Discussion:
American Airlines jumps into Chapter 11 pool
(too old to reply)
JF Mezei
2011-11-29 23:05:24 UTC
Permalink
So, on Nov 29, AMR seeks chapter 11 protection. This had been talked
about in the media for some time. AA was the only major to not go
through this since 9/11.


Considering that American placed a gigantic order for both Airbus 320s
and Boeing 737s this past summer, are there thoughts on whether those
orders would be cancelled or scaled down ?

Obviously, AA would have known about the upcoming chapter 11 when it
placed those orders.

Can the US judge cancel contracts AA signed with foreign Airbus ?

In the case of Air Canada, the court had to decide on the fate of the
A340-500 contracts. They concluded the costs of cancelling the contract
were higher than accepting and using the aircraft. This implies that
they didn't have the power to void the contract with Airbus and would
have had to pay cancellation penalties.


In terms of the re-org itself, does this mean that aircraft lessors will
become the new owers of AMR once it is recapitalised ? or is this trip
to Chapter 11 just to cancel union and pension obligations and won't
touch to AA's capitalisation ? The stock dipped 80% today, and now below
$1.00.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
matt weber
2011-11-29 23:58:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:05:24 -0500, JF Mezei
Post by JF Mezei
So, on Nov 29, AMR seeks chapter 11 protection. This had been talked
about in the media for some time. AA was the only major to not go
through this since 9/11.
Considering that American placed a gigantic order for both Airbus 320s
and Boeing 737s this past summer, are there thoughts on whether those
orders would be cancelled or scaled down ?
Probably not. Those contracts probably involve zero out of pocket for
AA. While the court and/or AA could choose to walk away if they
wished, if they don't encumber any assets, there is no reason to
terminate those contracts.
Post by JF Mezei
Obviously, AA would have known about the upcoming chapter 11 when it
placed those orders.
Can the US judge cancel contracts AA signed with foreign Airbus ?
The Court can order the cancelation of any and all contracts, no
matter who they are with.
Post by JF Mezei
In the case of Air Canada, the court had to decide on the fate of the
A340-500 contracts. They concluded the costs of cancelling the contract
were higher than accepting and using the aircraft. This implies that
they didn't have the power to void the contract with Airbus and would
have had to pay cancellation penalties.
Canadian law is not the same as US law.
Post by JF Mezei
In terms of the re-org itself, does this mean that aircraft lessors will
become the new owers of AMR once it is recapitalised ? or is this trip
to Chapter 11 just to cancel union and pension obligations and won't
touch to AA's capitalisation ? The stock dipped 80% today, and now below
$1.00.
The stock should have fallen 100%. IN bankruptcy the share holders are
wiped out.

It is mostly to rid the company of pension plans, and unfavorable
labor contracts, as well as leases on aircraft they really don't
want.

Generally the leasing companies take a substantial haircut, but often
are not owed a great deal of money at the time of the filing. Most
leasing company are pretty aggressive about not allowing airlines to
get very far in behind before they repo the aircraft.

The way leasing companies really get shafted is that invariably all of
the end of life, or at overhaul bits get shifted into the airframes
being returned. That makes the airline liable for the overhaul and
replacement costs, however the leasing company are just another
unsecurred creditor for those costs, so they end up with nothing, and
no recourse.

In one case I am familiar with, Citicorp found itself with a 747 with
3 different model PW engines , and it cost more than the aircraft was
worth to get the certificate back. The airline that leased it from
Citi did the repair work, and reportedly made more money on the
engineering work than they ever did flying it. (That aircraft ended
its life at Virgin Atlantic about 10 years ago), and is now 'beer
cans'...)
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2011-12-01 06:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
Canadian law is not the same as US law.
However, when an airline signs a contract with Airbus, can a US judge
void this contract since Airbus isn't really covered by US law ?

In the case of Air Canada, the judge had the power to order AC to cancel
the contract but it would then have had to pay cancellation penalties.
(indicating that the contract couldnt be voided).

For contracts where both buyer and seller are in the same country, the
judgecan easily void the contract since both are within the judge's
jurisdiction.
Post by matt weber
The stock should have fallen 100%. IN bankruptcy the share holders are
wiped out.
Not all chapter 11s result in shareholders being totally wiped out. In
some they are diluted. (and in others, they are diluted to just a
fraction of onwership they used to have since a whole bunch of new
shares were issued to new investors).

I guess it depends on whether current shareholders are very activist or
not to defend their interests.

Rumours of AA's bankrupcy had been around for quite some time now, so
this was no surprise. My guess is that some institutional investors had
to keep a stake in AA due to some of their mutual funds including it etc.

As for people buying now, there could be some goals of having a foot in
the door as a creditor to receive all the court documents etc, tax
writeoffs etc.
Post by matt weber
It is mostly to rid the company of pension plans, and unfavorable
labor contracts, as well as leases on aircraft they really don't
want.
In the case of many airlines, they can cancel long term leases and
renegotiate at current market prices. In the post 9-11 years, there was
a glut of second hand aircraft available so the value of aircraft had
gon way down, so airlines that went chapter 11 had an opportunity to
renegotiate lease agreements with lower maret rates.

I take it that AA can probably get much lower lease rates for its aging
MD80s and adjust the lease times based on expected deliveries of A320s
and 737s.
Post by matt weber
Generally the leasing companies take a substantial haircut, but often
are not owed a great deal of money at the time of the filing. Most
leasing company are pretty aggressive about not allowing airlines to
get very far in behind before they repo the aircraft.
What I find interesting is that aircraft leases are considered debts
which include payments for the duration of the contract. (even as you
say, if the airline is uptodate in its payments). So they get a huge say
as the major creditors even though they are owed very little money by
the airline.


In terms of the unions, can one expect strikes or work to rule tactics
etc ? or is there expectation that AA will be able to extract
concessions without disruptions ?

During the AC bankrupcy, Air Canada had cut check in staff quite a bit
(to a point where many intl flights had to be delayed every night
because most passengers were still waiting in live to check in). I guess
with self check-in, this is now less of a problem but on intl flights,
the pax still need to hand in their checked luggage and show passport etc.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
John Levine
2011-12-01 18:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
However, when an airline signs a contract with Airbus, can a US judge
void this contract since Airbus isn't really covered by US law ?
Sure. The contract is almost certainly in the US, so that's the only
place that matters.
Post by JF Mezei
Not all chapter 11s result in shareholders being totally wiped out.
Only if there is cash left over after paying off all the creditors,
which is very unlikely in this case. If they had that much cash, the
unions would probably challenge the filing, arguing that they're not
really bankrupt.
Post by JF Mezei
What I find interesting is that aircraft leases are considered debts
which include payments for the duration of the contract.
Of course they are. If I loan you $100 which you promise to pay back
in a year, it's a debt for the entire year even though you don't have
to pay anything in the interim.
Post by JF Mezei
In terms of the unions, can one expect strikes or work to rule tactics
etc ? or is there expectation that AA will be able to extract
concessions without disruptions ?
The bankruptcy judge makes the decisions, and I doubt many judges
would be favorably impressed by work actions at this stage.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
matt weber
2011-12-01 22:05:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:18:25 -0500, JF Mezei
Post by JF Mezei
Post by matt weber
Canadian law is not the same as US law.
However, when an airline signs a contract with Airbus, can a US judge
void this contract since Airbus isn't really covered by US law ?
I'll bet you money the contract is with Airbus's USA Subsidiary, Or
that contract license stipulates US (probably Delaware) jurisdiction.
Basically when Aibus created it US subsidiary, it agreed to bound by
US law in transactions in the USA.
Post by JF Mezei
In the case of Air Canada, the judge had the power to order AC to cancel
the contract but it would then have had to pay cancellation penalties.
(indicating that the contract couldnt be voided).
For contracts where both buyer and seller are in the same country, the
judgecan easily void the contract since both are within the judge's
jurisdiction.
Post by matt weber
The stock should have fallen 100%. IN bankruptcy the share holders are
wiped out.
Not all chapter 11s result in shareholders being totally wiped out. In
some they are diluted. (and in others, they are diluted to just a
fraction of onwership they used to have since a whole bunch of new
shares were issued to new investors).
Tell me of a single Air Line Chapter 11 case in the USA where the
shareholders were not effectively 'wiped out'.

Northwest Shareholdes.. Wiped Out
Delta Shareholders.. Wiped Out
United Shareholders.. Wiped Out
US Air Shareholders. Wiped Out
Continental Airlines Shareholders.. Wiped Out
Pan American Share Holders.. Wiped Out
America WEst Shareholders.. Wiped Out

The common stock shareholders are dead last on the list of creditors,
they don't get a cent until or unless every other creditor has been
paid off.
Post by JF Mezei
I guess it depends on whether current shareholders are very activist or
not to defend their interests.
See Above.
Post by JF Mezei
Rumours of AA's bankrupcy had been around for quite some time now, so
this was no surprise. My guess is that some institutional investors had
to keep a stake in AA due to some of their mutual funds including it etc.
As for people buying now, there could be some goals of having a foot in
the door as a creditor to receive all the court documents etc, tax
writeoffs etc.
Post by matt weber
It is mostly to rid the company of pension plans, and unfavorable
labor contracts, as well as leases on aircraft they really don't
want.
In the case of many airlines, they can cancel long term leases and
renegotiate at current market prices. In the post 9-11 years, there was
a glut of second hand aircraft available so the value of aircraft had
gon way down, so airlines that went chapter 11 had an opportunity to
renegotiate lease agreements with lower maret rates.
I take it that AA can probably get much lower lease rates for its aging
MD80s and adjust the lease times based on expected deliveries of A320s
and 737s.
MD80's are being retired. AA has already rejected almost 50 MD80's on
lease. Eagle has a veritable flock of ERJ135/140/145's that are
parked, and also still apparently has substantial real estate lease
obligations in places like RDU and SJU (former hubs). Those are all
going to be rejected.
Post by JF Mezei
Post by matt weber
Generally the leasing companies take a substantial haircut, but often
are not owed a great deal of money at the time of the filing. Most
leasing company are pretty aggressive about not allowing airlines to
get very far in behind before they repo the aircraft.
What I find interesting is that aircraft leases are considered debts
which include payments for the duration of the contract. (even as you
say, if the airline is uptodate in its payments). So they get a huge say
as the major creditors even though they are owed very little money by
the airline.
In terms of the unions, can one expect strikes or work to rule tactics
etc ? or is there expectation that AA will be able to extract
concessions without disruptions ?
Not likely, the employees are not quite as badly shafted as they used
to be. The Bankrupt has to now show that the provisions of the
contract are a serious impediment to the re-organization before they
can be voided. Any serious work rule tactics will be met with a
restraining order and/or contempt of court proceedings.

AA isn't exactly overweight on employees now. They were never
Government owned.

However it is possible that the heavy maintenance operation at Tulsa
will be spun off as part of the reorganization.
Post by JF Mezei
During the AC bankrupcy, Air Canada had cut check in staff quite a bit
(to a point where many intl flights had to be delayed every night
because most passengers were still waiting in live to check in). I guess
with self check-in, this is now less of a problem but on intl flights,
the pax still need to hand in their checked luggage and show passport etc.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2011-12-02 07:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
I'll bet you money the contract is with Airbus's USA Subsidiary,
In that case I guess the judge can void the contract without penalties.

Some of the articles I read mentioned the reverse: AA might be able to
more quickly retire its MD80s and start to get A320s delivered sooner.
(as well as some of the conventional 737s already on order).
Post by matt weber
Tell me of a single Air Line Chapter 11 case in the USA where the
shareholders were not effectively 'wiped out'.
OK, of the recent ones you are correct. However, I was under the
impression that AA was much healthier than the rest were when they went
chapter 11 and just wants an easy way to negotiate lower costs. One
article I read said they still have 4.1 billion in cash.

Does AA truly need to be recapitalised ? Or does it just need to
void/renegotiate some contracts and emerge from chap 11 as the same
corporation with same shareholders ?

Or is the 4 billion burning so fast that AA will absolutely need to get
a new influx of capital , at which point it could void existing shares
and issue new ones ?

At this point in time, would airlines that ordered the 787-9 such as AA
have a bankable delivery date for their aircraft ? In other words, for
this bankrupcy, would AA start to renegotiate 767 and 757 leases knowing
it will start to receive 787s soon enough ?


How will the disapearance of the 757 affect AA's routes ? Would some
trans atlantic routes go on 737-900 ERs ? or will the smallest aircraft
be the 787-900 on overseas routes ? Will some routes currently
supporting only a 757 be abandonned because a 787-9 is too big ?
Post by matt weber
The common stock shareholders are dead last on the list of creditors,
they don't get a cent until or unless every other creditor has been
paid off.
This happens when the airline requires new investments/cash to keep it
afloat. Previous airline bankrupcies all involved a rich uncle coming in
early in the chapter 11 process and proposing to invest in the company.
What this happens, it usually means that there will be recapitalisation
and those investors will become full owners (with previous shareholder
wiped out).

But until AA announces such a rich uncle will come in to recapitalise
the company there is a risk that AA could emerge from chapter 11 with
the same shares. I have a feeling that this AA chapter 11 will be a bit
different.

Lets not forget that the chapter 11 rules have also changed from most of
the big airlines went through it. (you may recall that Delta announced
theirs just before new rules would have kicked in).



Are there expectations that AA will make big changes to its route
struture and schedule philosophy ?

And considering how more and more of AA,s new planes wont be all
aluminium skins, is there any talk that AA might change its livery ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
matt weber
2011-12-02 20:55:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:55:12 -0500, JF Mezei
Post by JF Mezei
Post by matt weber
I'll bet you money the contract is with Airbus's USA Subsidiary,
In that case I guess the judge can void the contract without penalties.
Some of the articles I read mentioned the reverse: AA might be able to
more quickly retire its MD80s and start to get A320s delivered sooner.
(as well as some of the conventional 737s already on order).
Post by matt weber
Tell me of a single Air Line Chapter 11 case in the USA where the
shareholders were not effectively 'wiped out'.
OK, of the recent ones you are correct. However, I was under the
impression that AA was much healthier than the rest were when they went
chapter 11 and just wants an easy way to negotiate lower costs. One
article I read said they still have 4.1 billion in cash.
Does AA truly need to be recapitalised ? Or does it just need to
void/renegotiate some contracts and emerge from chap 11 as the same
corporation with same shareholders ?
Or is the 4 billion burning so fast that AA will absolutely need to get
a new influx of capital , at which point it could void existing shares
and issue new ones ?
At this point in time, would airlines that ordered the 787-9 such as AA
have a bankable delivery date for their aircraft ? In other words, for
this bankrupcy, would AA start to renegotiate 767 and 757 leases knowing
it will start to receive 787s soon enough ?
How will the disapearance of the 757 affect AA's routes ?
The A320 NEO family can do West Coast-Hawaii, the transatlantic
missions however are out of range for any realistic payload. So some
757 routes are likely to be abandoned.
Post by JF Mezei
Would some
trans atlantic routes go on 737-900 ERs ?
Actually the legs on the -900ER are nowhere near long enough. Full
payload equals about 2000nm range, so the hit for 3200 nm range is
pretty serious.

The -700ER is only good for about 3100nm with a full payload, so the
-700ER might be viable for some transatlantic mission with a modest
payload hit.
Post by JF Mezei
or will the smallest aircraft
be the 787-900 on overseas routes ?
see above. IN generaly only the 737-700ER comes close to transatlantic
range.
Post by JF Mezei
Will some routes currently
supporting only a 757 be abandonned because a 787-9 is too big ?
A distinct possiblity.
Post by JF Mezei
Post by matt weber
The common stock shareholders are dead last on the list of creditors,
they don't get a cent until or unless every other creditor has been
paid off.
This happens when the airline requires new investments/cash to keep it
afloat. Previous airline bankrupcies all involved a rich uncle coming in
early in the chapter 11 process and proposing to invest in the company.
What this happens, it usually means that there will be recapitalisation
and those investors will become full owners (with previous shareholder
wiped out).
But until AA announces such a rich uncle will come in to recapitalise
the company there is a risk that AA could emerge from chapter 11 with
the same shares. I have a feeling that this AA chapter 11 will be a bit
different.
AA has enough cash on hand to not need Debtor In Possesion (DIP)
financing. However I still believe the shareholders will be wiped out.
A check of the last 10 Q filed by AMR suggests the net equity in the
common stock is about -4 billion USD.

That also assumes the asetts on the books are worth somewhere near
what they are on the books for. Not Likely.

IF the Shareholders are not going to be wiped out, then AA is going to
have a very tough in upcoming court matters showing that they met the
criteria to be in Chapter 11.

AMR's web site FAQ for shareholders makes it fairly clear that it is
very unlikely that they will get anything. They can get something only
AFTER all of the other creditors have been satisfied. Given the
Pension fund shortfalls, the odds on that happening are nil.
Post by JF Mezei
Lets not forget that the chapter 11 rules have also changed from most of
the big airlines went through it. (you may recall that Delta announced
theirs just before new rules would have kicked in).
Doesn't really matter. Common Stock shareholders are still dead last
in line
Post by JF Mezei
Are there expectations that AA will make big changes to its route
struture and schedule philosophy ?
And considering how more and more of AA,s new planes wont be all
aluminium skins, is there any talk that AA might change its livery ?
I believe they were forced by Airbus to paint most of their A300's
initially. That didn't force a logo change.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Roland Perry
2011-12-03 10:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
Post by JF Mezei
How will the disapearance of the 757 affect AA's routes ?
The A320 NEO family can do West Coast-Hawaii, the transatlantic
missions however are out of range for any realistic payload. So some
757 routes are likely to be abandoned.
As a random data-point, of AA's 14 transatlantic flights from London
Heathrow today, only one is operated by a 757 (to Boston, which also the
shortest route). The remainder are split fairly evenly between 777 and
767.

On the other hand, both their flights from Manchester are 757's.
--
Roland Perry
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
2011-12-03 19:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
As a random data-point, of AA's 14 transatlantic flights from London
Heathrow today, only one is operated by a 757 (to Boston, which also the
shortest route). The remainder are split fairly evenly between 777 and
767.
On the other hand, both their flights from Manchester are 757's.
It is a given that AA will get rid of all their 757s, or is it possible
that they might keep a couple for a few specific routes where loads
don't warrant a 787 ?

Based on what I read, AA ordered 787-9s. If the needed to replace some
757s, shouldn't AA also have ordered a few smaller 787-8s for such routes ?

Ir does AA expect the 737 to eventually have the range needed to replace
the 757 ? With the re-engined 737s, is it possible that they will get
the range needed for such routes ?


Or is there the expectation that the 787-9 will be sufficiently more
fuel efficient compared to the 757 that it will be able to profitably
operate routes that only need 757 passenger loads ?

Or is there there the expectation that AA and BA will finally be allowed
to code share on trans atlantic and thin flights such as MAN-JFK will
then have sufficient loads to justify 787 service ?

With AA now "poor","broke","bankrupt" and in 3rd place after the mega
mergers of Delta-NW and United-Co, are the odds of AA-BA getting
antitrust to allow code sharing much higher ? Could this be achieved
during bankrupcy proceeding ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
John Levine
2011-12-03 19:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by JF Mezei
It is a given that AA will get rid of all their 757s, or is it possible
that they might keep a couple for a few specific routes where loads
don't warrant a 787 ?
It's possible, or they might use a 767, or they might decide that it's
not worth serving Manchester if it requires keeping planes they want
to get rid of.
Post by JF Mezei
Ir does AA expect the 737 to eventually have the range needed to replace
the 757 ? With the re-engined 737s, is it possible that they will get
the range needed for such routes ?
The 737-700ER has greater range than a 757, but is a much smaller
plane. Other than the tiny niche of all-business Privatair flights
that connect one oil hub to another, I don't see much interest in long
flights in anything smaller than a 757. (West coast to Hawaii isn't
a long flight.)
Post by JF Mezei
Or is there the expectation that the 787-9 will be sufficiently more
fuel efficient compared to the 757 that it will be able to profitably
operate routes that only need 757 passenger loads ?
The 757 is a 30 year old design. I expect the 787 will do a lot better.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Roland Perry
2011-12-03 20:04:13 UTC
Permalink
I don't see much interest in long flights in anything smaller than a
757.
Don't forget BA1, London-Shannon-New York in a 318.
--
Roland Perry
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
matt weber
2011-12-04 18:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
I don't see much interest in long flights in anything smaller than a
757.
Don't forget BA1, London-Shannon-New York in a 318.
In an all business class cabin....
There are no 'cheap' seats on that one.
Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Roland Perry
2011-12-04 21:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by matt weber
Post by Roland Perry
Don't forget BA1, London-Shannon-New York in a 318.
In an all business class cabin....
There are no 'cheap' seats on that one.
It's still an "interesting" flight.
--
Roland Perry
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
John Levine
2011-12-05 00:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by matt weber
Post by Roland Perry
Don't forget BA1, London-Shannon-New York in a 318.
In an all business class cabin....
There are no 'cheap' seats on that one.
It's still an "interesting" flight.
Yup. Eight rows of four fancy seats, and a technical stop westbound
in Shannon where they run the passengers through US preclearance.

On the other hand, the AC flights LHR-YYT use A319s with normal
domestic seats, presumably because they use the same planes in
domestic service on the off-season.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
matt weber
2011-12-04 18:48:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 14:16:57 -0500, JF Mezei
Post by JF Mezei
Post by Roland Perry
As a random data-point, of AA's 14 transatlantic flights from London
Heathrow today, only one is operated by a 757 (to Boston, which also the
shortest route). The remainder are split fairly evenly between 777 and
767.
On the other hand, both their flights from Manchester are 757's.
It is a given that AA will get rid of all their 757s, or is it possible
that they might keep a couple for a few specific routes where loads
don't warrant a 787 ?
It rarely makes economic sense to retain a small fleet. UA has an
amazing number of small sub-fleets, and about all it does is give the
schedulers and maintenance headaches. I suspect AA will cease to be a
757 operator. None of the AA 757's are exactly 'young'...
Post by JF Mezei
Based on what I read, AA ordered 787-9s. If the needed to replace some
757s, shouldn't AA also have ordered a few smaller 787-8s for such routes ?
Perhaps, but it is pretty clear at this point that the 787-8 is
seriously overweight and seriously underperforming. The aircraft that
is likely to be very interesting on the Atlantic is the 787-10. I have
long believed the question isn't if Boeing will build the 787-10, it
is when. Unfortunately the 787-10 is going to need a largely new
engine, and I suspect neither RR or GE are real interested in making
that investment until they start to see some return on the existing
787 power plants.

The engine situation on the A350-1000 has become a major issue for
several customers. Basically the A350-1000 has had enormous growth in
both OEW and MGTOW, and the originally annouced engines are no longer
even close to adequate. While RR claims to finessed the problem, the
proposed Trent XWB for the -1000 isn't making customers jump for joy.
Many consider the -1000 to be significantly underpowered, and the loss
of commonality with the other XWB engines means increased costs of
ownership. My thumbnail says EK won't be able to operate the A350-1000
with the currently proposed engines out of DXB in the summer months
without a very serious TOW hit.
Post by JF Mezei
Ir does AA expect the 737 to eventually have the range needed to replace
the 757 ? With the re-engined 737s, is it possible that they will get
the range needed for such routes ?
Not likely. The A320NEO gained only about 10% in range. That means
they will be able to fly the A320/A321NEO to Hawaii from the West
Coast. Part of fuel economy gain is offset by the higher OEW. The
engines and nacelles for the NEO weigh considerably more than the
engines and nacelles they replace.

So I would be surprised if any 737max other than the -700ER version
will have transtlantic range, and even that is likely to be marginal.
Post by JF Mezei
Or is there the expectation that the 787-9 will be sufficiently more
fuel efficient compared to the 757 that it will be able to profitably
operate routes that only need 757 passenger loads ?
The 757 is a unique aircraft. It has an unusually low dead weight per
seat compared to all other aircraft with comparable range.
Fuel burn is essentially directly proportional to weight. The result
is the 757 has very attractive ASM costs on transatlantic missions.
Post by JF Mezei
Or is there there the expectation that AA and BA will finally be allowed
to code share on trans atlantic and thin flights such as MAN-JFK will
then have sufficient loads to justify 787 service ?
You can almost always fill the seats on the aircraft it you make the
ticket price low enough. So the real question isn't whether or not you
can generate sufficient loads. You always can. The question is what
sort of RPM yield can you get at those loads.
Post by JF Mezei
With AA now "poor","broke","bankrupt" and in 3rd place after the mega
mergers of Delta-NW and United-Co, are the odds of AA-BA getting
antitrust to allow code sharing much higher ? Could this be achieved
during bankrupcy proceeding ?
I don't think Bankruptcy has anything to do with that question. The
more interesting question is whether or not it might result in
changing the rules on foreign ownership of US flag carriers. I.E. does
BA/IB end up owning a significant portion of AA.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...