Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : AA's big order


Farmlover
07-20-2011, 03:30 AM
AMR Corporation Announces Largest Aircraft Order in History With Boeing and Airbus - Jul 20, 2011 (http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3286)


Iowa Farm Boy
07-20-2011, 04:20 AM
The News Release to employees says this order will replace the MD-80, 757, and 767-200 fleets. I wonder how much net growth there is here?

shiftwork
07-20-2011, 04:24 AM
That is A LOT of airplanes....


Oldfreightdawg
07-20-2011, 04:35 AM
The News Release to employees says this order will replace the MD-80, 757, and 767-200 fleets. I wonder how much net growth there is here?

Current fleet count at AA:

767 = 73
757 = 124
S80 = 224

Total = 421

TXav8r13
07-20-2011, 04:37 AM
Current fleet count at AA:

767 = 73
757 = 124
S80 = 224

Total = 421

I think there are less than 73 767-200. They will prob keep the 300's.

dundem
07-20-2011, 04:54 AM
Go BIG or go home!!

l1011
07-20-2011, 05:13 AM
...........

Timbo
07-20-2011, 05:18 AM
What's the pay differential between AA's 767's, 757's and what the new 737/A320Neo will pay?

If you are already on the 767 and get "replaced" to a A320...that's not a good thing, is it?

LabDad
07-20-2011, 05:21 AM
Current fleet count at AA:

767 = 73
757 = 124
S80 = 224

Total = 421
AMR Corporation Announces Largest Aircraft Order in History With Boeing and Airbus - Jul 20, 2011 (http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3286)
"The financing fully covers the first 230 deliveries."
This may be a factor in what numbers to use.

UPTme
07-20-2011, 05:32 AM
So, basically anyone who goes to Eagle after the October cut-off is retarded. Copy.

acl65pilot
07-20-2011, 05:43 AM
Very Impressive, and it keeps both manufacturers in the game. The airlines know that they need to split orders to make sure both companies survive. It ultimately keeps the prices of these jets down.

BoilerUP
07-20-2011, 05:44 AM
Southwest couldn't convince Boeing to re-engine the 737, but AMR could?

Burn...

eaglefly
07-20-2011, 05:48 AM
Southwest couldn't convince Boeing to re-engine the 737, but AMR could?

Burn...

It's all about leverage. SWA didn't go over there with a tenative purchase order from the competition and isn't commited to one manufacturer the way SWA is.

They played it nicely, getting BOTH and thus can leverage against either for futre orders down the road. It would seem the BEST strategy is to have 2 fleet types for flexibilty and opposed to one, which may be cheaper, but makes you vulerable to that manufacturers knuckle and any problems they may have internally.

cfiguy11
07-20-2011, 05:49 AM
from another site....

* 100 737NG family beginning 2013

* 100 737RE family beginning 2017 - global launch customer

* 130 A320 family beginning 2013

* 130 A320NEO family beginning 2017 - U.S. launch customer

BoilerUP
07-20-2011, 05:53 AM
Airlines whipsawing airplane manufacturers, good
Airlines whipsawing pilot groups for flying, bad

YES I know there is a difference...but the contradiction is humorous nonetheless. Glad Boeing got a chance to compete, as 200 airframes ain't as good as 460 but its a hell of a lot better than zero.

Timbo
07-20-2011, 06:13 AM
A long time ago I had the (then) CEO of Delta Air Lines on the airplane, he came up to the cockpit to say Hi and I asked him about a fleet plan. He said if he could wave his majic wand there would be only 2 types at DAL; the 787 for international flying and the "new version" of a 737 for domestic flying. Well, the 787 is years behind, so nix to Plan A, and how's the "new version" 737 coming along?

This conversation took place about a year before DAL filed for bankruptcy. Since then we have seen a lot more code shares and Joint Ventures for our International flying, and the 787 order put off to 2020.

Coincidence?

Oh, and that New Version 737? Turns out it's really a used MD-90...

Anyone know what a new 787 is supposed to cost? I asked our Int. Chief Pilot about any new 777's and he said, "Nope, Boeing is charging $262 Million per, so we won't be getting any new ones any time soon!"

And then we signed another International Code Share agreement... There's your growth.

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 06:52 AM
A long time ago I had the (then) CEO of Delta Air Lines on the airplane, he came up to the cockpit to say Hi and I asked him about a fleet plan. He said if he could wave his majic wand there would be only 2 types at DAL; the 787 for international flying and the "new version" of a 737 for domestic flying. Well, the 787 is years behind, so nix to Plan A, and how's the "new version" 737 coming along?

This conversation took place about a year before DAL filed for bankruptcy. Since then we have seen a lot more code shares and Joint Ventures for our International flying, and the 787 order put off to 2020.

Coincidence?

Oh, and that New Version 737? Turns out it's really a used MD-90...

Anyone know what a new 787 is supposed to cost? I asked our Int. Chief Pilot about any new 777's and he said, "Nope, Boeing is charging $262 Million per, so we won't be getting any new ones any time soon!"

And then we signed another International Code Share agreement... There's your growth.

Outsource to anyone who has the money to fly it. If they have to they'll buy an airplane for mainline but it has to be a $10 million dollar MD90 that seats 160 passengers and burns the same amount of fuel as a 160 passenger $80M 738.

Otherwise Alaska, Republic, Compass/TSA, AF/KLM, Surely Jet is our fleet growth. And if they're ALPA or thinking about ALPA, we're supposed to be okay with that.

I will say that when the 744s hit the end of the road I think we'll be buying used 773s.

Oldfreightdawg
07-20-2011, 06:58 AM
From the company website:

The agreements with Boeing and Airbus will continue American's fleet simplification efforts, allowing American to transition four fleet types (MD-80, 737-800, 757 and 767-200) to two (the 737 and the A320 families, which offer significant commonality benefits within each family).

With a total of 465 options and purchase rights for additional aircraft from both manufacturers through 2025, these agreements give American the flexibility for replacement as well as growth opportunities under the right economic and financial conditions, with the ability to acquire up to 925 aircraft in total over 12 years.

ewrbasedpilot
07-20-2011, 07:03 AM
What ticks me off is that we are ordering all these FOREIGN airplanes, when people in OUR country need jobs. PATHETIC in my opinion. Then we complain about paying benefits to people without jobs while we're ensuring foreigners keep employed.

Oldfreightdawg
07-20-2011, 07:08 AM
What's the pay differential between AA's 767's, 757's and what the new 737/A320Neo will pay?

If you are already on the 767 and get "replaced" to a A320...that's not a good thing, is it?


Captain hourly rates:

767 = $179
757 = $173
737 = $166

Why the announcment says the aircraft are replacing the 767 is beyond me, because AA has orders for 42 787's with options for 58 more, plus another 20 or so 777-300's. My guess is the plan is to use the A321 to replace the 757 since they are similar in size, or 737-900.

There are no pay rates for Airbus, 777-300, or the 787. They must be negotiated with the APA before AA can fly them. Looks like APA just won a little leverage at the table.

l1011
07-20-2011, 07:08 AM
What ticks me off is that we are ordering all these FOREIGN airplanes, when people in OUR country need jobs. PATHETIC in my opinion. Then we complain about paying benefits to people without jobs while we're ensuring foreigners keep employed.


Very true, I feel the same way.

johnso29
07-20-2011, 07:15 AM
What ticks me off is that we are ordering all these FOREIGN airplanes, when people in OUR country need jobs. PATHETIC in my opinion. Then we complain about paying benefits to people without jobs while we're ensuring foreigners keep employed.

It's about the bottom line. Until Boeing decides to build someting to compete with the A320 NEO they will lose orders. The B737 & A320 NEO have different missions IMO.

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 07:17 AM
What ticks me off is that we are ordering all these FOREIGN airplanes, when people in OUR country need jobs. PATHETIC in my opinion. Then we complain about paying benefits to people without jobs while we're ensuring foreigners keep employed.

It'd been nice if MD hadn't screwed up so much and run itself aground and Boeing hadn't bought them up become the sole manufacturer and then lost its rudder and ran itself aground.

Nobody to blame but our own, and:

http://www.boeing.com/images/print_logo.jpg

After all, how many regional jets are there? 1021 CRJ200s, 584 CRJ700/900s, 888 ERJ-145s, 742 EJets... whats that over 3200 regional jets and how many are Boeings?

0.

I mean what's their answer to 2011 and beyond?

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/737-04.jpg

With a new wing, engines, fuselage plugs and avionics... except the overhead.

johnso29
07-20-2011, 07:19 AM
I mean what's their answer to 2011 and beyond?

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/737-04.jpg

With a new wing, avionics but same overhead, engines and fuselage plugs?

And that equals FAIL, which is why they continue to lose orders.

450knotOffice
07-20-2011, 07:20 AM
^^
Nicely Done, FTB. You nailed it.

Timbo
07-20-2011, 07:23 AM
Captain hourly rates:

767 = $179
757 = $173
737 = $166

Why the announcment says the aircraft are replacing the 767 is beyond me, because AA has orders for 42 787's with options for 58 more, plus another 20 or so 777-300's. My guess is the plan is to use the A321 to replace the 757 since they are similar in size, or 737-900.

There are no pay rates for Airbus, 777-300, or the 787. They must be negotiated with the APA before AA can fly them. Looks like APA just won a little leverage at the table.


Thanks for the info, and you will need that leverage if they dump all the 757's and replace them with A321's! Back when DAL was negotiating new pay rates for the (then) new 737-800's, which were 727 replacement airplanes, DALPA was able to use the "Productivity" arguement to bring the 737-800 rates up to very near the 757/767 rates ($10 less per hour I think).

DALPA said, "Look at all the money you will save with one less pilot per trip, and one less engine to feed..." etc. Now that nobody is flying 727's, it might be a harder sell to MGT, to get the A321 rate up to 757-767 teritory. Same holds true for the 787, if it is smaller than a 777, MGT will want to pay you less to fly it, obviously.

BoilerUP
07-20-2011, 07:24 AM
The B737 & A320 NEO have different missions IMO.

Why do you think that?

Also, Boeing *has* decided to "build something that will compete with A320 NEO" - American ordered 200 of them.

Sliceback
07-20-2011, 07:31 AM
Captain hourly rates:

767 = $179
757 = $173
737 = $166

Why the announcment says the aircraft are replacing the 767 is beyond me, because AA has orders for 42 787's with options for 58 more, plus another 20 or so 777-300's. My guess is the plan is to use the A321 to replace the 757 since they are similar in size, or 737-900.

There are no pay rates for Airbus, 777-300, or the 787. They must be negotiated with the APA before AA can fly them. Looks like APA just won a little leverage at the table.

The statement specifically stated they're to replace the 15 767-200's. Those birds are the oldest we have and used on the trans-cons. The oldest group(10?) avg 96,000 hrs and 18,000+ cycles. The younger group(5) avg 90,000 hrs.

The 787's will probably not be used on transcons.

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 07:53 AM
The 787's will probably not be used on transcons.

If it's the 788 it probably won't be used on either? Heard the 763s have better fuel numbers.

-------

I know this is anecdotal but at 6'5' and 245 lbs there aren't a whole lot of airplanes in coach that I want to sit in. The 737 and 757 to me are awful in coach. The 739 should be illegal just given the time to deplane from the last row (experienced that once) and I haven't tried the 753 but I haven't heard good things.

I've heard the Airbus is better but I haven't tried it. Personally, the only airplane I've flown in to date that is comfortable in coach no matter what seat you take was an E-Jet.

So it's possible to make a comfortable airplane. It's just Boeing doesn't offer it in the 737.

contrails
07-20-2011, 07:59 AM
The 739 should be illegal just given the time to deplane from the last row (experienced that once) and I haven't tried the 753 but I haven't heard good things.



Generally 12-14 minutes for me. :o

PurdueFlyer
07-20-2011, 07:59 AM
What about the 100 seat question? Hopefully there is a deal being struck to get those at AA!

Flightnurse
07-20-2011, 08:01 AM
What ticks me off is that we are ordering all these FOREIGN airplanes, when people in OUR country need jobs. PATHETIC in my opinion. Then we complain about paying benefits to people without jobs while we're ensuring foreigners keep employed.
The door swings both ways Boeing sells to many forgein airlines. In this global economy and with the cost of developement you cannot limit your market. BY expecting US airlines or other companies to buy only US made products you open it up for other counties to adopt the same attitude about their industries.

tsquare
07-20-2011, 08:07 AM
What's the pay differential between AA's 767's, 757's and what the new 737/A320Neo will pay?

If you are already on the 767 and get "replaced" to a A320...that's not a good thing, is it?

That is what I saw too... I see a lot of narrowbodies.. but nothing else.

Oldfreightdawg
07-20-2011, 08:18 AM
What about the 100 seat question? Hopefully there is a deal being struck to get those at AA!

Yes: that's what is missing in this announcement. However, details are yet to be released. The A320 "family" includes the 318, which is a 100 seat jet. So my guess is that is a possiblity. As far as I know, AA has not asked APA for scope relief that allows anything greater than 76 seat jets at commuters. Also, there could be something about allowing more 76 seat jets under a "commuter supplement", kind of like an airline within an airline in which new hires start there and move to the mainline over time. Again, JMHO.

Columbia
07-20-2011, 08:21 AM
What's the pay differential between AA's 767's, 757's and what the new 737/A320Neo will pay?

If you are already on the 767 and get "replaced" to a A320...that's not a good thing, is it?

Got LBP? ;)

Bucking Bar
07-20-2011, 08:56 AM
Generally 12-14 minutes for me. :oPerhaps, but I thought having your passengers go out the emergency exits and slides was considered a bad thing. :eek:

shfo
07-20-2011, 09:09 AM
If it's the 788 it probably won't be used on either? Heard the 763s have better fuel numbers.

-------

I know this is anecdotal but at 6'5' and 245 lbs there aren't a whole lot of airplanes in coach that I want to sit in. The 737 and 757 to me are awful in coach. The 739 should be illegal just given the time to deplane from the last row (experienced that once) and I haven't tried the 753 but I haven't heard good things.

I've heard the Airbus is better but I haven't tried it. Personally, the only airplane I've flown in to date that is comfortable in coach no matter what seat you take was an E-Jet.

So it's possible to make a comfortable airplane. It's just Boeing doesn't offer it in the 737.

I believe the 767 is the most comfortable plane to sit in coach. 6/7 of the seats are either a window or an isle. Those 767-200 transcons also did more than move premium passengers around they also hauled a lot of cargo which I don't think will be possible with a narrow body. There is also no real replacement for the 757. I don't know how they are going to go into those hot and high airports with either a 73 or Airbus. I don't understand why they would add a new fleet type for the same mission. Extra fleet types cost money for mx and training.

Blackbird
07-20-2011, 09:21 AM
Enter Content

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 09:35 AM
I believe the 767 is the most comfortable plane to sit in coach. 6/7 of the seats are either a window or an isle. Those 767-200 transcons also did more than move premium passengers around they also hauled a lot of cargo which I don't think will be possible with a narrow body. There is also no real replacement for the 757. I don't know how they are going to go into those hot and high airports with either a 73 or Airbus. I don't understand why they would add a new fleet type for the same mission. Extra fleet types cost money for mx and training.

That is comfortable, not the same as the E-Jet where you're guaranteed a good seat. But probably the best in mainline.

The 738 wouldn't be so bad if it was 2x3 seating.

aa73
07-20-2011, 10:00 AM
As Oldfreightdawg says, I believe our 100 seater will be the A318. No details yet, though.

And let's not forget - what's not mentioned is that they will not retire ALL 757s, only the ones flying Domestic. They will keep the ones flying Deep South out of MIA and the Transatlantic 757s. So they will probably park a little over half of the 757s, prob 70-80.

gloopy
07-20-2011, 10:03 AM
What ticks me off is that we are ordering all these FOREIGN airplanes, when people in OUR country need jobs. PATHETIC in my opinion. Then we complain about paying benefits to people without jobs while we're ensuring foreigners keep employed.

Does it also tick you off when Boeing sells metal at incredible prices and terms to foreign airlines that then start poaching US markets both directly and indirectly? What percentage of Airbus jobs (all jobs one way or the other, not just assembly line jobs) are in the US? Would you rather buy a Ford or GM car made in Canada or Mexico, or a Honda or BMW made in the USA?

gloopy
07-20-2011, 10:08 AM
there could be something about allowing more 76 seat jets under a "commuter supplement", kind of like an airline within an airline in which new hires start there and move to the mainline over time. Again, JMHO.

Oh, so after they divest Eagle, they could pioneer the concept of a wholly owned subsidiary regional feeder with a flow through agreement?

I smell executive bonuses!

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 10:11 AM
As Oldfreightdawg says, I believe our 100 seater will be the A318. No details yet, though.

And let's not forget - what's not mentioned is that they will not retire ALL 757s, only the ones flying Domestic. They will keep the ones flying Deep South out of MIA and the Transatlantic 757s. So they will probably park a little over half of the 757s, prob 70-80.

The A318 just hasn't sold very well and I'm not versed on the A318 but I'd guess there is a reason. Maybe shrunken too much til its not efficient? I don't know. Sure someone here does.

But wikipedia says 80 deliveries and a back log of 6 A318s since 2003. The A319 and A320 have 1300+ deliveries and 175 on back order and the A320 sits at 2600+ delivery and 2600+ backlog.

I kind of think the A319 is a better option. Sure it's not a 100 seater but something tells me you could send a A319 to a lot of places one would send a CRJ700 and 900 or E-Jet or E190.

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 10:13 AM
Oh, so after they divest Eagle, they could pioneer the concept of a wholly owned subsidiary regional feeder with a flow through agreement?

I smell executive bonuses!

Continental and Continental Express pioneered that.

Then CAL they created an IPO and then slashed it and whipsawed it into ASA's arms.

CFM56
07-20-2011, 10:18 AM
:eek: Wow, huge win for Airbus. At least Boeing didn't lose the whole order.

threeighteen
07-20-2011, 10:29 AM
If you are already on the 767 and get "replaced" to a A320...that's not a good thing, is it?

It's never good to be replaced to (or should I say, "by") an Airbus.

It's all about leverage. SWA didn't go over there with a tenative purchase order from the competition and isn't commited to one manufacturer the way SWA is.

They played it nicely, getting BOTH and thus can leverage against either for futre orders down the road. It would seem the BEST strategy is to have 2 fleet types for flexibilty and opposed to one, which may be cheaper, but makes you vulerable to that manufacturers knuckle and any problems they may have internally.

Doubt that's the case. What is more likely is that with all the options that they have, they plan to take the better plane and sell off all their other orders/deliveries for the others (most likely at a profit). Fuel hedging is out, airframe hedging is in people.

Airlines whipsawing airplane manufacturers, good

Any deal with Airbus is "bad" for pilots.

YES I know there is a difference...but the contradiction is humorous nonetheless. Glad Boeing got a chance to compete, as 200 airframes ain't as good as 460 but its a hell of a lot better than zero.

Look at the options and what I said above... This has airframe hedging written all over. However delivers the more efficient airplane sooner, will likely win the rest of the options and see AMR sell off the other type.

As Oldfreightdawg says, I believe our 100 seater will be the outsourced

fixed.

And let's not forget - what's not mentioned is that they will not retire ALL 757s, only the ones flying Domestic. They will keep the ones flying Deep South out of MIA and the Transatlantic 757s. So they will probably park a little over half of the 757s, prob 70-80.

Those 757s will probably see another 30 years of life though. The 757 is still more efficient than a 737-900 on many of the longer routes.

:eek: Wow, huge win for Airbus. At least Boeing didn't lose the whole order.

Again, look at the options and what I said above... This has airframe hedging written all over. However delivers the more efficient airplane sooner, will likely win the rest of the options and see AMR sell off the other type.

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 11:03 AM
What could've been...

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00014071.jpg

In 1978, Boeing's 7N7 studies concentrated on two variants: a 7N7-100 with seating for 160, and a 7N7-200 with capacity for over 180 seats.[8] The 7N7 studies retained the T-tail configuration of the 727 along with its single-aisle, narrow-body layout, while adding an advanced aft-loaded wing and new engines.[8] The narrow-body configuration was touted as offering the lowest fuel burn per passenger-kilometer of any jetliner.[5] On August 31, 1978, the 7N7 received its first airline commitments when British Airways and Eastern Air Lines announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft for the -200 version.[5] These orders were formally signed in March 1979, at which time Boeing formally designated its new twinjet as the 757.[8] The shorter -100 development, which failed to attract any orders, was dropped, with its role eventually taken by the 737-300 and 737-400.[9]

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 11:11 AM
See that's the thing. Airlines in the 70s wanted a replacement of the 727 and Boeing came up with the 757.

Airlines in the 90s want a replacement for the 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737. In the 2000s airlines want a replacement for the 757 and the 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737. In the 2010s airlines need replacements of the 757 and 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737.

I got a feeling in the 2020s airlines will want a replacement of the 757 and 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737. Broken record. What a funk.

New engines on the 737? I won't hold my breath. A Prius is supposed to get 50mpg and people that own them say 35. It'd been cheaper to own an Explorer.

Mink
07-20-2011, 11:13 AM
Sonic Cruiser, anyone?

1234
07-20-2011, 11:17 AM
Any deal with Airbus is "bad" for pilots.

.


Why is that?

1234
07-20-2011, 11:20 AM
The A318 just hasn't sold very well and I'm not versed on the A318 but I'd guess there is a reason. Maybe shrunken too much til its not efficient? I don't know..

You are correct. It is basically a 320/319 that is just not as long. Same gear, etc that add a lot of weight.

forgot to bid
07-20-2011, 11:25 AM
Why is that?

Because Airbuses are flawed and crash, Boeings don'.... disregard.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/local/737/response/tail_renton.jpg

A professor in my cousins college class at Univ of Tennessee wanted to have this high intellectual discussion about what is life? How do you know something is alive? Nobody was participating so he kept asking until one kid in a rather country voice replied "if you can kill it, it's alive."

If an airplane can take off, it can crash. If it's made by humans, it can be screwed up. I think most every airliner has had a fatal accident except off the top of my head I know neither the E-145 nor the E-Jets have. But those are new planes, we don't fly those. We prefer upgraded 1950-1970s designs. :rolleyes:

UnusualAttitude
07-20-2011, 11:41 AM
Because Airbuses are flawed and crash, Boeings don'.... disregard.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/local/737/response/tail_renton.jpg

I think most every airliner has had a fatal accident except off the top of my head I know neither the E-145 nor the E-Jets have. But those are new planes, we don't fly those. We prefer upgraded 1950-1970s designs. :rolleyes:

A Henan Airlines E-190 crashed in 2010 killing 42.

Mesabah
07-20-2011, 11:51 AM
See that's the thing. Airlines in the 70s wanted a replacement of the 727 and Boeing came up with the 757.

Airlines in the 90s want a replacement for the 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737. In the 2000s airlines want a replacement for the 757 and the 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737. In the 2010s airlines need replacements of the 757 and 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737.

I got a feeling in the 2020s airlines will want a replacement of the 757 and 737 and Boeing comes up with the 737. Broken record. What a funk.

New engines on the 737? I won't hold my breath. A Prius is supposed to get 50mpg and people that own them say 35. It'd been cheaper to own an Explorer.Yes sir, the 737 will be the future of aviation for a long time. Why? The infrastructure that plane has already is by far the most cost effective. Same with the A320.

RyanP
07-20-2011, 01:04 PM
I know this is anecdotal but at 6'5' and 245 lbs there aren't a whole lot of airplanes in coach that I want to sit in. The 737 and 757 to me are awful in coach. The 739 should be illegal just given the time to deplane from the last row (experienced that once) and I haven't tried the 753 but I haven't heard good things.

I've heard the Airbus is better but I haven't tried it. Personally, the only airplane I've flown in to date that is comfortable in coach no matter what seat you take was an E-Jet.

So it's possible to make a comfortable airplane. It's just Boeing doesn't offer it in the 737.

At 6'4".. I agree.. the 737 is absolutely horrid to ride in coach.. just plain miserable. The Airbus and big Embraer's are FAR more comfortable from a passenger perspective.. When commuting I always will choose the Airbus if I have the choice.

On the 737 I can't hardly even open a Laptop screen with the seat reclined in front of me. It has to be tipped forward or nearly in my lap. It's a joke how close the seats are.

TQ Nola
07-20-2011, 01:09 PM
New engines on the 737? I won't hold my breath. A Prius is supposed to get 50mpg and people that own them say 35. It'd been cheaper to own an Explorer.

My wife gets 51 on her Prius.

TQ Nola
07-20-2011, 01:20 PM
On the 737 I can't hardly even open a Laptop screen with the seat reclined in front of me. It has to be tipped forward or nearly in my lap. It's a joke how close the seats are.

That's a function of seat pitch, an airline choice. MRTC on AA planes (including 737s) in the early '00s gave one plenty of laptop room. Only problem is nobody was willing to pay an extra buck for comfort, so it went away.

While I haven't flown coach in an airbus recently, I can't imagine that any difference you've found AFA seat pitch/recline is an airbus/boeing quality, but rather an airline to airline difference.

That said, Airbus usually gives you about an inch wider seat owing to a wider fuselage, which may not sound like much, but is.

gloopy
07-20-2011, 01:28 PM
Sonic Cruiser, anyone?

LOL inorite! What a flop that lame concept was. Total ownership/operating cost especially fuel burn is way more important than going .9X instead of .8X (or even .7X).

gloopy
07-20-2011, 01:29 PM
You are correct. It is basically a 320/319 that is just not as long. Same gear, etc that add a lot of weight.

And actually a unique and larger tail because the 19/20 tail couldn't generate enough smash for realistic v1/Vmcg issues.

Columbia
07-20-2011, 02:04 PM
A Henan Airlines E-190 crashed in 2010 killing 42.

Yes, but this accident was due to CFIT.


Early in the investigation, the qualifications of the pilot were focused on, as it emerged that upwards of a hundred pilots flying for Shenzhen Airlines, Henan Airlines' parent company, had falsified their claims of flying experience.[21]

Columbia
07-20-2011, 02:06 PM
My wife gets 51 on her Prius.

Lol-My Mom gets 37-38.

BoilerUP
07-20-2011, 02:08 PM
My buddy gets 51mpg in his 10 year old diesel Jetta...

FastDEW
07-20-2011, 02:14 PM
At 6'4".. I agree.. the 737 is absolutely horrid to ride in coach.. just plain miserable. The Airbus and big Embraer's are FAR more comfortable from a passenger perspective.. When commuting I always will choose the Airbus if I have the choice.

On the 737 I can't hardly even open a Laptop screen with the seat reclined in front of me. It has to be tipped forward or nearly in my lap. It's a joke how close the seats are.

You're complaint is about seat pitch. There is no difference between Airbus and Boeing on this. It is set by the airline you are flying. If you are AA and they choose their seat pitch at 32 inches, it will be so, whether or not you are on a 737 or 320.

The Bus has wider seats than the 737 or 757. However, the Bus seats are no wider than on the 767 or 777. In fact comparing widebodies, it is the other way around. The 767 and 777 seats are wider than the 330/340 seats.

The 380 is wider than the 747 seats, but again, the pitch is the exact same, unless the airline chooses something different. Most do not because they want the revenue and that means more seats.

Even seat width is somewhat of a choice. The 777 was designed around a 9 wide, but AF and Emerites use a 10 wide with less individual seat width. So there again, at least on the 777 the seat width even is airline specific. Same appears to be coming to on the 787.

That is the seat - However, the airconditioning on the 320 series in my opinion is far better than the 737 or 757. The 320 is quieter, especially up front and I am not just talking about the flight deck. The 737 will out climb the 320 but no passenger really cares about that.

The 320 has a lot of "funny noises" such as noisy outflow valves and belly pumps. But again, most passengers never notice.

The 737 is better at smaller airports for ground handling, the 320, not so much due to gear length. But the 320 can take cans in the belly, the 737 cannot.

These are aircraft that are very different, but for the same or similar roles. Reality though is that Airbus made the 320 just a bit bigger than the 737 and that gives them an advantage to "spread" the aircraft over a wider market. They can almost get down to the 736/DC9 and they can almost get up to the 757. This happens to be what airlines are looking for right now.

I am really surprised that AA went with so many of the 320's, but I guess Boeing is late to the party on more than a few fronts. There is no doubt in my mind that the 787 debacle has caused Boeing to fall behind on the narrows as well just due to resource drain. We will see how successful the 737(neo) will be running against the 320.

One thing to keep in mind - even though the 737 has outsold the 320, it has been in the market for nearly 20 years longer and the Bus has almost caught up. This should be a sign to Boeing that perhaps the neo on a 737 might not be enough and that they should throw a little more at it. Only time will tell.........

Boomer
07-20-2011, 02:33 PM
The A318 just hasn't sold very well and I'm not versed on the A318 but I'd guess there is a reason. Maybe shrunken too much til its not efficient?.

That's what they were saying at a jetBlue open house a few years ago.

Airbus was giving them away, but jetBlue did not want.

TurboDVR42
07-20-2011, 04:59 PM
I am surprised no one has said that B6 has bunch of 320neo's on order and now AA goes an orders 320's also...is the merging speculation gone?

n9810f
07-20-2011, 05:03 PM
The A318 just hasn't sold very well and I'm not versed on the A318 but I'd guess there is a reason. Maybe shrunken too much til its not efficient? I don't know. Sure someone here does.

But wikipedia says 80 deliveries and a back log of 6 A318s since 2003. The A319 and A320 have 1300+ deliveries and 175 on back order and the A320 sits at 2600+ delivery and 2600+ backlog.

I kind of think the A319 is a better option. Sure it's not a 100 seater but something tells me you could send a A319 to a lot of places one would send a CRJ700 and 900 or E-Jet or E190.

Frontier's A318's, some of which are less than 3 years old, are being removed from service and broken up for parts. That should give you a good idea of the business viability of the 318.

qball
07-20-2011, 11:53 PM
Frontier's A318's, some of which are less than 3 years old, are being removed from service and broken up for parts. That should give you a good idea of the business viability of the 318.

I think the 319 gives more payload/seats for a comparable fuel burn compared to the 318...which never has caught on. Why carry 100 when you can carry 126...I think the extra pax vs fuel burn makes the 319 a more flexible option. P.S. Not bad in coach (319/320) and you can pull your roller bag down the aisle (I've not been able to do that in a 757 and god help me if I ever have to ride in the back of a 753).

FastDEW
07-21-2011, 01:10 AM
and god help me if I ever have to ride in the back of a 753).

I second this because I've done it. The 753 SUCKS in the back!

threeighteen
07-21-2011, 02:56 AM
Why is that?

Airbus and their flight control trickery (soon to be joined by Bombardier and Embraer) are the biggest threat to the pilot profession. Their entire staffs get wet over the idea of a single pilot aircraft, and would love the idea of a non-piloted airliner. Plus, the whole "let's not give the pilot a standard set of instruments because the pilot is not essential to the safe operation of the A/C" is what caused AF447 to go down.

forgot to bid
07-21-2011, 06:03 AM
Airbus and their flight control trickery (soon to be joined by Bombardier and Embraer) are the biggest threat to the pilot profession. Their entire staffs get wet over the idea of a single pilot aircraft, and would love the idea of a non-piloted airliner. Plus, the whole "let's not give the pilot a standard set of instruments because the pilot is not essential to the safe operation of the A/C" is what caused AF447 to go down.

Thank goodness it's limited to only Airbi, Ejets and Cjets:

On August 1, 2005,*a Boeing 777-200, which had departed from Perth, received an EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) warning of* low airspeed, as the plane was climbing through FL (flight level) 380.* Simultaneously, the aircraft's slip/skid indication moved full right, on the PFD (Primary Flight Display). The PFD speed tape also displayed contradictory information: that the plane was approaching both the high speed limit and the low speed (stall) limit. The aircraft, still connected to the autopilot, pitched up and climbed to approximately FL410 as the airspeed decreased from 270 kts to 158 kts. The stall warning devices also activated.

The PIC (pilot in command) "disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose of the aircraft. The autothrottle commanded an increase in thrust which the PIC countered by manually moving the thrust levers to the idle position. The aircraft pitched up again and climbed 2,000 ft." The PIC advised ATC "that they could not maintain altitude and requested a descent and radar assistance. The crew was able to verify with ATC the aircraft speed and altitude."

The PFD indications became accurate again as they were descending through FL200. The PIC attempted to use both the left and right autopilots, but had to turn them off after each one produced undesired command responses.* "There were no control difficulties experienced when the aircraft was flown manually, but the autothrottle 'arm' switches remained in the 'armed' position."

ATC radar vectors put the plane in position to conduct an ILS to R 03 at Perth. When they reached 3,000 ft, the PFD again began indicating erroneous low airspeed information. The autothrottle again responded by advancing the thrust levers. Since the pilot can override that command, simply by manually adjusting those thrust levers, the plane was able to land safely at Perth.**

forgot to bid
07-21-2011, 06:14 AM
Fly by wire as the good Lord intended :D

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/images/fly_dc_jets_sm.jpg

Bar give me my moment. ;)

QuagmireGiggity
07-21-2011, 07:11 AM
My wife gets 51 on her Prius.
47-49 here.

zoomiezombie
07-21-2011, 07:25 AM
For really good mileage, you got to reduce the wheel friction.
Didn't Mr.Garrison invent this on South Park?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gfXupHOEhH0/StyBi7neJhI/AAAAAAAALf8/TCsE78XKy9w/s400/one-wheel-modern1.jpg

amcflyboy
07-21-2011, 07:29 AM
Thank goodness it's limited to only Airbi, Ejets and Cjets:

On August 1, 2005,*a Boeing 777-200, which had departed from Perth, received an EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) warning of* low airspeed, as the plane was climbing through FL (flight level) 380.* Simultaneously, the aircraft's slip/skid indication moved full right, on the PFD (Primary Flight Display). The PFD speed tape also displayed contradictory information: that the plane was approaching both the high speed limit and the low speed (stall) limit. The aircraft, still connected to the autopilot, pitched up and climbed to approximately FL410 as the airspeed decreased from 270 kts to 158 kts. The stall warning devices also activated.





Sounds like Coffin Corner and Mach Tuck all rolled into one. They say it's rare, but nonetheless, it still happens.

Bucking Bar
07-21-2011, 07:57 AM
So, is this order, really an order?

I'm reading lots of caveats, like that it hinges on labor agreements and Board approval.

It sounds more like a letter of intent.

Anyone on the inside got, "color? ?

aa73
07-21-2011, 08:20 AM
So, is this order, really an order?

I'm reading lots of caveats, like that it hinges on labor agreements and Board approval.

It sounds more like a letter of intent.

Anyone on the inside got, "color? ?

Bar,

This is actually the first time AMR places an order WITHOUT hinging it "contingent on an acceptable pilot contract." They need those aircraft regardless. Hint, hint... leverage for APA. We'll try raising that bar for y'all.

EF77
07-21-2011, 09:02 AM
Bar,

This is actually the first time AMR places an order WITHOUT hinging it "contingent on an acceptable pilot contract." They need those aircraft regardless. Hint, hint... leverage for APA. We'll try raising that bar for y'all.

And if we cant, we will force them to cancel the order and keep all those inefficient MD80's so we can lose even more money each quarter when fuel costs rise. Then we can force them into Ch. 7 and I can finally start working at Home Depot! After all, we are AA pilots, we have a reputation to uphold.

chuck416
07-21-2011, 09:16 AM
Bar,

This is actually the first time AMR places an order WITHOUT hinging it "contingent on an acceptable pilot contract." They need those aircraft regardless. Hint, hint... leverage for APA. We'll try raising that bar for y'all.

Since Bar hasn't replied for the rest of his Delta bros, I'll give you a hearty thanks, and peer group 'tip-of-the-hat'. Wishing you guys all the success in your new, well-deserved, long-awaited contract pursuit. BTW, I am a former A/A guy. A 1992 hire, MIA F/E, promptly furloughed in Jan'94. Most fun I ever had in my professional career. Great bunch of guys you work with.
Chuck

Bucking Bar
07-21-2011, 09:17 AM
Bar,

This is actually the first time AMR places an order WITHOUT hinging it "contingent on an acceptable pilot contract." They need those aircraft regardless. Hint, hint... leverage for APA. We'll try raising that bar for y'all.
Good luck, we support you 100%

I'm trying to decipher this since I believe it puts even more pressure on the Delta BOD to "do something" since the investors who bought us have thus far, taken a big loss. Take away points thus far are:


American plans growth while other US domestic carriers are preaching capacity restraint
American appears to be avoiding "debt" by making these acquisitions operating leases
Operating leases increase costs over the long term
... and there are interesting goings on at Eagle involving ALPA
Speculation Alert ... some of this looks like positioning for bankruptcy ... not related to labor, but more to restructure debt
It is also interesting to note the yawn an exciting order received over on Wall Street. The conference call did not go particularly well. It could be Wall Street's trendy spenders are moving money into Tech Stocks and will get in late on things like Apple. Also, the airlines are kind of the proverbial canaries in the coal mine when it comes to economic exposures.

Like Chuck, I think American's a impressive operation.

Josephus
07-21-2011, 09:33 AM
Good luck, we support you 100%

I'm trying to decipher this since I believe it puts even more pressure on the Delta BOD to "do something" since the investors who bought us have thus far, taken a big loss. Take away points thus far are:


American plans growth while other US domestic carriers are preaching capacity restraint
American appears to be avoiding "debt" by making these acquisitions operating leases
Operating leases increase costs over the long term
... and there are interesting goings on at Eagle involving ALPA
Speculation Alert ... some of this looks like positioning for bankruptcy ... not related to labor, but more to restructure debt
It is also interesting to note the yawn an exciting order received over on Wall Street. The conference call did not go particularly well. It could be Wall Street's trendy spenders are moving money into Tech Stocks and will get in late on things like Apple. Also, the airlines are kind of the proverbial canaries in the coal mine when it comes to economic exposures.

Bar, couldn't agree more: Make an aircraft order before going into Chp 11, then ask a judge for better terms (of course, there could be a caveat in the order language with Boeing and Airbus... not a lawyer, don't know).

What is different about this is, Delta sold ASA before going into Chp 11 and kept Comair and then gutted them... I think the tea leaves will be clearer [I]if[I] someone buys Eagle. If not, it seems strange to not take them into Chp 11 like Delta did with Comair. Comair was not sellable due to its' location (CVG). They couldn't get money out of them. They could with ASA, and companies always try to go into Chp 11 with a war chest.

In the end, AA needs Chp 11 like everyone else...not right, but it's the current business model. And, I agree, it has nothing to do with pilot wages and everything to to with all the past debt.

Given the "divesting" of Eagle and the above train of thought, Does AMR have a buyer for Eagle? I still say AA and USAir will get together... I know, I know lots of reasons why that wont happen... but its free to speculate.

Regards,

Jo

Bucking Bar
07-21-2011, 10:11 AM
Well ... there are similarities. But you would hope American would not repeat those mistakes.

Arguably what makes Eagle valuable to investors (as well as pilots) is their scope. If Eagle has a lock on American's feeder flying, they can leverage that scope to gain profits and reduce risk.

The opposite happened to Comair. Comair's flying was broken up and distributed to its competitors, which destroyed the value of the Comair. Delta lost billions because Delta trashed their own asset.

If Delta had been smart, they would have made Comair "sexy" by awarding them new flying, THEN sold Comair at it's peak.

Sadly, if reports are true that Eagle waived their scope it likely means:

Eagle will be another carrier in the outsourcing race to the bottom
Eagle is not competitively positioned to thrive
American will seek to renew its feeder fleet by outsourcing the capital expense of aircraft acquisitions to bidders
These bidders will become parasites on American over time

LabDad
07-21-2011, 10:26 AM
A few observations
- If AA’s fleet were 13% more fuel efficient they would have broke even this qtr.
- If AA monopolizes the replacement aircraft production capacity they freeze out their competitors who have not yet replaced older fleets.
- The first 230 orders have lease financing in place.
- CFO Horton said Eagle was spun-off to give AA access to lower cost regional lift. I don’t know what the potential savings are, but it would seem AA finds them significant.

A final observation
- If you borrow significantly less than your net worth, the bank “owns” you. They can sell your assets easily and are whole again.
- If you borrow more than your net worth, you “own” the bank. Does the bank really want 230 aircraft so they can sit in Victorville?

AA had to do something, the status quo was heading toward an irrecoverable situation. My fondest hope is for an industry recovery, not success of any one player at the expense of any other. Pilots have suffered enough this last decade.

1234
07-21-2011, 10:34 AM
Airbus and their flight control trickery (soon to be joined by Bombardier and Embraer) are the biggest threat to the pilot profession. Their entire staffs get wet over the idea of a single pilot aircraft, and would love the idea of a non-piloted airliner. Plus, the whole "let's not give the pilot a standard set of instruments because the pilot is not essential to the safe operation of the A/C" is what caused AF447 to go down.

That is one of the craziest ideas out there. Have you been smoking with FTB???

johnso29
07-21-2011, 11:38 AM
Airbus and their flight control trickery (soon to be joined by Bombardier and Embraer) are the biggest threat to the pilot profession. Their entire staffs get wet over the idea of a single pilot aircraft, and would love the idea of a non-piloted airliner. Plus, the whole "let's not give the pilot a standard set of instruments because the pilot is not essential to the safe operation of the A/C" is what caused AF447 to go down.

Wow. First of all, since you're singling Airbus out. Do you realize the B777 is a fly by wire airplane? I guess they use 'flight control trickery' too.

Second, the pilots of AF 447 had ALL the instruments they needed to recover. They had a standby attitude indicator & N1 indications. Airbus aircraft are equipped with stand by instruments. :rolleyes:

There are other A330 operators that have encountered the same incident as AF 447 and they came out just fine. If anything, the AF 447 accident is a PERFECT example of why a single pilot or non pilot airliner is highly unfeasible. The technology exists, but it will fail. THAT is why people are necessary.

Fed Ex and UPS have plenty of Boeing products, & I guarantee they will be leading the pack for single pilot ops.

Bucking Bar
07-21-2011, 11:53 AM
A few observations
- If AA’s fleet were 13% more fuel efficient they would have broke even this qtr.
- If AA monopolizes the replacement aircraft production capacity they freeze out their competitors who have not yet replaced older fleets.
- The first 230 orders have lease financing in place.
- CFO Horton said Eagle was spun-off to give AA access to lower cost regional lift. I don’t know what the potential savings are, but it would seem AA finds them significant.

A final observation
- If you borrow significantly less than your net worth, the bank “owns” you. They can sell your assets easily and are whole again.
- If you borrow more than your net worth, you “own” the bank. Does the bank really want 230 aircraft so they can sit in Victorville?

AA had to do something, the status quo was heading toward an irrecoverable situation. My fondest hope is for an industry recovery, not success of any one player at the expense of any other. Pilots have suffered enough this last decade.Do your observations include the costs of acquisition and the parasitic losses due to multiple overlapping administrative structures when the Company engages in outsourcing?

Be very careful. The destruction of Eagle's scope is going to fire the starter's pistol on outsourcing, just as it has done every where else. "Lower cost regional lift" just means the product the mainline guys provide is going to look more expensive in comparison.

LabDad
07-21-2011, 01:21 PM
Do your observations include the costs of acquisition and the parasitic losses due to multiple overlapping administrative structures when the Company engages in outsourcing?

Be very careful. The destruction of Eagle's scope is going to fire the starter's pistol on outsourcing, just as it has done every where else. "Lower cost regional lift" just means the product the mainline guys provide is going to look more expensive in comparison.

No acquisition costs, because I don't know the discounts, lease terms, etc. Just a simple observation.

Fully agree on the scope/codeshare/outsourcing risk. Understand that what is good for the holding company is not always good for pilots.

That said, if AA has a new fleet, AA pilots will fly those planes, and AA managers will not want those planes sitting for even one unnecessary minute.

eaglefly
07-21-2011, 01:23 PM
No acquisition costs, because I don't know the discounts, lease terms, etc. Just a simple observation.

Fully agree on the scope/codeshare/outsourcing risk. Understand that what is good for the holding company is not always good for pilots.

That said, if AA has a new fleet, AA pilots will fly those planes, and AA managers will not want those planes sitting for even one unnecessary minute.

That's what I was thinking.

Why invest so much in upgrading and expanding AA, if the goal is to shift more to AA regionals ?

LabDad
07-21-2011, 01:36 PM
That's what I was thinking.

Why invest so much in upgrading and expanding AA, if the goal is to shift more to AA regionals ?

I feel for anyone at Eagle, because it looks like AMR has "cut their losses" and moved on so to speak. AA will have to utilize all those new planes.

Sliceback
07-21-2011, 01:47 PM
Labdad - CP said A320's 30% more efficient than the S80 and 15% more efficient than the 757/767. That's about 55% of the fleet that's going to be that much more efficient in the next 9 yrs.

One of the oldest fleets will become the youngest in 5 yrs. Due to the lack of delivery slots that might hold up for awhile vs. UA and DL.

galaxy flyer
07-21-2011, 02:07 PM
If we have learned anything in the last 20 years, it is that the customer "takes" all money that comes from productivity or fuel efficiency off the table. That AA would have broke even if its fleet were 13% more efficient implies that it wouldn't cut fares to try getting more passengers from competitors., it is meaningless. Banks don't care what an airline does with the planes as long as they get their lease payments. AA goes under, the planes will be leased elsewhere. AA B737 purchase represents about 10% of Boeing's 737 backlog and about 5 months of the new delivery rate. Is that really going tp stop Boeing from selling and delivering 737s to competitors? I think not.

Then, look at what Wall Street is saying about AA--burning thru cash, market cap down, "trailing the industry in too many ways", needs to reduce labor costs, losses this year and next. A steaming cup of Not Good.


GF

Mason32
07-21-2011, 02:58 PM
Do your observations include the costs of acquisition and the parasitic losses due to multiple overlapping administrative structures when the Company engages in outsourcing?

Be very careful. The destruction of Eagle's scope is going to fire the starter's pistol on outsourcing, just as it has done every where else. "Lower cost regional lift" just means the product the mainline guys provide is going to look more expensive in comparison.


It's shame on us dude... we've had the opportunity for years to work with the Eagle guys.... we'd only have to work with one pilot group (the few CHQ stuff aside) and we couldn't even do that....

Now, it's going to be 4 or 5 regionals all fighting to do our flying for less...

We couldn't deal with one outside pilot group; what makes you think we can deal with 6?

We're hosed; Face it, AMR just did an end run around our scope; better to give AA Mgt something and keep Eagle in-house as the main feed provider, and so we can work with only one outside pilot group... besides, from what I understand of SupW, their 824, and now their preferential hiring... they essentially all are hired here anyway.
It's time we started acting as one pilot group.

Oldfreightdawg
07-21-2011, 03:46 PM
Over at the APA forum, an outspoken member reported on a conference call with the VP of flight John Hale (the call is known as "fire side chat" and is a call-in to ask the big chief Kahuna questions).

He reported that AA is anticipating the need for 3000 pilots in the next 4 years. Good news if it's true.

aa73
07-21-2011, 03:59 PM
I believe it. 3000 easily.

Big fleet overlap (80s not retiring until 2020, 762s 2015, 757s around 2017)
Age 65 retirements starting in 2013
New FAA duty time regs
Not mentioned in the 460 order is a bunch more 737 deliveries next 2 years, 773s starting next year (about 15-20 total) and 787s in a few years.

Combination of those 4 will result in A LOT of hiring.

chuck416
07-21-2011, 04:04 PM
I believe it. 3000 easily.

Big fleet overlap (80s not retiring until 2020, 762s 2015, 757s around 2017)
Age 65 retirements starting in 2013
New FAA duty time regs
Not mentioned in the 460 order is a bunch more 737 deliveries next 2 years, 773s starting next year (about 15-20 total) and 787s in a few years.

Combination of those 4 will result in A LOT of hiring.

Man, that's AWESOME news. Glad to hear it. It'd be great to see ya'll have a seniority list at 10,000+ again!

Mink
07-21-2011, 05:43 PM
I believe it. 3000 easily.

Big fleet overlap (80s not retiring until 2020, 762s 2015, 757s around 2017)
Age 65 retirements starting in 2013
New FAA duty time regs
Not mentioned in the 460 order is a bunch more 737 deliveries next 2 years, 773s starting next year (about 15-20 total) and 787s in a few years.

Combination of those 4 will result in A LOT of hiring.

I hope it all pans out to everyone's benefit.

AA73 or any others with better insight at AA, do you have any idea how this Eagle hiring drug deal will square with the FAA 1500 hour rule? I was under the impression that a lot of junior Eagle guys don't have that kind of time. Assuming the 1500 hour rule applies, I would think that would make those Eagle guys available to come over to AA a much smaller crowd.

BoilerUP
07-21-2011, 05:50 PM
I'd bet only a small percentage of low-longevity Eagle pilots don't have 1500tt...and they'll CERTAINLY have that time before AA starts pulling deeply into Eagle ranks.

galaxy flyer
07-21-2011, 06:16 PM
Can anyone tell this skeptic, how a company with:

--Annual losses going back to 2007,
--About the highest unit labor costs in the US
--Poisonous labor relations
--That has shrunk by 40%, by pilot strength
--A negative net worth of $3.9 billion dollars

Is going to:

--Expand its pilot force by 35%
--Buy 460 planes
--And do it in 5 years, they have not hired 1000 pilots a year since the boom years of the mid-90s.

Which, unless the economy grows a lot faster than projected, is going to require AA to push back SW, DL and UA/CO which have lower costs and newer fleets.

I don't see it, wish it were true and I wish all AA pilots the best of luck. I have and had a lot of good friends who flew there. They have a history to be proud of, but I'm doubtful about the fundamentals.

GF

Sliceback
07-21-2011, 06:22 PM
Labdad - CP said A320's 30% more efficient than the S80 and 15% more efficient than the 757/767. That's about 55% of the fleet that's going to be that much more efficient in the next 9 yrs.

One of the oldest fleets will become the youngest in 5 yrs. Due to the lack of delivery slots that might hold up for awhile vs. UA and DL.


Saw the numbers again - S80 35% worse. 757 12% worse, 767-200 15% worse than the A320.

threeighteen
07-21-2011, 07:56 PM
Can anyone tell this skeptic, how a company with:

--Annual losses going back to 2007,
--About the highest unit labor costs in the US
--Poisonous labor relations
--That has shrunk by 40%, by pilot strength
--A negative net worth of $3.9 billion dollars

Is going to:

--Expand its pilot force by 35%
--Buy 460 planes
--And do it in 5 years, they have not hired 1000 pilots a year since the boom years of the mid-90s.

Which, unless the economy grows a lot faster than projected, is going to require AA to push back SW, DL and UA/CO which have lower costs and newer fleets.

I don't see it, wish it were true and I wish all AA pilots the best of luck. I have and had a lot of good friends who flew there. They have a history to be proud of, but I'm doubtful about the fundamentals.

GF

air. plane. speculation.

there. I explained it. :)

forgot to bid
07-21-2011, 09:47 PM
A few observations
- If AA’s fleet were 13% more fuel efficient they would have broke even this qtr.

If you put a Boeing 737-800 against a MD-88 on a 500nm trip you're going to burn... I don't know... 7,611 and 8,586 lbs respectively. It's right on your number, the 738 is 12.8% more fuel efficient than the MD88.

Say both planes fly an average of 7 flights a day, 25 days a month with a fuel price of $2.50 a gallon you're looking at the 88 costing $63,035 more a month.

But a new 738 comes in around $80.8M according to the Boeing website. I'm going to guess a 50% bulk discount price so $40.4M.

Allegiant got their MD82s and 83s up and line ready according to ATW was about $4M line ready. The only 88 I can find for sale is $2M. So $4M seem about right.

The lease rates would be around $404,000 a month for a 738 assuming 50% discount and a MD80 series in at $40,000. That's $300,000 in favor of the MD80.

But of course the 80s are old and need to go...

- If AA monopolizes the replacement aircraft production capacity they freeze out their competitors who have not yet replaced older fleets.

Here is the thing, Delta is out for 160 seat MD90s. $10-$12M acquisition to line price. Fuel burn is still in favor of the 737 but only at about 3% better, or, 200 lbs on a 500 nm trip.

I bring this up because I believe every option out there from A, B, E and C are all compromised aircraft. I see the value in used over new. I scoffed in the early 2000s when the rumor was NWA wanted to keep the DC9s for 20 more years, how insane!

Right up until 9/11 happened and our industry went into a depression and I was looking at CAL's shiny new 737NGs that had the same awful load factors as NWA DC9s but at least NWA's were paid for while CAL's credit card was maxed out.

I think just like in cars it takes five years before a Prius advertised gas mileage breaks even with a gas guzzling SUV. You're better off used and in this case I'll take used MD90s, MD80s, A319s, A320s, B738s and what have you over a proposed reengined 737 and Airbus NEOs.

Also, I seriously doubt that AMR's order can clog up the delivery slots and keep UAL, DAL or SWA out. Boeing says they have a backlog of over 2000 airplanes for the 737. Adding 200 more isn't noticeable and Boeing is already ramping up production anyways to push delivery to 34 frames instead of 31 per month. To own all of those would be taking a $1.4 B delivery (conservative $40.4M 738) every month.

Boeing and Airbus will always find a way to deliver a plane to someone who wants one before they walk over to Airbus. And vice versa. Yeah competition.

AA had to do something, the status quo was heading toward an irrecoverable situation. My fondest hope is for an industry recovery, not success of any one player at the expense of any other. Pilots have suffered enough this last decade.

I fear the AA pilots who warn of AMR's chapter 11 ambitions. I hope in the beginning, middle and end, AMR pilots win. Good luck.

Josephus
07-21-2011, 10:13 PM
FTB... thats why I drive an old truck. It has to break down a lot and use a lot of gas before it is worth paying 500 dollars a month for a new one!

Now if Delta could just get those mods on the -88s to save a little fuel...

-Joe

tone
07-22-2011, 03:15 AM
Can anyone tell this skeptic, how a company with:

--Annual losses going back to 2007,
--About the highest unit labor costs in the US
--Poisonous labor relations
--That has shrunk by 40%, by pilot strength
--A negative net worth of $3.9 billion dollars

Is going to:

--Expand its pilot force by 35%
--Buy 460 planes
--And do it in 5 years, they have not hired 1000 pilots a year since the boom years of the mid-90s.

Which, unless the economy grows a lot faster than projected, is going to require AA to push back SW, DL and UA/CO which have lower costs and newer fleets.

I don't see it, wish it were true and I wish all AA pilots the best of luck. I have and had a lot of good friends who flew there. They have a history to be proud of, but I'm doubtful about the fundamentals.

GF
As far as coming up with the cash for the planes not sure. But as far as staffing I was under the impression these were just replacements for 460 old planes. Still no growth. Did you read otherwise? Thanks.

galaxy flyer
07-22-2011, 04:15 AM
Check above, 3000 pilots in four years.

GF

johnso29
07-22-2011, 04:56 AM
Check above, 3000 pilots in four years.

GF

I believe the 3000 pilots was based purely on attrition/retirements.

aa73
07-22-2011, 05:34 AM
As far as coming up with the cash for the planes not sure. But as far as staffing I was under the impression these were just replacements for 460 old planes. Still no growth. Did you read otherwise? Thanks.

Cash for more planes: the financing deals AMR struck is nothing short of phenomenal. They pulled a Crandall-esque deal of using none of their money and all of Boeing/Airbus's. That's how desperate Boeing/Airbus were.

Replacements/growth: As it stands right now (and things can change), total aircraft retirements through 2020 are about 310-330 aircraft (200 S80s, 15 762s, 100 757s.) So we are fleet positive by about 130 new aircraft. That doesn't factor in the options for another 450, and it doesn't factor in the 737 deliveries this year/next year, along with the 15-20 773s coming next year, along with the 42 787s (plus 58 options).

Nobody can accurately say whether the company will grow - but do the math: AMR chose not to merge with anyone. So the only way they can survive and keep up with the new Delta and United, is to organically grow from within. VP Flight also mentioned AMR WILL grow domestically. I'll place my bets on growth (of course, I'll believe it when I see it.)

As to the dismal balance sheet, the current and past losses, the toxic relationship with unions: who knows. Way past my pay level. All I know for sure is that AMR was backed into a corner and needed to do something DRASTIC. We're starting to see that now. Our contract is hopefully going to get settled by end of year. Rumors from those in the know say AMR will offer us a SWA pay scale. They want this thing fixed for good. Again, I'll believe it when I see it, but my gut instinct says we're finally headed for some good movement and a better career in the next several years. Hope I'm right.

forgot to bid
07-22-2011, 06:24 AM
FTB... thats why I drive an old truck. It has to break down a lot and use a lot of gas before it is worth paying 500 dollars a month for a new one!

Now if Delta could just get those mods on the -88s to save a little fuel...

-Joe

I hear ya! 2000 F-150 XLT here.

Dugan Kinetics MD-80 (http://www.dugankinetics.com/)

EP-80 Ejector/TR Overview


What is the EP-80 Ejector/TR?

It is a Dugan Kinetics modified thrust reverser for the MD-80 Series aircraft.
How does it work?

The modified TR offers a new stow position, where the TR is used as an ejector during flight.
How does this enhance performance?

By using the TR as an ejector, the operator receives additional thrust, while keeping aircraft weight constant.
What does this mean for Fuel Savings?

The added thrust translates into a total flight fuel savings in the range of 5-9%.
Fuel Savings Payback

The substantial fuel savings produced by the EP-80 Ejector/TR offers Operators a payback in as low as 12 months.
Maintenance Savings Benefits

With reduced EPR settings for equal thrust, the Operator benefits by less engine rotations and lower maintenence costs.
Engine Life Benefits

The EP-80 Ejector/TR also provides for a longer engine life with lower EPR settings & decrease in heat.
Weight Savings

The EP-80 Ejector/TR does not add extra weight to the aircraft. And by reducing fuel consumption, it is possible to require less fuel (weight).

Sliceback
07-22-2011, 07:13 AM
I believe the 3000 pilots was based purely on attrition/retirements.

Increase of approx. 2,600 + any greater than planned retirements/attrition.

Retirements this year(July to June seniority list year) exceeded 230 when the required number was 0.

2011 crystal ball view of 2015.

Oldfreightdawg
07-23-2011, 07:23 AM
Can anyone tell this skeptic, how a company with:

--Annual losses going back to 2007,
--About the highest unit labor costs in the US
--Poisonous labor relations
--That has shrunk by 40%, by pilot strength
--A negative net worth of $3.9 billion dollars

Is going to:

--Expand its pilot force by 35%
--Buy 460 planes
--And do it in 5 years, they have not hired 1000 pilots a year since the boom years of the mid-90s.

Which, unless the economy grows a lot faster than projected, is going to require AA to push back SW, DL and UA/CO which have lower costs and newer fleets.

I don't see it, wish it were true and I wish all AA pilots the best of luck. I have and had a lot of good friends who flew there. They have a history to be proud of, but I'm doubtful about the fundamentals.

GF

Yes, it has some of us here at AA scratching our heads as well. I guess my response is if AMR was going the way of Pam Am, we should have been gone a long time ago, or at least in BK. Remember, USAir went through BK twice in as many years and all the pundits in the world said it was a matter of time before they were gone completely.

I can't speak for the other labor groups at AMR, but the APA has a lot of wiggle room: a 78 hour monthly max, 26% of pilots on reserve, pay for trips missed for training, etc. By most estimates APA could grant nearly a 20% gain in productivity for an equal increase in W2 earnings for a cost neutral contract. Moreover, productivity gains can lead to expansion with little or no pilot cost increases.

Productivity is the key, why do you think SWA enjoys the highest pay and an iron clad scope clause? Did you see what DAL did to ComAir? I don't see AMR growing domestically, but I do see a lot of domestic flying moving from AE back to AA. Hence the reason for the need for 3000 pilots, and the reason AMR came to an agreement with AE to hire every AE pilot with no interview or pre-employment physical.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but that's just me.

aa73
07-23-2011, 09:09 AM
I don't see AMR growing domestically, but I do see a lot of domestic flying moving from AE back to AA. Hence the reason for the need for 3000 pilots, and the reason AMR came to an agreement with AE to hire every AE pilot with no interview or pre-employment physical.



OFD... AA taking back routes from AE constitutes domestic "growth", for AA, even if it is a little abstract, since we used to fly those routes anyway.

Oldfreightdawg
07-23-2011, 10:55 AM
OFD... AA taking back routes from AE constitutes domestic "growth", for AA, even if it is a little abstract, since we used to fly those routes anyway.

True. I was looking at it from an "AMR" standpoint, they can claim they are not "increasing capacity" (capacity discipline seems to be the buzz word for industry pundits), while restoring the mainline domestically. There will no doubt be growth from an AA pilots perspective.

Have fun in Madrid next next month!

aa73
07-23-2011, 11:03 AM
Will do! ;)

Oldfreightdawg
07-23-2011, 11:32 AM
I hope it all pans out to everyone's benefit.

AA73 or any others with better insight at AA, do you have any idea how this Eagle hiring drug deal will square with the FAA 1500 hour rule? I was under the impression that a lot of junior Eagle guys don't have that kind of time. Assuming the 1500 hour rule applies, I would think that would make those Eagle guys available to come over to AA a much smaller crowd.

I'm guessing that since the agreement covers only pilots hired before October 11, 2011 that by the time they are called for a new hire class at AA, they will have acquired at least the 1500 hour minimum. Judging by the number of hours regional pilots have to fly, it should only take a year or so for a guy with say 500 hours to get there. Whether that qualifies them for an ATP, which is what the original legislation mandated, is unknown. Further, the legislation allows for a reduction in the required experience level for certain collegiate programs and military experience. Since I doubt there are many military guys at Eagle, I'm guessing that most AE new hires today come from a qualified college program.

DYNASTY HVY
07-23-2011, 11:50 AM
Q+A-How plane makers and others help airlines buy jets | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/uk-amr-finance-idUSLNE76K00E20110721)

Oldfreightdawg
07-23-2011, 12:40 PM
Be very careful. The destruction of Eagle's scope is going to fire the starter's pistol on outsourcing, just as it has done every where else. "Lower cost regional lift" just means the product the mainline guys provide is going to look more expensive in comparison.

Eagle's cost problems stem from the fact that they operate the largest sub 50 seat jet fleet in the world, which is a function of APA's scope language. If Eagle were allowed to fly the same ASM's on behalf of AA with fewer, but larger aircraft, their costs would be substantially lower.

There are two ways AMR can pursue "lower cost regional lift", first persuade APA to grant more scope relief, or sell Eagle so they can buy larger aircraft and offer feed to other legacy carriers, or a combination of both.

The cost savings will come from operating more efficiently, not lower wages, a theory that SWA proves everyday.

gloopy
07-23-2011, 01:34 PM
(capacity discipline seems to be the buzz word for industry pundits)

Except for the (nonexistent and in name only) "LCC's" who the pundits think need to capacity dump on the marketplace with extreme prejudice. Look at the orders, options and (meaningless) letters of intent that SW/AT, JB and VA have. Hundreds upon hundreds of growth narrowbodies with no place to go and if deployed would shred everyone's hope for profits including carriers doing the adding, yet they keep at it anyway.

Clear Right
07-23-2011, 02:29 PM
Well I just googled JetBlue destinations and the majority of their capacity additions seems to be in the caribbean and central america. One article said they are now the largest carrier in puerto rico, I guess if you consider that domestic growth you have an argument.

bailee atr
07-25-2011, 07:43 PM
American details delivery schedule for new planes
American Airlinesreleased some details Monday about its schedule for receiving 460 new airplanes from Airbus and Boeing.

American announced last week that it had made arrangements to acquire the new narrow-body aircraft from the two manufacturers and that it has purchase rights and options for an additional 465 aircraft.

The Fort Worth-based airline filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday detailing the delivery schedule.

American said it will acquire 20 Boeing 737 Next Generation aircraft per year from 2013 to 2017. The planes could be 737-700, 737-800 or 737-900 ER aircraft.

American said it also expects to receive 100 Boeing 737 Next Generation “re-engined” aircraft, which will be equipped with new and more fuel-efficient engines. Subject to Boeing approval of the re-engined aircraft program, American said it will receive 20 of the planes per year in 2018 to 2022.

Under the Airbus agreement, American said it will lease 130 Airbus current generation A320 family aircraft, could be A319, A320 or A321 planes. From 20 to 35 of the planes are scheduled to be delivered each year from 2013 to 2017.

American also committed to purchase 130 Airbus A320 family “new-engine option” aircraft, which will have new, more fuel-efficient engines. Ten of the new-engine aircraft are scheduled to be delivered in 2017, followed by 20 to 25 of them each year from 2018 to 2022.

johnso29
07-26-2011, 06:02 AM
Eagle's cost problems stem from the fact that they operate the largest sub 50 seat jet fleet in the world, which is a function of APA's scope language. If Eagle were allowed to fly the same ASM's on behalf of AA with fewer, but larger aircraft, their costs would be substantially lower.

There are two ways AMR can pursue "lower cost regional lift", first persuade APA to grant more scope relief, or sell Eagle so they can buy larger aircraft and offer feed to other legacy carriers, or a combination of both.

The cost savings will come from operating more efficiently, not lower wages, a theory that SWA proves everyday.

I'm just splitting hairs here, but Eagle doesn't operate the largest 50 seat jet fleet. I believe AE has around 200 ERJ's. ExpressJet operates 244 50 seat jets and once they merge with ASA they will have over 350 50 seat jets!!! :eek:

IMO not good for survival.

dundem
07-26-2011, 06:42 AM
I'm just splitting hairs here, but Eagle doesn't operate the largest 50 seat jet fleet. I believe AE has around 200 ERJ's. ExpressJet operates 244 50 seat jets and once they merge with ASA they will have over 350 50 seat jets!!! :eek:

IMO not good for survival.


More hair-splitting:

Seems Oldfreightdawg was referring to Eagle's 135s & 140s which are smaller than 50-seaters. That's what I got from the sub-50 comment.

johnso29
07-26-2011, 06:49 AM
More hair-splitting:

Seems Oldfreightdawg was referring to Eagle's 135s & 140s which are smaller than 50-seaters. That's what I got from the sub-50 comment.

Ah. I can see that. ExpressJet used to have EMB135's, but CAL parked them after the fuel spike.

gloopy
07-26-2011, 10:41 AM
Does ExpressJet/ASA/SkyWest permanently own a lot of gates in ATL now after the debacle pump and dump (buy extremely high sell for almost nothing while signing a long term contract) or do those leases expire when their contract sunsets in C12K?

shiznit
07-26-2011, 11:07 AM
If Eagle were allowed to fly the same ASM's on behalf of AA with fewer, but larger aircraft, their costs would be substantially lower.

There are two ways AMR can pursue "lower cost regional lift", first persuade APA to grant more scope relief , or sell Eagle so they can buy larger aircraft and offer feed to other legacy carriers, or a combination of both.

The cost savings will come from operating more efficiently, not lower wages, a theory that SWA proves everyday.

:mad:Are you freakin' kidding? Please tell all of us that you don't mean that.

On top of that, SWA doesn't outsource ANY flying........


Wow. I'm really disappointed that some people are STILL not getting the message that scope relief is BAD.

Oldfreightdawg
07-27-2011, 04:07 AM
More hair-splitting:

Seems Oldfreightdawg was referring to Eagle's 135s & 140s which are smaller than 50-seaters. That's what I got from the sub-50 comment.

Thank you gentlemen, that's what I was talking about, although johnso29 is correct.

OFD

Oldfreightdawg
07-27-2011, 04:59 AM
:mad:Are you freakin' kidding? Please tell all of us that you don't mean that.

On top of that, SWA doesn't outsource ANY flying........


Wow. I'm really disappointed that some people are STILL not getting the message that scope relief is BAD.

Obviously you're not following the thread very well, because I'm not advocating scope relief (are YOU freakin' kidding?) But I understand your confusion, I should have been more clear.

Eagle has a serious cost problem, not because of pilot pay rates, but because of a large inefficient RJ fleet. Bucking Bar (if I understood correctly) implies that lowering regional feed cost by dismantling Eagle would put pressure on mainline guys. Conversely, I would argue: If Eagle were spun off, they don't need scope relief to buy bigger A/C, on the other hand I believe AA will take back more flying from AE using 100 seat jets. Both events lower Eagles and AA's feed costs. Which was my point about SWA, lower costs through increased efficiency, not lower wages.

I think APA will allow Eagle to fly some more 70 seat jets in exchange for Eagle flying substantially fewer ASM's for AMR, the net effect will be diminished flying for Eagle. Some would argue that is "scope relief", I would not.

gloopy
07-27-2011, 09:25 AM
But if AMR can outsource more 70 seaters than they currently do, that will put significant negative pressure on the APA's ability to secure 100 seat pay where it needs to be. Even holding the line at the current B6 levels would be tough if the parent company can just do it via 70 seat versions in a neverending bidding war.