Article discussing the need to replace the MD-80s

[FWAAA]

Interesting article about the aging MD-80 fleet and AA's plans to do something about it:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16747121.htm

Let me beat you guys to the punch: As soon as AA can beat another billion or two of concessions out of the represented workgroups, AA will order the replacements.

Did I get that right?

On a serious note, almost a year ago Alaska ordered 3 dozen 737s to replace its MD-80s, and claimed that annual savings would be about $115 million on an investment of about $750 million. Very fast payback due to fuel, mainenance, training and scheduling. Wonder if AA could get anywhere near that kind of return if it went ahead and accelerated some 737 deliveries instead of waiting another 6, 8 or even 10 years for the next-next-generation 737?

Here's the Alaska press release with its impressive payback numbers:

http://www.alaskasworld.com/Newsroom/ASNew...0313_045635.asp

 

[FA Mikey]

Interesting, How far out is the next generation narrow body AC? Kind of see them waiting on that and going with the 787, when they settle CBA's with employee groups.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Interesting article about the aging MD-80 fleet and AA's plans to do something about it:

Found this one to be quite interesting regarding possible plans with the 80's. Not sure how many carriers would be interested in putting winglets on their 767-300's, 777-200's, and MD80's.

Aviation Technology Achievement
Aviation Partners Boeing Blended Winglets

The design of any transport aircraft reflects a number of engineering compromises and tradeoffs intended to achieve the optimal blend of takeoff and cruise performance, operating economics, reliability and maintainability. An additional half-a-percentage-point improvement in any of those areas may mean the difference between a winning platform and an also-ran. That's what makes Aviation Partners Boeing Blended Winglets such a towering accomplishment. Aircraft so equipped enjoy a significant reduction in fuel burn, improved operational performance and reduced maintenance cost. And because lowering fuel burn also reduces harmful emissions, they are good for the environment at a time when the pressure on airlines to become greener never has been greater. They also look great, adding "curb appeal" to any jet.

Founded in 1991 by Joe Clark and Dennis Washington, Aviation Partners' first project was a blended winglet for the Gulfstream II business jet and today more than 75% of G2s have been upgraded. Given its location in Seattle and its mainly ex-Boeing engineering staff, a joint venture agreement with Boeing to design a blended winglet for the Boeing Business Jet appeared to be a natural and Aviation Partners Boeing was born. That JV has evolved into winglets for the 737NG series, 757 and 737-300 and unannounced launch customers are in place for the 767-300ER, MD-80 and 777-200.

The 737 winglet reduces lift-induced drag and provides extra lift, with the design credited to Louis Gratzer, formerly chief of aerodynamics at Boeing. As the company explains, the aerodynamic advantage of a blended winglet is in the transition from the existing wingtip to the vertical winglet, allowing "for the chord distribution to change smoothly from the wingtip to the winglet, which optimizes the distribution of the span load lift and minimizes any aerodynamic interference or airflow separation."

Blended winglets provide operational and economic benefits to 737NG customers. Mission block fuel is improved by approximately 4%, while range capability is increased by as much as 130 nm. for the 737-800. The reduction in takeoff flap drag during the second segment of climb allows increased payload capability at takeoff-limited airports. Environmental benefits include a 6.5% lowering of noise levels around airports on takeoff and a 4% reduction in nitrogen dioxide emissions on a 2,000-nm. flight. On a typical North American transcontinental flight, the savings for a winglet-equipped 737-800 amount to 150 gal., adding up to more than 100,000 gal. over a year of operations.

The devices are built by Kawasaki in Japan using its proprietary KMS-6115 composite material containing high-performance carbon fibers and toughened epoxy resin. The first commercial application was in May 2001 with Hapag-Lloyd Flug. Such is their value that 85% of new 737NGs now are equipped with the devices and they have been retrofitted to 55% of the in-service 737-700/-800 fleet.

But the story doesn't end there. The winglets also have been retrofitted to 737-300s and 757s. According to launch customer Continental Airlines, the 757 installation is the most significant Blended Winglet program ever: "With this technology, Boeing 757-200 operators will experience block fuel improvement of up to 5%, saving as much as 300,000 gallons per aircraft per year." Other customers include Northwest Airlines, Icelandair and American Airlines. Clark says the 757 program "will translate into about 180 million gallons in annual fuel savings when the entire fleet of 757-200s is upgraded."

Citing the potential of the massive savings produced by the technology, the company says, "if every Boeing aircraft were retrofitted with Blended Winglet systems, the worldwide fuel savings would be close to 1.8 billion gallons a year."

This deceptively simple-looking yet elegant solution has played a major role in helping many airlines manage today's sky-high fuel prices and Aviation Partners Boeing is highly deserving of our Technology Achievement Award.
http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article....?articleID=1836

 

[FWAAA]

Found this one to be quite interesting regarding possible plans with the 80's. Not sure how many carriers would be interested in putting winglets on their 767-300's, 777-200's, and MD80's.

Holy Christ! :censored: :rant: :angry2: :down:

Sure sounds like AA; wonder what's keeping them from specifying a set for the AB6?

In any event, once the 787 takes flight, even the 763 becomes an outdated, fuel-guzzling dinosaur. Unless oil plunges back to $15 - $25 or so, the 762s and 763s are history.

Winglets and new engines on the MD-80s? Sounds a lot like a new chrome bumper and plush velvet interior on a rusty ole car if you ask me.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Holy Christ! :censored: :rant: :angry2: :down:

Sure sounds like AA; wonder what's keeping them from specifying a set for the AB6?

In any event, once the 787 takes flight, even the 763 becomes an outdated, fuel-guzzling dinosaur. Unless oil plunges back to $15 - $25 or so, the 762s and 763s are history.

Winglets and new engines on the MD-80s? Sounds a lot like a new chrome bumper and plush velvet interior on a rusty ole car if you ask me.

Buy Southwest, but then again they have the 700's. But so what.

 

[777 fixer]

Interesting, How far out is the next generation narrow body AC? Kind of see them waiting on that and going with the 787, when they settle CBA's with employee groups.

That's the billion dollar question. AA might be wise to hold off replacing all those MD-80's until a 737/A320 replacement is launched. Afterall, when it finally does take to the air all the 737NG and A320 will be obsolete. Also there are distinct advantages to beinga launch customer.

 

[CapnCockroach]

AMR is far too broke to consider any new acquistions. High PUP's plus looming employee raises and over $20B in debt. No, the soooper 80's gonna stay a loooong while. Winglets, while being very cute, really don't save that much. Good PR though.

 

[FWAAA]

AMR is far too broke to consider any new acquistions. High PUP's plus looming employee raises and over $20B in debt. No, the soooper 80's gonna stay a loooong while. Winglets, while being very cute, really don't save that much. Good PR though.

Sorry, Capn, but you're reading last year's charts instead of the current ones.

Total debt has been reduced to $18.4 billion and net debt (debt less unrestricted cash) is down to $13.6 billion. Considering AMR's expected 2007 revenues of over $25 billion, the debt level isn't all that high. Last month AMR sold over $500 million of new stock, which will probably be used to pay down more high interest debt. Things aren't as gloomy at AA as you imagine them.

AMR ended 2006 with $5.2 billion in cash and short-term investments, including a restricted balance of $468 million, compared to a balance of $4.3 billion in cash and short-term investments at the end of 2005, including a restricted balance of $510 million.

The Company reduced total debt, which includes the principal amount of airport facility tax-exempt bonds and the present value of aircraft operating lease obligations, to $18.4 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2006, compared to $20.1 billion a year earlier. In addition to $1.2 billion in scheduled principal payments that AMR made in 2006, the Company purchased $190 million of its outstanding debt and lease obligations during the year. AMR reduced net debt, which is defined as total debt less unrestricted cash and short-term investments, from $16.3 billion at the end of 2005 to $13.6 billion at the end of 2006.

Here's the complete story:

http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/pressRel...17_4q2006.jhtml

Total debt down $1.7 billion and net debt down $2.7 billion. Hardly "broke."

The PUP payments giving AMR difficulty? Are you kidding? A mere $200 million or so, mostly in stock. UAL's executives got three times as much merely for managing UA thru bankruptcy.

Looming raises? What are you smokin'? Sure, Cap Hunter the Blowhard used the "S" word yesterday, and all the unions would like to recover their concessions early next year, but that ain't gonna happen. Impotent union leaders can dream all they want, but those old days are just that: the Old Days. They're over, and they ain't coming back.

 

[1AA]

American knew about the upcoming situation with the MD-80 fleet replacement several years back. Boeing approached American years back around 2002 or so. They made American an offer for our F-100's. Boeing would take our F-100's as a trade for the new more fuel efficient and quiter B-717. American refused and told Boeing that our F-100's are bought and payed for and are the most cost efficient aircraft in the fleet. About a year later American announced that we will be parking our F-100's due to lack of parts and expensive upcoming repairs. So we all know what happened to the F-100's. Now that Boeing scrapped the 717 line they are no longer available. The F-100 flew into markets that the MD-80 could not. With the loss of the F-100 we either stopped flying certain routes or gave them over to American Eagle. More mainline flying lost as well as jobs for American Employees. With the acquisition of the 717 we could have kept these routes that the F-100 was flying and expanded on that. But now we need to spend money we do not have and keep the fuel guzzling MD-80's longer than expected. The 717 line would have delivered aircraft faster than the 737 line could. So here we are paying for Americans mismanaged decision based on them not planing for the future.
Now American has to spend a great deal of money, raise capital and negotiate three labor contracts in the next two years. The outcome will be interesting.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

American knew about the upcoming situation with the MD-80 fleet replacement several years back. Boeing approached American years back around 2002 or so. They made American an offer for our F-100's. Boeing would take our F-100's as a trade for the new more fuel efficient and quiter B-717. American refused and told Boeing that our F-100's are bought and payed for and are the most cost efficient aircraft in the fleet. About a year later American announced that we will be parking our F-100's due to lack of parts and expensive upcoming repairs. So we all know what happened to the F-100's. Now that Boeing scrapped the 717 line they are no longer available. The F-100 flew into markets that the MD-80 could not. With the loss of the F-100 we either stopped flying certain routes or gave them over to American Eagle. More mainline flying lost as well as jobs for American Employees. With the acquisition of the 717 we could have kept these routes that the F-100 was flying and expanded on that. But now we need to spend money we do not have and keep the fuel guzzling MD-80's longer than expected. The 717 line would have delivered aircraft faster than the 737 line could. So here we are paying for Americans mismanaged decision based on them not planing for the future.
Now American has to spend a great deal of money, raise capital and negotiate three labor contracts in the next two years. The outcome will be interesting.

Is it possible to re-engine the MD80?

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

I've long said not keeping the 717 was a mistake and the lack of a 'Bridge' aircraft between the Eagle RJ and the mainline S80 was a mistake.


As far as the 717 line being scrapped, didn't Boeing reopen the 762 line for Continental a few years ago for a dozen or so airframes?

I'm sure Boeing could be persuaded to reopen the line for a fifty or one hundred airframe order.

Although I'm sure AMR management has it's heart set on E175+190's,in Eagle livery.Plus I read yesterday that Bombardier is looking at a 100 seat jet, so I'm sure that is high on their wish list as well. :blink:

 

[FWAAA]

Is it possible to re-engine the MD80?

For several million dollars per airplane, sure - the engines used on the MD-90s could be installed. Former ModerAAtor recently posted some info on the price and the complexity. All in all, it would be like re-engining an old rusty clunker. For a variety of reasons, you'd probably be better off with a new airframe. Re-engined MD-80s would be more fuel efficient than present, but not as fuel efficient as new 738s or, even better, the upcoming replacement for the 737 (using 787-type technology).

 

[FWAAA]

I've long said not keeping the 717 was a mistake and the lack of a 'Bridge' aircraft between the Eagle RJ and the mainline S80 was a mistake.

As far as the 717 line being scrapped, didn't Boeing reopen the 762 line for Continental a few years ago for a dozen or so airframes?

I'm sure Boeing could be persuaded to reopen the line for a fifty or one hundred airframe order.

I agree with you on the 717. It was quiet and more fuel efficient. And AA had 30 of them not too long ago. They've served AirTran well, and Midwest seems pleased with theirs.

But the 717's undoing was the prospect that the Brazilians and the Canadians would soon cobble together new 70-100 seaters that are much lighter (and more narrow) than the 717. Just can't justify flying all that extra aluminum around when the ERJ 190/195 and the CRJ-1000 can do it cheaper.

If AA approached Boeing and asked for 100 717s, Boeing would likely figure out how to build them. Problem is, the price would be nowhere near as low as it was when Boeing was begging AA to order a bunch of them (prior the the 717 line shutdown). To get them now, Boeing would probably charge AA the "special order" price which would include lots of set-up and start-up expenses. Instead of costing something like $28 million each, they'd more likely cost double that (give or take) - that's something the government might pay for, but not AA. Probably end up costing more than new 738s.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

To get them now, Boeing would probably charge AA the "special order" price which would include lots of set-up and start-up expenses. Probably end up costing more than new 738s.

I don't recall Continental getting all hit with those sorts of charges for their Ten 762ER order.

The aircraft would be available a lot sooner than those 737s, the 73 line is sold out until what, 2011?


This company is too funny, the FAA says "Reduce RJ flying at LGA" so AA adds more...LGA-CVG 4xDaily and LGA-LEX 2xDaily.Although they did reduce LGA-RDU to 8xDaily from 11...and subtract 1 from LGA-ATL.

 

[FWAAA]

I don't recall Continental getting all hit with those sorts of charges for their Ten 762ER order.

That may have something to do with the fact that the 763 order book is still open (even as of today) and that 762s roll down the same line and are assembled by the same employees; in contrast, the Long Beach plant where the 717 was assembled is closed and the employees have been let go or transfered to other Boeing plants. Dunno whether the tooling has been scrapped yet. Starting that up again isn't really the same as producing some 762s again.

762s aren't all that different from 763s - so CO's special request wasn't too expensive to fulfill. Besides, Boeing still wants to sell 762 tankers to the US military, so orders for 762s might have been welcome. There aren't any pending US government orders for dozens of 717s. B)

The aircraft would be available a lot sooner than those 737s, the 73 line is sold out until what, 2011?

It may be sold out until then for customers not holding purchase rights on 738s (like AA does). All AA would have to do is call Boeing and new 738s would be on the property before 2009.

But regardless of that, the only viable 100 seater now is the 190/195, and those are available without too much delay.