Less flights....Where are all the airplanes going?

[US AIRWAYS FAN]

Well with US Airways (and other airlines as well) flying less and even to less cities. Where are all the aircraft going to now? I would assume that there is much more ground time for aircraft? How is US and other carriers redeploying their aircraft?

 

[UAL_TECH]

Aircraft Boneyards

 

[BoeingBoy]

For US, which owns few of it's aircraft, the leases aren't being renewed so they're being returned to the leasors. What happens to them after that is another question - they could be put in storage or leased to another airline (probably outside the U.S.).

Other airlines own more of their aircraft, so they're in a somewhat better position to put aircraft in storage or sell them - whichever better matches their longer term planning.

Jim

 

[SolidCactus]

Probably going to all the low cost carriers in Europe and Asia. There are tons of them.

 

[LGA777]

Most of the 757's that have left the fleet and a few more leaving soon where re-leased to Fedex after freighter conversion. I understand US wanted to keep the aircraft but was not willing to pay the higher lease rates that Fedex was, they are building a fleet of upto 100 used 757's.

LGA777

 

[US AIRWAYS FAN]

Most of the 757's that have left the fleet and a few more leaving soon where re-leased to Fedex after freighter conversion. I understand US wanted to keep the aircraft but was not willing to pay the higher lease rates that Fedex was, they are building a fleet of upto 100 used 757's.

LGA777

Very interesting indeed. Shocking how Boeing stopped the production of the 757 and they airplane is still in demand by carriers.

 

[autofixer]

There is a 737-300--still in US colors, minus the logo--at the cargo facility at the end of 15R at IAH on Saturdays.

 

[SpinDoc]

Very interesting indeed. Shocking how Boeing stopped the production of the 757 and they airplane is still in demand by carriers.

Yeah. Too bad Boeing decided to kill the 757 in favor of the smaller and less capable 737-800/900 series. They could have kept both lines of business and cornered the market on narrowbody products.

If I were to start a new airline today, and Boeing still offered the 757, I would have a fleet mix of 737-700's for short haul direct flights and hub feeder service, 757-200's for trans continental and caribbean service, 757-300's for long, thin transatlantic service, and 777-200's for Europe and Asian service.

Head to head, the Airbus 319/320/321/330 cannot compete with the Boeing family of aircraft, in reliability, performance, fuel economy, or resale value. Sure, the initial cost of ownership for Airbus fits in with the modern day airline model of short term balance sheets, but total cost of ownership is far better with Boeing on a long term basis.

Oh, and let's not forget that US often has to make a fuel stop in ABQ for their "non-stop" transcontinental service to PHX from PHL, PIT, and DCA during the winter months because the Airbus 320/321 can't make it on one tank of fuel. Put a 757-200 on those routings and you could make it to LAX, and then fly on to PHX without adding fuel.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Head to head, the Airbus 319/320/321/330 cannot compete with the Boeing family of aircraft, in reliability, performance, fuel economy, or resale value. Sure, the initial cost of ownership for Airbus fits in with the modern day airline model of short term balance sheets, but total cost of ownership is far better with Boeing on a long term basis.

Oh, and let's not forget that US often has to make a fuel stop in ABQ for their "non-stop" transcontinental service to PHX from PHL, PIT, and DCA during the winter months because the Airbus 320/321 can't make it on one tank of fuel. Put a 757-200 on those routings and you could make it to LAX, and then fly on to PHX without adding fuel.

Obviously a largely misinformed post.

The Airbus aircraft are every bit as reliable as the Boeings. I flew both over the course of many years, and saw little difference in maintenance issues. I suspect an objective look at the statistics would bear this out. This argument has been put forth by die-hard Boeing fanatics for years, but it holds no water. I suppose if they say it loud enough and repeat it enough, it becomes true in their own minds.

And let's talk about that total cost of ownership. Yes, the Airbus line is less expensive up front, and likely does not have the equivalent shelf life of the considerably more expensive Boeings. This translates to Boeings lasting virtually forever. In fact, there are probably still thousands of 727s with decades of sevice life left in them. How many air carriers are operating those airplanes? Zero, or nearly so. Why? When they were designed, they come fully and permanently equipped with 1960's technology and efficiency. Who wants that 30 years later? Nobody. So why pay for an airplane that's going to last 50 years when the reality is that you only want one that is going to last 25? Yes, Boeing makes great airplanes that last a long time....far longer than the period that airlines want to fly them rather than miss out on technological innovations and efficiencies that would allow them to compete effectively.

And about those fuel stops. Okay. Point made. However, the Airbuses are more efficient for 99.99% of the time and end up saving a lot of money over sending a 757 year round. If a route only demands an A320, or A319, using a 757 is a waste. With your logic, why not use one of the old AWA 747's for the transcons? I'm certain they would never have to stop for fuel, either.