Time to WB CA
 

Nothing more than a random thought, what would projections for a guy or gal hired in the next year timeline be to hold WB CA? Somebody may have guessed before, can’t remember.

With group 3 wide bodies going away in the near future I would think it will be a very long time.

With The number of new 787s on order wouldn't that more than make up for the 767s being parked?

I wouldn’t even count group 3 as widebody. I mean technically it is but pay wise it only pays $15 more than group 2 when group 4 pays $60/hr more.

I agree.

To the OP, I don’t know a time frame, I’d guess for guys hired in 2014 it’ll be about 2030 to be bottom of the barrel G4 CA in JFK. For our newest hire maybe 2036 to 2037. So maybe 16 to 17 years. Then I think that number will start to rise just based on the limited number of G4 CA jobs at the company vs the number of young new hires.

The 787 replacing the 767 will reduce the number somewhat, but as our new hire age drops, that doesn’t bode well for future new hires in terms of wide body Captain.

Been here about 18 months, got about 15yr to WB CA.

Seeing most of the pilots waited 16+ for NB CAP/WB FO I would not call 16 years"forever".

I never said that. I know ill never be a wb ca, could care less.

Was more or less replying to the whole thread, guess should have quoted, and answered more clearly.

Total widebody jobs will decrease significantly at AA. Total Group 4 jobs will increase. A321s are replacing a portion of the 767s and some of the 787s are slated to replace older 777s.

Unless we make another big widebody order the numbers don’t add up. Considering the balance sheet another order seems unlikely. Not to mention we can’t seem to operate a reliable international schedule and we run from any routes with real competition. Standby for more domestic widebody flying.

I think they’ve proved the opposite.

Our wide body flying is way more seasonal than the other guys, look for us to jv our most wide body flying in the future to BA, qantas and China southern. Our management has failed us and we may not be able to recover. We can’t make money in Asia, don’t go to Africa at all, Israel, etc. What a shame for “the world’s largest airline.” I hope I’m wrong, but our product is complete **** right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

there are enough 787s on order to replace every 767 and a330-300 and still replace about 15 772s, assuming a 1 for 1 swap. it has been interesting they were leaving ORD-Asia but i would guess they are gonna put the planes where they make money. the a321s are replacing 757s not 767s

ORD-ASIA will return.

i hope so. seems like it was a temporary withdrawal due to being able to make more money with those planes elsewhere

20% of the flying on the DFW 787 is domestic, think about that. As more 787 come online, I think you will see more and more of them doing high load, and seasonal, domestic flying. It is so efficient that using it on some routes over the 321 might be advantageous considering CASM vs RASM.

Why the company is pulling down high load routes, like PHX-DFW is mind boggling. They went from almost all 321’s (with a segment or 2 using CRJ’s in peak time..ex.510am departure (321), 540am (CRJ)) with a minimum of 187 seats, to 321’s mixed in with 150 seat planes like the 737 and 320, but also have the 757 from time to time. The loads are outrageous on those flights at almost all times of the day, everyday. They could easily fill a 321nx on that route almost everyday, and I bet one 787-8 mixed in would probably almost fill up too.

Maybe it’s full cause of training, but damn, I just did it today on a 320 and the list was unreal, even with revenue oversold. No weather/delays in sight at either location. Just too small of equipment on that route. I am sure they are doing it in other places, I just see it more often on that leg.

The 787 is not an efficient domestic airplane. IIRC anything under six hours on it and the 767-300 beats it for costs.

That is the reason the '797' is being developed. It's essentially a 787 in size but doesn't have the structure to carry all that fuel so is quite a bit lighter.

Honestly I think they are using it domestically right now because they don't have other routes for it. This China stuff will make it worse if we pull it off those.

My issue with the 787 is that it is very weight restrictive. My wife had twice use other airlines / equipment for international flying.

............

Yep!

Heard a rumor the 78 had to be replaced by the 77 out of NZ because of weight issues.

When did you hear this will come into play?

That's really surprising as it was designed for longer routes. Is there something special about New Zealand that makes it unsuitable? I really don't know much about our international operations.

It’s not weight, it’s volume....the 787 can’t carry nearly the freight that the 777 can

Well unless the guys wife is riding inside a box I'm not sure how that is relevant to her having to make alternative plans.

Sure but you are not counting all the group 3 aircraft that have already been parked since the merger. How many 767's and 757's have been parked and replaced with 321's? If you count the historical total group 3+4 aircraft of the combined US Airways and AA fleets at the merger I believe there is a significant drop. But total group 4 has increased. Win some lose some.

Our overall concern should be total jobs and profitability, not what type we have on property. IMO.

I vehemently disagree with that but it’s ok to have differing opinions. The whole point of scope is defining which aircraft need to be flown by mainline. My biggest concern is that 10 years from now our massive armada of narrowbody aircraft will be feeding the 777/380/350 fleets of QANTAS, BA, China Southern and LATAM.

It would be nice if APA spent some time and energy worrying about scope on the widebody side as well. Our JBV language is lacking in regards to dividing international growth flying.

By the way you shouldn’t be worrying about profitability. Parker gets $70 million for worrying about profitability. We should be worried about meeting and/or exceeding industry standard work rules and compensation.

Most guys have your opinion. They don't care about AA's profitability at all and their efforts at work show it. And they wonder why we aren't paid as well as Delta or United, or even SWA.

I don't care what I fly. If long haul loses money I want our JV partners to lose the money, not us. Wanting to fly big airplanes is just a form of SJS.

The more money the company makes the more we can be paid. If the company doesn't make money, over a long enough time period, we will cease to get paid at all.

A lot of JV stuff is compromise. The other countries want their share of the flying as well.

bingo, seems like common sense 101

Nonrevs get bumped for cargo. It’s an issue at United as well.

I think the rumor was SYD back to the 777.

Nearly half of Delta's revenue is from international ops. Nearly half of United's revenue is from International ops. AAL's percentage is 27%. Half of our major competitors. We are the largest airline in the world with a relatively small international footprint. Our profit margins are a fraction of United and Delta. Do you think those facts might be related?

We have a high cost structure and a cheap product. Delta and United are building true global networks and are able to command a revenue premium with the business travelers for a superior product. Meanwhile, Parker AA is busy announcing seasonal E175 service to random hamlets with no competition. Our results speak to the effectiveness of our business plan.

You work harder to make less money than your same seniority counter part at Delta or United.

This thread is about "time to WB CA". If enough people share your views on the importance of maintaining those jobs then time to WB CA will probably be more like 20+ years to never.

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.

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.

Which labor costs are you talking about? The pilots are near the bottom of the industry in total compensation. The mechanics will eventually work out a deal. It's not a cost issue. It's a revenue problem and lack of execution.

Ch 11 is not going to happen. It's ridiculous to even mention. $3 Billion profit even with an operation in shambles and people are talking bankruptcy. I think the pilots that went through the post 9/11 lost decade are similar to the generation that went through the Great Depression, always waiting for it to happen again next year.....

Great post history.

Very well said. It’s painful to watch Parker and his crew run this place like a domestic LCC. We will NEVER compete with Delta and United like this.

But but but what happened to the class- y / ic KDA statement?

Careful! It all comes down to clever accounting and political pull. Ask some of those LUS old timers about losing their pension.

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.

Looking back at the “KDA” mantra, I can’t tell if I find it hilarious or tragic... probably both.