The pilot shortage is real and affects airlines operating regional jets the most. That’s one reason that American Airlines is adding a row of seats to 76 seat regional jets, bumping up Bombardier CR-9s to 80 seats (even though they won’t be allowed to fill it with more than 79 passengers because of their pilot union contract).
Airlines will go find regional lift anywhere they can right now, and One Mile at a Time reports that American Airlines has found a deal with Air Wisconsin for up to 60 Bombardier CR2 regional jets to fly as American Eagle. This new service is expected to start in March, and center mainly around Chicago O’Hare. (Currently Air Wisconsin operates 55 CR2 aircraft, all for United out of Chicago O’Hare and Washington Dulles. These will move, since United had informed Air Wisconsin it wouldn’t renew their deal beyond its 2023 expiration.)
The Bombardier CR2 is one of the worst passenger experiences in the sky. To be sure, American Airlines currently operates Embraer ERJ-145 regional jets with just 50 seats. 50 seat RJs are never great, and those even lack power and internet. But they are better than CR2s. The ERJ-145 configuration is 1-2, and so passengers on the left side of the aircraft do not have anyone seated next to them. The CR2 packs in the same number of people in a 2×2 configuration.
American’s Bombardier CR7 and CR9 aircraft, while not as spacious as their Embraer counterparts either, offer first class seats. The CR2 does not.
Air Wisconsin got its name because it was founded in the state 57 years ago. They began flying as United Express in 1986, and they’ve since flown for American and US Airways as well. Their fleet of CR2 aircraft dates in part to the late 1990s and some are slated for retirement. I’ll be curious to see how many planes initially operate for American and how long it will take to ramp up to the full potential deal.
#ThrowbackThursday to August 1965, when Air Wisconsin was founded with a single 9-passenger De Havilland Dove. #flyinghome pic.twitter.com/IPGf15mps2
— Air Line Pilots Association (@ALPAPilots) September 7, 2017
To be clear, a route operated by a CR2 is better than a route that doesn’t have air service. And in some cases that’s the relevant margin on which the decision gets made. But that may not be true for every route Air Wisconsin operates for American. It’ll be a downgrade in passenger experience, but still a better passenger experience than a wagon train or horse drawn carriage.
(HT: One Mile at a Time)
Are there any horses for sale instead?
Will that mean they restart YOW for AA. I do hate the crj. But I can’t get to YOW on a oneworld carrier anymore.
Whoa … are you still allowed to criticize AA?
Someone inform my smooth brain why airlines abandoned/ignore the ATR-72?
“ERJ-145 configuration is 1-2”
In First yes.
But in coach it’s 2×2.
Alaska and Delta operate the ERJ-145, both have the 1×2 layout up front and 2×2 in coach.
AA E-145 are in an all coach configuration and have 1-2 throughout. Flew many E-145 when Eagle used them to compete with DL and US on the shuttle flights between LGA-DCA/BOS.
@Ex-UA Plat you are thinking of the newer Embraers, not the ERJ-145.
Remember, most consumers are driven by cost and not by quality. If the CRJ and ERJ were both on the same route at the same time and at the same price, consumers would pick the ERJ. But, if the ERJ flight was priced ever so slightly higher, to the average consumer, it would become the red-headed stepchild. So, bean counters choose the CRJ because it has a slightly lower hourly operating cost than the ERJ, apply their margins, and deliver the lower price. Consumer preference drives this. It’s just the way it is baby.
Air Whisky lives yet again to die another day. Are these frames coming from other carriers? I know that the CRJs in ZWs fleet have to be getting up there in cycles.
These planes are flown by some old timer in a bomber jacket with leather ear flaps that crops dusts in his spare time
The pilot list looks like the guys that got rejected to fly in the Independence Day movie
The economics of these aircraft simply don’t work, esp. when operated in/out of ORD which is on track to have the highest cost per enplaned passenger.
Add in the massive bonuses that AA subsidiaries are paying for pilots and AA’s decision to hold onto and expand its massive regional jet operation will be chalked up as another strategic failure by AA.
The only reason that AA is doing this is because they can’t walk away from Chicago.
Next, AA will introduce self flying Cessna 172s for their regional service.
I don’t see how American will do well with these, no, they’ll generally fly contested routes with an inferior product. These ARE high cost per passenger planes, but the economics are surely better than you give it credit for @Tim Dunn – United was walking away from Air Wisconsin, they had an operation and fleet and nothing to do with it, so it’s almost certain American got a pretty sweet deal. This should reduce, rather than increase, American’s bleed at O’Hare. You aren’t wrong to say that this is an alternative to ‘walking away from’ the ORD asset where they don’t have a great business.
Riddle me this, why would you fly an AA-branded CRJ200 if UA is flying the same route on a CRJ550? It feels like AA is hell-bent on making the passenger experience as miserable as possible while their legacy competitors are working to improve the passenger experience.
Gary
great deals don’t mean anything if Air Wisconsin can’t staff them. AA is making sure they will pilots for their regional operation by offering massive bonuses that bring regional jet pay in line with mainline pilots. I am sure they are basically giving AA a price that includes only direct operating costs; if the aircraft are parked, Air Wisconsin has to remove them from their fleet. A 5 year contract for 50 seat flying?
But getting a great deal for the airframes doesn’t changes that connecting regional jet flights at ORD is a recipe for disaster but doing it with 50 seaters is worse.
Yes, AA doing this as a strategic necessity – but that is exactly what we heard about much of their Pacific flying which cost them hundreds of millions of dollars per year and ultimately much of it got cancelled. They have one strategic failure after another and seem to just swap one out for the next.
Having AA think that they have a strategic advantage by flying a bunch of money-losing regional jets because they fill seats on mainline flights just isn’t a viable business model.
And let’s also not forget that American and United have chosen not to pursue small mainline jets such as the 717 (DL and HA) or the A220 (multiple carriers) so they have no choice but to bet on regional jets or jump up to mainline aircraft such as the A319 which is high CASM compared to other mainline aircraft.
WN got it right years ago when it decided that it simply would not serve cities that cannot support at least a handful of 737 flights/day.
Did they have to pay for their flying again like last time?
When in a CRJ, I pretend that I am on a Concorde, which also had 2+2 seating.
Boo. I didn’t like the CR2 on UA and won’t like it on AA either.
Tim Dunn wrote: “The economics of these aircraft simply don’t work, esp. when operated in/out of ORD which is on track to have the highest cost per enplaned passenger.
Add in the massive bonuses that AA subsidiaries are paying for pilots and AA’s decision to hold onto and expand its massive regional jet operation will be chalked up as another strategic failure by AA.
The only reason that AA is doing this is because they can’t walk away from Chicago.”
To which I reply: Prove it.
———-
None of us has access to the data needed to prove or disprove your and Mr. Leff’s arguments that this move isn’t economically viable, however American and its Board define that. I have a suspicion, as do many others, that this move will allow American to sever its ties with Mesa. And if what I’ve read elsewhere is accurate, Air Wisconsin has a more reliably available pilot group than Mesa. Stated differently, American is acquiring regional pilots. But I have no way to know if any of this is accurate.
Ghost,
airlines do provide data to the DOT with costs by fleet type.
The CRJ/ERJ was already the most expensive aircraft in the US carrier fleet pre-covid other than AA’s A321Ts. Add in higher fuel costs and the bonuses which AA is paying its regional carriers and it really is not hard to calculate the costs of operating 50 seat aircraft. large RJs aren’t far behind.
Actually on short flights I very comfortable with these aircrafts.
Quick on n off.
No middle seat worries and when your in the air less then 2 hrs who cares about frills.
Plus with their safety record I have no complaints.
All of you that complain about the crj you don’t have to fly, go and get in your car and drive, and if you don’t want to drive then shut your mouth and fly. Is not about the aircraft is all about you getting to the destination safely
Derek wins the internets today.