Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Doesn't AA Have A Huge Hole In It's Fleet?  
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6380 posts, RR: 17
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4270 times:

Once the F-100s are gone.

Between the CRJ-700 (70 seats) and the MD-80 (with MRTC, I'm guessing 130 or so seats)

Won't they need something in the 100-110 category?

 Confused


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

It might be cheaper to reduce the no of a/c types than acquiring another type, engineers, pilots... I think 110 to 130 is not that big deal, but s/o might correct me here

User currently offlineRockyRacoon From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 961 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

It's cheaper from them to add frequency rather than another type to the fleet right now.



peace


User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

I concur. You can't look in terms of seats per aircraft - that's way to simplistic. You have to calculate how many seats per day you are giving to a market. Once you know that, you have to decide how you want to divide it up. Are you going to do 4*130 or 8*70? The latter gives fliers more options on when to fly - which is very valuable to some types of fliers (specifically business travelers). You can, of course, mix and match as well. You could send 3*130 and 2*70. The extra flight may help you cover the day better (more frequency) without adding any seats to the market.


Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlineSQ25J From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3661 times:

727LOVER-I agree with you! I think AA being one of the biggest, (heard AF-KL now biggest in terms of rev), airlines needs an aircraft to fill that niche. One possibility would be the 737-600 if they don't want another type of aircraft. Otherwise I think EMB190, 717, or 318. I am not sure where AA stands in terms of contractual obligations with Boeing as sole supplier, but it looks like 190 is best value for money followed by 318 and 717. I have read that DL also is in a similar predicament.

User currently offlineSwardu From United States of America, joined May 2004, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3581 times:

I am a newcomer to this Forum and it's my 1st post, so please bear with me. I think AA will probably stick with the MD80/738 scheme for the time being. If they felt there was a need for an aircraft in the 100-120 seat range, they would've kept the F100 and TWA's 717s instead of parking them at Mohave and Victorville. I guess if AA ever felt the need for that type aircraft they could convert some of the 738 orders into 73G aircraft.

User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3478 times:

CO has the same problem with their fleet as well. They have nothing between their ERJ-145, which holds 50 people, and the 735, which holds 104. There was a thread a while ago about the fact that they are looking at the ERJ-170, and Artsyman dropped some not-too-subtle hints that CO Express is seriously planning on ordering them with a 6F/64Y config. A 70 seater would fit in nicely, and CO frequent flyers would be happy that it has F seats, unlike the 145.

On a side note, is there any more talk about this possible order for Expressjet?

[Edited 2004-05-08 15:44:41]

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

AA is under no obligation to use Boeing as a sole supplier of aircraft. With that said I doubt that they will order the A318. It's to heavy number one and of course it would defeat the purpose of removing the F100 from service. In the unlikely event it came down to the A318 or the 717 I would put my money on the 717. Less of a learning curve for the maintenance department.

User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

They don't need them. Do the math, people.


Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3411 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3243 times:

In my opinion, they are not going to need to do anything at that size. Think about what CO does out of CLE, mostly regional jets even on routes that would support a larger plane. They are able to charge a little motre per passenger and make more of a profit on these routes. I think they look towards a replacement for the early 767s they have. I feel that they are in the best shape going forwards besides Southwest. United is still dragging; Continental does not have the will to grow right now; Delta has to fix the pilot's situation; Northwest doesn't really compete in similar markets going forward where I think AA will try to grow; Us Airways is US Airways, and the LCCs besides Southwest do not have the deep pockets for a large expansion.

User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5167 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3017 times:

A friend of mine is an AA pilot. Gerard Arpey has made it clear that AA wants a 100-seat airplane, but there are 2 reasons why there is no replacement being delivered. First, AA doesn't have the money to spend on 75 new airplanes. That might change when AA has several consecutive quarterly profits.

Second, there is the issue of who will fly the plane. Management doesn't care who flies the plane, Eagle or AA, so long as the operating costs are reasonable. This is what will hold up an order.

The problem with flying RJs is that they are cheap to operate, but flying 2 RJs is not as cheap as flying 1 Fokker, by the time you figure out fuel, labor cost, landing fees, cost to service the planes, etc.

Add in the fact that flying 50% to 100% more Eagle flights, as compared to the Fokker schedules, and ORD is heading for a disasterous summer in terms of on-time performance. In addition, passengers who are AAdvantage Gold and higher are complaining that the RJs have no first-class cabin and reduced space for carry-ons.

The reason that the Fokkers are going is that the maintenance is expensive, due to Fokker going out of business and not making spare parts. The 717s went because of the costly TWA leases and the overlap with the Fokkers.

Could AA buy 717s? Yes, but the MD-80s range in age from 10 to 21 years, and the C-Checks have to be done more frequently than the 727s required. So, why buy a plane that is common to the MD-80s, when the MD-80s could start a slow-disappearing act in 5-7 years? The 737-600 more likley, since the oldest -800s are only 5 years old. The knock on the -600 is that it is relatively heavy, and is more expensive to operate than the -700 or -800. AA could also get 737-700s. The -800s now carry 142 (16 F and 126 C). The 737-700s in MRTC would carry between 108 and 112.

Of course, the question becomes, what replaces the MD-80 at 129 seats? I don't think AA wants to have aircraft types with different configurations. They tried that with the MD-80s before MRTC, and it was more trouble than it was worth.

I think AA still has around 400 production slots left on its Boeing contract. So going to Embrear may not make sense when there are so many available slots with Boeing.


User currently offlineDAYFL From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

RJ's are not cheap to operate based on CASM.

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

So, why buy a plane that is common to the MD-80s, when the MD-80s could start a slow-disappearing act in 5-7 years?

I was under the impression the 717 had nothing in common with the MD-80, other than fuselage diameter. The 717 only entered service in 1999.


User currently offlineStarCruiser From United States of America, joined May 2004, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

While under no obligation to Boeing, AA mainline wants to eliminate all non-Boeing products as soon as possible. If I remember correctly I read on this list that they have deferred deliveries until 2005 or 2006 on their remaining orders of 738s. So far as their relationship with Airbus is concerned after the last crash in 2001 of an A-300, AA wants nothing to do with Airbus and vice-versa (also according to this list). My guess is they will just run MD-80s (129 seats in MRTC) instead of the F-100s (87 seats in MRTC) on the mainline flights or the CRJ-700s on Eagle.

User currently offline4jaded From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

I don't think AA has a hole in the fleet I think they just got rid of an expensive to operate small type airplane they didn't really need. There cost structure is just too high for the F100. It has nothing in common with anything else they operate and frankly was not too popular with any passengers over 5'8". The MD-80's and 737's they operate are just about as small a plane as they need. They have no problem dispatching Eagle to fly where they need when they need with smaller equipment. If the revenue premium AA got prior to 9/11 was still there I am sure they may have looked at the 717 or kept the F100 on until they were just too old to be useful anymore however those days are fading fast as the lower cost operators are getting more aggressive in all types of markets.

User currently offlineFRAspotter From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2341 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

Isn't that why they have the F-100 in their fleet? Or did they get rid of those?

Cheers.



"Drunks run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

It doesn't matter if AA has a hole in its fleet right now. They have almost made a full recovery now. They are becoming profitable again. I suspect great things are in store for AA. STL certainly is benefiting from AA's health right now.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2637 times:

Like hello, why didn't anyone mention the E170/75/90/95?

They would seem to be ideally sized to fit the 70-130 seat range (althoug not exactly the latter).



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2590 times:

The reason that the Fokkers are going is that the maintenance is expensive, due to Fokker going out of business and not making spare parts.

Of course we make spare parts !
Development, customer support, repair handling and spare parts supply have never stopped and will not do so for the next 20 years or so.........
Just to keep the record straight  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Question for I...fox. you said 4 of one type, or eight of another. What about pilots and crew? There is some math in there somewhere.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

AA, like most airlines, have a gap in its fleet between regional jet operations and mainline operations. There is a major problem concerning 100 seat aircraft with most carriers - will the 100 seater be considered a mainline airliner by labor or can the airlines convince labor that lower cost regional operations should include 100 seat airliners (or operated by mainline at lower costs equivalent to regional ops)? Its all about cost and effeciency, and until this important issue can be worked out to the airlines and unions satisfaction, it is unlikely that any traditional major US airline will make any futher commitments to ordering 100-125 seat airliners like the 736/73G/717/318. Even if airlines could afford to go out and order new aircraft at this time, there would be little interest in these smaller types.

DL does not seem to have plans to replace its 732/733 fleet, but they have other things on their mind at the moment. AA has parked or will park its 717 and F100 fleets. CO, which does well with flying smaller types on many routes, has stated that it will not add to its 73G fleet, has no interest in the 736, is phasing out the MD80 and has focused on the 738 size aircraft. And, of course, there is NW and the DC9s......I absolutely want to avoid a NW and the DC9 discussion, but NW's old DC9s which are fully paid for and fully written off are cheap and effecient to operate on the short segments that they handle and NW does not seem to be concerned about replacing the type.

Regional jets are not the answer, mainline carriers need a smaller type for key routes that require frequent service or need more than RJ service, but until the cost issue can be worked out with labor, I think that airlines will wait and see with repect to smaller types.


User currently offlineFliboyz From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Cruiser you are right about AA deferring airplanes for a few years. AA still has on order 738s from Boeing and have deferred them for a bit. After the Fokkers are gone, thank goodness, AA will be down to the 777, 767, 757, 738, MD-80s and the A300. Six fleet types. AA is trying to simplify it's fleet albeit reducing costs from maintenance of course.

As far as making a FULL recovery, don't let the numbers fool you. AA has a lot of debt from borrowing money over the last few years, something like 21 Billion. Although AA made a profit, and things are turning for the better at AA, Arpey did mention that other ways of reducing costs is still on the Horizon. AA is and will not be out of the woods for several more years. But they have done a tremondous job on trying it's hardest to stay out of BK.

I wish they get rid of the A300s soon too but that is not going to be for another 6 years maybe. Not sure on that. I think I heard something like 2010. Of course things change from day to day with the airlines. Tomorrow they could say they were ordering more airplanes. R I G H T!!!!

Happy Flying.


User currently offlineAa717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

The CRJ700's will fill the hole left by the departing F100's. Look at the time frame for deliveries. AA told APA they could fly the CRJ's--on a "cost neutral basis". Think about it, AA pilots will have to fly at Eagle CRJ rates, no retirement and lousy medical insurance. Ok, so they already have the lousy medical insurance.

Ain't gonna happen. I wish it would because it would get my fellow TWA pilots and the relatively few(and extremely junior Natives) back on the property. AA is dramatically expanding Eagle and has no intention of acquiring 100 seat jets for mainline. Unless...they can be flown on a "cost-neutral basis"... InsaneTC



FL450, M.85
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Doesn't AA Have 'Economy Plus' On The 777s? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 20:58:13 by Gh123
Does Florida West Have DC-10s In Their Fleet? posted Sat May 13 2006 09:47:01 by LTU932
How Long Did Delta Have The A310 In The Fleet? posted Sat Mar 16 2002 04:58:37 by 777-200
Why Doesn't AA Have Flight Time Table Booklets? posted Fri Feb 18 2000 04:01:28 by 747-600X
Why Does Airplane Ice Have Holes In It? posted Wed Jun 12 2002 06:51:05 by ILUV767
If A 747 Were To Have 100,000 Pigeons In It... posted Thu Feb 7 2002 03:48:07 by Sushka
BA's Huge Presence In The USA-worth It? posted Fri Jan 18 2002 15:22:21 by Capt.Picard
AA CEO Sees "very Very Huge Loss In 2001" posted Wed Dec 12 2001 06:08:13 by Jiml1126
How Did It Come, That AA Have Same A300s? posted Fri Aug 10 2001 15:10:03 by MD 11
Do Any Airlines Have The A300 B4 In Their Fleet? posted Mon Mar 26 2001 01:38:44 by Mbj-11