Another US red flag?

[700UW]

Josh,

if you look at DL and AA and even US, they have sub-type fleets, hence why each airline has a different code assigned to it by the manufacturer.

Many sub types have different parts, engines and etc.. Which means higher inventory costs and training.

DL has planes from various airlines, as does AA and US.

 

[737823]

Josh,

if you look at DL and AA and even US, they have sub-type fleets, hence why each airline has a different code assigned to it by the manufacturer.

Many sub types have different parts, engines and etc.. Which means higher inventory costs and training.

DL has planes from various airlines, as does AA and US.

No I agree you are totally correct on all these points. What I'd just like to add is while subfleets add costs, having the appropriate aircraft configuration for a certain route or market allows the airlines to maximize revenue while minimizing costs. For example, UA operated 3-class 767-300s to Rome-a market that has very little demand for a true first class product. With the CO merger they have aircraft available to provide appropriate capacity and configuration to that market.

Josh

 

[700UW]

And isnt UA changing their planes to all a 2 or 3 class on international? I remember reading about this.

UA is trying to standardize the fleet.

And DL is constantly changing configurations.

People dont know but some of US' first A320s were originally built for Philippine Air, and not US.

And some of HP's airbus were originally for Braniff part two.

Having the proper plane and configuration for a route is important but when planes break and you have to sub, it causes problems and passengers get upset.

So most airlines try to keep their fleets in the same configuration.

 

[737823]

And isnt UA changing their planes to all a 2 or 3 class on international? I remember reading about this.

UA is trying to standardize the fleet.

And DL is constantly changing configurations.

People dont know but some of US' first A320s were originally built for Philippine Air, and not US.

And some of HP's airbus were originally for Braniff part two.

I'm not sure about their plans, I know some of the domestic 763s are being converted to 2-class international with CO style Flat Bed seats in BusinessFirst and AVOD nose to tail. Some of their 777s are in new 3-class IPTE (International Premium Travel Experience) configuration and have only been recently converted so they may stay that way for a few more years. It seems the trend is away from 3-class F though. Thew new 787s are two-class, and the 764s are being upgraded to new CO style Flat Bed seats as well. I think for the time being they are aligning aircraft with markets that support the premium heavy configuration and withdrawing them from those that don't.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Found this on another thread:


[size="-1"]New Airbus Interior Bins
A319 (0/55-0%)
A320 (3/98-3.06%) - 4258, 4275, 4293.

New First & Business Seats for United International Widebodies
Includes new [color=red !important][font=inherit !important][font=inherit ! important]Y [font=inherit ! important]class[/font][/color] carpeting, bulkheads & cloth seat covers

B744 (23/23-100%) - Complete
B763 (21/21-100%) - Complete
B763 (2 [color=red !important][font=inherit !important][font=inherit ! important]Cabin[/font][/font][/color]) (4/14-28.57%)
B772* (35/46-76.08%) 204, 209, 216-229 [14], 769, 771, 773-778 [6], 780-785 [6], 787, 788, 793-794, 797
TOTAL (83/105-79.04%)

* Includes Weber 5751 cloth seats with power ports in 3-3-3 configuration and new larger PTVs with AVOD and winged headrests. 777 fleet reconfiguration should be complete by 2013.


New BusinessFirst Lie Flat Seats for Continental International Fleet

B752 (41/41-100%) - Complete
B764 (10/12- 83.35%)
B772 (22/22-100%) - Complete

TOTAL (76/75-96%)

[color=red !important][font=inherit !important][font=inherit ! important]Economy [/font][font=inherit ! important]Plus[/font][/font][/color] conversion
772 (22/22 = 100%) - COMPLETED.
764 (10/12 = 83.33%) Ships : 0051-0053 [3], 0056-0062 [7]. (Four Hawaii aircraft not included)
753 (13/21 = 61.09%) Ship 0855, 0860-0871 [12].
752 (41/41 100%) - COMPLETED.
739 (45/58 = 77.58%) : Ships 0401-0442 [42], 0456-0458
738 (93/122 = 76.22%) Ships: 0202-0226 [27], 0228-0231 [4], 0233-0234 [2], 0237-0239 [3], 0241-0245 [5], 0247-0248 [2], 0250-0259 [10], 0278-0299 [22], 0501-0518 [18]. (Eight Micronesia aircraft not included)
73G (31/32 = 96.87%) : Ships 0701-0719 [19], 0721-0724 [4], 0727-0733 [7], 0750. (Four Micronesia aircraft not included)
735 (14/16 = 87.5%) : Ships 0604, 0621-0633 [13].[/font][/size][/font]

[size="-1"]"The 3 remaining 772A model old international configuration aircraft (768, 772, 779 are to be converted into Hawaiian/Domestic configuration to fly IAD/EWR/IAH-HNL."[/size]

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5577117/1/#1

 

[WorldTraveler]

If this whole notion of fleet commonality is SO important to be a make or break factor, then we can stop right now with any discussions about AA and US merging because their fleet will be just as complex as DL's became w/ NW and as complex as UA-CO's after their merger.

Obviously, if fleet commonality were so important, AA would not have ordered the 767 and 300 at the same time, nor would they have ordered 320 and 737 family aircraft at the same time, nor would UA have 350s and 787s both on order. WN's all 737 fleet is far from being simple - or one model.

Yes, in a perfect world, you probably would have as few aircraft types as possible. But because airlines have to continually renew their fleets and aren't going to be stuck w/ the same technology or the same manufacturer and because airlines find value in mergers, they accept fleet diversity and less simplification. And then at times you do what WN is doing which is removing the 717s from the fleet while DL finds more value in adding another engine type - power by the hour maintained IIRC - but with some airframe similarities to the rest of its fleet. Yet the 717s are designed to replace CRJ 50 seat flying being done by regional carriers... so DL will reduce its overall costs even tho it is adding another fleet type to its own fleet and will probably shift more revenue as well since passengers prefer larger aircraft and DL's network is large enough that they can and are starting to consolidate RJ flying to 6 hubs into mainline flying to 3-4.
It's not all about costs. If you can generate more revenue even with a higher cost base, you make money. THAT is the name of the game.

Remember, DL and UA are pushing $40B a year in revenue..... carrying an extra $50M in parts is not going to make or break them, although every company is looking for ways to reduce costs. Further, many aircraft parts are part of debt agreements.

UA has no intention of trying to make its fleet uniform. It has two sets of 777ERs with very different capabilities and engines and they have no intention of trying to make them identical in form or function, esp. since right now, they still have a fenced fleet from a labor perspective.
They have two sets of 757s with different engines and capabilities - 767s of different models.

And, once again, DL with its sixteen zillion aircraft configurations is still one of the most profitable airlines in the US. Whatever complexity DL has allowed to creep into its fleet costs is obviously more than offset by a higher revenue generating capability and by the ability to manage costs in other areas - including the refinery.

And, yes, Josh, ALL of DL's 757s are Pratt powered and a pilot on one 757 can fleet any one of them.... so the parts differences comes down to stuff that is not an everyday part of the operation of the airline.
DL's 764s have different cockpits but will have identical cabins to the 763ERs and similar family engines to about half of the 763ER fleet, which DL intentionally equipped with 2 different types of engines and then went out and bought used aircraft with the "newer" engine type.

And DL, just like AA, does isolate certain fleet types to certain parts of its network which reduces costs not only for parts but for a whole lot of other reasons from ramp operations to pilot bases.
And DL's 757 and 767 fleet is well over 200 units....that's alot of commonality from a pilot scheduling standpoint.

Tax deductions only work if you are making money - and the expense of the interest payment is far larger than the profits any airline is generating. If AA generates $2B/year in profits, then fleet simplification or not will not matter. And not all corporate interest IS tax deductible.

All companies, not just airlines, source parts from outside companies.... your point that parts can be obtained from outside vendors for overhauls is just as valid for day to day operations of the airline. Aircraft parts even for line functions are shipped all over the world on a daily basis - and many of those parts are not necessarily held in inventory by an airline. And as you also know, airlines loan parts to each other.

When airlines have 500 plus aircraft in their fleet as AA, DL, and UA all do, the standard arguments don't hold quite as true as they once did.

But once again if fleet simplifcation is so important, then let's call off this AA-US merger nonsense. Yesterday.

 

[FWAAA]

The other day I was reading some of AA's supporting material in its motion to abrogate the contracts and one item jumped out at me: AA said that its competitors had diverse fleets that enabled them to match capacity to demand while AA possessed fewer fleet types and thus had more difficulty assigning the right plane to each flight.

About a decade ago, AA management celebrated the reduction in the number of fleet types as AA reduced the very diverse fleet it flew during the 1990s.

Now, seeing what UA and DL can accomplish with their multitude of different planes, AA management wants a more diverse fleet as well.

Fleet commonality seemed to be more important in years past. When UA was preparing to merge with US in 2000, US and AA were going to swap certain planes to reduce the fleet types. My guess is that if/when (probably when) US and AA combine, management will celebrate the large number of different planes available to the merged airline.

 

[700UW]

It has been explained over and over about why AA split the order, one was because one manufacturer couldnt supply the amount of planes in a timely manner.

And if you look at most mergers, down the road they always simplify the fleet.

And only certain parts or loan/borrow as its very expensive, I dealt with that all the time.

And I See once again where I proved you wrong about parts, heavy maintenance and MROs you choose to ignore it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You proved nothing wrong.

Your point is valid about MROs... you just happen to pretend the same concept doesn't also exist for other parts of the operation including the handling of line maintenance parts.

FWAAA just jumped into the conversation to show that fleet diversity has value and is something that AA actually is pushing for.... yet that hasn't changed your argument.

Yes, I get the idea that AA wants to quickly renovate its fleet but if there really were a huge cost to having two sets of similarly capable aircraft, they would find another solution.
It simply isn't the big deal you make it out to be.

Given that DL and UA each currently operate most of the modern western built aircraft models and AA-US would do the same thing, then there really is little disadvantage to any of the 3 for having a complex fleet.

If it really mattered, DL and UA would be moving much more aggressively to cut the complexity of their fleets. They are not.

AA is adding complexity to its fleet, in part to gain the capabilities that FWA notes - and they probably also got better financial terms in the process.
As soon as Boeing or Airbus know you want it simple and predictable, the discounts will evaporate.

Once again, if fleet simplification really matters, then the idea of an AA-US merger has ONE MORE strike against it.

 

[FWAAA]

Probably wouldn't make sense for an airline to order just 5 or 10 copies of every possible plane, but I've read a lot of opinions that say that once you have 40-50 of a given plane type, additional purchases of that type don't add much increment in commonality savings. I have no idea if they're right or wrong, but the very diverse fleets at UA and DL, and, to some extent, US, tend to support those views. Or at least demonstrate that higher revenues made possible by the fleet diversity might make up for the additional expense of all those different fleet types.

WN, of course, still sees value in maintaining a single fleet type (737s) despite the earlier statements hinting that the FL 717s would permit WN to serve additional markets not viable with 737s. WN's decision to place those planes at DL and replace them with additional 737s was a return to their roots. The Gary Kelly Southwest model features more variety in 737 size than WN's previous beliefs, with the addition of 738s and, I suspect, eventually, some 739s - ironically, the one type not yet mentioned by AA despite its huge order for more than 200 737s.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yet WN's nearly 200 strong 737-300 and -500 fleet has many different characteristics than the 737-700s and -800s... presumably the -300s and -500s will be gone by the time the MAX enters service but it is yet one more major step change in the 737 that goes well beyond just the engines.

A simple fleet doesn't matter near as much as some would like to believe - or large airlines from WN to the network/legacy airlines have all accepted it as an unavoidable part of the business that has to be considered along with a whole lot of other factors.

 

[N288AA]

If this whole notion of fleet commonality is SO important to be a make or break factor, then we can stop right now with any discussions about AA and US merging because their fleet will be just as complex as DL's became w/ NW and as complex as UA-CO's after their merger.

Obviously, if fleet commonality were so important, AA would not have ordered the 767 and 300 at the same time, nor would they have ordered 320 and 737 family aircraft at the same time, nor would UA have 350s and 787s both on order. WN's all 737 fleet is far from being simple - or one model.

Yes, in a perfect world, you probably would have as few aircraft types as possible. But because airlines have to continually renew their fleets and aren't going to be stuck w/ the same technology or the same manufacturer and because airlines find value in mergers, they accept fleet diversity and less simplification. And then at times you do what WN is doing which is removing the 717s from the fleet while DL finds more value in adding another engine type - power by the hour maintained IIRC - but with some airframe similarities to the rest of its fleet. Yet the 717s are designed to replace CRJ 50 seat flying being done by regional carriers... so DL will reduce its overall costs even tho it is adding another fleet type to its own fleet and will probably shift more revenue as well since passengers prefer larger aircraft and DL's network is large enough that they can and are starting to consolidate RJ flying to 6 hubs into mainline flying to 3-4.
It's not all about costs. If you can generate more revenue even with a higher cost base, you make money. THAT is the name of the game.

Remember, DL and UA are pushing $40B a year in revenue..... carrying an extra $50M in parts is not going to make or break them, although every company is looking for ways to reduce costs. Further, many aircraft parts are part of debt agreements.

UA has no intention of trying to make its fleet uniform. It has two sets of 777ERs with very different capabilities and engines and they have no intention of trying to make them identical in form or function, esp. since right now, they still have a fenced fleet from a labor perspective.
They have two sets of 757s with different engines and capabilities - 767s of different models.

And, once again, DL with its sixteen zillion aircraft configurations is still one of the most profitable airlines in the US. Whatever complexity DL has allowed to creep into its fleet costs is obviously more than offset by a higher revenue generating capability and by the ability to manage costs in other areas - including the refinery.

And, yes, Josh, ALL of DL's 757s are Pratt powered and a pilot on one 757 can fleet any one of them.... so the parts differences comes down to stuff that is not an everyday part of the operation of the airline.
DL's 764s have different cockpits but will have identical cabins to the 763ERs and similar family engines to about half of the 763ER fleet, which DL intentionally equipped with 2 different types of engines and then went out and bought used aircraft with the "newer" engine type.

And DL, just like AA, does isolate certain fleet types to certain parts of its network which reduces costs not only for parts but for a whole lot of other reasons from ramp operations to pilot bases.
And DL's 757 and 767 fleet is well over 200 units....that's alot of commonality from a pilot scheduling standpoint.

Tax deductions only work if you are making money - and the expense of the interest payment is far larger than the profits any airline is generating. If AA generates $2B/year in profits, then fleet simplification or not will not matter. And not all corporate interest IS tax deductible.

All companies, not just airlines, source parts from outside companies.... your point that parts can be obtained from outside vendors for overhauls is just as valid for day to day operations of the airline. Aircraft parts even for line functions are shipped all over the world on a daily basis - and many of those parts are not necessarily held in inventory by an airline. And as you also know, airlines loan parts to each other.

When airlines have 500 plus aircraft in their fleet as AA, DL, and UA all do, the standard arguments don't hold quite as true as they once did.

But once again if fleet simplifcation is so important, then let's call off this AA-US merger nonsense. Yesterday.

WT, the 757 was only offered with 2 engine choices. the RR and the Pratt. US and AA are the only two passenger carriers that operated 75s with the RR RB211 out of the legacy carriers with the exception of EA. So therefore UA may have subfleets within the 757 but all have Pratts hanging on the wing.

 

[WorldTraveler]

CO's 757 fleet was/is RR powered.

 

[N288AA]

CO's 757 fleet was/is RR powered.

I stand corrected, for some strange reason I thought they had Pratts.

 

[MCI transplant]

TWA's 57's had Pratts, main reason AA dumped them! ------ L1011's RR RB211s.