Possible AA subsidiary

[Buck]

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.

At what point does the airline decide to place an RJ in a slot? Marketing has a requirement, it should be the airline that decides what equipment is placed in the slot and of course this has to happen in a in advance.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I assume that the LGA situation was a case of US babysitting slots while waiting for the slot swap to be approved. LGA-PHL may have been the route with the most RJ//turboprop frequency but there were others with basically hourly service to/from LGA. Plus, I get the impression that US doesn't want to grow mainline - it's at min fleet now (or within 1 or 2 planes) and there's no sign that that will change in the near future. The RJ feeder fleet is basically static also, although up-sizing within scope is happening when possible given the RJ provider contracts.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

At what point does the airline decide to place an RJ in a slot?

You're right - marketing has a pretty big say. Basically, if a market won't support bigger aircraft with the needed frequency it should be served with smaller aircraft, whether that's RJ's or turboprops. Distance from a hub enters into the RJ vs turboprop decision. Even crew scheduling can have a say. Finally, the choices available with a given fleet have to be considered - maybe a 70-seater would be better but they're all allocated to markets that need them more so additional frequency with 50-seaters is used instead. Most airlines have a hole in their fleet between the largest RJ's scope will allow and the smallest mainline planes in the fleet (due to the merger DL has just about every size covered for now with DC9's to 747's). So you can get some situations where more frequency with RJ's (or a mixture of RJ's and mainline) is used because the smallest mainline plane is too big.

Jim

 

[Buck]

I believe AA's turboprops are history ....

 

[eolesen]

I believe AA's turboprops are history ....

AA doesn't have any. Eagle does, and yes, it looks like the remaining ATR72's are being returned to the lessor.

But I wouldn't rule out turboprops showing up again. The newer ATRs and Q400's are probably more efficient than an ERJ on hops of around 150-200 miles.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The current ATR's age getting a little long in the tooth - 17 to 20 years old. Not being a student of AA network except in general terms, I assume there's a place for some turboprops but what better time to start replacing the old ones. E is right - modern turboprops are less costly and competitive enough in speed out to 400-500 miles. The only disadvantage they have is the public's "it's a prop plane".

Jim

 

[DNTULSA]

The current ATR's age getting a little long in the tooth - 17 to 20 years old. Not being a student of AA network except in general terms, I assume there's a place for some turboprops but what better time to start replacing the old ones. E is right - modern turboprops are less costly and competitive enough in speed out to 400-500 miles. The only disadvantage they have is the public's "it's a prop plane".

Jim

We used to refer to them as weedeaters. They do vibrate more than a turbojet powered aircraft.

DNTULSA

 

[737823]

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.

BA still operates Openskies and UA has Aer Lingus for Dulles-Madrid. Was the Dragon Air subsidiary intended to circumvent CBAs from Cathay Pacific?

Josh

 

[eolesen]

Apparently you didn't learn reading in business school... I said every example in the US has ultimately failed, save AS/QX.

The EI-UA JV is EU certificated, and I doubt that either party wants to renew that contract when it comes up for renewal (sometime in the next 12-24 months). It has not worked out well at all from the people I've talked to at UA, and it certainly won't survive the pilot's merger agreement.

BA still operates Openskies

Wow, a three airplane operation, and it had nothing to do with the CBAs since it is a high touch product... They did it to insulate the brand so that they didn't have to offer reciprocity for interline agreements, frequent flyer programs, etc. There was also some desire to isolate their finanials, so that if it didn't work, they didn't drag BA down along with them.

Was the Dragon Air subsidiary intended to circumvent CBAs from Cathay Pacific?

No. Once upon a time, before you were born and Al Gore invented the internet, Hong Kong didn't belong to China....

Dragon Air was set up to fly HKG-China routes, which Cathay couldn't operate with their own metal at the time because they served Taiwan.


Again, you're way out of your league even trying to go down this road, Josh.