Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Isn't AA Using The 787 For Its Premium Service  
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1604 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6541 times:

Hello all ...

AA announced that it is acquiring the A-321 for its premium transcontinental routes which it will equip with three (or is it four including y+) classes of service. Currently, AA uses the 762 for this service.

So my question is - why didn't AA earmark the 787 for these flights? Call me old fashioned, but for me, a premium service involves a wide body. Yeah, I know you can trick out a NB, but still it just doesn't compare. Plus, I would imagine that AA could fill a 787 on the transcontinental routes and wouldn't a 787 premium cabin be great?

I'm interested in knowing about how and why an airline (AA) schedules and pairs routes with particular aircraft, rather than everyone's personal preference on cabin amenities - though feel free to chime in on that as well.

Right now, AA uses a 777 on at least one flight between LAX-MIA, which it seems it has no problem filling. Currently the 772 has three classes of service. I don't think AA has indicated it will continued first class on this route when the new planes arrive. Given the traffic between these two entertainment hotspots, is that wise? Will the 772 continue after the new planes arrive?

[Edited 2012-10-24 09:49:19]

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
why didn't AA earmark the 787 for these flights?

If the range is not required, the A321 will be more profitable.

The 787 is built for range, the A321 more so for cycles. I would suspect that the 787s would be rotated in once there are a number in the fleet. But more for fleet management instead of customer preference.

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
Will the 772 continue after the new planes arrive?

Probably not. The A321s carry passengers on that length of mission more economically.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineaacun From Mexico, joined Jan 2004, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And as far as I know, and for what I have heard, the 787 Is going to be a 2 class ac. ( 3 if you consider mc extra).......

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5479 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
So my question is - why didn't AA earmark the 787 for these flights?

Because the A321 is quite a bit more cost-effective at transcontinental range, and also enables the frequency which is all-important in this market.

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
Plus, I would imagine that AA could fill a 787 on the transcontinental routes

Only if they reduced the frequency to a point that this market would really dislike.

People don't care (well, they care a bit, but not enough to sway a decision) whether they're on a narrowbody or a widebody. They very much do care about the lie-flat and E+ seats, and they care even more about having a flight as close to once an hour as possible.

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
Right now, AA uses a 777 on at least one flight between LAX-MIA, which it seems it has no problem filling.

That 777 is there for aircraft rotation.

[Edited 2012-10-24 14:55:34]

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
why didn't AA earmark the 787 for these flights?



AA doesn't even have a firm order for the 787.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Too expensive a plane and almost no one buying a ticket cares enough narrow body versus wide body

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5597 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5608 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
wouldn't a 787 premium cabin be great?

Have you seen the pictures of the A321 premium cabins? They look awesome.

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
I would imagine that AA could fill a 787 on the transcontinental routes and wouldn't a 787 premium cabin be great?

Yields, especially Y yields, are generally low on transcon flights. They could probably fill a 787 without too much issue, but the yields would be trash.


And then there is the small problem of AA not having any 787s on order  



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5586 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
So my question is - why didn't AA earmark the 787 for these flights?

It would result in a significant increase in available seats, requiring AA to lower fares in all classes to fill it.

By moving from the 767-200 to the 757-200 and A321-200, both UA and AA have been able to tailor capacity to the demand at the desired higher fare levels. The increase in RASM handily covers the increase in CASM.



Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 6):
And then there is the small problem of AA not having any 787s on order.   

It's well-known that AA's MoU is structured as if they had placed a firm order (with assigned production slots and delivery windows). Even AA's management talk about how they intend to use the 787-9 when it arrives.

It's a matter of when, not if, that MoU is firmed.  Wink

[Edited 2012-10-24 16:26:11]

User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5538 times:

The 787 wasn't conceived for 'premium' routes that other aircraft are perfectly suited for. It was conceived as a plane that could make long-and-thin routes profitable...allow carriers to open up new markets (e.g. JAL in Boston). If AA decided to use it for 'premium' routes such as JFK-LAX or JFK-London, people would bludgeon them with a baseball bat...and I'd be right there with them.

User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5242 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4835 times:

First, while it's true that AA doesn't have a firm order for 787s, Boeing is holding production slots. Assuming that AA's negotiations with APA results in a new contract, then AA will confirm the order.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 8):
The 787 wasn't conceived for 'premium' routes that other aircraft are perfectly suited for. It was conceived as a plane that could make long-and-thin routes profitable...allow carriers to open up new markets (e.g. JAL in Boston). If AA decided to use it for 'premium' routes such as JFK-LAX or JFK-London, people would bludgeon them with a baseball bat...and I'd be right there with them.

Why can't a carrier have a premium product on a long, thin route?


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5479 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4804 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 9):
Why can't a carrier have a premium product on a long, thin route?

Because almost no long thin routes have the premium demand to warrant it.

Heavy premium demand is almost always found on routes between major centers, which are not usually "thin" even if they are "long." That said, a carrier could easily want 787s not to fly them on thin routes but to fly thick routes with very high frequency.


User currently offlineHiJazzey From Saudi Arabia, joined Sep 2005, 870 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 10):
Because almost no long thin routes have the premium demand to warrant it

Not true. A lot of business destinations are big on premium but thin on volume. look at all the "oil" routes for example.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1604 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 6):
Have you seen the pictures of the A321 premium cabins? They look awesome.

Of course I have! Yes, I agree the cabin is great - I hope I have the opportunity of flying it. Those fancy business seats make a five hour flight seem much too short!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 6):
And then there is the small problem of AA not having any 787s on order

Yeah, but AA keeps saying the 787 will be in its fleet by 2014 is it?


User currently offlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

Quoting aacun (Reply 2):
And as far as I know, and for what I have heard, the 787 Is going to be a 2 class ac. ( 3 if you consider mc extra).......

I don't think that's right. If i'm not mistaken, the 789s that AA has ordered/planning to order will be configured like the 773s in a 3 class setting (four class if you count Y+). The 772s and 763s will be configured in a 2-class setting (3 if you count Y+)


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25372 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
So my question is - why didn't AA earmark the 787 for these flights? Call me old fashioned, but for me, a premium service involves a wide body

No reason to fly all that extra weight when a lighter aircraft will do the job and reduce costs. Frequency is more important on a route like JFK-LAX than aircraft type. Also keep in mind that landing fees are based on maximum landing weight in the US (maximum takeoff weight in most of the rest of the world).


User currently offlineEASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4066 times:

For my 2 cents, all these sinarios regarding AA are just wishful thinking. All this...they will use a #### on this route or that and where the 787 will go. My company has decided to drop AA after 25 years, as they don't want to get stuck if/when they belly up. For those of us that travel we have told our travel center NO WAY FOR UA either. It will be interesting....

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8374 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3587 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 8):
The 787 wasn't conceived for 'premium' routes that other aircraft are perfectly suited for. It was conceived as a plane that could make long-and-thin routes profitable...allow carriers to open up new markets (e.g. JAL in Boston). If AA decided to use it for 'premium' routes such as JFK-LAX or JFK-London, people would bludgeon them with a baseball bat...and I'd be right there with them.

AA will use the 787-9 for "premum" service just not on the LAX to JFK route. Very likely AA will fly them to the usual 777 destinations: LHR, GRU, EZE, NRT and Shanghai. WE will also see something we have not seen, Hong Kong hopefully. IF AA and Emirates do a deal Dubai should join the party too. India (again) and South Africa would be great and could finally join the AA route map. A greater Asian presence would be what I truly hope the 787 brings.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4237 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3540 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
AA announced that it is acquiring the A-321 for its premium transcontinental routes which it will equip with three (or is it four including y ) classes of service. Currently, AA uses the 762 for this service.

So my question is - why didn't AA earmark the 787 for these flights? Call me old fashioned, but for me, a premium service involves a wide body. Yeah, I know you can trick out a NB, but still it just doesn't compare. Plus, I would imagine that AA could fill a 787 on the transcontinental routes and wouldn't a 787 premium cabin be great?

Yeah it would be great, but since no one else is using a premium product to fly that route why would AA do this. First; The 787 has to be delivered, Second; I thought that is what they want the A321 to do, Third; If they do aquire the 787, don't you think that the premium international routes would be the first routes to get that type of service?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
Will the 772 continue after the new planes arrive?

Absolutely. The 787 will replace the 763's more than likely, if they receive them, and the A321s can carry passengers on that length of mission more economically



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2438 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter):
Call me old fashioned, but for me, a premium service involves a wide body. Yeah, I know you can trick out a NB, but still it just doesn't compare.

My wife has owned a corporate incentive travel agency for over 12 years. She has clients who travel exclusively first class. She has sold thousands of tickets over the years. Not once has a client or corporation requested a wide body over a narrow body aircraft. The only aircraft destinction that they sometimes care about is regional jet vs mainline jet. Most clients don't know and don't care what type of aircraft they are on. They only care about cost and schedule.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2900 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Given the amount of United 787's on the way I am concerned about no F on them. AA and UA are the 2 US carriers holding out on a decent international First Class. While my company and clients do "sometimes" buy us F I choose UA. Since the merger of CO and UA these long hauls in 2 class out of NY will just not satisfy those executives above me. It is one of their perks. If AA has F on their LHR to GRU to NRT routes, they will take all those paying First elites from 2 class ex CO birds.

The BF seats are nice but can easily be topped. Even AA will trump United ps service soon.

If AA lasts, they can squeeze in an F suite just like they and UA do right now on a 767.

IMHO



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
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...
DXB-AKL (EK) - Why The Demand For 3x Daily Service posted Mon Oct 3 2005 00:51:56 by Gilesdavies
AA Is Using The B752 For MIA-GRU posted Mon Jul 21 2003 05:57:34 by B752fanatic
Easa Certified The 787-8 For Max PAX Zero? posted Tue Oct 25 2011 07:07:28 by BoeingVista
Why Isn't CO Using 737-500SP's Long-haul? posted Sun May 23 2010 08:41:25 by lrgt
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Why Isn't AA Hedged? posted Wed May 28 2008 11:03:46 by Travelin man
Will LAN Use The 787 For MAD-FRA Flight? posted Thu May 1 2008 00:39:53 by LHStarAlliance
AA And The 787 Vs 777-200LR posted Wed Feb 20 2008 07:48:22 by Flavio340
Future Routes For UA Premium Service? posted Sun Dec 30 2007 06:55:59 by Osprey88
Why Did NW Buy The 787 posted Tue Sep 25 2007 06:32:19 by DL767captain