Is AFW sold?

[RV4]

Many new rumors about AFW being sold to FedEx.
Can anyone confirm if AA is ready to part with this expensive operation and fully replace it with MCI?

 

[bagsmasher]

This rumor has been going around for quite a while. Some say UPS, others say FedEx is interested. FedEx makes more sense to me, since they are just across the ramp at AFW. I have friends at AFW, and they haven't heard anything. If it happens, I hope it happens in the next couple of years before the next TWU contract is signed so that system protected employees can exercise their protection rights.

 

[s80dude]

I've heard that the special tax credits/breaks AA got to go to AFW are scheduled to come to and end and maybe that is what has got the rumor mill churning. Do you think the maintenance currently performed at AFW will shift to Kansas City? Tulsa?

 

[bagsmasher]

I believe AA got a 10 year tax abatement from the city of Ft. Worth. AFW was completed in 1991(?), so I believe any tax incentives would now be expired.
MCIE is underutilized, and has $180 million from KC for improvements to the facility there. I believe I heard that MCIE was under 40% capacity, so there's plenty of room. One thing though is that the hanger at AFW is huge, with 7 bays big enough for widebodies. Widebody capacity at MCIE is very limited.

 

[RV4]

If AFW is removed as maintenance base, both Tulsa and MCI will be utilized as replacement.

 

[AAG2000]

One big reason AA opened the AFW complex was the fear that one tornado in Tulsa could effectively shut the airline down. In other words, AA didn't want all its eggs in one basket. With an underutilized facility at MCI, however, AFW may no longer be needed as emergency backup. Just a thought.

 

[RV4]

One question that comes to my mind is:

Where would AA TEST the 777's Trent Engine without the AFW TEST CELL?

 

[AAG2000]

Good question. I hadn't thought of that. They don't have a test cell that can handle the Trent up in Tulsa?

Anyway, that thing is incredible. On a visit to AFW last year, I stood inside the cell---if you talk in a normal voice while standing between the noise attenuation panels, people can't hear you 10 feet away. Later I saw a Trent run at takeoff power, but could hardly hear a thing outside the building.

 

[TOOLS]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 1006 PM RV4 wrote:

One question that comes to my mind is:

Where would AA TEST the 777's Trent Engine without the AFW TEST CELL?
----------------
[/blockquote]
MCIE has the capability and capacity to test any current configuration and of course is pitifully underutilized.

 

[flyers4]

did you guys and gals now they are digging a huge hole in hanger 5 in tulsa. they say it is to do the gear swings on 757 but if you ask me it looks more like its for the 777.
keep in mind they used hanger 5 for 747 back when we had them!!!!!

 

[lpbri]

 

[lpbri]

This is an old rumor. The fact that it involves Fedex only proves it. For starters, Fedex IS NOT IN THE MRO BUSINESS!! And they probably never will be. Neither will UPS. Their operation at AFW is nothing more than a minihub. They rely on outsourcing for all their heavy maintenance. AFW is too much facility for them. Where are they going to get the people to staff such a facility if they buy it and go into the MRO business? What do they need a seat shop for?
Then there is the TASEL issue to deal with. One previous poster mentioned this. Most 777 engine changes are done at DFW. The removed engine can easily be transported to AFW by truck, with an oversized load permit. If Taesl were somewere else, they would have to fly it with an AN124(?) Russian bird at ENORMOUS expense. Another poster thought that a Trent could use an existing test cell at MCI. I should think not. This person obviously does not know big a Trent engine is. The fact is neither TUL or MCI can currently handle the Trent. Period. Then there is the issue of spare parts. DFW and AFW share spare parts. They can be transported between the two in minutes.
To move all the AFW work to TUL and MCI would be enormously expensive, not to mention the relocation packages for some 1000 people. AA does not have that money now. They are now just focusing( I hope ) on survival. I've seen the dock plans for all 3 bases. There is enough work to keep all 3 bases busy until 2005 or 2006. Having 3 bases is not unusual. UAL has 3 bases, as does NWA. After 2006, all bets are off. All depends on mainline growth.

 

[lpbri]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 8:12:06 PM AAG2000 wrote:

One big reason AA opened the AFW complex was the fear that one tornado in Tulsa could effectively shut the airline down. In other words, AA didn't want all its eggs in one basket. With an underutilized facility at MCI, however, AFW may no longer be needed as emergency backup. Just a thought.
----------------
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 8:12:06 PM AAG2000 wrote:

One big reason AA opened the AFW complex was the fear that one tornado in Tulsa could effectively shut the airline down. In other words, AA didn't want all its eggs in one basket. With an underutilized facility at MCI, however, AFW may no longer be needed as emergency backup. Just a thought.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Thats not a thought, thats total nonsense. The reason they opened AFW was to handle the growth in the fleet as it was happening in the late 80's/early nineties. For all those not in the know, Tulsa has no room for growth, it's capacity has been maxed out several years now. For all it's size, it takes more than one base to support a 500 plus fleet.

 

[j7915]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 307 AM lpbri wrote:

[blockquote]

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

On 9/5/2002 8:12:06 PM AAG2000 wrote:


One big reason AA opened the AFW complex was the fear that one tornado in Tulsa could effectively shut the airline down. In other words, AA didn't want all its eggs in one basket. With an underutilized facility at MCI, however, AFW may no longer be needed as emergency backup. Just a thought.

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

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]

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

On 9/5/2002 8:12:06 PM AAG2000 wrote:


One big reason AA opened the AFW complex was the fear that one tornado in Tulsa could effectively shut the airline down. In other words, AA didn't want all its eggs in one basket. With an underutilized facility at MCI, however, AFW may no longer be needed as emergency backup. Just a thought.

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

[/blockquote]

Thats not a thought, thats total nonsense. The reason they opened AFW was to handle the growth in the fleet as it was happening in the late 80's/early nineties. For all those not in the know, Tulsa has no room for growth, it's capacity has been maxed out several years now. For all it's size, it takes more than one base to support a 500 plus fleet.
----------------
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 307 AM lpbri wrote:

[blockquote]

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

On 9/5/2002 8:12:06 PM AAG2000 wrote:


One big reason AA opened the AFW complex was the fear that one tornado in Tulsa could effectively shut the airline down. In other words, AA didn't want all its eggs in one basket. With an underutilized facility at MCI, however, AFW may no longer be needed as emergency backup. Just a thought.

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

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]

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

On 9/5/2002 8:12:06 PM AAG2000 wrote:


One big reason AA opened the AFW complex was the fear that one tornado in Tulsa could effectively shut the airline down. In other words, AA didn't want all its eggs in one basket. With an underutilized facility at MCI, however, AFW may no longer be needed as emergency backup. Just a thought.

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

[/blockquote]

Thats not a thought, thats total nonsense. The reason they opened AFW was to handle the growth in the fleet as it was happening in the late 80's/early nineties. For all those not in the know, Tulsa has no room for growth, it's capacity has been maxed out several years now. For all it's size, it takes more than one base to support a 500 plus fleet.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I recall that Crandall was to have said, maybe in an interview that he did not want all of his eggs in one basket. AA had 600+ aircraft before AFW was ever operational.

As to the big hole in Hangar 5, by the time they back fill it won't be that big; unless you want to park a 777 half out on the ramp that dock could never take a 777.

I heard rumors that they fit checked 5F for a 777, and there is always hangar 6, at least two bays, maybe three. The overhead gantries in 6C have never been removed.

I thought that the fan casing of the Trent engine could be split horizontally, becaue they might have to ship an engine on a freighter, 747/DC10.

 

[AAG2000]

Whoa, seems like lpbri is a little bit sensitive about this topic. I have no idea what AA's plans are for AFW, MCI, or anywhere else. Nor do I claim to know if any other facilities can handle the Trent---it does seem unlikely that AA would give up the unparalleled engine shop it has there. However, I do know that the eggs in one basket reason for opening AFW---even if not the whole story---is NOT total nonsense.