A bleak map in VIA's Annual Report

[railiner]

AA's financial woes are about over, as it is coming out of bankruptcy, and will soon be combined with US Airways, whose stockholders just approved the merger.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

AA's financial woes are about over, as it is coming out of bankruptcy, and will soon be combined with US Airways, whose stockholders just approved the merger.

That's good, but their new livery is a terrible disgrace IMO. They should have kept their old bare-metal livery, it looked splendid on the 762, 763, and 77E, maybe not so much on the smaller planes. They must've thought it would look bad on the new Airbuses and the 77W.

 

[railiner]

AA's financial woes are about over, as it is coming out of bankruptcy, and will soon be combined with US Airways, whose stockholders just approved the merger.

That's good, but their new livery is a terrible disgrace IMO. They should have kept their old bare-metal livery, it looked splendid on the 762, 763, and 77E, maybe not so much on the smaller planes. They must've thought it would look bad on the new Airbuses and the 77W.

I totally agree....the old look, with highly polished bare aluminum has been around so long, is so well recognized, that it is iconic. And AA founder C R Smith used to tell how it saved not only on painting costs, but over the entire fleet, save millions in annual fuel costs, due to not carry several hundred pounds of paint on the large aircraft.

Unfortunately the newer aircraft have composite skins, which do not look good unpainted, and I've heard actually must be painted for their protection.

However, I agree, the new design looks terrible, or more specifically the tail does. The rest of the fuselage isn't too bad. I would have preferred they just used a silver paint, and kept the old paint scheme entirely.

I believe part of the reason for the new design was to show them as "the New American Airlines", having come back from bankruptcy, pushed by their PR department....

Once their merger is complete with US Air, they will have an excuse and opportunity to modify and hopefully improve it .....

 

[johnny.menhennet]

If they would bring back the overnight New York-Niagara Falls- Toronto joint Amtrak/Via service, I am sure that it would do very well, and restore the second Niagara Falls-Toronto schedule as a result.
I don't recall the brief period it did run years back, and I am not even sure if it was a thru train like the Maple Leaf, or just a connection at Niagara Falls.

I am familiar with bus schedules, and the overnite buses on that ten to twelve hour trip (varies), arer far more popular overnite than all-day....

That's strange, I ride all day all the time. I can't imagine why people would like sleeping on abus better than just riding by day. I guess the overnight train would be good for some biz travellers, but I don't understand the bus...

People like sleeping away most of the ride to make it seem shorter. This is especially true on trips of this 500 mile length. They also like it because it saves them from paying for a night in a hotel. I know many disagree with this logic, but it is true nonetheless....

I try to avoid sleeping in seat as much as possible, so I guess these guys take their time more importantly than comfort.

Take a look at eastbound flights from the West Coast to the East Coast! I would venture to say 30-40% of them are red eyes, because the ability to try to sleep away the time, and not losing a day in travel are very important to a lot of people, not just business travelers. When I went to New Jersey last week, you betcha that my flight east was a red eye, and even though I was tired the next day, I got to spend a whole extra day with my best friend. Nothing else compares. In some markets, an overnight flight is the ONLY direct option. From San Diego to Miami, the only daily flight is a red eye, one of JetBlue's two to Boston is a redeye. One of US Airways' 3 to PHL is a redeye... the list goes on, but you get the point. It is a large market, and the ability to arrive in a destination without losing any time (get to airport [or in this case bus terminal] at 7-9 giving enuogh time for dinner and packing after a non-impacted day, and arrive between 5-7 in the morning, allowing for no wasted time there either).

I have to say that I would not fly on a red-eye if possible. I mostly fly intercontinenetal, and I like to choose a morning departure so that I don't have to sleep on the plane and save money with Economy Class,despite having to deal with jet lag.

BTW, why don't you fly out of LAX? You could take American Flagship or United PS. Those are pretty good, the Flagship is a nice 767. AA does have finalcial woes.

I entirely understand that red eye flights aren't for everyone, and I respect that, but I didn't take those airlines 1) driving an hour and a half (dont even get me started on the 405's traffic though) to LAX is either a waste of gas or fairly expensive on the train, when in 25 minutes I can already be in the security line at SAN from my house 2) the airfares were higher 3) my friend told me i could only stay 5 nights, if getting in in early morning hours means that night doesnt count and i get more time with her, that makes that option more attractive to me 4) the cost was unbeatable. I only booked the airfare a month out, and US Air going and Southwest coming back had airfare too low to resist. I, like yourself apparently, fly coach to save money, because these tickets were my birthday present. I will always find myself enjoying redeyes, but we're all entitled to our opinions

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

AA's financial woes are about over, as it is coming out of bankruptcy, and will soon be combined with US Airways, whose stockholders just approved the merger.

That's good, but their new livery is a terrible disgrace IMO. They should have kept their old bare-metal livery, it looked splendid on the 762, 763, and 77E, maybe not so much on the smaller planes. They must've thought it would look bad on the new Airbuses and the 77W.

I totally agree....the old look, with highly polished bare aluminum has been around so long, is so well recognized, that it is iconic. And AA founder C R Smith used to tell how it saved not only on painting costs, but over the entire fleet, save millions in annual fuel costs, due to not carry several hundred pounds of paint on the large aircraft.

Unfortunately the newer aircraft have composite skins, which do not look good unpainted, and I've heard actually must be painted for their protection.

However, I agree, the new design looks terrible, or more specifically the tail does. The rest of the fuselage isn't too bad. I would have preferred they just used a silver paint, and kept the old paint scheme entirely.

I believe part of the reason for the new design was to show them as "the New American Airlines", having come back from bankruptcy, pushed by their PR department....

Once their merger is complete with US Air, they will have an excuse and opportunity to modify and hopefully improve it .....

Which of the newer aircraft have composite skins? If the 777-200ER can fly bare-metal, then I'm sure the -300ER can as well. I'm not sure about the Airbus A320. They should have at least painted the silver section white, like they did with some leased planes before.

If they would bring back the overnight New York-Niagara Falls- Toronto joint Amtrak/Via service, I am sure that it would do very well, and restore the second Niagara Falls-Toronto schedule as a result.
I don't recall the brief period it did run years back, and I am not even sure if it was a thru train like the Maple Leaf, or just a connection at Niagara Falls.

I am familiar with bus schedules, and the overnite buses on that ten to twelve hour trip (varies), arer far more popular overnite than all-day....

That's strange, I ride all day all the time. I can't imagine why people would like sleeping on abus better than just riding by day. I guess the overnight train would be good for some biz travellers, but I don't understand the bus...

People like sleeping away most of the ride to make it seem shorter. This is especially true on trips of this 500 mile length. They also like it because it saves them from paying for a night in a hotel. I know many disagree with this logic, but it is true nonetheless....

I try to avoid sleeping in seat as much as possible, so I guess these guys take their time more importantly than comfort.

Take a look at eastbound flights from the West Coast to the East Coast! I would venture to say 30-40% of them are red eyes, because the ability to try to sleep away the time, and not losing a day in travel are very important to a lot of people, not just business travelers. When I went to New Jersey last week, you betcha that my flight east was a red eye, and even though I was tired the next day, I got to spend a whole extra day with my best friend. Nothing else compares. In some markets, an overnight flight is the ONLY direct option. From San Diego to Miami, the only daily flight is a red eye, one of JetBlue's two to Boston is a redeye. One of US Airways' 3 to PHL is a redeye... the list goes on, but you get the point. It is a large market, and the ability to arrive in a destination without losing any time (get to airport [or in this case bus terminal] at 7-9 giving enuogh time for dinner and packing after a non-impacted day, and arrive between 5-7 in the morning, allowing for no wasted time there either).

I have to say that I would not fly on a red-eye if possible. I mostly fly intercontinenetal, and I like to choose a morning departure so that I don't have to sleep on the plane and save money with Economy Class,despite having to deal with jet lag.

BTW, why don't you fly out of LAX? You could take American Flagship or United PS. Those are pretty good, the Flagship is a nice 767. AA does have financial woes.

I entirely understand that red eye flights aren't for everyone, and I respect that, but I didn't take those airlines 1) driving an hour and a half (dont even get me started on the 405's traffic though) to LAX is either a waste of gas or fairly expensive on the train, when in 25 minutes I can already be in the security line at SAN from my house 2) the airfares were higher 3) my friend told me i could only stay 5 nights, if getting in in early morning hours means that night doesnt count and i get more time with her, that makes that option more attractive to me 4) the cost was unbeatable. I only booked the airfare a month out, and US Air going and Southwest coming back had airfare too low to resist. I, like yourself apparently, fly coach to save money, because these tickets were my birthday present. I will always find myself enjoying redeyes, but we're all entitled to our opinions

Hmm, well, how do you deal with sleeping on those? I've always had more trouble sleeping on a plane than a bus or train for some reason.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Hmm, well, how do you deal with sleeping on those? I've always had more trouble sleeping on a plane than a bus or train for some reason

Well I mean it sucks, but you deal with it. You get 1-2 hours of sleep throughout the night, but it is not a big deal to me while I'm still young. I don't have any strategies other than have a window seat so you can lean against something. Even if it's stiff it's still better to lean your head on SOMETHING.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Hmm, well, how do you deal with sleeping on those? I've always had more trouble sleeping on a plane than a bus or train for some reason

Well I mean it sucks, but you deal with it. You get 1-2 hours of sleep throughout the night, but it is not a big deal to me while I'm still young. I don't have any strategies other than have a window seat so you can lean against something. Even if it's stiff it's still better to lean your head on SOMETHING.

I sure can't function on so little sleep. I remember some info somehwere that human sleep comes in 90-minute blocks, but I don't think a single 90-minute block is anywhere near enough. So, I assume you make up your sleep the next day? Wouldn't that make the red-eye pointless if you sleep during the day and lose time with friends anyway?

 

[railiner]

If you look at the 777, or for that matter, the newer 737's, in the old scheme, you will see that their tail section is painted a grey color in an attempt to match the rest of the aircraft's aluminum fuselage. The 787 is all composite. I don't think any airliner's have been all-aluminum since the '70's or '80's The last one being perhaps the DC-10...?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

If you look at the 777, or for that matter, the newer 737's, in the old scheme, you will see that their tail section is painted a grey color in an attempt to match the rest of the aircraft's aluminum fuselage. The 787 is all composite. I don't think any airliner's have been all-aluminum since the '70's or '80's The last one being perhaps the DC-10...?

Even on the old 741 that AA had a few of, they still had the grey tail. I think you are right, the DC-10 looks like the last AA with a silver tail.

 

[zephyr17]

Maybe they ought to use SP's old "Simulated Stainless Steel" paint job that SP used for their painted cars when they went to the standardized tomato stripe scheme :giggle:

 

[railiner]

There is some kind of finish for plastic that looks like stainless or aluminum, that has common use on some automobile's and other applications, but I don't know if it is suitable or usable on a composite aircraft skin.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The old livery is probably better for marketing purposes anyway, since it's so famous. Most of the travelling public probably don't even know that AA went bankrupt, or even if they did, I don't think the new livery will gain more revenue. They might as well use the white substitute for silver that was on the leased 741s from Pan Am.