" Right Gauging the Fleet "

[Super FLUF]

Excuse me. For a moment there I forgot that pilots are like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error. Mea culpa. Mea culpa.

What do you expect? You just throw the "the flight crews make too much so the plane can't be operated economically" platitude out there with no explanation whatsoever. As if the cost of the employees are the only consideration in the CASM breakdown of an aircraft. I hear the same BS from guys like Jeff Brundage and Mitch Schnurmann.

Nobody said we are without error. It's just that, if you are going to throw some gross accusations or generalizations out here, you had better be ready to back them up.

 

[Super FLUF]

Believe me, a TON of TWU/APA spouses WILL be dictating how those ballots are filled out if it means thier Ol' Man stays working !!!

Most of the items on the term sheets dictate or enable the outsourcing (elimination) of the employees job. So, regardless of working conditions, AMR has ensured thousands of nothing-to-lose no votes even before the ballots go out.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The problem is that AA doesn't need a "yes" vote in bankruptcy. Don't know if you've seen today's reports, but AA got permission to hire the consultants it wanted despite objections from the unions and the U.S. Trustee. That's pretty much what will happen with the contracts, whether you ratify them or not. It's not even possible to drag out negotiations to put off the concessions as long as possible like in a normal section 6 setting.

Jim

 

[Kellerguy]

What do you expect? You just throw the "the flight crews make too much so the plane can't be operated economically" platitude out there with no explanation whatsoever. As if the cost of the employees are the only consideration in the CASM breakdown of an aircraft. I hear the same BS from guys like Jeff Brundage and Mitch Schnurmann.

Nobody said we are without error. It's just that, if you are going to throw some gross accusations or generalizations out here, you had better be ready to back them up.

Big difference between "flight crews cost too much, [very true] and flight crews make too much [actual pay, per month].

 

[WorldTraveler]

Jim (Boeing Boy),
There are some contexts in which I had all kinds of qualifiers because some readers wouldn't be able to put the statement in the proper context.
I CONTINUALLY assume that there are some people on here (and I have included you though perhaps in error) who understand the context in which statements are made and thus there is no need for a laundry list of footnotes.
We all get the idea that the idea that a 744 on domestic routes doesn't make sense - but you were the one who threw it out there, not me.
.
For the missions on which it is used (again I noted it is not suitable for domestic flights), the 333 is the lowest CASM large widebody. It is the lightest aircraft in its class yet still has 10-12 hour range which helps keep fuel burn and landing fees.
.
I said nothing about WN not growing... I simply said they built their business model around the 737-700 (also referred to as 73G) or the 737-300 size aircraft rather than larger models which have been available.
.
The bottom line remains that a few incrementally larger seats on a flight are enough to make a difference in profitability by pushing down CASM even a couple percent and adding the potential for a couple hundred dollars more revenue per flight....and if given the choice, profitable carriers ARE NOT opting to grow their smaller aircraft fleets instead opting to grow capacity on the upper end of whatever size class they operate.
.
Fluf,
Of course AA thinks the pilots will be less willing to object to a proposal to add larger RJs to regional carriers since AA pilot ranks will be reduced much less than for other AA workgroups. The largest cost of course will be paid later.

 

[will fix for food]

BTW, AA has proposed a mainline pay rate for aircraft like the E190 so presumably management feels that they can afford that rate in conjunction with the other changes proposed. In fact, none of AA proposed pay rates are at the bottom of the network carriers - they're basically in the industry standard range.


Jim

The post BK pay bands do not list the E190. In fact, IIRC pay band 1 is empty. I am sure there is a reason for that. What it is I don't know, although there are some interesting rumors.

 

[tom barry]

Most of the items on the term sheets dictate or enable the outsourcing (elimination) of the employees job. So, regardless of working conditions, AMR has ensured thousands of nothing-to-lose no votes even before the ballots go out.

FLUF, I actually agree with you/your statement, EXCEPT, there WILL be more YES votes coming from APA (this time) because of the lack of flying Jobs(most likely those AA dudes who are "running" to China are single of divorced), and as I stated earlier, APA has NEVER faced a 800 lb. GORILLA like this one before. (B K ). THIS time is NOT shutting down Crandall, knowing fairly well that they'd be back in the cockpit eventually. THIS time is more like Russian Roulette with Only one empty cylinder as opposed to 5.

I THIS case, I stand by my claim that the spouses in DFW/TUL(for APA/TWU) will be voting, not the poor bas-tard that actually flys/unloads the plane !

It IS what it IS !

 

[jimntx]

What do you expect? You just throw the "the flight crews make too much so the plane can't be operated economically" platitude out there with no explanation whatsoever. As if the cost of the employees are the only consideration in the CASM breakdown of an aircraft. I hear the same BS from guys like Jeff Brundage and Mitch Schnurmann.

Nobody said we are without error. It's just that, if you are going to throw some gross accusations or generalizations out here, you had better be ready to back them up.

And, if you had read the entire post instead of getting your panties in a wad over the slightest suggestion that pilots might be in error, you would have seen that I pointed out that flight attendants are paid by seniority, not by a/c size. So, the company has to pay a f/a (and the majority of the f/a corps are at top of scale) the same hourly rate whether they are working on a S80 or a 777. Those numbers don't work for an e190 either.

 

[eolesen]

The A330 may be the lowest CASM aircraft out on the market, but I'm not sure it's the highest RASM aircraft. It has the least amount of usable payload when compared to the B777 family. Perfect for the Euro carriers who don't have the Pacific ocean to deal with...

By comparison, a 777-200ER can carry ~20% more payload, and has 25% greater range.

 

[Super FLUF]

Those numbers don't work for an e190 either.

Panties still in a wad.

Please show your cost breakdown and how the numbers "don't work". Or, please show numbers that DO work.

 

[jimntx]

Panties still in a wad.

Please show your cost breakdown and how the numbers "don't work". Or, please show numbers that DO work.

I don't have to. I don't happen to care whether the E190 is AA, AE, or non-existent. I get paid the same hourly rate.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Of course CASM and RASM are not necessarily correlated.... but you don't need an aircraft with the capabilities that a 772ER has in order to fly 9-12 hour flights which is what the 333 does.
And just because the 772ER can carry more cargo doesn't mean you can profitably use that capacity or you offset the higher costs of the heavier aircraft.
Case in point... according to DOT data, DL's 764s operating between ATL and GRU carry more cargo per flight than AA's 772ERs operating between MIA and GRU, DL's configuration of the 764 has more seats than AA's 772s, and the 764 empty weight is almost 100K pounds less than the 772ER.
AA COULD carry alot more cargo but with multiple flights, the incremental capacity is not exploited. Many of AA's 777s are used in markets to/from LHR, GRU, and EZE where the incremental value of additional flights offsets the additional carrying capacity of the aircraft.
.
The 333 can indeed fly the Pacific... DL uses it regularly on SEA-NRT (which is shorter than DFW-EZE and GRU), Japan to/from HNL, and in the summer on LAX-NRT where DL has the largest share of the LAX-Japan market. DL is also the largest carrier in the Hawaii-Japan market.
.
Having a low CASM aircraft goes a very long way to providing a competitive edge... and of course that is what AA is banking on with its new aircraft orders.
The multi-billion dollar question is how AA is going to use all those new promised aircraft and grow the airline which is what they must do in order to get the benefit from their restructuring. Given that all of their cornerstone markets are highly competitive markets (with DFW facing new competition as the Wright Amendment falls and MIA having to compete w/ FLL domestically), it is not a given that AA can grow the airline as they say they will.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The post BK pay bands do not list the E190. In fact, IIRC pay band 1 is empty. I am sure there is a reason for that. What it is I don't know, although there are some interesting rumors.

Correct, which is why I said "like the 190". Group I is defined as "Any airplane configured...with more than 88 seats and less than 118 seats". The E190, and indeed the E195 with a 2 class configuration, fit that description. The smaller versions of Bombardier's C-series also fits. By not defining Group I as particular airplanes it leaves open the possibility of any airplane that fits the seating capacity limits specified.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

The A330 may be the lowest CASM aircraft out on the market

Taken without context it isn't. As I said, even Airbus contends that the A380 has lower CASM - following the rule of thumb that the greater the number of seats the lower the CASM. Even WT has backed off his initial claim, adding "for the missions on which it is used". But again, Airbus says differently - "In addition to offering unequalled levels of passenger comfort, the widebody A380 also provides the lowest fuel consumption per seat."

The only honest comparison is specific fuel consumption/seat mile. That throws out all the other variables like payroll, the cost of having 2 smaller fleets of planes to do the same basic mission like trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic instead of one, fixed costs of the carrier, and on and on. The reason that the rule of thumb about size exists is that it's generally true except for leaps in technology - a XXX doing the same mission than a bigger YYY burns more fuel per seat mile. A 777-200 doesn't burn as much extra fuel over the A330 to offset the greater number of seats. An A330 doesn't burn enough extra fuel to offset the greater number of seats than a 767-200. An E190 doesn't burn as much extra fuel than an E170 to offset the extra seats the E190 has.

The Whole Truth is that DL inherited a few dozen A330's from NW, so has to use them somewhere. Across the Atlantic and Seattle to parts of Asia are the obvious choices. Would they have ordered the A330 if NW hadn't had them? Probably not - how many have they ordered since the merger despite it's supposedly "lowest CASM)? Instead, I believe they've got 777's on order. It's not so much making the right choice to acquire the A330's as it is of making the best of the ones inherited.

Jim

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL actually seriously looked at the 332 as a replacement for the L1011s but went with the 764 because at the time it was intended to be a domestic airplane - but needed to be capable of flying ATL-HNL which is further than some TATL flights.
.
The 332 and 764 are nearly identical planes in terms of capabilities right now... but the 332 does have the capability to fly longer routes which DL will use when it puts the 332 on DTW-HND.
The 333 in DL's config seats more pax than the 777 but the 777 offers a lie flat product while the 333 has a proportionately small business class that is not the same type of product, although the 333 is slated to get it in time.
The 333 is a very low CASM aircraft like the 764.... DL might not have added it to the fleet w/o the merger but the 333 is a very cost effective aircraft for medium haul transoceanic flights and has the legs to run shorter Pacific flights on a year round basis.
DL hasn't taken delivery of any new or used widebody aircraft other than the few tied to the Gol agreement and I don't believe they have any firm orders for longhaul aircraft other than for the 787s which might fly in DL colors in your lifetime...
.
Airbus' statement is not entirely accurate in its own context because configurations do change with mission. DL's 763 domestics hold 260 or so seats, almost what the 777 holds but the 777 is configured based on its mission. As you know, Japanese carriers configure 772s with over 500 seats on purely domestic flights so Airbus' statement should accurately say that aircraft X burns the least amount of fuel for a given amount of floorspace. But as you also know, it is very possible for several smaller aircraft to burn less fuel than a large widebody.... Airbus statement is based on the fact that no other aircraft is in the same size class as the A380.
.
But all of this still proves that if your interest is in reducing CASM, then the more seats you can get on any aircraft will help. If you are in a highly competitive market, you need to justify using an aircraft that has a higher CASM than your aircraft unless your revenue offsets the competition.