How is AA "shooting themselves in the foot" by not renewing the lease on a 50 year old portion of a delapidated hangar that it has no use for? If anything AA would be "shooting themselves in the foot" if they did sign a new lease. Unfortunately, with AA shrinking it's own fleet and the inability to find contract work (probably due to the economic environment), AA is making a wise financial decision to not incur greater overhead costs by signing a new lease.<_< ------ Ken, sounds good! But reality check here! As you said! "Two bays!"! Backbone or not, the boys at AFW, and TUL want this place gone! They have the numbers! -------- So guess what?
If I remember correctly the lease on the MCI narrow body hangar was only for two years while the wide body hangar was for 15 years. It would be cost effective for AA to use the wide body hangar (for AA or contract aircraft; if they can find a contract) for at least 15 years. It does AA no good to pay the lease on a hangar and have it set empty. The only other alternative for AA would be to find someone to take over the lease and then AA can be rid of MCI forever.
As for the typical TWA whining, it is not only MCI that is taking a hit. The possibility that AA may lose it's hangars in LAX and the possibility of not renewing the lease of it's JFK hangar would affect nAAtives. AA is shrinking, and as a consequence, is compelled to lower fixed costs.