Guest
I think when it is all said and done St. Louis will become a majority Regional Jet Base with the 70 seat regional jets. The lifting of the scope clause helped that...
LambertMan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, since I live in St. Louis I am slightly biased. But I dont think it will turn to mainly an AX hub. We have a large enough O&D base to support mainline flights to Oh, here is some I came up with:
DFW, ORD, SEA, SAN, LAX, SNA, SFO, SLC, SMF, PDX, DEN, COS, ABQ AUS, MCI, MSP, DTW, CLE(possibly), CMH, RDU, MIA, TPA, MCO, FLL, SJC, SJU, BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, LGA, HNL, LGW, CUN, YVR, ANC (Seasonal)
However, some routes that are a mix right now of RJ's and MD-80's I do believe will go to AX, such as LIT, DSM, OMA, along with the other RJ destinations. By no means I do not think it will become a CLE. Besides AA doesnt rely as heavily on RJ's as CO does. I do think they will continue to use only 3 types of aircraft out of STL 752, 763, and MD-80's.
DFW, ORD, SEA, SAN, LAX, SNA, SFO, SLC, SMF, PDX, DEN, COS, ABQ AUS, MCI, MSP, DTW, CLE(possibly), CMH, RDU, MIA, TPA, MCO, FLL, SJC, SJU, BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, LGA, HNL, LGW, CUN, YVR, ANC (Seasonal)
However, some routes that are a mix right now of RJ's and MD-80's I do believe will go to AX, such as LIT, DSM, OMA, along with the other RJ destinations. By no means I do not think it will become a CLE. Besides AA doesnt rely as heavily on RJ's as CO does. I do think they will continue to use only 3 types of aircraft out of STL 752, 763, and MD-80's.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,154
- Reaction score
- 681
----------------
On 5/20/2003 8:58:28 AM AA763 wrote:
Well, since I live in St. Louis I am slightly biased. But I dont think it will turn to mainly an AX hub. We have a large enough O&D base to support mainline flights to Oh, here is some I came up with:
DFW, ORD, SEA, SAN, LAX, SNA, SFO, SLC, SMF, PDX, DEN, COS, ABQ AUS, MCI, MSP, DTW, CLE(possibly), CMH, RDU, MIA, TPA, MCO, FLL, SJC, SJU, BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, LGA, HNL, LGW, CUN, YVR, ANC (Seasonal)
However, some routes that are a mix right now of RJ''s and MD-80''s I do believe will go to AX, such as LIT, DSM, OMA, along with the other RJ destinations. By no means I do not think it will become a CLE. Besides AA doesnt rely as heavily on RJ''s as CO does. I do think they will continue to use only 3 types of aircraft out of STL 752, 763, and MD-80''s.
----------------
On 5/20/2003 8:58:28 AM AA763 wrote:
Well, since I live in St. Louis I am slightly biased. But I dont think it will turn to mainly an AX hub. We have a large enough O&D base to support mainline flights to Oh, here is some I came up with:
DFW, ORD, SEA, SAN, LAX, SNA, SFO, SLC, SMF, PDX, DEN, COS, ABQ AUS, MCI, MSP, DTW, CLE(possibly), CMH, RDU, MIA, TPA, MCO, FLL, SJC, SJU, BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, LGA, HNL, LGW, CUN, YVR, ANC (Seasonal)
However, some routes that are a mix right now of RJ''s and MD-80''s I do believe will go to AX, such as LIT, DSM, OMA, along with the other RJ destinations. By no means I do not think it will become a CLE. Besides AA doesnt rely as heavily on RJ''s as CO does. I do think they will continue to use only 3 types of aircraft out of STL 752, 763, and MD-80''s.
----------------
AA763,
While I find myself in VERY "foreign territory" agreeing with ANYTHING A77IGW says, I find myself agreeing with BOTH of you. Meaning, that on (almost) all routes, it''s possible to "mix" in an RJ on certain trips.
NH/BB''s
Guest
HA HA HA omg we agreed on one thing....I knew we had something in common. I know it wont be an entire RJ base places like STL--LAX JFK MIA SFO SJC SNA SAN and international of course would not work. But just about everywhere else would.
I am glad NHBB we are not fighting on this I am really tired of fighting
I am glad NHBB we are not fighting on this I am really tired of fighting
Wild Onion
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2002
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 0
If bookings continue to improve, perhaps STL can become what it was originally purchased to be: A reliever hub for ORD/DFW traffic. If that happens, maybe the growth of RJ flying won''t be all that necessary.
We can keep flying Super 80''s to OMA if they''re full and it preserves yield on the RJ''s to ORD.
We can keep flying Super 80''s to OMA if they''re full and it preserves yield on the RJ''s to ORD.
I have to agree that STL will not turn into an "all-RJ hub" as some have suggested. My guess would be that you will still see mainline service from there to most of the significant cities in the network, for two reasons. 1) There is a lot of O&D traffic out of STL, even with the competition with Southwest and 2) when either DFW or ORD go tango-uniform due to WX, you can reroute later passengers (and in the case of ORD, even divert flights at the time) to there to handle the overflow. I fully expect STL to gain at least some new international flying as the economy rebounds.
TANSTAAFL
TANSTAAFL
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,154
- Reaction score
- 681
----------------
On 5/20/2003 12:24:49 PM wrote:
HA HA HA omg we agreed on one thing....I knew we had something in common. I know it wont be an entire RJ base places like STL--LAX JFK MIA SFO SJC SNA SAN and international of course would not work. But just about everywhere else would.
I am glad NHBB we are not fighting on this I am really tired of fighting
----------------
On 5/20/2003 12:24:49 PM wrote:
HA HA HA omg we agreed on one thing....I knew we had something in common. I know it wont be an entire RJ base places like STL--LAX JFK MIA SFO SJC SNA SAN and international of course would not work. But just about everywhere else would.
I am glad NHBB we are not fighting on this I am really tired of fighting
----------------
Trust me, I hav'nt gotten "soft", all of a sudden.
I call em', as I see em'. If a person (IMHO) is right, well then they're right. It's why I happen to agree with you about RJ's on almost ANY route, from ANY station that RJ's are based.
In fact, I EVEN agree with FWAAA, when he/she says that 70 seat RJ's(with F/C seating) would be MOST preferable.
Anybody who does not think that RJ's wont be used to their fullest extent to lower costs(wages) etc., has, IMHO, been living "under a rock", for some time now.
NH/BB's
Guest
Exactly...It would not shock me at all if AA went primarily regional Jet with the exception of International and some really profitable routes. It seems like the way to go
Now that the APA has, in fact, given away scope on 50+ seat jets, you can be assured that Arpey will take every advantage to migrate F100 and some MD-80 routes to a 70-90 seat aircraft. The advantage is that the APA created a virtual "D" scale with the proviso that while those aircraft must be flown by AA pilots, those pilots will be compensated on a "cost neutral" basis with the commuter AE. How''s 60K a year and no retirement strike you for doing the same work as a F100 Captain?
----------------
On 5/21/2003 11:39:09 PM Winglet wrote:
Now that the APA has, in fact, given away scope on 50+ seat jets, you can be assured that Arpey will take every advantage to migrate F100 and some MD-80 routes to a 70-90 seat aircraft. The advantage is that the APA created a virtual "D" scale with the proviso that while those aircraft must be flown by AA pilots, those pilots will be compensated on a "cost neutral" basis with the commuter AE. How''s 60K a year and no retirement strike you for doing the same work as a F100 Captain?
----------------
How does 00K per year strike you for no work at all, since the company pulled out of those markets and now those junior enough to be bumped down to RJ''s are on the street instead.On 5/21/2003 11:39:09 PM Winglet wrote:
Now that the APA has, in fact, given away scope on 50+ seat jets, you can be assured that Arpey will take every advantage to migrate F100 and some MD-80 routes to a 70-90 seat aircraft. The advantage is that the APA created a virtual "D" scale with the proviso that while those aircraft must be flown by AA pilots, those pilots will be compensated on a "cost neutral" basis with the commuter AE. How''s 60K a year and no retirement strike you for doing the same work as a F100 Captain?
----------------
Cleared Direct
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 5/21/2003 11:39:09 PM Winglet wrote:
Now that the APA has, in fact, given away scope on 50+ seat jets, you can be assured that Arpey will take every advantage to migrate F100 and some MD-80 routes to a 70-90 seat aircraft. The advantage is that the APA created a virtual "D" scale with the proviso that while those aircraft must be flown by AA pilots, those pilots will be compensated on a "cost neutral" basis with the commuter AE. How's 60K a year and no retirement strike you for doing the same work as a F100 Captain?
----------------
On 5/21/2003 11:39:09 PM Winglet wrote:
Now that the APA has, in fact, given away scope on 50+ seat jets, you can be assured that Arpey will take every advantage to migrate F100 and some MD-80 routes to a 70-90 seat aircraft. The advantage is that the APA created a virtual "D" scale with the proviso that while those aircraft must be flown by AA pilots, those pilots will be compensated on a "cost neutral" basis with the commuter AE. How's 60K a year and no retirement strike you for doing the same work as a F100 Captain?
----------------
That is not exactly what was agreed upon. The new contractual language that you are referring to only applies to the actual CRJ-700s that are on firm order or actually at Eagle. It actually says that the aircraft can be transferred to AA if done under a labor cost nuetral scenario. Watch for AMR to keep the CRJ-700s at Eagle operated by APA pilots.
Additional aircraft above 50 seats that are operated by AA must have new pay rates negotiated on them. APA will negotiate for much better pay on additional small jets in the 70-90 seat range.
