InnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (11 years 18 hours ago) and read 4141 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!
SQ25J From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 hours ago) and read 3878 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.
Swardu From United States of America, joined May 2004, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 hours ago) and read 3798 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.
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2708 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 hours ago) and read 3695 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?
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4735 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 hours ago) and read 3678 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.
PVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3440 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 hours ago) and read 3460 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.
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5457 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 hour ago) and read 3234 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.
StarCruiser From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years ago) and read 3078 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.
4jaded From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years ago) and read 3027 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.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2876 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.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2807 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
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2716 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.
Fliboyz From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2680 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!!!!
Aa717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2489 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"... TC