350helmi
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:47 am

Polot wrote:
Again though, it comes down to how much AA actually needs the 77E's capabilities, and how close its replacement has to be to them. Most of AA's 77Es are flying TATL or down to South America, only a handful are flying TPAC. Most of them could honestly be replaced with A333s (like many carriers, such as SQ, have done) with no issues. The reason why AA has so many 77Es is because in the mid 90s they selected the 777 over the A330/A340 to act as their aircraft larger than the 767 after AA soured on the MD-11. They don't have so many 77Es because they desperately needed so many aircraft with the 77E's range-payload capabilities, especially now that AA has smaller alternatives (787s) that can take over routes where the 77E was unsuitable but the only aircraft AA had that could fly the route.

You can't look at AA's fleet today and assume that is exactly what AA wants/needs now when it comes to replacing aircraft. AA's fleet makeup is a result of decisions made 20+ years ago.

For example AA flies 77Es 3x daily JFK-LHR, 1x JFK-BCN, 1x MIA-LHR, 1x MIA-BCN, 1x MIA-MAD, 1x MIA-CDG, 1x MIA-MXP, 1x RDU-LHR, 2x MIA-GRU, and 1x MIA-GIG. That is 13 frames out of AA's 47, and all but one of those routes is less than 4000 nm (the longest, MIA-MXP, is 4285 nm). Does AA really need the A350 for those routes, or would 789s, 78Xs, or A330neo (to build upon A332 fleet) suffice? That is why AA is exploring all their options and not immediately going hey fleet is too small so lets just order more A350s.


I agree that it won't be the capability that will make the difference as much in this order as in most between the 789 and 359, but the fact that the two planes are roughly equal on CASM around 4000NM-5500NM and they have the 359 on order already. Would the 789 be so much more efficient, even on the shorter routes that it would be worth canceling the order? The only other option would be to convert to a A330 order, but like I said earlier I feel that the 789 will be a better fit for AA for that role. And going the 787 + A350 route would simplify the fleet in the long term when the -1000 could replace the -300ER 1:1 (if they need/want to do that when the time comes). AA is probably the best example where the two aircraft families could compliment each other the best.

350helmi
 
350helmi
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:01 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

Why? With all those 787-9s, it seems like the replacement is clear. The only thing the A350 has over the 787-9 in this case is payload.

AA may not think it's worth integrating a whole new plane into the fleet.


As has been made clear in this thread, so far the 789s have replaced 767s, and for that role it is a great plane.


No one has said that.

The 789 has replaces some 77E routes, not 767.

Since the 359 is already on order, why not use it where it is most useful, replacing the 77E fleet?


Because they're potentially not needed, with all the 787s AA is getting, among other things.

The order will need to be increased but that won't be a problem and I have a feeling the 787 will be a better replacement for the A330 fleet than the A338/9 would be at AA since they fly a variety of missions and even if the 339 would be the ideal plane for some of those routes, the 789 will be better overall for the fleet.


Or, the A330neo can replace the current A330, converting from the A350, and 77Es can be replaced with 787s.

Not all of the options on every order need to be excercised, and that certainly is cheaper than cencelling a firm order. RR will not allow conversion to A321, and the 3510 can replace the -300ER at a later date limiting the number of different aircraft to a minimum in the long-run.

350helmi


Again, you're not going to see the A35K at AA, and you definitely are not going to see it replace the 77W. You're much more likely to see the 779 before the A35K.

You're also not going to see a cancelation.


What route the 787 is put on doens't tell us what plane it has replaced in the fleet. That only tells us how the fleet is best used for profit. 787 into fleet, 767 retired, meaning the 787 has replaced a 767 in the fleet.

I agree the 77E can be replaced with 789 if they so choose, and likely some will be, but that doesn't mean that the 359 won't be a better replacement for some. You cannot state as a fact that the 35K won't be in the AA fleet ever, you just don't know that, or that it won't replace the 77W at some point. At this point it is just your opinion, and happens to be different from mine. Personally I have a hard time seeing the 77X in any of the US3 fleets, but thats just my opinion.

What would you suppose AA do with the A350 order if they won't be taking them and won't be cancelling? And why do you think it's the better way to go than replacing some/most of the 77E fleet? What makes the A330neo better for AA than a 787 for those mission?

350helmi
 
350helmi
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:09 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 789 has considerably lower trip cost and than the 359. Second, cargo is less than 2% of AA's revenue. They clearly do not need a cargo/pax jet trans-pacific. The 789 obviously seems to work well for them. I fully expect AA to use most if not all of their remaining 50 + options with Boeing for additional 787's.


How considerable is 'considerably'?



According to fuel consumption data posted here and elsewhere the 789 burns 5400-5600kg per hour. The 359 burns 5800kg per hour. That works out to 4-5% lower fuel burn for the 789.

That equates to tens of millions of dollars over the life of the frame. If the 789 is the right size for AA between the 767 and 77W.....why go for the more expensive bird that burns a lot more fuel?


As a fact, 5600 vs 5800 is a 3.4% difference. And this again doesnt taake into account that the A359 is the larger plane by some margin and can seat around 30-35 pax more for that trip burn delta to be true (also doestn change that the 789 will burn less per trip at the stage leangth that fuel burn was measured). Will the 789 be that much more efficient overall taking into acount the advantageous pricing that comes from the early order for the A350? I highly doubt that.

350helmi
 
jfk777
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:10 pm

Talking about replacing AA's fleet of 20 77W with A350's when the first 77W was delivered in 2012 is a bit premature. AA 77W will easily be around until 2030 or 2035. Basically the long haul fleet question at AA needs to be why are three planes better then two ?
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:34 pm

deltal1011man wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
deltal1011man wrote:

Other than your obsession with the 777X, why is that the case?


I've explained the case several times, so go take a look.

Also, yeah, I like the 777X, and I hope AA gets it, what of it? I'm giving my opinion on why it would work. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

The airplane is too big for the US3


A popular opinion, but it's actually not, as far as AA is concerned. The 777-9 is really not that much bigger than the 77W.

If something in the current generation of aircraft replace the 77Ws at UA/AA it will be the A35K. A few of the 77W routes for American are questionable at best as it is, adding even more capacity to them is laughable.


Now what if in 10 years traffic has increased to those destinations? And what if AA decides to open more markets with the type?

Look, I'm not saying AA could order the 779 soon, it may be 10 years, more or less. Given market conditions, it would be a fine airplane for AA, especially as it provides a platform for the premium services it houses.

The same thing the US3 have have been doing for years and years, adding more frequency over larger capacity aircraft. Literally what they have been doing the last 50 years.

Why do you think UA/AA/DL want a true 767 replacement and not use larger 339s/789s etc.?


Precisely, which is why I think they'll stick with the 787 as the primary workhorse and use the 77W/779 for those premium destinations.

Because I think the US3s are camping out for whatever A or B will release, whether it be an MoM, A322 or the like.

At AA, the A321 has done a good job replacing the 757 and even some 767 flying, and DL has the same mentality.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:49 pm

Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

A332
788
789
A359
77W

That's not super bad, but it's still 4 subfleets, which is not unheard of, but it's unusual.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.

Depending on what the MoM/A322 are and how they perform, perhaps we could even see the removal of the A332 late next decade.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21770
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:15 pm

keesje wrote:
How come you accept this AA doesn't need / want cargo capacity on the pacific without any source / reference ?

Your source/reference is global trends across an industry, not taking in the particular situation AA is in.

One thing to ponder was posted earlier:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Last year cargo at AA was a $700 million business in a $40 Billion company. AA is selling available space and weight. If they have less available, they will sell less of it. Cargo is incidental to AA, DL and UA -- like Costco selling postage stamps. It would be idiotic to make a $10 Billion widebody fleet decision based on incremental capabilities of an incidental business.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... ortsannual

It would take major efforts for AA (or DL/UA) to become major players in cargo. Lots more employees making the deals, handling the cargo, dealing with ex/im -- is it worth it to AA to become cargo focused? It's a much lower yield business and there are entrenched players with lower cost bases.

Other points worth considering:
Polot wrote:
You realize the bulk of the cargo AA carries is domestic right? That infographic you posted earlier (where it states how AA carries 1.6 billion lbs of cargo among other things) includes domestic.

keesje wrote:
I think the A350s beats the 787 on cargo, long haul customer satisfaction (space, noise) and offers a viable growth version for conversions in the next decade. That isn't going away.

AA is by far the weakest of the US3 across the Pacific not because of their aircraft but because they fundamentally lack a strong transpacific fortress hub and any legacy presence in the Asian market. They don't need as large aircraft as their peers, especially has competition across the Pacific is only increasing and that is not changing in the next decade. We already saw DL defer half their A350 order in part due to weakness TPAC. Things like "long haul customer satisfaction" are red herrings, airlines are not making aircraft decisions based on that.

keesje wrote:
Hong Kong Airlines will start A350 flights HKG-LAX in December.
6300NM, 334 seats from a hot airport with a lot of cargo opportunity.
That requirement would really push a 787-9. It could probably take no cargo at all.

HKG is not a particularly challenging airport and that route would not significantly push the 787-9. You are aware, btw, that AA uses the 77W on that route right?

Your argument seems to be "follow the herd" and not taking in AA's business model, cost base, etc.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:56 pm

In relation to the fuel burn delta between the A350-900 and the 787-9, RR will be increasing the efficiency of the engine on the A350-900 which will decrease the difference between the types. If RR is also on the 787-9, why will they only improve the engines on the Airbus a/c and not on the Boeing a/c, are the engines on the 787-9 already obsolete that they can no longer be improved, or do the improvements increase the weight of the engine so much that the 787-9 will have the same OEW as the A350-900?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13282
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:08 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Polot wrote:

HKG is not a particularly challenging airport and that route would not significantly push the 787-9. You are aware, btw, that AA uses the 77W on that route right?


Yes, it would be challenging and AA is building their cargo network to US & South America from HKG VV. They say so.
https://theloadstar.co.uk/american-airlines-cargo-expands-asia-network-with-new-service-from-los-angeles-to-hong-kong/


American Airlines Group reported May cargo traffic up 16.8% y-o-y to 349 million RTKs. For the first five months of this year, American’s cargo traffic was up 14.1% to 1.58 billion RTKs.

http://cargofacts.com/air-freight-demand-growth-accelerates-in-may/


The 777-300ER kicks the A350-900's butt when it comes to cargo. It can take 44 LD3s compared to 36. HKG is one of the biggest cargo hubs in the world. AA uses 777-300ERs to HKG so if you want to make the fleet planning decisions based on cargo then 777s would be favored.


You are right, payload - range is important for the growing cargo rich Asia-US market. Regardless of the airline, there's opportunity to make money. When it appears there is a significant difference here between 787-9 and A350-900, different insights pop up like popcorn. AA is relying heavily on Asian partners for supply of passengers and cargo. Ignoring the smaller destinations. In principle that means larger aircraft with good payload range. The introduction of the 772ER and A343 matched the fast growing Asian economies and opened up many markets. Replacing them with something that's more efficient but also surrenders cargo revenue and doesn't have the upgrade potential the 772ER had (777W) just might not be the most robust scenario for AA.

"We're either going to need to have a bigger [A350] delivery size or figure out if there is something else we can do," says Parker.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/american-looking-at-options-for-a350-order-441113/

W'll see what happens.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
350helmi
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:50 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:42 pm

350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:04 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.


It'd be almost as bad if a Yankee aircraft became the flagship of a Europea... oh.



Seriously, if AA think the A35K suits them and it becomes their largest aircraft, so what? We live in a global world.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:07 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
350helmi wrote:

What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.


It'd be almost as bad if a Yankee aircraft became the flagship of a Europea... oh.



Seriously, if AA think the A35K suits them and it becomes their largest aircraft, so what? We live in a global world.


Mm, indeed. Still, I suppose I can be open minded about it...

...But I can't help but point out...I thought this was BAs Flagship! :wave:

Image

So unless us "Yankees" are building whales now......Oops..
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:15 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.


It'd be almost as bad if a Yankee aircraft became the flagship of a Europea... oh.



Seriously, if AA think the A35K suits them and it becomes their largest aircraft, so what? We live in a global world.


Mm, indeed. Still, I suppose I can be open minded about it...

...But I can't help but point out...I thought this was BAs Flagship! :wave:

Image

So unless us "Yankees" are building whales now......Oops..


The whale is BA's current flagship, but the 747 was BA's flagship for decades, and BOAC's before that. They had SIXTY of them FFS. My point still stands. And in any case, BA's flagship is now 'French', which circa 1805 would have been criminal...
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:16 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

It'd be almost as bad if a Yankee aircraft became the flagship of a Europea... oh.



Seriously, if AA think the A35K suits them and it becomes their largest aircraft, so what? We live in a global world.


Mm, indeed. Still, I suppose I can be open minded about it...

...But I can't help but point out...I thought this was BAs Flagship! :wave:

Image

So unless us "Yankees" are building whales now......Oops..


The whale is BA's current flagship, but the 747 was BA's flagship for decades, and BOAC's before that. They had SIXTY of them FFS. My point still stands. And in any case, BA's flagship is now 'French', which circa 1805 would have been criminal...


That's nice, but I thought Concorde was the Flagship till its retirement? :scratchchin:

I'm sure the 747 was considered so for a period, and it has definitely been a staple BA aircraft, but not for "decades"
Last edited by Boeing778X on Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:20 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

Mm, indeed. Still, I suppose I can be open minded about it...

...But I can't help but point out...I thought this was BAs Flagship! :wave:

Image

So unless us "Yankees" are building whales now......Oops..


The whale is BA's current flagship, but the 747 was BA's flagship for decades, and BOAC's before that. They had SIXTY of them FFS. My point still stands. And in any case, BA's flagship is now 'French', which circa 1805 would have been criminal...


That's nice, but I thought Concorde was the Flagship till its retirement? :scratchchin:

I'm sure the 747 was considered so for a period, but not for "decades"


I forgot. But the point still stands.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:22 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

The whale is BA's current flagship, but the 747 was BA's flagship for decades, and BOAC's before that. They had SIXTY of them FFS. My point still stands. And in any case, BA's flagship is now 'French', which circa 1805 would have been criminal...


That's nice, but I thought Concorde was the Flagship till its retirement? :scratchchin:

I'm sure the 747 was considered so for a period, but not for "decades"


I forgot. But the point still stands.


Fair enough :highfive: We'll just have to wait and see.

The 787-9 is a perfect 77E replacement. So is the A350-900.

We either convert or take it, and if we take it, we, most likely, will like it.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
777PHX
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:24 pm

350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


You do realize the 77W is at least two decades away from needing replacement, right?

You guys on here like to make a lot of noise about reducing fleet types, but for an airline the size of AA, it's rather irrelevant.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:35 pm

350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi

Its becoming the same as the guy obsessed with the 764. Zero logic behind it, but because its the 777X it must happen!
777PHX wrote:
350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


You do realize the 77W is at least two decades away from needing replacement, right?

You guys on here like to make a lot of noise about reducing fleet types, but for an airline the size of AA, it's rather irrelevant.

Take that logic and get out of here! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Tedd
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:38 pm

Got some chuckle out of some of these posts! How on earth can an A380 be called a French plane
& the same goes for a B787 an American plane? These two companies are true global brands
sourcing the best components they can find from around the world. If it were just engines & a few bits
& bobs, then you could argue it I suppose, but seriously, with the amount of work emanating from
overseas on most aircraft now, its a total nonsense......just like the A v B threads really.....IMHO :)
 
Tedd
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:20 pm

par13del wrote:
In relation to the fuel burn delta between the A350-900 and the 787-9, RR will be increasing the efficiency of the engine on the A350-900 which will decrease the difference between the types. If RR is also on the 787-9, why will they only improve the engines on the Airbus a/c and not on the Boeing a/c, are the engines on the 787-9 already obsolete that they can no longer be improved, or do the improvements increase the weight of the engine so much that the 787-9 will have the same OEW as the A350-900?


While the Trent XWB-84 will get a slated PIP in a couple of years on the -900, RR are also in the process of introducing
an improved version for the B787 very soon, it being more than a PIP really since they`ve introduced tech from the XWB,
this they are calling the Trent 1000-TEN. But since AA selected the GEnx, they will not benefit from whatever this engine
accomplishes. The GEnx is no stranger to PIP`s either, it`s probably had more than the Trent 1000, & it must be remembered
that the GEnx has had the largest share of the B787. I don`t know what GE are doing to counter the -TEN, but I`d imagine they
will no doubt announce something sooner or later. To suggest these engines are obsolete, or that Boeing are not a recipient
of improvements would be incorrect. It would also be wrong to imagine past & present PIP`s increase weight to the extent it
would have a negative effect. Two great engines on the B787 with more improvements to come will keep the A350 honest
for years to come, Boeing wouldn`t accept anything less.
 
TRENT1000TEN
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:15 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:52 pm

Exciting! Must admit it's a bit odd to see U.S. based carriers with these pretty new jets..
Too used to seeing them roll around with MD-80s and the like
 
astuteman
Posts: 6932
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:31 am

Boeing778X wrote:
350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.


I know absolutely nothing about AA, and won't pretend to.
But this thread has been an absolutely fascinating read.

I know Keejse has been accused of making the A359 a "one-size-fits-all" solution (whether he did or not is a different matter)
On the other hand it's been fascinating to read how there is no room for the A359 in an airline that operates 767's, 787's, 77E's and 77W's - (the latter being fairly new).
The 787 is going to replace the first 3, and the 777-9X the latter one.
There's no market there in the middle for the A359. AA will only fly smallish widebodys and then the biggest one.
Have I got that right? :)

Some thoughts

Consider the following types.

A330/A330NEO.
The 787 can do anything that the A330's can do, and AA have options.
The A330NEO might be cheaper to buy, but ...
Isom told American pilots at a question-and-answer session Aug. 29, a recording of which was heard by Bloomberg News. “It’s exceptional pricing. Unfortunately, pricing is just one aspect of trying to fly something profitably.”

And yes. I'm aware that the quote referred to the A350 - but the principle .......
If fleet simplification is the key can only see the A330 fleet going one way, and that is out.
Why not use 787's instead

787-8/9/10
Very versatile, incredibly economical family of aircraft that can readily replace the 767 and A330 and 77E.
They can't quite do what the 77E can do in terms of capacity/payload range, but that supports the frequency/fragmentation/RASM/CASM argument.
They can't do what the A350's can do in terms of capacity/payload range either

A350
Another versatile, incredibly economical family of aircraft that is probably too big to replace the 767 and A330, but is a perfect fit for both the 77E and 77W.
It's a fraction more expensive to operate than the 787 but has substantially more capacity.

(A good argument about 3%-4% on fuel burn vs an 8%-10% delta in capacity. Sort of fits with Matt6461's theory about the CAM advantage needed for a bigger plane - these two seem well matched on that basis, as global sales show)

777X
An incredibly economical family of aircraft, but the biggest and least versatile of all - they will be at the top of the widebody tree (A380 is an anachronism here IMO).
There is also clearly no need for the 77W's to be replaced anytime soon, so I don't see an order for 77X anytime soon.

If fragmentation/frequency/RASM are the arguments for the 787-9 being a better fit replacing the 77E, it's hard to see the 777-9X replacing the 77W's at some point given the same argument. Unless we intend to change the argument, but we should do so consistently.

My conclusion?
Without even going near route structures, if AA want a simplified fleet, I would have thought that 787-8, 787-9, possibly 787-10, and A350-900 with an option to secure A350-1000 as the 77W replacement at a later date would satisfy their every need. Ultra efficient, versatile, cheap to operate, promotes fragmentation etc etc.

I guess it's going against the trend, but I see no logic for MORE A330's and I see no logic for cancelling the A350 order. The only logic I see is for growing it.
777-9X? Well, I guess as Boeing 778X says, the A350-1000 does not preclude a 777-9X at some point.
Any more than the 787 precludes an A350 :)

Rgds
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:17 am

MrHMSH wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The 789 has considerably lower trip cost and than the 359. Second, cargo is less than 2% of AA's revenue. They clearly do not need a cargo/pax jet trans-pacific. The 789 obviously seems to work well for them. I fully expect AA to use most if not all of their remaining 50 + options with Boeing for additional 787's.


How considerable is 'considerably'?

What I got from discussions earlier: small single digit % for ~10% more capacity.
Same payload: beyond some range limit the A350 seems to take less fuel for the same payload.
Looks like the A350 is the slightly more efficient airframe.
( a bit like the 767 to A330 swing of market gravity?)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Tedd
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:22 am

TRENT1000TEN wrote:
Exciting! Must admit it's a bit odd to see U.S. based carriers with these pretty new jets..
Too used to seeing them roll around with MD-80s and the like


Perhaps it`s your location in the States that limits your opportunity? True you won`t see A380/B747-8i
in US livery, but they have everything else that's worth seeing believe me. I used to fly around the States
in WB`s like L-1011`s & MD-11`s, so perhaps it was a little more interesting then, but with the advent of
more fuel efficient ( Carbon ) WB`s things will improve on that front. When GTF tech reaches the likes
of B787 & A350, the chances of you seeing such equipment may improve further. Be patient :)
 
NZ321
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:49 am

Well, I expect AA will keep an Airbus wide body order rather than cancel. Don't see a conversion to A320 neo. Rather than 359 I am leaning towards a 339 order to replace 333 and 763 trans-atlantic ex MIA and PHL and JFK. That is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. And I imagine attractive slots available. Lines up nicely with the current recently delivered 332. Leaves 789 and 77W for long haul until such a time as AA order the 77X.
Plane mad!
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:24 am

astuteman wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
350helmi wrote:

What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.


I know absolutely nothing about AA, and won't pretend to.
But this thread has been an absolutely fascinating read.

I know Keejse has been accused of making the A359 a "one-size-fits-all" solution (whether he did or not is a different matter)
On the other hand it's been fascinating to read how there is no room for the A359 in an airline that operates 767's, 787's, 77E's and 77W's - (the latter being fairly new).
The 787 is going to replace the first 3, and the 777-9X the latter one.
There's no market there in the middle for the A359. AA will only fly smallish widebodys and then the biggest one.
Have I got that right? :)

Some thoughts

Consider the following types.

A330/A330NEO.
The 787 can do anything that the A330's can do, and AA have options.
The A330NEO might be cheaper to buy, but ...
Isom told American pilots at a question-and-answer session Aug. 29, a recording of which was heard by Bloomberg News. “It’s exceptional pricing. Unfortunately, pricing is just one aspect of trying to fly something profitably.”

And yes. I'm aware that the quote referred to the A350 - but the principle .......
If fleet simplification is the key can only see the A330 fleet going one way, and that is out.
Why not use 787's instead

787-8/9/10
Very versatile, incredibly economical family of aircraft that can readily replace the 767 and A330 and 77E.
They can't quite do what the 77E can do in terms of capacity/payload range, but that supports the frequency/fragmentation/RASM/CASM argument.
They can't do what the A350's can do in terms of capacity/payload range either

A350
Another versatile, incredibly economical family of aircraft that is probably too big to replace the 767 and A330, but is a perfect fit for both the 77E and 77W.
It's a fraction more expensive to operate than the 787 but has substantially more capacity.

(A good argument about 3%-4% on fuel burn vs an 8%-10% delta in capacity. Sort of fits with Matt6461's theory about the CAM advantage needed for a bigger plane - these two seem well matched on that basis, as global sales show)

777X
An incredibly economical family of aircraft, but the biggest and least versatile of all - they will be at the top of the widebody tree (A380 is an anachronism here IMO).
There is also clearly no need for the 77W's to be replaced anytime soon, so I don't see an order for 77X anytime soon.

If fragmentation/frequency/RASM are the arguments for the 787-9 being a better fit replacing the 77E, it's hard to see the 777-9X replacing the 77W's at some point given the same argument. Unless we intend to change the argument, but we should do so consistently.

My conclusion?
Without even going near route structures, if AA want a simplified fleet, I would have thought that 787-8, 787-9, possibly 787-10, and A350-900 with an option to secure A350-1000 as the 77W replacement at a later date would satisfy their every need. Ultra efficient, versatile, cheap to operate, promotes fragmentation etc etc.

I guess it's going against the trend, but I see no logic for MORE A330's and I see no logic for cancelling the A350 order. The only logic I see is for growing it.
777-9X? Well, I guess as Boeing 778X says, the A350-1000 does not preclude a 777-9X at some point.
Any more than the 787 precludes an A350 :)

Rgds


I don't think people are saying the A350 would have no place in AAs network. What we are doing is responding to Keesje repeating about how AA should buy the A350 for their Asia network. AA is struggling with yields on the Asia market. I provided the numbers earlier. Outside HKG even though the incremental costs of the A350 are low, AA isn't looking for more capacity at all. They are using many 787-8s, which is quite a bit smaller than the A350.

AA needs higher capacity planes on its Latin America network and European network. Those routed are between 3000nm and 5000nm. Is the A350 the right choice for those markets?

The A350 is great for long haul flying. But just because others are going to use it for transpacific flying that doesn't mean it is right for AA. There are currently 77 transpacific route pairs operated by 787s, so that is a pretty capable and common plane for transpacific flying and AA s strategy to use that plane makes a lot of sense given their network.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:37 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The A350 is great for long haul flying. But just because others are going to use it for transpacific flying that doesn't mean it is right for AA. There are currently 77 transpacific route pairs operated by 787s, so that is a pretty capable and common plane for transpacific flying and AA s strategy to use that plane makes a lot of sense given their network.


I do wonder were the demarcation line in range is.

in recent history the A330 is used on much shorter connections than its range capability
together with a-net mantra would suggest is optimal. ( posted here every other week.
never seen comparable numbers for the various 777 incarnations. :-)
Users of the A330 seem to be absolutely happy with this under-utilization.
The Efficiency drop off seems to be negligible.

The A350 too appears to be comfortably overwinged. Will airlines use it in a similar vein?
( Initially the 787 seemed to go for "more wing is better" but the OEW increases have
cut that move to a smaller size.
Murphy is an optimist
 
NZ321
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:04 pm

AA needs to make up its mind about its fleet strategy. Will come soon. I suspect an A339 solution but will be very happy if they keep the A359 order. Would be sad to see them relinquish their wide body Airbus slots.
Plane mad!
 
osupoke07
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:58 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Well, I expect AA will keep an Airbus wide body order rather than cancel. Don't see a conversion to A320 neo. Rather than 359 I am leaning towards a 339 order to replace 333 and 763 trans-atlantic ex MIA and PHL and JFK. That is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. And I imagine attractive slots available. Lines up nicely with the current recently delivered 332. Leaves 789 and 77W for long haul until such a time as AA order the 77X.


Outside looking in, that really does seem to be the most reasonable approach. Convert the 22 359 to 35 or so 339, maybe throw some 338 in there as well (which would make Hawaiian very happy). If AA needs range on a route, use a 788/789, if they don't need range, use a 338/339, and if they need capacity, use the 77W and maybe eventually the 78J.
MD82, MD83, MD88, B717, B732, B733, B735, B737, B738, B739, B752, B763, B77W, CR2, CR7, CR9, A320, A321
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21770
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:51 pm

astuteman wrote:
If fragmentation/frequency/RASM are the arguments for the 787-9 being a better fit replacing the 77E, it's hard to see the 777-9X replacing the 77W's at some point given the same argument. Unless we intend to change the argument, but we should do so consistently.

Why insist on consistency when one also accepts that one size does not fit all?

The information being presented here tells us that AA has a few large trunk routes to partner hubs e.g. HKG where the capacity is needed and a lot of other routes that fit the fragmentation/frequency/RASM argument/model.

DL (nee NW) and UA were/are the dominant US-Asia players. AA's model is different.

I'm sure some see this as AA using the press to pressure Airbus into giving it the same excellent pricing on a larger A350 order, rather than an issue with fit into their route network. If so, more power to them. There definitely is value in having both vendors contesting for future orders. Hopefully we will all know more sooner rather than later.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:49 pm

astuteman wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
350helmi wrote:

What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.


I know absolutely nothing about AA, and won't pretend to.
But this thread has been an absolutely fascinating read.

I know Keejse has been accused of making the A359 a "one-size-fits-all" solution (whether he did or not is a different matter)
On the other hand it's been fascinating to read how there is no room for the A359 in an airline that operates 767's, 787's, 77E's and 77W's - (the latter being fairly new).
The 787 is going to replace the first 3, and the 777-9X the latter one.
There's no market there in the middle for the A359. AA will only fly smallish widebodys and then the biggest one.
Have I got that right? :)

Some thoughts

Consider the following types.

A330/A330NEO.
The 787 can do anything that the A330's can do, and AA have options.
The A330NEO might be cheaper to buy, but ...
Isom told American pilots at a question-and-answer session Aug. 29, a recording of which was heard by Bloomberg News. “It’s exceptional pricing. Unfortunately, pricing is just one aspect of trying to fly something profitably.”

And yes. I'm aware that the quote referred to the A350 - but the principle .......
If fleet simplification is the key can only see the A330 fleet going one way, and that is out.
Why not use 787's instead

787-8/9/10
Very versatile, incredibly economical family of aircraft that can readily replace the 767 and A330 and 77E.
They can't quite do what the 77E can do in terms of capacity/payload range, but that supports the frequency/fragmentation/RASM/CASM argument.
They can't do what the A350's can do in terms of capacity/payload range either

A350
Another versatile, incredibly economical family of aircraft that is probably too big to replace the 767 and A330, but is a perfect fit for both the 77E and 77W.
It's a fraction more expensive to operate than the 787 but has substantially more capacity.

(A good argument about 3%-4% on fuel burn vs an 8%-10% delta in capacity. Sort of fits with Matt6461's theory about the CAM advantage needed for a bigger plane - these two seem well matched on that basis, as global sales show)

777X
An incredibly economical family of aircraft, but the biggest and least versatile of all - they will be at the top of the widebody tree (A380 is an anachronism here IMO).
There is also clearly no need for the 77W's to be replaced anytime soon, so I don't see an order for 77X anytime soon.

If fragmentation/frequency/RASM are the arguments for the 787-9 being a better fit replacing the 77E, it's hard to see the 777-9X replacing the 77W's at some point given the same argument. Unless we intend to change the argument, but we should do so consistently.

My conclusion?
Without even going near route structures, if AA want a simplified fleet, I would have thought that 787-8, 787-9, possibly 787-10, and A350-900 with an option to secure A350-1000 as the 77W replacement at a later date would satisfy their every need. Ultra efficient, versatile, cheap to operate, promotes fragmentation etc etc.

I guess it's going against the trend, but I see no logic for MORE A330's and I see no logic for cancelling the A350 order. The only logic I see is for growing it.
777-9X? Well, I guess as Boeing 778X says, the A350-1000 does not preclude a 777-9X at some point.
Any more than the 787 precludes an A350 :)

Rgds


Good post, well said :bigthumbsup:

But, it's getting pretty hard to get a read on what corporate is thinking. Still, all the planes in question would be a win!
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
350helmi
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:10 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Alright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well.

Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work.

A332
788
789
A359
A35K
779

Good coverage in the fleet, but that's assuming the A350s are even taken. I'm not sure AA needs all the types however.


What is it with the 779? AA will take either that or the A35K as the replacement for the 77W, not both. The same pilot pool can fly all the 787 types, and the same applies to the A350 pilot pool. This is how I imagine the AA fleet to look like after all is said and done.

788
789
(78J)
A359
A35K

That would mean only two pilot pools would be needed for thew whole fleet and would be very efficient. That fleet also gives the option to right size the aircraft for the specific route in question.

350helmi


Simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the A330 gets retired completely next decade. Assuming that happened, AA would need 30-45x more A350s, -900s and -1000s.

The A35K and 779 are not mutually exclusive. An airline like AA could potentially benefit from both.

It's either that or:

A332
A330neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

All rides on whether the A350 gets taken.

Also, just my opinion, I like the A35K, it's quickly becoming a favorite of mine, but it'll be too damn bad the day a Frenchy becomes AAs Flagship aircraft.


True, the A35K and 779 aren't mutually exclusive, but would there be enough of routes in AA network that a combined fleet of 60 aircraft would be needed? 60 because apparently 22 of a particular type was too small a fleet, so 30 of each? maybe even a combined fleet of 50 (30x779 + 20xA35K) could be argued since the A35K can be included in the overall A350 numbers and would reduce the number of aircraft needed to make the overall size of the fleet sufficently large for AA.

350helmi
 
astuteman
Posts: 6932
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
If fragmentation/frequency/RASM are the arguments for the 787-9 being a better fit replacing the 77E, it's hard to see the 777-9X replacing the 77W's at some point given the same argument. Unless we intend to change the argument, but we should do so consistently.

Why insist on consistency when one also accepts that one size does not fit all?.


You've lost me.
I never said it did.
But if there's a different argument, as in some routes are frequency driven, but some are volume driven, then THAT should be applied consistently too.
Do you think I'm wrong in this?

Newbiepilot wrote:
I don't think people are saying the A350 would have no place in AAs network. What we are doing is responding to Keesje repeating about how AA should buy the A350 for their Asia network. AA is struggling with yields on the Asia market. I provided the numbers earlier. Outside HKG even though the incremental costs of the A350 are low, AA isn't looking for more capacity at all. They are using many 787-8s, which is quite a bit smaller than the A350.

AA needs higher capacity planes on its Latin America network and European network. Those routed are between 3000nm and 5000nm. Is the A350 the right choice for those markets?

The A350 is great for long haul flying. But just because others are going to use it for transpacific flying that doesn't mean it is right for AA. There are currently 77 transpacific route pairs operated by 787s, so that is a pretty capable and common plane for transpacific flying and AA s strategy to use that plane makes a lot of sense given their network.


If I understand it correctly, AA are not looking for more capacity for Asia, and the A350 is too big. Doesn't bode well for either the 77X or 77W I guess.
But Europe and Latin America do demand capacity, which doesn't bode well for the A330NEO
But might suit an A350-1000 once the 77W's are old enough. Or a 777-9X :)

To be fair, your arguments and data have a great sense of "now", Newbiepilot.
Today AA are experiencing "this" or looking for "that"
I was working under the assumption that any fleet decision such as this would be a strategic decision made with some 2 decades of operation in mind.
And in that time the one certainty is that current circumstances will have changed.
Bit hard to predict where that might take AA in my view, and again, as Boeing 778X so ably says, makes the corporate tea leaf reading a bit harder to predict.

One things for sure. They have a suite of pretty good choices available.

Rgds
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:58 pm

I don't know why the A330neo would be considered over the 787-10 for higher capacity Latin America and Europe routes. I don't see the 777-9 fitting in their network
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21770
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:05 am

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
If fragmentation/frequency/RASM are the arguments for the 787-9 being a better fit replacing the 77E, it's hard to see the 777-9X replacing the 77W's at some point given the same argument. Unless we intend to change the argument, but we should do so consistently.

Why insist on consistency when one also accepts that one size does not fit all?.

You've lost me.
I never said it did.

I'm using the rhetorical 'one' since you were originally referring to a third party.

Since this is all so indirect and so confusing, let's work on what you just said:

astuteman wrote:
But if there's a different argument, as in some routes are frequency driven, but some are volume driven, then THAT should be applied consistently too.
Do you think I'm wrong in this?

On a per-route basis? No. A route that may be volume driven for an incumbent may be frequency driven for a new entrant trying to undermine the incumbents by offering more convenient schedules.

astuteman wrote:
One things for sure. They have a suite of pretty good choices available.

Yep. They have almost two dozen very efficient and highly desired aircraft on contract for what they call exceptional prices. That's a classy problem to have! :biggrin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 4455
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:31 am

astuteman wrote:

If I understand it correctly, AA are not looking for more capacity for Asia, and the A350 is too big. Doesn't bode well for either the 77X or 77W I guess.
But Europe and Latin America do demand capacity, which doesn't bode well for the A330NEO
But might suit an A350-1000 once the 77W's are old enough. Or a 777-9X :)

Rgds


By the time American will start looking for a 77W replacement, which I don't expect to occur before 2030, Airbus and Boeing will probably have unveiled new variants of their A350 and 787 aircraft. Maybe Airbus will have by then an A350NEO and Boeing will have a 787-10MAX and 11MAX. Who knows? We don't know what Airbus and Boeing will be doing by then.
Ben Soriano
 
NZ321
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:31 am

Just for the purposes of comparison, I did a wee bit of research and see that the following airlines have ordered both A359 and 789:

Air France / KLM
Aeroflot
Air China
Latam
Qatar
Thai
Vietnam
United

Some have ordered considerable quantities of both.

So clearly some airlines see a justification for both types in the fleet based on the distinct performance of the two aircraft.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:54 am

NZ321 wrote:
Just for the purposes of comparison, I did a wee bit of research and see that the following airlines have ordered both A359 and 789:

Air France / KLM
Aeroflot
Air China
Latam
Qatar
Thai
Vietnam
United

Some have ordered considerable quantities of both.

So clearly some airlines see a justification for both types in the fleet based on the distinct performance of the two aircraft.


You are missing the 80 birds for Etihad between A359 and 789 (55 more if you include the 10 version of both)
 
incitatus
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:31 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Just for the purposes of comparison, I did a wee bit of research and see that the following airlines have ordered both A359 and 789:

Air France / KLM
Aeroflot
Air China
Latam
Qatar
Thai
Vietnam
United

(...).


LATAM did not order both. TAM from Brazil ordered the A350. Lan from Chile ordered the 787. Then the two airlines merged and created LATAM.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21770
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:32 pm

incitatus wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Just for the purposes of comparison, I did a wee bit of research and see that the following airlines have ordered both A359 and 789:

Air France / KLM
Aeroflot
Air China
Latam
Qatar
Thai
Vietnam
United

(...).


LATAM did not order both. TAM from Brazil ordered the A350. Lan from Chile ordered the 787. Then the two airlines merged and created LATAM.

By that standard, AA didn't order both (US ordered A350) and UA didn't order both (CO ordered 787).
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
incitatus wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
Just for the purposes of comparison, I did a wee bit of research and see that the following airlines have ordered both A359 and 789:

Air France / KLM
Aeroflot
Air China
Latam
Qatar
Thai
Vietnam
United

(...).


LATAM did not order both. TAM from Brazil ordered the A350. Lan from Chile ordered the 787. Then the two airlines merged and created LATAM.

By that standard, AA didn't order both (US ordered A350) and UA didn't order both (CO ordered 787).
I believe UA ordered both the 787 and A350 at the same time pre merger.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9610
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:46 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
Revelation wrote:
incitatus wrote:

LATAM did not order both. TAM from Brazil ordered the A350. Lan from Chile ordered the 787. Then the two airlines merged and created LATAM.

By that standard, AA didn't order both (US ordered A350) and UA didn't order both (CO ordered 787).
I believe UA ordered both the 787 and A350 at the same time pre merger.

Yes, although it was 788s and not 789s.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:56 pm

I'm in the camp that roots for American "doing United". I see American increase the order for A350-900 to replace all of its 777-200ERs with options for larger -1000 as an eventual replacement for its 777-300ERs as well.
Tarriffs are taxes. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to anything.
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
 
fightforlove
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:21 pm

If Delta can find a place for the A350-900 in their fleet, I'm sure American can. That said, the deferals, boeing's promise to ramp up 787 production, the desire for fleet commonality wherever possible, etc all seem to point towards AA not really needing the A350 right now. Remember, AA are a frequencies carrier. The 787 is really the ideal tool designed for their overseas market, be it the seasonal/medium capacity 3000-5000nm routes to Europe and South America, or the long-thin routes to Asia/Pacific. If AA builds up a stronger TPAC hub (LAX?), the A350 would be a more urgent need for them. Until then, their relatively-new 77Ws are the only 300+ PAX premium wide bodies they absolutely need for the high-density routes already mentioned in this thread.
 
itchief
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:15 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:41 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
I'm in the camp that roots for American "doing United". I see American increase the order for A350-900 to replace all of its 777-200ERs with options for larger -1000 as an eventual replacement for its 777-300ERs as well.


Why would you need 'options' for the -1000 in 2017 to replace aircraft that will be in service until the year 2030 or longer?
 
incitatus
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:04 pm

Revelation wrote:
By that standard, AA didn't order both (US ordered A350) and UA didn't order both (CO ordered 787).


Yes indeed. Like LATAM, it did not make a decision to buy both. But it seems Lan/TAM were both closer to the delivery schedule and could not reconsider.

As for picking 339s vs. 78710s to operate across the Atlantic and to Brazil and Argentina, there can be one compelling factor: Price.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:16 am

Great thread! Lots of different scenarios that could happen!

Scenario 1:

A350 order kept, replacing 77E and/or A350 order increased

A332
788
789
A359
777

Scenerio 2:

A350 order increased, including the -1000 as a potential 77W replacement

A332
788
789
A359
A35K

Scenario 3:

A350 order converted from -900 to -1000 for a little more capacity

A332
788
789
A35K
777

Scenario 4:

A350 order converted with the A330neo being the most likely option, additional 787s exercised for 77E replacements

A332
A338/9neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

Scenario 5:

A350 order cancelled, additional 787s for 77E replacements

A332
788
789
78J(?)
777
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
350helmi
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:50 am

Boeing778X wrote:
Great thread! Lots of different scenarios that could happen!

Scenario 1:

A350 order kept, replacing 77E and/or A350 order increased

A332
788
789
A359
777

Scenerio 2:

A350 order increased, including the -1000 as a potential 77W replacement

A332
788
789
A359
A35K

Scenario 3:

A350 order converted from -900 to -1000 for a little more capacity

A332
788
789
A35K
777

Scenario 4:

A350 order converted with the A330neo being the most likely option, additional 787s exercised for 77E replacements

A332
A338/9neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

Scenario 5:

A350 order cancelled, additional 787s for 77E replacements

A332
788
789
78J(?)
777


Great summary! I think it will depend on how much AA values flexibility in its fleet to right size the plane for a route seasonally. Going all Boeing, or Airbus for that matter(not that it's even a possibility in this case) gives up flexibility. All boeing would not have the medium capacity range (if you can call the 78K medium capacity), and all Airbus wouldn't have range at medium-small capacity (for widebodies). Which is why I'm personally rooting for your scenario 2 with the A332 swapped for 78K toi give that amazing TATL CASM. Which ever way they choose to go they will have a great product.

350helmi
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: AA 777-200ER replacement, A350 , 787-9 order potential

Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:47 pm

350helmi wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
Great thread! Lots of different scenarios that could happen!

Scenario 1:

A350 order kept, replacing 77E and/or A350 order increased

A332
788
789
A359
777

Scenerio 2:

A350 order increased, including the -1000 as a potential 77W replacement

A332
788
789
A359
A35K

Scenario 3:

A350 order converted from -900 to -1000 for a little more capacity

A332
788
789
A35K
777

Scenario 4:

A350 order converted with the A330neo being the most likely option, additional 787s exercised for 77E replacements

A332
A338/9neo
788
789
78J(?)
777

Scenario 5:

A350 order cancelled, additional 787s for 77E replacements

A332
788
789
78J(?)
777


Great summary! I think it will depend on how much AA values flexibility in its fleet to right size the plane for a route seasonally. Going all Boeing, or Airbus for that matter(not that it's even a possibility in this case) gives up flexibility. All boeing would not have the medium capacity range (if you can call the 78K medium capacity), and all Airbus wouldn't have range at medium-small capacity (for widebodies). Which is why I'm personally rooting for your scenario 2 with the A332 swapped for 78K toi give that amazing TATL CASM. Which ever way they choose to go they will have a great product.

350helmi


Agreed completely, it'll be interesting to see what AA does in the months years ahead.

I put question marks next to the 78J for the reasons stated. In an absolute perfect world, I would want this, circa 2025-2030:

788
789
A359
A35K
779

Simple, yet versatile.

Scenario #1 and #4 seem to be the ones most likely.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos