Well, no wonder we're pulling back at SJU!

[Hopeful]

I think you are WAY WAY off here. The one hurting is AA, and there is no doubt about that. You need to take a look at AA's plan going forward "the cornerstone plan" (which is a joke by the way). AA says they will focus on JFK(NY market), ORD, LAX , DFW, and MIA, lets take a look at that. JFK (NY market) -

Some years ago, AA decided that mergers and aquisitions would take a back seat to the OneWorld BA thing.
AA decidely put its eggs in the International Market.

 

[MCI transplant]

Some years ago, AA decided that mergers and acquisitions would take a back seat to the OneWorld BA thing.
AA decidely put its eggs in the International Market.

<_< ------- Maybe the internal debacle of the TWA/AA merger/buy out, has put a bad taste in the mouths of AA management.------- It's a sham it didn't go better.--------- But to survive they have to get over it or they may find themselves the last one standing and hoping their international routes will save the day.

 

[Hopeful]

<_< ------- Maybe the internal debacle of the TWA/AA merger/buy out, has put a bad taste in the mouths of AA management.------- It's a sham it didn't go better.--------- But to survive they have to get over it or they may find themselves the last one standing and hoping their international routes will save the day.

Not necessarily. AA may have had the foresight of acquiring TWA for its international reach. Where they screwed up is by not following up and flying those routes such as Portugal, Cairo, Athens, etc.
Whether AA's intent was to eliminate a competitor or not, I don't think they made a wise decision for abandoning some coveted routes.
Now, I am sure some will argue that there weren't enough planes or the pilots wouldn't agree to certain flying issues.
Planes couldve been found somewhere by any manufacturer and pilot agreements could have been ammended.

Others may argue that the AA bean counters know best and it wasn't worth it to fly such routes. I guess it is ok for Delta because their costs are soooooo much lower than AA's

 

[will fix for food]

I agree....Yes Eagle is on the block..But with the limited seat aircraft, they aren't that attractive anymore. Thats why the JB relationship seems feasible provided they stay separate and essentially "replace" Eagle as AA's feeder.
The only problem I see is if this were to come to reality, is JetBlue's terminal distance from AA's.
Getting on the AirTrain or a bus for a connection is not exactly an attractive thought.

If JB replaces Eagle as the A/A feeder how would that sit with the pilots? Thet don't want Eagle to get bigger planes so I can't imagine it would be OK for JB to assume the Eagle role with their EMB 190's. It would be a slick way to skirt the SCOPE clause though.

 

[Hopeful]

If JB replaces Eagle as the A/A feeder how would that sit with the pilots? Thet don't want Eagle to get bigger planes so I can't imagine it would be OK for JB to assume the Eagle role with their EMB 190's. It would be a slick way to skirt the SCOPE clause though.

Exactly.....I don't believe SCOPE would be an issue anymore provided JB remains separate.
For some reason, most people equate AA's labor costs with the fact that we still do our own overhaul. However, PILOT SCOPE seems to fly under the radar.
Any pilot opinions here?

 

[will fix for food]

To sum it up JBLU and US are in FAR FAR better positions than that of AA, so the one to lose the arrogance should be AA and the only one withering on the vine is AA. AA mgmt is a slow moving turtle and is getting slammed from all corners, whether they want to admit it or not. P.S. If AA enters BK, you can guarantee DP will jump like wolverine, and IMO AA will have no chance but to be acquired. A far cry from what the AA posters have predicted in the past of UA and US.

I guess it is good for American that JB is teaming up with them then.

 

[jimntx]

Exactly.....I don't believe SCOPE would be an issue anymore provided JB remains separate.

I think you are correct. IIRC, the SCOPE clause specifically addresses a/c numbers and size at AE. If AA simply stops operating domestic flights of any kind--sells the domestic arm, grounds those perfectly good S80s 🙂lol🙂, whatever--then they can get feed from JB without any further paperwork.

 

[will fix for food]

Exactly.....I don't believe SCOPE would be an issue anymore provided JB remains separate.
For some reason, most people equate AA's labor costs with the fact that we still do our own overhaul. However, PILOT SCOPE seems to fly under the radar.
Any pilot opinions here?

I'm not 100% sure it is that easy. If it is though I can see though where it would be AMR's wet dream to sell Eagle to JB. JB could then turn in Eagle 135's, 140's, and 145's to Embraer in exchange for new 190's. American could then sub out the 50 seat and under flying to a different carrier yet. Who knows, they might keep Eagle's CRJ's and operate Eagle as a 47 aircraft airline or turn them in to Embraer also and dissolve Eagle entirely.

The only problem for AMR would be that they would then be turning revenue over to other airlines that they used to keep in their pockets by using the wholly owned AE.

 

[jimntx]

The only problem for AMR would be that they would then be turning revenue over to other airlines that they used to keep in their pockets by using the wholly owned AE.

NOT a problem. Though the gross revenue amount would be less, due to the codesharing agreements, etc, there would still be revenue. And, keep in mind the fact that revenue would have almost no costs charged against it. The labor, capital costs (leases, etc), and maintenance would be paid by JB or whoever.

 

[FWAAA]

I think you are correct. IIRC, the SCOPE clause specifically addresses a/c numbers and size at AE. If AA simply stops operating domestic flights of any kind--sells the domestic arm, grounds those perfectly good S80s 🙂lol🙂, whatever--then they can get feed from JB without any further paperwork.

That's not correct. In addition to addressing the numbers and type of aircraft permitted at Eagle, the APA scope clause restricts AA's ability to enter into any new comprehensive marketing arrangements with new carriers or to enter into domestic codeshares without obtaining consent from the APA.

AA can offer AAdvantage miles for B6 flights without asking the pilots but AA cannot place an AA code on B6 flights unless it obtains consent.

 

[FWAAA]

Exactly.....I don't believe SCOPE would be an issue anymore provided JB remains separate.
For some reason, most people equate AA's labor costs with the fact that we still do our own overhaul. However, PILOT SCOPE seems to fly under the radar.
Any pilot opinions here?

I'm not a pilot but I can read (and understand) the APA contract. The scope clause restricts AA's ability to do anything with B6 beyond the interline agreement and awarding AAdvantage miles for B6 flights. AA cannot place its code on B6 flights or enter into a comprehensive marketing agreement with B6 unless the pilots sign off. And without mountains of money, I doubt the pilots would go along.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I'm not a pilot but I can read (and understand) the APA contract. The scope clause restricts AA's ability to do anything with B6 beyond the interline agreement and awarding AAdvantage miles for B6 flights. AA cannot place its code on B6 flights or enter into a comprehensive marketing agreement with B6 unless the pilots sign off. And without mountains of money, I doubt the pilots would go along.

So AA can't (or won't be able to) codeshare wtih B6 like they used to do with CP?

 

[FWAAA]

So AA can't (or won't be able to) codeshare wtih B6 like they used to do with CP?

Transboder codeshares to/from Canada are covered under a separate portion of the scope clause but basically, AA won't be able to unilaterally codeshare with B6. Section 1.H. covers non-commuter domestic codeshares (as B6 would be) and Section 1.I. covers the transborder codeshares to/from Canada.

 

[MAH4546]

I think you are WAY WAY off here. The one hurting is AA, and there is no doubt about that. You need to take a look at AA's plan going forward "the cornerstone plan" (which is a joke by the way). AA says they will focus on JFK(NY market), ORD, LAX , DFW, and MIA, lets take a look at that. JFK (NY market) - You have DAL at JFK and UA at EWR, AA plays second fiddle to both, so I would say AA is fighting a MAJOR uphill battle in NY, and they will lose. ORD - AA is playing second fiddle to UA, and now with the merger, IMO, will have much more corporate accounts etc taken from them and handed to UA, and they will become weaker at ORD i.e.(FRA) being the first slaughter. LAX - not much to say except they play no. 3 again to UA and DAL, fighting a major uphill battle that they cant defend. DFW and MIA are the two fortress hubs that they will have to defend dearly, and I am not so sure that UA or DAL wont try and make a move on MIA.

There are just so many incorrect facts in your statement that I'm not even going to bother correcting most of them, except please know that American Airlines is the largest carrier at LAX; AA+MQ is not much smaller than UA+UX; AA is the largest carrier at LAX based on revenue earned; and Delta doesn't come close at LAX where it is #5 behind not only AA and UA, but WN and AS. So to imply its a joke that AA - the largest carrier at LAX - is making LAX a cornerstone market just shows how little you actually know and entirely discredits the rest of your mindless banter.

In New York City, AA dominates corporate travel contracts. Entirely dominates - CO doesn't come close, and Delta isn't even a player in the NY corporate travel market right now.

And guess who has the most corporate travel contracts in Chicago and Los Angeles? Here's a hint: it is not UA.

As for the SJU pull-down: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that SJU is no longer needed. As the Caribbean became more popular with travelers and the domestic network via MIA continues to grow, it becomes more economically feasible to connect the Caribbean via MIA. SJU's purpose is gone.

 

[goodgirl37]

There are just so many incorrect facts in your statement that I'm not even going to bother correcting most of them, except please know that American Airlines is the largest carrier at LAX; AA+MQ is not much smaller than UA+UX; AA is the largest carrier at LAX based on revenue earned; and Delta doesn't come close at LAX where it is #5 behind not only AA and UA, but WN and AS. So to imply its a joke that AA - the largest carrier at LAX - is making LAX a cornerstone market just shows how little you actually know and entirely discredits the rest of your mindless banter.

In New York City, AA dominates corporate travel contracts. Entirely dominates - CO doesn't come close, and Delta isn't even a player in the NY corporate travel market right now.

And guess who has the most corporate travel contracts in Chicago and Los Angeles? Here's a hint: it is not UA.

As for the SJU pull-down: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that SJU is no longer needed. As the Caribbean became more popular with travelers and the domestic network via MIA continues to grow, it becomes more economically feasible to connect the Caribbean via MIA. SJU's purpose is gone.

I guess time will tell, time will tell!!