Originally Posted by TRZ06

From this site and probably fairly close:

155 WB
784 NB

939 Total Aircraft in fleet.

I am not sure how this compares to UA and DA but I think the percentages will pretty much stay the same as they have in the past decade or so. Our 787 and 330 CA spots have been slightly more junior than the 777. While there are some out of seniority spots because of the merger seniority integration the WB captain slots stay at the top seniority wise. As of this summer there are 1147 Group 4
WB captains. Total Jobs are at 14917. So basically you would need
some 12770 people above you to retire. With predicted retirements at age 65 that would be end of 2039 or so, 19-20 years away for someone hired today. For reference that 1147 seniority now is a 1986 hire. Over thirty years to get Group 4 captain and that generally fits with what I see on the line. Maybe like today most people are the same age plus or minus 5 years so when you get hired in the cycle is a really big factor. Hope this helps. (BTW info used from Sen list 2016)

Originally Posted by Name User

I think it's irrelevant. When other carriers have large profitable domestic operations (ie SWA) and have a higher margin than us, that would tend to dispel your theory.







So what's interesting about your quip about operating into "hamlets" is those hamlets often have a higher amount of pax and revenue than some of our international markets. If you have some spare time, you can look up bts.gov and see passenger throughput between origination and destination airports. A good example with our own operation is Tulsa to DFW tomorrow...almost 2000(!) pax between those city pairs tomorrow booked on us.



So Vasu/company uses government data such as that to pick routes and develop them. Some there isn't much data on, and a risk is taken.



I think AA's largest problem is branding in that we don't have one, we are just a generic transportation company. Nothing really sets us apart. Also I feel the "American" name hurts us overseas as well. Parker's idea was to not be a Walmart but a Target, basically a step above the lowest common denominator.



Both Delta and United have a higher overall CASM than us but of course make up for that with higher revenue as well. My wife is a typical business traveler both domestic and international. By far her main priority in booking flights is schedule and seat available. Anything else is simply icing on the cake. East coast to west coast delta has better scheduling of flights. She won't even look at United. She does fly on AA when I can convince her to (rarely!).







Do we? I'm really not 100% sure in that, we might in some cases but not in others. From what I've seen however is SWA has all of us beat. But this group would never consider some of the items in SWA's contract, such as being a "lance capt".







The more we make the stronger we become. Operating money losing routes just to say we are an international carrier probably isn't a great long term business plan.

Originally Posted by WhenPigsFLy

I predict in the next downturn AA will be first to fail, dragging others down. Labor cost are to high, chap 11 needs to happen.

Originally Posted by TRZ06

Side note, you are correct about the LGA 777 guy but the DFW was LUS, the AA seniority would be at or below 2000 FWIW.

Originally Posted by nAAtive

But jumpseaters aren’t allowed to get bumped. Another crappy lack of work rules in our contract. Hopefully we get some LUS work rules here.

Originally Posted by cactusmike

Oh yes, that’s a definite need. I don’t know why that wasn’t brought over.

Originally Posted by Arado 234

Well Duh! Because it wasn't invented here (LAA)!

On a serious note, you can thank T W for his efforts to eff up the js system.

We also list the "last leg of a sequence" trip swap because it didn't make sense to those APA prima Donnas.