FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 13 Posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10803 times:
Just got the latest edition of AW&ST in the mail, and there is a small paragraph stating that the 34 A300s is likely to be retired in 2008. American wants to reduce the number of types to 5...MD-80s, 738s, 752, 763s & 772s. The article also stated that AA tried to move up the lease expirations with Airbus, but was unsuccessful. AA owns 10 A300s & leased 24 more. I'm wondering what will become of the A300 fleet once they're phased out. I'm thinking Fed Ex perhaps. Thoughts & opinions anyone? Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10489 times:
2008? Wow, only four more years, or 3 1/2 actually, to try to catch an A300 in the U.S. On second thought, A^A will probably start to retire them in 2008, which may take some time to pull all of them completely from the line. Seems to me these birds will retire from A^A with plenty of life left on their frames.
Yes, I too think the A300s will go to cargo carriers.
[Edited 2004-07-28 18:01:29]
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17239 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10416 times:
AA will probably use 777s on routes where the extra cargo capacity is warranted, for example JFK-Santo Domingo.
CO operates 777s from EWR-Santo Domingo.
AA has a huge fleet of 777s, they can get extra utilization on them from JFK and MIA by having them do quick turn arounds to the Carribean where most of the extra cargo capacity is warranted. Instead of having the 777s sit on the ground at JFK or MIA they can do quick round trips to the Islands and be back in time for a late evening/early morning Departure to Tokyo, Europe etc..
That's how CO operates their widebody fleet, they fly 767-200s to SJU and 767-400s/777s to Santo Domingo that would otherwise be sitting on the ground at EWR.
AA will not be able to replace each A300 flight with a 777, however they probably know which ones have the highest demand for cargo and can thus deploy their assets accordingly.
Some AA A300 routes do not carry much cargo at all, such as JFK-Cancun. That route makes more sense operating as a daily 757 or even a twice daily 757.
Pan Am had 747-200 flights from JFK to Santo Domingo and St.Maarten that were also operating Trans-Atlantic routes from JFK, they were getting extra utilization out of the aircraft.
Eventually I can see AA doing the same with their JFK-LAX flights, eventually they are going to retire the 767-200s and probably replace them with Internationaly configured 767-300s that are based at JFK.
Petazulu From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10293 times:
I thought airlines assigned one aircraft to a transatlantic route? In other words, a single 777 would go JFK-CDG-JFK in one day (about 16 hours total in the air plus 1.5 hours on either side. At what point would that same plane have the 'sitting around' time to fly to the carribean and back? By may calculation that leaves about 5 hours for the plane do something else- facinating. That would be trmendously effeicient if CO does do that though!
Aa767400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2417 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10123 times:
Great, So we still have 3 1/2 more years to deal with cancellations,malfunctions and major mechanical issues. Not to mention one of the most dirty and smelly aircraft in the system. This plane is not taken care of in the way it needs to be. I am not saying Airbus is a bad plane, Because I would love a A333 in AA colors. But that is not going to happen. It is that AA does not keep their bus in shape.
Mx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 843 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10089 times:
In Mexico AA's people know the A300 as the "ScareBus" and yes I had the opportunity to work on IGS (AA's ground service at MEX) and it was a terrible plane. I also don't understand why A300 to MEX instead of 763. I think its just for passengers capacity than for cargo.
All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
Dvk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10072 times:
The first AA A300 leases don't expire until 2008 (and I believe only three expire that year), so any others they would retire before then would have to come from the ten owned aircraft. I've always read, however, that AA had such flexibility on these leases that they could return the planes on fairly short notice, with no penalty. That would contradict what was said about Airbus not allowing them to end the leases early. I wonder what's correct...
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information.
VSGirl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10077 times:
I would like to see the A33X in service with American, but I dont think we will see it, though it would make sense.
I have flown on the AA A300 a lot (back when it used to fly EGKK - KJFK) and I always moved it, though I must admit a few weeks back when I saw one she did look some what tired (not nearly as bad as AF aircraft).
I am sure we will see either B752 or B763 on those routes, maybe if they do some marketing for them a B772 (ya right!)
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9896 times:
7E7s? Yep. They just avoided Chapter 11 so a new load of debt would be such a good idea...
757/767s? Too small for the tons of cargo and excess baggage. Forget that.
777s? Seems to be the only option left. Maybe the 7E7 later on, into the 2010 and later timeframe. I can't see AA getting rid of their moneymaker A300s in bulk. If you have a prize cow you don't shoot it and have a barbeque to celebrate...
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4906 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9845 times:
Well, I'm not a mechanic or AA employee, but from my perspective as a passenger, I've found the A300s to be quite nice actually.
Sure, some of the 763s have nicer video systems in them, but give me an A300 anyday over one of those cramped 757s (yes I know, the A300 is also LRTC).
I've flown on lots of the A300s over the past 2 years between MIA and EWR, JFK and SJU - sometimes 4x a month. Only 2 mx delays in that period of time and the widebody interior is something that I value over the cramped single aisle 757.
And, the interiors didn't seem to be in bad shape at all (at least in coach).
Mark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9834 times:
That's too bad that AA is planning on phasing out the A300. Before B6 came along, I frequently used AA between JFK and MIA, and almost always booked a flight on their A300's. I enjoy widebodies, and for short flights like JFK-MIA, the A300 was comfortable, roomy, and quiet. AA will probably rely on their 777 to provide the cargo capacity needed for some Central/ South American routes. Wouldn't be surprised to hear that AA may order some more 777's to cover for the A300 retirement.
Mikeycpvd From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 162 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9835 times:
Here's a possible 777 routing..
Sao Paulo-JFK 777 Arrives JFK at 6:40 Am
Flight is cleaned, prepped
Flight now operates JFK-Santo Domingo
Departs JFK 10:45 AM arrives Santo Domingo 1:45
Departs Santo Domingo 2:45 arrives JFK 6:45 PM
Aircraft is cleaned etc..
Aircraft departs JFK for Sao Paulo at 10:45PM.
And the cycle is repeated, lots of cushining in that schedule for delays.
Well is this schedule factoring in 1 aircraft or two? Because if it's all about utilization, then I would assume it's 1, right? I see a huge hole in your round robin. Leaving alone the daytime rotation for the Carribean flight, what time does the JFK-GRU flight arrive in South America? Because if it leaves New York at 10:45p, that's a red-eye flight with only 1 timezone change, which means it's a loooong flight. That plane lands 9 hours later which would be the early morning of the next day. You have that flight actually landing in New York in the early morning hours of the next day, which is absolutely not possible. The only way for that schedule to work, I can see, is if the Carribean flights were timed later in the day, with a lot less leeway for delays and cleaning. As Petazulu said, and which you could parlay into this scenario, the flight times alone for JFK-GRU-JFK is about 18 hours. Not considering turn times. How does that T7 have time to run to the Caribbean and back with 6 hours left in the day? Again not considering turn times.
Some cats think i'm 6 feet, I'm so deep; I can get d-d-down like a pessimist - Common
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8837 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9678 times:
This is interesting, especially with the 7E7 lurking in the background and the fact that there is no love lost between AA & Airbus. While Airbus might have planes that would fit well with AA fleet and a gook knack at creative financing the two just can't seem to work together.
That leaves Boeing with an opportunity to be very creative on the financial side. Since this is not a situation of immediate need, but long term planning, there may be ways to sell the 7E7 to AA. Returned leased planes frees up monthly lease payments, leverage can be gained from fuel efficiencies, etc.
Like a lot of airlines, AA will be looking at how the industry (and their business) develops over the next 12 - 24 months. AA & the 7E7? Stranger things have happened.