FWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3172 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2518 times:
Gerald Arpey has said as recently as this past Thursday that AA may accelerate the replacement of their MD-80s due to high fuel costs. With the latest wiring inspection debacles, I'm wondering if AA might decide to accelerate the MD-80 retirements even further.
As we all know, the 737NG in some form or another is probably going to be one of AA's MD-80 replacements, and Boeing has said that they plan to increase 737 production further, so I'm wondering if AA plans on increasing their 737 orders from the current 47 planes due between 2009-2012 to 100 or more.
At the same time, does a plane like the EMB-195 or the Bombardier C-Series have a future with AA to fill in the lower end of the MD-80 replacement needs? IMO, AA could order 100 of either and call it a day...
TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3220 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2499 times:
If I were AA, looking at high fuel costs and demands from organized labor, adding debt for new planes might not be a smart move. Allegiant is adding MD-80's to their fleet because of the low cost to acquire. I'm starting to think that AA may take a prepackaged trip thru CH11 to shed debt. At that point, they may have low enough costs to keep the Super 80 around, even with the current cost of fuel.
Swissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 1): If I were AA, looking at high fuel costs and demands from organized labor, adding debt for new planes might not be a smart move.
Agree, lets not forget we are more or less in a downturn and I believe there is more to come, but I can see AA will start parking them or will find a new owner and sell them, free up more cash and used it for new "metal".
LAXdude1023 From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6779 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2431 times:
Think AA is currently in the process of replaceing the older ones. I dont think AA needs to completely do away with the MD80 right now, but they need to get rid of the older ones faster.
Quoting FWAERJ (Thread starter): At the same time, does a plane like the EMB-195 or the Bombardier C-Series have a future with AA to fill in the lower end of the MD-80 replacement needs? IMO, AA could order 100 of either and call it a day...
You bring up a good point. Ive been wondering if they will just replace the lower end routes with CR7's or if they will try to add a new plane to the line up. I would love to see some E75 or some E90's to the fleet, but Im not sure how feasible that is. One thing is for sure, they need more 737's and some more 777's
DFW Fan Boy: Im crude, irreverent, and blunt, but Im not clueless. I offer no apologies.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2422 times:
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 1): If I were AA, looking at high fuel costs and demands from organized labor, adding debt for new planes might not be a smart move.
Indeed.
If worse comes to worse they can store a few of the MD-80s that are owned outright, keep the leased ones flying and generating revenue until the leases run out, then return the leased ones and reactivate the ones which don't have such high fixed costs... that is, of course, if any of AA's MD-80s are leased.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
ContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1436 posts, RR: 50 Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2308 times:
Quoting FWAERJ (Thread starter): With the latest wiring inspection debacles, I'm wondering if AA might decide to accelerate the MD-80 retirements even further.
What about this latest incident would make any reasonable business person say, "Hey, we should replace those airplanes!"? Was it a failure of the airplane itself due to cycles or time? No. Was it a failure of design? Again, no.
This latest snafu was not a failure on the part of the airplane. It was work required to comply with an airworthiness directive and perhaps a capricious FAA.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
Breaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 1): I'm starting to think that AA may take a prepackaged trip thru CH11 to shed debt. At that point, they may have low enough costs to keep the Super 80 around, even with the current cost of fuel.
How funny - I posted almost practically the same thing in another thread. I think you are right on the nose here Tommy. Management and even investors are likely thinking about what opportunity and 'dose of prevention' a trip to BK court would bring about right now given the current situation. I wouldn't be surprised - check out the posting on "AA Pilots lash out" and see if you agree?
Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
In a word: no.
The MD80s won't be leaving the fleet any faster (or slower) now as opposed to one week ago. This is due to one major fact that some seem to continue overlooking: nothing has changed about the MD80s since last week.
These planes are still safe, reliable, and have essentially 0 ownership costs.
Sure, they are more fuel-intensive, and as they age, will continue to get more maintenance-intensive, but its hardly as if these planes are so uneconomical that they can no longer be operated by AA in this environment.
MD80s will still remain a mainstay of the AA mainline fleet for at least the next decade - if not longer. The planes are still extremely reliable workhorses, they're built like indestructible tanks (thank you Douglas Aircraft Corp.), and even if AA wanted to replace them at a rate of one per week - which is impossible given Boeing/Airbus' present backlog - you'd still be looking at almost a decade before the last plane left the fleet.
Bmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2081 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2077 times:
Fact is AA isn't in a financial position to do so and probably won't be until 2010 or later. The MD-80 is a very reliable aircraft despite the harrowing mess over the past few days. To all those affected and those that say they'll never fly AA again...these inspection had to be done sooner or later.
AA will bounce back from this. It isn't a airline-killer senario.
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
ChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 1): I'm starting to think that AA may take a prepackaged trip thru CH11 to shed debt
I tend to agree with you on this one. I was a little surprised they did not do it with DL and NW. It would have been a good time with half the competition in court. Not that there is a good time to be in bankruptcy.
AA management has done a good job keeping the airline out of bankruptcy, but they have missed out on a lot of debt shedding and trimming of the fat.
MD-80s will be there for a long time. It is not the time to spend money on new planes. There is a price of fuel that would make it better for AA to buy new planes; we're not close to that, yet. I don't know that price, but if we had reached it or were close, there would be a large order of 737s.
Diamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 66 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1642 times:
As this is directly affected by the recent groundings, and the a/c have now been returned to service, please continue the discussion at:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3172 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6779 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2081 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
