-700s. They are crucial to replacing the 50 seat fleet and scope generously allows 65-seat jets flying the American colors.

Never say never in the regional business. YX has a 700 program on the books for a deal that fell apart a few years ago. Would not take much to activate it, though I would think it is unlikely.

eugdjinn wrote:

alasizon wrote:

This is the only piece I'll disagree with you on, Piedmont does have that focus and routinely is #2 or #3 in D:0 depending on how OO performed for the month.

I'm glad to hear you think so, and that there is a focus on it. That said, with <60 aircraft, and all of them 50 seaters, Piedmont should be a consistent #1, regardless of how SkyWest performed. With 45, Mesa has no excuse either. SkyWest doesn't have any real magic, they just focus, together, every flight, every time. There is nothing OO does that the rest of us cannot do. And there is no excuse for us (Envoy, Piedmont, PSA). Honestly, a fifty seat aircraft is easier to turn, having done it from nearly every position. (And from within SkyWest, as well.)

15-20 minute quick turns with the 145 are easily done, even at full download and upload, with the right number of ground staff.
A crew change could screw that up, but they aren’t that difficult to recover a schedule with.

Former Compass E175 N216NN ferried from ABI to DFW this morning to enter revenue service with Envoy.

alasizon wrote:

eugdijnn wrote:

and I think we could very well have done it with catering only adding a minute

Clearly you've never catered an aircraft before. Even the most efficient catering for a CR2 is going to take four to five minutes due to the amount of loose loaded items and the atlases that are at ground level in the very back of the galley and there is no way to get them out other than your hands and knees and for whatever reason they are always the most banged up and bent and drawers never fit in them correctly.

I agree that 7 min might have happened once or twice but routinely not a chance, especially not 50 in, 50 out. For reference you stated 3 minutes to board, even with no valet bags and nothing going in the overhead bins, that means you were boarding 18 pax per minute which is 3 seconds per passenger, it takes passengers more than ten seconds to self-navigate the aircraft and get in their seat.

Don't forget it is no longer the FA's job to clean the cabin and the cabin gets a full cleaning now and apparently for you in EUG there were never wheelchair or aisle chair passengers.

17-20 minutes on a CR2 isn't a problem, tight but not an issue, anything under 15 is rare.

^this

Even if you don't have catering, below the wing is rarely the time bottleneck on a 50 seater, its 1 bin everything off, everything on, maybe servicing. If you work safe, you are loading unloading 25 bags per min, so baggage isn't the issue. But if you were working AA, doing the required boarding announcements, pax getting inbound valet and valeting outbound bags, find seats etc, you shouldn't be doing 7 min turns. Very low loads sure it can happen, but shouldn't be happening with 50/50 (or close to it) if you follow policy. Having said that, Spirit was the easiest turns I ever did, 145 on 145 off, 17 min in to out.

G-LCYH left the UK today on delivery to Envoy, presumably Macon GA first.

The first 3 Envoy E170s have been registered as N760MQ, N761RW, and N762DT.

MLIAA wrote:

The first 3 Envoy E170s have been registered as N760MQ, N761RW, and N762DT.

Random.

KCaviator wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

The first 3 Envoy E170s have been registered as N760MQ, N761RW, and N762DT.

Random.

Envoy likes to name aircraft for company executives, MQ is the IATA code for Envoy, RW is Ric Wilson, VP of Flight Operations, and DT is Dee Temples, SVP of Air Operations.

Why they chose to start at 760 is a mystery to me. The old E135s in the fleet were 7XX series, perhaps they stopped at 759?

MLIAA wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

The first 3 Envoy E170s have been registered as N760MQ, N761RW, and N762DT.

Random.

Envoy likes to name aircraft for company executives, MQ is the IATA code for Envoy, RW is Ric Wilson, VP of Flight Operations, and DT is Dee Temples, SVP of Air Operations.

Why they chose to start at 760 is a mystery to me. The old E135s in the fleet were 7XX series, perhaps they stopped at 759?

Alright, not random then. Thanks for the insight!