Should AA order more 738s or wait for 737 replacement?

[Frank Szabo]

Boeing has said that it plans to make incremental improvements to the efficiency of the 737NG's no matter what it decides about a replacement. It appears that the customers predominately want a replacement rather than a new design now, but considering that most of the customers are leasing companies that's no surprise - putting off a large change keeps the value of the NG's up longer.

Aside from sales of the NG's, Boeing has the advantage of the unchallenged 777. Looks like Airbus will be scrapping plans for the A350-1000 since no one is interested - some customers are saying outright that it won't be competitive with the 777 when passenger and cargo loads are factored in.

Jim

Other than a few aerodynamic tricks hither thither and yon, I'm not too sure what else could be done to a 73X model excepting a different type of engine.

Looking at the CFM-56 version flown by American I see many tricks that, even in Navy Jet School, we were told what it would take to gain efficiency from a jet engine. It seems GE & their buddies in France used every one of those little tricks as better materials became available & added the computer to the engine's fuel system.

My question: What exactly would an improvement(s) of that little motor be? Where could one look to squeeze a couple extra "miles per gallon" out of it? The CFM is a fantastic little engine but even with a chip change on the 'puter there are some things that are at their limit, I believe..

What's out there in the way of engines, operating or prototype, that would be more efficient?

 

[aapitbull]

I do not believe AA is putting any MD 80's back in service they are however bringing them to Tulsa for lease return checks AC 451 recently finished one 290 is in work right now to be donated to a school and 562 & 563 will be in by May for lease return that said anything is possible but what you see in Tulsa is most likely lease return work.

 

[eolesen]

What's out there in the way of engines, operating or prototype, that would be more efficient?

It doesn't have to be just new engines. I've heard a new wing mentioned more than once. Maybe more composites or FBW?

 

[Hopeful]

It doesn't have to be just new engines. I've heard a new wing mentioned more than once. Maybe more composites or FBW?

Composite wing is on Boeing's list of options coupled with the 787-ish new wing design..

Maybe Boeing needs to think outside the box and go with a Delta wing.

 

[FWAAA]

but many people don't understand the cost of money aspect, esp. in new aircraft decisions. Money is not cheap and when airlines like AA require multiple billions of dollars just to replace a single fleet type, the cost of maintaining the status quo is often cheaper than buying new equipment.

Yes, money has a cost, but AA management determined several times in the past three years that money was cheaper than the extra fuel and maintenance (and all other costs) the MD-80s require when management ordered 118 new 738s. The cost of money hasn't changed much in the past three years and since last July, when AA ordered an additional 35 new 738s, fuel prices are up substantially. So I'm guessing that the cost of money is not the stumbling block now.

I personally think AA's best decision is to put as many MORE seats on the M80 as possible to keep costs down, shift usage esp. on longer flights wherever possible to the 738s which are more fuel efficient, and then buy as few new 738s until Boeing comes up w/ a viable new aircraft/replacement for the 738. DL's announcement that is willing to buy some new narrowbodies is a shot at Boeing that it will look elsewhere if Boeing doesn't come up w/ a better product.... AA could do the same thing if they are willing to buy other existing narrowbodies.

Unless AA moves to a European charter style seat pitch, there aren't many opportunities to add very many seats to the MD-80s. AA has added seats to the MD-80s by removing rear galleys - currently, AA's MD-80s feature more seats than the pre-MRTC configuration.

Finally, few people at AA talk about the 762 but that is by far the most expensive aircraft on a CASM basis in the US passenger fleet with costs 50% higher than the 738, 757, and 763 for AA. Maintenance costs are twice as high as on AA's 763s while fuel burn is only about 7% lower. The 757 burns 40% less fuel than the 762. The only real advantage is that the 762s are almost fully depreciated so ownership costs are very low. I understand the premium nature of AA's service on the 762 but average fares do not bear out that AA recovers the increased cost of operating the 762, unless they carry a WHOLE LOT of high value cargo. Further, there are premium seats available for narrowbodies - and UA does get a substantial revenue premium to AA on its JFK-LAX/SFO routes, although on far less volume. A far more economical way for AA to serve the transcons in my mind would be a combination of 752s and 763s in international configuration with the 763s providing the cargo capabilities and the extra passenger capacity in order to maintain AA's market share - which has decline fairly significantly over the past 5 years in the face of strong competition. If AA had not removed the A300s from the fleet, they could work well in transcon service as well.... the A300s always had competitive cost numbers to comparable aircraft (the "accident" effect not counted).

The 762s don't garner much discussion because it's apparent that they will be retired as the 789s arrive. Of the leased 762s, the lease expirations have been timed to coincide with the earlier 789 delivery schedule. Over the past couple of years, as that delivery schedule has been delayed, the leases on some 762s have been extended a year or two.

I recognize that the 763s are in need for int'l routes but I would also personally recommend that AA buy 20-25 764s or better yet A333s - because both would handle the vast majority of AA's S. America routes at lower costs than the 777s - and in the case of the 333s be larger than the 772s, freeing up the 772s for longer haul flying where the extra weight of the 772 makes alot LESS sense on flights less than 12 hours which could be done on lighter aircraft that might carry as much (the 333 and 772 have similar floor space and lift capabilities on a 10 hr flight but the 333 weighs 50K pounds less, resulting in less fuel burn and landing fees).
But that is another discussion.....

What does this have to do with a decision to either order more 738s now or wait for a new 737 replacement from Boeing? You know, the topic of this thread?

So you'd personally recommend that AA do what only two other airlines on the planet have ever done: order 764s. Ok. There's no denying that it's been a wildly popular airplane, with a total of 37 of them delivered to DL and CO. Or better yet, you say, the A333? Much more popular airplane, but I doubt AA is seriously considering them. Why? AA's management is short-sighted, of course.

 

[eolesen]

Yes, it's off topic, but adding another sub-fleet like the 764 or 333 for domestic or even close-in LatAm flying would be a dumb move.... dumber than buying too many 738s when there could be a replacement on the horizon.

I suspect that once UA & CO standardize, they'll go to a two cabin model. If they drop p.s., I don't see AA keeping F on the transcons, which means cross-utilization of the existing 763 fleet and maybe the international J equipped 757 fleet would be possible, allowing the 762's to become freighters or beer cans. That could happen even before the 789s show up if AA starts adding 773s and bumping back some 777s to routes now served with 763s...

Back on topic.... Consider for a moment that AA's oldest 738s are now 11 years old. By the time Boeing gets things right with the replacement airframe, those airframes will be approaching the end of their economic service life, and probably ripe for replacement themselves. No need to rush replacing the whole fleet all at once... replacing on a continual basis seems to work well for WN and other carriers who refresh pieces of their fleet on a constant basis...

 

[WorldTraveler]

The cost of money has not changed on a % basis but there is a consideration regarding the total leverage a balance sheet can handle. Further, AA knew it had to begin replacing some of the 300 seat MD80 fleet because it simply is not possible to wait and wasn't years ago. The 738 is a good airplane and it does have lower costs - to be sure - but that doesn't mean that even if AA had $10B available that it would make sense to buy new 738s.
My point is that too many people at AA are ready to throw the entire MD80 fleet away as if its day has come and gone; every airline has a gradual process of replacing old aircraft and that means you have to live with some less than optimal aircraft in the fleet perhaps longer than you might want... but the cost is not being able to do other things... businesses don't just replace one fleet type at a time but have multiple competing projects for money going on at the same time.

I'm not sure what AA's config on the M80 is but DL is adding a net of 8 seats to its M80s and also adding more FC seats (comparable to AA's FC seat count). I'm not saying that DL's decision is right for AA but unless AA has 150 seats on the M80, then it is not necessarily true that there can't be more seats... historically AA has had higher seat counts compared to DL for the same fleet type.

I'm not sure what the 789's arrival has to do with the 762. The 789 won't serve domestic routes and the 762 can't do what the 789 will do - so help me understand how they are related. Further, AA"s 787 is not firm - pending pilot union approval of a new contract.

I would agree that the future of the 762 could well be tied to the decision UA will make regarding 2 or 3 classes.

Whether AA should now or should have ordered the 764 or 333 is not necessarily a question that needs to be answered here... but to argue that AA can't grow because it doesn't have long-range aircraft. When you also consider that AA is using 772ERs for 8-10 hr international flights, then yes, it does make sense to ask the question why AA doesn't have a 250-300 seat aircraft that is designed for short to medium int'l flights instead of the 777 which is best suited for 12 hr plus flights - and because of that the 772ER weighs 50K pounds more than the 333 when both can do the exact same missions on most of AA's 772 routes.

If AA's widebody int'l fleet can only accommodate the 763ER and 772ER and soon a few 773ERs, then AA is going to not be operating at the same levels of efficiency as it peers - and you once again have to ask how other carriers can have more complex operations and still manage to make more money than AA. AA mgmt is smart enough to know that complexity does have a value - the range of products that AA offers is different from WN and it is that extra breadth of products that AA offers that it uses to justify its revenue premiums. It should be no different with the tools AA uses to generate that revenue.
The popularity or lack thereof of a particular fleet type is immaterial to an airline if that fleet type does what it is supposed to do as effectively or moreso than its competitors. CO and DL's 764s both seat about 35 seats less than their 772ERs (and both are operated in a 2 class configuration) but the 764 weighs 100K pounds less and burns 25% less for the same mission, reflected in operating costs for the 764 that are well below the 772ER (and DL and CO's 772 costs are comparable to AA if AA had a comparable number of seats on their 772ERs).
For DL (which operates the 764, 333, and 772ER), the 333 has operating costs that are about 1/3 less than the 772 while 764ER costs are about 20% less.

We will see what UA does with the diversity of aircraft types that they will have after the merged UA-CO but AA will be competing against 2 network peers who will have far more complexity in their fleet even relative to their size difference with AA. Tne same principle applies to both AA's domestic and int'l fleet and why specific to this discussion AA has the perceived need to have only 2 medium sizedl narrowbodies for its domestic operation. The simple question is why AA cannot obtain the same or better efficiencies from its fleet that other airlines have even though those other airlines have more complex fleets or why AA cannot add in some complexity to increase revenue generating capabilities.

 

[eolesen]

I'm not sure what AA's config on the M80 is but DL is adding a net of 8 seats to its M80s and also adding more FC seats (comparable to AA's FC seat count). I'm not saying that DL's decision is right for AA but unless AA has 150 seats on the M80, then it is not necessarily true that there can't be more seats... historically AA has had higher seat counts compared to DL for the same fleet type.

AA runs 16/124 = 140 seats

I'm not sure what the 789's arrival has to do with the 762. The 789 won't serve domestic routes and the 762 can't do what the 789 will do - so help me understand how they are related.

I though you were smart enough to see that 789s displace 777s, which displace 763s, which in turn displace 762s and 757s.

to argue that AA can't grow because it doesn't have long-range aircraft.

Who is arguing that? You and a few foamers seem to think AA needs to be growing in long range markets, but with 2 ATI JV's coming to fruition, AA's going to be able to add new markets as JV capacity gets rationalized (i.e. cut) out of MAD, LHR and NRT.

it does make sense to ask the question why AA doesn't have a 250-300 seat aircraft that is designed for short to medium int'l flights instead of the 777

Give it up already on the A330. AA won't buy another Airbus unless Boeing goes out of business.

once again have to ask how other carriers can have more complex operations and still manage to make more money than AA.

It's called 10 year head-starts on trans-Atlantic ATI JVs, and a 50+ year duopoly to Asia...

The simple question is why AA cannot obtain the same or better efficiencies from its fleet that other airlines have even though those other airlines have more complex fleets or why AA cannot add in some complexity to increase revenue generating capabilities.

My guess is that AA decided long ago that the simplicity and flexibility that comes from having fewer fleet types is an acceptable trade-off to the inefficiencies you're stating.

With the fewer fleet types, they can route any 763 to Hawaii, a transcon, mid-haul to Latin America, or Europe; any B777 can come from Asia and turn it to Europe or Latin America.

It also makes it a lot easier to swap equipment and spot spares in the gateways, and eliminates the need to have consumables & rotables for multiple fleet types, shipsets of spare upholstery & carpets, catering carts, etc... Then there's the reduced training for flight attendants & ground employees...

Lots of benefits, and I suspect they add up to some considerable offsets to whatever incremental revenue you *might* see from having more complex fleeting.

Should AA wind up with fewer seats than there is demand, I'm sure they're adjusting buckets and bid prices accordingly. Crandall purposely flew smaller planes than the other guys so that there would be less of a need to attract the bottom-feeders. DL and UA have little choice but to fill up the back with trash yielding tickets and consolidator fares...

 

[WorldTraveler]

E.
problem w/ your argument about DL and UA putting trash yields in the extra seats is that it isn't true. For several quarters at least, AA has performed below average in the industry in revenue growth and was below DL and UA in most global regions.
You can argue that AA's fleet is simpler because they choose not to fly to more destinations with their own metal but it isn't at all valid to say that DL and UA have added complexity to their fleet - including thru mergers - w/o obtaining the revenue benefit from it.
While the UK and Japan are the two largest destinations from the US in their particular regions, passengers obviously want to fly to other places IN ADDITION to NRT and LHR - and AA is very weak relative to its peers in Europe outside of LHR and Asia outside of NRT. Further, with the UA/CO merger, they generate more revenue at LHR than AA does on its own metal while AA/JL is the #3 airline/alliance at NRT.
Is it possible that revenue growth is coming in regions where other carriers are stronger and where they have more service on their own metal- in addition to connections via their own partners?

Of course that is the int'l side of the discussion but also raises the question of whether fleet complexity could allow AA to increase its revenue generating potential on the domestic network? While the differences in performance between competing domestic models is smaller, the notion that simple is better is not necessarily born out by the differences in revenue generating capability. Obviously fleet is not the only component but it becomes increasingly important on the int'l arena.

While I understand the emotions involved in the A300 crash, I still am not as certain that AA's decision to get rid of the A300 was the best financial decision. Ruling out any other Airbus product could leave AA with alot less revenue generating options or higher costs to do the same thing. If you want to argue that is the right decision for AA, then you have to accept also that AA mgmt based on its prejudices and preferences- which can be quantified at some level - have responsibility for AA's financial issues in the same manner that labor does.

Perhaps the reason I missed the connection between the 789 deliveries and the 762 retirements is because while the 789 will be much more efficient, it is not a direct replacement for the 763ER. The 789 is much closer in capabilities to the 772ER which will not work on many of the routes the 763ER flies. It's too big of an airplane on 12 hr flights as it; that is the point of my discussion about AA's need for a lighter weight 250 seat plane. If anything the 789s will allow AA to retire 763ERs but then they have to figure out how to find a 220 seat a/c for up to 12 hrs... the closest fit right now is the 788 - and AA and DL have both said the 788s costs are too relative to the performance gain. I think it is quite likely the 763ER will soldier on for AA and DL -and probably UA as well - for quite some time. Further, if the desire was to add more capacity to the transcons, AA could have done that with the A300s. As it is, AA is losing market share on the transcons using its 762s and doesn't seem to be in any rush to correct that problem. It is more likely that AA will be in a position to downgrade any remaining transcon wdebody flights to narrowbodies than that they will upgrade to a larger widebody.

And as for the M80, my contention remains that if other carries can operate the aircraft w/ more seats and AA can't, then that explains part of AA's cost discrepancy and reduced inability to generate add'l revenue. It also means that AA's statements that the 738 is 35% more fuel efficient is not totally valid since AA is operating the 738 in a similar configuration as the rest of its network peers but is not doing the same thing with the M80.

 

[FWAAA]

Whether AA should now or should have ordered the 764 or 333 is not necessarily a question that needs to be answered here... but to argue that AA can't grow because it doesn't have long-range aircraft. When you also consider that AA is using 772ERs for 8-10 hr international flights, then yes, it does make sense to ask the question why AA doesn't have a 250-300 seat aircraft that is designed for short to medium int'l flights instead of the 777 which is best suited for 12 hr plus flights - and because of that the 772ER weighs 50K pounds more than the 333 when both can do the exact same missions on most of AA's 772 routes.

You know, I didn't start this thread hoping to initiate an airliners.net-style discussion of all the different airplanes that AA should have ordered over the years instead of the 777-200IGW and how the combined DL/NW hodgepodge of fleet types better positions DL for the future. Nevertheless, you apparently can't resist advancing that view wherever someone will respond, so here goes. According to Airbus and Boeing, the 772ER is only about 35,000 pounds heavier than the 333, not the 50k you allege:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec2.pdf

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus_AC_A330_Jan11.pdf

I see from the DL treatise recently posted in the DL forum that you don't like posting links to any factual sources. Perhaps you have some source that demonstrates that AA's 772s are heavier than Boeing indicates or that DL's 333s are lighter than Airbus indicates. Elsewhere, you recently posted that DL has a 15% CASM advantage to AA. You didn't indicate the timeframe for that assertion, but for full-year 2010, DL had a mainline CASM advantage to AA of just 10%. Are you playing fast and loose with the numbers? If you have the winning argument, there's no need to exaggerate the facts.

So in your learned opinion, the 772 is best suited to flights greater than 12 hours and suboptimal for flights of 8-10 hours. How many of those (12+ hour flights) did AA fly in 1996 when it decided to replace its DC-10s and MD-11s with the 772? I can think of two AA flights greater than 12 hours that AA flew at the time: DFW-NRT and ORD-NRT. Yet AA's management foolishly tied its future to the 772 and not to the A333 or the 764 (although AA did seriously consider the 764). Every other flight AA flew in 1996 was within the range of its 763ERs. Nevertheless, AA foolishly placed multiple orders for 772s that would eventually result in a fleet of 47 of them. All this despite the 772 being too heavy for all those 8-10 hour flights. While you might be correct, I'd bet that AA management took into account various factors besides the weight of the 772 in making its decision.

Of course, since 1996, AA has begun several additional 12+ hour flights, where the 772 is (in your opinion) a suitable airplane. Of course, no single airplane type can perform every mission in the most efficient manner. AA management has spent over a decade attempting to strike a balance between fleet simplicity and allocating the right airplane to each route. Perhaps that's been a management failure - if so, I think evidence of failure will require a lot more evidence than pointing out the weight of various airplanes that AA did not buy.

AA also has a long history of flying heavy, long-range airplanes on the transcons. I've flown on AA 707s, 747s, DC-10s, MD-11s, 763ERs and 762ERs between LAX and JFK. What will replace the 762ERs currently flown today? My guess would be more 763s as the 789s are delivered but it could be 757s. Perhaps even a 789 even though that's a large heavy airplane. DL currently flies at least one 77L on a domestic route to/from LAX, no? That doesn't sound efficient. But that plane's primary mission is the LAX-SYD flight and the LAX-domestic segment adds to network efficiency, right? For all we know, AA might decide the same thing once the 789s show up.

 

[jimntx]

FWIW, I work on the MD-80 a lot. I can not imagine how uncomfortable passengers must be with 150 seats crammed on that a/c. As far as I am concerned, 140 is too many. All you have to see is people over 5'10" or so having to put their feet out in the aisle in order to have room for their knees when passenger in front reclines.

In the current 124-seats in coach configuration, the ONLY comfortable seats are bulkhead rows (row 7 & AB seats in row 31) with concomitant loss of underseat storage, or the emergency exit rows (20 and 21 IIRC). 150 would just be torture for anyone over 5' tall.

 

[FWAAA]

I agree with jimntx and fortunately, I rarely have to venture beyond the curtain to rows 7 and beyond. Increasing seating density has become the mantra of AA's management since 2003 when AA began to give up on MRTC. Not long afterward, the upstart that's been eating AA's lunch began removing seats from every one of its A320s and even today B6 continues to feature almost-MRTC throughout its A320s plus the EML seats in the front. Seating density doesn't appear to be the end-all to increasing market share and profitability. Recently, DL announced extra-legroom coach seating on its long-haul international flights for an exrtra fee and I predict that AA will be forced to copy UA's E+ unless the CO management terminates that successful program.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Jim,
You are a rational and generally gracious gentleman on these forums and I will show you the same respect.
Here are the numbers from AMR and DAL’s press releases (along w/ the source)
AA 4Q 2010 mainline CASM 12.78, excl fuel, special items (GAAP reconciliation) 9.29 YE 4Q 2010 12.62
http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3126
DL 4Q 2010 mainline CASM 11.82 excl fuel and certain items (GAP basis) 7.75 YE 4Q 2010 11.33
http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1244

I didn’t bother to quote every source but the cost differences range from 10-20% depending on the period reviewed as well as the actual figure used. The 20% figure is the most recent quarter on a GAAP adjusted basis which excludes profit sharing, outsourcing etc. and is the most meaningful comparison between the two airlines; that is why it is used as the basis of comparison.
I would honestly have to ask why you are willing to defend even a 10% difference in costs between AA and DL, if you are. If we pick somewhere between 10 and 20% (say 15), then DL truly has a cost advantage. When combined with the fact that DL does in fact compete fairly successfully on a revenue basis despite what some want to believe and it isn’t hard to see why AA’s net margin is so much less than DL’s – or UA’s for that matter.
As I noted in my post on the DL forum – which I am glad you read and welcome your feedback on – the sources of data are not secret and I am happy to note them as I did above. I did not write my post to academic standards with internal citations which is what some asked for; when someone can show me one other post on this forum that is written to that standard, I’ll give serious thought to doing the same. In the meantime, I am happy to note my sources for specific data items on request. Is that not fair?
I do not doubt the 777 was the correct decision for AA, esp. in light of its much greater performance and fuel economy vs. the MD-11 and D10 before it.
I can tell you the actual operating weights of DL’s 772ERs (which have RR engines like AA’s – in fact, AA maintained DL’s RR 892/5s for a while) as well as the weights of the 333s. Again, even if it is only 35K pounds, has the cost been factored in for carrying around 35K extra pounds on how many flights each 777 makes on flights that are shorter than even 10 hours? My point is the vast majority of AA’s 772s flight routes to/from US-LHR and MIA-S. America which could all be done by a 333 with about the same amount of capacity. The 764 is a smaller plane but is more common w/ AA’s 763s and IS NOT AN AIRBUS and could also fly most of the routes w/ a loss of capacity of about 10% with even lower costs (again, DL’s 764s weigh about 100K less than the 772ERs). Given the common fleets between DL and AA, it isn’t too hard to use data from one or the other as a reasonable proxy for non-existent fleets.
My only question again is why AA is not willing to consider an additional fleet type that would be more effective for shorter flights AND
At the same time free up more aircraft for long haul operations where the 772ER is more optimal.
If you want to argue that AA is not interested in more long haul ops, then that message needs to be told by you and E to a lot of people on here as well as AA pilots who want to see AA add a whole lot more flights AND you and he need to explain how AA can get revenue premiums to DL and UA who are flying to those long haul destinations.
Again, specific to the 738/M80 discussion , is not fair to say that the 35% difference in airplane fuel costs is not valid because it doesn’t compare similar seat configs AND it doesn’t factor in the cost of money. Based on AA’s filings with the DOT (as reported in Aviation Daily on a quarterly basis), the CASM advantage of their 738s over their M80s is about 17%...nothing to sneeze at but quite a bit less than the 35% that is thrown around out of context and perhaps changes the priorities of spending – and always makes it clear that it is indeed worth waiting for Boeing to come up w/ a much more fuel efficient narrowbody (perhaps one that would even be suitable as a 762/3 replacement for TATL use) or, heaven forbid, that AA should order the A320NEO which Airbus claims is about 15% more fuel efficient (or will be) compared to the 738.

DL, I believe, is stating that the seat pitch is not being reduced as they add seats to the M80. The extra space comes by removing the rear galley and adding a single large galley up front. Since the M80 is usually used on flights less than 3 hrs for DL (average is probably a little longer for AA), there is not the need for the size of galleys that DL has carried on that aircraft since it entered service.

I expect that the reason DL chose to go with the Comfort coach class (or whatever it is called) is because they need to be competitive w/ UA - and there are strong rumors that UA will remove its FC cabins - at least restrict it to a subset of the fleet as AA does. Given that every service on an airplane comes w/ a price, I don't find it surprisng that DL is willing to add a premium coach product that has an extra charge... based on the prices DL is charging, I expect they will be fun all the time - even others say the prices are low compared to UA economy plus.

Seat density is not necessarily popular w/ passengers or FAs but if that's what it takes to make money, I'm not sure why AA or any other management should hold back. It is a business and if the airlne can't cover costs as is, then something has got to give. I would think AA employees would rather see more revenue generating capacity than deeper/further pay cuts.
Also, the extra space coach product is competitive w/ DL partner KLM who supposedly uses the same name.
I believe BA has a premium coach product as well, do they not? It is called.... help me out here.

 

[jimntx]

Please don't think that I questioned the financial part of the post. I did not. Unlike a number of members here, I do not believe that AMR is hiding vast sums of money profits just so they can screw the employees. Our management is perfectly capable of that without resorting to skullduggery. With my genteel Southern upbringing I just think it bad taste that they continue accepting bonusses while revealing at the same time that we are the only major still losing money. Bonusses are for exceptional performance, period, end of discussion. And, that must be positive exceptional performance. Bonusses should not be awarded when the exception is "the largest quarterly loss in the company's history" kind of "exceptional" performance.

What I was commenting on was your statement that DL had put 150 seats on the MD-80. To my mind that is a violation of the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[BoeingBoy]

AA should definitely stay away from the A333's - they don't have the range for anything other than mid-US to western Europe. or JFK-Europe. US doesn't even use them for PHL-ATH because it would require weight restrictions pretty much all the time on the westbound. A fleet composed of 738/9's, 78X's and 777's would cover pretty much all the flying AA is likely to do other than something in the 90-130 seat category (assuming that 50-70 seat segment is operated by a RJ operator).

Jim