E175 N218NN is en route from AVW to ABI for conformity checks to enter revenue service with Envoy, but diverted into ELP. Due to depart ELP to ABI this evening.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N218NN

DiamondFlyer wrote:

alasizon wrote:

sagechan wrote:

Assuming these are the City flyer birds, it does make sense for Envoy to fly some since it's better size for some markets and MQ has different markets than YX (and below scope)

Not saying you're wrong - but do you have any particular market pairs in mind? Most MQ markets are also covered by OO's CR7s and MQ's own E145s, I have a hard time seeing where they explicitly need a 65-seat E170 versus out of the Northeast for YX it makes a bit more sense.

Island flying out of Miami?

That or a more comfortable ride for some smaller cities 2 hours+ from DFW or ORD. It's more a right sizing than anything essential.

KCaviator wrote:

alasizon wrote:

sagechan wrote:

I'm sure it's all scope related, but are we sure that this brings 6 MQ plus 6 YX E170s to AA? Would be good imo if true

Being capped to 65 seats is scope related but adding an additional 6 E170s to MQ while giving the six E175s to YX doesn't seem to make much sense - why not just contract with YX for 22 E170s (YX is adding 16 E170s, not 6)? YX already was pulling down 22 planes from the DL side. I think there is more going on here that hasn't been announced yet.

So are the 6 170s that MQ is receiving actually coming from YX (the 6 leftover DL 170s)?

None of this makes sense.

The 6 “left over” 170’s are the five Delta owned 170’d which will be heading back to delta and parked unless republic works out a deal with delta to keep them.

jgcotter wrote:

E175 N218NN is en route from AVW to ABI for conformity checks to enter revenue service with Envoy, but diverted into ELP. Due to depart ELP to ABI this evening.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N218NN

E175 N218NN ferried the rest of the way from ELP to ABI this morning for conformity checks.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N218NN

E175 N214NN ferried from BNA to DFW this afternoon to enter revenue service with Envoy.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N214NN

It will be interesting to see if AAG (American Airlines Group) can get their hands on more 170s cheaply, there seem to be a number parked or in use all over the world, including in the hands of OneWorld partners like JAL.

SkyWest has done a rather extraordinary job locking up the world's supply of CRJ700 frames as they come on the market, making them the go-to place for 700 lift, and making it less likely that PSA will be able to grow that fleet.

As long as the AA scope clause allows 65 seat jets to replace 44 and 50 seat aircraft one for one, these will be hot commodities. The 145s are getting tired.

eugdjinn wrote:

It will be interesting to see if AAG (American Airlines Group) can get their hands on more 170s cheaply, there seem to be a number parked or in use all over the world, including in the hands of OneWorld partners like JAL.

SkyWest has done a rather extraordinary job locking up the world's supply of CRJ700 frames as they come on the market, making them the go-to place for 700 lift, and making it less likely that PSA will be able to grow that fleet.

As long as the AA scope clause allows 65 seat jets to replace 44 and 50 seat aircraft one for one, these will be hot commodities. The 145s are getting tired.

Maybe at some point Piedmont could operate the 170s because as you said the 145s are getting tired and EN rarely gets anything but secondhand birds. A new order is unlikely and without another option EN will no longer be an airline just a ground support company.

eugdjinn wrote:

It will be interesting to see if AAG (American Airlines Group) can get their hands on more 170s cheaply, there seem to be a number parked or in use all over the world, including in the hands of OneWorld partners like JAL.

SkyWest has done a rather extraordinary job locking up the world's supply of CRJ700 frames as they come on the market, making them the go-to place for 700 lift, and making it less likely that PSA will be able to grow that fleet.

As long as the AA scope clause allows 65 seat jets to replace 44 and 50 seat aircraft one for one, these will be hot commodities. The 145s are getting tired.

Delta should sell what's left of their owned CR7's and convert more CR9's into 70 seat jets, as they're doing now.

I would like to see American Eagle/AA do LAX-FLG/SGU.

alohashirts wrote:

I would like to see American Eagle/AA do LAX-FLG/SGU.

I bet SGU comes back. But will the Eagle “nest” reopen in LAX??? They would need the room to bring back flights...

JohanTally wrote:

eugdjinn wrote:

It will be interesting to see if AAG (American Airlines Group) can get their hands on more 170s cheaply, there seem to be a number parked or in use all over the world, including in the hands of OneWorld partners like JAL.

SkyWest has done a rather extraordinary job locking up the world's supply of CRJ700 frames as they come on the market, making them the go-to place for 700 lift, and making it less likely that PSA will be able to grow that fleet.

As long as the AA scope clause allows 65 seat jets to replace 44 and 50 seat aircraft one for one, these will be hot commodities. The 145s are getting tired.

Maybe at some point Piedmont could operate the 170s because as you said the 145s are getting tired and EN rarely gets anything but secondhand birds. A new order is unlikely and without another option EN will no longer be an airline just a ground support company.

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

amcnd wrote:

alohashirts wrote:

I would like to see American Eagle/AA do LAX-FLG/SGU.

I bet SGU comes back. But will the Eagle “nest” reopen in LAX??? They would need the room to bring back flights...

LAX-RNO just returned on 3/4, LAX-OKC and TUL will be back on 4/4, and LAX-DRO, GJT, and MSO are all coming this summer. Very positive signs of the LAX nest coming back. Still waiting on many of the other pre-covid routes to come back though, LAX-ABQ/ELP/XNA/PDX/SMF/SAT/SJC/SEA/TUS. LAX-SAF was planned last summer, hopefully it will make it soon.

eugdjinn wrote:

SkyWest has done a rather extraordinary job locking up the world's supply of CRJ700 frames as they come on the market, making them the go-to place for 700 lift, and making it less likely that PSA will be able to grow that fleet.

Interesting how SkyWest CR7's are also replacing the Mesa CR9's in markets like DRO which was all Mesa CR9's prior to the pandemic (4-DFW and 3-PHX). Now all SkyWest CR7's at DRO and planned to stay that way.

CLT has added some new routes in the past year like FSD and ATW. I could see Columbia MO being added at some point. Just flew through CLT and it was as busy as ever.

mhkansan wrote:

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

I'm a guy on a couch in Mom's basement, but is the decision for merging carriers as simple as simplification gains (minus the integration costs) vs. the ability to whipsaw the separate WO carriers?

I would buy an argument that you keep a combined MQ+EN separate from OH and keep an EMB/ERJ carrier and a CRJ carrier, with both having small and large RJs. OTOH, with MQ having had CR7s on their ticket before, it should be fairly straightforward (not quick or easy, but straightforward) to throw the CR9s on there as well. But perhaps the differences in OpSpecs between the various carriers would cost more to integrate than the duplicated management functions. I'm sure there's a payback period for that, but I can't imagine it would be that far out.

Either way, I'm a little excited that MQ is getting the 170s. Hopefully that adds some flexibility to those EMB markets where a 175 might be a little too marginal, and there aren't enough CR7s to go around.

(Side note: Back in the mid '90s, when I was but a simple lineboy, my manager would get mad when I scribbled 'Simmons' on the fuel slips. He wasn't buying my argument that most of their internal stuff still said Simmons on it, too. [Whether it was our podunk station or nationwide, my impression was that AA didn't actively replace anything that said Simmons on it, they just let it naturally die and replace it with something that said American Eagle Airlines.] Anyway, he and I met in the middle with 'MQ.')

MHKansan - I think that's a real possibility, that Piedmont could become the ground handling arm of the three, and often, they are the really solid ace at it. It would make a lot of sense to let them specialize.

In LAX, I don't think the Eagle's Nest will return, I thought some part of the master plan required that space for other use, and it was no longer available, so the new thinking was that with T4 and T5, the deep interior gates could be more efficiently laid out for regional jets and with primarily 700s and in a year, some 175s coming, that could be done carefully for a very efficient operation. It has the advantage of being a single regional operator, SkyWest, with Envoy to ground handle... so it should be easy to manage. (And only two types of aircraft.)

Over the last year, or year and a half we've seen a few substantial changes in the greater Eagle game:
Mesa: signed a new contract for only 40 76seat CRJ900 aircraft (but won a temporary additional 5) down from their original 64 which carries some performance gotchas that allow AA to reduce it further by up to 10 in 2021, and 5 each in 2022,2023,2024,and 2025. As of Jan 1, 2021 they were operating 47 of which 7 were AAG owned.
SkyWest now holds contracts for 90 65 seat CRJ700 aircraft to operate for AA, and 25 SkyWest owned (yet to be delivered) E175 aircraft with 76 seats to operate in LAX area.

Now, my rough guess as to how that balances scope wise is that the Compass birds came to Envoy and backfilled the loss of the Mesa 900s in large RJ capacity, and the SkyWest 175s basically go back into their slots. That said, Republic is adding 16 170s with 65 seats into LGA, which is a good call (they can operate much more efficiently there than Envoy) and I'll bet they are doing that in place of 175s they did operate and possibly at the same rate(?).

CIDFlyer wrote:

CLT has added some new routes in the past year like FSD and ATW. I could see Columbia MO being added at some point. Just flew through CLT and it was as busy as ever.

Throw Moline IL in with this too.

jgcotter wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

rsgolfpunk wrote:

Republic apparently has 22 DL E170s and it was reported that Republic is shifting 22 jets to AA. Same jets? Or, some other combo of YX jets?

Yes, same jets. YX is shifting 22 DL 170s to a 65-seat layout for AA. So losing 22 DL-colored birds but gaining 22 for AA. Net gain/loss of zero.

Technically, YX is shifting 16 x DL 65-seat E170s and 6 x new-built 76-seat E175s to AA flying. So offsetting net 22 draw down of DL and 22 plus up of AA.

I assume the E-175s getting shifted are in (and will remain in) 76-seat configuration?

FSDan wrote:

I assume the E-175s getting shifted are in (and will remain in) 76-seat configuration?

Unlike UA and DL there is no advantage in the AA scope clause to reducing a 175 to a 70 seat configuration, it would remain a 'large' RJ at that seat count.
(And I think it's weight might keep it there even with 65, but I'm not quite sure of that.)

Hence the push to get E170 and CRJ 700s with 65 seats which count as 'small' RJs like the EMB140 and 145 which they can replace one for one. Then the dance is that there is a relationship to the number of operating mainline narrowbody aircraft.

TXRoadMan wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

I'm a guy on a couch in Mom's basement, but is the decision for merging carriers as simple as simplification gains (minus the integration costs) vs. the ability to whipsaw the separate WO carriers?

I would buy an argument that you keep a combined MQ+EN separate from OH and keep an EMB/ERJ carrier and a CRJ carrier, with both having small and large RJs. OTOH, with MQ having had CR7s on their ticket before, it should be fairly straightforward (not quick or easy, but straightforward) to throw the CR9s on there as well. But perhaps the differences in OpSpecs between the various carriers would cost more to integrate than the duplicated management functions. I'm sure there's a payback period for that, but I can't imagine it would be that far out.

Either way, I'm a little excited that MQ is getting the 170s. Hopefully that adds some flexibility to those EMB markets where a 175 might be a little too marginal, and there aren't enough CR7s to go around.

(Side note: Back in the mid '90s, when I was but a simple lineboy, my manager would get mad when I scribbled 'Simmons' on the fuel slips. He wasn't buying my argument that most of their internal stuff still said Simmons on it, too. [Whether it was our podunk station or nationwide, my impression was that AA didn't actively replace anything that said Simmons on it, they just let it naturally die and replace it with something that said American Eagle Airlines.] Anyway, he and I met in the middle with 'MQ.')

I think it comes down to whether or not the added overhead costs of having three separate wholly owned regionals is worth the ability to whipsaw them against each other.

I also think that another reason PSA and Piedmont still exist is for trademark protection (and why US used those names for those regionals).

JBo wrote:

I think it comes down to whether or not the added overhead costs of having three separate wholly owned regionals is worth the ability to whipsaw them against each other.

I also think that another reason PSA and Piedmont still exist is for trademark protection (and why US used those names for those regionals).

No way do these airlines fly today solely as trademark holders. There are other ways to protect your intellectual property. The only reason to have multiple wholly owned regionals is to whipsaw them to be competitive with each other. "Envoy doesn't meet their CF/OTP metrics? Well we can always give that flying to Piedmont or PSA!" That sort of thing.

TXRoadMan wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

I'm a guy on a couch in Mom's basement, but is the decision for merging carriers as simple as simplification gains (minus the integration costs) vs. the ability to whipsaw the separate WO carriers?

I would buy an argument that you keep a combined MQ+EN separate from OH and keep an EMB/ERJ carrier and a CRJ carrier, with both having small and large RJs. OTOH, with MQ having had CR7s on their ticket before, it should be fairly straightforward (not quick or easy, but straightforward) to throw the CR9s on there as well. But perhaps the differences in OpSpecs between the various carriers would cost more to integrate than the duplicated management functions. I'm sure there's a payback period for that, but I can't imagine it would be that far out.

Either way, I'm a little excited that MQ is getting the 170s. Hopefully that adds some flexibility to those EMB markets where a 175 might be a little too marginal, and there aren't enough CR7s to go around.

(Side note: Back in the mid '90s, when I was but a simple lineboy, my manager would get mad when I scribbled 'Simmons' on the fuel slips. He wasn't buying my argument that most of their internal stuff still said Simmons on it, too. [Whether it was our podunk station or nationwide, my impression was that AA didn't actively replace anything that said Simmons on it, they just let it naturally die and replace it with something that said American Eagle Airlines.] Anyway, he and I met in the middle with 'MQ.')

YX will also be operating 170s for AA. Almost 3x as many as MQ.

KCaviator wrote:

TXRoadMan wrote:

Either way, I'm a little excited that MQ is getting the 170s. Hopefully that adds some flexibility to those EMB markets where a 175 might be a little too marginal, and there aren't enough CR7s to go around.

YX will also be operating 170s for AA. Almost 3x as many as MQ.

Of course, but I was being selfish and hoping that the MQ 170s were going to be based in DFW. My assumption was that YX would see largely NYC flying, perhaps with a dose of ORD thrown in. But, hey, if the DFW ERD/ER4 flying gets replaced with 170s, I really don't care who's name is under the cockpit.

TXRoadMan wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

TXRoadMan wrote:

Either way, I'm a little excited that MQ is getting the 170s. Hopefully that adds some flexibility to those EMB markets where a 175 might be a little too marginal, and there aren't enough CR7s to go around.

YX will also be operating 170s for AA. Almost 3x as many as MQ.

Of course, but I was being selfish and hoping that the MQ 170s were going to be based in DFW. My assumption was that YX would see largely NYC flying, perhaps with a dose of ORD thrown in. But, hey, if the DFW ERD/ER4 flying gets replaced with 170s, I really don't care who's name is under the cockpit.

I can definitely see them in DFW for MQ. Didn’t DFW have quite a few 135/140 routes?

mhkansan wrote:

JBo wrote:

I think it comes down to whether or not the added overhead costs of having three separate wholly owned regionals is worth the ability to whipsaw them against each other.

I also think that another reason PSA and Piedmont still exist is for trademark protection (and why US used those names for those regionals).

No way do these airlines fly today solely as trademark holders. There are other ways to protect your intellectual property. The only reason to have multiple wholly owned regionals is to whipsaw them to be competitive with each other. "Envoy doesn't meet their CF/OTP metrics? Well we can always give that flying to Piedmont or PSA!" That sort of thing.

That's exactly what happened when Envoy was playing hardball AA shipped off CR7s to PSA and MQ made concessions to win the E175s. The same thing happens with the ground handling contracts because they pit AA MQ and EN against one another.

JohanTally wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

JBo wrote:

I think it comes down to whether or not the added overhead costs of having three separate wholly owned regionals is worth the ability to whipsaw them against each other.

I also think that another reason PSA and Piedmont still exist is for trademark protection (and why US used those names for those regionals).

No way do these airlines fly today solely as trademark holders. There are other ways to protect your intellectual property. The only reason to have multiple wholly owned regionals is to whipsaw them to be competitive with each other. "Envoy doesn't meet their CF/OTP metrics? Well we can always give that flying to Piedmont or PSA!" That sort of thing.

That's exactly what happened when Envoy was playing hardball AA shipped off CR7s to PSA and MQ made concessions to win the E175s. The same thing happens with the ground handling contracts because they pit AA MQ and EN against one another.

Envoy wasn't playing hardball, AAG was forcing a double concessionary bankrupt contract on them. It's not like they were asking for a raise.

TXRoadMan wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

TXRoadMan wrote:

Either way, I'm a little excited that MQ is getting the 170s. Hopefully that adds some flexibility to those EMB markets where a 175 might be a little too marginal, and there aren't enough CR7s to go around.

YX will also be operating 170s for AA. Almost 3x as many as MQ.

Of course, but I was being selfish and hoping that the MQ 170s were going to be based in DFW. My assumption was that YX would see largely NYC flying, perhaps with a dose of ORD thrown in. But, hey, if the DFW ERD/ER4 flying gets replaced with 170s, I really don't care who's name is under the cockpit.

Appears YX is doing more ORD flying. On Apr 2, ORD to ABQ and ELP switch from MQ to YX. Plus each market will have 2 per day compared to 1 per day now.

alasizon wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

The same thing happens with the ground handling contracts because they pit AA MQ and EN against one another.

AA actually doesn't pit MQ and EN that much against each other on the ground handling side. Rather, having two entities allows each side to only bid on the cities that make sense for them and when there is overlap then price and current performance come into play. It also allows for when one side is struggling to switch a given station to the other carrier to still be able to keep the work in house.

I'm including AA Mainline as well because it does get quite competitive from time to time especially at DTW where EN took over a pretty substantial AA operation a few years back. I'm not sure if anything changed with last years ratification of the TWU/IAM contract that spelled some station guarantees. Often times EN or MQ may work below the wing and AA above the wing or vice versa but it often makes things uncomfortable. At CLT EN employees drive the AA Cadillacs for VIPs but AA employees escort the passengers to and from the aircraft. AAG constantly pits employees who are under the same umbrella against one another.

mhkansan wrote:

JBo wrote:

I think it comes down to whether or not the added overhead costs of having three separate wholly owned regionals is worth the ability to whipsaw them against each other.

I also think that another reason PSA and Piedmont still exist is for trademark protection (and why US used those names for those regionals).

No way do these airlines fly today solely as trademark holders. There are other ways to protect your intellectual property. The only reason to have multiple wholly owned regionals is to whipsaw them to be competitive with each other. "Envoy doesn't meet their CF/OTP metrics? Well we can always give that flying to Piedmont or PSA!" That sort of thing.

There also is a strong argument that they're protecting the trademarks with the heritage planes.

That being said when US merged Allegheny and Piedmont, the Piedmont name stuck. I can see someone thinking the Piedmont name was more valuable than the Allegheny, err Agony Air name.

mhkansan wrote:

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

AA did wholly owned regional airline consolidation. US only did a little bit of it in 2004 in the depths of their second bankruptcy, they merged Allegheny and Piedmont, since they were both Dash-8 operators and there was redundancy there.

Doug Parker has mentioned that they like the operational simplicity of having each wholly owned flying one type of airplane. PSA is their CRJ operator. Piedmont is their ERJ operator. Envoy is their ERJ/E-Jet operator.

If management could have their way I'm sure Envoy would be a pure play E-Jet operator and Piedmont would have all of the ERJ operations. I'm sure minimum fleet requirements prevent that at Envoy. In any case, as Envoy gets more E-Jets, I expect some of the 145s to go to Piedmont. There may be some of the 145s that go to the desert for storage to conserve cycles, but if the 145s are needed they'll be flown by Piedmont. I expect the 140s will be parked and processed into window frames.

Does anyone know how the 170s are going to be configured with 65 seats? Are they going to keep them at 9 F seats and just take out a row of Y seats? If so, that should make at least half of the Y cabin as MCE seating.

mhkansan wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

eugdjinn wrote:

It will be interesting to see if AAG (American Airlines Group) can get their hands on more 170s cheaply, there seem to be a number parked or in use all over the world, including in the hands of OneWorld partners like JAL.

SkyWest has done a rather extraordinary job locking up the world's supply of CRJ700 frames as they come on the market, making them the go-to place for 700 lift, and making it less likely that PSA will be able to grow that fleet.

As long as the AA scope clause allows 65 seat jets to replace 44 and 50 seat aircraft one for one, these will be hot commodities. The 145s are getting tired.

Maybe at some point Piedmont could operate the 170s because as you said the 145s are getting tired and EN rarely gets anything but secondhand birds. A new order is unlikely and without another option EN will no longer be an airline just a ground support company.

Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

PSA has not been at ORD in a long time (over a year), nor has Envoy been to CLT in recent times.

TXRoadMan wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

I'm a guy on a couch in Mom's basement, but is the decision for merging carriers as simple as simplification gains (minus the integration costs) vs. the ability to whipsaw the separate WO carriers?

I would buy an argument that you keep a combined MQ+EN separate from OH and keep an EMB/ERJ carrier and a CRJ carrier, with both having small and large RJs. OTOH, with MQ having had CR7s on their ticket before, it should be fairly straightforward (not quick or easy, but straightforward) to throw the CR9s on there as well. But perhaps the differences in OpSpecs between the various carriers would cost more to integrate than the duplicated management functions. I'm sure there's a payback period for that, but I can't imagine it would be that far out.

Either way, I'm a little excited that MQ is getting the 170s. Hopefully that adds some flexibility to those EMB markets where a 175 might be a little too marginal, and there aren't enough CR7s to go around.

(Side note: Back in the mid '90s, when I was but a simple lineboy, my manager would get mad when I scribbled 'Simmons' on the fuel slips. He wasn't buying my argument that most of their internal stuff still said Simmons on it, too. [Whether it was our podunk station or nationwide, my impression was that AA didn't actively replace anything that said Simmons on it, they just let it naturally die and replace it with something that said American Eagle Airlines.] Anyway, he and I met in the middle with 'MQ.')

Nobody ever owns up to being the guy on the couch in Mom’s basement. So, I salute you, guy on the couch! We’ve all been there in one way, or another.

TXRoadMan wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

I'm a guy on a couch in Mom's basement, but is the decision for merging carriers as simple as simplification gains (minus the integration costs) vs. the ability to whipsaw the separate WO carriers?

One of the big questions is how quickly and cheaply you can get the integration gains. HP+US, UA+CO, AA+US show it's not necessarily quick or cheap (as in wage rates and/or work rules). Multiple small carriers, multiple fleet types, overlapping fleet types... those do have real costs. DL seems to be able to make 1 wholly owned + 2 contract carriers work, as in both whipsawing and demanding op performance.

The idea that AA puts up with $ millions in duplicate costs just to keep some trademarks alive? I'm not buying it. I don't think Envoy, PSA or Piedmont have significant name value. People buy AA tickets. The DOT demands disclosure of the operating carrier but it's not many people (people buying their own pickets, not jump seat travelers) who will go out of their way to fly Envoy, Endeavor, or Republic.

eugdjinn wrote:

FSDan wrote:

I assume the E-175s getting shifted are in (and will remain in) 76-seat configuration?

Unlike UA and DL there is no advantage in the AA scope clause to reducing a 175 to a 70 seat configuration, it would remain a 'large' RJ at that seat count.
(And I think it's weight might keep it there even with 65, but I'm not quite sure of that.)

Hence the push to get E170 and CRJ 700s with 65 seats which count as 'small' RJs like the EMB140 and 145 which they can replace one for one. Then the dance is that there is a relationship to the number of operating mainline narrowbody aircraft.

Got it - thanks for the info!

MIflyer12 wrote:

TXRoadMan wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Realistically, AA does not need to have three wholly owned regional airlines and two wholly owned ground handlers. AA has done wholly-owned regional consolidation before - that's how we got American Eagle Airlines (MQ) in the first place. I think that market conditions are moving such that it could happen again... But who knows? I think it benefits AA to have their own companies competing with each other for lower costs. Operationally, there are now PSA aircraft at ORD and DFW, Envoy aircraft at CLT and PHX, and Piedmont all over the place. Would make some sense to harmonize that operation now that they are not so geographically constrained.

I'm a guy on a couch in Mom's basement, but is the decision for merging carriers as simple as simplification gains (minus the integration costs) vs. the ability to whipsaw the separate WO carriers?

One of the big questions is how quickly and cheaply you can get the integration gains. HP+US, UA+CO, AA+US show it's not necessarily quick or cheap (as in wage rates and/or work rules). Multiple small carriers, multiple fleet types, overlapping fleet types... those do have real costs. DL seems to be able to make 1 wholly owned + 2 contract carriers work, as in both whipsawing and demanding op performance.

The idea that AA puts up with $ millions in duplicate costs just to keep some trademarks alive? I'm not buying it. I don't think Envoy, PSA or Piedmont have significant name value. People buy AA tickets. The DOT demands disclosure of the operating carrier but it's not many people (people buying their own pickets, not jump seat travelers) who will go out of their way to fly Envoy, Endeavor, or Republic.

its not just the trademarks and they have done the math that keeping three regionals alive makes sense, but the reason they are called envoy, psa, and piedmont is total trademark squatting. I suspect the AA final plane is one in house and one outsourced carrier for each type of aircraft

dstblj52 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

TXRoadMan wrote:

I'm a guy on a couch in Mom's basement, but is the decision for merging carriers as simple as simplification gains (minus the integration costs) vs. the ability to whipsaw the separate WO carriers?

One of the big questions is how quickly and cheaply you can get the integration gains. HP+US, UA+CO, AA+US show it's not necessarily quick or cheap (as in wage rates and/or work rules). Multiple small carriers, multiple fleet types, overlapping fleet types... those do have real costs. DL seems to be able to make 1 wholly owned + 2 contract carriers work, as in both whipsawing and demanding op performance.

The idea that AA puts up with $ millions in duplicate costs just to keep some trademarks alive? I'm not buying it. I don't think Envoy, PSA or Piedmont have significant name value. People buy AA tickets. The DOT demands disclosure of the operating carrier but it's not many people (people buying their own pickets, not jump seat travelers) who will go out of their way to fly Envoy, Endeavor, or Republic.

its not just the trademarks and they have done the math that keeping three regionals alive makes sense, but the reason they are called envoy, psa, and piedmont is total trademark squatting. I suspect the AA final plane is one in house and one outsourced carrier for each type of aircraft

Yeah the trademarking is incidental. I'd guess the whipsawing and preventing a Comair if one of the regionals had a work stoppage are big reasons from keeping the air certificates separate.

alasizon wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

Does anyone know how the 170s are going to be configured with 65 seats? Are they going to keep them at 9 F seats and just take out a row of Y seats? If so, that should make at least half of the Y cabin as MCE seating.

9F/56Y so the first five or six rows of Y will be MCE.

Your information is inaccurate and incorrect.

YX just released the 65-seat 170 configuration yesterday and the layout is as follows. I would assume the layout will be standard across YX and MQ, but I can only speak for the YX birds at the moment. The first of the 16 AA 170s is currently in the modification program for new interiors and paint.

12F
20MCE
34MC

Yes, that equals 66. Here is where it gets weird. 1 seat will be “blocked” in the last row, therefore making it 65 seats. The reasoning for this, at least according YX, is that no one has placed a single economy seat in a row on a 170/175, so the engineering paperwork to get this approved would be extensive. Hence why they’re going with 66 seats and “blocking” one. I don’t know what type of “blocking” device will be used, but I do know the aircraft will have 66 physical seats with only 65 of them available to passengers.

And here is where it gets even weirder. There will be more rows of MCE on the left side of the aircraft than the right side. This will lead to seats being staggered, which means the last rows of the aircraft will have different numbers on the left and right side. For example, left side of the last row will be Row 20, while the right side of the same last row will be Row 21.

If you think this is going to be a disaster from a boarding and passenger count perspective, you’re absolutely correct.

More on the CityFlyer E170s coming to Envoy: https://simpleflying.com/ba-cityflyer-all-e190-fleet/

alasizon wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

alasizon wrote:

9F/56Y so the first five or six rows of Y will be MCE.

Your information is inaccurate and incorrect.

YX just released the 65-seat 170 configuration yesterday and the layout is as follows. I would assume the layout will be standard across YX and MQ, but I can only speak for the YX birds at the moment. The first of the 16 AA 170s is currently in the modification program for new interiors and paint.

12F
20MCE
34MC

Yes, that equals 66. Here is where it gets weird. 1 seat will be “blocked” in the last row, therefore making it 65 seats. The reasoning for this, at least according YX, is that no one has placed a single economy seat in a row on a 170/175, so the engineering paperwork to get this approved would be extensive. Hence why they’re going with 66 seats and “blocking” one. I don’t know what type of “blocking” device will be used, but I do know the aircraft will have 66 physical seats with only 65 of them available to passengers.

And here is where it gets even weirder. There will be more rows of MCE on the left side of the aircraft than the right side. This will lead to seats being staggered, which means the last rows of the aircraft will have different numbers on the left and right side. For example, left side of the last row will be Row 20, while the right side of the same last row will be Row 21.

If you think this is going to be a disaster from a boarding and passenger count perspective, you’re absolutely correct.

Interesting... the seatmap and galley schematic that was created in the system for the config was loaded with 9F/56Y so perhaps it just hasn't been updated yet as the last row shows as 17 just like a CR7, not 20/21. I'm assuming they are going 12F in the hopes that business demand in the NE returns and they can take advantage of that, being primarily focused out of the NE there will be plenty of upgrades if not.

I'm surprised that there has never been a single seat for coach ever developed but I guess it makes sense.

As far as boarding/counting goes, the count won't be an issue since both carriers are on electronic W&B and rarely do manual counts anymore but I can only imagine the passenger confusion at there being 6 rows of MCE on one side and 4 rows on the other and not knowing their seat assignment (window alignment will also be an issue then), anyone have any guess as to the reasoning behind this?

7 rows of MCE on the left and 3 rows of MCE on the right...

alasizon wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Interesting... the seatmap and galley schematic that was created in the system for the config was loaded with 9F/56Y so perhaps it just hasn't been updated yet as the last row shows as 17 just like a CR7, not 20/21. I'm assuming they are going 12F in the hopes that business demand in the NE returns and they can take advantage of that, being primarily focused out of the NE there will be plenty of upgrades if not.

I'm surprised that there has never been a single seat for coach ever developed but I guess it makes sense.

As far as boarding/counting goes, the count won't be an issue since both carriers are on electronic W&B and rarely do manual counts anymore but I can only imagine the passenger confusion at there being 6 rows of MCE on one side and 4 rows on the other and not knowing their seat assignment (window alignment will also be an issue then), anyone have any guess as to the reasoning behind this?

7 rows of MCE on the left and 3 rows of MCE on the right...

That makes even less sense....

Yup...

alasizon wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

Does anyone know how the 170s are going to be configured with 65 seats? Are they going to keep them at 9 F seats and just take out a row of Y seats? If so, that should make at least half of the Y cabin as MCE seating.

9F/56Y so the first five or six rows of Y will be MCE.

Never mind, shoulda read further into the thread...

KCaviator wrote:

And here is where it gets even weirder. There will be more rows of MCE on the left side of the aircraft than the right side. This will lead to seats being staggered, which means the last rows of the aircraft will have different numbers on the left and right side. For example, left side of the last row will be Row 20, while the right side of the same last row will be Row 21.

If you think this is going to be a disaster from a boarding and passenger count perspective, you’re absolutely correct.

Oh thats just stupid. I can appreciate that not every row will be lined up, but it'd seem the reasonable way to adjust it would be to skip a row number when it gets out of sync from the row across the aisle by half of the pitch....

KCaviator wrote:

alasizon wrote:

PSA727 wrote:

Does anyone know how the 170s are going to be configured with 65 seats? Are they going to keep them at 9 F seats and just take out a row of Y seats? If so, that should make at least half of the Y cabin as MCE seating.

9F/56Y so the first five or six rows of Y will be MCE.

Your information is inaccurate and incorrect.

YX just released the 65-seat 170 configuration yesterday and the layout is as follows. I would assume the layout will be standard across YX and MQ, but I can only speak for the YX birds at the moment. The first of the 16 AA 170s is currently in the modification program for new interiors and paint.

12F
20MCE
34MC

Yes, that equals 66. Here is where it gets weird. 1 seat will be “blocked” in the last row, therefore making it 65 seats. The reasoning for this, at least according YX, is that no one has placed a single economy seat in a row on a 170/175, so the engineering paperwork to get this approved would be extensive. Hence why they’re going with 66 seats and “blocking” one. I don’t know what type of “blocking” device will be used, but I do know the aircraft will have 66 physical seats with only 65 of them available to passengers.

And here is where it gets even weirder. There will be more rows of MCE on the left side of the aircraft than the right side. This will lead to seats being staggered, which means the last rows of the aircraft will have different numbers on the left and right side. For example, left side of the last row will be Row 20, while the right side of the same last row will be Row 21.

If you think this is going to be a disaster from a boarding and passenger count perspective, you’re absolutely correct.

Who the heck thought up this bonehead idea? So the E170 will have 50% more first class seats than a A319? Simply amazing. Just when we thought we saw it all in 2020....