Should AA bid on Maxjet's 767-200s?

[FWAAA]

Maxjet is out of business, and it's got five 762s that probably nobody else wants, so they ought to be really cheap.

Sure, AA grounded and retired 13 762s during the bleak time of 2003, but since then, widebodies have been in short supply, especially since the 762 engine blew apart at LAX last year, destroying one of the remaining 16 762s.

Acquiring some (or all five) of Maxjet's planes would permit AA to replace the 763s currently flying JFK-SFO with three class 762s, freeing the 763s for international expansion. It would also permit AA to fly 762s on LAX-MIA or LAX-BOS, testing a return of more 3 class transcons.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Maxjet is out of business, and it's got five 762s that probably nobody else wants, so they ought to be really cheap.

Sure, AA grounded and retired 13 762s during the bleak time of 2003, but since then, widebodies have been in short supply, especially since the 762 engine blew apart at LAX last year, destroying one of the remaining 16 762s.

Acquiring some (or all five) of Maxjet's planes would permit AA to replace the 763s currently flying JFK-SFO with three class 762s, freeing the 763s for international expansion. It would also permit AA to fly 762s on LAX-MIA or LAX-BOS, testing a return of more 3 class transcons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excellent Inquiry....FWAAA.
I'm guessing it would depend on the condition of them, and especially the engines.

So lets hear from smarter AAers than me, on FWAAA's "proposition" !

 

[jimntx]

Isn't anyone else just a little fearful about the fact that this suggestion makes too much sense?

 

[lpbrian]

I thought all JFK-SFO and JFK-LAX were flown with 767-200's?

 

[Veritas]

I thought all JFK-SFO and JFK-LAX were flown with 767-200's?

According to the AA TravelDesk program, only 2 of 5 SFO-JFK flights in each direction are 762s, the rest are 763s.

 

[eolesen]

I know one of the Maxjet guys, and according to him, we wouldn't want them... One spent more of it's career at MY on the ground than in the air. It was grounded for MEL's the day they shut down.

Another slight problem.... One was ex-QF and one was ex-TW, and IIRC both carriers' -200ER's were PW powered. Not exactly a clean fit.

 

[FWAAA]

I know one of the Maxjet guys, and according to him, we wouldn't want them... One spent more of it's career at MY on the ground than in the air. It was grounded for MEL's the day they shut down.

Another slight problem.... One was ex-QF and one was ex-TW, and IIRC both carriers' -200ER's were PW powered. Not exactly a clean fit.

The voice of reason. Lousy condition, some incompatible engines - not a good fit.

Good thing nobody entrusts me with the company checkbook.

Somewhere, however, there has to be a few 762s for sale in decent shape with GE powerplants. A few million each could cover purchase price, heavy C checks, engine overhauls and interior. They wouldn't be around for the long haul, but they could help AA for the next few years until 787s ultimately replace AA's 767s.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Am I the only one, who thinks it's possible, that AA might not buy ANY, and opt for the 777 for all long haul, or medium haul needing wb capacity, such as JFK-SJU/SDQ....And 738's, and launch customer for the next generation 737 ??

Obviously the 75's and 763's would become AA's version of NW's DC-9's, until "fresh horses" arrived !

HEL*, you could even keep the dozen 762's around for JFK/LAX(only) for as long as it took, given the EXCELLENT Maint. those birds get.

??????????

 

[A/C FIXER]

Isn't anyone else just a little fearful about the fact that this suggestion makes too much sense?

Ahhhh Jim but thats the AAmerican way, if it makes sense then we won't do it.

 

[Skymess]

HEL*, you could even keep the dozen 762's around for JFK/LAX(only) for as long as it took, given the EXCELLENT Maint. those birds get.

??????????

Sure, let's buy some more 762's so the LAX and SFO NEVER leave the gate. The 767's, all of them, are catching up with the repAIRBUS in the mechanical delay category.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Sure, let's buy some more 762's so the LAX and SFO NEVER leave the gate. The 767's, all of them, are catching up with the repAIRBUS in the mechanical delay category.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"mess"

Valid point !

However, I would doubt seriously if AA had ANY plans of flying those LAX/SFO-JFK routes, with a 787, or a 777 for that matter.
But what to do ? Obviously AA needs a WB on those routes, ESPECIALLY LAX, because we ALL know that the clientele from JFK/LAX would REFUSE to board ANY narrowbody, and HDQ KNOW's IT.(those Bastards would fly a 57 if they could get away with it) !

Maybe the answer is to put domestic 777's on the traditionally heaviest JFK transcons, and keep a handful of the "newest" 763's, until "something" goes from Boeings "drawing board", to JFK via a one time stopover in TUL.

It's too bad in a way, because the 762 is the PERFECT size a/c for JFK/LAX !

 

[flyhigh]

Bears...UA & CO do quite well with 75's on their transcons. UA's cabin is far better than AA's on the route. I'd take their 75 anyday. AA is just playing more of a volume game. Hell, CO does quite well across the pond on 75's.

 

[FWAAA]

Am I the only one, who thinks it's possible, that AA might not buy ANY, and opt for the 777 for all long haul, or medium haul needing wb capacity, such as JFK-SJU/SDQ....And 738's, and launch customer for the next generation 737 ??

Obviously the 75's and 763's would become AA's version of NW's DC-9's, until "fresh horses" arrived !

HEL*, you could even keep the dozen 762's around for JFK/LAX(only) for as long as it took, given the EXCELLENT Maint. those birds get.

??????????

Bears, there's no way AA or any other airline can ignore the new fuel efficient 787 or comparable Airbus products - assuming the promised fuel efficiency actually happens. AA will eventually have to order a couple hundred new fuel efficient airplanes.

Boeing has said that the 787 will deliver a 20% increase in fuel efficiency over comparable airplanes (like the 767). With an annual jet fuel bill of $7 billion to $8 billion, a 20% increase fleet-wide would be a fuel savings of $1.4 to $1.6 billion, and that would pay a lot of airplane lease payments. The payback period from fuel efficient airplanes gets shorter and shorter the higher oil goes, up to the point where air travel demand diminishes due to higher ticket prices.

I disagree that the 762 is the perfect size for the transcons; in my nearly weekly transcons in 2007, I rarely saw an empty seat in any cabin. The 762s are packed to the gills. On some flights, biz and first were selling out days in advance. Since the 762 engine blew apart at LAX, the JFK-LAX frequency has been down to about 10 a day from 11 a day, eliminating the 10:00pm LAX-JFK redeye (leaving the 9:30pm and 11:00pm).

Until the DC-10s were retired and the 763s were converted to 2 class from 3 class, those airplanes ran a lot of the transcons. AA only had 8 non-ER 762s plying the transcons, since most of the ERs flew international routes.

777s on the transcons? Makes sense if industry consolidation reduces overcapacity - if the six legacies combine into three, and the CO, DL, AA and UA NYC-LAX are consolidated, then perhaps a few 777s could be used in place of the 762s.

The 787-9 would be perfect for these transcons; it's a little larger than a 763 and promises to burn less fuel. Lots of interior cabin room for 10-12 lie-flat coffins in F (the old 763 lie-flat F seats), 30-36 J seats and 160 or so coach seats. A dozen flights a day like that between JFK and LAX and half a dozen a day to SFO and AA would rule from JFK. Simply gotta buy them.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

FWAAA,
I agree with the part of...."gotta buy them", but when ???????????????????????????????

And your correct. I can see where the 763 is THE best a/c(at this present time)



luv2fly,

Gimme a break.

5/6 hours in a middle seat, on a SINGLE AISLE plane ???
If I did'nt know better, I'd swear you were touting Southwest !


(AH shet. What the **** do I know. I'm just an ol' retiree) :closedeyes:

 

[777 fixer]

I know one of the Maxjet guys, and according to him, we wouldn't want them... One spent more of it's career at MY on the ground than in the air. It was grounded for MEL's the day they shut down.

Another slight problem.... One was ex-QF and one was ex-TW, and IIRC both carriers' -200ER's were PW powered. Not exactly a clean fit.

Even if they had the CF-6 there are still going to be numerous other differences. Enough differences to make it somewhat of a headache.