Former TWA 757s

[s80dude]

Does anyone know the status of the former TWA 757's (we call it the 752) here at AA. A mechanic told me the other day they will all be gone by the end of the year, hence the reason no mods were done to revamp galleys and bins.

Can anyone confirm this?

If true, it certainly doesn't help the recall situation...

 

[Hercdriver]

I don't know any particulars, but it does seem that AA intends to keep parking aircraft in order to avoid having to recall any pilots or flight attendants. If they don't park the TWA 757s, they will likely park more super 80s befor the end of the year. It seems as though the driving force behind every decision they make is the desire to avoid those recalls.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ----Then again, I hear ALCOA is in the market to buy 757's to convert to Cargo Configuration! It would be ironic if we exTWAers, here at MCI, were the ones to do the work! It would seem almost fitting! 😛

 

[jimntx]

It was my understanding that all of the former TW 757s are leased which is the reason no mods were done on them. I was told that the plan was to return them all to the lessor(s) as the leases expire.

I doubt the company would park something on which they are still making lease payments. Not a productive use of cash.
I also doubt that the recall or not of pilots and flight attendants has much of anything to do with it.

At the rate pilots and f/as are leaving, they can't park enough planes. Remember the adage, "No airline ever shrank to profitability."

 

[MCI transplant]

It was my understanding that all of the former TW 757s are leased which is the reason no mods were done on them. I was told that the plan was to return them all to the lessor(s) as the leases expire.

I doubt the company would park something on which they are still making lease payments. Not a productive use of cash.
I also doubt that the recall or not of pilots and flight attendants has much of anything to do with it.

At the rate pilots and f/as are leaving, they can't park enough planes. Remember the adage, "No airline ever shrank to profitability."

<_< ------"No airline ever shrank to profitability." I'll be the first to vouch for that statement! 😉

 

[FWAAA]

I doubt the company would park something on which they are still making lease payments. Not a productive use of cash.
I also doubt that the recall or not of pilots and flight attendants has much of anything to do with it.

While you make good points in your post, keep in mind that the some of the MD-80s that have been parked so far this year are leased and none of the leases expire this year, only one MD-80 lease expires next year, 9 in 2008, 4 more in 2009 and 12 in 2010. While parking aircraft on which you're still making payments looks bad, apparently the fuel not burned will make up for the lease payments. Monthly fuel burn on an MD-80 at $2/gal is substantially more than the monthly lease payment on a 20 year old MD-80.

Lease expiration schedule is on page 18 of: http://www.shareholder.com/aa/EdgarDetail....-3715&SID=06-00

 

[AMFAMAN]

Lease expiration schedule is on page 18 of: http://www.shareholder.com/aa/EdgarDetail....-3715&SID=06-00

FYI...those 4 F-100's have a lease to around 2012 or so, it doesn't show their lease on this report.

 

[FWAAA]

FYI...those 4 F-100's have a lease to around 2012 or so, it doesn't show their lease on this report.

😀 I forgot about those. Good thing AA found suckers to take the other 70 F-100s off its hands.

Didn't AA extend the leases on the xTWA 757s for several more years in 2002 or 2003 when it became apparent it couldn't afford to order new replacement RR-powered 757s (as had been planned when AA purchased the TWA assets)??

Gonna be paying on those 757s for quite a while.

 

[Bob Owens]

Monthly fuel burn on an MD-80 at $2/gal is substantially more than the monthly lease payment on a 20 year old MD-80.

Wouldnt that statement apply to all our aircraft, even the new ones?

The fact is that sitting on the ground they may not burn fuel, but because they are leased, they do burn money, without generating anything.

So, by parking these aircraft now the company comes to us and says that their CASMs (since they are paying for 'seats" that they no longer even try to sell) have actually increased and they need for us to give more concessions to bring them in line with the other LCCs.

 

[jimntx]

Just from a f/a standpoint, I would hate to see the former TW 75s go away. Other than the smaller o/h bins and the F/C galley, I LOVE that a/c. The position of the M/C lavs is fantastic, and those full-size trash carts should be FAA-required on EVERY a/c.

 

[goingboeing]

I don't know any particulars, but it does seem that AA intends to keep parking aircraft in order to avoid having to recall any pilots or flight attendants. If they don't park the TWA 757s, they will likely park more super 80s befor the end of the year. It seems as though the driving force behind every decision they make is the desire to avoid those recalls.

Here at TULE we have had ongoing layoffs for the last 3 years.[since 2003 concessions]
There are Union people retiring,quitting,and dying and none of them are being replaced.There are 2 people on my crew retiring in the next 30 days and are not going to be replaced with recalled mechanics.
Yet AA is creating positions[attendance supervisor] and hiring more management people to manage less Union people and the TWU is not protesting the situation at all.
AA is the most management top heavy I've seen it in 20+ years.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Didn't AA extend the leases on the xTWA 757s for several more years in 2002 or 2003 when it became apparent it couldn't afford to order new replacement RR-powered 757s (as had been planned when AA purchased the TWA assets)??

Gonna be paying on those 757s for quite a while.

I haven't looked at those leases recently, but I'm pretty sure the TWA birds are the 757-200 leases set to expire in 07, 08, 09, and a few thereafter.

 

[flyhigh]

...there is word out there that they are looking to transfer or sublease to another carrier who has a more compatible fleet. They're nice aircraft (and pretty new at that), but a little costly to maintain a sub-fleet.

As for parking M80's, I hate to burst bubles, but people don't sit in HQ and think of ways to simply keep from re-calling people. Is it part of the equation, yes, it has to be, but it is not the sole motivator...not even a top 10 one. If they need people, they hire, if they don't, they don't. The rationale behind parking aircraft you still have payments on is pretty simple. By reducing total ASM (supply), given a constant (or rising) demand, you can increase prices. The last announcement that came out was that AA was going to park almost 30 M80s. With a fleet of over 300 M80, the lease payments of these get spread across the remaining flying aircraft. It's more likely that they would increase revenue per aircraft still flying enough to cover the lease payment alone than fly them and not lose tons of cash on gas crews and incrementals...

 

[Nor'Easta]

Just from a f/a standpoint, I would hate to see the former TW 75s go away. Other than the smaller o/h bins and the F/C galley, I LOVE that a/c. The position of the M/C lavs is fantastic, and those full-size trash carts should be FAA-required on EVERY a/c.

I agree with you. The only thing I don't like is the #4 jumpseat location. Talking about playing footsie!

 

[kirkpatrick]

You mean R3? What I didn't like was them using your jumpseat as a footrest for the whole flight and then glaring at you when you wanted it back for landing.

MK