LUS Routings vs LAA Routings
Jun 22, 2018, 1:41 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas
Programs: AA Executive Platinum
Posts: 591
LUS Routings vs LAA Routings
Because I live in Dallas, I have flown exclusively on AA for many years. As such, the one-off LUS flights I take interest me because it's almost like flying another airline.
One of the differences I've noticed is how LAA routes their planes vs LUS. I'll use a 32B vs a 321 as an example:
N929AA (LAA 32B) - since 6/19 has flown DFW-ORD-LAX-BOS-DFW-LAS-DFW-SMF-DFW-SEA-DFW-SAN-DFW-SAN-DFW
N542UW (LUS 321) - since 6/19 has flown MIA-PHX-CLT-LAS-CLT-MCO-DFW-LAS-CLT-BOS-PHL-MCO-PHX-SAN-DFW-SEA
LAA generally "bounces" planes back and forth from the same hub whereas LUS planes seem to "dance" around the network serving multiple hubs in a short period of time. It seems clear to me that LAA and LUS have different strategies for routing planes. Which of these strategies do you think will survive once the metal and FA's are completely integrated? Also, when will the metal and FA's be fully integrated? I must also add that I appreciate the consistency from the LUS crew - it's not the most polished or friendly, but it's consistent, and they seem to follow company policies and standards more consistently than LAA (such as PDBs and free alcohol in MCE).
One of the differences I've noticed is how LAA routes their planes vs LUS. I'll use a 32B vs a 321 as an example:
N929AA (LAA 32B) - since 6/19 has flown DFW-ORD-LAX-BOS-DFW-LAS-DFW-SMF-DFW-SEA-DFW-SAN-DFW-SAN-DFW
N542UW (LUS 321) - since 6/19 has flown MIA-PHX-CLT-LAS-CLT-MCO-DFW-LAS-CLT-BOS-PHL-MCO-PHX-SAN-DFW-SEA
LAA generally "bounces" planes back and forth from the same hub whereas LUS planes seem to "dance" around the network serving multiple hubs in a short period of time. It seems clear to me that LAA and LUS have different strategies for routing planes. Which of these strategies do you think will survive once the metal and FA's are completely integrated? Also, when will the metal and FA's be fully integrated? I must also add that I appreciate the consistency from the LUS crew - it's not the most polished or friendly, but it's consistent, and they seem to follow company policies and standards more consistently than LAA (such as PDBs and free alcohol in MCE).
Jun 22, 2018, 1:53 pm
#2
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: DL GM, AA PLAT, Hilton Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 256
That’s actually a great question.
I suppose we’ll begin to find out the answer in October when FOI is completed and LAA/LUS truly become one airline, with all assets (including people) able to drift around the entire system.
I suppose we’ll begin to find out the answer in October when FOI is completed and LAA/LUS truly become one airline, with all assets (including people) able to drift around the entire system.
Jun 22, 2018, 2:19 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Because I live in Dallas, I have flown exclusively on AA for many years. As such, the one-off LUS flights I take interest me because it's almost like flying another airline.
One of the differences I've noticed is how LAA routes their planes vs LUS. I'll use a 32B vs a 321 as an example:
N929AA (LAA 32B) - since 6/19 has flown DFW-ORD-LAX-BOS-DFW-LAS-DFW-SMF-DFW-SEA-DFW-SAN-DFW-SAN-DFW
N542UW (LUS 321) - since 6/19 has flown MIA-PHX-CLT-LAS-CLT-MCO-DFW-LAS-CLT-BOS-PHL-MCO-PHX-SAN-DFW-SEA
LAA generally "bounces" planes back and forth from the same hub whereas LUS planes seem to "dance" around the network serving multiple hubs in a short period of time. It seems clear to me that LAA and LUS have different strategies for routing planes. Which of these strategies do you think will survive once the metal and FA's are completely integrated? Also, when will the metal and FA's be fully integrated? I must also add that I appreciate the consistency from the LUS crew - it's not the most polished or friendly, but it's consistent, and they seem to follow company policies and standards more consistently than LAA (such as PDBs and free alcohol in MCE).
One of the differences I've noticed is how LAA routes their planes vs LUS. I'll use a 32B vs a 321 as an example:
N929AA (LAA 32B) - since 6/19 has flown DFW-ORD-LAX-BOS-DFW-LAS-DFW-SMF-DFW-SEA-DFW-SAN-DFW-SAN-DFW
N542UW (LUS 321) - since 6/19 has flown MIA-PHX-CLT-LAS-CLT-MCO-DFW-LAS-CLT-BOS-PHL-MCO-PHX-SAN-DFW-SEA
LAA generally "bounces" planes back and forth from the same hub whereas LUS planes seem to "dance" around the network serving multiple hubs in a short period of time. It seems clear to me that LAA and LUS have different strategies for routing planes. Which of these strategies do you think will survive once the metal and FA's are completely integrated? Also, when will the metal and FA's be fully integrated? I must also add that I appreciate the consistency from the LUS crew - it's not the most polished or friendly, but it's consistent, and they seem to follow company policies and standards more consistently than LAA (such as PDBs and free alcohol in MCE).
I seem to always be on LUS aircraft. (No power
)
Last edited by mvoight; Jun 22, 2018 at 2:30 pm
Jun 22, 2018, 2:21 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2017
Programs: AAdvantage
Posts: 158
Why has it taken nearly 5 years to integrate planes and personnel into one network? This may be a silly question because I’m not sure what goes on “behind the scenes,” but it seems like this should have happened awhile ago.
I’m always interested to know what planes go where and why. For example, some LAA routes are using LUS equipment already (take DFW-ATL on an A320, for example), but what purpose does that serve? So I wonder if we’ll see a whole bunch of cross-fleeting later this year, or it it’ll be pretty much the same as now.
I’m always interested to know what planes go where and why. For example, some LAA routes are using LUS equipment already (take DFW-ATL on an A320, for example), but what purpose does that serve? So I wonder if we’ll see a whole bunch of cross-fleeting later this year, or it it’ll be pretty much the same as now.
Jun 22, 2018, 3:23 pm
#7
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AA EP, Hilton Diamond, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 636
Why has it taken nearly 5 years to integrate planes and personnel into one network? This may be a silly question because I’m not sure what goes on “behind the scenes,” but it seems like this should have happened awhile ago.
I’m always interested to know what planes go where and why. For example, some LAA routes are using LUS equipment already (take DFW-ATL on an A320, for example), but what purpose does that serve? So I wonder if we’ll see a whole bunch of cross-fleeting later this year, or it it’ll be pretty much the same as now.
I’m always interested to know what planes go where and why. For example, some LAA routes are using LUS equipment already (take DFW-ATL on an A320, for example), but what purpose does that serve? So I wonder if we’ll see a whole bunch of cross-fleeting later this year, or it it’ll be pretty much the same as now.
Jun 22, 2018, 3:24 pm
#8
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: YYJ
Posts: 4,137
To some extent, it will continue to be most efficient to keep things separate.
Eg, crew bases will revolve around the hubs. And it makes sense to keep fleet types spread over as few hubs as possible.
This is more efficient because it requires fewer parts stores per fleet. Eg if 332s are based only at two airports, then they only need two sets of parts inventory.
Consequently, pilots certified on those aircraft will also only fly from those bases, etc.
Eg, crew bases will revolve around the hubs. And it makes sense to keep fleet types spread over as few hubs as possible.
This is more efficient because it requires fewer parts stores per fleet. Eg if 332s are based only at two airports, then they only need two sets of parts inventory.
Consequently, pilots certified on those aircraft will also only fly from those bases, etc.
Jun 22, 2018, 3:39 pm
#9
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
Why has it taken nearly 5 years to integrate planes and personnel into one network? This may be a silly question because I’m not sure what goes on “behind the scenes,” but it seems like this should have happened awhile ago.
I’m always interested to know what planes go where and why. For example, some LAA routes are using LUS equipment already (take DFW-ATL on an A320, for example), but what purpose does that serve? So I wonder if we’ll see a whole bunch of cross-fleeting later this year, or it it’ll be pretty much the same as now.
I’m always interested to know what planes go where and why. For example, some LAA routes are using LUS equipment already (take DFW-ATL on an A320, for example), but what purpose does that serve? So I wonder if we’ll see a whole bunch of cross-fleeting later this year, or it it’ll be pretty much the same as now.
So while an LAA A321 might (or might not) have an identical cockpit to a LUS A321, the FAA has approved slightly different procedures for each airline. Until the FAA approves those procedures and the crews are trained on the integrated procedure, they really can't integrate crews. You wouldn't want a FO and a Captain following different procedures during an emergency descent!
Having approved procedures is one reason why ancient airlines still operate aircraft. For example, that's why Piedmont, Midwest Express, PSA are still "airlines" operating aircraft. It's easier to approval to implement procedures for a new aircraft at an existing airline than to get the certificate and procedure approved for a new airline.
Jun 22, 2018, 6:00 pm
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas
Programs: AA Executive Platinum
Posts: 591
Among other things, an airline has procedures that are approved by the FAA. Those procedures go into great detail, ranging from weight and balance to procedures to emergency procedures. Changing those procedures requires approval by the FAA, which is horribly backlogged. So, LUS and LAA each have their own procedures and their crews are trained to those procedures.
So while an LAA A321 might (or might not) have an identical cockpit to a LUS A321, the FAA has approved slightly different procedures for each airline. Until the FAA approves those procedures and the crews are trained on the integrated procedure, they really can't integrate crews. You wouldn't want a FO and a Captain following different procedures during an emergency descent!
Having approved procedures is one reason why ancient airlines still operate aircraft. For example, that's why Piedmont, Midwest Express, PSA are still "airlines" operating aircraft. It's easier to approval to implement procedures for a new aircraft at an existing airline than to get the certificate and procedure approved for a new airline.
So while an LAA A321 might (or might not) have an identical cockpit to a LUS A321, the FAA has approved slightly different procedures for each airline. Until the FAA approves those procedures and the crews are trained on the integrated procedure, they really can't integrate crews. You wouldn't want a FO and a Captain following different procedures during an emergency descent!
Having approved procedures is one reason why ancient airlines still operate aircraft. For example, that's why Piedmont, Midwest Express, PSA are still "airlines" operating aircraft. It's easier to approval to implement procedures for a new aircraft at an existing airline than to get the certificate and procedure approved for a new airline.
Jun 22, 2018, 6:46 pm
#12
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 210
And Piedmont and PSA are airlines, not "airlines". Just like any other wholly-owned subsidiary regional airlines out there.
Jun 22, 2018, 8:19 pm
#13
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
And yes, Piedmont is an airline ... but you can't by tickets on that "airline" and no one knows them. I could be wrong about Midwest Express. I think Republic still is using their operating certificate but maybe they gave it up in bankruptcy.
Jun 23, 2018, 6:29 am
#14
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: USA
Programs: Chase Sapphire Reserve, WFBF
Posts: 1,573
That's not correct. Pilots have an integrated seniority list but cockpit crews are not integrated. Pilots can bid larger aircraft but not aircraft in the same category. I suppose a PHX based LUS A319 pilot could bid on a DFW based LAA A321, go through training and be qualified on that aircraft and fly with a LAA A321 pilot. Otherwise, it is my understanding that LAA and LUS pilots are not sharing cockpits unless they have qualified in that aircraft.
Jun 23, 2018, 6:45 am
#15
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: USA
Programs: Chase Sapphire Reserve, WFBF
Posts: 1,573
This is just speculation, but prior to the merger US had a very simple fleet. With the exception of widebody flying and a very small number of E90s that mostly served the northeast shuttle routes, everything else was the A32X series. Therefore every LUS hub has an A32X crew base, A32X pilots on reserve, and A32X spares available to substitute. This makes it "safe" to construct routes that cut through several hubs rather than returning to the same hub.
On the other hand LAA has a more complicated fleet and hub structure and they do not have a crew base for every type at every hub, which may necessitate forcing the plane back to the same hub every so many segments, either because of a scheduled crew change (trip start/end) or because they don't want to have the plane stuck at a hub that has no reserve pilots that can fly the plane (in case a crew times out, for instance). The 321 is a relatively new type for LAA and from the OP's example it seems that this particular plane is only staffed out of the DFW base.
Of course having the ability to "dance around the system" as the OP puts it is better because it gives the route planners more flexibility (they always have the option to return the plane to the same hub but they don't have to if there's a more efficient routing).
On the other hand LAA has a more complicated fleet and hub structure and they do not have a crew base for every type at every hub, which may necessitate forcing the plane back to the same hub every so many segments, either because of a scheduled crew change (trip start/end) or because they don't want to have the plane stuck at a hub that has no reserve pilots that can fly the plane (in case a crew times out, for instance). The 321 is a relatively new type for LAA and from the OP's example it seems that this particular plane is only staffed out of the DFW base.
Of course having the ability to "dance around the system" as the OP puts it is better because it gives the route planners more flexibility (they always have the option to return the plane to the same hub but they don't have to if there's a more efficient routing).