NWA looking at U''s A330s

[ITRADE]

This thread is a yet another perfect example of a report coming out of a shop or cockpit and the worst possible inference is drawn out of it and spread around as Gospel.[BR][BR]Thank you Autofixer for bringing a little reality to the conversation by correctly pointing out that NW is acquiring their own A-330s next year - hence the need to see some operating facilities as there are no others in the United States.[BR][BR]As to the A-330 v. 767 issue, from a accounting/operations standpoint, the 767 acquisition from Asiana makes sense as you've eliminated a need for a different type of parts (A-330), you've eliminated one additional fleet group, and you've eliminated the need for separate training, qualificatins, and certifications.[BR][BR]If the 767-300s from Asiana come to be reality (something I'm not certain of since this rumor has been kicking around for months now) I think you've made a case for the retention of the 757s as the 75s and 76s have cockpit commonality. And with 24 widebodies instead of 20, you can put some of that heavy metal on low yielding markets in an attempt to match those low yields to a low CASM aircraft.

 

[TomBascom]

As a customer I can appreciate the cost & maintenance argument that aog-n-it makes. But you'd be sending a hugely negative message to customers if you pull the 330 out of the fleet. The 767s feel like iron gloves all right -- they need a lot of cosmetic work to bring them back up to snuff. I'd do that first -- it'll go a long ways towards making the case that this would be an ok thing from the customer perspective.

Any attempt to do anything with the Boeing aircraft needs to take into account the huge difference in customer feel in the cabins. The airbuses are much, much nicer to fly in. (And the lack of laptop power in the Boeings is a big negative when you're trying to attract business travel...)

This may seem like small potatoes in the big picture but the customer base doesn't need more reasons to get nervous and run off to another carrier.

 

[exjetgurl]

captkarl-[BR]I agree with you. For those of us who PAY to fly in the back of the plane, not fix them, we prefer the A330 over the 767. In September, I flew to Paris on the 767, she's looking sad folks. In October, I flew to Paris on the A330, beautiful airplane, nice cabin amenities. IF they would fix up the interiors of the 767s with the same amenities (better seats, in-seat entertainment) it would be a vast improvement. BUT, how much is that going to cost?

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Itrade..The NW purchase of A330's is nothing close to a news flash to anyone whom follows this business. autofixer pointing out known fact did not revolutionize the thread by stating the known.

Now for Shop and Cockpit rumor on the subject at hand...Sure it may have started this way when Asiana first parked thier B767's...But Dave Siegel himself validated this option in CLT during the September Roadshows...so out of school conjecture it is not!!...well at least in the present context.

I would like to think some of the sage wisdom here had an impact..along with an E-mail or two.(LOL)

Speculation regarding a transaction between U and NW regarding the A330 has been discussed..this would of course involve the blessings of Airbus too. Stay tuned...it could get interesting.

Tom...I see exactly what you as a customer are saying about the gadgets that the A330 has...Here's a trip into the reality zone.

U custom ordered that interior configuration..it was not a stroke of genious by Airbus alone. You can take a bare Fuselage and have anything that wieght and balance will allow installed into any given airframe. The issue becomes again, How deep are your pockets? Survey says..Not too deep at all right now!!

The Asiana Acft will of course have to be stripped and painted to U's livery...then additional tweaking will have to take place..This will also facilitate time to address interior issues as well.

To support my theory on flexibility..Our Current B767-200ER's are retro-moded to perform as Air Ambulances for the USAF in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. The A330's do not have this ability during time of war or national emergency.

U was highly praised by the Air Mobility Command at Scott AFB Il. for our efforts on the B767-200ER mods and actual performance demonstrations too...and this could allow revenue , even if passenger travel really bottomed out.

People need to realize...The Mechanics and Logistics should be the bottom line issue here. The lease price in favor of the B767-300's is an added plus and it would be dramatic!!.

The cosmetics can be changed..just like anything else you can buy new.

This is nothing new..Airplanes have been bought, sold, leased and reconfigured to an individual companies desires thru-out commercial aviation history....getting hung up over a power port or a seat style is absolutely nuts , when considering the ease of change Vs. the actual cost of ownership of the entire airframe and engine combination. Who knows..maybe some logistical intelligence could lower the cost to the customer too? How would that be recieved? [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Maybe I'm missing something? But our current situation demands finding Effective cost cutting measures to keep our airline flying.

We as employee's of U , have already taken the bite..and may have more coming? So we need to examine what makes sense..instead of pushing fluff at discounted prices to simply fill seats at a continued loss , which the A330 contributes too in no small manner.

Saving on the costs of Leases,Tooling,Maintenance,Training, and all that those issues imply..Is Big-Time money that can be applied to turning things around.

It troubles me that so-called airline people can't seem to grasp that fact.

If Capacino machines..and fancy seats that we struggle to keep operating is all that stands between logic and profit? This company is done for anyway. Then you can fly another US Carriers Boeings to Paris or wherever?

Maybe that's exactly what needs to happen to prove my point? , I really hope not!!

 

[N628AU]

There is a lot of truth in all arguments being posted here.

First of all, the NWA visit was probably just that, a visit realted to their upcoming A330 deliveries.

That being said, unfortunately, the aircraft needs to go. Doing an interior retrofit to the existing B767 and Asiana B767 fleet would not be that difficult. The limited fleet numbers of both of our fleet types keeps them in the air a great majority of the time, not allowing them to get the true TLC the fleet needs. At the rate we need to keep them flying, even the A330 fleet will show it's age. There is a reason the B767 is the most flown aircraft across the pond. Sure things like P@ssport are nice (when it works), but there is no reason it cannot be installed a B767. Just the same as there is no reason why JetBlue's LiveTV is limited to their A320 fleet.

While the cargo capacity of the A330 may be nice, I would like to see numbers on how much we actually move. Going from 11 B767 and 9 A330 to 24 B767 gives more scheduling flexibility, and the capability to add a widebody here and there (would be especially beneficial to cities such as SJU and MCO). Couple this with shared commonality between the B767 and B757 fleet, you now have 56 aircraft in this fleet type, and you are starting to reach a critical mass, where you are seeing significant cost savings in training, crew scheduling and maintenance.

There is a reason the B767 is the most flown aircraft across the pond. From a passenger standpoint, most probably have no idea what type they are flying on. I do not see the lauded interiors of the A330 pulling us a whole lot of business from Delta, who uses the B767 as a workhorse. The cost savings alone make this smart business.

 

[chipmunn]

From a business perspective, I agree with AOG-N-IT and N628AU. The B767-300ER and the B767-200ER would make a nice fit for an independent company.[BR][BR]In addition, the pilot restructuring agreement on page 49 has a productivity option where the company desires to combine B757 domestic and B-767 international flying. This would provide an additional economy of scale to those outlined by AOG-N-IT and N628AU.[BR][BR]In my opinion, once out of bankruptcy, the A330s will be sold and the company will rationalize its fleet with B767-300ER deliveries.[BR][BR]Chip

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Great Points by N628AU and Itrade. Dave has already stated that leases on currently available B757-200's are being offered to us.

N7/Nationals acft with the RR RB211-535E4's is a natural fit for us...Extra seats over the B737's could be a plus in some markets..or at least decrease the need on cycles in others. Some of those N7 birds are likely still sporting some of our loaned parts anyway.

Options in this current soft market..could reap tremendous windfalls later...and have the immediate impact on existing costs that are tearing the hide off of us presently.

It's all about what delivers the most bang for the buck...and I see better deals sitting static in MHV...as opposed to keep pumping money into hard hearted planes like the Airbus A330 is proving itself to be.

The figures Itrade and N628AU are making only compounds my opinion and stance. I hope Dave is paying attention!![img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

 

[ITRADE]

[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/25/2002 10:32:07 AM N628AU wrote: [BR][BR][BR]While the cargo capacity of the A330 may be nice, I would like to see numbers on how much we actually move. Going from 11 B767 and 9 A330 to 24 B767 gives more scheduling flexibility, and the capability to add a widebody here and there (would be especially beneficial to cities such as SJU and MCO). Couple this with shared commonality between the B767 and B757 fleet, you now have 56 aircraft in this fleet type, and you are starting to reach a critical mass, where you are seeing significant cost savings in training, crew scheduling and maintenance.[BR][BR]There is a reason the B767 is the most flown aircraft across the pond. From a passenger standpoint, most probably have no idea what type they are flying on. I do not see the lauded interiors of the A330 pulling us a whole lot of business from Delta, who uses the B767 as a workhorse. The cost savings alone make this smart business. ----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]I agree with N628 here. The 24 767s would start to recognize cost savings that 11 767s and 9 A-330s don't. Furthermore, I've heard lots of complaints about engine work on the A-330s in that the engines are much more of a rarity than CF6s or other widebody engines - as such there are some sourcing issues on parts. Having 24 of one type (CF-6s) would certainly reduce these types of headaches.[BR][BR]I mentioned the 757/767 pairing and N628 also reflected upon it. If you had the 24 76s, combined with 30 75s, you've got a lot of equipment which could realize significant cost savings. Additionally, I earlier advocated that if US is running into issues with certain 737 aircraft leasors, that US abrogate the leases on these craft, return them to the desert, and get additional National 757s which could probably be had on more favorable terms than what US is paying for the 737s.[BR][BR]With, say, 60 - 70 757s/767s you can really begin to structure your costs based upon large economies of scale.

 

[ITRADE]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/25/2002 11:02:01 AM AOG-N-IT wrote:
[P]Great Points by N628AU and Itrade. Dave has already stated that leases on currently available B757-200's are being offered to us.[BR][BR]N7/Nationals acft with the RR RB211-535E4's is a natural fit for us...Extra seats over the B737's could be a plus in some markets..or at least decrease the need on cycles in others. Some of those N7 birds are likely still sporting some of our loaned parts anyway. [BR][BR]Options in this current soft market..could reap tremendous windfalls later...and have the immediate impact on existing costs that are tearing the hide off of us presently.[BR][BR]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]Yah, I found the extra appeal of the National 757s to be that the engines are the same type that US currently flies. [BR][BR]US's Plan #2 used to be flying to low yield destinations with fewer but larger aircraft - 7 757 flights instead of 11 733 flights - as a cost saving measure and a way to reduce CASM. Delta certainly thinks that it is the correct way to go.[BR][BR]

 

[ITRADE]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/25/2002 1000 AM chipmunn wrote:
[P]From a business perspective, I agree with AOG-N-IT and N628AU. The B767-300ER and the B767-200ER would make a nice fit for an independent company.[BR][BR]In addition, the pilot restructuring agreement on page 49 has a productivity option where the company desires to combine B757 domestic and B-767 international flying. This would provide an additional economy of scale to those outlined by AOG-N-IT and N628AU.[BR][BR]In my opinion, once out of bankruptcy, the A330s will be sold and the company will rationalize its fleet with B767-300ER deliveries.[BR][BR]Chip [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]Has Dave revisited the idea of 757-200 International? I know the idea surfaced briefly during the summer.

 

[chipmunn]

Down Range:

Down Range asked: How much is painting 20 or so 737s going to cost?

Chip answers: $9 million.

Chip

 

[ClueByFour]

From an uptime and cost-of-ownership standpoint, I think that AOG has things spot on--if given the chance, it would make a great deal of sense to ditch the 330s in favor of the 767-300s in the desert.

That said, you will not get the remaining folks who actually buy transatlantic biz-class tickets to ante up the bucks for the existing 767 envoy product. It's just not in the same league from a pax standpoint as the 330s.

However, I don't see any reason why the nice seats and whiz-bang Passport system can't be fitted into the hypothetical 767s coming out of MHV (or wherever they might be) and possibly even retrofitted into the existing -200ERs (which are really showing their age).

I think the other thing to consider here is cargo (of the non-self loading variety

 

[chipmunn]

AOG-N-IT:

AOG-N-IT said: Chip, Does it actually require us waiting to see if we emerge from Chapter 11 to try to make positive moves to an obvious lessoning of our cost structure?

Chip comments: Good question. Management has said it cannot obtain RJ financing, which is an impediment to the MDA start up. Therefore, this would make one believe financing could be a problem in any B767 and/or B757 deal; however, if a plan makes sense I believe the court could approve such a transaction.

To me the question would seem to be before US could make a move on the B767s and B757s in question, management must first obtain financing and until the company's uncertainty is resolved, considering the glut of used aircraft on the market, management may have a difficult time lining up financing while under court protection.

Chip

 

[Down Range]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/25/2002 7:49:04 AM exjetgurl wrote:
[P] BUT, how much is that going to cost? [/P]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR][STRONG][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]How much is painting 20 or so 737s going to cost?[/FONT][/STRONG][/P]