Apologies if this has previously been discussed.

Now that the ariline industry is turning around and US is starting to recover from its woes, does anyone want to take a gander as to when Tempe will replace these clunkers, many which are more than 20 yrs. old and fairly fuel inefficient? I think the older 737s (300s) are really showing there age. And of course many folks have indicated their dislike of the 757s. Additionally, so much of the LCC competition is flying relatively new aircraft (Air Tran, JetBlue, ATA) and Southwest has converted over half its fleet to the 737-700 and counting. Spirit seems to be moving to all new Airbii as is Midwest moving to new Boeing 717s.

At least HP finally did away with those aweful 737-200s. Since the "soft" order from US of the Airbus A350 (and the Airbus merger financing), I would imagine US is totally commited to an all Airbus fleet. Does anyone think this (elimination of the older Boeings) will happen in the next five years? of course it takes several years to deliver an AC from Boeing or Airbus.

The first step is US will receive 2 E-190s in November and one each month after that, they will be mainline and will replace some of the 737s. I expect it will be late 2006 or early 2007 before we know anymore about the Airbus. I think the 757s are here for several more years as there is no good replacement, the A-321 cannot do the same distance mainly the thin routes to Europe.

If they do get any new planes, I hope they have the overheads spec'ed at 19.999999 inches and allow the carryon limit of 20.000001 inches. I love that 2 bags fit above 4 F seats, or worse, 6 coach seats!

The 737s are all definitely going away in the long term, but to replace them is going to require a serious acquisition of new aircraft - there are 110 733s and 734s in the combined fleet. Expect them to stick around for a while.

Just last week I found out that the two bankruptcies have not resulted in all the airbus orders being cancelled. There are 19 planes still on back order deferred to about 2009.

13 airbus 321s and 6 320s.

If the tempe management was interested in changing the order they would have restructured it as a part of the 350 order.

Just last week I found out that the two bankruptcies have not resulted in all the airbus orders being cancelled. There are 19 planes still on back order deferred to about 2009.

13 airbus 321s and 6 320s.

If the tempe management was interested in changing the order they would have restructured it as a part of the 350 order.


This might be a stupid question, but does anyone else find it ironic that a company called U.S. Airways keeps buying planes that aren't made in the U.S.?

This might be a stupid question, but does anyone else find it ironic that a company called U.S. Airways keeps buying planes that aren't made in the U.S.?


Not really.

No more so than British Airways flying a fleet of Boeing 747-400s, or All Nippon Airways being the launch customer for the Boeing 787.

Globalization, baby.

That is a stupid comment, Greg. Isnt redding the city that the Office is set in? Have you missed the last 40 years of globalization?

This might be a stupid question, but does anyone else find it ironic that a company called U.S. Airways keeps buying planes that aren't made in the U.S.?

The Honda Accord has more dometic content than a Ford F150 these days, and the majority of Boeing 777 parts (including small things like the wings and rudder) are made outside of the US.

Your point?

The 737s are all definitely going away in the long term, but to replace them is going to require a serious acquisition of new aircraft - there are 110 733s and 734s in the combined fleet. Expect them to stick around for a while.

I didn't realize there were still so many in the merged fleet. As much as a fuel guzzler as these are, and with the recent spike in fuel prices-which has no signs of abating, one would think that replacing these would be high on the priority list. Southwest is lobbying Boeing to develop a fuel efficient next gen 737 (using 787 technology) so WN won't have to switch their (1) aircraft type for years to come.

As US legacy carriers have some of the oldest fleets outside of the 3rd world (and older than many of those), it seems like a major competative advantage both asthetically and economically for US to stay ahead (or at least keep up). Continental seems to be the most proactive US legacy carrier in terms of upgrading their fleet. They are (AFAIK) the only US carrier to have ordered the 787.

IIRC, the 737 classics (734/733/735) are roughly on par with the Airbii in terms of CASM, so efficiency may not be a terribly big issue for them.

Of course, I could be wrong....

Continental seems to be the most proactive US legacy carrier in terms of upgrading their fleet. They are (AFAIK) the only US carrier to have ordered the 787.


NW has placed a substantial order.

This might be a stupid question, but does anyone else find it ironic that a company called U.S. Airways keeps buying planes that aren't made in the U.S.?

No. And, in a globalised economy, since you mention it; yes, it is a stupid question. Is it ironic that most of British Airways' intercontinental fleet is Boeing? No. Next question?

That is a stupid comment, Greg. Isnt redding the city that the Office is set in? Have you missed the last 40 years of globalization?

Actually, that's Scranton PA where "The Office" is set. A bit north of here but I get your point.

FWIW, I didn't say it was wrong to buy aircraft that are not manufactured here. That's debatable. I said it was ironic. I still think it is.

I really do not think so anymore. The United States always was one to talk the talk of "Built in America" or "America Jobs" or "America First", but will always choose to spend $9.99 for a shirt from China or South America vs $15.00 from the USA. It is the way we are. We complain about globalization but we want cheap goods.

So, I think it is quite fitting that the US buys the cheapest aircraft it can get.. being it made in the US or Airbus. Working for a supplier to the Aerospace industry, I can assure you that the subsystems of most aircrafts are pretty international in content. I know my company supplies to both Boeing and Airbus (and we are a US based company).

FWIW, I didn't say it was wrong to buy aircraft that are not manufactured here. That's debatable. I said it was ironic. I still think it is.

Is it ironic that Northwest has planes not made in the NW? Also by your logic, the same can be said for Southwest too. Last I checked, none of the Boeings they fly are manufactured in the Southwest.

What's debatable about buying equipment that's not manufactured in our own country - especially when both Boeings and Airbuses incorporate parts from all over the world INCLUDING the US. Both companies employ workers in the US and abroad. Where do YOU draw the line, Greg?

We could put up a big wall around our entire country (something many seem to want to do) and just close our eyes to the rest of the world. But then who would that really benefit? Definitely not the people living inside the walls...........