So AMR says it will explore merger opportunities as part of its bankruptcy process.
The choices of potential partners are odd, indeed. According to The Wall Street Journal, AMR’s choices for a potential combination with American Airlines are US Airways, JetBlue, Alaska Air Group, Republic Airways Holdings’s Frontier Airlines, and Virgin America.
The Wall Street Journal notes: Besides US Airways, none of the others has publicly expressed a desire to merge with American. JetBlue and Alaska Air have indicated they prefer to remain independent, and people familiar with closely held Virgin America also said the company isn’t interested. Asked about that, Mr. Horton said: “If somebody’s not interested, they’re not interested.”
The choices, aside from US Airways, are pretty goofy. None is a network carrier that would add a system to American. JetBlue and Alaska Airlines would certainly beef up the East and West coasts, respectively, where American is weak. JetBlue would add strength to American’s JFK international hub. But neither brings a network to the airline.
Frontier Airlines and Virgin America wouldn’t bring even the attributes offered by JetBlue and Alaska. Frontier’s Denver hub competes with United Airlines and Southwest Airlines. Does American really want to get into this fight? We think not.
Virgin America, which regularly posts huge losses, isn’t strong in San Francisco where it is based and neither is American. We don’t understand why this airline is even mentioned.
The only airline that makes sense for consideration among those mentioned is US Airways. US Airways has a network, strong East Coast presence, and a sharp management, which wants to be in control and this seems to be the biggest obstacle for the AMR/American management.
And it only makes sense for the US Airways management to be the surviving one.
Aspire Aviation has another long piece analyzing the two airplanes.
Aerotubropower takes issue with some of Aspire’s analysis in this piece. Aeroturbopower cites publicly available information from Turkish Airlines that is particularly noteworthy in the debate between Airbus and Boeing about the A320 v 737.
The Wall Street Journal reported late today that COPA, Aeromexico and GOL are lining up for the Boenig 737 MAX.
The WSJ article is subscription-only but perhaps it will show up on Google News, as some do.
COPA was one of the original airline “commitments” for the MAX last year, which we reported. We reported that Aeromexico had been expected to announce MAX and 787 orders at the Farnborough Air Show, as its absence was a disappointment to expectations.
GOL, of Brazil, is a long-standing 737 operator but Airbus made a strong push to win this business.
The Seattle Times reported that United Airlines, which last week announced orders for 100 MAXes and 50 737-900ERs, has options that could mean 310 orders from Boeing. United also settled its compensation issues with Boeing over the 787 delays.
US Airways CEO Doug Parker spoke today on the effort to merge with American Airlines and of industry conditions.
This is a running tally of the comments and Q&A.
Parker:
737 MAX: Boeing Frontiers Magazine has a long article with lots of pictures describing the designing process of the Advanced Technology Winglets.
RR-PW on big engines: Aviation Week has this article speculating on the prospect of Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney teaming to offer an engine for the Boeing 777X.
CFM says the use of advanced materials will reduce fuel consumption in the LEAP-1A (Airbus) engine by 1.5%, which happens to be the amount John Leahy of Airbus said that PW’s GTF has an advantage over LEAP.
Press conference
Jeff Smisek, CEO United
Jim McNerney, CEO The Boeing Co.
Boeing Photo.
Ray Conner, President Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Q&A:
Smisek:
Few little activity today.
Orders today
Airbus: CIT Aerospace, 10 A330 (five previously undisclosed); China Aircraft Leasing, 28 A320ceo, 8 A321ceo–MOU.
Boeing: Avolon (lessors), commitment for 20 737 MAX 8/9 and 10 737-800s. The MAXes are part of the previously announced 1,000 Orders and Commitments, so this portion is not new, but rather a public disclosure.
ATR: Nordic Aviation, one ATR 42-600; Air Lease Corp., two ATR 72-600s; LAO Airlines, two ATR 72-600s, TransAsia, six ATR 76-600s.
Mitsubishi: SkyWest Airlines, LOI for 100 MRJs
CFM: Juneyao Airlines (China), CFM56 for five A321s; Aviation Capital Group, LEAP-1A for 18 A320neo family.
Pratt & Whitney: Finalize previously announced engine selection for GTF for 40 A320neo.
Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times has this story in which he has the following observation:
Wyse revealed that Boeing, through structural efficiencies, has also beefed up the allowed maximum take-off weights for the three MAX variants.
Each is 5,000 to 7,000 lbs heavier than the maximum take-off weights of the current 737s.
That means each 737 MAX model, even though heavier than the corresponding current model of the 737NG, can either carry a heavier payload or carry more fuel and so fly farther.
This is good. But we’re hearing from airlines that runway performance may be worse than the 737NG. The airplane is heavier but the wing is the same and the engine thrust is still somewhat of a mystery. CFM International, maker of the LEAP-1B that will power the MAX, lists thrust on its website of 20,000-28,000 lbs without identifying the sub-types and thrust to which the engines will be applied.
These thrust ratings are similar to those now on the NG, rather than being increased to compensate for the increased weight.
One airline tells us that runway performance for the -8 MAX and -9 MAX is longer than the -800 and -900. (The airline is not considering the -7 MAX and doesn’t have the -700.) This, the airline tells us, makes the airplanes problematic at some airports it serves.
This illustrates the dilemma Boeing and CFM have with the physically-constrained 737. CFM could build any engine it wants that would get the job done. It has, after all, two LEAP engines in development for the COMAC C919 and the Airbus A320neo. But the 737 presents special challenges and CFM is constrained unless Boeing lifts the entire airplane with new main gear. But this would mean a new wing box and associated structural changes, adding significantly to the cost. And Boeing won’t to this.
There’s still a lot about MAX we don’t know. And many customers are also waiting for the information.