Should AA order more 738s or wait for 737 replacement?

WT, it's probably not worth either of our time to debate Airbus vs. Boeing...

Just look at many 30 year old Boeings are still flying, and how many 30 year old Airbuses are still flying. That will tell you everything you need to know.

Yes, it's true: I simply don't like Airbus products. They don't last more than about 15 years without needing replacement, and I hate the concept of disposable assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I like the older Fokker products such as the F27 and F28 -- at least they're built with metal that won't flex to the touch like the F100's do. Anyone who ground handled or maintained the F100 knows what I'm talking about.

And those DC10's that everyone loves to hate? FDX will be flying several into their 40th year of service.

Many DC10s have outlived the MD11's that were bought to replace them (certainly the case at AA), and they've also outlived the Tritanics, and the A310s and the A330-200s bought by several European carriers to replace their own DC10s. And I'm sure that as A340-200s are retired by carriers like Iberia, you'll see the DC10s outliving that airframe as well...
tell me what is a "lemon" about the M11 and the M90 - and while you are at it why the M8i0 is/is not a lemon (since some here think that McD-D can't build decent airplanes).
And, if these were lemons, why did AA mgmt order them?

First of all I did not say anything about the MD-80 so don't put words in my mouth. And I'm not responsible for what other people may or may have said about it on this thread. Second of all AA did not order the MD-90, they inherited five of them from Reno. AA was a launch customer for the MD-11 so it was kind of hard for them to know how the program was going to turn out. MD made a bunch of promises about the aircraft that did not pan out. Probably one of the reasons AA has not been a launch customer for an aircraft since the MD-11 and F100.

As for the MD-90 and MD-11 their service record and the number orders should tell anyone they both left a lot to be desired. At one point Delta called it their plane for the 21st century and had options for over hundred, they took delivery of sixteen. Do you think they were impressed with the aircraft? I would think not. The issues the MD-11 had with reliabiity and range are well known within the industry are well known. It did not get the nicknames Mighty Disapointed and the Scud for nothing.
As an opinion (again), the MD-80 structure is such that had Aloha been using one on the flight where the 737 became a convertible, all hands would have been lost instead of (regretably) only one f/a. The aircraft would have folded in half and gone in the drink.

Hawaiian Airlines operated the DC-9 under the same conditions Aloha operated the 737 in. Numerous takeoff and landings in an island enviornment. The fact that no DC-9 ever came apart like that should tell you somehting.
<_< ------- And then there was the L-1011! A damn good aircraft, RB 211 engines, but Lockeed always seemed to have problems with wing cracking. The L10 was no exception!
What about the one that crashed in CA?

Specifically, I think you're referring the Alaska aircraft and the failed jackscrew...

There was another DC9 crash in Cerritos (Aeromexico) which was a mid air collision.

There was also the case of Eastern cracking in half after a hard landing in Pensacola...

Never saw a Boeing do that. I suspect an Airbus would wind up in multiple pieces...

The fact that Hawaiian never lost an airframe due to salt exposure is somewhat impressive...
I'm just asking because I don't know...why could both not be true? A lease return (rented a/c) could be a separate event from a retirement (of an owned a/c), could it not?

I am afraid you have lost me, when you retire a aircraft you send it to the desert sell it to someone else or cut it up for scrap if it is a lease you do the required maintenance [ whatever the lease requires] and return it to its owner in either case it means that the aircraft would no longer be flying for AA thus it would be removed from the fleet, currently there are no MD 80's scheduled for removal from the fleet in 2012 but the dock plans says a bunch will be leased returned therefore they will be removed from the fleet.

I hope this clears things up.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #83
On 12/31/10, AA had two owned MD-80s in temporary storage plus 59 retired MD-80s that it had parked (probably at ROW). Of the 59 retired MD-80s, 35 are owned, 14 were subject to capital leases and 10 were subject to operating leases. I suspect that some of those 24 leased MD-80s will be returned to the lessors this year, probably after some required maintenance.

That leaves 222 MD-80s in active service on 12/31/10.
tell me what is a "lemon" about the M11 and the M90 - and while you are at it why the M8i0 is/is not a lemon (since some here think that McD-D can't build decent airplanes).
And, if these were lemons, why did AA mgmt order them?

While I can appreciate you expertise on the fiscal side of the airline business and have read alot of what you post on AA and DL forums I have to say you are off base if you are trying to defend Airbus or McD, as a mechanic I will state for the record Boeing is unmatched when it comes to commerical aircraft Airbus siuffers from many different problems most of all is european eniginering they cut the tolerance on ever thing to the bare bones thinking they understand all possible scenarios that might come up. their wiring is hot to the touch when on because they have used the smallist possible wire this is not the case in Boeing you continue to sight the 737 over hawaii had that been a Airbus those folks would be dead because the remaining structure could not have held the load.

Since we are talking about inflight damage how about the American A300 that lost the entire vertical fin, by the way whole structure is held on by 6 bolts, it is not built into the aft fuselage like most aircraft how could anyone in their right mind design a aircraft that needed pilot instruction to not over use the rudder in fear of tearing off, while it is true most modern aircraft do not require a lot of use of the rudder you should be able to correct if need be without fear of damage. While I have no proof I have long suspected the A330 that crashed out of South America suffered a similar fate I found it very interesting that on day one of the search they were already saying we might not ever find the black boxes they did however find the vertical fin floating in the ocean.

As far as Mcd goes I think a lack of new models and increased competition killed them. the MD 11 was for sure overhyped but I think it was the A330 and 777 that made it obsolete just as its 3 engines were a savings over the 74s 4 the large twins had their savings over its 3, in my opinion had douglas designed a large twin it might still be in business today who knows. as far as DL and the MD 90 goes I think their just looking for cheap lift to replace the DC-9s and since they already own some it makes sense to buy them and park the 9s. I don't think you should look at it as DL thinks the 90 is a great aircraft.
I like the older Fokker products such as the F27 and F28 -- at least they're built with metal that won't flex to the touch like the F100's do. Anyone who ground handled or maintained the F100 knows what I'm talking about.

My favorite feature was access to the ac packs. Instead of a panel with latches you had around fifty screws. Given the reliablity of the packs you were taking those screws out a lot.
First, I appreciate knowing that some have taken the time to read and have enjoyed my posts…
2nd, as I said before, I am not an Airbus fan or salesman but rather someone that believes all aspects of life need to be considered in all dimensions if one is willing to find the truth.
My concern in this thread – and it has come out – is that some supporters of AA have branded A, F, and McD-D as 2nd tier planemakers and at the same time see Boeings as incapable of doing anything wrong.
I find such prejudicial thinking dangerous, regardless of the manufacturer – or subject for that matter.
The simple fact is that Lockheed, McD-D, and Fokker don’t make larger commercial transports anymore because they could not produce products which the market wanted. But that argument cannot be made about Airbus.
The L1011 became obsolete because of domestic twins such as the 763 and 764 which could carry almost identical loads at a fraction of the cost and the L1011-500/L1011-250 could only operate on transoceanic routes by removing 20% of the capacity.
The D10 was not much different except it did not require a “shrink” in order to serve longhaul routes. But the M11 was not much improved over the D10 and both fell prey again to much nimbler and more efficient aircraft such as the 767 and 330.
But Airbus will likely sell more copies of the A330 than any other Boeing model and the A320 sells at similar rates to 737s. You cannot argue that Airbus aircraft are no good unless you want to also argue that half of the airlines in the world don’t know what they are doing.
What is clear is that Airbus doesn’t build aircraft THE SAME WAY Boeing does. They have different ideas about engineering – but that also can be seen in the differences in the way a Vokswagen or Audi and a Cadillac are engineered.
Apparently, enough of the world’s airlines can accept Airbus’ philosophy of engineering and its resulting products, including perhaps the shorter life span. Given that airplane technology usually changes before the 20 year life cycle of an airplane (as US airlines see it) occurs – and most other airlines in the world use aircraft for much shorter periods, maybe Airbus’ strategies aren’t so off the wall.
Boeings have indeed suffered from fuselage cracks after hard landings such as happened here:
And let’s not forget what happened to his bird after an uncontained engine failure… if this plane were flying, it probably would have not landed safely.
Clearly, catastrophic events can occur to any manufacturer’s product; to pretend that Boeing’s are exempt is ….
Let’s also remember that several of the accidents mentioned above involved human error – whether it be maintenance or pilot error. If McD-D says ‘don’t remove the engine and pylon as a unit”, well don’t be surprised if something goes wrong. If AS failed to maintain the jackscrew, then problems WILL occur. And as asinine as it might be to you or me, if Airbus says don’t swing the rudder hard in flight, they apparently mean it. (although, why they didn’t make their computers capable of minimizing the impact is beyond me)
Let me say without hesitation that Boeing builds the best longhaul airplanes in the world and that is completely supported by sales and performance data. Boeing has continued to perfect longhaul aircraft and when it comes to over 12 hr flights, Boeing rules the skies.
The 777 is hands down the market leader and the fact that the 772 has grown into the 77LR and 773ER which both have outsold and outperformed their Airbus competition shows where Boeing’s strengths are and where Airbus has been trying to build a competitive product.
I can’t wait for the day when DL decides to fly from the US nonstop to SIN or BKK and use the full capabilities of the 77LR against the 345. While SQ or TG’s ramp agents are counting kid weights to make sure they aren’t overweight with less than 200 passengers, DL will be loading pallets of cargo in addition to a full 275 passenger load. Bring it on! It’s no surprise that SAA is having to scramble to operate nonstops between the US and JNB in both directions again after the LR has enabled DL to chip away at SAA’s market because of the LR’s performance capabilities.
And I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if one of the markets AA has its eye on is MIA-JNB with the 773ER.
While Boeing has not allowed any cracks in its longhaul strategy, the 330 has or will grow to likely outsell every other Boeing model because it is optimized for under 12 hr longhaul flights – and it does it very economically. Ironically, the 332 would probably never have been built – or at least not sell near as many - if Boeing had not listened to DL and “neutered” the 764 so it could fit into gates at LGA. Thus, the 764 is a decent under 12 hr airplane but it could have been far more if Boeing could have put a larger wing and more powerful engines on it. Similarly, the 333 made the 772A obsolete because it is too heavy for the missions it can perform.
So, I don’t want to argue A vs B… but anyone (AA mgmt included) that runs from a particular model or mfr because of problems that may have roots in how that product is used are likely to pay a price for that bias (it’s not just a preference at that point). And I also doubt that Boeing is going to find the need to reduce prices for AA to the levels they offer to other airlines that will consider A’s products.
Finally, the M90 also didn’t sell well because it was essentially an M80 with more fuel efficient engines which provide some range… but the M80 and the M90 fall far short on long haul domestic routes. The 738 could clearly do that job. But now that M90 prices are 20% or less of a new 738, the economics most certainly work for DL to acquire them. And DL apparently agreed that the notion that fleet complexity is too costly when you have to pay full price for M90s but if you are buying them used and greatly reduced prices, fleet complexity is not such a big deal.
Perhaps AA too will decide that the M80 is worth keeping around if they are able to renegotiate lease prices and/or if lease prices for M80s remains well below prices for the 738 or its successor
Last time I checked, Boeing doesnt build the engines, now do they?
McD-D didn't build the engines on the D10 that was brought down by the uncontained engine failure either - but apparently some here think that McD-D should be held responsible for that failure.... and I would argue that airframe manufacturers do have some responsibility to ensure that the airframe is not crippled by an event that does happen w/ engines..... but we have seen uncontained engine failures do damage to airframes of multiple mfrs.
But they designed how it attached to the plane, the engine fell off it wasnt an uncontained failure. It was a poor design mounting and bad procedures using a forklift.