I think something in this industry that is greatly underappreciated is how long carriers are able to fly their A/C for.
Before all the cuts, US had solidified itself as a carrier that flew planes for many years. The DC9/MD80 fleet pushed 25 years, as did the 73S fleet.
Obviously, there was a push to streamline the fleet, but was it necessary to retire planes that were less than 10 years old?
For example, you have the F100. Yes, Fokker was out of business and parts for MX were difficult to come by, but was it cost effective to write off the entire fleet of 40 A/C, especially when they were all only about 10 years old? I'd like to hear commentary on this. I know people will say that Express can now fly the same amount of PAX (90 - on the E190) for cheaper wages, but was this a legit cost savings move?
Now granted, many of the 737 that are currently in the US fleet are at 20 years or older, but how much longer do you think US plans to fly planes at 20+ year intervals?
Boeing is obviously a premier product compared to the Airbus when it comes to quality. The 737 series will be gone completely in 5-7 years (IMO), replaced with EMB products (and possibly Airbus jets if the company gets its act together). Does anyone think that you will see 747UW or 811MA still flying in the year 2025 (and I don't want any pun about the company going under, I'm talking about the planes themselves).
I guess this is just a rant post, but the bottom line is this: wouldn't US be better off if they focused on A/C longetivity?
If NW can fly planes for close to 40 years, wouldn't it be prudent for US to do the same thing? Especially with their financial state? Why did US retire their workhorse DC9? I think the removal of the 73S/DC9-MD80/F100 actually hurt US, with the imparment charges, etc. The cost to operate them wasn't that bad, was it?
Before all the cuts, US had solidified itself as a carrier that flew planes for many years. The DC9/MD80 fleet pushed 25 years, as did the 73S fleet.
Obviously, there was a push to streamline the fleet, but was it necessary to retire planes that were less than 10 years old?
For example, you have the F100. Yes, Fokker was out of business and parts for MX were difficult to come by, but was it cost effective to write off the entire fleet of 40 A/C, especially when they were all only about 10 years old? I'd like to hear commentary on this. I know people will say that Express can now fly the same amount of PAX (90 - on the E190) for cheaper wages, but was this a legit cost savings move?
Now granted, many of the 737 that are currently in the US fleet are at 20 years or older, but how much longer do you think US plans to fly planes at 20+ year intervals?
Boeing is obviously a premier product compared to the Airbus when it comes to quality. The 737 series will be gone completely in 5-7 years (IMO), replaced with EMB products (and possibly Airbus jets if the company gets its act together). Does anyone think that you will see 747UW or 811MA still flying in the year 2025 (and I don't want any pun about the company going under, I'm talking about the planes themselves).
I guess this is just a rant post, but the bottom line is this: wouldn't US be better off if they focused on A/C longetivity?
If NW can fly planes for close to 40 years, wouldn't it be prudent for US to do the same thing? Especially with their financial state? Why did US retire their workhorse DC9? I think the removal of the 73S/DC9-MD80/F100 actually hurt US, with the imparment charges, etc. The cost to operate them wasn't that bad, was it?