AA 787s have MCE and those who want more seat width can always pay a reasonable premium for PE. Overall I see this as being positive for both the airline and its passengers. AA will become more competitive against DL and UA (especially UA).

As for the A332s, AA will perhaps sell them on the used market when they still have value and replace them with 787s. They may be relatively young but AA did the same thing with numerous 757s. By the time the last of this 787 order comes in, the A332s will be about 15 years old, the same age as 757s like N174AA when sold by AA. That leaves them with only 2 widebody types (777/787) and those having a common type rating compared to DL/UA which would presumably have 4 each (DL with 767/777/A330/A350 and UA with 777/787/797/A350).

A follow-up order for 777X to do JNB/SIN/DEL/BOM and other longer flights would round out the fleet.

Perhaps no MOM or even A321LR would be needed if the regular A321neo can do transatlantic from PHL and 788/789 from CLT or longer PHL (e.g. ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, BUD). AA could also put 789 on a PHL-TYO.

Why does anyone say the 787 is "too much plane" for PHL-Europe when BA uses 789 on LHR-PHL and A321neo can reach most of Western Europe? AA only has 226 seats in the 788.

mham001 wrote:

You're grasping at straws. So are these new orders at 2008 option prices, as you wrote earlier, or 2013 option prices? How many options do you believe they have? In your opinion.

Maybe you should study this yourself and tell us what conclusion you made.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

People seems to make many conclusions about one order. For me this was race between Boeing and Airbus which only Boeing could win. AA had purchase rights left based on original 787 order from 2008 and it can't be big surprise for anyone that Airbus was not willing to match that.
A350 order was separate thing and I think that Airbus doesn't allowed AA defer that order anymore. Actually Airbus can be very happy about order cancellation. A350 orders from that era have been very expensive for Airbus and now they can sell those slots at today's price. Ironically Boeing doesn't have that chance for slots which this order takes.

I think that AA's 787-8 order also shows that there is market for 787-8 and A330-800 size aircraft if those are available for right price.

In the end, this was very clever move together from AA. Meanwhile they bought very good aircraft at very cheap price they also cut significantly their estimated capex for 2020-2022. I think investors are happy after all.

I don't believe the part in bold for a second. They'd much rather have the A350 at blue-chip carrier AA since we know AA was going to either increase the size of their order to make the A350 fleet "big enough" or cancel it. That large fleet would be generating ancillary income for decades and could lead to taking on more A359 and even A35J in the future. Right now, like other posters here, it's pretty clear A350 will not be in AA's fleet for the foreseeable future. Figuring out how to manufacture such a large number of frames at an aggressive price is exactly the kind of problem they'd love to have, having more empty slots is exactly the kind of problem they try to avoid.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

mham001 wrote:

You're grasping at straws. So are these new orders at 2008 option prices, as you wrote earlier, or 2013 option prices? How many options do you believe they have? In your opinion.

Maybe you should study this yourself and tell us what conclusion you made.

I have and the math behind your claim simply does not add up. In addition to this part of the 2013 agreement........

-- The assumption and restructuring of certain existing aircraft purchase agreements between Boeing and American,

Do you know how long those 2008 options might have been good? Did those options survive the financial restructuring of American Airlines in 2011? What were the ultimate price paid for those 2013 frames? Just curious.

LU9092 wrote:

China isn't very likely to impose tariffs on Boeing widebodies. If they did, they'd lose all leverage in price negotiations with Airbus. They'd be punishing themselves just as much as they would be the US/Boeing.

They don't need to formally impose tariffs. The Chinese government has sufficient control over their airlines to simply cause Boeing orders to dry up. Boeing is perfectly well aware of this, though the US government may not have enough grasp of how Chinese aviation works to understand. Airbus is equally well aware and will know that an order stream that has been informally restricted can be turned back to full flow again almost immediately without any public announcement, so there's no point in taking price advantage of a temporary loss of competition.

Notice that the tariffs that have been announced so far are calculated to make a loud and clear statement without actually affecting many aircraft at all.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

People seems to make many conclusions about one order. For me this was race between Boeing and Airbus which only Boeing could win. AA had purchase rights left based on original 787 order from 2008 and it can't be big surprise for anyone that Airbus was not willing to match that.
A350 order was separate thing and I think that Airbus doesn't allowed AA defer that order anymore. Actually Airbus can be very happy about order cancellation. A350 orders from that era have been very expensive for Airbus and now they can sell those slots at today's price. Ironically Boeing doesn't have that chance for slots which this order takes.

I think that AA's 787-8 order also shows that there is market for 787-8 and A330-800 size aircraft if those are available for right price.

In the end, this was very clever move together from AA. Meanwhile they bought very good aircraft at very cheap price they also cut significantly their estimated capex for 2020-2022. I think investors are happy after all.

To be clear, are you saying:

1. Airbus is glad that AA didn't take it's A350s?
2. Airbus, in fact, pushed AA out?
3. The new order with options that AA placed is somehow tied to it's original order back in 2008, even though they did not exercise those options?
4. That there is a market for the A330-800, but that either Airbus is unable to price it there or that Boeing is selling planes at a loss?
5. That Airbus has great pricing on the A330-800/A330-900 but ..... what?

Is there a scenario where Boeing can sell scores of widebodies and Airbus DOESN'T come out the winner? lol

Swadian wrote:

Perhaps no MOM or even A321LR would be needed if the regular A321neo can do transatlantic from PHL and 788/789 from CLT or longer PHL (e.g. ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, BUD).

It is unlikely 321neo, in an AA config, would be reliable westbound on ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, BUD - PHL/CLT. UA wasn't reliable on TXL-EWR, and I don't think responsible people are saying that a 321neo is going to have 105-110% the range of a 757-200.

Swadian wrote:

AA 787s have MCE and those who want more seat width can always pay a reasonable premium for PE. Overall I see this as being positive for both the airline and its passengers. AA will become more competitive against DL and UA (especially UA).

As for the A332s, AA will perhaps sell them on the used market when they still have value and replace them with 787s. They may be relatively young but AA did the same thing with numerous 757s. By the time the last of this 787 order comes in, the A332s will be about 15 years old, the same age as 757s like N174AA when sold by AA. That leaves them with only 2 widebody types (777/787) and those having a common type rating compared to DL/UA which would presumably have 4 each (DL with 767/777/A330/A350 and UA with 777/787/797/A350).

A follow-up order for 777X to do JNB/SIN/DEL/BOM and other longer flights would round out the fleet.

Perhaps no MOM or even A321LR would be needed if the regular A321neo can do transatlantic from PHL and 788/789 from CLT or longer PHL (e.g. ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, BUD). AA could also put 789 on a PHL-TYO.

Why does anyone say the 787 is "too much plane" for PHL-Europe when BA uses 789 on LHR-PHL and A321neo can reach most of Western Europe? AA only has 226 seats in the 788.

I don't see the A332's leaving within the next 10 years, especially considering the old A333's are now staying around even LONGER. Crazy how post-88 Airbus designs are timeless despite being introduced 20-30 years ago.

flee wrote:

QXAS wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

Well, this order still means no Africa flying for AA for the next decade.

Why do you say that? The 787 can easily make West Africa from MIA, CLT, PHL and JFK. If AA wants to fly to Africa, the 787 can get them there. Remember, 787s are now flying PER-LHR. The 787 has legs.

The QF 787s on that route are premium heavy and carry less payload. Is the African market capable of supporting premium heavy configurations?

Definitely not. But the 787 isn’t lacking the legs for it. That’s what my post was meant to say. If AA thinks they can’t do it on a 787 I don’t think that changes with an A350. Performance isn’t the issue.

1989worstyear wrote:

I don't see the A332's leaving within the next 10 years, especially considering the old A333's are now staying around even LONGER. Crazy how post-88 Airbus designs are timeless despite being introduced 20-30 years ago.

Cough***737***Cough

Signed, Boeing

1989worstyear wrote:

777PHX wrote:

The oldest 77E isn't quite 20 years old yet. I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon.

Their newest 9 767's are only 15 but will be gone in less than two years - so the 77E's could soon follow.

Then again, after 1998 Boeing gave up with the 767, so it makes sense these early 2000's junks are facing a nearly death.

On another note, should we assume the recent 2018-2020 fleet plan is out the window regarding the 763's and A333's, or are the A333's still going to be replaced by the remaining 789's on order?

Those 9 are leaving because the rest of the elderly fleet is leaving, not because they're old. The 77E fleet collectively isn't nearly as old as the 763 fleet was.

flee wrote:

Is the African market capable of supporting premium heavy configurations?

Some of the market is. Nigeria is a major oil producer so I could see AA being able to support a premium-heavy non-stop service between Texas and Nigeria catering to oil company traffic.

Jayafe wrote:

I am amused by how some people will try any argument to defend some airlines aim of squeezing passenger. Same with pitch, ancillaries, etc. If you are act like a sheep, will be treated as one.

par13del wrote:

...but it has already been confirmed by A.Net that this is a Boeing not an airline issue, Boeing has deliberately designed its a/c to allow this punishment of pax, note that Airbus with its pax friendly a/c width and 18" seat mandates on its a/c do not have this problem.

And yet Singapore Airlines and SCOOT can fit 18" seats into their 787s at 3x3x3 despite Boeing's villainy...

Boeing778X wrote:

Disagree.

This "779 is too big" argument is very tiring one, considering that the 779 isn't that much bigger compared to the 77W.

It's a perfect 77W replacement, especially if said 77Ws are 10-across Y, which AA has. It's a nice fit for AA, and it seems like it will go that way.

The 779 has the same type rating as the 77W, and a common rating with the 787. The reason the A350s were cancelled is partially because they want simplicity in training and operations. Adding the A35K is detrimental to that goal.

So no A350s at AA. The 77W, whenever replaced or complimented, will be done so by the 777X.

Boeing778X, I think the Airbus A350XWB could've been at AA (although not the -1000, but the -900 and to replace a portion of the Boeing 777-200ERs) IF AA did not pursue a strategy of streamlining the fleet training and operations - much because I see the 359 as a better 772 replacement in some AA routes. But as we know, AA is pursuing that strategy of streamlining the fleet, knowing that the 777 and 787 have a common rating between each other, a thing that has a substantial impact on pilot training. That also negates any possible benefits of the 359 over the 789/781 in the airline operation.

And likely because of that, is very likely that AA may go for the 777-9 to replace their 77Ws in the future - and unlike many A.net people out there, the 779 is not much bigger in comparison to the 77W, making it a good choice for those airlines which need to generate growth while replacing 10-abreast 777-300ERs.

Stitch wrote:

flee wrote:

Is the African market capable of supporting premium heavy configurations?

Some of the market is. Nigeria is a major oil producer so I could see AA being able to support a premium-heavy non-stop service between Texas and Nigeria catering to oil company traffic.

Jayafe wrote:

I am amused by how some people will try any argument to defend some airlines aim of squeezing passenger. Same with pitch, ancillaries, etc. If you are act like a sheep, will be treated as one.

par13del wrote:

...but it has already been confirmed by A.Net that this is a Boeing not an airline issue, Boeing has deliberately designed its a/c to allow this punishment of pax, note that Airbus with its pax friendly a/c width and 18" seat mandates on its a/c do not have this problem.

And yet Singapore Airlines and SCOOT can fit 18" seats into their 787s at 3x3x3 despite Boeing's villainy...

The african market can being surprising when it comes to premium traffic. BA regularly sends it's 86J 747's to Lagos and in the South African Summer season they'll send 2 A380's a day to Jo'burg.

O530CarrisPT wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

Disagree.

This "779 is too big" argument is very tiring one, considering that the 779 isn't that much bigger compared to the 77W.

It's a perfect 77W replacement, especially if said 77Ws are 10-across Y, which AA has. It's a nice fit for AA, and it seems like it will go that way.

The 779 has the same type rating as the 77W, and a common rating with the 787. The reason the A350s were cancelled is partially because they want simplicity in training and operations. Adding the A35K is detrimental to that goal.

So no A350s at AA. The 77W, whenever replaced or complimented, will be done so by the 777X.

Boeing778X, I think the Airbus A350XWB could've been at AA (although not the -1000, but the -900 and to replace a portion of the Boeing 777-200ERs) IF AA did not pursue a strategy of streamlining the fleet training and operations - much because I see the 359 as a better 772 replacement in some AA routes. But as we know, AA is pursuing that strategy of streamlining the fleet, knowing that the 777 and 787 have a common rating between each other, a thing that has a substantial impact on pilot training. That also negates any possible benefits of the 359 over the 789/781 in the airline operation.

And likely because of that, is very likely that AA may go for the 777-9 to replace their 77Ws in the future - and unlike many A.net people out there, the 779 is not much bigger in comparison to the 77W, making it a good choice for those airlines which need to generate growth while replacing 10-abreast 777-300ERs.

Plus millions of spare parts and millions of $$ they won't need to double up for two fleet types... with the extra $ they could keep some extra or expanded inventory to increase reliability also. Seems like a great move for AA.

I'm sure it's been said... but more 788s.... I wonder if the additional 22 might encourage Boeing to roll back a few 9/10 improvements into the 8...

ODwyerPW wrote:

I'm sure it's been said... but more 788s.... I wonder if the additional 22 might encourage Boeing to roll back a few 9/10 improvements into the 8...

https://www.postandcourier.com/business ... 3d09e.html tells the story...

I wonder if the 788-8's will have a different seating configuration in J than the current. I am not a big fan of the forward/backward seating

armchairceonr1 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

It was discussed earlier in the thread, as stated in the following link it’s a new order not a conversion of options

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-447398/

Yeah, one sentence at media and that's it? Of course they can say this is new order, but contractually it can be everything else. This deal include also options, what you think what happened those options before?

Boeing says it and you refuse to believe anything but your telling. For me until its proven I give Boeing the benefit of the doubt

monomojo wrote:

sagechan wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

And yet...

Im 6'2 280, flew back SYD-LAX on AA 789 in January, is it roomy, no, but wasnt uncomfortable at all. And it is economics, no airline has been able to charge a premium for general increase in space in Y.

Exactly. I paid $560 non-refundable round trip MCO-SFO-PVG-LAX-MCO last time with no special discounts or effort on my part beyond having flexible travel days. That's insane for a flight on a legacy carrier that literally takes me to the other side of the world, and it's generally been coming down ever since I started making this particular journey. You can't call prices like that greed on the part of the airline.

Airfares are the same or Lower then When I first started Traveling 20+ years ago.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Boom!

Looks like it finally happened. Good luck to AA on it's purchase of the 787-X's


On the plus side for Airbus and it's customers, this speeds up some orders for other's awaiting the A350. However with all the deferments, this has already happened.

With Trump in office and American trying to be more "American", I wonder if the A32X orders might see some "deferments"

You mean the A32X orders that AA today reconfirmed on schedule for delivery? Don't you think they would have deferred those and kept the MAXs if Trump somehow magically was the puppet master of fleet planning at AA?

And yes - as always - great news for Airbus. Keeping the deposit money AND moving up some deliveries to other airlines. Well played, Airbus. Well played.

BoeingGuy wrote:

I love all the experts on an airplane model that hasn’t even been defined by the manufacturer; hasn’t been launched; and won’t enter into service for 7 years. So you are sure the A321LR will have better economics than the 797?

Relax. It's just dialogue, ponderings, and what-if's. Of course we don't know what the 797 will be - we're just musing. No one is declaring themselves an expert.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any deposits to keep or move around.

I thought these A350s were ordered as part of Airbus agreeing to finance HPs takeover of US?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Swadian wrote:

Perhaps no MOM or even A321LR would be needed if the regular A321neo can do transatlantic from PHL and 788/789 from CLT or longer PHL (e.g. ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, BUD).

It is unlikely 321neo, in an AA config, would be reliable westbound on ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, BUD - PHL/CLT. UA wasn't reliable on TXL-EWR, and I don't think responsible people are saying that a 321neo is going to have 105-110% the range of a 757-200.

You got it the wrong way. I mean that the 787 will do all of those longer PHL transatlantic flights just fine and the A321neo can do all shorter flights just fine except when capacity is needed. I was meaning to say that AA will not need the MOM or A321LR when the 787 and A321neo can cover everything they're doing across the Atlantic anyway.

There is a myth that the 787 is "too much plane" for transatlantic when it fact with 226 seats in the 788 (likely to go down with PE installation) it would do fine on ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, and BUD plus 789 for MAD, BCN, FRA, CDG, and LHR, and A321neo for DUB/SNN, AMS, LIS, MAN, and GLA.

Sancho99504 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Boom!

Looks like it finally happened. Good luck to AA on it's purchase of the 787-X's


On the plus side for Airbus and it's customers, this speeds up some orders for other's awaiting the A350. However with all the deferments, this has already happened.

With Trump in office and American trying to be more "American", I wonder if the A32X orders might see some "deferments"

You mean the A32X orders that AA today reconfirmed on schedule for delivery? Don't you think they would have deferred those and kept the MAXs if Trump somehow magically was the puppet master of fleet planning at AA?

And yes - as always - great news for Airbus. Keeping the deposit money AND moving up some deliveries to other airlines. Well played, Airbus. Well played.

BoeingGuy wrote:

I love all the experts on an airplane model that hasn’t even been defined by the manufacturer; hasn’t been launched; and won’t enter into service for 7 years. So you are sure the A321LR will have better economics than the 797?

Relax. It's just dialogue, ponderings, and what-if's. Of course we don't know what the 797 will be - we're just musing. No one is declaring themselves an expert.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any deposits to keep or move around.

I thought these A350s were ordered as part of Airbus agreeing to finance HPs takeover of US?

It’s been stated in this thread that there were no deposits. Not sure if it was before or after my post.

Jo8338 wrote:

When will the 788/89 begin to see Miami?

Not until the last 767s are gone, I’d say. I’d expect the 757 and 767 to finish their flying out of Miami since Doug Parker basically came out and said that having an outdated on-board product on MIA–Latin America isn’t as much of a handicap for them because there’s a lack of viable competition.

AA747123 wrote:

I wonder if the 788-8's will have a different seating configuration in J than the current. I am not a big fan of the forward/backward seating

My guess is that they’ll have the Super Diamond seat like the 787-9s and most of the 777-200s. AA dropped the supplier of the original 787-8 seats because of their production delays.

Strato2 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

The 8 is getting the 9’s tail.

That's only going to make the hole bigger for Boeing to dig themselves out. They truly need all these orders.

Why do you think this. The move was made to reduce construction costs, which sounds like a good thing to me.

OB1504 wrote:

Jo8338 wrote:

When will the 788/89 begin to see Miami?

Not until the last 767s are gone, I’d say. I’d expect the 757 and 767 to finish their flying out of Miami since Doug Parker basically came out and said that having an outdated on-board product on MIA–Latin America isn’t as much of a handicap for them because there’s a lack of viable competition.

AA747123 wrote:

I wonder if the 788-8's will have a different seating configuration in J than the current. I am not a big fan of the forward/backward seating

My guess is that they’ll have the Super Diamond seat like the 787-9s and most of the 777-200s. AA dropped the supplier of the original 787-8 seats because of their production delays.

Who was the supplier of the original seat?

Scott's take (requires subscription) at Leeham: American A330neo loss casts shadow over sales prospects says:

Airbus hoped that an American order, for 20 -800s, would prove to be the endorsement of the program that was needed to spur worldwide sales.

Boeing was just as adamant that, like Hawaiian, American order the 787. In this case, Boeing had the leg up: the 787 was already in AA’s fleet (37 of 42 previous orders were already delivered). American wanted to simplify its fleet, not add another type. And airline officials were skeptical of the -800 for the very reason Airbus was so in need of AA’s order.

Seems Scott is willing to go with the notion that the A330-800 has (unfortunately) become an untouchable of the airline industry.

ODwyerPW wrote:
I'm sure it's been said... but more 788s.... I wonder if the additional 22 might encourage Boeing to roll back a few 9/10 improvements into the 8...

https://www.postandcourier.com/business ... 3d09e.html tells the story...

I too am surprised at the -8 order, given that Boeing has chosen not to roll back many of the -9 improvements into it, and the small operating cost difference between -8/-9 favors the larger revenue potential of the -9. The linked article says that the rear section will now be made common to -9/-10. A step in the right direction, but more should be done to increase commonality IMO.

r2rho wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:
I'm sure it's been said... but more 788s.... I wonder if the additional 22 might encourage Boeing to roll back a few 9/10 improvements into the 8...

https://www.postandcourier.com/business ... 3d09e.html tells the story...

I too am surprised at the -8 order, given that Boeing has chosen not to roll back many of the -9 improvements into it, and the small operating cost difference between -8/-9 favors the larger revenue potential of the -9. The linked article says that the rear section will now be made common to -9/-10. A step in the right direction, but more should be done to increase commonality IMO.

Why?

It will have a common tail and as written earlier it's had a common cockpit for a long time now (circa LN 120 or so?).

Beyond this, the more -8 converges with -9/-10 the more it becomes a 'straight shrink' and almost certainly heavier than desired.

From what we can tell, the remaining differences in center fuse / wingbox / MLG help the -8 rather than hurt it.

Commonality will help -8 gain range, but more range really isn't needed.

It would lower production cost, but presumably at some cost in engineering and certification time.

Time will tell if those trade offs work but my guess is that they don't.

On another thread we have one member campaigning for an ultra-weight-reduced 787-8 to target the MoM space.

Now we have a campaign for a heavier 787-8 to target the traditional carrier role.

End result: I have a headache.

The order has appeared on flightglobal as well. They say it is firm.

Arion640 wrote:

Who was the supplier of the original seat?

Zodiac. Delayed 787 delivery. Delayed 777 retrofit by almost 2 years.

Revelation wrote:

On another thread we have one member campaigning for an ultra-weight-reduced 787-8 to target the MoM space.

Now we have a campaign for a heavier 787-8 to target the traditional carrier role.

End result: I have a headache.

I have noticed this too. There is a group of people on A.net that think the 787-8 should be more like the 787-9, which would likely make it heavier and even less attractive to airlines like American. There is another group saying that it should be shrunk and lightened. I seriously struggle how they could get the weight down 10tons, but that is a separate topic.

This two competing opinions don’t make sense to me. Everyone seems to want to redesign the airplane that AA just ordered.

I do think this oft repeated mantra that Boeing don't want to make 788's is more of an A net myth than anything concrete.Wiki states they have sold 418 788's and that is pre this AA order and perhaps pre the recent BA 788 top up order.Its a really good selling aircaft Frankly.They have now made the improved tail section common with the 789 so that reduces costs too.
The idea that derivatives are always 'identical' is nonsense.There is nearly always optimisations whether it's to 'beef up' (heavier) or the reverse for a smaller variant.That doesn't make it unprofitable suddenly.And no you can't magically take 10-20 tons out either!
Of course one day when/if the 797 comes along it will stop selling for shorter range requirements.But that's circa 8-10 years away.Until then it's the nearest/best option.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

On another thread we have one member campaigning for an ultra-weight-reduced 787-8 to target the MoM space.

Now we have a campaign for a heavier 787-8 to target the traditional carrier role.

End result: I have a headache.

I have noticed this too. There is a group of people on A.net that think the 787-8 should be more like the 787-9, which would likely make it heavier and even less attractive to airlines like American. There is another group saying that it should be shrunk and lightened. I seriously struggle how they could get the weight down 10tons, but that is a separate topic.

This two competing opinions don’t make sense to me. Everyone seems to want to redesign the airplane that AA just ordered.

I agree with all of this - the goal should be to lighten the plane and reduce production costs.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

On another thread we have one member campaigning for an ultra-weight-reduced 787-8 to target the MoM space.

Now we have a campaign for a heavier 787-8 to target the traditional carrier role.

End result: I have a headache.

I have noticed this too. There is a group of people on A.net that think the 787-8 should be more like the 787-9, which would likely make it heavier and even less attractive to airlines like American. There is another group saying that it should be shrunk and lightened. I seriously struggle how they could get the weight down 10tons, but that is a separate topic.

This two competing opinions don’t make sense to me. Everyone seems to want to redesign the airplane that AA just ordered.

Indeed, and we don't even know why the -9/-10 tail is being fitted to the -8: is it to reduce production cost, or to reduce weight (3 piece HTP vs 2) or a little of both?

As for losing weight, one a.net tech-ops thread years ago explains the issue. To increase payload, it's usually a matter of finding a few critical load paths and strengthening them. To reduce almost always means revisiting major architectural elements (3 piece HTP vs 2) or revisiting thousands of decisions about how thick a material needs to be at each and every given location, what size/strength/type of fastener was used, etc and this means several iterations of changes that ripple throughout the entire design of the aircraft. Therefore I agree, finding ten tons of weight to shed on a 787 is a very difficult thing.

parapente wrote:

I do think this oft repeated mantra that Boeing don't want to make 788's is more of an A net myth

It might have been an a.net myth, but there definitely is a piece on leehamnews.net where Hamilton suggests sources inside of Boeing were telling him that they preferred to sell -9/-10 over -8 since -8 cost more to produce while also having the lower selling price. Lord knows if this change to the tail will change the equation.

lifecomm wrote:

I agree with all of this - the goal should be to lighten the plane and reduce production costs.

As mentioned here and elsewhere, there's lots of ways to do this: squeeze the suppliers, move away from expensive materials such as Ti, etc.

Assuming AA management's primary goal is fleet simplification, which is sure seems like it is, is it possible that long term the AA fleet could consist solely of A320, B737, B787?

The 77W would be last to go, but AA could probably get by having 787s as the only widebody. Especially with the (surely) enhanced capability of the 787 in say... 10 years.

I read the news release on AA's website, posted Friday afternoon. It's 22 788s, which start to arrive in 2020 and 25 789s, which start to arrive in 2023. There is an option for up to 28 additional 787s.

The release says that the 788s will replace the 763s. The number seems right, since there are still roughly 24 767s in service. I assume that the last 763 will leave in 2021 or 2022. Remember that AA bought 9 763s in 2001, replace the 9 in TWA's fleet. I think those 763s arrived in 2001 and 2002. So, AA would be getting about 20 years or so of service out of the youngest 763s.

According to the release the 25 789s will replace the A333s and the oldest 772s. Now, I thought the A333 were leaving in the 2018-2020 time range. The first 772s started to arrive in 1999. So, if the first 772 retires in 2023, AA that plane will have been in service 24 years.

Here's the question I have. Yes, the 789 can roughly cover the same passenger load as a 772. But, what is the difference in cargo payload between the 789 and the 772. We know that AA derives a lot of revenue from cargo and mail. One of the reasons why the A300 stuck around for so long was because it could carry a lot of cargo.

I get the feeling that AA is looking at the potential to replace its 47 772s with a mix of 789s, 787-10s, and maybe some 777Xs. At the same time, AA hasn't mentioned the A332s. I wonder if Boeing's proposed MoM aircraft will play into future AA orders.

Revelation wrote:

parapente wrote:

I do think this oft repeated mantra that Boeing don't want to make 788's is more of an A net myth

It might have been an a.net myth, but there definitely is a piece on leehamnews.net where Hamilton suggests sources inside of Boeing were telling him that they preferred to sell -9/-10 over -8 since -8 cost more to produce while also having the lower selling price. Lord knows if this change to the tail will change the equation.

I don’t know how this change improves the equation in favor of the 788, but to me, this order is reminiscent of the UA 737-700 order:

1. Model already in the fleet
2. But not the most popular or profitable to sell
3. Up against a struggling product
4. So Boeing pulls out all the stops to kick said struggling product in the nuts

The 789 has about 141 cubic meters by comparison to about 200 on the 772. Only a 747 can even compete with a 777 on belly freight/space/capacity, though both of the 789/772 can max out in weight at around 60K in the cargo hold, theoretically.

Slash787 wrote:

I would love to see B787-10 for AA

That may be possible. I wonder if the 787-9 can handle all the missions of the 772ER. There are some routes, particularly a few of the South American routes, where AA leverage the cargo capacity of the 772ER. Could have been good missions suited for the A350, but perhaps a 787-10 could handle them more efficiently.

WingsOfLove wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Who was the supplier of the original seat?

Zodiac. Delayed 787 delivery. Delayed 777 retrofit by almost 2 years.

Ahh shame, they have a plant not a million miles away from me.

Revelation wrote:

I have noticed this too. There is a group of people on A.net that think the 787-8 should be more like the 787-9, which would likely make it heavier and even less attractive to airlines like American. There is another group saying that it should be shrunk and lightened. I seriously struggle how they could get the weight down 10tons, but that is a separate topic.

I recall the -9 development took about an added year and a lot of extra design time as the lessons learned on the -8 became known, it was about at line #120 that the -8 reached the specified weights with a lot of improved parts that made the commonality between the -8 and -9 quite low. Changing out the tail section is to save production cost, but the -8, -9, and -10 tails are about the same weight. I suspect that there are a number of places where the -9 changes can be brought back into the -8 without changing the primary specifications of the -8 but reduce the production cost of the -8.

neomax wrote:

BobbyPSP wrote:

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Interesting how the press release made reference to AA accepting the first delivery of a DC-10 in 1971. I get that Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas within the past 10-15 years, but did Boeing have any connection to the DC-10/MD-11 project in any way post-acquisition?

If I remember correctly, United and American recieved their first DC-10's in a joint ceremony. I'll have to look to see who had the first revenue flight

AA and UA took delivery of their first DC-10s on July 28, 1971. Because AA ordered the DC-10 two months before UA, their aircraft took off from Long Beach before UA's did.

AA announced they planned to fly their first revenue DC-10 flight on Aug 17, 1971. UA announced they planned to fly their first DC-10 revenue flight on Aug 16, 1971 - a day before AA - so UA could say they were the first airline to fly the DC-10.

AA was able to complete crew training more quickly than planned, and flew the first revenue DC-10 flight on Aug 5, 1971, from LAX to ORD. AA added ORD-LGA the next month, with ORD-TUS, JFK-DAL, and ORD-MEX DC-10 service added later in 1971.

UA began DC-10 service on Aug 14, 1971 on SFO-IAD, with LAX-IAD added on Oct 21, 1971, followed by LAX-ORD on Oct 31, 1971 and SFO-DEN-ORD, ORD-CLE-MIA and ORD-PIT-MIA added in Dec 1971.

Source: "DC-10 Demonstrates Scheduling Versatility" Jan 3,1972 Aviation Week, pp. 26-30.

Anyone need any A350 Sim Time? I bet they can fit you in in Dallas.....

^ Be nice. No dancing in the endzone.

Wonder how long it will take Trump claim this is all due to his buy American program?

fun2fly wrote:

O530CarrisPT wrote:

Boeing778X, I think the Airbus A350XWB could've been at AA (although not the -1000, but the -900 and to replace a portion of the Boeing 777-200ERs) IF AA did not pursue a strategy of streamlining the fleet training and operations - much because I see the 359 as a better 772 replacement in some AA routes. But as we know, AA is pursuing that strategy of streamlining the fleet, knowing that the 777 and 787 have a common rating between each other, a thing that has a substantial impact on pilot training. That also negates any possible benefits of the 359 over the 789/781 in the airline operation.

And likely because of that, is very likely that AA may go for the 777-9 to replace their 77Ws in the future - and unlike many A.net people out there, the 779 is not much bigger in comparison to the 77W, making it a good choice for those airlines which need to generate growth while replacing 10-abreast 777-300ERs.

Plus millions of spare parts and millions of $$ they won't need to double up for two fleet types... with the extra $ they could keep some extra or expanded inventory to increase reliability also. Seems like a great move for AA.

Exactly. The fleet streamlining has also the part of the maintenance. Concentrating the maintenance needs of the widebody fleet in only two aircraft types with a common rating between each other (787 and 777), instead of going for a third type without that commonality, at least in AA (A350XWB or A330neo), may help AA save a lot of money (while improving its overall reliability of the fleet) in the long haul.

O530CarrisPT wrote:

Exactly. The fleet streamlining has also the part of the maintenance. Concentrating the maintenance needs of the widebody fleet in only two aircraft types with a common rating between each other (787 and 777), instead of going for a third type without that commonality, at least in AA (A350XWB or A330neo), may help AA save a lot of money (while improving its overall reliability of the fleet) in the long haul.

Can't tell if you're referring to maintenance commonality or cockpit commonality here (presuming the latter).

Are AA's 777 and 787 pilots in the same group? I can't remember which countries consider the 777 and 787 as the same pilot type rating (I know some do, some don't).

hOMSaR wrote:

O530CarrisPT wrote:

Exactly. The fleet streamlining has also the part of the maintenance. Concentrating the maintenance needs of the widebody fleet in only two aircraft types with a common rating between each other (787 and 777), instead of going for a third type without that commonality, at least in AA (A350XWB or A330neo), may help AA save a lot of money (while improving its overall reliability of the fleet) in the long haul.

Can't tell if you're referring to maintenance commonality or cockpit commonality here (presuming the latter).

Is maintenance commonality between the versions of the 787 themselves (and between the versions of the 777 themselves, therefore) - although with some differences between each version - and cockpit commonality between the 787 and the 777.

Stitch wrote:

And yet Singapore Airlines and SCOOT can fit 18" seats into their 787s at 3x3x3 despite Boeing's villainy...

Non sequitur. What is the armrest width? What is the aisle width? Something always gives when you travel with Boeing comfort standards. Mind you I never had any problems fitting my arse in any Boeing plane. The problem was/is always with the shoulder and elbow space.