Airline Showdown at the CA Corral

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/21/2002 11:33:32 AM Steiner wrote:

[blockquote]

----------------

On 10/15/2002 8:45:41 PM AOG-N-IT wrote:


[blockquote]

----------------

AOG-N-IT, is there any requirement that airlines share parts? It seems strange to assist a competitor that doesn't reciprocate the favor. Is Airbus twisting some arms?


----------------
[/blockquote]
Steiner, We all help one another...Some just tend to be more helpful than others.
 
AFAIK all airlines share parts. I believe each carrier negotiates bilateral agreements. Same is true for contract maintenance between carriers.
 
KC Flyer,
Thanks for attributing some crap about exploding fule tanks to me, but I never posted it. Try again! Maybe you should read before you post.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/22/2002 5:20:01 AM AOG-N-IT wrote:


[/blockquote]
Steiner, We all help one another...Some just tend to be more helpful than others. AOG (Aircraft On Ground) is everyones worst scenario. We bust our collective humps for one another...because the shoe can be on the other foot in mear seconds. Airlines even go as far as to have National and International Agreements and Conferences to smooth the road on "On Demand" parts issues. Most carriers even have "Pooling Agreements" on certain parts , in certain cities. You also asked...Is Airbus twisting some arms? Maybe? but it's in regard to patting themselves on the back for sales....Not Support after the sale. This is..This was...and regretably will always be my biggest beef with Airbus. I could care less if they were designed to last 10 years..or 10,000 years!! My concerns as are like anyone elses in my line of work....It's about what can you do ?...and how fast can you do it? This is where Airbus is a big failure.
----------------
[/blockquote]

AOG-N-IT, some of my question comes from the fact that I cannot remember ever removing a rotable (or any other part) that was borrowed from a low cost airline. Lots of pool parts from the big players, but never from the small fry. We often see the small folks coming over for parts, but, like I have implied, it seems to be a one way street, and not in the large airlines' favor. Are we cutting our own throats by helping competitors that won't play by the rules?

(We borrowed a 767 autothrottle gearbox from you about three weeks ago. It didn't fix our problem, so we sent it back. Thanks, and no need to mention names here.)
 
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/22/2002 7:44:31 AM Farley wrote:[BR][BR]KC Flyer,[BR]Thanks for attributing some crap about exploding fule tanks to me, but I never posted it.  Try again!  Maybe you should read before you post.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Farley - sorry for any confusion...I just grow tired of editing the   bullsh*t out of quoted posts, and my comment was in response to your comment about getting fired up about this stuff...and the post that gets me fired up was a post by learob claiming that there were 0 AD's on A320's. Sorry if I implied that you were the source of the zero AD's post. It wasn't my intent...it was an attempt to explain why you see certain posts in these threads. I'm thinking of changing my signature from What, me worry to I never intend to offend, I just do.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/22/2002 8:53:36 AM Steiner wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------


AOG-N-IT, some of my question comes from the fact that I cannot remember ever removing a rotable (or any other part) that was borrowed from a "low cost airline". Lots of pool parts from the big players, but never from the small fry. We often see the small folks coming over for parts, but, like I have implied, it seems to be a one way street, and not in the large airlines' favor. Are we cutting our own throats by helping competitors that won't play by the rules?

(We borrowed a 767 autothrottle gearbox from you about three weeks ago. It didn't fix our problem, so we sent it back. Thanks, and no need to mention names here.)

----------------
[/blockquote]
Steiner, We do tend to help the lower cost carriers with loans of rotable parts...more than they help us. WN is real good about being there when we call. I can't say the same of Jet Blue. Some of this is due to thier age in the industry...and most of it is due to the product they fly. Logistics is a time developed resource..so I can't beat B6 up too much!! Like your company..I'm willing to bet you are in a much better position to support your B767's than something made by Airbus. Just the fact that we were able to help you with a loan of a part says alot. The question was asked..are we cutting our own throats by aiding others? Yes and No!! We are cutting our throats by helping them keep competing jets in the air. However we are also an alternative source of generating revenue for our respective companies. We have always been a source for making money for our airline...this is based on month to month ..and year to year figures. The only months where we have had a fear of our Borrowing Costs exceeding our Loan earnings are when we have had a run of bad luck on the A330's. Here again..it's the product. We are the only US operator of the type..and we are the only US operator of the P&W 4168A Engine bolted to it , so when this sucker breaks (and it does)..I can't go to B6/WN or anyone other than AC in North America for a Cup-O-Parts. The A330 is the extreme end of the spectrum..but the A321 and the other two narrow-bodies seem to follow in severity. UA/HP/NW have the same problems...B6 has them too..they just don't have a history with anything else to compare the circumstance too.
 
Is anyone else in favor of a new topic? I for one have had about all of the pro Boeing, anti Airbus input I can handle. Some really good points but maybe just a bit too much information in the (nuts and bolts category).
It is all too clear how much you don't like Airbus. Being a full career type in Boeings from 737s through the 747s and most types in between, I will always believe that Boeing builds a superior quality aircraft. No argument there. The length of service of the 320s probably is going to prove considerably less over time. One factor B6 has going for it is the number of cycles per 12 hour average day is very low with the stage lengths they are operating as opposed to say WN and the 737s. Time will tell how this plays out. Guess we'll just have to see what the company's position is on length of use and recycle time since B6 has always maintained it wants a 'new fleet' with no older aircraft on the property.
Something to consider.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 11:32:03 AM jbu320 wrote:

since B6 has always maintained it wants a 'new fleet' with no older aircraft on the property.
Something to consider.
----------------
[/blockquote]

That doesn't jive with your financials. How can you keep new airplanes when you are depreciating the ones you have over 25 years and assigning a 25% residual value?
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 2:53:26 PM Busdrvr wrote:

That doesn't jive with your financials. How can you keep new airplanes when you are depreciating the ones you have over 25 years and assigning a 25% residual value?

----------------
[/blockquote]

I don't understand your comment. Depreciating an asset doesn't obligate you to keep it until it's used up. JetBlue could sell it and get another. The depreciation table only establishes value for balance sheet and tax purposes, not actual equity. In addition, as lease terms come up, JetBlue would have every right to say seeya, replace the old aircraft with a new one and let the leasing company deal with it. Sort of a rolling fleet renewal. I'd say that's a few years off yet, though.

BTW, the depreciation schedule is 25 years to 20%, not 25%.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 4:43:57 PM Jeff G wrote:

I don't understand your comment. Depreciating an asset doesn't obligate you to keep it until it's used up. JetBlue could sell it and get another

So who is it you plan to sell it to and for how much? and when you sell it for 1/3rd what you paid for it in ten years, do you think the street will like the millions of dollars in charges for each A/C?

The depreciation table only establishes value for balance sheet and tax purposes, not actual equity. In addition, as lease terms come up, JetBlue would have every right to say "seeya", replace the old aircraft with a new one and let the leasing company deal with it.

Would that leasing company be AB for some of those jets? Are you not paying much less than traditional lease rates currently? AB will just keep giving you free jets right? Take a closer look at you companies financial reports, you've already agreed to pay much higher rates in the future.

BTW, the depreciation schedule is 25 years to 20%, not 25%.

Oh yeah that works. That makes a $45 million AB have a book value of 30 mill after 10 years...DREAM WEAVER!

----------------
[/blockquote]
 
So who is it you plan to sell it to and for how much? and when you sell it for 1/3rd what you paid for it in ten years, do you think "the street" will like the millions of dollars in charges for each A/C?

I'm not going to sell a thing. I just work here. But let's just say that JetBlue paid less than book value. A lot less.

Would that leasing company be AB for some of those jets?

No.

Are you not paying much less than traditional lease rates currently?

The terms are not disclosed, but if you were a leasing company, would you? A new company with no track record getting better lease rates than anyone else? Huh?

AB will just keep giving you free jets right?

What free jets?

Take a closer look at you companies financial reports, you've already agreed to pay much higher rates in the future.

Source, please? The only pertinent reference I saw was the aircraft lease schedule. It appears to be nearly a constant.

"BTW, the depreciation schedule is 25 years to 20%, not 25%."

Oh yeah that works. That makes a $45 million AB have a "book value" of 30 mill after 10 years...DREAM WEAVER!


Just correcting bad info, busdrvr, don't take it personally. How did we get on this topic, and what does it have to do with Airline Showdown at the CA Corral?
 
[blockquote]
Just correcting bad info, busdrvr, don't take it personally. How did we get on this topic, and what does it have to do with "Airline Showdown at the CA Corral"?


----------------
[/blockquote]

Jeff G, You're right on target. It just proves that regardless of topic there will always be sour grapes out there. Damned if you do vs. damned if you don't.
The topic has nothing to do with Airline Showdown at the CA corral but as an aside I was trying to see if anyone else was tired of the Boeing vs. Airbus argument that has droned on for quite awhile now.
 
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/24/2002 7:04:31 PM AAmech wrote:
[P] As rotten a company as McDonnell Douglas was, it sure knew how to put a plane together to LAST!!!  Lots of extruted and cast aluminum parts instead of the cheap stamped crap Boeing and AB belive in. [BR][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]And then they went and built the DC-10[/P]
 
Frankly the Boeing vs. Airbus is much more interesting than showdown at CA corral. I gotta chuckle though when the 737 people knock the AB about its durability. Systems wise the plane's pretty good. But structurally its got to be the flimsiest plane ever made. Sure they've been around for a while. But at what cost? At my last job the most beautiful sight was a 737 rolling into the hanger. I knew the Overtime was coming big time!!!! Recently I read a good article on how the -300,400 and 500 models are falling apart much quicker than Boeing had predicted and a Major AD has come out requireing major structual repairs over skin lap joints on the crown, increasing weight, drag and worst of all, COSTS! I don't know how the 320 will fare but 737 fans really shouldn't be throwing rocks!
PS. If you want an example of a well made aircraft look no further than the DC-9/MD80's. Some of AA's MD80's are approaching 20yrs old and are structurally immaculate. As rotten a company as McDonnell Douglas was, it sure knew how to put a plane together to LAST!!! Lots of extruted and cast aluminum parts instead of the cheap stamped crap Boeing and AB belive in.
 
Back
Top