chonetsao wrote:

NYCAAer wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

That doesn't make any sense...if there are 2 bunks, don't tell me AA was forced by some idiocy to have to block a J-seat so if BOTH pilots on rest break wanted to sit vs. lay down they can???

It’s contractual with APA. The power of the union.

We do the same thing on the 772. The pilots have 2 bunks, but one J seat will be blocked off for them on flights with 3 pilots to Europe and South America, and 2 J seats blocked off for the pilots on flights to Asia.

It’s not an issue on the 77W, where there are 2 bunks and 2 seats for the pilots above deck.

Thank you NYCAAer, that is what I thought have happened thus I have mentioned it was contractual requirement. Your explanation fits in what I was told before.

It is 'idiocy' requirement as some others might believe, but that is what pilot union fought for. I believe on many EU-US flights where B788 operated, one J seat is always blocked. Thus it is always reflected in the system as 19J configuration.

The 19J configuration brings a lot of problems. AA complains they can not sell more seats, however, from what I have heard. 19J worked well for leisure heavy summer only routes. Yet, very often, the J seats got sold out weeks in advance (let us say average 2 weeks) and that renders AA's ability to sell last minute super expensive seats for business folks that needed to go to a secondary European city in last minute. Whereas UA and DL never had the problem as their aircraft is premium heavy compare to AA's B788 and A332. Some of the problem is that LAA always have more premium seats in their long haul flights and they know how to sell them. LUS folks never had the expertise to maximise the premium market. When the merger happened, the management was flooded with LUS people, thus the reason to remove 8J seats from B788 and make them 20J.

From a product point of view, it might have matched the demand to a certain degree, but it also restricted AA's pricing power in certain market, and seriously trashed yield. I would be disappointed to learn if AA had kept the new B788 in 20J configuration. LUS folks are great in management of bean counter. But LAA managers knows how to sell international premium seats. AA needs some of the LAA folks back.

Detroit313 wrote:

There is no blocked seat on the 787 for pilots on the way to Europe. There is only 1 person on break at a time and 2 in the cockpit. 1 person has the entire bunk area just for them. Why would they need a seat in the cabin?

Detroit313 wrote:

There is no blocked seat on the 787 for pilots on the way to Europe. There is only 1 person on break at a time and 2 in the cockpit. 1 person has the entire bunk area just for them. Why would they need a seat in the cabin?

cathay747 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

NYCAAer wrote:

It’s contractual with APA. The power of the union.

We do the same thing on the 772. The pilots have 2 bunks, but one J seat will be blocked off for them on flights with 3 pilots to Europe and South America, and 2 J seats blocked off for the pilots on flights to Asia.

It’s not an issue on the 77W, where there are 2 bunks and 2 seats for the pilots above deck.

Thank you NYCAAer, that is what I thought have happened thus I have mentioned it was contractual requirement. Your explanation fits in what I was told before.

It is 'idiocy' requirement as some others might believe, but that is what pilot union fought for. I believe on many EU-US flights where B788 operated, one J seat is always blocked. Thus it is always reflected in the system as 19J configuration.

The 19J configuration brings a lot of problems. AA complains they can not sell more seats, however, from what I have heard. 19J worked well for leisure heavy summer only routes. Yet, very often, the J seats got sold out weeks in advance (let us say average 2 weeks) and that renders AA's ability to sell last minute super expensive seats for business folks that needed to go to a secondary European city in last minute. Whereas UA and DL never had the problem as their aircraft is premium heavy compare to AA's B788 and A332. Some of the problem is that LAA always have more premium seats in their long haul flights and they know how to sell them. LUS folks never had the expertise to maximise the premium market. When the merger happened, the management was flooded with LUS people, thus the reason to remove 8J seats from B788 and make them 20J.

From a product point of view, it might have matched the demand to a certain degree, but it also restricted AA's pricing power in certain market, and seriously trashed yield. I would be disappointed to learn if AA had kept the new B788 in 20J configuration. LUS folks are great in management of bean counter. But LAA managers knows how to sell international premium seats. AA needs some of the LAA folks back.

Well, if AA caved to ALPA and agreed to block a J seat when there are TWO BUNKS, which IS idiocy, then I now agree with a poster above who stated that they need more J seats, and with your claim above about last-minute-selling & pricing power, but I add the caveat of "only a few more seats" and I mean like no more than one row...compensate for the crew-blocked seat and add 3 more for extra sales...the sales peeps need to beat out the bean counters, which in the end would actually please the bean counters with greater revenue & (hopefully) profits.

Varsity1 wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

There is no blocked seat on the 787 for pilots on the way to Europe. There is only 1 person on break at a time and 2 in the cockpit. 1 person has the entire bunk area just for them. Why would they need a seat in the cabin?

I believe the bunk area isn't approved to be occupied on take off or landing.

Most of the time the additional pilot sits in the jumpseat, but it could be taken by a check airman during a line check or a company/FAA observer, who would take priority.

Varsity1 wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

There is no blocked seat on the 787 for pilots on the way to Europe. There is only 1 person on break at a time and 2 in the cockpit. 1 person has the entire bunk area just for them. Why would they need a seat in the cabin?

I believe the bunk area isn't approved to be occupied on take off or landing.

Most of the time the additional pilot sits in the jumpseat, but it could be taken by a check airman during a line check or a company/FAA observer, who would take priority.

Detroit313 wrote:

There is no blocked seat on the 787 for pilots on the way to Europe. There is only 1 person on break at a time and 2 in the cockpit. 1 person has the entire bunk area just for them. Why would they need a seat in the cabin?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

USAirKid wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

It’s a heritage livery plane.

https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/12/14/ame ... g-737-800/

That one is N921NN.

The other heritage planes are AstroJet (N905NN), TWA (N915NN), Reno Air (N916NN), AirCal (N917NN), PSA (N742PS), and US Airways (N578UW).

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

USAirKid wrote:

Anyone else get the feeling that we’ve all been watching Airplane! Too much since we’ve answered the question about N921NN many many times already?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

Boof02671 wrote:

772s will be used in CLT as they are opening up a crew base and have already brought one here for about a month for maintenance and ramp training and gate fitting.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

usairways85 wrote:

Not sure if this is accurate.
TUL-PHL 789
8/4 Dep. 2:38pm
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KTUL/KPHL

OB1504 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

That was N921NN (ship 3KG). It was the last aircraft delivered in the 1967 livery and has been kept as a heritage jet.

N649DL wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

A couple weeks ago in STT I saw an AA 738 take off that was still in the polished aluminum paint scheme. I didn’t realize there were still some left not painted in the current paint scheme. Was this a special heritage plane or are there more than one polished aluminum AA 737 still flying?

Also - if anyone knows the registrations of the plane(s) I’d be grateful!

That was N921NN (ship 3KG). It was the last aircraft delivered in the 1967 livery and has been kept as a heritage jet.

Would it kill AA to give us a bare metal USAir scheme and/or late 1990s USAIRWAYS Steve Wolf heritage jets as well? And if we really wanna get technical, they should add a Trump Shuttle livery too.

UA748i wrote:

N649DL wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

That was N921NN (ship 3KG). It was the last aircraft delivered in the 1967 livery and has been kept as a heritage jet.

Would it kill AA to give us a bare metal USAir scheme and/or late 1990s USAIRWAYS Steve Wolf heritage jets as well? And if we really wanna get technical, they should add a Trump Shuttle livery too.

A Trump Shuttle heritage would be sweet. I really like the livery that was designed for it.

That being said, never gonna happen for obvious reasons.

-----

On a related note, an Eagle heritage on an E175 is something Ive always wanted to pitch to corporate.

Boof02671 wrote:

UA748i wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Would it kill AA to give us a bare metal USAir scheme and/or late 1990s USAIRWAYS Steve Wolf heritage jets as well? And if we really wanna get technical, they should add a Trump Shuttle livery too.

A Trump Shuttle heritage would be sweet. I really like the livery that was designed for it.

That being said, never gonna happen for obvious reasons.

-----

On a related note, an Eagle heritage on an E175 is something Ive always wanted to pitch to corporate.

US never owned the Trump Shutle, they managed it for Citibank and once it was bought the name was changed. And a big he’ll no

N649DL wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

UA748i wrote:

A Trump Shuttle heritage would be sweet. I really like the livery that was designed for it.

That being said, never gonna happen for obvious reasons.

-----

On a related note, an Eagle heritage on an E175 is something Ive always wanted to pitch to corporate.

US never owned the Trump Shutle, they managed it for Citibank and once it was bought the name was changed. And a big he’ll no

New AF1 color looks exactly like Trump Shuttle anyways so we'll get it sooner or later lol. And it actually looks really nice.

N649DL wrote:

Would it kill AA to give us a bare metal USAir scheme and/or late 1990s USAIRWAYS Steve Wolf heritage jets as well? And if we really wanna get technical, they should add a Trump Shuttle livery too.

Boof02671 wrote:

US never owned the Trump Shutle, they managed it for Citibank and once it was bought the name was changed. And a big he’ll no

USAirKid wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

US never owned the Trump Shutle, they managed it for Citibank and once it was bought the name was changed. And a big he’ll no

I’m pretty sure that for a while US Air owned the shuttle jointly the banks who financed it. (Citibank was the lead of a syndicated loan to Trump Shuttle.) They had an option to buy the banks out and eventually did. Although AFAIK Shuttle Inc survived as a subsidiary of US Air/US Air Group for quite sometime.

Boof02671 wrote:

And two 738 Max’s ferried from ROS-TUL

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And two 738 Max’s ferried from ROS-TUL

Why though?

USAirKid wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Would it kill AA to give us a bare metal USAir scheme and/or late 1990s USAIRWAYS Steve Wolf heritage jets as well? And if we really wanna get technical, they should add a Trump Shuttle livery too.

All the heritage liveries on the PM US side are on NB Airbusses, since they started them before the merger with AA. I don’t think they want to stray from that

CriticalPoint wrote:

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And two 738 Max’s ferried from ROS-TUL

Why though?

Boeing and the FAA have approved the modifications that need to be made to make the planes airworthy. aa appears to be doing that work in TUL. United has been flying MAXs to MCO for the work....takes about 2 weeks per plane.

Boof02671 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

Why though?

Boeing and the FAA have approved the modifications that need to be made to make the planes airworthy. aa appears to be doing that work in TUL. United has been flying MAXs to MCO for the work....takes about 2 weeks per plane.

The FAA hasn’t approved the fixes yet. The 45 day comment period is still open. And AA will not be doing the work nor will UA, Boeing itself is doing it and they’ve hired a bunch of retired former airline mechanics on a temporary basis.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Boeing and the FAA have approved the modifications that need to be made to make the planes airworthy. aa appears to be doing that work in TUL. United has been flying MAXs to MCO for the work....takes about 2 weeks per plane.

The FAA hasn’t approved the fixes yet. The 45 day comment period is still open. And AA will not be doing the work nor will UA, Boeing itself is doing it and they’ve hired a bunch of retired former airline mechanics on a temporary basis.

Weird because United put out an article on the company website and said MCO mechanics are completing the work.

I don’t know what AA is doing but the UA work appears to be in house.....I’m sure Boeing is on site in MCO to oversee.

Boof02671 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

Why though?

Boeing and the FAA have approved the modifications that need to be made to make the planes airworthy. aa appears to be doing that work in TUL. United has been flying MAXs to MCO for the work....takes about 2 weeks per plane.

The FAA hasn’t approved the fixes yet. The 45 day comment period is still open. And AA will not be doing the work nor will UA, Boeing itself is doing it and they’ve hired a bunch of retired former airline mechanics on a temporary basis.

Boof02671 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The FAA hasn’t approved the fixes yet. The 45 day comment period is still open. And AA will not be doing the work nor will UA, Boeing itself is doing it and they’ve hired a bunch of retired former airline mechanics on a temporary basis.

Weird because United put out an article on the company website and said MCO mechanics are completing the work.

I don’t know what AA is doing but the UA work appears to be in house.....I’m sure Boeing is on site in MCO to oversee.

There is no work to be completed, the FAA hasn’t approved any plan to fix the Max, no ADs have been issued, and as I said the comment period is still open. They can be performing routine maintenance, but no fix to the MCAS system has been approved.

“FAA Updates on Boeing 737 MAX8/3/2020
Boeing 737 MAX AD NPRM Now Available for Early Public Review
Today, the FAA sent a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a Boeing 737 MAX airworthiness directive (AD) (PDF) to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The NPRM proposes mandating a number of design changes to address an identified unsafe condition. When the NPRM publishes in the Federal Register, a 45 day public comment period will begin. The FAA is posting the NPRM on its website today to enable the public to begin review early.
The FAA will also be placing the Preliminary Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX (PDF) in the docket to assist with the review of the proposed AD.“

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

Summary report

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachme ... ry-v-1.pdf

JohanTally wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Boeing and the FAA have approved the modifications that need to be made to make the planes airworthy. aa appears to be doing that work in TUL. United has been flying MAXs to MCO for the work....takes about 2 weeks per plane.

The FAA hasn’t approved the fixes yet. The 45 day comment period is still open. And AA will not be doing the work nor will UA, Boeing itself is doing it and they’ve hired a bunch of retired former airline mechanics on a temporary basis.

By you stating that Boeing has hired a bunch of retired mechanics to implement fixes seems that they believe it's close to approval and airlines moving their Max's to a in house maintenance facility would also solidify that. Most airlines that have taken delivery of the Max will be eager to put them back in the air because they should provide cost savings at a time when cash is king. Airlines would much rather have older aircraft sitting idle in the desert.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Weird because United put out an article on the company website and said MCO mechanics are completing the work.

I don’t know what AA is doing but the UA work appears to be in house.....I’m sure Boeing is on site in MCO to oversee.

There is no work to be completed, the FAA hasn’t approved any plan to fix the Max, no ADs have been issued, and as I said the comment period is still open. They can be performing routine maintenance, but no fix to the MCAS system has been approved.

“FAA Updates on Boeing 737 MAX8/3/2020
Boeing 737 MAX AD NPRM Now Available for Early Public Review
Today, the FAA sent a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a Boeing 737 MAX airworthiness directive (AD) (PDF) to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The NPRM proposes mandating a number of design changes to address an identified unsafe condition. When the NPRM publishes in the Federal Register, a 45 day public comment period will begin. The FAA is posting the NPRM on its website today to enable the public to begin review early.
The FAA will also be placing the Preliminary Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX (PDF) in the docket to assist with the review of the proposed AD.“

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

Summary report

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachme ... ry-v-1.pdf

Yeah well United Airlines and MCO maintenance disagree with your expert analysis of maintenance operation. Still no mention of Boeing mechanics doing the work just a big shout out to MCO mechanics and pictures of them doing the work.

I’ll let this topic get back to AA fleets. Have a good one.

Boof02671 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

There is no work to be completed, the FAA hasn’t approved any plan to fix the Max, no ADs have been issued, and as I said the comment period is still open. They can be performing routine maintenance, but no fix to the MCAS system has been approved.

“FAA Updates on Boeing 737 MAX8/3/2020
Boeing 737 MAX AD NPRM Now Available for Early Public Review
Today, the FAA sent a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a Boeing 737 MAX airworthiness directive (AD) (PDF) to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The NPRM proposes mandating a number of design changes to address an identified unsafe condition. When the NPRM publishes in the Federal Register, a 45 day public comment period will begin. The FAA is posting the NPRM on its website today to enable the public to begin review early.
The FAA will also be placing the Preliminary Summary of the FAA’s Review of the Boeing 737 MAX (PDF) in the docket to assist with the review of the proposed AD.“

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206

Summary report

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachme ... ry-v-1.pdf

Yeah well United Airlines and MCO maintenance disagree with your expert analysis of maintenance operation. Still no mention of Boeing mechanics doing the work just a big shout out to MCO mechanics and pictures of them doing the work.

I’ll let this topic get back to AA fleets. Have a good one.

Apparently you don’t grasp how it works. No work can be done by anyone as there are NO ADs and no approved fixes. I don’t understand why you can’t comprehend you can’t fix a plane that had no approved procedures nor an AD.


https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... 2019-9?amp