This might explain some of the Alaska schedule reductions lately.

Alaska said its Airbus jets have suffered from maintenance problems — plus flight cancellations that spurred customer complaints — for reasons beyond the airline's control. Alaska canceled several Virgin America flights over the past month because Alaska lacked aircraft to fly them, Alaska told employees in a March 29 memo.

"We've had a bit more out-of-service airplanes on the Airbus," Minicucci said. "Part of the reason ... is because we've had some parts delivery issues."

"Several engine MROs (maintenance, repair and overhaul shops) indicated they have significantly stopped inducting engines into the shops, and are starting to 'choke' on the engines in the shop while waiting for parts and material," Herbert wrote last week after attending an industry conference.

And four new Airbus A321neo jets that Alaska started flying "are experiencing premature wear," and its entire Airbus fleet has "seen an uptick in cabin appearance and functionality issues," the Alaska memo said.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... blems.html

So the problems are the engines, which is no surprise - and cabin functionality and wear issues on the A321neo? Do these neos have the "Cabin Flex" option?

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

JetBuddy wrote:

So the problems are the engines, which is no surprise - and cabin functionality and wear issues on the A321neo? Do these neos have the "Cabin Flex" option?

Those are Leap powered, right?

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

They bought AS lock stock and barrel including all their debt and a/c, so if they want them to go away they can do so, they have no need to whine.
Or am I missing something?

The engine problems with the A32X-NEO's are nothing new. Many airlines have had growing pains with these airplanes...they'll get there. There are also a LOT of A32X narrowbodies out there than there was 5 to 10 years ago. It's easy to understand that there's going to be a backup in maintenance.

The Virgin planes are LEAP, I believe

usxguy wrote:

The Virgin planes are LEAP, I believe

So they are having problems with brand spankin new leap engines... strange.

usxguy wrote:

The Virgin planes are LEAP, I believe

The A321s are, yes. And apparently the seal issue on the LEAP powerplants are being taken care of, but it's a time-consuming process working with the manufacturer. Daily cancellations on the Airbus side are down from where they were, however, many of which were due to maintenance on the A320s coming due at the same time with the MRO vendor.

There have been some rumblings about VX line pilots writing up more items than usual as we get closer to the April 25th PSS cutover that will also coincide with the end of the VX brand.

PixelPilot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

Or be able to cancel the whole A321 NEO order without penalties

PixelPilot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

True or not, remarks like this make them seem one-sided toward Boeing for future aircraft.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

Or be able to cancel the whole A321 NEO order without penalties

I'm not a fanboy of either side, but that smells right to me. You don't air your own dirty laundry in public, particularly if nobody else knew about it and in the wake of the 60 Minutes G4 smearing complete with video of engines exploding. I also wonder if it is to escape the order.

EA CO AS wrote:

usxguy wrote:

The Virgin planes are LEAP, I believe

The A321s are, yes. And apparently the seal issue on the LEAP powerplants are being taken care of, but it's a time-consuming process working with the manufacturer. Daily cancellations on the Airbus side are down from where they were, however, many of which were due to maintenance on the A320s coming due at the same time with the MRO vendor.

There have been some rumblings about VX line pilots writing up more items than usual as we get closer to the April 25th PSS cutover that will also coincide with the end of the VX brand.

In any airline merger, you will always have some that are vehemently against the merger, whether it benefits them in the long run or not. They will do anything to try and hurt the process. But with write-ups, the maintenance crew needs to address and validate them, even if they turn out the be false claims. You definitely don't want to be stung by the one allegedly false write-up to turn to be true but ignored. If that goes public, then AS could be in the world of hurt when it comes to PR.

You guys are running a good company despite some naysayer armchair CEO's out there. Your ride is bumpy now, but you are all showing progress in the right direction. Keep up the great work! As you grow, don't lose sight of the customer (like others have) be what you guys were in the past. Obviously, economics will shape your future...that's a given. I'm forever devoted to AS because of their customer service and the personal time you have with each customer.

Super80Fan wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

True or not, remarks like this make them seem one-sided toward Boeing for future aircraft.

In the long run, AS will go mostly Boeing. The A321-NEO's are the only Airbus airplanes that has any future with AS.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

Or be able to cancel the whole A321 NEO order without penalties

There is no A321 NEO order. They are all leased (from GECAS iirc).

flyingclrs727 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

Or be able to cancel the whole A321 NEO order without penalties

What was the address of that webpage again?
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle ...

From that article:

"We have to learn. We're not Airbus experts. You can fly them hard, you just have to maintain them differently," Alaska President and Chief Operating Officer Ben Minicucci said in an interview.

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

You think? Sounds like pretty legitimate issues to me.

N14AZ wrote:

From that article:

"We have to learn. We're not Airbus experts. You can fly them hard, you just have to maintain them differently," Alaska President and Chief Operating Officer Ben Minicucci said in an interview.

Sounds eerily reminiscent of United’s A320/19s following integration with CO.

Just a learning curve to overcome. I wouldn’t read too much into this.

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

You sure do seem to like to piss on AS. They already have all the reason in the world to go back to all-Boeing, and if the 797 was already on the table that order would have been placed months ago. “Whining” about Airbus to the public would only give Boeing more leverage.

enilria wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

PixelPilot wrote:

Or maybe those words are true?
Fanboy attitude makes you loose objectivity.

Or be able to cancel the whole A321 NEO order without penalties

I'm not a fanboy of either side, but that smells right to me. You don't air your own dirty laundry in public, particularly if nobody else knew about it and in the wake of the 60 Minutes G4 smearing complete with video of engines exploding. I also wonder if it is to escape the order.

Don’t think you can call it airing dirty laundry in public when that email came out almost a month ago and it’s just now getting an article. Alaska is very happy with the NEOs overall. A.net is looking for something that may not even be there.

There were several weeks in early-to-mid March during which an increased number of VX operated flights were cancelled for operational reasons. In a few cases, AS even added extra 737 sections to cover for cancelled 320 series aircraft. However, operations seem to have been much better the past 4 weeks.

How at AS suddenly having problems with A320s VX never had problems with? Sounds to me like they're being negligent in integrating the Airbus fleet or have some alternative motive to relieve themselves of their orders. Are there any other airlines experiencing "premature wear" on their A321 NEOS? Airbus has delivered 23 so far and 242 A320 NEOs but I haven't heard about anything other than engine problems.

Boeing narrow bodies are all with CFM. I what way does it help Boeing when Alaska Airlines has trouble with CFM engines on their Airbus. Only Airbus offers something else.

mjoelnir wrote:

Boeing narrow bodies are all with CFM. I what way does it help Boeing when Alaska Airlines has trouble with CFM engines on their Airbus. Only Airbus offers something else.

You should clarify...all Boeing-heritage narrowbodies currently in production are all CFM-powered. If you include all narrowbodies both post-production (i.e. 757's) and McDonnell Douglas (717's and MD-90's) birds, you are incorrect.

lostsound wrote:

How at AS suddenly having problems with A320s VX never had problems with? Sounds to me like they're being negligent in integrating the Airbus fleet or have some alternative motive to relieve themselves of their orders. Are there any other airlines experiencing "premature wear" on their A321 NEOS? Airbus has delivered 23 so far and 242 A320 NEOs but I haven't heard about anything other than engine problems.

Premature wear of what? Do you know? It shouldn't be the airframe. If it's the engines, that could be true. Electronics? Could be also.

wedgetail737 wrote:

lostsound wrote:

How at AS suddenly having problems with A320s VX never had problems with? Sounds to me like they're being negligent in integrating the Airbus fleet or have some alternative motive to relieve themselves of their orders. Are there any other airlines experiencing "premature wear" on their A321 NEOS? Airbus has delivered 23 so far and 242 A320 NEOs but I haven't heard about anything other than engine problems.

Premature wear of what? Do you know? It shouldn't be the airframe. If it's the engines, that could be true. Electronics? Could be also.

Yes, AS is going to be negligent in maintaining its Airbus aircraft and risk crashes and accidents...all to get out of orders. Come on.

I read it as premature cabin wear. Which you could say the same about all of the recaros currently in the PM-AS fleet. Those have worn out fast.
Anyway I’ve been in contact with one of the chief pilots. His words not mine, the 321N is a dream aircraft, the A319 and A320, not so much. Now that we have them in our fleet and have looked at them close up, we know why we’ve never looked too closely at buying them ourselves.” Another pilot, this one from DL who originally flew 742s with NW and now flies A330s said this, “the Boeing is like a Toyota, not particularly glamorous but they can just keep flying, a bit like the DC-9, great example is the 737-200. They just keep on chugging. The Airbus is like a BMW, you can keep it in the air for 20-30 years if you need too, but it’s a lot more intensive, the maintenance programs are underwhelming and the jets lose their value quicker.”
Maybe the second statement which I’ve previously thought ridiculous has some water and AS is figuring that out the hard way. If it is the case, these could just be issues that aren’t a problem for airlines that have always operated the bus. But for a brand new operator, is a little surprising.

wedgetail737 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Boeing narrow bodies are all with CFM. I what way does it help Boeing when Alaska Airlines has trouble with CFM engines on their Airbus. Only Airbus offers something else.

You should clarify...all Boeing-heritage narrowbodies currently in production are all CFM-powered. If you include all narrowbodies both post-production (i.e. 757's) and McDonnell Douglas (717's and MD-90's) birds, you are incorrect.

Boeing is not selling any new 757, 717 or even MD-90 and I do not think they even sell them used.

So to get to my question, how does it help Boeing, that their sole engine provider for narrow bodies, has trouble with providing parts for their Airbus CFM engines.

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

For whatever sense that makes.....

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

That doesn't make sense. At all. Why would they need to convince themselves to have an all-Boeing fleet, when all they have to do is say "Nope. No more Airbus. We will return these aircraft after the lease/business deals lapse"?

I think you are rolling onto the wrong road on this one.

Did VX ever experienced this issue with the airbus ac's, i've ask my buddies at B6 and it seems to be AS whining about it to stick with boeing as previously mentioned

neutronstar73 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

That doesn't make sense. At all. Why would they need to convince themselves to have an all-Boeing fleet, when all they have to do is say "Nope. No more Airbus. We will return these aircraft after the lease/business deals lapse"?

I think you are rolling onto the wrong road on this one.

Maybe it’s to convince their shareholders?

neutronstar73 wrote:

That doesn't make sense. At all. Why would they need to convince themselves to have an all-Boeing fleet, when all they have to do is say "Nope. No more Airbus. We will return these aircraft after the lease/business deals lapse"?

I think you are rolling onto the wrong road on this one.

Just a "nope, no more Airbus" isn't a good enough reason to put out to the shareholders. The 'why not' is important, whatever that may be.

neutronstar73 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

That doesn't make sense. At all. Why would they need to convince themselves to have an all-Boeing fleet, when all they have to do is say "Nope. No more Airbus. We will return these aircraft after the lease/business deals lapse"?

I think you are rolling onto the wrong road on this one.

I agree. Once the merger was approved, AS indicated they would make a fleet decision by the end of 2017. They retracted that statement and indicated the company was still examining its options. When AS will make a fleet decision is a popular question among its employees and is scheduled to be addressed in an employee meeting on April 23rd. Stay tuned...

SC430 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

For whatever sense that makes.....

AS is going to make a choice whether to retain the Airbus airplane or go with additional Boeing airplanes. Alaska's management don't give a rat's ass what anybody here thinks. AS can whine or complain about the Airbus A320's and A319's as much as they want.

par13del wrote:

They bought AS lock stock and barrel including all their debt and a/c, so if they want them to go away they can do so, they have no need to whine.
Or am I missing something?

Who bought AS? Should this be a new thread? Someone bought AS???

Yeah - you're missing who bought who.

aeromoe wrote:

par13del wrote:

They bought AS lock stock and barrel including all their debt and a/c, so if they want them to go away they can do so, they have no need to whine.
Or am I missing something?

Who bought AS? Should this be a new thread? Someone bought AS???

Yeah - you're missing who bought who.

I suspect that was a mistake and he meant to say VX.

Could the issues with the interiors be due to VX not purchasing higher-end products for lavs, galleys, seats? Maybe they didn’t stock adequate replacement parts for interior items...particularly before AS took control.

This sounds very lame coming from Alaska. As stated before, the A321 is a dream machine, VX has been flying the same A320s for thousands of hours and aren't their same people still involved or did AS throw them out? I just cant help but think the more 737's Alaska gets now, the more parked Eskimos will be lined up in the Desert when B6 completes their integration of AS

New engines have problems, as for the rest of their issues they claim, no one else whines about things like that on Airbuses so I'd say its a little bit of Boeing biased garbage mixed in with otherwise well known engine issues here. Other than the LEAP, how come the problems magically showed up as soon as AS got their hands on these?

NWADTWE16 wrote:

when B6 completes their integration of AS

Huh...?

N14AZ wrote:

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle ...

From that article:

"We have to learn. We're not Airbus experts. You can fly them hard, you just have to maintain them differently," Alaska President and Chief Operating Officer Ben Minicucci said in an interview.

That is very true, any of the Airbus FBW or the newer Boeing aircraft are maintained differently to legacy aircraft like the 737. Newer aircraft are more computerised with built in test (BITE) functionality for almost everything.

The BITE will throw up a lot more messages than you will ever get on a legacy aircraft like a 737, the maintenance side of the organisation needs to move with the times and learn how to use these messages. Thing is these issues would also be happening on the 737, just that no human would be able to pick it up like a computer monitoring things does.

FA9295 wrote:

NWADTWE16 wrote:

when B6 completes their integration of AS

Huh...?

It's his wish. B6 needs to make more money than they do now to get AS. But you know what, I can't say it won't happen. The airline industry is a crazy, crazy industry.

767333ER wrote:

New engines have problems, as for the rest of their issues they claim, no one else whines about things like that on Airbuses so I'd say its a little bit of Boeing biased garbage mixed in with otherwise well known engine issues here. Other than the LEAP, how come the problems magically showed up as soon as AS got their hands on these?

LEAP had problems early on, which caused a pause in 737 MAX test flights. I've heard that the P&W engines for the A320 and A321 NEO's have been quite the headache with NK, HA and FL.

Super80Fan wrote:

This just seems like AS whining about it so they make it easier/convince themselves to stick to all Boeing.

Oh gosh really. They don’t need yours mine or to convince themselves on what to do. They have these leases for a certain amount of time.. They don’t need to start doing silly crap like making their customers mad and accuring costs to convince themselves, lol it’s like craziness absolute lunacy of a thought if you think about it.

VS11 wrote:

QXAS wrote:

Maybe the second statement which I’ve previously thought ridiculous has some water and AS is figuring that out the hard way. If it is the case, these could just be issues that aren’t a problem for airlines that have always operated the bus. But for a brand new operator, is a little surprising.

Did they fire the VX folks in charge of maintenance? It is not like VX were rookies operating the A320. If AS admit they were no Airbus experts, why didn't they keep the experts from VX. Sometimes AS seems extremely provincial.

Aren’t they using the airbus on north south routes now vs what VS was using them for?

grbauc wrote:

VS11 wrote:

QXAS wrote:

Maybe the second statement which I’ve previously thought ridiculous has some water and AS is figuring that out the hard way. If it is the case, these could just be issues that aren’t a problem for airlines that have always operated the bus. But for a brand new operator, is a little surprising.

Did they fire the VX folks in charge of maintenance? It is not like VX were rookies operating the A320. If AS admit they were no Airbus experts, why didn't they keep the experts from VX. Sometimes AS seems extremely provincial.

Aren’t they using the airbus on north south routes now vs what VS was using them for?

Not yet. In fact, the new SJC-JFK flights and the additional SEA-JFK flight are both being flown by Airbus airplanes.

There seems to be a lot of consternation about AS essentially telling us something we all already figured out looking at their on-time stats for the first two months of the year.

They were having issues, for whatever reason, with their Airbus aircraft. Looking at this last month, they seem to have somewhat resolved them. Teething problems with integration, perhaps, or perhaps VX has been teething the aircraft like the bank owns it, while Alaska is used to taking care of it's own metal. No need to read a serious A vs B diss into this until they say this sort of thing about Airbus aircraft after a year or so.