Looks like US Airways is cancelling 35 Airbus, and postponing other orders from Airbus..
Could this be the courts way of pushing Boeing later on?
The deal would end US Airways' rights or obligations to acquire 35 Airbus planes, delay delivery of other planes, and provide $6 million in cash to US Airways from conversion of credits it has with Airbus.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, Va., will hold a hearing to consider approval of the deal on Jan. 27, following any objections that are due by Jan. 25.
US Airways, which filed for Chapter 11 in September, has been working hard to trim the size of its fleet. It plans to become a low-cost carrier focused on point-to-point flying on the East Coast and in the Caribbean.
Dayflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7241 times:
I wondered when this was going to happen. It was but a matter of time before they cancelled or defered odersof new aircraft. Is this a cancellation of all new aircraft orders, or just the narrow-bodies?
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7096 times:
Lets not start the Boeing behind this conspiracy crap. Face it Airbus can't afford those planes. Just like CO possibly cancelling their recent 7E7 order has nothing to do with Airbus or cities in Europe threatening with tariffs, that only happens to Thai Airways.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7046 times:
US does not need 332's. The only thing they need is profit.
It makes you wonder whether US could have been solvent and profitable had it not gone on an Airbus buying binge for no reason. Had US kept their M80, F100 fleets and not bought the 321/320/319, perhaps their balance sheet would have been stronger and their lease costs much lower.
Funny how so many airlines that fall into bankruptcy or liquidation have new fleets, such as Aero Lloyd, Swissair, Sabena, Ansett, Canada 3000, Midway.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
Aa717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7006 times:
This order is a liability on the books. They probably needed to get rid of it to avoid mandatory if small payments toward those planes.
Re: replacing old, tired 762's.
That's what I was talking about when U filed Ch.11 the first time. They will be unable to acquire new equipment for a LONG time. They will have no access to reasonable credit for a LONG time and any cash or equipment they are able to get will be financed at Mafia rates.
If they survive, it will be a decade-long recovery IF they do everything exactly correct. We have numerous examples of airlines that have filed Ch.11 over the past couple of decades. We have only a couple examples of those who have survived.TC
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6865 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6968 times:
I have to agree.. US doen't need to purchase any more aircraft.. They are getting the E170 aircraft in.. They could just update their interiors on their 737s, 757, and 767. You know, new seat covers, clean the walls, IFE, repaint... I'm sure it is much easier to update than to purchase new aircraft.. Their Boeing are closer to being paid for if they aren't already.. just work with what you got.. as long as you take care of what you got.. go for it.. it works for NW..
ATLhomeCMH From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6922 times:
It has nothing to do with Boeing. It has everything to do with the fact that US isn't profitable enough to buy new a/c AND avoid liquidation once they blow through the $900 million in loan guarantees they just received.
"The most terrifying words in the Engligh language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"-Ronald Reagan
Aa717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6813 times:
Supa7E7--Well... TWA carried their A330 orders on the books as a liability (along with the RR Trent's that came with them). It impacted TWA's credit rating and was finally negotiated away when TWA converted them to A318 orders.
As for the rest of the post. After being through three bankruptcies with TWA and a brush with Ch.11 at AA and having intimate knowlege of the proceedings from a member of the creditor's committee on the last TWA filing, AND being on the APA BOD for the discussions and briefings prior to the brush with Ch. 11, I stand by my comments on the hurdles any company in Ch.11 faces when emerging from bankruptcy.
Because of its credit rating, TWA was paying as much for their MD80's as they would for a 757 at market rates. They had to go back to Carl Icahn to borrow money (in the mid-90's when money was flowing freely) because they couldn't get it anywhere else.
My kid may be able to order an A320. Whether he can pay for it is another matter. AND, more importantly (since my post had nothing to do with USAir's ability to order airplanes and everything to do with wanting to clear a liability off the balance sheet) having the A320 order on his balance sheet will negatively impact his ability to borrow money from me to buy more Yugi-Oh cards. TC
A330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6367 times:
As far as I've heard, US is cancelling 35 options and receiving their money back for them. I believe US still will have on order the 19 A320-series aircraft, and I'm near-certain that US will still have on order the 10 A330-200 series aircraft. Those aircraft still on order will be delayed, though. How much, I'm not sure, and I'm not entirely sure on the rest of it at this point.
I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 7347 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6244 times:
From reading the docket with the bankruptcy court (here: http://www.donlinrecano.net/dr201/mwc/04-13819/dk001615-0000.pdf), it does appear that the 35 cancelled aircraft are "Purchase Right" aircraft, which would, as my best guess, be options with guaranteed delivery slots. The actual orders (19 A320/A321 and 10 A330 aircraft) appear to be delayed as part of this agreement. The court wouldn't be "pushing Boeing" given that the company itself is asking for this agreement with Airbus to be approved.
In any case, it's probable that the orders have been pushed back past 2007 (my guess would be to 2008 or 2009). The company will be returning 10 A319's to GECAS this year, and 15 737-300's to GECAS in 2006 and 2007. Given that the average age of the 737-300's will be over 20 years at the end of 2007, it's likely that the Airbus narrowbodies will largely be replacements in the fleet at that point. Similarly, the 767-200's originally delivered to PI will be roughly 20 years old in 2007.
Indy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4617 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6211 times:
If you were Airbus and you had an order for 35 jets from US Airways what would you do? Would you honor the order with the thought that you may be building 35 jets that won't be delivered? Is it possible that US Airways believes that Airbus won't honor the orders so to save face they go ahead and just terminate the orders?
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 79
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6080 times:
Any chance NW could use this to accelerate A330 deliveries and move more DC-10's out to the desert?
I have heard extensively that NW is looking to accelerate their A330 deliveries. I don't know if US cancelling their 332s (which we don't know for sure they are) would be fast enough for them. Those delivery slots would begin in 2007, and NW is scheduled to wrap up their delivery of 330s around then (I think).
NW only has 3 more 332s to receive. Its amazing how quickly they got those aircraft delivered after changing the order from all 333s to 14 and 10.
GSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3342 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5774 times:
Okay, forget about new aircraft for a while. As Yyz717 stated, the 762's can be refurbished. I would have no problems flying one at all if I felt it had been freshened, and offered features other airlines' planes do. As it stands now, though, my frequent-flyer partner says NW's 30+ year-old DC10's are better to fly on than US's 20-odd year-old 762's....
Skymileman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5016 times:
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! I just hate to see any airline dieing the slow death that US Airways seems to be doing. Those poor employees are just stuck to go down with the ship! We all know that the executives are going to walk away with their pockets lined (With what we're not yet sure!).
PlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 1526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4923 times:
This will be a deal between the Courts, A, airline and other connected parties.
Has to be by mutual agreement, as option $'s are transferrable and sometimes deferable, but rarely refundable.
If the Courts cancelled the options without agreement, then A would hold the the $'s as compensation. This would extinguish a small asset on US's books and a significant contingent or even term liability.
Given the airlines condition, more likely the option $'s will be used as part-payment for confirmed orders that will definitely be delivered.