Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

US Airways: No Immediate Plans To Cut More 737s From Fleet

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

weasel_lips

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Posts
474
US Airways: No Immediate Plans To Cut More 737s From Fleet

June 06, 2008: 03:35 PM EST

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
US Airways Group Inc. (LCC) - the last holdout in the industry's efforts to rid itself of one type of fuel-guzzling planes - said it has no immediate plans to cut more Boeing Co. (BA) 737 models from its fleet.
Flight Global's aviation blog said Friday that US Airways - the No. 7 airline by passenger traffic - is the last big player to use the less fuel-efficient Boeing 737-300, -400 and -500 models. "They are not only too old, too slow and too small to make money, but in today's fuel-price environment, they're just too thirsty," the blog said.
US Airways, which leases 95% of its planes, announced plans in April to return six Boeing 737-300 aircraft upon lease expiration in 2008 and early 2009, but said it doesn't have immediate plans to remove all 81 of its 737-300 and 737-400 aircraft from its fleet.
"(Getting rid of 737s) depends on the lease agreements we have in place," said Philip Gee, a spokesperson for US Airways. "It's not always as simple as just returning a plan. A lot of it depends on the lessor."
US Airways shares were recently down 28 cents, or 6.3%, at $4.14.
JPMorgan analyst Jamie Baker said US Airways' pilots' contract prevents it from shrinking its fleet as much as other airlines.
"US Airways is more dependent on 737 classics than either Continental or United are," he added. "Also - on the subject of downsizing - there are comparatively few contractual impediments for United and Continental in reducing their fleet. However, in the case of US Air, their pilot contract does stipulate a minimum fleet size to which the company is already fairly close."
Gee said the fleet can only shrink to 332 aircraft. "To make things more complicated, 19 of those planes, which are Embraer 190s, don't count against the 332 minimum number, so technically, we could go to 313," he said.
US Airways said it currently has a fleet of 357 aircraft, with 41 737-300s and 40 400s - 23% of its fleet. The company currently has no plans to lease newer- generation 737s but signed a contract last June to acquire 92 Airbus models. US Airways currently has 205 Airbus planes in its fleet and 19 Embraer 190 models.
On Thursday, Continental Airlines Inc. (CAL) - the No. 4 carrier - announced plans to retire 67 of its Boeing 737-300s and -500s, leaving it with no -300s by the end of 2009.
"Continental's greatest hedge against rising fuel is its fuel-efficient fleet, " said Continental spokesperson Julie King. "We are 35% more fuel efficient than we were 10 years ago. That's even going to get better because what we're doing is accelerating the retirement of the older, less efficient 737 classics and getting rid of a total of 73 of those."
On Wednesday, UAL Corp.'s (UAUA) United Airlines unit - the No. 2 airline - reported plans to remove a total of 100 aircraft from its mainline fleet, including all 94 of its Boeing 737s.
-By Shara Tibken, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2168; [email protected]
(END) Dow Jones Newswires 06-06-08 1535ET Copyright (c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
 
........For today
 
They aren't cutting aircraft because they can't. Either because of the lessors or the TA's minimum aircraft number. Once the company goes into bankruptcy though everything goes out the window. $2.5 billion cash at a burn rate of $300 mil a quarter. That probably means a few furloughs in Jan. with massive cuts come the end of next year. Just a guess of course. Merry Christmas 2009.
 
"To make things more complicated, 19 of those planes, which are Embraer 190s, don't count against the 332 minimum number, so technically, we could go to 313," he said."

correct me if I'm wrong but would it be the other way wrt the 190's not counting twards the min fleet?

220 was the east min fleet and I guess they get the 332 from the combined east west (first time I've seen the 332 number). Anyway the 190's not counting twards the min fleet means that the AB/boeing fleet has to be 220 east or 332 (this new combined number) then Add the 190's of which we will have 25 by year end (dec 2008).

so the east min fleet is really 220+25 (year end) = 245 or 332+25=357 (again year end). At basically 13.7 pilots per airplane the staffing is:

east 245X13.7 = 3356 (we have 3620 on the list as of last bid. if you take off medicals/instructors/mil leaves its about 2800 flying positions - which is where we are staffed on the east)

east/west using the 357 number is 13.7X357=4891 which is slightly less than the number I saw on the combined list which accounts for leaves stated above

thus - if we only get rid of the planes they have planned for and get the 190's (25) plus the AB that are on order I think we will be fine interms of staffing (knock on wood - tossing salt over my shoulder - rubbing the rabbits foot, ect.).

However toss in a merger or added fleet reduction as oil passes 150 and marches to 200 then all bets are off and thoes of us in the bottom 500-700 of the pilot list (remaining 737's) will get the F word for about 2.5 years until 65 and an oil recovery kicks in.

just my gut feeling combined with the fleet and staffing numbers I've seen/benn told.
 
Last edited:
also look for more "fleet" type info on the 11th (6/11) as that is the share holder meeting or whatever its called. May still announce some kind of fleet reduction plan or shake-up then. Although I'm praying the Dow Jones article holds.
 
It's impossible to do any kind of short, medium or long range business planning in this kind of economic environment. The speculators and leverage bankers are jacking the economy and everyone else all over the map.

That USAir statement was rendered obsolete by the time it hit the news wires Friday by a move in oil prices that occurred in less that 36 hours.
 
is the last big player to use the less fuel-efficient Boeing 737-300, -400 and -500 models. "They are not only too old, too slow and too small to make money, but in today's fuel-price environment, they're just too thirsty," the blog said.

Ya, we haven't had any luck with that rotten 737.
 
At basically 13.7 pilots per airplane the staffing is:

east 245X13.7 = 3356 (we have 3620 on the list as of last bid. if you take off medicals/instructors/mil leaves its about 2800 flying positions - which is where we are staffed on the east)

east/west using the 357 number is 13.7X357=4891 which is slightly less than the number I saw on the combined list which accounts for leaves stated above

thus - if we only get rid of the planes they have planned for and get the 190's (25) plus the AB that are on order I think we will be fine interms of staffing (knock on wood - tossing salt over my shoulder - rubbing the rabbits foot, ect.).

13.7 pilots per plane is where the reduction will come from not from the fleet. Use 11 pilots per plane and go from there.
 
"...correct me if I'm wrong but would it be the other way wrt the 190's not counting towards the min fleet?"

I would think he was either misquoted or misspoke. The 190's are flown by mainline, so they very likely count. That's the whole idea, replace 73's w/190's. Could never do that if they didn't count.
 
"...correct me if I'm wrong but would it be the other way wrt the 190's not counting towards the min fleet?"

I would think he was either misquoted or misspoke. The 190's are flown by mainline, so they very likely count. That's the whole idea, replace 73's w/190's. Could never do that if they didn't count.


Actually, there was no mistake. The contract clearly defines a minimum fleet and the 190's clearly do NOT count towards that number...

Of course if there is another BK, then all bets are off....
 
How does everyone feel that after 55% paycuts and loss of pensions, your companies are NO BETTER OFF than they were? All your sacrifices went to exxon and shell and ceo's. Any lessons learned?
 
Actually, there was no mistake. The contract clearly defines a minimum fleet and the 190's clearly do NOT count towards that number...

Of course if there is another BK, then all bets are off....

guess I'm just stupid but the way I read it - if the 190's don't count twards that 220 number then the mainline min fleet is 220 airbus and boeing.

atleast thats the way I worded my questions wrt to fleet size in indoc talking to the clt CP. Also I asked DC several questions using 245 (220+25) as a fleet size and he never corrected me.

I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right but all along I've been thinking its the way I explained it.

If it is what your saying then I'd be willing to bet we will be on the street by some time this fall/winter.
 
All your sacrifices went to exxon and shell and ceo's.

I didn't.

But to be clear, let's not limit it to CEO's. I personally know more than a few that benefitted greatly from AA's 'management retention program'.

You chose to gut your own career to save your seniority- but meanwhile it's still a huge problem for us all in it's current form.... and now guess what? We are still floundering. Still doing the job for sh!t wages and still fighting among ourselves more than anything.

Seriously, ANY lessons learned?
 
Also, maybe they are keeping what they have because they can't secure financing for the replacements.

US has 92 new airbus on order along with whatevers left of America Wests original order for 32 new 320s. As far as replacement aircraft go US is positioned better than most.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top