AA moves to reject leases on six more MD-80s and 11 757s

[FWAAA]

Dunno whether this means the planes will disappear or whether AA will negotiate favorable short-term leases:

http://www.amrcaseinfo.com/pdflib/631_15463.pdf

 

[BoeingBoy]

If I counted correctly, 10 757's that aren't already in storage. All the rest are in storage at Roswell except for the spare engines.

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

By my math, it's six 757s located at ROW (# 3, 4, 11, 14, 15 and 17) and five that are in service (listed as DFW).

 

[AANOTOK]

By my math, it's six 757s located at ROW (# 3, 4, 11, 14, 15 and 17) and five that are in service (listed as DFW).

You guy's really get into this. I can't imagine how it would be if you actually worked for AA. 🙂

 

[BoeingBoy]

By my math, it's six 757s located at ROW (# 3, 4, 11, 14, 15 and 17) and five that are in service (listed as DFW).

My mistake - I forgot that some of the "in service" rejections are A330's. I should have taken one sock off so I could count to 11 - I had counted 10 and posted that as 757's instead of "in service" aircraft. Thanks for correcting me.

Have you compared the tail numbers of the stored planes in this filing with those in the first omnibus filing? I haven't but assume that it's in addition to those earlier airplanes. I know those in the first filing were only about half those listed as stored in the annual report, so assume these are some/all of the remaining stored planes.

Jim

 

[Buck]

My mistake - I forgot that some of the "in service" rejections are A330's. I should have taken one sock off so I could count to 11 - I had counted 10 and posted that as 757's instead of "in service" aircraft. Thanks for correcting me.

Have you compared the tail numbers of the stored planes in this filing with those in the first omnibus filing? I haven't but assume that it's the same airplanes.

Jim

And the 757's that are in/out of service at TIMCO? Are they being counted?

 

[FWAAA]

You guy's really get into this. I can't imagine how it would be if you actually worked for AA. 🙂

Well, if we were like some who work for AA and posted here, we'd be denying that AA had filed to reject these leases. There's a fair amount of denial residing here. 😀

In October, before the Ch 11 filing, AA said it would retire "up to" 11 757s in 2012. I'm thinking that the total will actually be higher now that AA is in bankruptcy.

 

[tech2101]

I think AA could use a can of this?

 

[BoeingBoy]

And the 757's that are in/out of service at TIMCO? Are they being counted?

I do and think FWAAA also uses in service to mean not in storage at one of the desert storage facilities like Roswell. So in service would include temporarily out of service due to routine maintenance but due to re-enter service when the maintenance is done. I would think stored aircraft that needed maintenance before being returned to the lessor/creditor might could be ferried to a MRO like Timco depending on the condition of the airplane.

To be really accurate you'd need to compare the serial or tail numbers with the maintenance system computers that tell the status of each plane- there's a list with each filing - although obviously those shown as located in places like Roswell are in storage. That was the case with all those in the first filing and roughly half or less than those in this latest filing.

Jim

 

[Buck]

I do and think FWAAA also uses in service to mean not in storage at one of the desert storage facilities like Roswell. So in service would include temporarily out of service due to routine maintenance but due to re-enter service when the maintenance is done. I would think stored aircraft that needed maintenance before being returned to the lessor/creditor might could be ferried to a MRO like Timco depending on the condition of the airplane.

To be really accurate you'd need to compare the serial or tail numbers with the maintenance system computers that tell the status of each plane- there's a list with each filing - although obviously those shown as located in places like Roswell are in storage. That was the case with all those in the first filing and roughly half or less than those in this latest filing.

Jim

Ok, but a what point does the company stop Marketing's required maintenance upgrades before Finance gets a clue that these aircraft are being returned. It is just not the 757's the MD-80's are still being modded with entertainment upgrades only to eventuall be returned.

If the company decides to use MRO's like TIMCO to prepare an aircraft for lease return, I would hope that any of these aircraft coming out of the MRO's would be ready for return, unlike the first 757 at TIMCO. I relize there is a difference between going into service than being returned from a lease.

 

[FWAAA]

Ok, but a what point does the company stop Marketing's required maintenance upgrades before Finance gets a clue that these aircraft are being returned. It is just not the 757's the MD-80's are still being modded with entertainment upgrades only to eventuall be returned.

Someone recently posted that they heard that only 60-some 757s would receive the cabin refurb, including the new IFE, leaving more than just these 11 out in the cold, probably to be rejected. The MD-80s that are receiving upgrades would undoubtedly be the last to be retired.

If the company decides to use MRO's like TIMCO to prepare an aircraft for lease return, I would hope that any of these aircraft coming out of the MRO's would be ready for return, unlike the first 757 at TIMCO. I relize there is a difference between going into service than being returned from a lease.

I've posted it before, and I'll say it again: AA is not performing the contractual lease return maintenance on the aircraft that are being rejected. The lessors of the initial batch of MD-80s and F100s objected, but AA was permitted to reject the planes without performing any of the maintenance specified in the leases. In the filing, AA undertakes to pay for the storage maintenance program for the stored planes. That's what bankruptcy law requires, not what the leases say.

 

[Buck]

Someone recently posted that they heard that only 60-some 757s would receive the cabin refurb, including the new IFE, leaving more than just these 11 out in the cold, probably to be rejected. The MD-80s that are receiving upgrades would undoubtedly be the last to be retired.

Yes that was me, I had forgot about that. That was from a Panasonic Rep.

 

[xUT]

Ok, but a what point does the company stop Marketing's required maintenance upgrades before Finance gets a clue that these aircraft are being returned. It is just not the 757's the MD-80's are still being modded with entertainment upgrades only to eventuall be returned.

If the company decides to use MRO's like TIMCO to prepare an aircraft for lease return, I would hope that any of these aircraft coming out of the MRO's would be ready for return, unlike the first 757 at TIMCO. I relize there is a difference between going into service than being returned from a lease.

That's funny...
AA/TWU was pretty proud doing B777 lease returns for UA in our BK.
DOH!
B) xUT

 

[eolesen]

As I recall, AA wasn't doing work on UA's behalf. They were doing it on the Lessors' dime, and the crews were supplied by the lessor as well.

 

[FWAAA]

And the 757's that are in/out of service at TIMCO? Are they being counted?

So far, AA has not indicated that it plans to reject or abandon 5CK, 5CL, 5CM or 5CP - the Timco Four.