NWA looking at U''s A330s

[chipmunn]

AOG-N-IT:[BR][BR]I can assure you Dave is paying attention and he fully understands the issue with the B767s and B757s that are available from MHV, Asiana, and National. However, nothing can be done until we emerge because the airline cannot obtain financing while in bankruptcy.[BR][BR]Itrade: Good question on the B757 International. With everything else that is going on I have not heard anything about this, but I will look into it. [BR][BR]Chip

 

[AOG-N-IT]

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?

Dave has made comments that the deals are there for the taking , without any ties that to the BK that I have heard mentioned to date.

Would a Judge and our DIP friends have a problem with an immediate drop in our expenses? When it would be like a progressive equity swap?

If so?..why the heck has the employee's been the only thing targeted to really show immediate results?

Is savings not savings? regardless of the form it comes in? Afterall , savings like what we are talking about here would be like taking the Polio Vaccine on a sugar cube...as opposed to being jabbed with a blunt horse needle like we have been getting to date. Please explain this!!

 

[Biffeman]

[P][SPAN class=BodyFont]Why would Dave go out and more 757s if 615 and 616 are parked in the desert and 609 sits in front of the CLT hangar as a glider with no engines and 618 the next 757 to be parked in MHV?[BR][BR]You will not see this airline get more planes and grow for years to come, they plan on keeping what they have and tweak it here and there and maybe figure out the widebody mix.[BR][BR]And painting of the last remaining 737s proves their intentions to keep them and also they A330 will be kept, US is bringing them in early to accomplish the cockpit door mod, the first class removal and their C checks. If their real intention was to get rid of the A330, they would not pour money into them unnesscarily.[BR][BR][/P]
[P][/SPAN][/P]

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Biffeman...News Flash!! 609AU is nosed into the CLT Hangar Bay 2...with 2 fresh RR's hanging on it's wings as of last thursday afternoon. It's slated short term storage until March has been scrubbed...and it will be returning to service soon.

I guees we must have made a dent in the 6.8M that we owed RR...and the lay of the playing field has shifted again.

615 and 616 were shelved for upcoming maintenace and leasing costs...and the lack of demand at present. Nothing is remotely concrete about 618 joining them in MHV either.

This conversation was really not about the B757's...but it did creep into play while tossing out ideas. The crux of that was the possible lessoning of monthly costs by ditching high payments on current B737's in favor of cheaper rates on more flexibilty with available B757's out there.

Don't be so sure about the A330's being around for ever...the market is changing against it's long term favor for us inparticular...It's not speculation..if you have followed Dave's comments?

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Chip, IMHO..I think the MDA financing was/is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to begin with.

I have always been of the opinion that MDA thing was nothing more than a nail of fantasy for the furloughed pilots to hang thier caps on..and allow them to continue to manipulate the sensabilities of the remaining pilot group.

Personally I have always thought that JO and Mesa were going to end up with the lions share of the RJ Flying...and current trends point exactly to that...or as I see it anyway.

I would hope that the judge and our DIP friends could see the potential that what I view as a purely stated exchange of equity would work. Case in point. B757's and 767 are cheap and abundant as we know. B757 production will be almost idled completely...and B767 production cut by almost 50% this coming year

On the other hand..our Lessor on the A330's know they have a customer in NW..and we need to cut them loose. This could be a Unique transaction that bids well for everyone.

Airbus will/would lesson thier exposure to us by allowing us an out on 9 A330's...NW gets a headstart on thier order...and we decrease our costs post haste...and lesson the chances of falling flat on our butts...and leaving everyone we owe..and 30,000 + employee's on the street.

With logic like this?...How could we fail by asking the question? The worst that could be said is No. That's a 50/50 chance..and as opposed to the current odds...I'd bet the farm!!

 

[DCAflyer]

Chip said:

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.


DCAflyer asks:

Chip, in the spirit of thinking outside the box, would it be possible for RSA to scoop up some or all of those Asiana 763's and National 75's at a fire sale and lease them to U in bankruptcy? Then, once we emerge, we can purchase some of them from RSA, and continue leasing the others from them, or RSA could sell some or all of the leases. I know there are lots of good a/c deals out there right now, but these ones in particular seem to be very complementary to our fleet. It would be a shame to miss out on a good opportunity if we can figure out a way to get them now.

 

[UAL777flyer]

I agree with AOG-N-IT in that US would be far better served at keeping the 767's and going after parked 763's on the cheap than keeping the A330's. Everybody knows that US won't be in a position to add more A330's anytime soon. And a small widebody fleet type is EXTREMELY cost inefficient. A330's simply don't mesh well with US network structure in this environment going forward. The 762's might be showing their age, but U might be better served at spending a little money in the not too distant future to refurbish the interiors. I think they'd still come out ahead in the long-run.

 

[exjetgurl]

Hi Baret4-[BR][BR]
[DIV]You make some interesting non-partisan points. AOG could take a few pointers from your well-thought-out approach to answering a post. [BR][BR]Again, this is from a passenger stand-point. I don't care what US Airways flies across the pond; however, all I care about is a comfortable flight. And, I can tell you the A330 is far superior. Envoy Class between the 767 and A330 is night and day. I know of other frequent fliers such as myself that will take an extra segment just to fly the A330 across the pond versus the 767. So, Dave must realize if he gets rid of the A330 he must ensure the frequent fliers that the amenities that we've come to expect on the A330 will be put on the 767. If not, why should frequent fliers bother? For me, what's going to stop me from taking an RJ down to Dulles and getting on a nice United 777. This isn't about Cappuccino machines, this is about me spending 9 hours on a flight with comfortable seats with foot and headrests, personal entertainment that's what I pay for. [/DIV][BR]Also, I read somewhere that in order for an airline to be in the Star Alliance they must offer First Class service. If that's the case, what are the costs for converting the 767?

 

[Baret4]

Interesting thread here regarding the A330's versus the B767's. As a U/AMT thats has been trained and worked on both aircraft there are things that I like and dislike about both aircraft. The engine issue is kind of a wash since both the CF-6 and the PW-4000's are both very reliable as both engine types have been around for a long time! When I was in A330 school the airbus instructors who so happen to be from airbus industries told us that the best enging for the A330 is the Rolls-Royce Trent engine, followed by the PW-4168A, then the CF-6-80e1 which is similar to the Cf-6-80c2 on our 767s.[BR][BR] I personally like the Airbus maintenance/trouble shooting manuals better than I like Boeings because they are computer based and very easy to navigate and research although the introductions of E-Pubs to US Airways maintenance this year has leveled the playing field a little. I like the B767's proven reliability and comfort. They are both good aircraft from a engine/airframe point of view. I like the Passport system on the A330's. They was trouble some at first but they have gotten so much better!!![BR] [BR] The real question is however is which single wide body type should US Airways operate??? The B767-200/-300 or the A330-200/300? My answer is which ever one you could get a better deal on and cheapest to operate. I would welcome either type to the fleet. I like both aircraft but its up to Dave and company to decide.[BR][BR]Baret4[BR]USA/AMT CLT line.

 

[avek00]

Hmmm...

While I agree with the viewpoint that US should keep 767s in its fleet, I also see the need to keep the A330, especially if/when the UA/Star Alliance deal is fully implemented.

To wit, I consider the case of UA's changes in TATL service since the implementation of Star. UA has greatly reduced the number of cities that it serves nonstop from the USA, but at the same time has increased the capacity offered on the remaining TATL routes through the use of larger aircraft. I believe that in US's case, many European destinations will need to be eliminated, but this will be offset by increased capacity to Star Alliance's European hubs (FRA, CPH, MAD, and MAN). Under this scenario, US will have a pressing need for a jumbo jet that could handle the heavy traffic.

 

[Baret4]

But the P&W doesn't have the neat self disasembling feature the CF-6 has.[BR][BR]Thats terrible.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/25/2002 1:07:52 PM Baret4 wrote:

The engine issue is kind of a wash since both the CF-6 and the PW-4000's are both very reliable as both engine types have been around for a long time!


But the P&W doesn't have the neat self disasembling feature the CF-6 has.


When I was in A330 school the airbus instructors who so happen to be from airbus industries told us that the best enging for the A330 is the Rolls-Royce Trent engine, followed by the PW-4168A, then the CF-6-80e1 which is similar to the Cf-6-80c2 on our 767s.


Dang Europeans, always sticking together!!

----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[deelmakur]

1. As for whether another carrier could take the A330's, note that AirTran, in spite of an existing order for 717's, essentially agreed to take all the AA(TW)ships presently in storage, as well as continued (but modified) delivery of the original order. Boeing wants those out there in full view.

2. Airbus, like Boeing with the 717, has a lot riding on the 330 line. They want them out there. In general, Airbus is eating Boeing's lunch, and in the same way the boys in Seattle gave AirTran a deal they couldn't refuse, the other boys in Toulouse would find a way to reduce the economic advantage the parked 767's enjoy.

3. This is a management that never let a smart decision get in it's way. You can bet they will do the wrong thing. In an operation which constantly searches for consistency in it's marketing, pricing, and scheduling, they seem to have found it in an area where it isn't needed.

 

[FrugalFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/25/2002 2:16:14 PM avek00 wrote:

Hmmm...

While I agree with the viewpoint that US should keep 767s in its fleet, I also see the need to keep the A330, especially if/when the UA/Star Alliance deal is fully implemented.

To wit, I consider the case of UA's changes in TATL service since the implementation of Star. UA has greatly reduced the number of cities that it serves nonstop from the USA, but at the same time has increased the capacity offered on the remaining TATL routes through the use of larger aircraft. I believe that in US's case, many European destinations will need to be eliminated, but this will be offset by increased capacity to Star Alliance's European hubs (FRA, CPH, MAD, and MAN). Under this scenario, US will have a pressing need for a jumbo jet that could handle the heavy traffic.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Avek00 brings up a good point: when US joins the * alliance they will need more frequency to places like FRA. Would it not be better then to keep the A330 AND acquire the A340? This way, US could eventually have a narrowbody fleet of A319/320/321 and a widebody fleet of A340/A330, having dumped the B757/767 and phased out the B737. I've heard about the Airbus support problems, but in an all Airbus fleet would not the commonality/economy of scale be worth it?

 

[TomBascom]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/25/2002 7:42:51 AM AOG-N-IT wrote:

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!!
----------------
[/blockquote]

We get that. What I think you're missing is that the Boeing part of US' fleet chases customers away. No customers = no business. Yes, you could fit out a Boeing just as nice as an Airbus. If you're going to advocate keeping them or getting more of them then I suggest you plan on doing so -- because in their current state they aren't doing anything to encourage more business. It might not be as concrete as these other discussion points but it is real -- just like the need to paint the planes.

BTW -- I'm starting to notice a lot of banged up interiors on the Airbuses too. There seem to be a lot of broken and jagged edges on the F seats where that little drink table swings out. I can't even figure out how it could have happened but I've seen it on several planes lately.