urbanSTL

^Thanks for that. Great piece of information and I've added it to my calendar.

If I read it correctly, the linked schedule shows AA1010 into STL from DFW on the night of 9-3 and AA1999 departing the next morning bright and early. Don't know how much fanfare it will get, but I doubt it will leave entirely without ceremony. (Here's to hoping it will be one last ex TWA bird. Odds don't seem to bad of that, given what I see going in and out. I sometimes wonder if AA bought any of their own new. I know they did, but . . . you can't prove it from my spotting records.)

You're making me cry. I love those old birds. By far the best looking things in AA's entire fleet.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Make no mistake AA operated hundreds of Super 80s before the TWA transaction came to pass. The TWA MD-83s are the final frames built and many entered revenue service in 1998-1999, roughly the same age as the very first 737-800.

There are still nAAtive S80s in active revenue service:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n501aa


Also, for anyone interested here is report from 2009 when pre-merger United retired their final 737 Classic (300/400/500)

http://benairblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... t.html?m=1

UA following the CO merger acquired a large fleet of 737NG and now 737MAX aircraft. Would have been nice if AA did more to honor this aircrafts role across the network and the glory days of American Airlines 1980-2000.

^I know they actually had their own. It was irony, my friend, with a touch of sarcasm. (Since the planes really are rumored to be the biggest reason AA bought TWA. Buy a damaged airline cheap and get a bunch of planes at fire sale prices. Worry about what to do with the icky contracts later.) But in all seriousness I haven't spotted a "nAAtive" Mad Dog in St. Louis in I don't know how long. As you say, the TWA birds were newer, so they'll be the last ones to go. And I'm fine with that. Literally every AA MD-80 I've been able to accurately tag at Lambert in the last year and a half or so has turned out to be a former TWA bird. I very much hope this trend will not be spoiled on the final flight.

Wonder why AA still has a single MD-82?

Flew to Dallas on a MD-80 and back on a 83-  smoothest flights I've had all year (19 total so far)

With the B737 MAX still grounded, I didn't expect AA retiring those Mad Dogs this early. I just flew on an MD-80 last week from DFW-STL sat in 3E. I must say that being up front in the plane is very quiet compared to other planes, but then again I enjoy hearing those JT8D engines too! Gonna miss the Mad Dogs! Luckily I've flown and gotten many pictures of AA's MD-80s over the years, so they'll still be in my memory.

Delta Airlines still has some MDs left, but until early next decade, maybe I will shift some of my flying to DL just to fly the MDs before they fly into the history books.

The Tulsa Air & Space Museum has an AA MD-80 on display, hopefully more MD-80s find their way into some aviation museums!

N948TW, TWA's "Wings of Pride," is in Kansas City and preserved as such for the foreseeable future. The same company owns an L-1011 that I believe they intend to paint up in TWA colors (in spite of its lack of TWA heritage.) They're associated with the airline history museum there, which might as well be a TWA museum. (I really need to give it a visit.)

symphonicpoet wrote:N948TW, TWA's "Wings of Pride," is in Kansas City and preserved as such for the foreseeable future. The same company owns an L-1011 that I believe they intend to paint up in TWA colors (in spite of its lack of TWA heritage.) They're associated with the airline history museum there, which might as well be a TWA museum. (I really need to give it a visit.)

The Wings Of Pride is owned by an organization other than the Airline History Museum. I can not recall who owns WoP but I don’t think it’s the TWA museum either.

The only time WoP is available to tour is during the KC Airshow (next week).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Landed heading west on the mew runway the other night so got a good view of the terminal. Pretty cool. Long taxi to concourse c

symphonicpoet wrote: Since the planes really are rumored to be the biggest reason AA bought TWA. Buy a damaged airline cheap and get a bunch of planes at fire sale prices. 

Actually, that's not true.  TWA did not own many (if any) of their planes... and the lease rates (especially on their newer planes) were horrible given TWA's bad credit risk.  This is why the 717s were returned after the merger... Boeing was unwilling to lower the lease rates for American.

AA actually bought TWA as a mid-continent reliever hub.  ORD was having significant delays and was nearly out of capacity.  Of course that issue went away following capacity cuts after 9/11 and the subsequent expansion of the airport.

ldai_phs wrote:

symphonicpoet wrote:N948TW, TWA's "Wings of Pride," is in Kansas City and preserved as such for the foreseeable future. The same company owns an L-1011 that I believe they intend to paint up in TWA colors (in spite of its lack of TWA heritage.) They're associated with the airline history museum there, which might as well be a TWA museum. (I really need to give it a visit.)

The Wings Of Pride is owned by an organization other than the Airline History Museum. I can not recall who owns WoP but I don’t think it’s the TWA museum either.

The only time WoP is available to tour is during the KC Airshow (next week).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never said it was owned by the Airline History Museum. I said it was a group associated with them, and I believe that is true. Wings of Pride is owned by TriStar History and Preservation Inc. TriStar History seems to be following the same playbook as Save-a-Connie Inc. which later became the Airline History Museum. All three birds are parked and maintained together, if I understand things correctly. None are generally on display. (Which is usually the way of things with flying examples.) While TriStar History is separate, at least for present, I'm pretty sure they are related. In any case, it's safe. It's one very nice example of a Mad Dog that actually legitimately does have TWA history that's preserved for the foreseeable future. (And even airworthy for the moment.)

gregl:

symphonicpoet:

Since the planes really are rumored to be the biggest reason AA bought TWA. Buy a damaged airline cheap and get a bunch of planes at fire sale prices. 

Actually, that's not true.  TWA did not own many (if any) of their planes... and the lease rates (especially on their newer planes) were horrible given TWA's bad credit risk.  This is why the 717s were returned after the merger... Boeing was unwilling to lower the lease rates for American.

AA actually bought TWA as a mid-continent reliever hub.  ORD was having significant delays and was nearly out of capacity.  Of course that issue went away following capacity cuts after 9/11 and the subsequent expansion of the airport.

I'm not trying to get into the particulars of airline leases, which are quite arcane. TWA did not acquire many aircraft on the secondhand market, generally preferring to buy (or lease) new. That's pretty much typical of the larger carriers, of which TWA was assuredly one. The 717s were nearly the last aircraft acquisition they made, so the terms were probably among the worst. In fact, that's likely the only reason it was even possible for the lessor to get the planes away from AA. But AA somehow managed to pick up nearly everything else, and I very much doubt they overpaid. The reliever hub was the official excuse, but ORD was never at any point AA's primary hub and there has long been talk that this was a bit of intentional misdirection to reduce friction from other stakeholders. JAL has discussed it in some detail in the past, as I recall, though maybe not here. And whatever the reason, AA surely did keep a huge number of TWA mad dogs. And they really are the only AA MDs I see lately. (It's annecdotal, but I've been keeping spotting records a few years now. I might possibly have seen one "nAAtive" bird. And I missed a couple before I figured out where to find N numbers I couldn't photograph. But any AA MD that's not ex TWA flying into Lambert is most assuredly the exception. And they come in literally every day. Even now.)

Anyway . . . I have no desire to comment on what AA's true reasoning behind the TWA purchase was. There's so much acrimony and spin it's not even worth the bother. And honestly, I really don't care that much. It's sad making stuff, and that's enough. Who really cares whether it was technically the cancer that killed her or some side effect of the chemo? Dead is dead. And AA absolutely has the organs. That is fact. And they clearly didn't buy TWA for the people. And if the reliever hub were that important . . . why is it still closed? ORD and DFW are busier than ever. ORD still suffers terrible delays due to weather. That hasn't miraculously gone away. Passenger counts are at all time highs. Aircraft operations are about the same as they were in 2001. (They go up and down some. They peaked in 2004, actually.) In fact, ORD has spent a bundle on new runways and DFW on new terminals in the intervening time. All with the blessing of the tenants. (And at DFW that pretty much means AA. And they still and always have had PLENTY of room to expand there.) 

Okay, I do want to get into the details. The reliever hub excuse was a fairly obvious gloss. They couldn't have cared less. They closed the hub just about as quickly as they possibly could and spent bank to expand capacity elsewhere. I'm actually shocked they haven't closed the maintenance base yet, but . . . as was said elsewhere, they need the mechanics. Maybe more than they expected. I don't mean to be rude, but the reliever hub business sure looks like it was just a press release. What they've done since just doesn't make sense if it were true. Air traffic did not stay down that long and it is absolutely not down now. I really and truly believe their biggest motivation was probably getting a bunch of relatively new aircraft on the cheap. Secondarily, they were completely happy to eliminate competition so that they had more pricing power. (I'd even buy that those two are the other direction.) But the reliever hub business is just a painful insult at this point.

symphonicpoet wrote:
TWA did not acquire many aircraft on the secondhand market, generally preferring to buy (or lease) new. That's pretty much typical of the larger carriers, of which TWA was assuredly one. The 717s were nearly the last aircraft acquisition they made, so the terms were probably among the worst. In fact, that's likely the only reason it was even possible for the lessor to get the planes away from AA. But AA somehow managed to pick up nearly everything else, and I very much doubt they overpaid. 

Much of TWA's fleet was acquired second-hand.  The only aircraft which were not were the 757s, the 717s and some of the MD-80s and 767s.  Most / all DC-9s were second-hand, about 50% of the 767s were as were a decent number of the MD-80s (not counting the deliveries in the late 90s).

AA did not pick up most of TWA's fleet.  Here was TWA's fleet at the time of the acquisition:

767 - All were retired due to engine incompatibility with AA's fleet.  AA bought 9 new 767s to replace them.
757 - All were retired due to engine incompatibility with AA's fleet.  Most are still flying with Delta.
DC-9 - All were retired due to age / fuel consumption.
717 - All were returned to lessor due to high lease rates.  Most ended up at AirTran and are now with Delta.

The MD-80s are a bit more complicated.  TWA had 8 MD-81s, 38 MD-82s and 65 MD-83s.  The MD-81s were all retired by 2003.  Many of the MD-82s were retired in the 2003-2006 timeframe, although some made it until several years ago.  The MD-83s (especially the late deliveries) did last quite a while, but that only totals about 1/3 of TWAs fleet.

To claim they bought TWA for cheap airplanes, just doesn't ring true when 2/3rds of the fleet were retired within 5 years of the acquisition.

We're comparing apples and oranges. The DC-9s were second hand in the sense that they were mostly from Ozark. That hardly counts. When you buy an airline you keep a lot of planes. I wouldn't call AA's fleet "second hand" simply because they picked up a lot with TWA. Also: the DC-9s were on the way out anyway, whether AA bought TWA or not. The L-1011s were mostly acquired new, though as with the MD-80s they did pick up a few odd jobs here and there. The 747s were more of a mixed bag. The Connies were, I believe, mostly new. This was an old airline and you're not even looking at the whole of their jet fleet, but just the final fleet from just before they merged. Which still had a lot of aircraft from a half-digested competitor and which represents their most financially troubled era. But they had twice as many Md-80s as 57s and 67s combined. And they were in the middle of a fleet replenishment program, so they were new. And they didn't have a lot of cycles on their hulls yet. I really do believe the airplanes had a lot more to do with it anything else. The hub just doesn't make sense. Nor the pilots, nor the reservation system, nor the business model. If not the planes, then why? Gate leases in Phoenix? Clearly not JFK. They dumped those. And they already had the nice sexy London ones by then. Maybe they liked the Tokyo leases TWA had just picked up. They do still have those. But even that seems like a heck of a stretch. Maybe it was just to thumb their nose at United. But honestly, even planes they can sell are useful, so long as they can at least break even. So even the 67s and 57s weren't necessarily a bad deal. Trade them away for comparably aged aircraft with the engines you want. Everyone wins . . . except TWA.

symphonicpoet wrote: We're comparing apples and oranges. The DC-9s were second hand in the sense that they were mostly from Ozark. That hardly counts. When you buy an airline you keep a lot of planes. I wouldn't call AA's fleet "second hand" simply because they picked up a lot with TWA. Also: the DC-9s were on the way out anyway, whether AA bought TWA or not. The L-1011s were mostly acquired new, though as with the MD-80s they did pick up a few odd jobs here and there. The 747s were more of a mixed bag. The Connies were, I believe, mostly new. This was an old airline and you're not even looking at the whole of their jet fleet, but just the final fleet from just before they merged. Which still had a lot of aircraft from a half-digested competitor and which represents their most financially troubled era. But they had twice as many Md-80s as 57s and 67s combined. And they were in the middle of a fleet replenishment program, so they were new. And they didn't have a lot of cycles on their hulls yet. I really do believe the airplanes had a lot more to do with it anything else. The hub just doesn't make sense. Nor the pilots, nor the reservation system, nor the business model. If not the planes, then why? Gate leases in Phoenix? Clearly not JFK. They dumped those. And they already had the nice sexy London ones by then. Maybe they liked the Tokyo leases TWA had just picked up. They do still have those. But even that seems like a heck of a stretch. Maybe it was just to thumb their nose at United. But honestly, even planes they can sell are useful, so long as they can at least break even. So even the 67s and 57s weren't necessarily a bad deal. Trade them away for comparably aged aircraft with the engines you want. Everyone wins . . . except TWA.

Most of the "new" airplanes you listed were acquired were purchased in the 1970s or early 80s.  Carl Icahn invested no money in new planes during his tenure.

About 20% of the MD-80s TWA had were second-hand from other airlines (not counting Ozark).   A good number of TWAs DC-9s were in fact not from Ozark but acquired ex-Eastern (having NxxxEA registrations).

Of the new aircraft TWA acquired in the 1990s, all were dumped with the exception of the new MD-80s. They did not "Trade them away for comparably aged aircraft with the engines [they wanted]."

29 717s were returned off lease, with no replacement.
27 757s were returned off lease, with no replacement.
22 767s were returned off lease, with the only replacement being 9 new 767 purchased by American.

You may not recall what O'Hare was like in 2000.  It was dubbed the "Summer of Hell" (although it was worse for United that American for a variety of reasons).  O'Hare had significantly less capacity than they do today and (believe it or not) more flights today.  ORD had 6 runways at the time with only 1 of those runways not intersecting at least one other runway.  (Compare that to 8 runways today, with 5 having no intersections.)  There were no immediate expansion plans for O'Hare at the time.

American's purchase of TWA was to allow many of the passengers who previously connected at O'Hare to connect through STL, leaving more higher yielding O/D passengers flying out of O'Hare.  Additionally, it would provide another connecting point when O'Hare got hit by weather and resulting delays.  American had actually issued a press release in early September, 2001 detailing how TWA aircraft (and crews) would be spread throughout the AA network to rightsize capacity on legacy AA routes.

Then 9/11 happened.  Air traffic fell by over 10% year over year and the additional capacity TWA provided American was the easiest to cut based on costs and labor situations.  I do believe STL would have shrunk to some degree regardless of 9/11, but not to the degree it finally did.

July Frequency spreadsheet

Weekly flights (change)
Southwest 813 (+20) 2.5%
AA 265 (-7) -2.6%
Delta 204 (no change)
United 203 (+10) 5.2%
Frontier 38 (+10) 35.7%
Allegiant 32 (+1) 3.2% 
Alaska 21 (+2) 10.5%
Air Canada 21 (+2) 10.5%
Sun Country 6 

Total
STL 1738 (+18) 1%
BLV 32

Legacy YoY seat count difference. (Could be a bit difference due to plane configs but should be close enough)

These are Monday only numbers. Should be similar for mon-fri but weekends will be different. 

AA +2.42
Delta +4.99
United +5.81


Link to Spreadsheet

symphonicpoet wrote: We're comparing apples and oranges. The DC-9s were second hand in the sense that they were mostly from Ozark. That hardly counts. When you buy an airline you keep a lot of planes. I wouldn't call AA's fleet "second hand" simply because they picked up a lot with TWA. Also: the DC-9s were on the way out anyway, whether AA bought TWA or not. The L-1011s were mostly acquired new, though as with the MD-80s they did pick up a few odd jobs here and there. The 747s were more of a mixed bag. The Connies were, I believe, mostly new. This was an old airline and you're not even looking at the whole of their jet fleet, but just the final fleet from just before they merged. Which still had a lot of aircraft from a half-digested competitor and which represents their most financially troubled era. But they had twice as many Md-80s as 57s and 67s combined. And they were in the middle of a fleet replenishment program, so they were new. And they didn't have a lot of cycles on their hulls yet. I really do believe the airplanes had a lot more to do with it anything else. The hub just doesn't make sense. Nor the pilots, nor the reservation system, nor the business model. If not the planes, then why? Gate leases in Phoenix? Clearly not JFK. They dumped those. And they already had the nice sexy London ones by then. Maybe they liked the Tokyo leases TWA had just picked up. They do still have those. But even that seems like a heck of a stretch. Maybe it was just to thumb their nose at United. But honestly, even planes they can sell are useful, so long as they can at least break even. So even the 67s and 57s weren't necessarily a bad deal. Trade them away for comparably aged aircraft with the engines you want. Everyone wins . . . except TWA.

TWA was a complete basket case cluster **** at the time of the AA transaction. As in dysfunctional systems lacking basic capabilities, antiquated processes, tired fixtures, facilities with deferred maintenance, tarnished employee morale, and onerous collective bargaining agreements imposing crippling work-rules that drove up costs and hindered company’s ability to compete,

TW had visited all the other major carriers who concurred it would be better for the industry for them to disappear but didn’t want to bear the brunt of doing so for the rest of the industry to benefit. The airline industry is big on egos, and airline people tend to be extremely tribal particularly when it comes to the carrier they got their start at and the issue of seniority integration.  Plenty of nAAtives have borne hardship since April 2001, and plenty of nAAtives have been displaced from their preferred stations, bases, shift bids, captains seats, and classifications all the while having seniority cheapened to benefit employees of a distressed carrier whose liquidation was imminent. Like anything in life there are winners and losers, not wanting to diminish the devastating effects to much of the LLC employee base and STL but many here overlook the impact on nAAtives and the subsequent lost decade at AA.  What is articulated above is flat out delusional revisionist history by someone who has no clue and a clear bias against American Airlines.

People on this forum have a tendency to brand TWA as a St. Louis institution but conveniently overlook that it was in TWAs darkest final days that STL served as the megabase and HDQ...not the golden age of Howard Hughes or going neck and neck with Pan Am in New York.  

Can't help but think of the the irony in retrospect about the reliever hub comments AA said. Since that is almost exactly what Southwest has done in recent years in using St. Louis to relieve capacity issues in Dallas and Chicago. Also this trend seems to be a sustainable one in the long term due to the airports there and that Southwest is going to be 2nd fiddle (or 3rd in Chicago's case) for more premium travel, since they likely get a lot more last minute and more expensive tickets bought in STL due to market share that is starting to approach fortress hub percentages.

Just worth noting that STL has done a lot better than most airports that were in similar situations and that the AA of 2001 is only similar in name to AA of today due to later consolidation of the industry.

jshank83 wrote:July Frequency spreadsheet

Weekly flights (change)
Southwest 813 (+20) 2.5%
AA 265 (-7) -2.6%
Delta 204 (no change)
United 203 (+10) 5.2%
Frontier 38 (+10) 35.7%
Allegiant 32 (+1) 3.2% 
Alaska 21 (+2) 10.5%
Air Canada 21 (+2) 10.5%
Sun Country 6 

Total
STL 1738 (+18) 1%
BLV 32

Just trying to make sense of these numbers. Why is STL only +18 total and not +37? And then, safe to say BLV was +1 and 3.2%?

I appreciate all the data, just trying to make sense of it. Glad it looks and sounds like Lambert is continuing a healthy growth rate.

wabash wrote:

jshank83 wrote:July Frequency spreadsheet

Weekly flights (change)
Southwest 813 (+20) 2.5%
AA 265 (-7) -2.6%
Delta 204 (no change)
United 203 (+10) 5.2%
Frontier 38 (+10) 35.7%
Allegiant 32 (+1) 3.2% 
Alaska 21 (+2) 10.5%
Air Canada 21 (+2) 10.5%
Sun Country 6 

Total
STL 1738 (+18) 1%
BLV 32

Just trying to make sense of these numbers. Why is STL only +18 total and not +37? And then, safe to say BLV was +1 and 3.2%?

I appreciate all the data, just trying to make sense of it. Glad it looks and sounds like Lambert is continuing a healthy growth rate.

I didn’t list the EAS airlines in my post (but they are in the spreadsheet). Since Contour took over he Fort Leonard Wood route is knocked down frequencies on that route by a bunch (-17). WOW is gone. That’s another -5. So somewhere else there must have been a +3.

And correct about BLV.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

I was born/raised in Quincy and have family there. I don't think that the community was very happy with the drop in STL service, so hopefully this will work to return it.

Southern, Cape Air, Air Choice One, and Boutique presented their EAS options to Owensboro last night. All included flights to STL. Some had a combination of STL and ATL/BNA/ORD. Some had no STL. 

Cape was the cheapest subsidy and cheapest airfare. They offered STL and BNA. So I would guess this would be the favorite just because DOT usually likes to go with the cheapest subsidy. 

Even more, Cape Air has designed a brand new fleet of Tecnam P2012 Traveller planes specifically for Owensboro’s airport, Bonney said. The planes would also feature nine seats for passengers. Cape Air would offer the lowest subsidy cost ($1.99 million) of all four carriers, as well as a new ticket office in downtown Owensboro.

“This is the first new purpose-designed commuter aircraft in 40 years,” Bonney said. “We have the lowest fares. We’re currently averaging $38 per flight in this market. Our planes and pilots are based in Owensboro.”

https://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news ... a0990.html

Bigger news to me is that Southern would add a STL-MEM flight. Which would be nice. I didn't get the vibe from the article that Owenboro would go with that option though when they have two nonstop cities options.

Southern Airways would offer flights to St. Louis (21 per week) or to Chicago, but recommended the airport’s board of directors to consider the St. Louis option first, offering a deal that would include trips from St. Louis to Memphis.

“This worked really well for us in the past — we’d offer free tickets from Owensboro to St. Louis if you buy a ticket from St. Louis to Memphis,” Little said.

https://www.owensborotimes.com/features ... owensboro/

On that list of 68 destinations I was surprised to see that STL doesn’t have flights to Memphis. Hadn’t realized that. Also, it’s surprising how few seats there are going to Cincy. Really small number for such a close (but not too close, I.e. Indy) and sizable city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wabash wrote: On that list of 68 destinations I was surprised to see that STL doesn’t have flights to Memphis. Hadn’t realized that. Also, it’s surprising how few seats there are going to Cincy. Really small number for such a close (but not too close, I.e. Indy) and sizable city.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remember the good ol days of catching a 30 minuteish Norwest Airlines flight (or maybe it was Delta by that point) from STL to Memphis when MEM was still a hub.  I think it was the quickest way to get Mobile , AL at the time from STL. The short layover in MEM was worth it considering the other option was catching a direct flight to New Orleans only to have the 2 to 2 1/2 hour drive after getting off the plane.   Believe the options getting to Mobile via Pensacola or Gulfport wasn't any better.