What a concept!
- Thread starter Bob Owens
- Start date
787nightmare
Veteran
- Aug 28, 2010
- 722
- 153
Bob, isn't AA in a "catch 22" situation??
I mean, if they don't renew the fleet, they are operating inefficient MD80s(example), when just about everyone else is operating 737NGs.
Be at a tremendous disadvantage. Seems to me, they can't afford NOT to take delivery of more fuel efficient airplanes-ie 737s(787 on order).
Boeing, I'm sure has a real good idea for the replacement of the 737. I've seen images on Flightblogger(it amazes where these guys getr there info, but most of it's pretty accurate), and it looked like an oval shaped twin aisle(WN demands), T-tail(imagine that), twin jet. Kind of bazarre looking, but a completely different look. They still have a pile of legacy 737NGs to deliver, but I'm sure Boeing gets the urgency.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #3
Well I'm kind of caught in the same spot, with a 96 mile commute a fuel efficient vehicle sure would be nice but I simply dont have the money to buy one now, the flip side is, as you pointed out, by waiting, and suffering a fuel penalty now, by the time I am ready I will get something thats even better on fuel.
So AA goes out and gets all these 737s and has the newset 737 fleet out there just as all our competitors are getting ready to trade in their 1950s era designed fuselage for next generation, even more efficient composit aircraft.
787nightmare
Veteran
- Aug 28, 2010
- 722
- 153
Well, that's about right. By the time Boe comes out with that replacement 73...the NGs will be well used by AA. And a lot of savings in fuel.
I think Boeing rested in the recliner too with the 737NGs. In WNs Gary Kellys' own words..."Boeings not moving fast enough for us for the 737 replacement". But they've got one called, the 787 Dreamliner?? I think...that really, really needs to get in production-AND FAST.
Btw, read on Boeing News that the 787 was almost dubbed the "Global Cruiser" :unsure: ..............Okay...whatever.
Trust me, it's been called a lot of names I'd rather not type on this forum...
(plastic-fantastic being the nicest)- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #6
Are you questioning our skills? 8 to 10 years seems to be our contract cycle now-a-days.
Once again, Bob is comparing apples to oranges. The article he quoted talked about WN buying new planes for fleet expansion, not replacement of fuel-inefficient aircraft. AA's 738s are not expansion aircraft.
The 118 recently-ordered and delivered 738s will save AA approximately 800,000 gallons of fuel each per year, or 94.4 million gallons per year compared to the MD-80s they replace. At the average first quarter 2011 fuel price, they will save AA about $257 million each year in fuel savings. Say Boeing's replacement for the 737 isn't flying until 2021 (only 10 years from now). In that 10 years, AA's 118 recent 738s will burn almost a billion fewer gallons of fuel and save AA, at the expected 2011 full year fuel price, about $3 billion.
The fuel savings alone almost make the payments on the new 738s. Add in the maintenance savings and the payback period is very short. So you would rather that AA give hundreds of millions of dollars per year to the oil companies instead of buying fuel efficient replacements for the MD-80s? That would help guarantee that AA would never make another annual profit as it competes against airlines with more efficient fleets.
Bob: If you replaced your old car with a more fuel efficient model, would your fuel savings be almost enough to make the monthly payments? Would the fuel savings and reduced maintenance expenses cover the monthly payments? If so, then you should replace the car. Moving closer to your place of employment would improve the numbers as well. You live 48 miles from JFK? Why so far away?
As an aside, WN may find itself needing to replace some of its older 733s and 735s earlier than it planned now that its skin fatigue issues appear to be a serious problem. Lots of short hops equal lots of cycles.
The 118 recently-ordered and delivered 738s will save AA approximately 800,000 gallons of fuel each per year, or 94.4 million gallons per year compared to the MD-80s they replace. At the average first quarter 2011 fuel price, they will save AA about $257 million each year in fuel savings. Say Boeing's replacement for the 737 isn't flying until 2021 (only 10 years from now). In that 10 years, AA's 118 recent 738s will burn almost a billion fewer gallons of fuel and save AA, at the expected 2011 full year fuel price, about $3 billion.
The fuel savings alone almost make the payments on the new 738s. Add in the maintenance savings and the payback period is very short. So you would rather that AA give hundreds of millions of dollars per year to the oil companies instead of buying fuel efficient replacements for the MD-80s? That would help guarantee that AA would never make another annual profit as it competes against airlines with more efficient fleets.
Bob: If you replaced your old car with a more fuel efficient model, would your fuel savings be almost enough to make the monthly payments? Would the fuel savings and reduced maintenance expenses cover the monthly payments? If so, then you should replace the car. Moving closer to your place of employment would improve the numbers as well. You live 48 miles from JFK? Why so far away?
As an aside, WN may find itself needing to replace some of its older 733s and 735s earlier than it planned now that its skin fatigue issues appear to be a serious problem. Lots of short hops equal lots of cycles.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #8
When is a 737 not a 737? When company pundits want to claim one is an apple and one is an orange I guess.
AA is not pulling one MD-80 out of service for each 737 they are getting. So some of those brand new 737s are fueling increased capacity.
Using todays oil prices are a little unrealistic, with consumption down over the long term oil will likely get cheaper, especially if it has to compete with other government subsidized forms of energy. So the payback is likely to be much longer, add in all the fees that are attached to the money they are borrowing, along with the interest, and the fact that carriers never seem to actaully realize the fuel savings promised, and I suspect that you have an interest in selling airplanes. Perhaps you own Boeing Stock or have some money tucked away in the various institutions that provide financing, who knows, who cares?
Didnt Borman get EAL into a lot of trouble by saddling EAL with a lot of debt by buying airplanes that were supposed to save enough in fuel costs to pay for themselves? Same story, different faces. "Its not a Ponzi Scheme Its a Pyramid Investment Club!"
Would a new car pay for itself in fuel savings? Very doubtful, main reason being that I have the ability to perform all the maintenance and repairs myself. So keeping the old car still makes economic sense even if it sucks to drive. Why do I live so far? Because thats what I had to do at the time to get something a little more affordable.
As far as your aside. Being that SWA lacks the ability to make those repairs because they dont have the facilities or those with the expertise they probably will find theselves replacing Aircraft that AA could make as good as new for a fraction of the price for AA. Similar to the way when your car starts breaking down you probably have to replace it while someone with mechanical abilities can keep it going for a few more years. I realize that you have the option to spend more because you probably get paid better but you and I arent in competition with each other. AA brings in a lot more revenue than SWA, unfortnately they spend a lot more on things like Admirals clubs, First class cabins, new terminals and fancy offices in centerport but the abilities they are lucky enough to have in places like Tulsa means that they dont have to replace their very expensive aircraft as soon and they often dont have damaged planes sit out of service for months waiting for an outside vendor to fix them.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Not much different than the Union concept of Give Away 50 years of Negotiated Pay and Benefits to save jobs only to let the jobs go anyway while negotiating 1 Article per month for several years, claiming to save the profession.
I think the Union folk and the Company folk have more in common than we will ever know.
odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
Agreed! Thousands of AMP card signers feel the same way.
When is the Vote?
odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
It's coming soon Rogallo, we still have time and we want to do it right! We need cushion, spread the word.
Great, can't wait to boot out that Totally Worthless Union.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
No, Bob. Not questioning your skills at all. Just your reasoning. You're the only person I've ever known who seems to think it's a luxury to do a fleet replacement.
Fact is you drive your car about two, maybe three hours a day, probably only five days a week, and likely at constant speeds on the parkway or LIE, and for two "cycles". If AA's aircraft were used in a similar fashion, 8-10 years would likely be no problem.
But do you really think your car would have lasted this long if it were operated on the same basis as an MD80?
** 12-18 hours a day
** people getting in-out on a regular basis, many of whom could care less about how they treated the interior
** things thrown into the trunk with little regard
** doors closed with no mercy whatsoever
** glove box opened and closed nightly for porn checks
There's a reason taxi operators & even bus companies (many represented by the union you also represent) replace their vehicles on a regular basis. Same thing with the Class 1 railroads.
FWAAA's already shown you the math on fuel savings. I agree that when Borman bought the A300's, it was probably questionable regarding the fuel savings. The difference in fuel efficiency was negated by low fuel prices (well below $1/gal compared to >$3/gal today).
There's also a lot of proof already in the marketplace on this. Alaska Airlines had what I recall as a two or three year ROIC when they replaced all their MD80s with 737s. Other airlines who replaced older 737s and MD80s with 737NGs or A320s saw similar results.
FWAAA, WN was talking about growth aircraft, but following Friday's decompression event, they might want to accelerate the retirement of the remaining 79 733's left in the fleet....
The first 737 was built in 1967.
How much do you think a 737 rolling off the production line today has in common with what was coming out in 1967?
