American Eagle changes at LAX

Lots of you guys caught the appearance of SkyWest in American Eagle colors last week. I haven't yet taken any better shots, so here's the other side of that plane:

As several of you mentioned in the comments, AMR, the parent company of American Airlines and American Eagle Airlines, has chosen to use 50-seat SkyWest CRJ200s at LAX in place of the 44-seat American Eagle E140s. The larger American Eagle CRJ700s will continue to be operated by American Eagle Airlines. The American Eagle Airlines crew base at LAX will also be closed at the end of the month; American Eagle CRJ7s will have crews from the Chicago base. These changes have been brought about, at least in part, by a bankruptcy judge throwing out an American Airlines pilot contract provision that limited American's use of regional jets.

Following this story is made more complicated by the fact that "American Eagle" is the brand name for American Airlines' commuter/feeder service as well as the company name for the AMR-owned regional airline that has been providing most of that service. American Eagle Airlines (callsign: Eagle Flight) is expected to adopt a new company name next year, which may make it a bit easier to keep track. In the future, American Eagle will be the marketing brand for American's regional feeder service, regardless of which contractor is providing the service (be it Eagle Flight, SkyWest, Mesa, etc.)

AMR has moved the E140s to DFW; we saw a number of them ferried out late the eve of the change-over on November 14th. These shots are of the last before-dark E140 arrival at LAX:

An unexpected discovery was the white tail on this E140. Shots taken on November 14th - the last day of American Eagle E140 operations at LAX

Here are a couple of better E140 shots, taken a few weeks earlier:

References:

AINonline:  SkyWest to fly as American Eagle

Dallas Morning News:  SkyWest signs on with American Airlines

Dallas Morning News:  Garton talks about SkyWest

Flight Global Airline Business blog:  SkyWest's quiet takeover of LAX

 

Where can we go from here: State Capitals

Time for the oft-promised and delayed continuation of the "Where can we go from here" series. This time, I'm going to take a look at who goes to which of the state capital cities. Service to the state capitals is hampered by the fact that many states' capitals are not located in one of their larger cities. In fact, some of them are in cities which are for the most part unknown to non-residents. As examples, I'll cite Frankfurt, Kentucky; Jefferson City, Missouri; and Carson City, Nevada. Shockingly, there is no direct service from LAX to any of these. In fact, this has almost become a study of "Where we can't go from here: State Capitals"; of the fifty state capitals, only thirteen can be reached non-stop from LAX.

Phoenix, Arizona, is one of the better-served state capitals. Southwest, United, and US Air (nee America West) all operate regular flights to and from Phoenix. The United and US Air flights are often flown by their regional partner airlines, Skywest and Mesa, respectively. The US Air service was flown by America West prior to their merger earlier this year. The flight usually runs just under an hour. Because Phoenix is so close nearby (in jet terms) and pretty busy (it's a US Air hub, and Southwest has a strong presence there too), there is often a flow control program for aircraft going there: we have to call and get a "wheels up" time for each of our Phoenix departures to ensure that there's a hole in the line for them. This rarely delays them more than fifteen minutes (and there's an incentive for us to keep the delays at less than fifteen minutes: beyond that they become 'countable' delays).
A pair of Mesa (callsign: Air Shuttle) CRJ's. Above is a CRJ-900 at gate 10 next to a B737-300. Below, a CRJ-200 pulls into gate 6 with an A321 next door.

Sacramento, California, currently home of the "governator", is also about an hour away, but there's never any difficulty with traffic restrictions. Skywest flies the route for United, using CRJ's. Southwest also goes into Sacramento from LA. You'll see Skywest RJ's later on.

Denver, Colorado, gets great service from LAX: We have four airlines that go there on a regular basis. Frontier and United both operate hubs in Denver; I've seen just about every type United operates on this route. At the moment, Denver is the only direct destination for Frontier out of LA. American and Southwest also offer service into Denver. Flight time runs 1:45 to two hours.

Atlanta, Georgia, being the busiest airport in the country, not to mention the home of Delta, gets regular service from LA. Besides Delta, AirTran also flies from here to their hub in Atlanta. Flight times are four hours or a little less. Delta has run nearly everything on this route, but AirTran only uses their B737's; I don't think the B717's have enough range and payload to make it worthwhile. When AirTran first started flying into LAX all they had were the B717's, and they went from here to DFW. The non-stop to Atlanta came later, when they got their B737's. For a short time, until they got the 737's, AirTran contracted with Ryan Air to fly the route for them, using Airbus A320's. I wish I'd gotten a picture of one of those, since they've long since gone elsewhere and been repainted.

Honolulu, Hawaii, is served by the widest range of airlines from LA: Six different airlines fly this route, and each of them a couple of times a day. American, Continental, Delta, Hawaiian, Northwest, and United all currently use B757's and B767's. Not surprisingly, flight times are all about the same, at around five hours and fifteen minutes. I can remember when Hawaiian used DC10's and Amtran used Tristars, but no more.

After Honolulu, it's not nearly as exciting to talk about Boise, Idaho. It's not as exciting to go there either: From LAX, you've a choice of Horizon's Dash 8's or Skywest's CRJ-200's. Horizon flies for Alaska out of LAX, and their flight time for this route is right around two hours. The Skywest CRJ's fly for United, and they're about twenty minutes quicker.

Indianapolis, Indiana, gets passenger service from Northwest and cargo service from Fedex. Either way, the flight takes about three and a half hours. During the summer a couple of other airlines also went from here to Indy; maybe again next summer? We can only hope.

Boston, Massachusetts, my mother's home town, gets several flights a day via American and United. Flight times hover around five hours. Boeings predominate on this route, although I have seen United slip in an Airbus from time to time.

A pair of heavy Boeings: An American B767-200 and a United B767-300.

Although it's not easy to see, the -300 is longer; compare the distance from the nose wheel to the wing root.

St. Paul, Minnesota, gets regular service thanks to sharing the airport with its neighbor Minneapolis. Northwest has their big hub there, and I've seen them use short Airbuses, B747's, and everything in between. Sun Country also goes from here to MSP, using B737's. Flights run around three hours, give or take.

United offers service into Oklahoma City's Will Rogers World Airport using Skywest CRJ-700's. Flight time is about two and a half hours. Come to think of it, I haven't noticed this flight go out within the last week or two, but I'm including it here anyway.

Nashville, Tennessee, is served by both American and Southwest. Both use B737's and have flight times around three and a half hours. Amazingly, I don't seem to have a picture of SWA and AAL B737's together; gotta work on that.

Austin, Texas, gets flights from American, Southwest, and United. American uses MD80's while Skywest operates CRJ-700's for United. Flights run about two and a half hours.

Salt Lake City, Utah, is a Delta hub, but also gets service from Southwest and United. Skywest flies the United flights using CRJ-200's and CRJ-700's. Oddly enough, Skywest also operates Delta Connection flights to SLC out of LAX. This creates the paradox of having two Skywest flights with different parent airlines' paint schemes going to the same place at about the same time. New ground controllers at LAX sometimes get surprised by the Skywest that doesn't park where all the other Skywests do. After a couple of times they figure it out (usually) because the flights operating for Delta, besides being painted in Delta colors, also have a different range of flight numbers (the Delta Skywests are usually in the 4000's, while the United Skywests are usually 5000's and 6000's. Usually). Another clue is that the Delta Skywest is often in a CRJ-900; Skywest doesn't operate -900's for United at LAX.

It figures - after all that blah about the Delta Skywests often being CRJ-900's, all I have is a picture of one that's in a -700. The -900 is longer, and can be identified by the two emergency exits over the wing; the -700 only has one; check the -900 in the first Phoenix photo above.

As I mentioned in the opening, this has become just as much a study of where you can't go from here: I counted eighteen states that receive no direct flights from LA at all. I'm not going to make a list of them here; I've been trying to avoid this whole topic becoming one great big list. A US map showing the affected states would've been nice, but the idea just occurred to me and it's already taken a week to put this together. For that same reason, most of the photos will have to go without captions - just imagine that each one has its own pithy remarks. For added interest, you can read this entry again tomorrow and imagine new pithy remarks!

Where can we go from here: Props versus jets

Last time I discussed a few of the various destinations for flights out of LAX. This time we'll continue that theme with a look at destinations served by both jets and turboprops. As you might imagine, there are not that many places that have such dual service. JFK, for instance, currently does not have any scheduled turboprop service from LAX. All of these are cities served by one or more of the regional airlines operating at LAX: American Eagle (callsign: Eagle Flight), for American; Horizon, for Alaska; and Skywest, for United (primarily).

Boise, Idaho, can be reached from LA via Horizon's Dash 8, seen here in the foreground, or via Skywest's CRJ-200, in the background. The CRJ, while somewhat faster, also has less seating capacity: 50, versus around 70 for the Dash 8. Ironically, although they have different brand names (Canadair builds the CRJ's and de Havilland the Dash 8, which is officially the DHC-8), they're both built by the same parent company, Bombardier Aerospace of Canada, who also owns Learjet. Bombardier is better known to most Americans as the builder of Ski-Doo snowmobiles; producing snowcats and snowmobiles was how the company got its start in the 1930's. Just as the CRJ series was an outgrowth of the Challenger CL-60 business jet, the Dash 8 was a descendant of the Dash 7, which was in turn preceded by the de Havilland DHC-2 Twin Otter. Bombardier actually calls the turboprop the Q400, but you'll never hear pilots or controllers refer to it that way. The flight plan times are about 1:35 for the Skywest CRJ and 2 hours for the Horizon Dash 8. At LAX, the Horizon gates are a good deal closer to the preferred departure runway than are Skywest's.

Monterey, California, is another destination with turboprop and jet service from LA. In this case, American Eagle E135's and Skywest E120 Brasilias. Both of these aircraft are built by Brazil's Embraer, which has made itself a major player in the regional airliner market. The ERJ series is itself a development of the E120. The E135 is the smallest of the ERJ's, with a seating capacity of about three dozen; the Brasilia seats thirty. The jet is less than 15 minutes faster to Monterey than the turboprop; flight plan times are about 50 minutes and 1:04, respectively.


Another destination that offers a choice of jet or turboprop service also offers an additional choice of carrier: Reno, Nevada, can be reached from LAX via Horizon Dash 8, Skywest CRJ, or Southwest B737. The Skywest flight seems to be the shortest, by a whopping one minute. The CRJ's and 737's average just under an hour, while the Dash 8 takes about an hour and ten minutes.

San Diego and San Luis Obispo, California, offer not just a choice of jets or turboprops, but different models of turboprops as well. Skywest uses the Brasilia for these routes, but American Eagle uses E135's and Saab Fairchild 340's. Flight plan time for the Brasilia is about 25 minutes to San Diego. The jet is only a minute faster, but the Saab is about five minutes slower. I've mentioned before that the SF34 is the doggiest of all the aircraft regularly operating at LAX, and we controllers were encouraged by rumors that the Saabs were going to be phased out. If so, it hasn't happened yet (sigh). The E135 flight plans about a half hour to San Luis Obispo, the Brasilia about five or six minutes more. The Saab needs about forty-five minutes for the same flight.

On all of these routes, the jets are slightly faster, but what's not reflected is the greater fuel and maintenance requirements. That stuff doesn't show up in the flight plans, so I wasn't able to figure it in. Turboprops are generally more fuel efficient than jets, however, and don't have to climb as high to achieve efficiency. This plays in their favor, especially on short routes, as the airspace congestion in southern California often means that certain routes are held to pre-designated altitudes, regardless of what altitude the pilot files for. For instance, the San Diego flights are capped at nine thousand for the turboprops and eleven thousand for the jets. Below ten thousand, all aircraft are limited to 250 knots, and on these shorter routes there's just not much chance for the jets to go any faster.

On the other hand, the flying public has a definite preference for jets, even little ones, over prop-driven aircraft. The perception is that the prop aircraft are smaller, slower, bumpier, noisier, and more dangerous than the jets. I don't have any factual information to hand on whether any of these is in fact the case . . . but then neither does the flying public.

Too close for comfort

Okay, as promised, today's entry has no discussion of the presidential campaigns. Instead, I'll talk about near midairs - as in 'near mid-air collisions'. The government, and aviation particularly, has abbreviations and acronyms for everything; we know these as "NMAC's". The definition of an NMAC is when there is a collision hazard between aircraft with a proximity of less than 500 feet. As an air traffic controller, let me be clear that this is not normal operating practice. As a rule, we aim for at least 500 feet vertical clearance between aircraft in visual conditions; most instrument operations will have 1000 feet vertical separation. That's vertical; lateral separation is measured in miles, and three miles is the normal minimum. Various factors can push that up to five miles or more.

The impetus for this discussion is a near-midair that took place earlier today, involving a couple of regional jets (another acronym: we call these "RJ's") near Pittsburgh. The news reports that I've seen state that the aircraft came within 400 feet of one another after a controller-in-training turned one toward the other. See these articles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23500974/
http://www.aviationtoday.com/categories/commercial/19979.html

At this writing, that is the sum total of my information about this incident; I haven't any inside scoop to share (sorry). I can, however, give you a picture of a pair of RJ's:


The aircraft involved in today's incident were very similar to these, except that the smaller of the two was USAir, not United as seen here.

How did this happen? Not being there and not having seen/heard the replay, I don't know. I won't waste your time trying to speculate, but will mention that training was in progress. On-the-job training (OJT) is a fact of life for an air traffic controller. When you start, it takes a couple of years' worth of training before you reach journeyman status, what we refer to as 'FPL' -Full Performance Level. Actually, although we still use it everyday, that's now an obsolete term, having been supplanted by 'CPC' - Certified Professional Controller. Any time a controller moves to a new facility, the training begins again. Not because the rules are different - they're not - but because each airport is different. Just like when you move from one city to another, you have to learn new roads and travel routes. When you're not in training, there's a good chance you'll be tasked with training someone else. I've personally had trainees nearly everywhere I've ever worked, and in fact have one currently. When training is taking place, the trainee and instructor are plugged in together at the position; the instructor can see and hear everything the trainee sees and hears. Actually, quite often the instructor, by virtue of experience, can see and hear things that the trainee doesn't see or hear - yet. The instructor also has the ability to override the trainee on the radio, thus correcting things before they get out of hand. So, why did the instructor allow this to happen? Again, not having been there, I can't say. I will comment that there are times the instructor has his attention on some other situation, or is involved in sorting out some other problem while the trainee keeps working.

What 'saved' these airplanes? As mentioned in one of the referenced articles, on-board equipment warned the pilots. This system, known as "TCAS", for Traffic Collision Avoidance System, has been mandated in all airliners for about the last decade, and has also spread to many of the freight and corporate operators. The system in each aircraft is able to 'see' and track nearby aircraft, and warn the pilots if another aircraft is likely to be a hazard. In addition, the system can communicate with systems in nearby aircraft to coordinate evasive maneuvers, if necessary. When the pilots receive a Resolution Advisory ('RA'), they are to follow the system's indications. All of this happens exclusive of air traffic control radar or instructions; that's apparently what happened today.

I've been asked by various people if the air traffic system is really as stressed as they've recently heard in the news. Simply put, the answer is yes. Is it dangerous? Sadly, on occasion, again the answer is yes. It offends my professional pride to have to admit this, but it's true. Right now, there is a big turnover taking place in the controller workforce, as many of the controllers now on the job are either eligible for retirement or soon will be. After several years of denying that there was an impending problem, the FAA is finally hiring new controllers in number. Unfortunately, they all have to be trained, a process that can take a couple of years. And not all of them make it through the training: let's face it, not just anyone can make it as an air traffic controller, despite our best efforts.

All that said, this country still has the best air traffic system in the world. Period. Virtually every plane makes it safely to its destination every day. On some days, there's nothing to report anywhere. Most of the things that do happen aren't dangerous, they're just violations of the standards that controllers are held to. These standards are there to keep planes safe, and violations are taken seriously even if nobody else notices. Unfortunately, today's incident was the exception.

I could go on, but it's midnight and I wanna go home. More later.
CV