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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
Consider the following types.
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
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
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)
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.
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