Airline Fleet/Management in a crisis

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by 4WD
Seems my first of many was a brand new United B777 in the mid 90's … they have been around a while …
My February flight from NRT on UAL was soooo much nicer …
My last on a Delta B777 was the Johannesburg to Atlanta long haul … nice, but way long flight …

Well, a true game changer aircraft that does not fit their current game plan …



I've been on a number of 777 flights. I liked the ones with 3-3-3 seating. United decided to be different and had a 2-5-2 layout. Unfortunately I had the aisle seat in the middle row and kept getting bumped and when someone wanted in the overhead bin I just got up. Not sure why they did that but I heard it was for faster boarding. (?)

With the new 777X coming out it will be interesting how the demand for that aircraft will be affected by all of this going forward?

I love 777, but always tried to avoid UAL 777 due to seat configuration. Once LH bumped me from their cancelled flight to UAL from FRA to ORD, and it was underwhelming experience at best.

 

[4WD]

Yeah … they went through many seating configurations since the merger … but Smisek started reshaping them along the lines of CO and two class cabins. While my first 777 was UA … a huge portion were CO before the merger. Being I start in Houston, it's going to be UA, BA, LH for 60% of flights … but have taken them all.

To me, the worst flights are the L shaped trips … so will be interesting to see (behind the crisis) how hubs get reshaped …

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Yeah … they went through many seating configurations since the merger … but Smisek started reshaping them along the lines of CO and two class cabins. While my first 777 was UA … a huge portion were CO before the merger. Being I start in Houston, it's going to be UA, BA, LH for 60% of flights … but have taken them all.

To me, the worst flights are the L shaped trips … so will be interesting to see (behind the crisis) how hubs get reshaped …

A lot of direct flights won't be back for some time. Yesterday I supposed to be on LH from DEN to MUC on A350, but now I doubt that connection will be back for next 3-5 years. DEN had 2 daily flights to FRA, two to LHR, one to MUC, I think next year or two it will be one to FRA and one to LHR. Since some of my connections depend on MUC, I think it will be COS to ORD and then MUC, or EWR, though I am trying to avoid EWR at all cost (no offense Astro).

 

[Astro14]

LOL - I would avoid EWR at all costs, too!

It's constrained by the inability to add concrete, and the difficulty of NYC Air Traffic management. It's one of the worst airports in the country for delays.

But it's where I'm based, so...

 

[4WD]

I used to connect there headed to Newfoundland … was actually better than Pearson for me …

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by Astro14
The conundrum is this: to what degree do we want foreign governments to choose our airlines for us?

No airline can survive this revenue climate without government help.

So, the airlines that get that help may (not certainly, but may) survive.

The airlines that don't get that help will certainly fail and cease to exist. It takes decades to start and grow an airline into anything more than a niche. And that requires a great deal of financial leverage, even used airplanes aren't cheap.

Since foreign governments own and support their airlines, would we be best served by letting those carriers take over our air travel industry?

If they won by government action, and not by safety record, or service, or efficiency, would that make sense?

It doesn't to me...


Astro14, I believe there are certain industries that must be maintained at any cost. The reason for this boils down to security, as it's impossible to start up those industries quickly, when they are needed. In fact, it may not be possible at all given a year or two.

I give the semi-fictitious example of copper pipe (but feel free to insert any commonly used product) . We can purchase it from elsewhere. But when we don't make our own, and circumstances require it's use, we are then in trouble. As the copper mines have all been shut down, The digging machines are no longer made, the experienced and knowledgeable labor force is long since gone, the mining land has a housing development on it, the smelting plants are gone, as are the alloying materials suppliers, the big rollers heaters and forming machinery has been recycled and quite simply, "it ain't comin' back" in any meaningful form. Result=disaster.

You and I are both acutely aware of the necessity of aviation in all it's forms. We cannot afford to lose our global lead in the one remaining industry in which we truly excel. We've already let many aircraft manufacturers go by the wayside. We must stop the losses and concentrate on recovery. Even if that requires a large number of unusual solutions and possibly even unusual uses for our fleet.

EDIT: Our way of life can tolerate a shortage of chicken, or a shortage of disinfectant. But when our society is missing every last thing that makes our way of life possible, our standard of living will follow a well known trend downward into the abyss.

 

[c502cid]

Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
every year I fly to vegas for SEMA. This year, drive out IF they even have it.

It is HUGE money. But if canceled, nothing I can do. I could ride, but for work event, they want us to drive in the company car or truck, worried about workman's comp.

Rod


Official word SEMA is on unless government says it isn't. Just heard last week. Have a few members of our company on the board and on committees. I'm close enough to drive anyhow.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Astro14
The conundrum is this: to what degree do we want foreign governments to choose our airlines for us?

No airline can survive this revenue climate without government help.

So, the airlines that get that help may (not certainly, but may) survive.

The airlines that don't get that help will certainly fail and cease to exist. It takes decades to start and grow an airline into anything more than a niche. And that requires a great deal of financial leverage, even used airplanes aren't cheap.

Since foreign governments own and support their airlines, would we be best served by letting those carriers take over our air travel industry?

If they won by government action, and not by safety record, or service, or efficiency, would that make sense?

It doesn't to me...


Astro14, I believe there are certain industries that must be maintained at any cost. The reason for this boils down to security, as it's impossible to start up those industries quickly, when they are needed. In fact, it may not be possible at all given a year or two.

I give the semi-fictitious example of copper pipe (but feel free to insert any commonly used product) . We can purchase it from elsewhere. But when we don't make our own, and circumstances require it's use, we are then in trouble. As the copper mines have all been shut down, The digging machines are no longer made, the experienced and knowledgeable labor force is long since gone, the mining land has a housing development on it, the smelting plants are gone, as are the alloying materials suppliers, the big rollers heaters and forming machinery has been recycled and quite simply, "it ain't comin' back" in any meaningful form. Result=disaster.

You and I are both acutely aware of the necessity of aviation in all it's forms. We cannot afford to lose our global lead in the one remaining industry in which we truly excel. We've already let many aircraft manufacturers go by the wayside. We must stop the losses and concentrate on recovery. Even if that requires a large number of unusual solutions and possibly even unusual uses for our fleet.

EDIT: Our way of life can tolerate a shortage of chicken, or a shortage of disinfectant. But when our society is missing every last thing that makes our way of life possible, our standard of living will follow a well known trend downward into the abyss.

Not that I disagree ( and we could definiately have a discussion in what order of importance is aviation), but I am wondering how this country survived until the age of aviation if this is industry that actually made American way of life possible?
By the way, food supply, and with that chicken too, is more important than aviation.

 

[JustN89]

American recently announced a 30% reduction of Management and Support staff. Impacted employees will be informed in July and paid through September.

 

[Astro14]

American and Delta have both made huge, permanent reductions in their fleets.

They are parking them permanently to realize the immediate maintenance cost savings on preserving them.

This is the inevitable result of those previous, public fleet decisions.

While difficult for those employees, it's not a surprise.

 

[Mr Nice]

Astro14,

Would you accept an early retirement package if offered ?

I know American was offering their pilots a package if they were over a certain age and __ years of service.

 

[Astro14]

It would depend on what they offered.

Recall from earlier posts that my pension was liquidated in the 2003 bankruptcy. I do not get a pension.

So, "early retirement" sounds a lot like, "go home with no pay"...which isn't at all attractive. American pilots are in the same boat. No pension. So, not really an "early retirement".

The package would have to include some kind of pay that takes me through the rest of my my working years. American offered their pilots about 65% of their normal pay if they went home. I would consider such an offer, though it's not particularly attractive. The money offered by American was a percentage of their pay until they reached retirement age (65) and then - nothing.

Think about this from a company perspective, however. I'm going to pay labor 2/3 of what they normally make, and they never come to work.

You mentioned bankruptcy earlier - unsecured creditors would be the very first to be cut off...and where does that leave our "early retirement" pilots? at home, without the ability to come back to work, and the money stops.

You advocated bankruptcy earlier. Said it would be necessary, and good, IIRC.

How can you not see that this kind of move - paying employees to not work - will help drive a company into bankruptcy, and then those employees will get nothing.

 

[Mr Nice]

I did suggest bankruptcy, I also suggested Uncle Sam help the airlines stay afloat and with strings attached.

Obviously there will be necessary job cuts to trim their payroll. Lots of folks have already worked their last day with employer and just do not know it yet.

The very last thing I would want is for the airline executives to make a run on the company coffers and get multi million dollars bonuses before the airline permanently goes out of business..... similar to Toys R Us.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
I did suggest bankruptcy, I also suggested Uncle Sam help the airlines stay afloat and with strings attached.


I'm glad Boeing said "No" to that, at least at this point in time.

 

[DeepFriar]

I confess to not having read this entire thread but a thought occurred to me. *Fleet Management* in the case of this situation we are in is going to include an overabundance of usable turbine engines. There is apparently going to be a mass retirement of aircraft as the industry slowly recovers and evolves. There appears to be no way the airlines can continue owning and operating hundreds, perhaps thousands, of turbine aircraft that would otherwise be underutilized and taking up space. The most valuable part of these older (and it will be the older, less fuel efficient units tyat are retired first) is, and always has been, the engines. There are obvious knock-on effects of having so many surplus engines and parts becoming available but I have a different question. Question - is there a way for some portion of those turbines specifically that could be repurposed as say, power generation? Or running giant irrigation projects? Or ?? I look at it a little like the situation after WWII when there was a sudden excess of DC-3's for instance. And due to its low price that opened a lot of new opportunities. Maybe it will happen again in some form. Perhaps not with complete aircraft as with the DC-3 but there is going to be a huge supply of certified used parts for various aircraft systems but it's the engines that capture my imagination. Am I simply smoking something funny or is my quaratine-addled brain seeing things that aren't there? Shannow, you out there? Others?

 

[fdcg27]

You make a very good point in that there will be plenty of serviceable gas turbines in the boneyards that could be repurposed.
OTOH, there will be plenty of complete aircraft available as well as many now displaced pilots to crew them.
A new LCC venture?
Not so much in the single aisle realm, since most of those being retired are either beyond saving as types, like the retiring Delta MDs or are only being retired as they need seven figure heavy maintenance.
Widebodies are a different story entirely. Lots of nicely finished twin aisles heading for the desert as well as even more that lessors will be stuck with as their operators cease trading. This will also make available a significant cohort of qualified pilots with nowhere else to go and few options outside the cockpit.
There may be some interesting opportunities over the next five years or so for those willing to extend the capital and take the risk.
There was a glut of twin aisles pre-crisis. There's a tsunami of surplus to requirements ones now.
Who will be bold enough to operate the young A380s now coming onto the secondary market?

 

[PimTac]

The A380s were already headed for the desert long before the crisis. That just accelerated the move.

 

[4WD]

Aircraft derivative GTG's are used on cruise ships, oh wait - never mind …

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by PimTac
The A380s were already headed for the desert long before the crisis. That just accelerated the move.


Every type has the desert as its ultimate destination.
There were carriers that could make the A380 work well for them and there were others that took delivery that couldn't.
Imagine one of these bad boys with seats for about 80% of the aircraft's evacuation limit flown on medium range leisure routes, like EU to the Caribbean or MCO. Really low CASM and the operator wouldn't need to fly a lot of hours to make what would be a cheap frame pay.
What about the airports?
Well, if they could handle a B747 they can handle an A380.
Anyway, there are lots of serviceable smaller twin aisle twins hitting the resale market ATM along with some almost new frames from now bankrupt carriers that lessors are anxious to place even with only very low lease rates.
A little cash income on an owned asset beats none.
My point was that there may be an opportunity here that hasn't been there for decades and will likely not come again for decades more.
Lots of serviceable big boys and crews just looking for a home.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by PimTac
The A380s were already headed for the desert long before the crisis. That just accelerated the move.


Every type has the desert as its ultimate destination.
There were carriers that could make the A380 work well for them and there were others that took delivery that couldn't.
Imagine one of these bad boys with seats for about 80% of the aircraft's evacuation limit flown on medium range leisure routes, like EU to the Caribbean or MCO. Really low CASM and the operator wouldn't need to fly a lot of hours to make what would be a cheap frame pay.
What about the airports?
Well, if they could handle a B747 they can handle an A380.
Anyway, there are lots of serviceable smaller twin aisle twins hitting the resale market ATM along with some almost new frames from now bankrupt carriers that lessors are anxious to place even with only very low lease rates.
A little cash income on an owned asset beats none.
My point was that there may be an opportunity here that hasn't been there for decades and will likely not come again for decades more.
Lots of serviceable big boys and crews just looking for a home.




A number of airlines bought the A380 as a ego flagship so to speak. They are also the first to get rid of them. Thai and Malaysia are two examples.

As for airports, a lot of airports can handle 747s but not 380s. A side effect of this are the airports that recently spent huge amounts of money to upgrade in order to handle the whales and now they won't be showing up.

Also, I have read that they are not suitable for repurposing to freighter status. That's a real shame if true. The 747 can do that.