joeblow10 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

There is no way it makes financial sense to pay regional pilots that much to fly 50 seat planes at $100+/barrel oil when you could be paying them the same to fly A320s and 737s. Is it even possible for the airline to show a profit on these flights under these circumstances? What are the chances that this is the beginning of the end of the regional airline outsourcing business model? Not to mention there are not really any new RJs being built as replacements and, with a limited supply of pilots, you want them flying as many passengers as possible per flight. Is this deal just a stop-gap measure to allow a few years to wind-down the whole regional airline operation?

Especially considering the fact that other regionals will, no doubt, match these pay raises and therefore eliminate the advantage Piedmont/Envoy have in retention... now you're back to where you started but paying much much more. I've read Endeavor is already in talks with management about this and I'm sure others too.

The whole regional model was built on the idea that there were more pilots than there were jobs and they could, therefore, take advantage of these pilots' eagerness to work and build hours and consequently pay them poverty wages. The airlines did that long enough that word got out and fewer people started becoming pilots and now the whole thing is backfiring. The environment of cheap, exploitable pilot labor is now obviously over.

The assumption you mention that other regionals will match this increase is the big question that will have to be answered. At least from an outsider point of view, the only other regional that will likely immediately match this is Endeavor. Non wholly owned regionals have a very different “accounting” arrangement with the mainline companies, one that is going to be a lot harder to make huge pay increase work.

It seems that AA is willing to make regional flying a loss leader. It gets pilots in the door, and if they pay them enough, they will stick around long enough to fly for AA - perhaps for life. It also gets customers into their actually profitable network from smaller cities. So I agree - the economics don’t make a ton of sense on the surface, but it seems like this is a rather good solution to retaining pilots and customers. I bet Endeavor matches within a few months… but otherwise, it’s going to be tough for companies like Skywest or Mesa make this work unless the big guys up their cut.

FLALEFTY wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

There is no way it makes financial sense to pay regional pilots that much to fly 50 seat planes at $100+/barrel oil when you could be paying them the same to fly A320s and 737s. Is it even possible for the airline to show a profit on these flights under these circumstances? What are the chances that this is the beginning of the end of the regional airline outsourcing business model? Not to mention there are not really any new RJs being built as replacements and, with a limited supply of pilots, you want them flying as many passengers as possible per flight. Is this deal just a stop-gap measure to allow a few years to wind-down the whole regional airline operation?

Especially considering the fact that other regionals will, no doubt, match these pay raises and therefore eliminate the advantage Piedmont/Envoy have in retention... now you're back to where you started but paying much much more. I've read Endeavor is already in talks with management about this and I'm sure others too.

The whole regional model was built on the idea that there were more pilots than there were jobs and they could, therefore, take advantage of these pilots' eagerness to work and build hours and consequently pay them poverty wages. The airlines did that long enough that word got out and fewer people started becoming pilots and now the whole thing is backfiring. The environment of cheap, exploitable pilot labor is now obviously over.

The assumption you mention that other regionals will match this increase is the big question that will have to be answered. At least from an outsider point of view, the only other regional that will likely immediately match this is Endeavor. Non wholly owned regionals have a very different “accounting” arrangement with the mainline companies, one that is going to be a lot harder to make huge pay increase work.

It seems that AA is willing to make regional flying a loss leader. It gets pilots in the door, and if they pay them enough, they will stick around long enough to fly for AA - perhaps for life. It also gets customers into their actually profitable network from smaller cities. So I agree - the economics don’t make a ton of sense on the surface, but it seems like this is a rather good solution to retaining pilots and customers. I bet Endeavor matches within a few months… but otherwise, it’s going to be tough for companies like Skywest or Mesa make this work unless the big guys up their cut.

Over at Airline Pilot Central the new Envoy and Piedmont (f.k.a. Henson Aviation) deals are shown and seem pretty confusing. Lots of bonuses (one time?), pay rate juggling, better reserve duty terms, holiday pay bonuses, better deadhead pay, et. al.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... /envoy_air

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... t_airlines

Meanwhile Mesa (which does not have an exactly arm's-length relationship with AA) provides a considerable amount of American Eagle lift at some of the lowest pay rates in the industry. If they don't follow suit with the better pay/bonus deals offered by Envoy or Piedmont, will they end up flying even more Eagle routes due to being cheaper?

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... a_airlines

Vctony wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

The assumption you mention that other regionals will match this increase is the big question that will have to be answered. At least from an outsider point of view, the only other regional that will likely immediately match this is Endeavor. Non wholly owned regionals have a very different “accounting” arrangement with the mainline companies, one that is going to be a lot harder to make huge pay increase work.

It seems that AA is willing to make regional flying a loss leader. It gets pilots in the door, and if they pay them enough, they will stick around long enough to fly for AA - perhaps for life. It also gets customers into their actually profitable network from smaller cities. So I agree - the economics don’t make a ton of sense on the surface, but it seems like this is a rather good solution to retaining pilots and customers. I bet Endeavor matches within a few months… but otherwise, it’s going to be tough for companies like Skywest or Mesa make this work unless the big guys up their cut.

Over at Airline Pilot Central the new Envoy and Piedmont (f.k.a. Henson Aviation) deals are shown and seem pretty confusing. Lots of bonuses (one time?), pay rate juggling, better reserve duty terms, holiday pay bonuses, better deadhead pay, et. al.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... /envoy_air

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... t_airlines

Meanwhile Mesa (which does not have an exactly arm's-length relationship with AA) provides a considerable amount of American Eagle lift at some of the lowest pay rates in the industry. If they don't follow suit with the better pay/bonus deals offered by Envoy or Piedmont, will they end up flying even more Eagle routes due to being cheaper?

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... a_airlines

I was under the impression that Mesa's relationship with AA is going the way of the dodo bird. More and more PHX Eagle operations seem to be switching to OO (E175 and CR7) and I believe the same is true at DFW (except flights moving to MQ versus OO). Mesa can't staff or maintain its current fleet and its reliability is in the toilet.

Vctony wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

The assumption you mention that other regionals will match this increase is the big question that will have to be answered. At least from an outsider point of view, the only other regional that will likely immediately match this is Endeavor. Non wholly owned regionals have a very different “accounting” arrangement with the mainline companies, one that is going to be a lot harder to make huge pay increase work.

It seems that AA is willing to make regional flying a loss leader. It gets pilots in the door, and if they pay them enough, they will stick around long enough to fly for AA - perhaps for life. It also gets customers into their actually profitable network from smaller cities. So I agree - the economics don’t make a ton of sense on the surface, but it seems like this is a rather good solution to retaining pilots and customers. I bet Endeavor matches within a few months… but otherwise, it’s going to be tough for companies like Skywest or Mesa make this work unless the big guys up their cut.

Over at Airline Pilot Central the new Envoy and Piedmont (f.k.a. Henson Aviation) deals are shown and seem pretty confusing. Lots of bonuses (one time?), pay rate juggling, better reserve duty terms, holiday pay bonuses, better deadhead pay, et. al.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... /envoy_air

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... t_airlines

Meanwhile Mesa (which does not have an exactly arm's-length relationship with AA) provides a considerable amount of American Eagle lift at some of the lowest pay rates in the industry. If they don't follow suit with the better pay/bonus deals offered by Envoy or Piedmont, will they end up flying even more Eagle routes due to being cheaper?

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... a_airlines

I was under the impression that Mesa's relationship with AA is going the way of the dodo bird. More and more PHX Eagle operations seem to be switching to OO (E175 and CR7) and I believe the same is true at DFW (except flights moving to MQ versus OO). Mesa can't staff or maintain its current fleet and its reliability is in the toilet.

JohanTally wrote:

brooklynchris13 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

With this agreement through 2029 I really wonder what Piedmont expects to be flying at this point because the E145 fleet will be in the desert by then most likely.

This agreement just makes me suspect it is more likely that the ultimate play is to fold Envoy and Piedmont together. As the 145 fleet winds down, those pilots will more easily transition to the 170/175 and whatever else may be around to replace the 50 seat flying.

How much nostalgia does AA have towards the Envoy brand because I doubt they want to lose the Piedmont namesake?

airlineworker wrote:

As Shakespeare said, "whats in a name?". Piedmont has long been forgotten and holds no appeal with travelers. Names for regional airlines are not important, it's the connection with the legacy carrier that matters.

airlineworker wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

brooklynchris13 wrote:

This agreement just makes me suspect it is more likely that the ultimate play is to fold Envoy and Piedmont together. As the 145 fleet winds down, those pilots will more easily transition to the 170/175 and whatever else may be around to replace the 50 seat flying.

How much nostalgia does AA have towards the Envoy brand because I doubt they want to lose the Piedmont namesake?

https://nbc-2.com/features/travel/2022/ ... -from-rsw/

As Shakespeare said, "whats in a name?". Piedmont has long been forgotten and holds no appeal with travelers. Names for regional airlines are not important, it's the connection with the legacy carrier that matters.

FLALEFTY wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

There is no way it makes financial sense to pay regional pilots that much to fly 50 seat planes at $100+/barrel oil when you could be paying them the same to fly A320s and 737s. Is it even possible for the airline to show a profit on these flights under these circumstances? What are the chances that this is the beginning of the end of the regional airline outsourcing business model? Not to mention there are not really any new RJs being built as replacements and, with a limited supply of pilots, you want them flying as many passengers as possible per flight. Is this deal just a stop-gap measure to allow a few years to wind-down the whole regional airline operation?

Especially considering the fact that other regionals will, no doubt, match these pay raises and therefore eliminate the advantage Piedmont/Envoy have in retention... now you're back to where you started but paying much much more. I've read Endeavor is already in talks with management about this and I'm sure others too.

The whole regional model was built on the idea that there were more pilots than there were jobs and they could, therefore, take advantage of these pilots' eagerness to work and build hours and consequently pay them poverty wages. The airlines did that long enough that word got out and fewer people started becoming pilots and now the whole thing is backfiring. The environment of cheap, exploitable pilot labor is now obviously over.

The assumption you mention that other regionals will match this increase is the big question that will have to be answered. At least from an outsider point of view, the only other regional that will likely immediately match this is Endeavor. Non wholly owned regionals have a very different “accounting” arrangement with the mainline companies, one that is going to be a lot harder to make huge pay increase work.

It seems that AA is willing to make regional flying a loss leader. It gets pilots in the door, and if they pay them enough, they will stick around long enough to fly for AA - perhaps for life. It also gets customers into their actually profitable network from smaller cities. So I agree - the economics don’t make a ton of sense on the surface, but it seems like this is a rather good solution to retaining pilots and customers. I bet Endeavor matches within a few months… but otherwise, it’s going to be tough for companies like Skywest or Mesa make this work unless the big guys up their cut.

Over at Airline Pilot Central the new Envoy and Piedmont (f.k.a. Henson Aviation) deals are shown and seem pretty confusing. Lots of bonuses (one time?), pay rate juggling, better reserve duty terms, holiday pay bonuses, better deadhead pay, et. al.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... /envoy_air

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... t_airlines

Meanwhile Mesa (which does not have an exactly arm's-length relationship with AA) provides a considerable amount of American Eagle lift at some of the lowest pay rates in the industry. If they don't follow suit with the better pay/bonus deals offered by Envoy or Piedmont, will they end up flying even more Eagle routes due to being cheaper?

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... a_airlines

JBo wrote:

"Piedmont Airlines" might not mean anything to modern travelers, but AA might still hold enough value in it to preserve the trademark so no one else can use it to start/rename an airline.

That said, consolidation between AA's wholly owned regionals is inevitable. It's a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain three separate regional carriers with separate workgroups. Piedmont will probably fold into Envoy as the 145s are permanently retired, and then once that process has digested they'll probably fold PSA in as well.

silentbob wrote:

JBo wrote:

"Piedmont Airlines" might not mean anything to modern travelers, but AA might still hold enough value in it to preserve the trademark so no one else can use it to start/rename an airline.

That said, consolidation between AA's wholly owned regionals is inevitable. It's a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain three separate regional carriers with separate workgroups. Piedmont will probably fold into Envoy as the 145s are permanently retired, and then once that process has digested they'll probably fold PSA in as well.

AA does not want to be put in the position they and Delta were in a couple decades ago where one one huge wholly owned affiliate controlled all, or nearly all, of their regional flying. Having multiple options prevents a single regional strike or work action from crippling the airline. Those risks are not worth the minimal gains in cost efficiencies from merging. At that point, you're more likely to see them just put everyone directly onto a single seniority list and be considered mainline pilots on day one, regardless of what aircraft they operate.

FLALEFTY wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

There is no way it makes financial sense to pay regional pilots that much to fly 50 seat planes at $100+/barrel oil when you could be paying them the same to fly A320s and 737s. Is it even possible for the airline to show a profit on these flights under these circumstances? What are the chances that this is the beginning of the end of the regional airline outsourcing business model? Not to mention there are not really any new RJs being built as replacements and, with a limited supply of pilots, you want them flying as many passengers as possible per flight. Is this deal just a stop-gap measure to allow a few years to wind-down the whole regional airline operation?

Especially considering the fact that other regionals will, no doubt, match these pay raises and therefore eliminate the advantage Piedmont/Envoy have in retention... now you're back to where you started but paying much much more. I've read Endeavor is already in talks with management about this and I'm sure others too.

The whole regional model was built on the idea that there were more pilots than there were jobs and they could, therefore, take advantage of these pilots' eagerness to work and build hours and consequently pay them poverty wages. The airlines did that long enough that word got out and fewer people started becoming pilots and now the whole thing is backfiring. The environment of cheap, exploitable pilot labor is now obviously over.

The assumption you mention that other regionals will match this increase is the big question that will have to be answered. At least from an outsider point of view, the only other regional that will likely immediately match this is Endeavor. Non wholly owned regionals have a very different “accounting” arrangement with the mainline companies, one that is going to be a lot harder to make huge pay increase work.

It seems that AA is willing to make regional flying a loss leader. It gets pilots in the door, and if they pay them enough, they will stick around long enough to fly for AA - perhaps for life. It also gets customers into their actually profitable network from smaller cities. So I agree - the economics don’t make a ton of sense on the surface, but it seems like this is a rather good solution to retaining pilots and customers. I bet Endeavor matches within a few months… but otherwise, it’s going to be tough for companies like Skywest or Mesa make this work unless the big guys up their cut.

Over at Airline Pilot Central the new Envoy and Piedmont (f.k.a. Henson Aviation) deals are shown and seem pretty confusing. Lots of bonuses (one time?), pay rate juggling, better reserve duty terms, holiday pay bonuses, better deadhead pay, et. al.

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... /envoy_air

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... t_airlines

Meanwhile Mesa (which does not have an exactly arm's-length relationship with AA) provides a considerable amount of American Eagle lift at some of the lowest pay rates in the industry. If they don't follow suit with the better pay/bonus deals offered by Envoy or Piedmont, will they end up flying even more Eagle routes due to being cheaper?

https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... a_airlines

silentbob wrote:

AA does not want to be put in the position they and Delta were in a couple decades ago where one one huge wholly owned affiliate controlled all, or nearly all, of their regional flying. Having multiple options prevents a single regional strike or work action from crippling the airline. Those risks are not worth the minimal gains in cost efficiencies from merging. At that point, you're more likely to see them just put everyone directly onto a single seniority list and be considered mainline pilots on day one, regardless of what aircraft they operate.

dstblj52 wrote:

Piedmont is currently kept around by the desire to keep two in house regional handling operations and the rule that their must always be two places to put an aircraft and their otherwise wouldn't be a credible 145 competitor to envoy

JBo wrote:

silentbob wrote:

AA does not want to be put in the position they and Delta were in a couple decades ago where one one huge wholly owned affiliate controlled all, or nearly all, of their regional flying. Having multiple options prevents a single regional strike or work action from crippling the airline. Those risks are not worth the minimal gains in cost efficiencies from merging. At that point, you're more likely to see them just put everyone directly onto a single seniority list and be considered mainline pilots on day one, regardless of what aircraft they operate.

The issue with Delta when the Comair strike happened is that their four regional partners at the time (Comair, SkyWest, ASA, Business Express) had very little geographic overlap in their operations (SkyWest covered the West, Comair the Midwest, ASA the Southeast, and BEX the Northeast), so when Comair went on strike, their midwestern regional operations were crippled. This is what prompted Delta to not only hire more regional contractors, but to also spread out and overlap everyone's operations so that no one hub was served by only one Connection partner.

DL has since narrowed their regional partnerships back down to only three: Endeavor (wholly owned), SkyWest, and Republic. The difference today is that they don't have geographic exclusivity.

So in AA's case, even if they consolidate Envoy, Piedmont, and PSA into a single wholly-owned subsidiary, they still have SkyWest, Republic, and Mesa as part of the Eagle network.

dstblj52 wrote:

Piedmont is currently kept around by the desire to keep two in house regional handling operations and the rule that their must always be two places to put an aircraft and their otherwise wouldn't be a credible 145 competitor to envoy

Three. PSA still exists as well, though they don't have E145s.

JohanTally wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

What we're discussing is what the remaining entity would be called after a hypothetical merger between MQ and PT. If they stopped operating Piedmont Airlines would the one heritage livery A319 be enough to keep the copyright?

Keep Envoy as the airline, and keep Piedmont as the ground handling company, problem solved....

They already have tried to differentiate Piedmont Airlines and their ramp services which is internally called Piedmont Ground Handling. Currently the same corporate HR group handles both PT and OH employee needs which changed in the last year or so.

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

As Shakespeare said, "whats in a name?". Piedmont has long been forgotten and holds no appeal with travelers. Names for regional airlines are not important, it's the connection with the legacy carrier that matters.

"Piedmont Airlines" might not mean anything to modern travelers, but AA might still hold enough value in it to preserve the trademark so no one else can use it to start/rename an airline.

That said, consolidation between AA's wholly owned regionals is inevitable. It's a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain three separate regional carriers with separate workgroups. Piedmont will probably fold into Envoy as the 145s are permanently retired, and then once that process has digested they'll probably fold PSA in as well.

Cardude2 wrote:

what will happen then when mesa dissapears? will AA take some or all of the CR9s and transfer them to someone like envoy?

FlyingElvii wrote:

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

As Shakespeare said, "whats in a name?". Piedmont has long been forgotten and holds no appeal with travelers. Names for regional airlines are not important, it's the connection with the legacy carrier that matters.

"Piedmont Airlines" might not mean anything to modern travelers, but AA might still hold enough value in it to preserve the trademark so no one else can use it to start/rename an airline.

That said, consolidation between AA's wholly owned regionals is inevitable. It's a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain three separate regional carriers with separate workgroups. Piedmont will probably fold into Envoy as the 145s are permanently retired, and then once that process has digested they'll probably fold PSA in as well.

I would think that PSA will be the first to go, likely at the next downturn.

The CRJ fleet is orphaned and aging fast. Maintenance is a pain as parts become fewer and more expensive. Every new advisory issued on the CRJ fleet comes as an Airworthiness Directive ($$$), while Embraer issues mostly service bulletins.

PSA has no GSC operations, as well.

FlyingElvii wrote:

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

As Shakespeare said, "whats in a name?". Piedmont has long been forgotten and holds no appeal with travelers. Names for regional airlines are not important, it's the connection with the legacy carrier that matters.

"Piedmont Airlines" might not mean anything to modern travelers, but AA might still hold enough value in it to preserve the trademark so no one else can use it to start/rename an airline.

That said, consolidation between AA's wholly owned regionals is inevitable. It's a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain three separate regional carriers with separate workgroups. Piedmont will probably fold into Envoy as the 145s are permanently retired, and then once that process has digested they'll probably fold PSA in as well.

I would think that PSA will be the first to go, likely at the next downturn.

The CRJ fleet is orphaned and aging fast. Maintenance is a pain as parts become fewer and more expensive. Every new advisory issued on the CRJ fleet comes as an Airworthiness Directive ($$$), while Embraer issues mostly service bulletins.

PSA has no GSC operations, as well.

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

As Shakespeare said, "whats in a name?". Piedmont has long been forgotten and holds no appeal with travelers. Names for regional airlines are not important, it's the connection with the legacy carrier that matters.

"Piedmont Airlines" might not mean anything to modern travelers, but AA might still hold enough value in it to preserve the trademark so no one else can use it to start/rename an airline.

That said, consolidation between AA's wholly owned regionals is inevitable. It's a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain three separate regional carriers with separate workgroups. Piedmont will probably fold into Envoy as the 145s are permanently retired, and then once that process has digested they'll probably fold PSA in as well.

FlyingElvii wrote:

JBo wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

As Shakespeare said, "whats in a name?". Piedmont has long been forgotten and holds no appeal with travelers. Names for regional airlines are not important, it's the connection with the legacy carrier that matters.

"Piedmont Airlines" might not mean anything to modern travelers, but AA might still hold enough value in it to preserve the trademark so no one else can use it to start/rename an airline.

That said, consolidation between AA's wholly owned regionals is inevitable. It's a lot of unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain three separate regional carriers with separate workgroups. Piedmont will probably fold into Envoy as the 145s are permanently retired, and then once that process has digested they'll probably fold PSA in as well.

I would think that PSA will be the first to go, likely at the next downturn.

The CRJ fleet is orphaned and aging fast. Maintenance is a pain as parts become fewer and more expensive. Every new advisory issued on the CRJ fleet comes as an Airworthiness Directive ($$$), while Embraer issues mostly service bulletins.

PSA has no GSC operations, as well.

USAirKid wrote:

While we're talking about PSA, I'm curious does anyone know why PSA changed their IATA code from JS to OH? Comair used to have that code until it went defunct in 2012, so I find it curious that someone at AA/US/PSA would go through the effort to change the IATA code which is barely public facing.

The only theory I have is that JS is the IATA code of Air Koryo, although IATA does allow for controlled duplicates, and Air Koryo isn't likely to fly to the US anytime soon, and OH isn't likely to fly to North Korea...

JohanTally wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

While we're talking about PSA, I'm curious does anyone know why PSA changed their IATA code from JS to OH? Comair used to have that code until it went defunct in 2012, so I find it curious that someone at AA/US/PSA would go through the effort to change the IATA code which is barely public facing.

The only theory I have is that JS is the IATA code of Air Koryo, although IATA does allow for controlled duplicates, and Air Koryo isn't likely to fly to the US anytime soon, and OH isn't likely to fly to North Korea...

Could just be coincidence but they are headquartered at DAY in Ohio(OH) and also have maintenance bases at CVG and CAK. Almost all PSA aircraft leaving those cities are carrying aircraft parts headed to another maintenance base. They often fly parts CVG-CLT-DAY or vice versa while it's less than 80 miles apart.

hayzel777 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

what will happen then when mesa dissapears? will AA take some or all of the CR9s and transfer them to someone like envoy?

Those beaters are owned by Mesa so they would either be sold off or parked based on Mesa’s needs.

Planeboy17 wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

The genius plan of the YX CEO is to shrink with the pilot shortage, and then grow again whenever things stabilize. What'll probably happen is YX permanently loses their flying to the wholly-owneds.

Well Mesa is getting into the cargo business now. They have 3 737-400s operating for DHL and still have 60 175s for UA. Not sure if the cargo play will pan out but it seems like YX maybe trying to get out of the regional business, or try to do them both. I wouldn’t have high expectations of that going well.

amcnd wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

what will happen then when mesa dissapears? will AA take some or all of the CR9s and transfer them to someone like envoy?

Those beaters are owned by Mesa so they would either be sold off or parked based on Mesa’s needs.

Isn't Mesa trying to start a European airline with some of them??

alasizon wrote:

amcnd wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

Those beaters are owned by Mesa so they would either be sold off or parked based on Mesa’s needs.

Isn't Mesa trying to start a European airline with some of them??

I think they finally gave up on that dream.

The new pay raises for PSA, Piedmont and Envoy should be interesting to see how OO and YX respond (YV's newest offer to pilots this week was garbage still).

JohanTally wrote:

alasizon wrote:

amcnd wrote:

Isn't Mesa trying to start a European airline with some of them??

I think they finally gave up on that dream.

The new pay raises for PSA, Piedmont and Envoy should be interesting to see how OO and YX respond (YV's newest offer to pilots this week was garbage still).

Not to say AA and PSA aren't working on an agreement but this one only incorporates Envoy and Piedmont.

amcnd wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

what will happen then when mesa dissapears? will AA take some or all of the CR9s and transfer them to someone like envoy?

Those beaters are owned by Mesa so they would either be sold off or parked based on Mesa’s needs.

Isn't Mesa trying to start a European airline with some of them??

alasizon wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Re: Mesa, they can barely staff the 28 aircraft they are scheduled to fly for AA each day. That doesn't even take into account their complete lack of maintenance staffing each day. I'd estimate end of year for a complete Mesa exodus from the AA portfolio.

TripleA wrote:

alasizon wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Wow, they're down to just 28 active CR9s? I knew YV was struggling, but...yikes!. What percentage of regional flying are they doing in the PHX and DFW hubs? It seemed to me YV was still contributing quite a bit to the Eagle ops in PHX, so I'd be curious to know what the plan is if/when they go away in regards to their replacement. Can SkyWest cover all of Mesa's flying?

travaz wrote:

As far as I know Mesa still has the United flying and 4 737 (3-400F and 1 800F) flying for DHL.

MLIAA wrote:

Proposed AA schedules for October and November has Mesa losing even more, down to 63 total flights a day between the two hubs in November. For reference, in June that number was about 88 daily flights, most of them being in DFW.

TripleA wrote:

alasizon wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Wow, they're down to just 28 active CR9s? I knew YV was struggling, but...yikes!. What percentage of regional flying are they doing in the PHX and DFW hubs? It seemed to me YV was still contributing quite a bit to the Eagle ops in PHX, so I'd be curious to know what the plan is if/when they go away in regards to their replacement. Can SkyWest cover all of Mesa's flying?

SaabFA71 wrote:

Here's how American can preserve the Piedmont and PSA names should the wholly owned regionals ever merge under one umbrella: create two low cost airlines kind of like what USAirways did with creating MetroJet. One airline would be called 'Piedmont Airlines' and the other would be called 'PSA.' Each airline would bear the Piedmont and PSA names and original paint jobs on their respective aircraft. The planes would be A319s or A220-300s and staffed by American crews under separate seniority lists. The Piedmont operation would be centered out of CLT, while the PSA operation would be centered out of PHX, each serving select markets. I'm sure it's easier said than done and there would be a lot of details to hammer out, but it's an idea that I kicked around. And being nostalgic, it would be one way of bringing back two great airlines again in full prominence.

SaabFA71 wrote:

Here's how American can preserve the Piedmont and PSA names should the wholly owned regionals ever merge under one umbrella: create two low cost airlines kind of like what USAirways did with creating MetroJet. One airline would be called 'Piedmont Airlines' and the other would be called 'PSA.' Each airline would bear the Piedmont and PSA names and original paint jobs on their respective aircraft. The planes would be A319s or A220-300s and staffed by American crews under separate seniority lists. The Piedmont operation would be centered out of CLT, while the PSA operation would be centered out of PHX, each serving select markets. I'm sure it's easier said than done and there would be a lot of details to hammer out, but it's an idea that I kicked around. And being nostalgic, it would be one way of bringing back two great airlines again in full prominence.

Web500sjc wrote:

SaabFA71 wrote:

Here's how American can preserve the Piedmont and PSA names should the wholly owned regionals ever merge under one umbrella: create two low cost airlines kind of like what USAirways did with creating MetroJet. One airline would be called 'Piedmont Airlines' and the other would be called 'PSA.' Each airline would bear the Piedmont and PSA names and original paint jobs on their respective aircraft. The planes would be A319s or A220-300s and staffed by American crews under separate seniority lists. The Piedmont operation would be centered out of CLT, while the PSA operation would be centered out of PHX, each serving select markets. I'm sure it's easier said than done and there would be a lot of details to hammer out, but it's an idea that I kicked around. And being nostalgic, it would be one way of bringing back two great airlines again in full prominence.

Maybe they can just create a retro jet, ensure that the brands are represented in the airline history, and license out the relevant trademarks to other entities that make merchandise and hotels?


I don’t think AA will have to much of an issue in keeping other entities from using those brands. On the other hand no acquiring airline had been using the People Express and Eastern trademarks- so they had fallen into dormancy and were eligible for pick up by new entities (Pan Am could probably be used as well).

USAirKid wrote:

Web500sjc wrote:

SaabFA71 wrote:

Here's how American can preserve the Piedmont and PSA names should the wholly owned regionals ever merge under one umbrella: create two low cost airlines kind of like what USAirways did with creating MetroJet. One airline would be called 'Piedmont Airlines' and the other would be called 'PSA.' Each airline would bear the Piedmont and PSA names and original paint jobs on their respective aircraft. The planes would be A319s or A220-300s and staffed by American crews under separate seniority lists. The Piedmont operation would be centered out of CLT, while the PSA operation would be centered out of PHX, each serving select markets. I'm sure it's easier said than done and there would be a lot of details to hammer out, but it's an idea that I kicked around. And being nostalgic, it would be one way of bringing back two great airlines again in full prominence.

Maybe they can just create a retro jet, ensure that the brands are represented in the airline history, and license out the relevant trademarks to other entities that make merchandise and hotels?


I don’t think AA will have to much of an issue in keeping other entities from using those brands. On the other hand no acquiring airline had been using the People Express and Eastern trademarks- so they had fallen into dormancy and were eligible for pick up by new entities (Pan Am could probably be used as well).

Agreed, the retrojets they already have support the retention of the trademarks.

PanAm’s trademarks are owned by a railroad, now known as PanAm railroad, but it was formerly called Gilford railways.

As for Eastern and People Express, I’m not sure who owns those. Usually the trademark would be sold in bankruptcy, since it is worth something.