Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No AA 747's?  
User currently offlineRossbaku From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 673 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9713 times:

Hi there,

I was just looking at old AA photos and seen that they dont seem to have 747's. They did have them but why do they not have any in todays air travel era?

RossBaku  Silly

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5174 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9703 times:

This topic surfaced last week--a search may be in order next time; but in short today's market-particularly AA's route network, an aircraft larger than the 777 is not required. No demand is present on the routes AA flies for a 747.


Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 739 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9696 times:

They should have just kept their MD-11s. They looked so good in the AA colors.


I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9690 times:

Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 1):
No demand is present on the routes AA flies for a 747.

With the exceptions being Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, and Heathrow!

KAHALA777


User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5174 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9660 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 3):
With the exceptions being Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, and Heathrow!

So do you think that aquiring 747s for those cities would be lucrative?



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineFRAspotter From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2349 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9654 times:

Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 1):
This topic surfaced last week--a search may be in order next time

This topic has been discussed for YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!



"Drunks run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9603 times:

"This topic has been discussed for YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!"

And it's easy to understand why. People who aren't familiar with the industry but love airplanes look at the 747 and soon the A380 and wonder why every big airline doesn't have them. If an airline has 100% occupancy on a 772ER for two months, people flying those full flights will naturally think "Hey! If they had a 747 they could fit more people on this flight!" Not realizing that the rest of the year the route has 80% occupancy which is still profitable for a 772ER but a real money-loser for a 747. Plus if the demand is really high, AA can assign an additional 772ER. Once the route demand drops, especially if it is seasonal, the additonal aircraft can be assigned elsewhere.

Very difficult to assign half a 744.

But as long as there are enormous airplanes, people will ask why all the airlines don't have them.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9535 times:

Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 4):

So do you think that aquiring 747s for those cities would be lucrative?

The 747 probably not, but I can imagine that a handful of 777-300ERs would fit very well into AAs fleet in the long term.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9478 times:

Quoting A350 (Reply 7):
The 747 probably not, but I can imagine that a handful of 777-300ERs would fit very well into AAs fleet in the long term.

Actually a 787 order with a smaller order of 748s would make more sense from an engine perspective if they order the 787 with GE. Right now, their 772s are RR, so a fleet of 773ERs is no more logical than 748 (other than size). I suppose if they also wanted 772LR, you'd see a 773ER order. But without the 772LR and if they were to go with 787s with RR engines, I wouldn't imagine you'd see the 773ER or the 748 in AA colors.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9453 times:

The cities from which AA operates cannot profitably sustain 747 service year round. Individual markets may be able to sustain some seasonal service, making it possible for AA to have up to four or five 747s. However, that means that maintenance and training costs will increase, as will flight crew costs. Flight crew costs will increase due to contract stipulations, with more senior crews pay increasing to a level that thins the profit margin for AA.

Bob Crandall helped rid AA of the 747 and vowed that the airline would never again operate an airplane that large. Using yield management, AA figured that they could maximize their profits by using the 763 (in the 80s) and the 777 instead of the 747. As long as their computers show that they can make more money operating the smaller widebodies, AA will not have another 747 in it's fleet.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineKomododx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9441 times:

It is AA's policy to have a greater number of frequencies on planes with lower capacity than the opposite. Always has been, always will be.

Stefano  wave 


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9403 times:

Quoting Komododx (Reply 10):
It is AA's policy to have a greater number of frequencies on planes with lower capacity than the opposite. Always has been, always will be.

If LHR opens up as planned and loses B2 restrictions, then slots would be more valuable. 2 748s take the same pax and cargo as 3 772s, so a switch to some 748s would not only free up LHR slots but the 772s it would need to use those slot from other cities as well as 772s for other routes to Asia.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3761 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9333 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Ikamerica, I see you point and I understand what you mean but ordering only a small number of 747-8's would not be economical for maintenance management and crew scheduling. However if they do decide to buy it then they would order a couple of those to start with and see how efficient it is to operate the type, then they order additional units if it generates profit.

American had a couple of 747-SP's back in the late 80's and early 90's, they both came from defunct TWA. That was way before the AA/TWA merger. Those were flown on the DFW-HNL route until the MD-11 arrived, then once the first MD-11 was delivered the two SP's were assigned on the transatlantic sector for a year. Then they were retired in 1992 and replaced by additional 767's. I flew once on an American 747SP from JFK to BRU.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineZrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3165 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9298 times:

Why doesn't NW fly the L1011?


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlineEI747SYDNEY From Ireland, joined Oct 2005, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9296 times:

Quoting Rossbaku (Thread starter):
I was just looking at old AA photos and seen that they dont seem to have 747's

Didn't NASA aqquire them for the transporting the shuttle??

Rob  wave 



''Live life on the edge, Live each and every day like it's your last, Hell you only live once''
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9269 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
If LHR opens up as planned and loses B2 restrictions, then slots would be more valuable. 2 748s take the same pax and cargo as 3 772s, so a switch to some 748s would not only free up LHR slots but the 772s it would need to use those slot from other cities as well as 772s for other routes to Asia.

But the cost of establishing a new, non-standard fleet, along with all the maintenance, technology, equipment, tools, spares, parts, machinery, training, staffing, and logistics for only a few 747s would make any revenue gain from the value of the LHR slots meaningless. In addition, it really is not that easy to simply replace 777s with 747s on AA's U.S.-LHR routes. The only two routes that really have enough frequency to even contemplate such a change would be JFK-LHR (6x daily) and ORD-LHR (5x daily in summer). However, both of these routes are heavily business-oriented, and heavily high-yielding, premium-demanding. The customers who frequent these routes like having more frequency, the flexibility to adjust their schedule if their meeting ends early or runs long. It would not be worth it for AA to go from 5x ORD-LHR to, say, 3 or 4 with 747s, or from 6x JFK-LHR to, say, 4. They do just fine with 777s on these routes, and the 747 would be way too big for AA's other LHR routes -- BOS, LAX and MIA.

The 747s are simply too large for AA's network, which is why they will never fly in AA colors.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 12):
Those were flown on the DFW-HNL route until the MD-11 arrived, then once the first MD-11 was delivered the two SP's were assigned on the transatlantic sector for a year.

Slight correction: the 747SPs were flown on DFW-NRT from 1987 until 1991, when the MD11s arrived. They were not used to HNL, which was always sovereign DC10 territory until that aircraft's retirement in 2000. You may be thinking of Braniff, who for years flew a bright-orange Boeing 747-100 (nicknamed the "Flying Pumpkin") on its flagship DFW-HNL route.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2920 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9204 times:

Only if AA was the only airline offering service on some routes, such as MIA-GRU, JFK-LHR, ORD-NRT would they need a 747. Although I am sure they could fill it, they make more money using the 777's which fit nicely with their fleet and route strategy.

User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9110 times:

AA ordered 747s back when the plane was being launched. About the only route that made money was JFK-LAX, and that was back in the days of regulation, when there were fewer carriers on the route flying fewer aircraft.

The 747SPs that AA bought from Trans World were used out of DFW to both HNL and NRT. When AA got its first MD-11s, the 747SPs went to JFK for trans-Atlantic service, until AA took delivery of more MD-11s and 767s.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8909 times:

"No airline has gone bankrupt operating too small of planes.
Plenty of airlines have gone bankrupt operating too large of planes."

---Bob Crandall, circa 1988



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlinePositiverate From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1590 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8773 times:

Back in the late 90's I was riding on the train at ATL, and overheard a conversation a DL crew was having. One of the pilots was complaining about DL not having 747's, and said "back when I was at Pan Am and we were flying 747's everwhere..." at which point the Captain cut him off and said sarcastically: "How'd that work out for you guys?".

I burst out laughing...


User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8765 times:

AA is an unusual airline from the standpoint that its fleet is primarily narrow-body and domestic, yet it serves many international destinations with an aging B767 fleet. (Their small B777-200ER fleet of 45 aircraft is their only strong point). They have no B777-300ER's, B787's, A330's or A350's on order. From my point-of-view, AA should have a much larger wide-body fleet to support and grow its international market. AA might be in danger of having a shrinking domestic base due to LCC's, and at the same time losing international business to competitors with newer and more efficient fleets, such as AF/KLM, EK, NW, ANA, JAL and even AC.

Even worse, AA is stuck with way too many (335!) gas-guzzling MD's.

Not a pretty picture.


User currently offlineORD From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8720 times:

Quoting Texan (Reply 9):
Bob Crandall helped rid AA of the 747 and vowed that the airline would never again operate an airplane that large.

Well, not quite. Don't forget Crandall had an agreement in place to buy two 747-400s brand new from Boeing in 1990 for the Chicago-Tokyo route. When United ultimately won the route the deal was cancelled. Here's the press release AA issued at the time:


Copyright 1990 PR Newswire Association, Inc.
PR Newswire

July 18, 1990, Wednesday

DISTRIBUTION: TO BUSINESS DESK AND AVIATION EDITOR

LENGTH: 352 words

HEADLINE: AMERICAN AIRLINES ACQUIRES TWO NEW 747-400 AIRCRAFT

DATELINE: DALLAS, July 18

BODY:
DALLAS, July 18 /PRN/ -- American Airlines has agreed to
acquire from Canadian Airlines International the right to purchase
two new 747-400 aircraft from the Boeing Co.
American's obligation to complete the transaction is contingent
on its being designated by DOT Chief Administrative Law Judge John J.
Mathias to serve Chicago-Tokyo, the route on which the aircraft
will be used.
Robert L. Crandall, American's chairman and chief executive
officer, said the agreement with Canadian Airlines also includes
the purchase of four General Electric CF6-80C2B1F engines for each
of the 747-400s as well as necessary spares and support equipment.
The transaction will total approximately $330 million.
The airplanes will be delivered to American in February and May
1991.
"American is clearly the best choice for the Chicago-Tokyo
route," Crandall said. "The acquisition of these aircraft
demonstrates the depth of our commitment to serving the route and
developing our international hub at Chicago still further.
"Our willingness to pay a substantial premium for these
airplanes reflects the importance which the DOT's carrier selection
criteria give to having only the largest airplanes on limited
frequency routes such as Chicago-Tokyo," he said.
"Additionally, we believe that new opportunities to link our
major hub at Chicago with Tokyo are unlikely to be available in the
future, and acknowledge that the 747-400 is the optimal aircraft
for the route.
"For these reasons, we view the acquisition as an attractive and
prudent investment," Crandall said.
American has applied to DOT for authority on six new Japanese
routes: Chicago-Tokyo, Chicago-Nagoya, Los Angeles-Tokyo, Los
Angeles-Nagoya, San Jose-Tokyo and San Jose-Nagoya.
In May, the DOT's Public Counsel recommended American for
Chicago-Tokyo and San Jose-Tokyo authority, and for backup
authority between Los Angeles and Tokyo.
A ruling by Mathias is expected in a few weeks.

CONTACT -- Al Becker of American Airlines, 817-967-1577


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13554 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 20):
(Their small B777-200ER fleet of 45 aircraft is their only strong point).

 redflag 

A fleet of 45 772s can hardly be called "small" by any means. They're actually one of the world's largest operators of the type.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4454 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8437 times:

Quoting EI747SYDNEY (Reply 14):
Didn't NASA aqquire them for the transporting the shuttle??

Yes, one of them I believe. Some of the other 747-123s went to cargo airline UPS.

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 20):
AA is an unusual airline from the standpoint that its fleet is primarily narrow-body and domestic, yet it serves many international destinations with an aging B767 fleet.

Some of the 763s are actually quite new. But I guess, every airline has an aging fleet - after all, those planes aren't as young today as they were yesterday!  Smile


User currently offlineScotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 548 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

747 doesn't look good with AA, only DC-10 looks good with AA

meanwhile

747 looks good with TWA, DC-10 doesn't look good with TWA

so maybe they should and shouldn't...........

I miss TWA  brokenheart 



Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
25 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ORD/JFK-LHR are their biggest LHR routes..and I've been on those flights during PEAK summer flights and have seen MANY seats empty.......yes, they do
26 Post contains images Spacecadet : Ok, I'm wondering how the different cruising speeds between the two airplanes play into this. Last time I flew JFK-NRT, there was literally a two hour
27 Mirrodie : you know what really be nice? seeing a few internal shots of those AA 747s in their prime. I heard stories that the insides of those things were pheno
28 STT757 : AA is not exactly going gang busters with Japan, Seattle was dropped, San Jose is constantly rumored of being dropped, ORD-Nagoya was dropped, JFK-NR
29 MD90fan : I agree
30 Rampart : Here's a question (OK, a statement first). Say American can only sustain a small 747 fleet part of the time. But, why couldn't they order a pool of 7
31 ATCRick : All of the airline "experts" here amaze me.....777 this, 747 that, dreamliner this, 737NG that. The airline is in TROUBLE like the rest of the legacy
32 Commavia : SEA-NRT was dropped after 9/11, and with stiff competition from United and Northwest, both of which are much stronger in SEA and have local feed. SJC
33 Post contains images BigGSFO : If we stopped debating hypothetical points in this forum, there would be very little to talk about!
34 Rampart : Thanks for the reply, Commavia, but let me probe a little bit more, since you've studied this quite a bit. Pertaining to my pooled fleet idea: Acquisi
35 Wagz : Sorry, but you're way off. .92 Mach might be the maximum operating speed, most likely its VNe speed, but it certainly isn't the Maximum cruise speed.
36 Deltadude : I was just about to search for why Delta (if they weren't in BK but rather turning a profit) may or may not order 747-400 for their fleets. I was goi
37 Post contains images Commavia : American, and the other oneworld airlines, have no interest in a "oneworld livery" that each would share. Unlike Star, American has no interest in th
38 Navairjax : Obviously Bob didn't think that someone would try to base an airline with 87 50 seaters some years later. Sort of kills that thought huh.[Edited 2005
39 Post contains images Deltadude : it kills that thought relative to the entire market, which AA competes with most. he didn't think about it because he didn't think someone would try
40 Rampart : Pretty thorough rebuttal, thanks for that. Maybe not with American/BA/Cathay, or even United/Lufthansa/Thai et al., but it would not surprise me to s
41 Fixplanes2 : To put this to rest...AA was a VERY early operator of the original 747-100. In fact AA raced PanAm to become the first airline to fly a passenger flig
42 777STL : A few points. AA's youngest 767 was delivered in late 2003, and most of the fleet was delivered in the 90s. Not exactly aging. AA is smart for the ex
43 Zoom530 : Too bad AA's overall cabin comfort and service ain't what it used to be...try 11 hours on the ORD-HNL flight and lemme know how the cramped 767 feels
44 AbirdA : I won't say AA doesn't have plenty of room for improvement. They definitely do. But having flown DFW-HNL-DFW (at most, two hours shorter than the ORD
45 777STL : Uh well I just did DUB-ORD two days ago on the '67, about 8 hours in Y, wasn't terrible. Not any worse than any other US airline. Still uncomfortable
46 Drinkstrolley : I going to regret asking this, but does the 747 carry more pax than 777?
47 CATHAY747 : A slight correction to your slight correction: AA was operating DFW-NRT with the SP's earlier than that...1983 in fact; I don't know the actual start
48 B707Stu : Not my memory. PA2 JFK-LHR was the first passenger 747. I worked for AA 74-78 and my first nonrev experience on AA3 JFK-LAX was a 747. The upper deck
49 JBirdAV8r : I think NASA bought one of their 747's from AA (N905NA) and I think the other one (N911NA) was a JAL 741SR...not positive, though
50 Commavia : Nope. AA launched DFW-NRT in May 1987 with 747SPs.
51 C133 : Not exactly, as I remember it. American leased an early 747-100 from Pan Am so it could be first with domestic service, prior to delivery of it's own
52 ORDagent : Trust me when I worked for AA the MD-11 was being integrated into the fleet and those aircraft were a nightmare to deal with from the get go! It was
53 AvFan4ever : Spacecadet, Cruise for both the 747 and 777 is Mach 0.84, although I've routinely seen both at 0.85. Not sure how to account for the 2 hour delta per
54 C133 : The big thing was the (electronic) piano bar in the rear of the airplane. It was a stand-up affair, and although I don't remember any incidents, the
55 ORD : From an upper deck standpoint I think AA's 747s had a rather plain layout. The fixed seats were simply aligned along the perimeter of the upper deck.
56 B707Stu : True, that's how the AA was laid out. I remember the piano too!
57 Post contains images Komododx : W/o Bermuda II AA would not send bigger a/c at lower frequencies. It's AA policies to offer as many frequencies as feasible to a destination. Ask any
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No AA SLC-MIA? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 18:00:26 by SLCUT2777
Why No AA On LHR-LOS? posted Thu Oct 13 2005 14:07:45 by Soups
Why No AA Eagle In NM/CO? posted Fri Jun 24 2005 15:24:28 by BigGSFO
Why No AA In MHT? posted Fri Apr 8 2005 17:54:40 by Apodino
Why No AA At CHS? posted Sun Mar 13 2005 17:43:38 by PITA333
Why No More 747 Orders? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 15:28:17 by Emrecan
Why No AA NRT-GUM? posted Sun Oct 31 2004 10:03:16 by AASuper83
Why No AA ORD - JFK posted Mon May 31 2004 17:13:39 by Upsmd11
Why No AA Mainline To NAS posted Sat Apr 17 2004 20:41:53 by Islandboy
Why No AA In SAV? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 19:59:13 by AirtranSAV