Possible AA subsidiary

[737823]

Post BK is it possible AA will launch a separate subsidiary with a separate seniority list and non-union labor similar to Go Jet (Trans States) or Jetstar (Qantas)? It seems like a good tactic to sidestep the various CBAs that are linked to American Airlines. Any thoughts? Go Jet sure has replaced a lot of Trans States and ultimately United flights as has Jetstar for Qantas.

Josh

 

[dfw gen]

Isn't there some ponzi scheme or some old ladies retirement savings you could rip off instead of speculating crap? A yea that's right you do speculate in sh*t don't you for a living?

 

[eolesen]

Not likely, and you really don't know what you're talking about here, Josh.

Jetstar and Qantas serve two totally different market segments, and they really don't even interline with each other to any great degree. And Jetstar does have union employees. Unlike here, it's an open shop. If you want to join a union, you join one. There's no exclusivity, either. Some classifications have multiple unions representing the same class of employees.

Go Jet was not set up to be a non-union sub --- they just haven't chosen to vote in a union yet. The pilots from Compass and Trans States did. Should there be a desire to, the unions at Compass and Trans States could easily pursue a single carrier determination since Hulas controls all three entities.

Fact is that just about every airline within an airline or sister airline concept in the US has ultimately failed. Arguably, even Eagle might be seen as a failure since it just wound up being one of the highest cost providers of regional lift. The only example I can think of where there's peace and harmony is Alaska & Horizon. But both are heavily unionized, IIRC.

 

[Buck]

Besides the company already has it's subsidiary in AE., why would they need another?

You might see, as Jamie Baker said, a regional with larger aircraft. As far as maintenance goes both AA & AE are represented by the TWU. A dovetail away from one seniority list.

For the pilots and F/A's who knows?

 

[FWAAA]

Not a chance. As Buck mentioned, AA already has a low-wage subsidiary in Eagle. Now that Eagle is in Ch 11 along with AA, Eagle's costs can be slashed to more closely match the Skywests and Mesas, reducing the urgency of cutting Eagle loose.

 

[BoeingBoy]

AA's bigger problem with Eagle is the Eagle fleet, which can't be fixed in the time available in bankruptcy. Presumably, that why there's so much negotiating going on under section 1110 - trying to align getting rid of the majority of 50-seat RJ's to better match when larger RJ's could be procured.

Jim

 

[Buck]

AA's bigger problem with Eagle is the Eagle fleet, which can't be fixed in the time available in bankruptcy. Presumably, that why there's so much negotiating going on under section 1110 - trying to align getting rid of the majority of 50-seat RJ's to better match when larger RJ's could be procured.

Jim

I speculate that the 50 seat may not be the limit. I think the possibly exists to bring in the Airbus or even a 737 into an AE market with the same amount of seat on fewer aircraft, with fewer flights.
Making the customers adjust their schedules to meet the airline.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Operating Eagle RJ's or mainline narrowbodies with less frequency would be a marketing decision. The business traveler probably desires 4 flights/day at least.

If you're talking about Eagle operating 100+ seat aircraft, then it depends on scope language in the contracts. Since the pilot's term sheet doesn't indicate that AA wants to be able to operate 90+ seats with a regional partner (Eagle or whoever) it doesn't seem to be their plan to do so. Besides, the bigger the plane the smaller the difference in CASM regardless of who operates it since more of the cost of operation is not employee related.

Jim

 

[jimntx]

IIRC, AE is already operating the maximum number of 50+ seat a/c allowed under current scope language. These are 70-seat a/c. There is no scope language to permit any a/c larger than these at AE. By the same token there is no pay rate established at mainline for any a/c smaller than the MD-80. Unless something has changed, there is no place for 90-100 seat a/c at AMR. I've been hoping that the company and the union could come to agreement on a 90-100 seat a/c at mainline. I used to like working the F-100.

 

[eolesen]

I speculate that the 50 seat may not be the limit. I think the possibly exists to bring in the Airbus or even a 737 into an AE market with the same amount of seat on fewer aircraft, with fewer flights.
Making the customers adjust their schedules to meet the airline.

Frequency wins business customers. If you can't offer me four flights a day, you're wasting my billable and personal time. I'm not going to spend an extra night in a hotel because your airline can't have an early, mid-morning, mid-afternoon and evening flight. And I don't care if it is an RJ as long as I get to do a day trip and sleep in my own bed...

 

[will fix for food]

The word from on high is to expect the Eagle fleet and business plan within two weeks. Indications are that the fleet will be comprised of 140's, 145's, crj-700's and new aircraft up to E190's.

Also expect the A/A TWU contract to be done and signed by the June schedule change.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There is no scope language to permit any a/c larger than these at AE. By the same token there is no pay rate established at mainline for any a/c smaller than the MD-80. Unless something has changed, there is no place for 90-100 seat a/c at AMR.

What has changed is that AA is now in bankruptcy and wants scope changes to permit 70+ seat aircraft at Eagle or other express affiliates and a payrate for 88+ seat aircraft at mainline. The only real problem is that the scope can be changed a lot faster than the applicable aircraft can be on the property other than in very small numbers. Nobody has a lot of E175/190 or CRJ900/1000's sitting around just waiting for a customer.

Jim

 

[Buck]

Frequency wins business customers. If you can't offer me four flights a day, you're wasting my billable and personal time. I'm not going to spend an extra night in a hotel because your airline can't have an early, mid-morning, mid-afternoon and evening flight. And I don't care if it is an RJ as long as I get to do a day trip and sleep in my own bed...

I understand the need for speed, When I suggest that there could be less flights, the business man's schedule has to be met and that is marketing. It is now that any changes to the existing model must be made. I believe that there are many changes that are currently being made and probably making a lot of regular customers angry.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You do have a point about frequency, but I have no idea how much it applies to AA. At US before the slot swap with DL, there were over a dozen Dash 8 flights/day between PHL and LGA (I think as many as 16) - was that really necessary or could US have used a bigger aircraft and flown half as many flights/day? There is a point where it's cheaper to run less frequency with bigger planes without pushing away the business traveler and it's marketing who should be coming up with the information to make those decisions.

Jim

 

[eolesen]

There's a sweet spot between 4 and 7 flights a day. 12+ is overkill to me with few exceptions. LAX-SFO is one of the top O&D markets, and can support higher volumes. Not so certain about PHL & LGA, especially when you're trying to compete with Amtrak and the Turnpike.