Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:20 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving

I see a place for the E2 190/195 with AS, but I have a hard time believing they would choose the nuclear option with their pilots and place them at QX. Yes, the contract doesn't prevent it, but picking a fight with your union as you fight competition on several fronts seems counterproductive.
 
tiptoe42
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:27 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:47 pm

msp747 wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving

I see a place for the E2 190/195 with AS, but I have a hard time believing they would choose the nuclear option with their pilots and place them at QX. Yes, the contract doesn't prevent it, but picking a fight with your union as you fight competition on several fronts seems counterproductive.


I see what you are saying, and that is certainly a legitimate point of view. Having said that AAG is all about costs, if they were to place those aircraft at Alaska they need to create a training program, train pilots and flight attendants, and pay more to crews than they would at horizon. Horizon already has the aircraft on their certificate and as such are ready to accept those aircraft with no additional costs to AAG. Sadly for crews at Alaska, as you mention, nothing exists contractually to prevent it. We differ in our opinion of what AAG management is willing to do. I believe they do not care about what the pilots think and they are largely protected by the railway labor act, the pilots have essentially no recourse at this point in time. Look no further than one upper management person’s testimony during the TPA hearings prior to the current arbitrated contract.
To summarize management is willing to sacrifice the relationship with the crews to preserve their business model and profit margin. As such I believe you’ll see any new aircraft in the roughly 100 seat range flown at Horizon.
 
ASFlyer
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:25 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:51 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
msp747 wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving

I see a place for the E2 190/195 with AS, but I have a hard time believing they would choose the nuclear option with their pilots and place them at QX. Yes, the contract doesn't prevent it, but picking a fight with your union as you fight competition on several fronts seems counterproductive.


I see what you are saying, and that is certainly a legitimate point of view. Having said that AAG is all about costs, if they were to place those aircraft at Alaska they need to create a training program, train pilots and flight attendants, and pay more to crews than they would at horizon. Horizon already has the aircraft on their certificate and as such are ready to accept those aircraft with no additional costs to AAG. Sadly for crews at Alaska, as you mention, nothing exists contractually to prevent it. We differ in our opinion of what AAG management is willing to do. I believe they do not care about what the pilots think and they are largely protected by the railway labor act, the pilots have essentially no recourse at this point in time. Look no further than one upper management person’s testimony during the TPA hearings prior to the current arbitrated contract.
To summarize management is willing to sacrifice the relationship with the crews to preserve their business model and profit margin. As such I believe you’ll see any new aircraft in the roughly 100 seat range flown at Horizon.


I absolutely agree with your last point - that one management person has put costs and profits above relationships and I think it's just a matter of time before their actions cause those relationships to become so spoiled that the costs and profits will reflect that. Alaska is not the airline it once was. The culture has changed significantly. What once made Alaska so special is gone.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:51 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving


A net loss of 20-30 airframes would be devastating to AS...massive furloughs and route cuts would be the result. If this came to pass I’d rather they start shopping for an acquiring airline.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:03 pm

hiflyeras wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving


A net loss of 20-30 airframes would be devastating to AS...massive furloughs and route cuts would be the result. If this came to pass I’d rather they start shopping for an acquiring airline.


A profitable airline in a booming economy doesnt lead to BS like this.

Ill wave the BS flag high on this rumor
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:19 pm

So yall are telling me AS spent what I assume is millions of dollars on repainting and retrofitting 50+ A320 family jets (let's not forget some of them were just months old at the time) and they'll now just let them go. Yeah I'm not buying that for a milisecond
A350/CSeries = bae
 
USAirKid
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:34 pm

With all this discussion of the E190E2 at QX, I’m curious if the AS pilots union would be okay with it, if the pilot wages at QX were similar to what they’d be if a similar sized plane was at AS? Essentially is the union wanting jobs specifically for them, or are they okay with those jobs at another carrier if the wage is about the same?
 
sxf24
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:44 pm

What is ignored in the rumors of E-190s, either at AS or QX, is the impact on unit costs. One reason AS has been successful and able to grow, providing opportunities to its employees, is because it has maintained very competitive unit costs. This comes from overall cost management, but more importantly for flying higher gauge airplanes on longer flights.

The only way AS can be competitive is to continue shifting to larger airplanes, both by replacing A319s and A320s with anything else, and taking MAX 9s and 10s.

The lease rates for the A321s are not competitive, having been signed up so long ago, and I’m not sure how AS gets to a better outcome with GECAS. Probably by leasing more airplanes, which for GECAS are mostly MAX.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:47 pm

Given that the place AS uses the 73G is Alaska, unless QX came back into the state, AS may end up flying the E2 on it's own.
 
tiptoe42
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:27 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:33 am

hiflyeras wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving


A net loss of 20-30 airframes would be devastating to AS...massive furloughs and route cuts would be the result. If this came to pass I’d rather they start shopping for an acquiring airline.


They could replace the same number of seats lost by parking the airbus fleet with an order of 60 or so max9s. Alaska’s growth is measured in seats not number of airplanes
 
tiptoe42
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:27 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:42 am

USAirKid wrote:
With all this discussion of the E190E2 at QX, I’m curious if the AS pilots union would be okay with it, if the pilot wages at QX were similar to what they’d be if a similar sized plane was at AS? Essentially is the union wanting jobs specifically for them, or are they okay with those jobs at another carrier if the wage is about the same?


Of course the pilot union does not approve, but with no scope, there is nothing they can do.
 
tiptoe42
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:27 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:46 am

OA940 wrote:
So yall are telling me AS spent what I assume is millions of dollars on repainting and retrofitting 50+ A320 family jets (let's not forget some of them were just months old at the time) and they'll now just let them go. Yeah I'm not buying that for a milisecond


Yes
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:13 am

Bit of wishful thinking from the AS fans there. "I heard a rumour that they are getting rid of all their Airbuses" - with the MAX not sorted out yet?

I don't think so mate.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:27 am

tiptoe42 wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving


A net loss of 20-30 airframes would be devastating to AS...massive furloughs and route cuts would be the result. If this came to pass I’d rather they start shopping for an acquiring airline.


They could replace the same number of seats lost by parking the airbus fleet with an order of 60 or so max9s. Alaska’s growth is measured in seats not number of airplanes


60 737-9, how do you buy and get an airplane delivered that is not certified?
 
tiptoe42
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:27 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:17 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:

A net loss of 20-30 airframes would be devastating to AS...massive furloughs and route cuts would be the result. If this came to pass I’d rather they start shopping for an acquiring airline.


They could replace the same number of seats lost by parking the airbus fleet with an order of 60 or so max9s. Alaska’s growth is measured in seats not number of airplanes


60 737-9, how do you buy and get an airplane delivered that is not certified?


Already have two that have been delivered and are sitting in storage. Granted they are waiting for the plane to be given the ok before they announce the fleet decision publicly.
 
RWRCAS
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:03 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:33 pm

OA940 wrote:
So yall are telling me AS spent what I assume is millions of dollars on repainting and retrofitting 50+ A320 family jets (let's not forget some of them were just months old at the time) and they'll now just let them go. Yeah I'm not buying that for a milisecond


Aircraft that are coming off lease in the near future are not getting cabin upgrades. The Airbus fleet was painted, even those with a short life span at Alaska, because the cost of painting the aircraft was less than the cost of paying the royalties for the Virgin Brand.
 
oosnowrat
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:55 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:26 am

tiptoe42 wrote:
msp747 wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving

I see a place for the E2 190/195 with AS, but I have a hard time believing they would choose the nuclear option with their pilots and place them at QX. Yes, the contract doesn't prevent it, but picking a fight with your union as you fight competition on several fronts seems counterproductive.


I see what you are saying, and that is certainly a legitimate point of view. Having said that AAG is all about costs, if they were to place those aircraft at Alaska they need to create a training program, train pilots and flight attendants, and pay more to crews than they would at horizon. Horizon already has the aircraft on their certificate and as such are ready to accept those aircraft with no additional costs to AAG. Sadly for crews at Alaska, as you mention, nothing exists contractually to prevent it. We differ in our opinion of what AAG management is willing to do. I believe they do not care about what the pilots think and they are largely protected by the railway labor act, the pilots have essentially no recourse at this point in time. Look no further than one upper management person’s testimony during the TPA hearings prior to the current arbitrated contract.
To summarize management is willing to sacrifice the relationship with the crews to preserve their business model and profit margin. As such I believe you’ll see any new aircraft in the roughly 100 seat range flown at Horizon.


If there isn't any profit margin, the relationship with the workforce becomes irrelevant (any former EA, TW, PA employees want to comment?). That said, why needlessly antagonize the workgroups? If a 100-seater is needed, make it mainline while letting QX bring the 175-E2 and OO the MRJ on property.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:33 am

Bringing the E2 to QX would be a fascinating poison pill that may finally put an end to the "X should buy AS" threads.

A couple of billion dollars in aircraft that no other US airline could practically use?
 
QXAS
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:14 am

Since AS doesn’t have a scope clause, could they theoretically use the E2s that are or at least were on order at OO? Clearly AS wouldn’t be able to use all 100 aircraft but if those are still on order it’d be an easy way for AS to add regional capacity and OO would be able to place some of the aircraft. Or are the AS operations at OO bound by other contracts?
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:55 am

tiptoe42 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:

They could replace the same number of seats lost by parking the airbus fleet with an order of 60 or so max9s. Alaska’s growth is measured in seats not number of airplanes


60 737-9, how do you buy and get an airplane delivered that is not certified?


Already have two that have been delivered and are sitting in storage. Granted they are waiting for the plane to be given the ok before they announce the fleet decision publicly.


What would 60 737-9 uncertified airplanes sitting somewhere in storage help an airline running it's business?

The point to this discussion is, that there are troubles with the 737MAX and even if it becomes recertified in the not so distance future, the troubles will cause further delays to frames being delivered.
That people are promoting here, that the best business decision in this situation is, to get rid as fast as possible of the A320 family frames and cancel the ordered frames, borders simply on insanity.
 
tiptoe42
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:27 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:02 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

60 737-9, how do you buy and get an airplane delivered that is not certified?


Already have two that have been delivered and are sitting in storage. Granted they are waiting for the plane to be given the ok before they announce the fleet decision publicly.


What would 60 737-9 uncertified airplanes sitting somewhere in storage help an airline running it's business?

The point to this discussion is, that there are troubles with the 737MAX and even if it becomes recertified in the not so distance future, the troubles will cause further delays to frames being delivered.
That people are promoting here, that the best business decision in this situation is, to get rid as fast as possible of the A320 family frames and cancel the ordered frames, borders simply on insanity.



I am certainly not saying getting rid of the Airbus is the best business decision, my personal view is they should be trying to get as many 321NEOs as they can, but as I keep saying AAG is all about cost, the MAX is already cheaper and will likely be heavily discounted to Alaska going forward.
AAG isn’t going to announce the fleet plan until the MAX is given the go ahead from the various regulatory agencies, but The fact remains that the Airbus lease returns have already started and will continue.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:38 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:

Already have two that have been delivered and are sitting in storage. Granted they are waiting for the plane to be given the ok before they announce the fleet decision publicly.


What would 60 737-9 uncertified airplanes sitting somewhere in storage help an airline running it's business?

The point to this discussion is, that there are troubles with the 737MAX and even if it becomes recertified in the not so distance future, the troubles will cause further delays to frames being delivered.
That people are promoting here, that the best business decision in this situation is, to get rid as fast as possible of the A320 family frames and cancel the ordered frames, borders simply on insanity.



I am certainly not saying getting rid of the Airbus is the best business decision, my personal view is they should be trying to get as many 321NEOs as they can, but as I keep saying AAG is all about cost, the MAX is already cheaper and will likely be heavily discounted to Alaska going forward.
AAG isn’t going to announce the fleet plan until the MAX is given the go ahead from the various regulatory agencies, but The fact remains that the Airbus lease returns have already started and will continue.


Even if the MAX will get the go ahead, deliveries will be late, in some cases not month but years. Boeing has to fix all grounded frames and all frames produced since the grounding, deliveries will be spaced out in time. Boeing has produced 42 frames a month instead of ramping up to 57. That is 15 frames missing from production each month. Boeing has to ramp from 42 to 57, when deliveries start again. No contracted delivery dates will hold up to reality.
If you believe the troubles are over with recertification, you should start thinking about it.

A company having frames with a lot of live in them, have to make sure that they are able to get new ones, before letting them go. You can talk about price in a few years.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1001
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:01 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

What would 60 737-9 uncertified airplanes sitting somewhere in storage help an airline running it's business?

The point to this discussion is, that there are troubles with the 737MAX and even if it becomes recertified in the not so distance future, the troubles will cause further delays to frames being delivered.
That people are promoting here, that the best business decision in this situation is, to get rid as fast as possible of the A320 family frames and cancel the ordered frames, borders simply on insanity.



I am certainly not saying getting rid of the Airbus is the best business decision, my personal view is they should be trying to get as many 321NEOs as they can, but as I keep saying AAG is all about cost, the MAX is already cheaper and will likely be heavily discounted to Alaska going forward.
AAG isn’t going to announce the fleet plan until the MAX is given the go ahead from the various regulatory agencies, but The fact remains that the Airbus lease returns have already started and will continue.


Even if the MAX will get the go ahead, deliveries will be late, in some cases not month but years. Boeing has to fix all grounded frames and all frames produced since the grounding, deliveries will be spaced out in time. Boeing has produced 42 frames a month instead of ramping up to 57. That is 15 frames missing from production each month. Boeing has to ramp from 42 to 57, when deliveries start again. No contracted delivery dates will hold up to reality.
If you believe the troubles are over with recertification, you should start thinking about it.

A company having frames with a lot of live in them, have to make sure that they are able to get new ones, before letting them go. You can talk about price in a few years.


You are hysterically conflating multiple issues.

It takes little time to “fix” the parked aircraft as the software load can be done very quickly. There is no scenario being credibly discussed where hardware modifications are immediately required.

It will take more than a year to deliver some airplanes. This will be more of a reflection of when customers want deliveries: e.g. European IT airlines have narrow windows when deliveries work.

I would expect AS and the other US airlines would receive many of their stored airplanes earlier.
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:24 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving


And you’d be wrong. If there is one constant in aviation; it is that it is always changing. What was true 10 years ago is not true today, and what’s true today, likely won’t be in 10 years. When fleet decisions are made at AAG today, they are looking at the new pilot staffing realities of 2025 and 2030. The days of staffing your express carriers with pilot crews that get paid starvation wages is over, which fundamentally changes the cost equation of using QX staffed small jets. AAG is not going to be buying 150+ small jets for QX and downsizing main line aircraft.

Unless the C-suite makes a U-turn, the Airbus aircraft will be there for at least the next 3 years, minimum. I say 3 years because that is the timeline we work with AAG on. Granted I do not work with the Ops side of the biz, but rather the customer facing side. AAG is far more customer centric than most airlines. Unless Boeing launches a new product the A321neo fleet will be increasing. AAG has a decent relationship with Boeing, but this MAX disaster has really strained AAG’s expansion/growth plans. AAG has a set of employees fully trained and certified on Airbus aircraft, not to mention an entire supply chain in place for Airbus. What once would have been a huge expense to add a non-Boeing subfleet before the purchase of VX, is now no longer true. What’s true today is that the most profitable way forward is with a mixed fleet of MAXs and A321s. The A319s and A320s will be sticking around as lease renewals make sense and if/when Boeing can offer any clarity on delivery positions.

I don’t know how you came up with such an odd idea that AAG would slash their mainline aircraft fleet and massively increase the QX fleet. Doing so would tear the company apart.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:06 pm

sxf24 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:


I am certainly not saying getting rid of the Airbus is the best business decision, my personal view is they should be trying to get as many 321NEOs as they can, but as I keep saying AAG is all about cost, the MAX is already cheaper and will likely be heavily discounted to Alaska going forward.
AAG isn’t going to announce the fleet plan until the MAX is given the go ahead from the various regulatory agencies, but The fact remains that the Airbus lease returns have already started and will continue.


Even if the MAX will get the go ahead, deliveries will be late, in some cases not month but years. Boeing has to fix all grounded frames and all frames produced since the grounding, deliveries will be spaced out in time. Boeing has produced 42 frames a month instead of ramping up to 57. That is 15 frames missing from production each month. Boeing has to ramp from 42 to 57, when deliveries start again. No contracted delivery dates will hold up to reality.
If you believe the troubles are over with recertification, you should start thinking about it.

A company having frames with a lot of live in them, have to make sure that they are able to get new ones, before letting them go. You can talk about price in a few years.


You are hysterically conflating multiple issues.

It takes little time to “fix” the parked aircraft as the software load can be done very quickly. There is no scenario being credibly discussed where hardware modifications are immediately required.

It will take more than a year to deliver some airplanes. This will be more of a reflection of when customers want deliveries: e.g. European IT airlines have narrow windows when deliveries work.

I would expect AS and the other US airlines would receive many of their stored airplanes earlier.


I would say you are hysterical optimistic. I bet you that this grounding will still have an effect on delivery delays of 737MAX three years from now. Just the production reduction will put Boeing about 150 to 200 frames behind plan. And Boeing can hardly give preferential treatment to USA customers, without losing credibility in other markets.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:19 pm

QXAS wrote:
Since AS doesn’t have a scope clause, could they theoretically use the E2s that are or at least were on order at OO? Clearly AS wouldn’t be able to use all 100 aircraft but if those are still on order it’d be an easy way for AS to add regional capacity and OO would be able to place some of the aircraft. Or are the AS operations at OO bound by other contracts?

As I understand it from other threads that specifically focus on the E2, OO's contract with DL prevents OO from using non-scope compliant aircraft on any routes that would compete with Delta branded flights.
 
Aliqiout
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:56 pm

QXAS wrote:
Since AS doesn’t have a scope clause, could they theoretically use the E2s that are or at least were on order at OO? Clearly AS wouldn’t be able to use all 100 aircraft but if those are still on order it’d be an easy way for AS to add regional capacity and OO would be able to place some of the aircraft. Or are the AS operations at OO bound by other contracts?

Does anyone know if the E2 is certified to take off and land at temperatures colder than -40? Other Embraers were not. That would make it less than ideal for year round service is places like FAI, although it certainly wouldn't have the same effect as it would have only 10 years ago
 
jbpdx
Posts: 866
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:18 pm

QXAS wrote:
Since AS doesn’t have a scope clause, could they theoretically use the E2s that are or at least were on order at OO? Clearly AS wouldn’t be able to use all 100 aircraft but if those are still on order it’d be an easy way for AS to add regional capacity and OO would be able to place some of the aircraft. Or are the AS operations at OO bound by other contracts?


What regional capacity would they need to add?
^
 
JayWings
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:49 pm

jbpdx wrote:
QXAS wrote:
Since AS doesn’t have a scope clause, could they theoretically use the E2s that are or at least were on order at OO? Clearly AS wouldn’t be able to use all 100 aircraft but if those are still on order it’d be an easy way for AS to add regional capacity and OO would be able to place some of the aircraft. Or are the AS operations at OO bound by other contracts?


What regional capacity would they need to add?


Well if B6 and AS tie up in some sort of way then I could see a whole new coast of regional opportunities showing up for QX/OO :stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
 
tiptoe42
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:27 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:04 pm

SanDiegoLover wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving


And you’d be wrong. If there is one constant in aviation; it is that it is always changing. What was true 10 years ago is not true today, and what’s true today, likely won’t be in 10 years. When fleet decisions are made at AAG today, they are looking at the new pilot staffing realities of 2025 and 2030. The days of staffing your express carriers with pilot crews that get paid starvation wages is over, which fundamentally changes the cost equation of using QX staffed small jets. AAG is not going to be buying 150+ small jets for QX and downsizing main line aircraft.

Unless the C-suite makes a U-turn, the Airbus aircraft will be there for at least the next 3 years, minimum. I say 3 years because that is the timeline we work with AAG on. Granted I do not work with the Ops side of the biz, but rather the customer facing side. AAG is far more customer centric than most airlines. Unless Boeing launches a new product the A321neo fleet will be increasing. AAG has a decent relationship with Boeing, but this MAX disaster has really strained AAG’s expansion/growth plans. AAG has a set of employees fully trained and certified on Airbus aircraft, not to mention an entire supply chain in place for Airbus. What once would have been a huge expense to add a non-Boeing subfleet before the purchase of VX, is now no longer true. What’s true today is that the most profitable way forward is with a mixed fleet of MAXs and A321s. The A319s and A320s will be sticking around as lease renewals make sense and if/when Boeing can offer any clarity on delivery positions.

I don’t know how you came up with such an odd idea that AAG would slash their mainline aircraft fleet and massively increase the QX fleet. Doing so would tear the company apart.


I’ll respectfully disagree that the Airbus will have a future here at Alaska. I do agree it will take a few years for them to leave and by that time I would expect the max will be flying.
I do believe you will see the 190 at Horizon based on the fact the it’s already on their certificate, a training program exists, and there is no scope. I’d love to be proven wrong though
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10634
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:17 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Even if the MAX will get the go ahead, deliveries will be late, in some cases not month but years. Boeing has to fix all grounded frames and all frames produced since the grounding, deliveries will be spaced out in time. Boeing has produced 42 frames a month instead of ramping up to 57. That is 15 frames missing from production each month. Boeing has to ramp from 42 to 57, when deliveries start again. No contracted delivery dates will hold up to reality.
If you believe the troubles are over with recertification, you should start thinking about it.

A company having frames with a lot of live in them, have to make sure that they are able to get new ones, before letting them go. You can talk about price in a few years.


You are hysterically conflating multiple issues.

It takes little time to “fix” the parked aircraft as the software load can be done very quickly. There is no scenario being credibly discussed where hardware modifications are immediately required.

It will take more than a year to deliver some airplanes. This will be more of a reflection of when customers want deliveries: e.g. European IT airlines have narrow windows when deliveries work.

I would expect AS and the other US airlines would receive many of their stored airplanes earlier.


I would say you are hysterical optimistic. I bet you that this grounding will still have an effect on delivery delays of 737MAX three years from now. Just the production reduction will put Boeing about 150 to 200 frames behind plan. And Boeing can hardly give preferential treatment to USA customers, without losing credibility in other markets.

Cancellations (eg Jet Airways) gives Boeing some breathing room/flexibility. I expect many of the early deliveries will be US airlines not because of “preferential treatment” but rather because the FAA will like RTS first, and the US customers are generally on pretty solid financial ground (there are some other customers, like DY, who probably won’t be in a rush to pay for undelivered stock and will be willing to wait and pace out deliveries). Everything will be negotiated with airlines, you can easily prioritize some customers over others with financial carrots.
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:12 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
SanDiegoLover wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:
Recently a vacancy bid came out for the pilots with a reduction of 20 Airbus captain positions between SFO and LAX. AAG management claims it’s not reflective of a fleet decision but to “optimize” staffing levels. Keeping in mind that the Airbus is already leaving there is zero chance the 319/320 stay, the 321 I’d give less than a 5% chance of staying and only if the Max is significantly further delayed.
Latest rumors are that there will be a large (30-50) order of E2 (E190) to be flown at Horizon, a Max order to cover the seats lost by the departing airbus fleet and to replace some older 737s, so roughly a net loss of 20-30 mainline aircraft, possible mainline furloughs depending on retirements/attrition.
As I said those are the current rumors.
Happy Thanksgiving


And you’d be wrong. If there is one constant in aviation; it is that it is always changing. What was true 10 years ago is not true today, and what’s true today, likely won’t be in 10 years. When fleet decisions are made at AAG today, they are looking at the new pilot staffing realities of 2025 and 2030. The days of staffing your express carriers with pilot crews that get paid starvation wages is over, which fundamentally changes the cost equation of using QX staffed small jets. AAG is not going to be buying 150+ small jets for QX and downsizing main line aircraft.

Unless the C-suite makes a U-turn, the Airbus aircraft will be there for at least the next 3 years, minimum. I say 3 years because that is the timeline we work with AAG on. Granted I do not work with the Ops side of the biz, but rather the customer facing side. AAG is far more customer centric than most airlines. Unless Boeing launches a new product the A321neo fleet will be increasing. AAG has a decent relationship with Boeing, but this MAX disaster has really strained AAG’s expansion/growth plans. AAG has a set of employees fully trained and certified on Airbus aircraft, not to mention an entire supply chain in place for Airbus. What once would have been a huge expense to add a non-Boeing subfleet before the purchase of VX, is now no longer true. What’s true today is that the most profitable way forward is with a mixed fleet of MAXs and A321s. The A319s and A320s will be sticking around as lease renewals make sense and if/when Boeing can offer any clarity on delivery positions.

I don’t know how you came up with such an odd idea that AAG would slash their mainline aircraft fleet and massively increase the QX fleet. Doing so would tear the company apart.


I’ll respectfully disagree that the Airbus will have a future here at Alaska. I do agree it will take a few years for them to leave and by that time I would expect the max will be flying.
I do believe you will see the 190 at Horizon based on the fact the it’s already on their certificate, a training program exists, and there is no scope. I’d love to be proven wrong though


I do think the 190 will fly at Horizon. My point was that there is no chance at all that AAG would buy 150+ small jets (E175 or E190 or similar) while ditching 30 to 50 mainline aircraft as tiptoe42 predicted.

Why do you think the A321 or other Airbus aircraft won’t be a part of AAG’s long term plan? Customers love the A321. The seat mile costs of the A321neo is tough to beat for AAG’s transcons and Hawaii/Alaska markets. Additionally, given the market research of future service opportunities the A321XLR has a place at AAG, but a tiny subfleet of 12 - 18 A321XLR makes no sense without a larger fleet of A321neos. Yes, I see them still being mainly a Boeing operator with 75% of their mainline fleet being Boeing, but there’s a pretty solid argument that ultimately in the mid-2020s standardizing around (+/-) 220 to 250 MAX8/MAX9 and 50 to 75 A321NEO/A321XLR.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:35 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
sxf24 wrote:

You are hysterically conflating multiple issues.

It takes little time to “fix” the parked aircraft as the software load can be done very quickly. There is no scenario being credibly discussed where hardware modifications are immediately required.

It will take more than a year to deliver some airplanes. This will be more of a reflection of when customers want deliveries: e.g. European IT airlines have narrow windows when deliveries work.

I would expect AS and the other US airlines would receive many of their stored airplanes earlier.


I would say you are hysterical optimistic. I bet you that this grounding will still have an effect on delivery delays of 737MAX three years from now. Just the production reduction will put Boeing about 150 to 200 frames behind plan. And Boeing can hardly give preferential treatment to USA customers, without losing credibility in other markets.

Cancellations (eg Jet Airways) gives Boeing some breathing room/flexibility. I expect many of the early deliveries will be US airlines not because of “preferential treatment” but rather because the FAA will like RTS first, and the US customers are generally on pretty solid financial ground (there are some other customers, like DY, who probably won’t be in a rush to pay for undelivered stock and will be willing to wait and pace out deliveries). Everything will be negotiated with airlines, you can easily prioritize some customers over others with financial carrots.


We were talking about getting 60 extra 737-9 in a hurry to get rid of a fleet of A320 family frames right away as some posters here fantasies.

But to your optimistic picture. If we imagine deliveries beginning in January, we have frames delayed up to 10 month. There will be 400 frames stored undelivered. There will be up to 150 frames not produced compared to planned production at that time. There will be the necessity to ramp from 42 frames a month to 57 frames a month, meanwhile having more frames not produced compared to promised deliveries.
The 127 not to be delivered Jet Airways are like drop on a hot stone slightly more than 2 month at full production at 57 frames a month.
The 400 stored frames have to be checked, software adjusted and made ready for delivery, side by side with the new produced frames. Quite a feat. We have seen how heavy it weight on Airbus to deliver the about 120 A320neo family frames delayed by engine shortages, while delivering new frames.
The FAA has thrown an additional twist, checking up by the FAA on every to be delivered frame.

With every additional month the problem grows.

If we look at where one finds the frames to deliver prioritized to USA airlines. What airline do you think will accept late deliveries, having already frames delayed? Will Boeing run the risk of having frames canceled through further delays?
 
RWRCAS
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:03 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:36 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
tiptoe42 wrote:


Already have two that have been delivered and are sitting in storage. Granted they are waiting for the plane to be given the ok before they announce the fleet decision publicly.


Alaska has not taken delivery of any MAX aircraft. The two that are sitting in storage are still belong to Boeing. Boeing is not allowed to sell or deliver any MAX aircraft as long as it is grounded.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15732
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:21 pm

tiptoe42 wrote:
I’ll respectfully disagree that the Airbus will have a future here at Alaska.


The A319 and A320 have no future at AS; they'll be returned over the next few years as the leases expire, replaced by the MAX 9s on order and options that will be taken up. The A321neo, however, does have a future, and I think as Airbus expands the capabilities of this aircraft, it will eventually surpass the 739ER as the largest sub-fleet at AS, particularly as the 738 fleet needs replacement over the next decade.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:30 am

What will Alaska do with the 20 years old 737-700, when the fan cowl upgrade comes around, still throwing out the A319 and A320 first?
 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:15 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
What will Alaska do with the 20 years old 737-700, when the fan cowl upgrade comes around, still throwing out the A319 and A320 first?

Part of the 737-700 fleet are freighters, so yeah, I think the 737-700s will outlive the A319 and A320. Any cowl fan upgrade is going to be cheaper than converting A319's to freighters. Another factor is that they own the 737-700 fleet, while the Airbus fleet is leased.
 
QXAS
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:20 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
What will Alaska do with the 20 years old 737-700, when the fan cowl upgrade comes around, still throwing out the A319 and A320 first?

The big factor that it appears you’ve been missing here is that the 319/320 fleet is leased on financially disadvantageous contracts due to the relatively poor health of the airline that originally leased them. AS won’t get rid of them as fast as they can because they need the capacity. However the aircraft are too expensive for AS to keep long term and don’t fit into the long term fleet plan. As for the 73G fleet? Cowl upgrades should be cheaper than bad lease payments. The 73G fleet is owned.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:28 pm

QXAS wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
What will Alaska do with the 20 years old 737-700, when the fan cowl upgrade comes around, still throwing out the A319 and A320 first?

The big factor that it appears you’ve been missing here is that the 319/320 fleet is leased on financially disadvantageous contracts due to the relatively poor health of the airline that originally leased them. AS won’t get rid of them as fast as they can because they need the capacity. However the aircraft are too expensive for AS to keep long term and don’t fit into the long term fleet plan. As for the 73G fleet? Cowl upgrades should be cheaper than bad lease payments. The 73G fleet is owned.


3 of 14 737-700 are freighters, the rest are passenger frames. The cowling upgrade will hardly come cheap.
 
QXAS
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:00 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
QXAS wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
What will Alaska do with the 20 years old 737-700, when the fan cowl upgrade comes around, still throwing out the A319 and A320 first?

The big factor that it appears you’ve been missing here is that the 319/320 fleet is leased on financially disadvantageous contracts due to the relatively poor health of the airline that originally leased them. AS won’t get rid of them as fast as they can because they need the capacity. However the aircraft are too expensive for AS to keep long term and don’t fit into the long term fleet plan. As for the 73G fleet? Cowl upgrades should be cheaper than bad lease payments. The 73G fleet is owned.


3 of 14 737-700 are freighters, the rest are passenger frames. The cowling upgrade will hardly come cheap.

But they should come cheaper than continued lease payments on aircraft with bad contracts.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:24 pm

mjoelnir wrote:

3 of 14 737-700 are freighters, the rest are passenger frames. The cowling upgrade will hardly come cheap.


Bringing us back to the original topic, another thread notes that AS Air Cargo wants 1 or 2 more aircraft, and would like at least 1 -800, but can't make a business case for it because of how dear the -800 is to the mainline until some MAX airframes come online.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:00 pm

QXAS wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
QXAS wrote:
The big factor that it appears you’ve been missing here is that the 319/320 fleet is leased on financially disadvantageous contracts due to the relatively poor health of the airline that originally leased them. AS won’t get rid of them as fast as they can because they need the capacity. However the aircraft are too expensive for AS to keep long term and don’t fit into the long term fleet plan. As for the 73G fleet? Cowl upgrades should be cheaper than bad lease payments. The 73G fleet is owned.


3 of 14 737-700 are freighters, the rest are passenger frames. The cowling upgrade will hardly come cheap.

But they should come cheaper than continued lease payments on aircraft with bad contracts.


Are you sure about how bad the contracts are and would they way up 1 or 2 million USD for frames at the end of their lifetime with possible pickle fork issues?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15732
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:19 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Are you sure about how bad the contracts are


Yes. The terms reflect the poor risk that VX represented.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
USAirKid
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:27 am

NameOmitted wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

3 of 14 737-700 are freighters, the rest are passenger frames. The cowling upgrade will hardly come cheap.


Bringing us back to the original topic, another thread notes that AS Air Cargo wants 1 or 2 more aircraft, and would like at least 1 -800, but can't make a business case for it because of how dear the -800 is to the mainline until some MAX airframes come online.


I wonder if GECAS has any 738s in the conversion pipeline that haven’t been spoken for. Perhaps AS could lease one of those?
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2519
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:52 pm

I must say learned alot from the previous posts. Here are my points

- I am confused as to why an ALPA union would allow for a no-scope contract with AS, especially when they have a wholly-owned regional carrier.
- If DL A220s make it to SEA, I think AAG will have no choice but acquire something to compete. All signs would point to the E190/195 E2s at QX. It makes to much sense not to put them there. I could see AAG keeping it under 100 seats with the E190 E2 with a 12-12-76 configuration. 95% of North America would be within reach of SEA
-Outside of the Boeing relationship, AAG would get a killer deal from Embraer to be the launch customer for the E190/195 E2s in the United States
- Neither the MAX 9 or 10 can outperform the A321neo. Getting rid of the A321s would be a foolish decision, thus I believe they won't be going anywhere.
 
USAirKid
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:34 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:

- If DL A220s make it to SEA, I think AAG will have no choice but acquire something to compete. All signs would point to the E190/195 E2s at QX. It makes to much sense not to put them there. I could see AAG keeping it under 100 seats with the E190 E2 with a 12-12-76 configuration. 95% of North America would be within reach of SEA


The DL A220’s are already flying into and out of SEA. I flew on one on Sunday. Nice plane. Well put together and the lav was really well done. Best narrow body lav that’s I’ve been in.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Topic Author
Posts: 1535
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:56 pm

There is still a question mark on the MAX. Sure it will fly one day, but can it recover to be successful? UA just placed a large order for the 321NEO. Will the MAX10 be able to sell because of all the troubles surrounding the MAX?
If I ran an airline, I would have to give very strong consideration against the MAX, even if my fleet was similar to AS or SWA. Or Ryan Air.
From AA flight attendants to various other groups, there is so much negativity stacked up against the MAX. I strongly believe the MAX will be an unpopular plane. It can go on to be safe and reliable, but the seeds are planted. It could be the Ford Pinto of the skies.

I think AS would be foolish to order more MAX's at this point. I would want a clear view of how the plane will be welcomed back. What if you have 50 MAX planes but you also have a drop in passengers because of the backlash against the plane? I am sure AS would hate to give DL and their non-MAX fleet more reasons to pick up passengers.

Let's get that 797 going Boeing.
Heia Norge!
 
jspurg15
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:04 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:15 pm

mrbots wrote:
Isn't AS pretty committed to the 737 with the A320s (including orders) being inherited from Virgin? Though, with the MAX mess I'm sure most single type operator carriers are reevaluating the risk/reward of having a one type fleet.

The A320s are gonna get retired in the next few years
 
tphuang
Posts: 5212
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:57 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
I must say learned alot from the previous posts. Here are my points

- I am confused as to why an ALPA union would allow for a no-scope contract with AS, especially when they have a wholly-owned regional carrier.
- If DL A220s make it to SEA, I think AAG will have no choice but acquire something to compete. All signs would point to the E190/195 E2s at QX. It makes to much sense not to put them there. I could see AAG keeping it under 100 seats with the E190 E2 with a 12-12-76 configuration. 95% of North America would be within reach of SEA
-Outside of the Boeing relationship, AAG would get a killer deal from Embraer to be the launch customer for the E190/195 E2s in the United States
- Neither the MAX 9 or 10 can outperform the A321neo. Getting rid of the A321s would be a foolish decision, thus I believe they won't be going anywhere.


E2 with qx will probably mean total war with the main line pilots.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: AS MAX impact and the NEO's future

Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:46 am

EA CO AS wrote:
The A319 and A320 have no future at AS; they'll be returned over the next few years as the leases expire, replaced by the MAX 9s on order and options that will be taken up. The A321neo, however, does have a future, and I think as Airbus expands the capabilities of this aircraft, it will eventually surpass the 739ER as the largest sub-fleet at AS, particularly as the 738 fleet needs replacement over the next decade.


This is an intriguing post. It implles both a conversion of VS's A320neo orders to A321neo and an exercise of MAX options. I think I learned a bit about AS's fleet plan today…

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos