Is AA going to cancel their A350 order?

keesje · Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:30 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
The A350 order will be decided once American Airlines determines what it will want to replace the 47 777-200ER's in the fleet.

Yes, 787-10, 777-8 or A350-900. Now, what is the best aircraft for their Atlantic and Pacific flights?

The 777-8 I guess, because the 787-10 does not have the range to fly to Australia. It probably doesn't matter the 777-8 is heavy & expensive. It's a great alternative.

The 787-9 can replace 777-200ERs. United has a 15 seat difference (6% capacity) between the two planes. Thai Airways has more seats on its 789 than 772 for comparison. The 777-8 and 787-10 would be capacity increases. All three could fit in AAs network if they choose not to buy A350s.

If you replace 777-200ER by 787-9 on the Pacific flights, the cargo department takes a significant hit. If you select the 777-8, better check with finance first.

klkla · Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:38 am

ADrum23 wrote:
Again, this does not have anything to do with Delta. I don't care if AA keeps the A350 order or not. If you don't want to contribute to this thread, don't comment. Goodness, the audacity of asking a simple question.......

Don't let rabid fanboys ruin your day.

As for AA and the A350, current management made it clear they are uncomfortable with having it as a small sub-fleet. To me that was a public way of prodding Airbus to give them a better deal on a larger order (sort of like the deal UA got).

Boeing778X · Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:23 am

klkla wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Again, this does not have anything to do with Delta. I don't care if AA keeps the A350 order or not. If you don't want to contribute to this thread, don't comment. Goodness, the audacity of asking a simple question.......

Don't let rabid fanboys ruin your day.

As for AA and the A350, current management made it clear they are uncomfortable with having it as a small sub-fleet. To me that was a public way of prodding Airbus to give them a better deal on a larger order (sort of like the deal UA got).

I don't think so.

It's likely AA doesn't want the fleet period. It's just too expensive to add another subfleet when there is one already established (The 787-9) that does a similar type of mission.

AA is not UA.

PW100 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
The key word is “cancel”, which I think is the wrong word.

Covert is better.

A covert order, is that like a fake order . . . ?

YES! Why, that's exactly what it means, smartypants!

ADrum23 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:30 am

klkla wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Again, this does not have anything to do with Delta. I don't care if AA keeps the A350 order or not. If you don't want to contribute to this thread, don't comment. Goodness, the audacity of asking a simple question.......

Don't let rabid fanboys ruin your day.

As for AA and the A350, current management made it clear they are uncomfortable with having it as a small sub-fleet. To me that was a public way of prodding Airbus to give them a better deal on a larger order (sort of like the deal UA got).

Won't they need something to replace their 772's? Or will they wait for the 777x for that one? I don't see why the necessarily need to cancel the A350.

Boeing778X · Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:32 am

ADrum23 wrote:
klkla wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Again, this does not have anything to do with Delta. I don't care if AA keeps the A350 order or not. If you don't want to contribute to this thread, don't comment. Goodness, the audacity of asking a simple question.......

Don't let rabid fanboys ruin your day.

As for AA and the A350, current management made it clear they are uncomfortable with having it as a small sub-fleet. To me that was a public way of prodding Airbus to give them a better deal on a larger order (sort of like the deal UA got).

Won't they need something to replace their 772's? Or will they wait for the 777x for that one? I don't see why the necessarily need to cancel the A350.

They don't need to cancel it, they just need to convert to something that can be acquired quickly to replace older aircraft, i.e., the A330neo replacing some of the 767s.

The 77Es are best suited to be replaced by the 789. The A350-900 could be used to replace them, but I'll reiterate again that it's not looking good.

The 777X is an eventuality, but not in the immediate future.

ADrum23 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:47 am

Boeing778X wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
klkla wrote:

Don't let rabid fanboys ruin your day.

As for AA and the A350, current management made it clear they are uncomfortable with having it as a small sub-fleet. To me that was a public way of prodding Airbus to give them a better deal on a larger order (sort of like the deal UA got).

Won't they need something to replace their 772's? Or will they wait for the 777x for that one? I don't see why the necessarily need to cancel the A350.

They don't need to cancel it, they just need to convert to something that can be acquired quickly to replace older aircraft, i.e., the A330neo replacing some of the 767s.

The 77Es are best suited to be replaced by the 789. The A350-900 could be used to replace them, but I'll reiterate again that it's not looking good.

The 777X is an eventuality, but not in the immediate future.

The 788 is a better replacement for the 767 (though I don’t think they are ready to replace those quite yet?), but I think they will only order 789s going forward. I think they should keep the A350 order as is, it’s not really hurting them.

Eyad89 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:07 am

Boeing778X wrote:

I don't think so.

It's likely AA doesn't want the fleet period. It's just too expensive to add another subfleet when there is one already established (The 787-9) that does a similar type of mission.

AA is not UA.

Well, AA managed to add the A320 fleet even when they had the 737, and they didn't complain about that. I am sure AA can operate A350 and 787 on different missions as each still has its own benefits, unlike the virtually identical A320/737. AA is a big airline, downsizing the number of types wouldn't be their top priority. Plus, AA already flies its A330 with RR engines, so I guess adding the A350 wouldn't bring in an all that new type fleet.

I see that you have repeatedly asked for 77X in AA colors, well, adding the A350 wouldn't add more costs in terms of maintenance/training than 77X would. I am curious, why pay the penalties of canceling A350 and then go ahead and order 77X? The argument of reducing the number of types applies to both planes.

Boeing778X · Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:14 am

Eyad89 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

I don't think so.

It's likely AA doesn't want the fleet period. It's just too expensive to add another subfleet when there is one already established (The 787-9) that does a similar type of mission.

AA is not UA.

Well, AA managed to add the A320 fleet even when they had the 737, and they didn't complain about that.

Okay, but we're talking about the A350, not the A320, and both the A320 and 737 are already established.

I am sure AA can operate A350 and 787 on different missions as each still has its own benefits, unlike the virtually identical A320/737

But for what? There are very few routes that AA operates with the 787-9 that would be better suited with an A350-900.

AA is a big airline, downsizing the number of types wouldn't be their top priority.

Regardless if you think that or not, it's already happening. The A330-300, MD-80 and E190 are all leaving in under 2 years, with the 757 and 767 probably being retired before the mid 2020s.

Plus, AA already flies its A330 with RR engines, so I guess adding the A350 wouldn't bring in an all that new type fleet.

LOL, what? An A330 isn't the same as an A350. Even if the engines are similar, they're two totally different planes.

I see that you have repeatedly asked for 77X in AA colors, well, adding the A350 wouldn't add more costs in terms of maintenance/training than 77X would. I am curious, why pay the penalties of canceling A350 and then go ahead and order 77X? The argument of reducing the number of types applies to both planes.

No, it doesn't. The 777X is a 777......Something that AA has 67x of.

All the logic you're trying to imply about the A350 is just as prevalent to the 777X. The GE9X is developed from the GE-90, as the Trent XWB has from the Trent 700.

The 777 is established at AA. The A350 is not.

Furthermore, the 777 and 787 have the same type rating, which reduced training for pilots, something the A350 doesn't have either. The cost of training for an entirely new aircraft is something I'd take into account.

Eyad89 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:55 am

Boeing778X wrote:

LOL, what? An A330 isn't the same as an A350. Even if the engines are similar, they're two totally different planes.

The A350 and A330 share the same type rating. They are not 'totally different planes'.
Check this:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2014/10/23 ... -and-a330/
and this:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-433856/

You used the same argument here in your next statement:

Boeing778X wrote:
Furthermore, the 777 and 787 have the same type rating, which reduced training for pilots,

why is it a good thing with 787/777, but somehow it becomes a burden when it comes to A350/A330?

Boeing778X wrote:
No, it doesn't. The 777X is a 777......

77X wouldn't be a 100% 777. They would definitely share the same type rating though, but If AA is to introduce 77X, then their pilots and technicians must go through some kind of training for all the new changes. Even 788 shares only 90% commonality with 789. That's normal and expected, but what is not normal in my eyes is for AA to cancel the A350 only for this, especially since they already have a good basis of A330/A320 and RR engines.

Boeing778X wrote:
Something that AA has 67x of.

And AA has like 24 A330s as well, so?

Boeing778X wrote:

The 777 is established at AA. The A350 is not.

The A350 is already ordered. The 77X is not.

I know that you work for AA, and you may have heard something that makes you say it would be canceled. As the plans and strategies of airlines change, so should their orders. It is fine to cancel A350 or any other aircraft for the right reason. If AA finds no routes that A350 can fly with their current fleet for example, then they might cancel it as it would be better than keeping it on the ground. But it just doesn't make sense to me to cancel it and pay the penalties only because of training costs. AA has got the size and infrastructure to easily accommodate the A350.

raylee67 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:29 am

AA doesn't need to make that decision any time soon. If they decide to not take the 350, there are many remedies they can choose, e.g. they can swap them to A321NEO. I would imagine that if they cancel 22 A350 and order 50 more A321NEO, Airbus will be totally OK with that. As a large airline and customer of Airbus, they can surely work something out. And if they decide to take the 350, they can be used to replace 777 or A333. AA doesn't have enough 787 ordered to replace those older widebodies. So options are wide open for them.

mjoelnir · Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:00 am

What wide body fleet at AA needs to be replaced in the near future?
If we look at age we get the following.
A330-300, 9 frames, average age 17.4 years, oldest frame from March 2000.
777-200ER, 47 frames, average age 17.1 years, oldest frame from January 1999
767-300ER, 24 frames, average age 19.2 years, oldest frame from March 1993

So if somebody talks about age, than the next fleet up for replacement should be the 767 fleet, at least in parts.
Should be easy to add some 330, the lowest CAPEX move, to get rid of that ageing fuel guzzling fleet.
The other move would be to stop using the 767 on domestic flights and replace them by narrow bodies.

Next up should be the oldest 777-200ER. The ideal replacement would be the A350-900, So should AA cancel the A350? No they should not,
Will AA cancel the A350-900? Anybodies guess.

The next replacement move have to be the aging 757 fleet. Just order some A321 neos.

BlueSky1976 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:50 am

mjoelnir wrote:
What wide body fleet at AA needs to be replaced in the near future?
If we look at age we get the following.
A330-300, 9 frames, average age 17.4 years, oldest frame from March 2000.
767-300ER, 24 frames, average age 19.2 years, oldest frame from March 1993

This is where 787-9 options become most useful for AA and this frame will most likely replace those.

mjoelnir wrote:
777-200ER, 47 frames, average age 17.1 years, oldest frame from January 1999

...and this is where A350-900 comes to play: adding another 25 frames to 22 already ordered makes the best replacement of these.
Add 777-300ERs eventually due for replacement and with A350-1000 American can maintain single type, this time with single engine supplier as well.

mjoelnir wrote:
So if somebody talks about age, than the next fleet up for replacement should be the 767 fleet, at least in parts.
Should be easy to add some 330, the lowest CAPEX move, to get rid of that ageing fuel guzzling fleet.
The other move would be to stop using the 767 on domestic flights and replace them by narrow bodies.

If AA inherited the launch discounts US received for their A350 order, then I doubt change of this order to A330 will be financially suitable for AA.

mjoelnir wrote:
Next up should be the oldest 777-200ER. The ideal replacement would be the A350-900, So should AA cancel the A350? No they should not,
Will AA cancel the A350-900? Anybodies guess.

It's a wet dream of Boeing fanboys. Same as previous United one, which - gladly - didn't happen.

mjoelnir wrote:
The next replacement move have to be the aging 757 fleet. Just order some A321 neos.

AA already has A321Neo on order. I believe deliveries are starting either in 2019 or 2020, don't remember which one, though.

OA940 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:18 am

itchief wrote:
OA940 wrote:
The whole story about American planes is a pile of you-know-what. End of argument. Whether an airline chooses one plane or another doesn't depend on the country of origin, but on if they can use it profitably, or if they can get more out of it than the competition. Hence the DL A321neo order, the UA A350 order, and AA going to Airbus for the A320 instead of more 737's.

You do understand that AA just started taking delivery of the 737MAX and that the order is 100 firm and 100 options. They have also not even completed the last deliveries of the 737NG yet. They have plenty more 737's coming just like they have plenty more A321's coming.

No, what I mean was the 2011 (I think) order. You know, the one where they got at least 200 A319's and A321's? They could've gone 737-700/900ER, but they clearly thought Airbus was better for them in this scenario.

scbriml · Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:19 am

Boeing778X wrote:
They don't need to cancel it, they just need to convert to something that can be acquired quickly to replace older aircraft, i.e., the A330neo replacing some of the 767s.

This is where I struggle with your logic -

Replacing the remaining 767s with A330neo is good, despite AA already having 788s in the fleet and despite 767s leaving the fleet as 787s join.

Replacing 77Es with A359s is bad because AA already has the 789 in the fleet.

Other of your arguments in favour of Boeing also apply to Airbus.

You also suggest they might swap the A350 order for more A321s. I can't see Airbus agreeing to that given the huge number of A32x options that AA already holds. I don't see how Airbus gains anything in that scenario.

BlueSky1976 wrote:
...and this is where A350-900 comes to play: adding another 25 frames to 22 already ordered makes the best replacement of these.
Add 777-300ERs eventually due for replacement and with A350-1000 American can maintain single type, this time with single engine supplier as well.

You're suggesting a long-term long haul fleet of 788/789 and A359/A35K? You'd struggle to find a more efficient one.

gloom · Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:24 am

Boeing778X wrote:
The 77Es are best suited to be replaced by the 789. The A350-900 could be used to replace them, but I'll reiterate again that it's not looking good.

The 777X is an eventuality, but not in the immediate future.

You Boeing fanboys seem so ridiculous to protect Boeing is always the best.

On one thread I read, that 359 is not able to replace 772E (or even better L) as it's not good enough on the end of the payload scheme. On this thread, I read 789 can replace 772E. Another thread reads 321N-LR can't replace 757.

The funny part is 359 can carry all the cargo you won't fit into 789, over all ranges (actually has an edge, since maxed out it reaches farther than 789). What's the logic behind, I see none?

Well, stick it in your ears - 350 (both 900 and 1000) could be used to replace both 772 and 773. Not on all routes and payloads, but if it works 95% of the time, I feel good replacement is an appropriate wording. The same goes for AA - if they have a need for both 789 and 777X, they have a need for A350. 350 proved to be as economical as 789 (trip fuel nearly the same, same after PIPs in 2019; CASM better, operational availability the same). And A350-1000 is lighter and probably equal to projected perf of 777X on most ranges (until extreme loads/range kicks in). So, if you say there's place for 789 and 777X (whichever, be it 778 or 779), BUT no place for A350; well, there's no point discussing.

It's simply as Merc vs BMW debate - both allocated to the very same market, similar range, speed, comfort etc. But fanboys will never get into other one.

There's no other reasonable reason for AA to cancel A350s other than: better offer from B (which would be hard to find now, considering 45 ordered) or complete convertion order. We'll see, I can see both convert and A350s coming, since 350 seems to be the banchmark (together with 787s and 777Xs) for years to come.

Cheers,
Adam

WIederling · Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:43 am

scbriml wrote:
Replacing 77Es with A359s is bad because AA already has the 789 in the fleet.

A359 is not equal to but one step up over the 789. A more capable ( capacity, payload/range ) plane.
Also more efficient in the outer envelope.

par13del · Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:55 pm

So whether AA needs more capacity for the routes present and future to be flown by the 777E means.......
The A350 in any guise is a capacity increase over the 777E, just as the A330 was over the 767, so far no one seems interested to discuss the potential routes in the making of this decision.
AA like UA have the a/c on order, so unless they do a DL and cancel - which is rarely done - Airbus has this order in the bag. Based on the number of Airbus a/c already in the fleet and the number already ordered and inbound, a cancellation is not in the cards, the possible economic ramifications on a major user is huge. Do the OEM's get petty, depends on who is talking, the board or those down the line doing after care.

Boeing778X · Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:55 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

LOL, what? An A330 isn't the same as an A350. Even if the engines are similar, they're two totally different planes.

The A350 and A330 share the same type rating. They are not 'totally different planes'.
Check this:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2014/10/23 ... -and-a330/
and this:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-433856/

You used the same argument here in your next statement:

Boeing778X wrote:
Furthermore, the 777 and 787 have the same type rating, which reduced training for pilots,

why is it a good thing with 787/777, but somehow it becomes a burden when it comes to A350/A330?

Still doesn't make sense as the A350 is not in the fleet still.

Boeing778X wrote:
No, it doesn't. The 777X is a 777......

77X wouldn't be a 100% 777. They would definitely share the same type rating though, but If AA is to introduce 77X, then their pilots and technicians must go through some kind of training for all the new changes. Even 788 shares only 90% commonality with 789. That's normal and expected, but what is not normal in my eyes is for AA to cancel the A350 only for this, especially since they already have a good basis of A330/A320 and RR engines.[/quote]

A 777X has more in common with the current fleet than the A350, still.

Please don't misread me, I don't see AA ordering the 777X for several years.

Boeing778X wrote:
Something that AA has 67x of.

And AA has like 24 A330s as well, so?[/quote]

So, 9x of those planes are leaving in a year, leaving an oddball fleet of 15x A332s.

Boeing778X wrote:

The 777 is established at AA. The A350 is not.

The A350 is already ordered. The 77X is not.[/quote]

AA never ordered the A350...US did. And I doubt AA would have ordered the A350 if they had stayed unmerged.

I know that you work for AA, and you may have heard something that makes you say it would be canceled. As the plans and strategies of airlines change, so should their orders. It is fine to cancel A350 or any other aircraft for the right reason. If AA finds no routes that A350 can fly with their current fleet for example, then they might cancel it as it would be better than keeping it on the ground. But it just doesn't make sense to me to cancel it and pay the penalties only because of training costs. AA has got the size and infrastructure to easily accommodate the A350.

[/quote]

They can, you're absolutely right.

The question is if they should. I would argue AA is a lot different than many other large airlines. They aren't UA in the sense that they have a lot of ULH routes or cargo traffic.

Having a fleet of mainly 787s and A330s, with 777s serving the premium destinations, seems like a great move. I'm not saying they should cancel the A350s. The definitely don't "need" them. It'd be better to build the A330 fleet.

flipdewaf · Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:44 pm

We aren't privy to the penalties that AA would have to incur if they were to cancel so even if they wanted to and there were a "better" option then it might still make sense to keep take them. All this talk of what AA should do is kind of redundant as we don't and can't know perhaps the most important part of the puzzle.

AA might like the A350, it was ordered for a reason...

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PW100 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:22 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
Okay, but we're talking about the A350, not the A320, and both the A320 and 737 are already established.

Boeing778X wrote:
No, it doesn't. The 777X is a 777......Something that AA has 67x of.

Boeing778X wrote:
The 777 is established at AA. The A350 is not.

Boeing778X wrote:
Furthermore, the 777 and 787 have the same type rating, which reduced training for pilots, something the A350 doesn't have either. The cost of training for an entirely new aircraft is something I'd take into account.

Boeing778X wrote:
Okay, but we're talking about the A350, not the A320, and both the A320 and 737 are already established.

One wonders if AA would ever dare bringing on something unestablished, like 797 . . .

DeSpringbokke · Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:16 am

Well this hasn't been brought up enough, but considering the age and maintenance issues of the 767 fleet, why can't AA simply keep the existing A350 order and use it to indirectly retire the remaining 767s? The nine A330-300s should be headed out the door after next summer, being indirectly replaced by the remaining 787-9s on order. For example, the 777-200ERs will likely end up flying former A330-300 routes ex-PHL/CLT. With the additional 22 A350-900s, the 788s could be taken off the remaining Trans-Pacs and replace more 767s on Trans-Atlantic flights.

par13del · Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:09 am

So you don't think the 789 is too much plane for Trans-Atlantic, is this because other carriers are using A350 Trans-Pacific so AA should do the same when they take up their A350's?

superjeff · Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:25 am

mikejepp wrote:
Facts:

- AA management has stated they like the simplest fleet possible and do not want small batches of airplanes.

Probably true, but they are happy to fly a mix of Airbus and Boeing equipment in their mainline operation, and continue to operate 77E, 77W, 788, 789, 332 widebody equipment longhaul.

- AA flies few very long haul routes

DFW-NRT/HKG/ICN, LAX-SYD, JFK/DFW-EZE, LAX-SAO are all over 10 hours; I'd say they are "very long haul" routes. Plus a lot of domestic long hauls like DFW-HNL/OGG/KOA, all of which are a bit over 8 hours westbound, plus their European services.

- The order currently stands and no one that knows the details of if it will stay or not has said anything

With that, the only answers are purely guesses by the posters here.

I do agree with that.

I have a question though. Assume that Airbus does not allow the order to be swapped to another airframe or further delayed or canceled without massive penalties. Is there any chance that AA is able to sell / lease these aircraft to another airline upon delivery? ie: They get built according to the order but never end up flying in AA colors.

Other than that, AA most has a need to replace 767-300s and A330-300s. A350 seems like way too much airplane to do that with. I like the idea of the A330neo. Or even cheap new build A330ceos. I also like the idea of A321LRs and then a 787 top-up order for the widebody replacements. Or A321LRs and some 767-300ER new builds. But who knows...

I think it all comes down to the airline not needing the aircraft's capabilities and not wanting the expense and complexity of a new fleet. But trying to determine if the cost of canceling the order exceed those and the frustration of taking the plane. And very few people right now know the details of that.

par13del · Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:35 am

Ok so another option following DL's lead a number of years ago. If Airbus will not allow a switch and demand massive penalties for canx - it should already be in the original contract but lets go with it - AA could just take the frames on order and park them in the desert, after all, if they don't believe that they have the route structure or the infrastructure for the a/c and have to spend money, the question is how to minimize the effect on the overall operation.

seahawk · Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:24 am

par13del wrote:
Ok so another option following DL's lead a number of years ago. If Airbus will not allow a switch and demand massive penalties for canx - it should already be in the original contract but lets go with it - AA could just take the frames on order and park them in the desert, after all, if they don't believe that they have the route structure or the infrastructure for the a/c and have to spend money, the question is how to minimize the effect on the overall operation.

That solution has no appeal to AA and Airbus. Both would be hurt by it. If AA really does not want the A350, the options are converting to A330/A321 or cancelling. A conversion is usually much more likely and I can see A320/A321NEOs making sense for both sides.

StTim · Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:37 am

par13del wrote:
Ok so another option following DL's lead a number of years ago. If Airbus will not allow a switch and demand massive penalties for canx - it should already be in the original contract but lets go with it - AA could just take the frames on order and park them in the desert, after all, if they don't believe that they have the route structure or the infrastructure for the a/c and have to spend money, the question is how to minimize the effect on the overall operation.

Cancellation charges will never be higher than the frame itself so the above would be a doubly costly option.

tommy1808 · Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:49 am

raylee67 wrote:
AA doesn't need to make that decision any time soon. If they decide to not take the 350, there are many remedies they can choose, e.g. they can swap them to A321NEO. I would imagine that if they cancel 22 A350 and order 50 more A321NEO, Airbus will be totally OK with that..

Why exectly would Airbus be ok with pillling on even more A32x orders on the 8 year backlog for the family and removing an order for the A350?

Cancellation fees by AA would go right to the bottom line, but adding A32x orders will probably cost them other orders in the narrow body market, as it is pretty supply limited. I would think AA would have the option to convert to another widebody model or pay up. The A350-1000 has an yet unfilled slot in AAs fleet, the A359 would extend the 789 payload/range, the A330neo would just add redundancy to the 787 fleet with probably few routes where the neo does better economically, and the A380 order would almost make me believe in God....

best regards
Thomas

Aither · Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:55 am

I suspect what's happening at AA is similar to other airlines:

Many fleet planners are struggling because of 787 orders. Boeing has made CEOs dream they could open plenty of long haul routes with the 787s. The reality is quite different.
So now you have these 787s you are forced to use on routes where you would have initially preferred a larger aircraft such as the A350 or even 777.
It's well done from Boeing marketing. It's a kind of a story where the bad guy wins, but fair enough, business is business. Be cautious next time, Boeing may be doing the same trick with the MoM.

Arion640 · Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:31 am

Boeing778X wrote:
klkla wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Again, this does not have anything to do with Delta. I don't care if AA keeps the A350 order or not. If you don't want to contribute to this thread, don't comment. Goodness, the audacity of asking a simple question.......

Don't let rabid fanboys ruin your day.

As for AA and the A350, current management made it clear they are uncomfortable with having it as a small sub-fleet. To me that was a public way of prodding Airbus to give them a better deal on a larger order (sort of like the deal UA got).

I don't think so.

It's likely AA doesn't want the fleet period. It's just too expensive to add another subfleet when there is one already established (The 787-9) that does a similar type of mission.

AA is not UA.

PW100 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
The key word is “cancel”, which I think is the wrong word.

Covert is better.

A covert order, is that like a fake order . . . ?

YES! Why, that's exactly what it means, smartypants!

You did once say to me BA will order the 777X, no they won't as it's adding another expensive sub type.

keesje · Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:05 am

The A350 seems to best aircraft to replace the 777-200ER's. Like their OneWorld partners BA, Finnair, JAL and Cathay. Additional 787-9s can be added as workhorse for all destinations, the 777-300ER's are still young.

Adding additional A350's seems the most logical decision for AA to create some scale. I don't good alternatives.Down scaling from 777-200ER to 787-9 is a good idea in a declining market. Asia is still booming and TATL also 4% / yr, additional frequencies aren't for free at all.

A subfleet of 787-10 for Caribbean, S.America, Transcon & Europe.. maybe that's an option. It is claimed commonality with the 787-9 fleet is good.

Newbiepilot · Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:56 pm

keesje wrote:
.Down scaling from 777-200ER to 787-9 is a good idea in a declining market. Asia is still booming and TATL also 4% / yr, additional frequencies aren't for free at all.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the average capacity per flight on transpacific flights has been steadily decreasing over the past 20 years while frequency increases. The market is demanding more city pairs avoiding the main central hubs like LAX and NRT in favor of direct routes like DFW-PVG, which are better served by smaller airplanes like the 787-8 and 787-9 for AA. AA has already dropped most of their China flights down to 787-8s.

Aither · Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:24 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but the average capacity per flight on transpacific flights has been steadily decreasing over the past 20 years while frequency increases. The market is demanding more city pairs avoiding the main central hubs like LAX and NRT in favor of direct routes like DFW-PVG, which are better served by smaller airplanes like the 787-8 and 787-9 for AA. AA has already dropped most of their China flights down to 787-8s.

Average capacity per flight declining does not mean smaller aircraft.
If you go from a fleet of 10 aircraft @350 seats + 10@300 to 10@360 + 30@310 the average capacity is lower... with bigger aircraft.

The north Atlantic is a good example of this kind of "mis-perception". Almost nobody believe there are more very large / double deck aircraft flying between Europe and the US compared to 10-15 years ago. Yet it is the case...

aa1818 · Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:56 pm

Why is this discussion about replacing 77Es taking place.
Who said that AA ever needs to "replace them". AA has evolved since they ordered the 77E and what aircraft is available for more of their missions has also changed.
When AA ordered the 77E it was too much plane for East Coast US to Europe and AA was a hub to hub carrier- utilizing LHR and NRT as feeders. AA's network today is very different. using the 789's on routes to NRT etc would not necessarily be a downgrading but perhaps a right-sizing. As well as perhaps the A359 could be needed since AA could expand to more far flung destinations requiring the range capabilities of the A359.
I think we need to stop thinking about what will replace what and look at AA's route network and determine the most suitable aircraft. As AA expands in Asia does it need bigger planes, or are there more thin routes. Do these routes have large cargo needs? Are they going to require Long-range aircraft?
The question I have is what aircraft are capable of flying the following routes:
DFW-Asia
MIA/ East Coast USA-JNB
LAX- SE Asia
USA-India
USA-Middle East

Does AA need two types to cover these routes or can either one of the 787 or A350 cover all these?

Cheers,
AA1818

ripcordd · Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:12 pm

AA takes about the 190 as an oddball fleet too little of them so either AA will need to have around 50 A350 or none at all same with the A330 having only 25 in a huge fleet causes problems

wenders825 · Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:52 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
.Down scaling from 777-200ER to 787-9 is a good idea in a declining market. Asia is still booming and TATL also 4% / yr, additional frequencies aren't for free at all.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the average capacity per flight on transpacific flights has been steadily decreasing over the past 20 years while frequency increases. The market is demanding more city pairs avoiding the main central hubs like LAX and NRT in favor of direct routes like DFW-PVG, which are better served by smaller airplanes like the 787-8 and 787-9 for AA. AA has already dropped most of their China flights down to 787-8s.

almost all China flights (except ORD-PEK I believe) are going 789 next year.

klkla · Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:09 pm

aa1818 wrote:
Why is this discussion about replacing 77Es taking place.

The oldest of the 777's will be turning 20 next year so it's appropriate to start planning for their replacement. The A350 would be a perfect replacement. But so would a combination of 787-9 and 787-10, which would also provide commonality with their existing 787 fleet.

AA is big enough to operate both the B787 and A350 but they have said 15 is not enough to justify operating a small sub-fleet. So they either need to A) order more A350's or b) go all in on 787's (at least as far as replacing 777E's goes).

bzcat · Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:20 am

1. I don't AA will take any more 788. I think they would rather wait to see what comes of 797 or whatever MoM supposed to be called. Lots of 767-300ER routes and some 757 routes will probably be replaced by MoM if Boeing finalize the spec in the next couple of months.

2. AA seems to be quite happy with 789. It seems obvious that they will end up exercising more options for 789 as 77E replacements.

3. AA's 787 options also gives them the ability to take 7810. While fleet or engine commonality is good to some extend, the real operational benefit is a common pilot pool. I doubt the pilot union will agree to a single A330 and A350 pilot pool where as I see the path of a single 788/789/7810 pilot pool much easier for AA to accomplish. So AA may be inclined to take some 7810 for trans Atlantic routes that doesn't need the 77W range (e.g. JFK-LHR) that may result in lower operating costs, or use 7810 to replace some A333 routes that could use more capacity.

4. In my opinion, AA will only take the A350 if it can't get enough 789/7810 in the time frame it needs from Boeing. This is not a knock on A350... it's just my take on the fleet decision that some AA executives is no doubt going through right now.

incitatus · Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:26 am

This thread is quite entertaining.

I wonder what would be written here if a large airline with 100+ A350 order plus options (with many deliveries) had merged with a mid-size airline with an outstanding order of 20 787-9s that kept being postponed.

Something that is absolutely certain: American has too many wide-body types and sub-types and needs to have fewer of them.

tvh · Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:20 am

Aither wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but the average capacity per flight on transpacific flights has been steadily decreasing over the past 20 years while frequency increases. The market is demanding more city pairs avoiding the main central hubs like LAX and NRT in favor of direct routes like DFW-PVG, which are better served by smaller airplanes like the 787-8 and 787-9 for AA. AA has already dropped most of their China flights down to 787-8s.

Average capacity per flight declining does not mean smaller aircraft.
If you go from a fleet of 10 aircraft @350 seats + 10@300 to 10@360 + 30@310 the average capacity is lower... with bigger aircraft.

The north Atlantic is a good example of this kind of "mis-perception". Almost nobody believe there are more very large / double deck aircraft flying between Europe and the US compared to 10-15 years ago. Yet it is the case...

Do not foreget american has introduced 20 77W in recent years, which meant a big increase in average seat size.

flipdewaf · Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:07 am

This thread is hilarious!!

Like somehow Airbus has no skin in this game at all and AA can just go about the airbus product range like a fussy kid at a buffet! When I order a car and pay the deposit I cant just suddenly decide I don't want it or that I want a different one. The question as to whether they will take it is not if the A359 is better suited to their needs than another product its whether the A359 is better suited to their needs than than another product PLUS the penalties for not having the A359.

How do you think AA would react if I said "sorry I want to cancel that TPAC ticket and have 2 TATL ones instead.....

Fred

ripcordd · Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:13 pm

This really has nothing to do A vs B there isn't much a 350 can do that their current fleet can't. Its comes to money, operating efficiency, pilots. I bet they have no penalty to pay if they cancel the 350 esp if they convert it to 321. They got such a good deal on their current of 321's that if someone else got them cheaper Airbus would give them a refund check....AA would have been fine with 330's and the 350's as well they just happen to have more 777 787s that's all

scbriml · Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:38 pm

ripcordd wrote:
This really has nothing to do A vs B there isn't much a 350 can do that their current fleet can't.

Except do it a damn site more efficiently than the 77Es?

ripcordd wrote:
I bet they have no penalty to pay if they cancel the 350

If there was no cancellation penalty and AA really didn't want the A350s, they'd have already dropped them.

ripcordd wrote:
esp if they convert it to 321.

I don't see why Airbus would let them switch to A321s given the huge number of A32x options that AA already has - really not enough upside for Airbus.

Austin787 · Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:39 pm

The LUS management team, including the CEO, running AA prefers Airbus. The 787s they are taking delivery were ordered by previous AA management. I don't see them taking any of the 787 options. Instead, I think they will eventually take delivery of the Airbus A350-900 when they are ready to replace the 772. AA has 47 772s, so that should be enough A350 to justify operating that type. Plus, AA could also take the A350-1000 to eventually replace the 77W.

448205 · Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:55 pm

Austin787 wrote:
The LUS management team, including the CEO, running AA prefers Airbus. The 787s they are taking delivery were ordered by previous AA management. I don't see them taking any of the 787 options. Instead, I think they will eventually take delivery of the Airbus A350-900 when they are ready to replace the 772. AA has 47 772s, so that should be enough A350 to justify operating that type. Plus, AA could also take the A350-1000 to eventually replace the 77W.

Doug and team doesn't 'prefer' anything.

Airbus saved US Air with a massive loan and free airplanes when they were struggling. That is it.

These decisions are business, not emotional like here on a.net.

Boeing778X · Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:02 pm

Austin787 wrote:
The LUS management team, including the CEO, running AA prefers Airbus. The 787s they are taking delivery were ordered by previous AA management. I don't see them taking any of the 787 options. Instead, I think they will eventually take delivery of the Airbus A350-900 when they are ready to replace the 772. AA has 47 772s, so that should be enough A350 to justify operating that type. Plus, AA could also take the A350-1000 to eventually replace the 77W.

Wait...so you see AA taking no additional 787s (the 787-9 is nearly a perfect 77E replacement already), but you see 60+ A350s in the fleet...?

Wow...Good luck with that theory. It’s not going to happen, but good luck.

Breathe · Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:32 pm

raylee67 wrote:
AA doesn't need to make that decision any time soon. If they decide to not take the 350, there are many remedies they can choose, e.g. they can swap them to A321NEO. I would imagine that if they cancel 22 A350 and order 50 more A321NEO, Airbus will be totally OK with that.

Maybe Airbus would be OK with that, but would RR be OK with that?

itchief · Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:56 pm

Austin787 wrote:
The LUS management team, including the CEO, running AA prefers Airbus. The 787s they are taking delivery were ordered by previous AA management. I don't see them taking any of the 787 options. Instead, I think they will eventually take delivery of the Airbus A350-900 when they are ready to replace the 772. AA has 47 772s, so that should be enough A350 to justify operating that type. Plus, AA could also take the A350-1000 to eventually replace the 77W.

You angle leaves out something. AA has stated in the not to distant past that they want to simplify the fleet. The newest type add to the fleet is the 787 and they are up to 34 of these. Since the 777 and 787 have a similar type rating how does adding the A350 get AA to this goal?

AA just finished up the cabin refurb/replacement of the 772's in the past 2 months, they will be around for more than a few years to recoup the investment. The 77W's are all less than 5 years old and will be around for at least another 15-18 years. It is waaaay to early to start talking about what will replace them.

Planesmart · Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:20 pm

scbriml wrote:
ripcordd wrote:
This really has nothing to do A vs B there isn't much a 350 can do that their current fleet can't.

Except do it a damn site more efficiently than the 77Es?

ripcordd wrote:
I bet they have no penalty to pay if they cancel the 350

If there was no cancellation penalty and AA really didn't want the A350s, they'd have already dropped them.

ripcordd wrote:
esp if they convert it to 321.

I don't see why Airbus would let them switch to A321s given the huge number of A32x options that AA already has - really not enough upside for Airbus.

Wise words.

Swadian · Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:46 pm

itchief wrote:
Austin787 wrote:
The LUS management team, including the CEO, running AA prefers Airbus. The 787s they are taking delivery were ordered by previous AA management. I don't see them taking any of the 787 options. Instead, I think they will eventually take delivery of the Airbus A350-900 when they are ready to replace the 772. AA has 47 772s, so that should be enough A350 to justify operating that type. Plus, AA could also take the A350-1000 to eventually replace the 77W.

You angle leaves out something. AA has stated in the not to distant past that they want to simplify the fleet. The newest type add to the fleet is the 787 and they are up to 34 of these. Since the 777 and 787 have a similar type rating how does adding the A350 get AA to this goal?

AA just finished up the cabin refurb/replacement of the 772's in the past 2 months, they will be around for more than a few years to recoup the investment. The 77W's are all less than 5 years old and will be around for at least another 15-18 years. It is waaaay to early to start talking about what will replace them.

Concur, AA is stalling and keep deferring the A359 order because they don't need to replace the 77Es yet. The A359 may be more efficient but the 77E still gets the job done and AA can exercise more 789 options at its leisure to replace them. Ordering more A321LRs would address the pressing need to replace the 757/767 fleet and the top end of 767 capacity could be replaced by 77Es moved off long-haul routes as more 789s come in, and one should note that one of the main reasons for AA retiring the A333 is because of its PW engines.

So I see AA continuing to stall on the A359 order, eventually converting it to A321LR, and exercise a ton of 789 options (and possibly ordering 778/779) to replace the A332/77E/77W fleet down the road. Sure AA has vast A32x options, but with the S80/E190/A320 and older A319, A321, and 738 to replace, there could be over 400 frames needed.

scbriml · Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:46 pm

Planesmart wrote:
Wise words.

Thanks, but unlike Breath, I missed the RR angle in relation to a switch to A321s.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net