Brickell305 wrote:

Agreed. I’m nit sure how anyone can realistically consider B6 a major competitive threat to UA on a route like EWR-SFO or EWR-LAX. UA has the frequency and a big of FFs on both sides on either of those routes. Can B6 find success on those routes? Yes, they are both pretty big and there are enough people who aren’t tied into an FF program who will be willing to give them a go. However, let’s not act like UA is now woefully behind on these routes.

aacun wrote:

Not to mention that Chetumal is the capital of Quintana Roo……

OzarkD9S wrote:

I've wanted to visit ADZ for a while now but it always involved 2 connections from STL. One stop over MIA, down on Wed back on Sat suits me just fine.

alfa164 wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

I've wanted to visit ADZ for a while now but it always involved 2 connections from STL. One stop over MIA, down on Wed back on Sat suits me just fine.

Having visited San Andres Island a few years ago, I would say that is about the perfect length of time to stay. Other than beach time, there isn't much to see or do (although the prominent church located on a hilltop south of San Andres City - you can't miss it - is worth an hour or so): a few good restaurants in the city, a few more along the south-east part of the "ring road", and... will, I am still thinking. Speaking of San Andres City, I wouldn't stay there; it is crowded, noisy, and smells more of exhaust fumes than of tropical freshness. Small hotels in the southeast offer more quiet and better beaches. San Andres is popular with Colombians because it is an easy trip for them, not because it is "paradise found".

All-in-all, it is an interesting island to add to your photo collection - but don't expect to come home with that many great photos. Consider it an R&R trip, and you'll feel fine.

alfa164 wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

I've wanted to visit ADZ for a while now but it always involved 2 connections from STL. One stop over MIA, down on Wed back on Sat suits me just fine.

Having visited San Andres Island a few years ago, I would say that is about the perfect length of time to stay. Other than beach time, there isn't much to see or do (although the prominent church located on a hilltop south of San Andres City - you can't miss it - is worth an hour or so): a few good restaurants in the city, a few more along the south-east part of the "ring road", and... will, I am still thinking. Speaking of San Andres City, I wouldn't stay there; it is crowded, noisy, and smells more of exhaust fumes than of tropical freshness. Small hotels in the southeast offer more quiet and better beaches. San Andres is popular with Colombians because it is an easy trip for them, not because it is "paradise found".

All-in-all, it is an interesting island to add to your photo collection - but don't expect to come home with that many great photos. Consider it an R&R trip, and you'll feel fine.

LightChop2Chop wrote:

UA loves to serve secondary Mexican cities with RJs.

MIflyer12 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

It’s a good point. They should fly more domestic wide bodies to help move people. And also so they can keep international crews current and ready to go

AA's flying MIA-LAX and JFK entirely on 777s this summer, as well as having more widebodies than usual between other hubs and to major spokes like LAS and MCO.

FSDan, I know you're a data guy. What was AA's widebody utilization in June vs. narrowbody? What was the avg number of hours flown (flown, not paid for) for widebody pilots vs. narrowbody pilots? Do you really want to argue AA is doing all it can?

FSDan wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

AA's flying MIA-LAX and JFK entirely on 777s this summer, as well as having more widebodies than usual between other hubs and to major spokes like LAS and MCO.

FSDan, I know you're a data guy. What was AA's widebody utilization in June vs. narrowbody? What was the avg number of hours flown (flown, not paid for) for widebody pilots vs. narrowbody pilots? Do you really want to argue AA is doing all it can?

I'm not arguing that AA's scheduling the maximum possible; I was just pointing out that they're scheduling significantly more domestic widebodies than they typically do. I suspect that if they thought they could be covering costs and bringing in additional revenue by flying more domestic widebodies, they'd be doing it.

LightChop2Chop wrote:

I looked up CTM and it is not a small city by any means. I wonder how long before UA says "me too". UA was in MID long before AA was and UA loves to serve secondary Mexican cities with RJs.

32andBelow wrote:

FSDan wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

FSDan, I know you're a data guy. What was AA's widebody utilization in June vs. narrowbody? What was the avg number of hours flown (flown, not paid for) for widebody pilots vs. narrowbody pilots? Do you really want to argue AA is doing all it can?

I'm not arguing that AA's scheduling the maximum possible; I was just pointing out that they're scheduling significantly more domestic widebodies than they typically do. I suspect that if they thought they could be covering costs and bringing in additional revenue by flying more domestic widebodies, they'd be doing it.

it also would have helped a lot with this unnecessary crew shuffle just leaving people qualified in the big equipment

USAirKid wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

FSDan wrote:

I'm not arguing that AA's scheduling the maximum possible; I was just pointing out that they're scheduling significantly more domestic widebodies than they typically do. I suspect that if they thought they could be covering costs and bringing in additional revenue by flying more domestic widebodies, they'd be doing it.

it also would have helped a lot with this unnecessary crew shuffle just leaving people qualified in the big equipment

Except AA retired the A330, 767, and 757 as a result of the pandemic. Their union contract requires a rebid for the pilots displaced because of that retirement, which then can cause more displacements, etc.

Even hypothetically if the airline did declare an act of god, didn't get sued by the union over it, what were they supposed to do with the A330, 767 and 757 pilots? Just pay them indefinitely until they decide to retire?

Its really easy to look at these things at the high level and say "oh they should've done x, y, z" without looking at the resulting effects from doing x, y, and z." AA had lots of bad options and no good ones. So they chose a bad option.

trooper508 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Woofbite wrote:

I'm not sure top management is in much pain. They raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in advance ticket sales for the bloated schedule. Somehow most of those passengers will be accommodated on something eventually and even refunds are given in future credit. Very little cash will be returned becasue passenges will be given some excuse that makes their expenses non-reimbursable. AA may give them a few thousand advantage miles as a courtesy.

Bad customer service is pretty much immaterial since flights are full anyway and due to single carrier control of most markets, passengers have little hope of avoiding a certain carrier even if they try.

Don't think that top management doesn't pay attention to these sorts of things. They're not going to get down into the operational weeds, but they'll adjust future plans to prevent these sorts of things from happening.

I'd have to go look it up but Doug Parker is on record of saying he has scars from the US-AW system merger that went very badly. Those lessons made it into the US-AA system merger which was designed in a completely different way and went much more smoothly.

But what is top management doing for the pax dealing with the here and now? Relaxing or adjusting policies to help out bc of poor operational planning and selling full schedules they can’t honor? Example: at 4 pm (or so) earlier this week. kid’s 1250am next morning flight was delayed until 7 am. Too late for any other options on AA. She couldn’t take that bc of work. Contacted AA on Twitter bc phone wait is stupid to see if AA could help w other flights or provide a hotel. AA responded that next day was only thing available and, if she wanted a hotel, only airport staff could help so she should make her way to the airport. She was expected to take Uber/train/whatever to airport around 4pm to stand in line, to hope for help, to travel to said hotel. If AA is having so much trouble honoring its ticket sales, why can’t top mgmt offer more flexibility to help out. Asking her to go to airport just to leave is absurd.

32andBelow wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

it also would have helped a lot with this unnecessary crew shuffle just leaving people qualified in the big equipment

Except AA retired the A330, 767, and 757 as a result of the pandemic. Their union contract requires a rebid for the pilots displaced because of that retirement, which then can cause more displacements, etc.

Even hypothetically if the airline did declare an act of god, didn't get sued by the union over it, what were they supposed to do with the A330, 767 and 757 pilots? Just pay them indefinitely until they decide to retire?

Its really easy to look at these things at the high level and say "oh they should've done x, y, z" without looking at the resulting effects from doing x, y, and z." AA had lots of bad options and no good ones. So they chose a bad option.

They never had to displace people off the smallest equipment. Displacing people off 737 or a320 to furlough was just really bad planning.

They could have just had people bid to make the remaining pilot groups bigger

LAX772LR wrote:

Is this the first time we've seen a US carrier use an E170/175 on an intercontinental route from the lower 48?

.....I'm drawing a blank, attempting to think of a previous example.

LAX772LR wrote:

Is this the first time we've seen a US carrier use an E170/175 on an intercontinental route from the lower 48?

.....I'm drawing a blank, attempting to think of a previous example.

alasizon wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Except AA retired the A330, 767, and 757 as a result of the pandemic. Their union contract requires a rebid for the pilots displaced because of that retirement, which then can cause more displacements, etc.

Even hypothetically if the airline did declare an act of god, didn't get sued by the union over it, what were they supposed to do with the A330, 767 and 757 pilots? Just pay them indefinitely until they decide to retire?

Its really easy to look at these things at the high level and say "oh they should've done x, y, z" without looking at the resulting effects from doing x, y, and z." AA had lots of bad options and no good ones. So they chose a bad option.

They never had to displace people off the smallest equipment. Displacing people off 737 or a320 to furlough was just really bad planning.

They could have just had people bid to make the remaining pilot groups bigger

That quite literally isn't how pilot workgroups work, you can't just "make them bigger". AA hasn't had people on furlough for at least five months now (their time on furlough was very limited too) and the displaced people at the bottom are not the ones causing the issue, rather the required shuffle as you reshuffle the 757 and
330 pilots downward.

Everyone that changed equipment needed to be retrained and the 737 is the fleet most behind with training. Both narrowbody groups are critical on staffing because of the constant shuffle, the 737 fleet just didn't get to where it was planned to, whether that was due to sim availability, instructor availability, or whatever other factor. Making it arbitrarily bigger as you wish to do wouldn't have solved any or that, displacements still occur either way and you can't magically usurp how an entire collective bargaining agreement. If I had to guess, the 737 is behind where planned due to the added MAX training and the demand that is placing on qualified sims nationwide.

LAX772LR wrote:

Is this the first time we've seen a US carrier use an E170/175 on an intercontinental route from the lower 48?

.....I'm drawing a blank, attempting to think of a previous example.

747fan wrote:

alasizon wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

They never had to displace people off the smallest equipment. Displacing people off 737 or a320 to furlough was just really bad planning.

They could have just had people bid to make the remaining pilot groups bigger

That quite literally isn't how pilot workgroups work, you can't just "make them bigger". AA hasn't had people on furlough for at least five months now (their time on furlough was very limited too) and the displaced people at the bottom are not the ones causing the issue, rather the required shuffle as you reshuffle the 757 and
330 pilots downward.

Everyone that changed equipment needed to be retrained and the 737 is the fleet most behind with training. Both narrowbody groups are critical on staffing because of the constant shuffle, the 737 fleet just didn't get to where it was planned to, whether that was due to sim availability, instructor availability, or whatever other factor. Making it arbitrarily bigger as you wish to do wouldn't have solved any or that, displacements still occur either way and you can't magically usurp how an entire collective bargaining agreement. If I had to guess, the 737 is behind where planned due to the added MAX training and the demand that is placing on qualified sims nationwide.

To add to the above, there's a number of 737 crews that aren't MAX-qualified yet. This limits flexibility with these airplanes, as they're basically confined to only MIA hub network flying. For example, if they're "subbed" in place of a 737NG into the DFW hub network rather than their usual MIA out-and-backs, there's a decent chance a flight that it's "subbing" on would be rostered by a non-MAX qualified CA and/or FO. Comparatively, now United's 737-MAX9's seem to move around the system more rather than being confined to, say, IAH hub flying.
I'd imagine that the additional "MAX qual" training is way behind where it should be now at AA as a result of all of the displacements and the associated training shuffle. This likely isn't much an issue anymore at United, who didn't furlough anybody/had fewer displacements.

MAH4546 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Is this the first time we've seen a US carrier use an E170/175 on an intercontinental route from the lower 48?

.....I'm drawing a blank, attempting to think of a previous example.

No, AA has used them to Barranquilla. But ADZ is in North America, off the coast of Honduras.

silentbob wrote:

Is there something in the contract that requires them to do the training for equipment changes in a specific order? I'm just trying to understand if there is a way to mitigate situations like this in the future.

esnidxam wrote:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why AA doesn't fly direct from ORD-MEX? MEX is the 5th busiest Intl route from ORD and ORD is the 6th busiest Intl route from MEX and it is currently served by UA, AM, VB, and Y4. While this seems crowded, you would think AA would want a piece of the action.

esnidxam wrote:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why AA doesn't fly direct from ORD-MEX? MEX is the 5th busiest Intl route from ORD and ORD is the 6th busiest Intl route from MEX and it is currently served by UA, AM, VB, and Y4. While this seems crowded, you would think AA would want a piece of the action.

silentbob wrote:

Is there something in the contract that requires them to do the training for equipment changes in a specific order? I'm just trying to understand if there is a way to mitigate situations like this in the future.

Varsity1 wrote:

silentbob wrote:

Is there something in the contract that requires them to do the training for equipment changes in a specific order? I'm just trying to understand if there is a way to mitigate situations like this in the future.

Not in specific order, but you are paid at your current positions pay rate until you complete training and become qualified on the new airplane.

The airline obviously has preferences on who the train first (WB to NB) and would rather continue to pay at current rate (NB to WB). Throw in the airplane specific staffing issues (737) and simulator time shortages, the picture gets cloudier.

LightChop2Chop wrote:

No AA regularly uses them (or at least used to) to PTY, LIR, BZE, CZM, RTB

MAH4546 wrote:

No, AA has used them to Barranquilla.

MAH4546 wrote:

But ADZ is in North America

2travel2know2 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Is this the first time we've seen a US carrier use an E170/175 on an intercontinental route from the lower 48?

.....I'm drawing a blank, attempting to think of a previous example.

AA has sent its E175 to PTY if that counts as intercontinental.

LAX772LR wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

But ADZ is in North America

I know, but CTM isn't.
That's the one I was looking at.

.

PA12 wrote:

ELP please.

LightChop2Chop wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

But ADZ is in North America

I know, but CTM isn't.
That's the one I was looking at.

.

Chetumal, MX (CTM) is very much in North America

alasizon wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Except AA retired the A330, 767, and 757 as a result of the pandemic. Their union contract requires a rebid for the pilots displaced because of that retirement, which then can cause more displacements, etc.

Even hypothetically if the airline did declare an act of god, didn't get sued by the union over it, what were they supposed to do with the A330, 767 and 757 pilots? Just pay them indefinitely until they decide to retire?

Its really easy to look at these things at the high level and say "oh they should've done x, y, z" without looking at the resulting effects from doing x, y, and z." AA had lots of bad options and no good ones. So they chose a bad option.

They never had to displace people off the smallest equipment. Displacing people off 737 or a320 to furlough was just really bad planning.

They could have just had people bid to make the remaining pilot groups bigger

That quite literally isn't how pilot workgroups work, you can't just "make them bigger". AA hasn't had people on furlough for at least five months now (their time on furlough was very limited too) and the displaced people at the bottom are not the ones causing the issue, rather the required shuffle as you reshuffle the 757 and 330 pilots downward.

Everyone that changed equipment needed to be retrained and the 737 is the fleet most behind with training. Both narrowbody groups are critical on staffing because of the constant shuffle, the 737 fleet just didn't get to where it was planned to, whether that was due to sim availability, instructor availability, or whatever other factor. Making it arbitrarily bigger as you wish to do wouldn't have solved any or that, displacements still occur either way and you can't magically usurp how an entire collective bargaining agreement. If I had to guess, the 737 is behind where planned due to the added MAX training and the demand that is placing on qualified sims nationwide.

Airlines0613 wrote:

Something tells me AA will respond to UA's NEXT product. It seems like AA is the only legacy left out. With UA and DL having a superior product, AA will be left behind. The only way it can compete is by pricing its seats slightly cheaper. I think it's a matter of when not if over reinstalling AVOD and etc. on their aircraft. Their first and economy class domestic/short-haul products are dull at best.

LAX772LR wrote:

LightChop2Chop wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

I know, but CTM isn't.
That's the one I was looking at.

.

Chetumal, MX (CTM) is very much in North America

Read that wrong. Switch the two.

Detroit313 wrote:

As of November 2, 2021, American will be increasing frequencies from Miami to the following destinations:

Baltimore (BWI) is increasing from 2x daily to 3x daily
Cleveland (CLE) is increasing from 2x daily to 3x daily
Detroit (DTW) is increasing from 2x daily to 3x daily
Guatemala City (GUA) is increasing from 2x daily to 3x daily
Jacksonville (JAX) is increasing from 5x daily to 7x daily
Nashville (BNA) is increasing from 3x daily to 5x daily
New Orleans (MSY) is increasing from 4x daily to 5x daily
Orlando (MCO) is increasing from 6x daily to 10x daily
Raleigh-Durham (RDU) is increasing from 4x daily to 5x daily
San Juan (SJU) is increasing from 5x daily to 6x daily
San Jose (SJO) is increasing from 2x daily to 3x daily
San Pedro Sula (SAP) is increasing from 2x daily to 3x daily
Santo Domingo (SDQ) is increasing from 4x daily to 6x daily
Tampa (TPA) increasing from 5x daily to 8x daily

Airlines0613 wrote:

Something tells me AA will respond to UA's NEXT product. It seems like AA is the only legacy left out. With UA and DL having a superior product, AA will be left behind. The only way it can compete is by pricing its seats slightly cheaper. I think it's a matter of when not if over reinstalling AVOD and etc. on their aircraft. Their first and economy class domestic/short-haul products are dull at best.

9w748capt wrote:

Airlines0613 wrote:

Something tells me AA will respond to UA's NEXT product. It seems like AA is the only legacy left out. With UA and DL having a superior product, AA will be left behind. The only way it can compete is by pricing its seats slightly cheaper. I think it's a matter of when not if over reinstalling AVOD and etc. on their aircraft. Their first and economy class domestic/short-haul products are dull at best.

I sure hope you're right. I have a feeling Dougie thought his old pal Kirby would be more than happy to join him in their race to the bottom. So this has to really have thrown Dougie for a loop.

Then again I wouldn't put it past Dougie to cut and cheapen the product even more. Who cares how low the fares are, Dougie will find a way to make the costs even lower.

AA just doesn't know what it wants to be. On one hand they invest in Flagship Lounges but on the other, they actively rip PTVs out and STILL fly A321s on transcons without seat power, much less PTVs! What a joke.