Further to Rob's post re fuel costs........

"Wine may get better with age, but airplanes don't. And that's a
problem for US carriers, which operate some of the oldest fleets in
the world. Younger planes are more fuel efficient, which puts US-based
airlines at a huge disadvantage when compared with foreign
competitors.

There's no getting around the fact that the the fleets of US airlines
are on the old side. On average, American Airlines' planes have seen
15 years in the sky, United's 14, and Northwest's 11. Post 9/11, US
airlines had their hands full just trying to stay in business, but
when they finally emerged from that downturn, they called in orders
for hundreds of new jets. Continental and Northwest lined up for
Boeing's sleek and green new 787. US Airways shopped for shiny new
Airbus widebodies to fuel its international expansion, and American
was said to be mulling a replacement for it's rapidly aging MD80
single aisle fleet.

Ned wrote:

Yes - Its an all over reduction of older aircraft, which must produce a
more profitable company. But no new aircraft on order.

25%% reduction in fleet and with this they are reducing their capacity by
17-18%%. You would have though that new aircraft having, better
efficiency, more seats, etc, would have been an included option.

I did notice the aircraft flying out of HNL,in January, were 737-200
types with ATA, thats old, no wonder they ceased operations in April.

This is a good read:

Is Crude Oil a "Bubble" Ready to Burst?

http://www.sharecafe.com.au/cafetake.asp?a=AV&ai=8927

Rob mine.com> wrote in news:4847663d_4@news.peopletelecom.com.au:

ATA didn't have any 737-200 aircraft.

Peter Fanelli wrote:

What were they?

Rob mine.com> wrote in news:4847d39d$1_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au:

Beats me, but ATA had L1011's, 757-200/300's and 737-800's.

Peter Fanelli wrote:

Paul Saccani wrote:

They had a convertible flying at one stage, with the roof down.