AMR vs. other airlines, 4th quarter and the year

What needs to go are the MD80's... AA may actually be better off grounding a few extra MD80's to reduce the impact of crews having to go back to the schoolhouse for training on the 738....
 
What needs to go are the MD80's... AA may actually be better off grounding a few extra MD80's to reduce the impact of crews having to go back to the schoolhouse for training on the 738....

As per this post, I am curious...Do 737 pilots make more than MD80 pilots?
I ask this becuase even as MD80s are replaced with 737's, will the increase in salaries have a bearing on saved fuel and maintnenance costs?
 
Slightly higher pay on the 73's, but so little it'll hardly be a blip. Equal to increasing fuel burn by about 20-25 lbs of fuel per hour - enough to do little more than start the apu at current fuel prices.

Jim
 
The minimum flight attendants staffing of the new 738 configuration is four. Only three are required on the MD80s and older 738s.
 
Slightly higher pay on the 73's, but so little it'll hardly be a blip. Equal to increasing fuel burn by about 20-25 lbs of fuel per hour - enough to do little more than start the apu at current fuel prices.

Agreed. My back of the envelope calculations say the 738s will burn about 240 gal/hr less than the MD-80s. At current prices, that more than offsets the slightly higher pilot pay and the fourth FA. Fuel is about $500/hr cheaper offset by the pilots' pay and the extra $40/hr or so for the 4th FA.

With about 260 MD-80s in the fleet, AA would save almost $500 million a year at current fuel prices if 260 738s were flown an average of 10 hours a day. With 160 seats instead of 139, AA would save even more money since AA could replace the 260 MD-80s with fewer 738s.
 
Let's not forget that the 80's are either paid for or have low lease payments. The higher financing costs of the new aircraft have to be figured in the picture.

MK
 
Let's not forget that the 80's are either paid for or have low lease payments. The higher financing costs of the new aircraft have to be figured in the picture.

Good point, but the fuel savings and the reduced maintenance costs probably argue in favor of new 738s instead of not replacing the MD-80s. Lease rates on 738s are about $360k - $400k per month, and for each MD-80 parked and replaced by a new 738, AA could save about $150k/mo on fuel. Add in the reduced maintenance expenses, and the 738 doesn't look so expensive. More expensive, perhaps, than keeping the MD-80s, but what happens if/when fuel hits $3 or $4 or $5/gal in the future? That will just speed up the payback period on the new 738s.
 
CO? They had very few international premium seats, so they had a lot less to lose when demand for those seats dried up in late 2008. No surprise that CO hasn't suffered losses as large as AA or UA.

Are you saying that if we reduce premium seats we could "lose less?" Funny, the management that you love to make excuses for is increasing the number of premium seats. On the 757, they are taking away one of the F/C closets to add 2 more seats. Of course, we, the flight attendants, will still be expected to find a place for additional F/C coats with less closet space than ever.

When I was in training for CO for ticketing they told us that majority of the revenue that was collect from 1st class and business 1st paid for daily OPS so we try to keep those customers happy. I was there when they started removing rows from premium cabins their reason were because of the upgrades to that class of service. They were losing more money trying to keep it up. Than they deicide to remove a few rows and adding few in economy. I guess it paid off. PAXs paying 200 usd including taxes were traveling 1st class domestically dose that add up.

AA went a different route because of leg room they already had so they deicide to shrink that space and they also removed a closet(s) to bring in as much revenue as can in those A/C. I hope it pays off in these Qts and for the full year.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top