Mesa Air Group announced it has finalized a new contract, which replaces the previous agreement with American, to operate 40 CRJ-900s for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2021. Under the previous contract 30 CRJ-900 aircraft were set to expire in 2021.

http://investor.mesa-air.com/news-relea ... operate-40

=

Love or hate them, Mesa seems to continue pulling rabbits out of the hat.

AA owns 20% of Mesa some of it inherited from US in the merger. US got a piece of Mesa when Mesa emerged from their bankruptcy.

LAXintl wrote:

Mesa Air Group announced it has finalized a new contract, which replaces the previous agreement with American, to operate 40 CRJ-900s for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2021. Under the previous contract 30 CRJ-900 aircraft were set to expire in 2021.

http://investor.mesa-air.com/news-relea ... operate-40

=

Love or hate them, Mesa seems to continue pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Also replaces contract for the 17 aircraft expiring in 2022 per the PR. So a net decrease of 7 aircraft, not sure when that decrease takes effect.

Boof02671 wrote:

AA owns 20% of Mesa some of it inherited from US in the merger. US got a piece of Mesa when Mesa emerged from their bankruptcy.

.



https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholder ... titutional

UPlog wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

AA owns 20% of Mesa some of it inherited from US in the merger. US got a piece of Mesa when Mesa emerged from their bankruptcy.

.



https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholder ... titutional

As I recall, most of the AA stake is what was used for the IPO as AA had no interest in remaining a significsnt shareholder long term.

Seriously have no clue how Mesa pulled this one off, this has to be a very pro-AA contract with a lot of ways out for AA and YV still has yet to demonstrate they can run an operation at the same performance level as the rest of the carriers.

UPlog wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

AA owns 20% of Mesa some of it inherited from US in the merger. US got a piece of Mesa when Mesa emerged from their bankruptcy.

.



https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholder ... titutional

http://investor.mesa-air.com/node/8681/html

“
As of March 31, 2018, American held 20.2% of our outstanding common stock (or 10.6% on a fully-diluted basis), which interest American received in exchange for its claims in our bankruptcy proceeding. We entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement and an Investor Rights Agreement on March 1, 2011 with US Airways, Inc., which later assigned its rights and obligations thereunder by operation of law to American following the merger of US Airways, Inc. and American. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Shareholders’ Agreement” and “Description of Capital Stock—Registration Rights.”

The proxy statement (DEF 14A) for the 2/2020 annual meeting showed AA's ownership at 7.72%. There's no value in citing sources older than that. Mesa Air Group is publicly traded in the U.S. (NASDAQ: MESA). As such disclosure of ownership by execs, Directors, and entities greater than 5% is mandatory.

5% Shareholders
American Airlines, Inc. 2,500,000 7.72%
Corre Opportunities Entities(1) 2,528,419 7.59%
MSD Credit Opportunity Master Fund LP (2) 2,330,633 7.20%
UBS Group AG(3) 2,477,188 7.65%

MIflyer12 wrote:

The proxy statement (DEF 14A) for the 2/2020 annual meeting showed AA's ownership at 7.72%. There's no value in citing sources older than that. Mesa Air Group is publicly traded in the U.S. (NASDAQ: MESA). As such disclosure of ownership by execs, Directors, and entities greater than 5% is mandatory.

5% Shareholders
American Airlines, Inc. 2,500,000 7.72%
Corre Opportunities Entities(1) 2,528,419 7.59%
MSD Credit Opportunity Master Fund LP (2) 2,330,633 7.20%
UBS Group AG(3) 2,477,188 7.65%

Thanks

I was under the impression (could certainly be wrong) that Mesa was flying 64 CR9s for AA (at least pre-pandemic parking of aircraft). If so, this would be a pretty strong slap from AA, cutting 1/3 of their flying... Maybe the regional equivalent of a "last chance agreement". Will be interesting to see, if that is the case, where those 24 frames end up, if they end up anywhere. I could also see this helping AA out with the mandated decrease in large regional flying due to permanently parking so many mainline aircraft.

brooklynchris13 wrote:

I was under the impression (could certainly be wrong) that Mesa was flying 64 CR9s for AA (at least pre-pandemic parking of aircraft). If so, this would be a pretty strong slap from AA, cutting 1/3 of their flying... Maybe the regional equivalent of a "last chance agreement". Will be interesting to see, if that is the case, where those 24 frames end up, if they end up anywhere. I could also see this helping AA out with the mandated decrease in large regional flying due to permanently parking so many mainline aircraft.

No, they were down to I believe 54 frames, so a net of -7. Which is really what they're able to staff from what I've heard.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

No, they were down to I believe 54 frames, so a net of -7. Which is really what they're able to staff from what I've heard.

Wouldn't that be a net of -14? 54-14=40

DiamondFlyer wrote:

brooklynchris13 wrote:

I was under the impression (could certainly be wrong) that Mesa was flying 64 CR9s for AA (at least pre-pandemic parking of aircraft). If so, this would be a pretty strong slap from AA, cutting 1/3 of their flying... Maybe the regional equivalent of a "last chance agreement". Will be interesting to see, if that is the case, where those 24 frames end up, if they end up anywhere. I could also see this helping AA out with the mandated decrease in large regional flying due to permanently parking so many mainline aircraft.

No, they were down to I believe 54 frames, so a net of -7. Which is really what they're able to staff from what I've heard.

64 was the original numbers - 11 were pulled due to poor performance making it 53 and then another two were pulled by AA simply to have Mesa do less flying (Mesa is still getting paid for those two frames through December but they are not scheduled). So that left them with 51 frames under contract - they have been getting scheduled for 35-36 frames for the past couple months and are still having trouble mechanically supporting that many even with operating the 11 generic spares through the system. Crews are adequate on the CRJ side, but mechanically it is still Mesa.

dalmit wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

No, they were down to I believe 54 frames, so a net of -7. Which is really what they're able to staff from what I've heard.

Wouldn't that be a net of -14? 54-14=40

No, they had 7 other airplanes on CPAs that didn’t expire in 2021/2022 from what I’m told

DiamondFlyer wrote:

dalmit wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

No, they were down to I believe 54 frames, so a net of -7. Which is really what they're able to staff from what I've heard.

Wouldn't that be a net of -14? 54-14=40

No, they had 7 other airplanes on CPAs that didn’t expire in 2021/2022 from what I’m told

All of their CPAs should have expired in 2021/2022 - the original US and AA contracts should have expired in Jan and Apr of 2021 respectively and then the additional 7 aircraft (952-959LR minus 956) should have been the 2022 CPA expiration.

I get that the investor announcement only adds up to 47 aircraft but I don't see where the additional 7 planes were being accounted for.

alasizon wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

dalmit wrote:

Wouldn't that be a net of -14? 54-14=40

No, they had 7 other airplanes on CPAs that didn’t expire in 2021/2022 from what I’m told

All of their CPAs should have expired in 2021/2022 - the original US and AA contracts should have expired in Jan and Apr of 2021 respectively and then the additional 7 aircraft (952-959LR minus 956) should have been the 2022 CPA expiration.

I get that the investor announcement only adds up to 47 aircraft but I don't see where the additional 7 planes were being accounted for.

7 were part of a different CPA, I believe they are the ~2015 builds.

TonyClifton wrote:

alasizon wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

No, they had 7 other airplanes on CPAs that didn’t expire in 2021/2022 from what I’m told

All of their CPAs should have expired in 2021/2022 - the original US and AA contracts should have expired in Jan and Apr of 2021 respectively and then the additional 7 aircraft (952-959LR minus 956) should have been the 2022 CPA expiration.

I get that the investor announcement only adds up to 47 aircraft but I don't see where the additional 7 planes were being accounted for.

7 were part of a different CPA, I believe they are the ~2015 builds.

Those are 952-959LR (sans 956).

LAXintl wrote:

Love or hate them, Mesa seems to continue pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Mesa’s rabbit is nothing more than low bidding contracts which comes at the expense of employees and passengers.

Surprised AA just didn’t dump Mesa in the move to simplify their regional partner makeup.

What a shame

YVs operations are horrible and a lot of us at MQ are absolutely over them. They have taken over some very popular routes from us out of DFW and divert resources from some of our daily operations. More importantly, they further diminish AAs PR and customer service quality.

Commuting on them is a chore, especially.

If not dropped completely, the hope of them being regulated to only PHX is preferable, but that is wishful thinking, sadly

UA748i wrote:

What a shame

YVs operations are horrible and a lot of us at MQ are absolutely over them. They have taken over some very popular routes from us out of DFW and divert resources from some of our daily operations. More importantly, they further diminish AAs PR and customer service quality.

Commuting on them is a chore, especially.

If not dropped completely, the hope of them being regulated to only PHX is preferable, but that is wishful thinking, sadly

Mesa has improved operationally, but they are simply unable to staff the amount of flying they are contractually obligated to fly. Due to the downturn, Envoy aircraft and crews have been covering 2-4 lines of flying for Mesa every day. Hopefully with their reduced footprint they will able to reliably staff this flying. I agree that their DFW operation hasn't been the best, but they are very cost competitive and must be why they keep pulling updated contracts like this out of their hat. At least the CRJ-900s are nice enough- their earlier birds were hanger queens and they have never had a great reputation around DFW-satellite cities.

I am not sure why there is shock at this, AA obviously feels that Mesa’s lack of reliability is an acceptable trade off for their lower cost.

Saw 2 grey CRJ-900's operating DFW flights. one was N944LR. are the 2 grey planes leaving or used as spares. saw Skywest painted planes at DFW also CRJ-700's

Super88 wrote:

Saw 2 grey CRJ-900's operating DFW flights. one was N944LR. are the 2 grey planes leaving or used as spares. saw Skywest painted planes at DFW also CRJ-700's

Another that has the silver paint job is N242LR...just flew on it out of DFW Tuesday night. Plus there's N942LR and I think at least one or two others that are in a generic Mesa Airlines livery. Not sure if these aircraft are only meant to be spares but I always see them flying out of DFW and they still have the "AA interior."

mhkansan wrote:

UA748i wrote:

What a shame

YVs operations are horrible and a lot of us at MQ are absolutely over them. They have taken over some very popular routes from us out of DFW and divert resources from some of our daily operations. More importantly, they further diminish AAs PR and customer service quality.

Commuting on them is a chore, especially.

If not dropped completely, the hope of them being regulated to only PHX is preferable, but that is wishful thinking, sadly

Mesa has improved operationally, but they are simply unable to staff the amount of flying they are contractually obligated to fly. Due to the downturn, Envoy aircraft and crews have been covering 2-4 lines of flying for Mesa every day. Hopefully with their reduced footprint they will able to reliably staff this flying. I agree that their DFW operation hasn't been the best, but they are very cost competitive and must be why they keep pulling updated contracts like this out of their hat. At least the CRJ-900s are nice enough- their earlier birds were hanger queens and they have never had a great reputation around DFW-satellite cities.

RE: the CRJ-900's, they're still operating some of the first CR9's built from 2003-2005 and it shows. They were refurbished a few years back when they got the AA interior with the new carpet and bulkheads but really it was like lipstick on a pig. YV's newest 2015 deliveries (and all of PSA CR9's) are a night and day difference from Mesa's older CR9's, including the secondhand ones they picked up back in 2014.

747fan wrote:

RE: the CRJ-900's, they're still operating some of the first CR9's built from 2003-2005 and it shows. They were refurbished a few years back when they got the AA interior with the new carpet and bulkheads but really it was like lipstick on a pig. YV's newest 2015 deliveries (and all of PSA CR9's) are a night and day difference from Mesa's older CR9's, including the secondhand ones they picked up back in 2014.

I'm confused by that first remark. Are you saying that a 15 year old CR9 can't be refurbed to look newish (like a 25 year old A320 or 757 can), or just observing that Mesa hasn't spent the $ continuously to keep the fleet fresh?

747fan wrote:

Super88 wrote:

Saw 2 grey CRJ-900's operating DFW flights. one was N944LR. are the 2 grey planes leaving or used as spares. saw Skywest painted planes at DFW also CRJ-700's

Another that has the silver paint job is N242LR...just flew on it out of DFW Tuesday night. Plus there's N942LR and I think at least one or two others that are in a generic Mesa Airlines livery. Not sure if these aircraft are only meant to be spares but I always see them flying out of DFW and they still have the "AA interior."

N939LR also has the generic Mesa livery with the black logo on the tail. Wish they would paint them with Mesa's first paint scheme of the 1980's like they did on CRJ-200's N17156 and N27173, or the updated livery on N17175 and N17217.

AAG has furloughed pilots at three out of four carriers and they keep Mesa on for another five years. Makes sense. Unfortunately Mesa is a continual dumpster fire and it continuously hurts AA but JO finds a way to hold on.

747fan wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

UA748i wrote:

What a shame

YVs operations are horrible and a lot of us at MQ are absolutely over them. They have taken over some very popular routes from us out of DFW and divert resources from some of our daily operations. More importantly, they further diminish AAs PR and customer service quality.

Commuting on them is a chore, especially.

If not dropped completely, the hope of them being regulated to only PHX is preferable, but that is wishful thinking, sadly

Mesa has improved operationally, but they are simply unable to staff the amount of flying they are contractually obligated to fly. Due to the downturn, Envoy aircraft and crews have been covering 2-4 lines of flying for Mesa every day. Hopefully with their reduced footprint they will able to reliably staff this flying. I agree that their DFW operation hasn't been the best, but they are very cost competitive and must be why they keep pulling updated contracts like this out of their hat. At least the CRJ-900s are nice enough- their earlier birds were hanger queens and they have never had a great reputation around DFW-satellite cities.

RE: the CRJ-900's, they're still operating some of the first CR9's built from 2003-2005 and it shows. They were refurbished a few years back when they got the AA interior with the new carpet and bulkheads but really it was like lipstick on a pig. YV's newest 2015 deliveries (and all of PSA CR9's) are a night and day difference from Mesa's older CR9's, including the secondhand ones they picked up back in 2014.

Oh yeah. Those early build 900s are quite the treat...not.

Even after renovations those birds are ROUGH.

kabq737 wrote:

747fan wrote:

mhkansan wrote:

Mesa has improved operationally, but they are simply unable to staff the amount of flying they are contractually obligated to fly. Due to the downturn, Envoy aircraft and crews have been covering 2-4 lines of flying for Mesa every day. Hopefully with their reduced footprint they will able to reliably staff this flying. I agree that their DFW operation hasn't been the best, but they are very cost competitive and must be why they keep pulling updated contracts like this out of their hat. At least the CRJ-900s are nice enough- their earlier birds were hanger queens and they have never had a great reputation around DFW-satellite cities.

RE: the CRJ-900's, they're still operating some of the first CR9's built from 2003-2005 and it shows. They were refurbished a few years back when they got the AA interior with the new carpet and bulkheads but really it was like lipstick on a pig. YV's newest 2015 deliveries (and all of PSA CR9's) are a night and day difference from Mesa's older CR9's, including the secondhand ones they picked up back in 2014.

Oh yeah. Those early build 900s are quite the treat...not.

Even after renovations those birds are ROUGH.

Youre telling me. I communte from ABQ, and on the off chance I HAVE to ride YV, I pray for one of the 12F/64Y units.

The others are notoriously uncomfortable.

MIflyer12 wrote:

747fan wrote:

RE: the CRJ-900's, they're still operating some of the first CR9's built from 2003-2005 and it shows. They were refurbished a few years back when they got the AA interior with the new carpet and bulkheads but really it was like lipstick on a pig. YV's newest 2015 deliveries (and all of PSA CR9's) are a night and day difference from Mesa's older CR9's, including the secondhand ones they picked up back in 2014.

I'm confused by that first remark. Are you saying that a 15 year old CR9 can't be refurbed to look newish (like a 25 year old A320 or 757 can), or just observing that Mesa hasn't spent the $ continuously to keep the fleet fresh?

The interiors got refurbished but mesa is a big fan of the differ it, let it break, do minimum legal school of maintenance operations, so the aircraft are safe but mesa tends to have subpar reliability and just more issues, they have been improving their maintenace program quite a lot for the last couple of years. But imagine a car that was used and abused for 15 years thats now getting good maintenance its just going to take a will to get through all the legacy reliability issues.

MIflyer12 wrote:

747fan wrote:

RE: the CRJ-900's, they're still operating some of the first CR9's built from 2003-2005 and it shows. They were refurbished a few years back when they got the AA interior with the new carpet and bulkheads but really it was like lipstick on a pig. YV's newest 2015 deliveries (and all of PSA CR9's) are a night and day difference from Mesa's older CR9's, including the secondhand ones they picked up back in 2014.

I'm confused by that first remark. Are you saying that a 15 year old CR9 can't be refurbed to look newish (like a 25 year old A320 or 757 can), or just observing that Mesa hasn't spent the $ continuously to keep the fleet fresh?

Its the latter. In fact I'll have the "honor" of flying on one of them in about 2 hours.
Basically the airplanes got new bulkheads/carpets/seat covers but that's it. Sidewalls, overhead bins, PSU's, etc have seen much better days and the seats in Y are uncomfortable after less than an hour. However the F seats are quite comfortable and I think those seats may have been newly installed during the refurbs.

The way I see it, a management change at AAG will come sooner than later, and hopefully, it will be devoid of the LCC mentality.

At that point, hopefully, YV will get the boot from the AA system.

Not surprising given YV’s notoriety for low bidding. Although I’ve always thought YV’s crews were so much more courteous and exhibited much higher levels of service than mainline AA or any of the other regionals. Just need them to work on the reliability but not holding my breath. Will just have to work to avoid them...

747fan wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

747fan wrote:

RE: the CRJ-900's, they're still operating some of the first CR9's built from 2003-2005 and it shows. They were refurbished a few years back when they got the AA interior with the new carpet and bulkheads but really it was like lipstick on a pig. YV's newest 2015 deliveries (and all of PSA CR9's) are a night and day difference from Mesa's older CR9's, including the secondhand ones they picked up back in 2014.

I'm confused by that first remark. Are you saying that a 15 year old CR9 can't be refurbed to look newish (like a 25 year old A320 or 757 can), or just observing that Mesa hasn't spent the $ continuously to keep the fleet fresh?

Its the latter. In fact I'll have the "honor" of flying on one of them in about 2 hours.
Basically the airplanes got new bulkheads/carpets/seat covers but that's it. Sidewalls, overhead bins, PSU's, etc have seen much better days and the seats in Y are uncomfortable after less than an hour. However the F seats are quite comfortable and I think those seats may have been newly installed during the refurbs.

Oh yeah the Y seats really might be the worst seats in the AA system. Last time I flew on them I could feel all of the metal in the seat right through the cushion. It was as if they had just thrown a seat cover right over the metal frame.

All of that being said, Mesa keeps making money. Somehow they seem to have found an area where they can operate on a short enough string to make good money but not short enough to get booted from the AA system.

phxa340 wrote:

I am not sure why there is shock at this, AA obviously feels that Mesa’s lack of reliability is an acceptable trade off for their lower cost.

Lately my Mesa flying from DFW-JAN twice a month has migrated to Envoy. But I’m 5 plus years of Mesa CRJ-7/900 flying between those two cities, I had maybe 5 delays? YMMV, but I’ve not suffered through the reliability issues you all are talking about with Mesa. What routes did you fly on them?
BTW, I’m rather enjoying the MQ E-175’s.

Tack wrote:

phxa340 wrote:

I am not sure why there is shock at this, AA obviously feels that Mesa’s lack of reliability is an acceptable trade off for their lower cost.

Lately my Mesa flying from DFW-JAN twice a month has migrated to Envoy. But I’m 5 plus years of Mesa CRJ-7/900 flying between those two cities, I had maybe 5 delays? YMMV, but I’ve not suffered through the reliability issues you all are talking about with Mesa. What routes did you fly on them?
BTW, I’m rather enjoying the MQ E-175’s.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ASH5788/history
Try flying them out of SDF, which is a maintenance base for them. This specific flight often averages at least one significant delay or cancellation per week (almost always due to maintenance). To their credit they do seem better (at least in my experience) out of DFW lately.
Its not just maintenance delays though. Fly on one of Mesa's CR9's, then fly one of Skywest CR7's that is just as old...for the most part the Skywest CRJ's feel much fresher inside relative to most of Mesa's CRJ's. I flew on N920FJ the other day and it was a prime example (inop APU that resulted in a HOT cabin during boarding despite originating out of a maintenance base city, miscolored/mismatched sidewalls, multiple cabin lights flickering, etc)...not a good impression for passengers who don't know about the different regionals and just see "American" on the ticket or outside of the airplane.

Tack wrote:

phxa340 wrote:

I am not sure why there is shock at this, AA obviously feels that Mesa’s lack of reliability is an acceptable trade off for their lower cost.

Lately my Mesa flying from DFW-JAN twice a month has migrated to Envoy. But I’m 5 plus years of Mesa CRJ-7/900 flying between those two cities, I had maybe 5 delays? YMMV, but I’ve not suffered through the reliability issues you all are talking about with Mesa. What routes did you fly on them?
BTW, I’m rather enjoying the MQ E-175’s.

Mesa’s operational challenges have been well documented and have recently improved.

Come on - look at some data, not a single route or a handful of flights. Both Mesa and Envoy are big enough as operating carriers to be included in the DOT Air Travel Consumer Reports for on-time, cancellations, mishandled bags, and VDB/IDB. For the 12 months ending 9/2020, neither is ranked among the best regional carriers. They're generally found at the other end of those rankings.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 20ATCR.pdf

MIflyer12 wrote:

Come on - look at some data, not a single route or a handful of flights. Both Mesa and Envoy are big enough as operating carriers to be included in the DOT Air Travel Consumer Reports for on-time, cancellations, mishandled bags, and VDB/IDB. For the 12 months ending 9/2020, neither is ranked among the best regional carriers. They're generally found at the other end of those rankings.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... 20ATCR.pdf

Data still doesn’t change my luck in flying either carrier. Some of that good fortune could be because I’m EP, but most is probably because I don’t trust any regional with an under 1 hour connection, so I book accordingly. My tolerance for delays might be higher than the average flyer. I hear all the stories about both Mesa and Envoy, I’ve just never suffered like those posting on this thread. Again, it’s all YMMV.

Mesa reported its FY2020 earnings (net profit of $27.5 million),

One interesting note is they were due $23.8 million of deferred revenue, by American and United during the year and will be recognized over the remaining terms of the contracts.

http://investor.mesa-air.com/news-relea ... iscal-2020

Congratulations to Mesa on a good quarter!

That said, this is no time to rest on your laurels. Nobody seems to be mentioning the two greatest cautions in that new CPA with AA:
1) from currently operating 47 aircraft to celebrating a new deal for only 40 means 7 are missing? oh wait... AA owns 7 don't they?
2) in the first year, AA reserves the right to reduce the contract by 10 aircraft or 25% <--yikes!!!

Let's take those apart, shall we?

1) I can't find a clear delineation of which seven aircraft, only a note that possibly the 2015 built Next Gen 900s, N952-955LR and 957-959LR might be the aircraft owned by AAG, and leased to Mesa at present. Regardless of the exact tail numbers though, in my searching I did come across mention of Robert Isom saying that it saved 'hundreds of thousands of dollars' when an AA owned aircraft was returned to a wholly AA owned carrier. That reinforces by belief that we will see an announcement near the beginning of 2021 that seven airplanes are being handed to wholly owned PSA by Mesa and that we will see them arriving with PSA as early as the end of January. (I quietly suspect they will need some time in TUS at the BBD facility to make them ready for more years of service.)

2) Reading the AA option to reduce the number of aircraft in 2021 is a full 25% of the total should send a cold wind up the kilts of every employee inside Mesa. (And by five in each successive year.) I don't think that that provision followed shortly thereafter by Mesa celebrating the delivery of six new UAX 175SC aircraft should be misread as anything but a very clear message that AA expects and insists that its flying be staffed, maintained and supported at an equal level to UAs or there will be very, very unpleasant consequences. I would also read the signing of 20 more CRJ700s with SkyWest as a clear message, since those aircraft and any freed up by the delivery of SkyWest-owned Eagle-painted E175s for LAX will be easily ready to take over Eagle flying in PHX. (And many are now.)

Shivers I think should not be limited to YV either. Envoy is clearly on notice as well, that's seven aircraft added to sister carrier PSA which does begin to make up for the reallocation of the 20 Compass operated 175s to Envoy, but AAG has consistently maintained parity between the wholly owned. PSA has completed their contract negotiations and adopted new contracts, while Envoy is still in process with contracts.... And SkyWest is in possession of CRJ900s no longer obligated to Delta Connection service. Is there a not-yet revealed contract for PSA to lease 13 of those 900s from SkyWest Leasing and operate them in DCA? Would it surprise anyone if those 900s were being prepped for leasing and new paint in TUS? (sidenote, TUS is home to both the former BBD facility and a tremendously capable SkyWest maintenance facility, who have in the past worked together to take aircraft through substantial transformations and heavy checks.)

I do think that there is hope inside AA headquarters that with incentive, focus, and a contract to fly 40 900s in American Eagle service, Mesa will find the resources needed to move past the last many years of maintenance inadequacy and staffing shortages to become the trusted partner needed. May the ghosts of Issues Past, Present and Future visit J.O. and help him find his way to a new year with a new drive.

eugdjinn wrote:

Congratulations to Mesa on a good quarter!

That said, this is no time to rest on your laurels. Nobody seems to be mentioning the two greatest cautions in that new CPA with AA:
1) from currently operating 47 aircraft to celebrating a new deal for only 40 means 7 are missing? oh wait... AA owns 7 don't they?
2) in the first year, AA reserves the right to reduce the contract by 10 aircraft or 25% <--yikes!!!

Let's take those apart, shall we?

1) I can't find a clear delineation of which seven aircraft, only a note that possibly the 2015 built Next Gen 900s, N952-955LR and 957-959LR might be the aircraft owned by AAG, and leased to Mesa at present. Regardless of the exact tail numbers though, in my searching I did come across mention of Robert Isom saying that it saved 'hundreds of thousands of dollars' when an AA owned aircraft was returned to a wholly AA owned carrier. That reinforces by belief that we will see an announcement near the beginning of 2021 that seven airplanes are being handed to wholly owned PSA by Mesa and that we will see them arriving with PSA as early as the end of January. (I quietly suspect they will need some time in TUS at the BBD facility to make them ready for more years of service.)

2) Reading the AA option to reduce the number of aircraft in 2021 is a full 25% of the total should send a cold wind up the kilts of every employee inside Mesa. (And by five in each successive year.) I don't think that that provision followed shortly thereafter by Mesa celebrating the delivery of six new UAX 175SC aircraft should be misread as anything but a very clear message that AA expects and insists that its flying be staffed, maintained and supported at an equal level to UAs or there will be very, very unpleasant consequences. I would also read the signing of 20 more CRJ700s with SkyWest as a clear message, since those aircraft and any freed up by the delivery of SkyWest-owned Eagle-painted E175s for LAX will be easily ready to take over Eagle flying in PHX. (And many are now.)

Shivers I think should not be limited to YV either. Envoy is clearly on notice as well, that's seven aircraft added to sister carrier PSA which does begin to make up for the reallocation of the 20 Compass operated 175s to Envoy, but AAG has consistently maintained parity between the wholly owned. PSA has completed their contract negotiations and adopted new contracts, while Envoy is still in process with contracts.... And SkyWest is in possession of CRJ900s no longer obligated to Delta Connection service. Is there a not-yet revealed contract for PSA to lease 13 of those 900s from SkyWest Leasing and operate them in DCA? Would it surprise anyone if those 900s were being prepped for leasing and new paint in TUS? (sidenote, TUS is home to both the former BBD facility and a tremendously capable SkyWest maintenance facility, who have in the past worked together to take aircraft through substantial transformations and heavy checks.)

I do think that there is hope inside AA headquarters that with incentive, focus, and a contract to fly 40 900s in American Eagle service, Mesa will find the resources needed to move past the last many years of maintenance inadequacy and staffing shortages to become the trusted partner needed. May the ghosts of Issues Past, Present and Future visit J.O. and help him find his way to a new year with a new drive.

in regards to envoy, I think your miss reading it, they don't have a crj program, and spinning one up would be incredibly expensive so i doubt they were ever really considered if say skywest or republic was getting aa owned E175 or transfers from envoy or piedmont was getting e145's that would be a clear signal this likely isnt that signal

I'm well aware of that, nor did I mean to imply that. Envoy employees are very aware of every 76 seat aircraft flown in Eagle livery, and who is operating it, especially if it doesn't mean another E175 at MQ. Nor do I think that many are misreading the signs when SkyWest is given 20 more 700s, which count as 'Small RJs' in AA scope while the E140 is retired and the entire E terminal satellite is being prepared for nothing but 700s. While the transfer of E145s to Piedmont stopped at 60, the threat that they could resume is ever present, and it's quite clear that if E175s are to operate at LGA it is most likely to be Republic who will fly them.

While Envoy doesn't currently have a CRJ program, the 700 is on their certificate and could be returned to their fleet. It's not like Envoy didn't fly them before handing them over to PSA, along with the parts inventory to support them. So, not really a huge expense there, in truth... the manuals, procedures and processes are all in place and a fair number of people were trained and flew the 700. That said, AAG as a greater whole has chosen to keep PSA a CRJ house and Envoy an Embraer house going forward.

eugdjinn wrote:

Congratulations to Mesa on a good quarter!

1) I can't find a clear delineation of which seven aircraft, only a note that possibly the 2015 built Next Gen 900s, N952-955LR and 957-959LR might be the aircraft owned by AAG, and leased to Mesa at present. Regardless of the exact tail numbers though, in my searching I did come across mention of Robert Isom saying that it saved 'hundreds of thousands of dollars' when an AA owned aircraft was returned to a wholly AA owned carrier. That reinforces by belief that we will see an announcement near the beginning of 2021 that seven airplanes are being handed to wholly owned PSA by Mesa and that we will see them arriving with PSA as early as the end of January. (I quietly suspect they will need some time in TUS at the BBD facility to make them ready for more years of service.)

I checked aviationDB and 63 of the 64 -900s operated by Mesa are registered by Mesa Airlines Inc. The outlier is 243LR (a 2006 build -900 operating for Mesa since 2013), as it's registered by Bank of Utah Trustee. Perhaps there's some complicated legal structure around those newest -900s where AA has a purchase option if they withdraw them from the CPA.

GSOtoIND wrote:

eugdjinn wrote:

Congratulations to Mesa on a good quarter!

1) I can't find a clear delineation of which seven aircraft, only a note that possibly the 2015 built Next Gen 900s, N952-955LR and 957-959LR might be the aircraft owned by AAG, and leased to Mesa at present. Regardless of the exact tail numbers though, in my searching I did come across mention of Robert Isom saying that it saved 'hundreds of thousands of dollars' when an AA owned aircraft was returned to a wholly AA owned carrier. That reinforces by belief that we will see an announcement near the beginning of 2021 that seven airplanes are being handed to wholly owned PSA by Mesa and that we will see them arriving with PSA as early as the end of January. (I quietly suspect they will need some time in TUS at the BBD facility to make them ready for more years of service.)

I checked aviationDB and 63 of the 64 -900s operated by Mesa are registered by Mesa Airlines Inc. The outlier is 243LR (a 2006 build -900 operating for Mesa since 2013), as it's registered by Bank of Utah Trustee. Perhaps there's some complicated legal structure around those newest -900s where AA has a purchase option if they withdraw them from the CPA.

That can happen and it wouldn't be the first time they got sold off with a buy back clause to the operating regional as regionals tend to work hard to stay in favor with the mainline partners as there are a lot more regionals then major clients especially if your mesa who has royally pissed of one of the big three

Well seems AA is placing 5 additional incremental aircraft by March 2021 to the CPA.
AA has rights to withdraw the 5 with 60-days notice.

http://investor.mesa-air.com/news-relea ... erican-cpa

J.O. keeps pulling rabbits out of a hat.
First, the dozen additional freighters announced last week, now more AA CPA aircraft.

UPlog wrote:

J.O. keeps pulling rabbits out of a hat.
First, the dozen additional freighters announced last week, now more AA CPA aircraft.

I'm trying to figure out what the five are covering - by my math there was no room for those airplanes in scope based on what has already been announced/planned. Since it is on relatively short notice is this perhaps caused by MQ not taking the last seven planes and the delay in getting those built up at YX?

alasizon wrote:

UPlog wrote:

J.O. keeps pulling rabbits out of a hat.
First, the dozen additional freighters announced last week, now more AA CPA aircraft.

I'm trying to figure out what the five are covering - by my math there was no room for those airplanes in scope based on what has already been announced/planned. Since it is on relatively short notice is this perhaps caused by MQ not taking the last seven planes and the delay in getting those built up at YX?

possibly or maybe mesa underbid skywest or psa for above minimum hours flying

dstblj52 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

UPlog wrote:

J.O. keeps pulling rabbits out of a hat.
First, the dozen additional freighters announced last week, now more AA CPA aircraft.

I'm trying to figure out what the five are covering - by my math there was no room for those airplanes in scope based on what has already been announced/planned. Since it is on relatively short notice is this perhaps caused by MQ not taking the last seven planes and the delay in getting those built up at YX?

possibly or maybe mesa underbid skywest or psa for above minimum hours flying

We have a winner, folks!