American Airlines orders 47 additional 787's (22 788's and 25 789's), cancels A350 order

dtw2hyd · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:09 pm

There will be plenty of demand for both A & B. The US is a 4000 plane market. Sure fly by night players from other places may place glitzy large orders, but this market(flying public) is not going anywhere, so does the need for planes.

There are too many widebody options, time for some consolidation.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:11 pm

Some of us feel it is more fun to follow Boeing than the Seattle Mariners.

PlanesNTrains · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:12 pm

grbauc wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Makes sense. No surprise. AA does not need another long range type. The question is, can they just cancel the longstanding A350 order? Are there any penalties? Is AA really canceling the A350 order or is it switching the deposits to more A321? May be some -LR? I think AA is quite happy with the A321.

They can cancel it, we know that they did. I'm guessing that if they switched any supposed deposits they would of probably announced that also. We don't know and Can't know all/much of the details except what's been said in the news release. Maybe in the coming financials there will be some more clues. HP then US and Now AA all with DP have been big fans of the A321, I agree they are happy with there A321's. I do believe they will need some more replacements for the 772 and later even the 77W's so the A350 will still be in the running for a spot at AA. Tha'ts way off for now it seems.

True, but Stitch just posted upthread that he’d seen the original contract between US and Airbus nd that there were no cancellation penalties.

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:13 pm

raylee67 wrote:
Makes sense. No surprise. AA does not need another long range type. The question is, can they just cancel the longstanding A350 order? Are there any penalties? Is AA really canceling the A350 order or is it switching the deposits to more A321? May be some -LR? I think AA is quite happy with the A321.

They can cancel it, we know that they did. I'm guessing that if they switched any supposed deposits they would of probably announced that also. We don't know and Can't know all/much of the details except what's been said in the news release. Maybe in the coming financials there will be some more clues. HP then US and Now AA all with DP have been big fans of the A321, I agree they are happy with there A321's. I do believe they will need some more replacements for the 772 and later even the 77W's so the A350 will still be in the running for a spot at AA. Tha'ts way off for now it seems.

Jo8338 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:16 pm

When will the 788/89 begin to see Miami?

casinterest · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:21 pm

casinterest 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.

.

IWas just joking about the Trump thing. I think American really sees the A320 Neo and A321LR as it's replacement for the 757's. I think the Max orders that got deferred may be a negotiating ploy with Boeing about the future of the 797 and the final design it takes. If the 797 does not turn out the way American expects it to, they may make more A32x orders for their NB fleet.[/quote]

Revelation · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:40 pm

DeSpringbokke wrote:
So unlike United where they doubled down on the A350 programme by switching models and ordering more of the aircraft, AA decided against ordering more of the type, pony up the cancellation costs and double down on the 787 programme. I'd be interested to see how much they will be paying for these new 788/789s versus the A350 cancellation costs.

If I was a lawyer I'd say that with regard to cancellation costs perhaps you're assuming facts not in evidence.

Stitch wrote:

Stitch wrote:
I can't speak for the RR deal, but I have seen the original contract between US and Airbus for the A350XWB and American cancelled their A350 order far enough in advance that they could do so without incurring any penalties for doing so. I doubt American would have negotiated a new contract that was worse for them, so I would not be surprised if there were no penalties involved in cancelling the A350 order and this might have even encouraged AA to finally shut it down if they now feel the A350 is not a proper fit for their future fleet needs.

So there's a good chance that there are no such costs to be paid.

Also, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -a350-deal told us:

“I don’t like small fleets in an airline our size,” 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.”

Personally, I think if cancellation costs were a significant issue, they would be mentioned in such a candid statement.

And, by the way, Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/23/in-ne ... ision-yet/ ) was right again. It was only two weeks ago where some people ( viewtopic.php?t=1389759 ) were having a hard time wrapping their heads around that. Even six month ago ( viewtopic.php?t=1373579 ) all the tea leaves were there to be read.

Boof02671 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:44 pm

I believe there are 100 A321neos on order.

QXAS · Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:54 pm

StudiodeKadent wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

There will be NO A350s at AA. 787-10 is a definite possibility.

I agree 787-10s are possible, even quite likely, but no A350s? What about in 10 years when they want 777-300ER replacements? The 777-8 is far too powerful for the US carriers to want (unless they want to fly to like... Perth, Mauritius or India) and the 777-9 arguably is too big (its a very nice jet, just a very big jet at the same time). I'd think if Airbus has any 'in' with AA, its with A350-1000s as the ultimate 777-300ER replacement. US carriers are multi-hub operations that prize flexibility, great CASM and risk-aversion-when-discussing-capacity-changes. All of those factors lead to A350-1000s as a 777-300ER replacement.

Which isn't to say the 777-9 is bad. Its not bad. Its a very nice and sexy jet. Just arguably not the best fit for AA's network.

Keep in mind that 77W replacement at AA is likely 20 or so years down the road rather than 10. N770AN will be 24 years old when the first of the next set of 789s arrive. The jets are only 5.5 years old at the oldest. I don’t think any of us know what will be on the table in 20 years. The oldest 77W is 5.5 years old. It’s very possible that the 777s production life will have been over for a few years and a new aircraft being worked on in its place. We have no idea what things will look like in 2032 or 2037 when the jets are 20, 25 years old. AA gets the maximum life out of airframes. These jets will be around for a long time.

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:22 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
If true Boeing really gave some huge concessions to pull this off. For Boeing selling at cost almost seems worth it to kill the 350 no? Keep AA with Boeing more and this really hurts the 350 program if true.

Its absolutly a hair brain thought and the idea that killing the A350 with all its orders and back log is a thought with out much thinking. A new plane with very few orders yea, but no way for the A350. Just because AB or Boeing sells some planes there does not have to be some crazy reason like giving them away or such. I think the reasons they AA gave is solid enough to take them on there merit.

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:23 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
flee wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Wasn't there a statement in the HA order that the recent tax changes in the US had a positive effect? Although I think that fleet simplification is way more important for AA. Saw recently an AA 767 at AMS, a 787 8/9 would be nice in the future!

Yes, A.Netters seem to think that fleet commonality is no longer such a big advantage these days. But AA is proving to us that it still weighs heavily on fleet purchasing decisions.

I wouldn't go too overboard with this. Obviously it factors in to some extent, but AA has been and will continue to run four wide body types for quite some time (although this does keep them from running five). I am willing to bet AA never gets down to two wide body types that some have mentioned on here.

Agree one part of a big picture.

Aviano789 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:39 pm

D L X wrote:
Looks legit to me.

Bye bye A350?

Very interesting in American’s big order with Boeing for 47- 788/89s which can fly 242 passengers up to 7,355 nautical miles (13,620 km) in a typical two-class configuration, while 789, a stretch of the 787-8, can fly 290 passengers up to 7,635 nautical miles There was no mention of future plans to acquire the longer range hauler B777X which can go 8,700 nmi (16,110 km with more pax.

JayinKitsap · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:39 pm

RE: the 788's here. I recall that AA had a lot of options on their original order. Options have pricing established but a 788 option is only good for a 788, same with 789 options. At the time of the first order there was no -10. This old option pricing was one reason that Airbus could not match pricing.

I suspect that a new version of the 788 will be launched, a shrink of the 789 so there are lots more common parts.

Boeing778X · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:39 pm

StudiodeKadent wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

There will be NO A350s at AA. 787-10 is a definite possibility.

I agree 787-10s are possible, even quite likely, but no A350s? What about in 10 years when they want 777-300ER replacements? The 777-8 is far too powerful for the US carriers to want (unless they want to fly to like... Perth, Mauritius or India) and the 777-9 arguably is too big (its a very nice jet, just a very big jet at the same time). I'd think if Airbus has any 'in' with AA, its with A350-1000s as the ultimate 777-300ER replacement. US carriers are multi-hub operations that prize flexibility, great CASM and risk-aversion-when-discussing-capacity-changes. All of those factors lead to A350-1000s as a 777-300ER replacement.

Which isn't to say the 777-9 is bad. Its not bad. Its a very nice and sexy jet. Just arguably not the best fit for AA's network.

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.

Continental767 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:44 pm

sagechan wrote:
I dont get why people on this thfead keep talking about the -10 as a 77E replacement when AA has 12 more seats on thr - 9 then thr 77E. Theyd probably have about 5 less seats at a similar J seat count, so the 787-9 IS the replacement in capacity for the 77E.

789s with a similar number of J seats as the 772s would be probably 15-20 seats less. They could use the 789 to downsize some routes and the 78J to upsize.

Stitch · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:47 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
Very interesting in American’s big order with Boeing for 47- 788/89s which can fly 242 passengers up to 7,355 nautical miles (13,620 km) in a typical two-class configuration, while 789, a stretch of the 787-8, can fly 290 passengers up to 7,635 nautical miles There was no mention of future plans to acquire the longer range hauler B777X which can go 8,700 nmi (16,110 km with more pax.

Not relevant to AA at the moment as they are not operating any 16-18 hour missions with a "full" payload.

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:49 pm

sagechan wrote:
AA has been attempting to minimize fleet types at hubs, with this order I wonder what will happen with the surviving A332s assuming they aren't sold. Id guess solely CLT based for CLT Int'l and flow to DFW/PHX for Hawaii. PHL probably transitions into all 788/9 first, then MIA. 77Es in DFW and JFK.

I think your probally going to close to right. I'd love to see a better answer
for PHX Hawaii and the 332 work for me. Id fly backwards from lax to avoid the lounge chair FC seats : )

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:58 pm

Stitch wrote:
I can't speak for the RR deal, but I have se en the original contract between US and Airbus for the A350XWB and American cancelled their A350 order far enough in advance that they could do so without incurring any penalties for doing so. I doubt American would have negotiated a new contract that was worse for them, so I would not be surprised if there were no penalties involved in cancelling the A350 order and this might have even encouraged AA to finally shut it down if they now feel the A350 is not a proper fit for their future fleet needs.

thanks for the information and post of reason.

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:09 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

Several Airbus fans are trying to pull a "so there's a chance for the A350 still" attitude.

There will be NO A350s at AA. 787-10 is a definite possibility.

...and you know that HOW exactly??1

There is still a chance for later 772 and even longer 77W and Id like to see the A350 in AA colors. I believe with this current announcement and direction
that its a lot less possible. AA is not in to big planes and with the current management decision, it made scene to drop the contract. How things will look in the future can be guessed at but there is no certainty. I don't remember reading anyone yelling 787-8 or a close to all Boeing wide body fleet.

sagechan · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:10 pm

Continental767 wrote:
sagechan wrote:
I dont get why people on this thfead keep talking about the -10 as a 77E replacement when AA has 12 more seats on thr - 9 then thr 77E. Theyd probably have about 5 less seats at a similar J seat count, so the 787-9 IS the replacement in capacity for the 77E.

789s with a similar number of J seats as the 772s would be probably 15-20 seats less. They could use the 789 to downsize some routes and the 78J to upsize.

I guess it depends, assuming roughly 2 rows of Y for 1 row of J, you get 8 J seats at the expense of 18 Y seats. Which nets almost 1 to 1 replacement, not a loss of seats. floor area layout may help or hurt that a bit. So a 38J 789 in AA config vs the 37J 77E should be within a couple seats of exact match, so no real downsize, unless you put a 788 on it I agree 78J is an option to upguage if they wanted to and easy to add a submodel that's otherwise pilot and crew compatible.

Caryjack · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
ILS28ORD wrote:
Not sure if it's been asked but what exactly are the improvements that can be applied to the -8 from the -9 that make it attractive again? Surprised and happy to see the 787-8 get orders it's been quite some time.

A diagram from Flight Global shows us the differences between the original -8 and -9:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-401784/ has an interesting quote from 2014:

While HLFC is incorporated into the 787-10, there is “no firm plan” to introduce it on the -8, according to Mark Jenks, vice-president of 787 development. “We certainly could. There’s a business case we have to run - it’s a function of how many more -8s are we going to build and the detail cost to put it on.”

Apparently getting this big order for -8 made the business case work for the tail. I guess time will tell if other beneficial changes move over too.

By tail, do you meen up to the first body joint, which includes the simplified tail planes (item #2) and the HSFC system (item #4), or something less?
A simpler and lighter cockpit structure (item #7) could also be good.
Thanks,
Cary

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:31 pm

casinterest wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Boom!
. I think American really sees the A320 Neo and A321LR as it's replacement for the 757's. [b] I think the Max orders that got deferred may be a negotiating ploy with Boeing about the future of the 797 and the final design it takes. If the 797 does not turn out the way American expects it to, they may make more A32x orders for their NB fleet.

[/b]

I think you may be on to something.

DDR · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Jayafe wrote:

When there are only 2 providers and pissing off one would mean paying higher prices as an alternative, your market logic fails dramatically. The customer is not always right (I know this is hard to understand from a US pov), specially in situations like this one. AA is indeed an Airbus customer, but according to the number not a particularly large one. There are bigger players around who deserve the efforts.

Wow, you really could not be more wrong. As others have pointed out, but you have refused to acknowledge you are wrong, AA is a HUGE Airbus operator. AA loves the A321. They are a very important customer for Airbus. Just because we are not getting the A350 does not mean the airline is no longer important to Airbus.

Stitch · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:37 pm

Caryjack wrote:
By tail, do you meen up to the first body joint, which includes the simplified tail planes (item #2) and the HSFC system (item #4), or something less?
A simpler and lighter cockpit structure (item #7) could also be good.

The 787-8 now incorporates the lighter cockpit structure (since around LN130). As for the tail, it sounds like they are moving to a common Section 47/48 across all three models since that is manufactured by Boeing SC. The vertical stabilizer is made by Boeing in WA and the horizontal stabilizer is manufactured in Italy.

Flyglobal · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:37 pm

Instead of 777x for 777-300ER they may just add more 789s going for frequency and using their options. They may not get 789 prices for the 777x I expect.

Flyglobal

LY777 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:40 pm

Good to see that Boeing is still selling some 788s

Okcflyer · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:41 pm

Did a bit more research and learned B already ported the -10’s tail to the -9’s. It differs in that the “new” tail does NOT include HLFC on the horizontal stabilizer; only on the vertical. Most -9’s flying today have it on both horizontal and verical but new -9’s leaving the line today only have it on the vertical as the -10.

sagechan · Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:59 pm

sagechan wrote:
Continental767 wrote:
sagechan wrote:
I dont get why people on this thfead keep talking about the -10 as a 77E replacement when AA has 12 more seats on thr - 9 then thr 77E. Theyd probably have about 5 less seats at a similar J seat count, so the 787-9 IS the replacement in capacity for the 77E.

789s with a similar number of J seats as the 772s would be probably 15-20 seats less. They could use the 789 to downsize some routes and the 78J to upsize.

I guess it depends, assuming roughly 2 rows of Y for 1 row of J, you get 8 J seats at the expense of 18 Y seats. Which nets almost 1 to 1 replacement, not a loss of seats. floor area layout may help or hurt that a bit. So a 38J 789 in AA config vs the 37J 77E should be within a couple seats of exact match, so no real downsize, unless you put a 788 on it I agree 78J is an option to upguage if they wanted to and easy to add a submodel that's otherwise pilot and crew compatible.

My math was off 2 rows of J would be 4 rows of Y so 36 seats, so would be a little less in capacity. Wouldn't be surprised if it could be worked out as 2 rows of J for 3 rows of Y though.

Erebus · Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:14 pm

On concessions, Leeham's sources did indicate a couple of specific ones to seal the deal.

It’s also been suggested Boeing offered to reconfigure the 787-8s that have an interior designed for the legacy American, but which doesn’t fit into the new cabin strategy adopted by the new American Airlines.

GE Aviation, which provides American’s 787 engines and engines for the Boeing 737-8 MAX and Airbus A321neos ordered by American through its 50-50 partnership with CFM International, repriced an unspecified number of engines, LNC is told.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/23/in-new-blow-boeing-defeats-airbus-at-american-sources-say-aa-says-no-decision-yet/

greenair727 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:31 pm

47 787's for $12B. So does that mean the average price of one is $255M?

Planesmart · Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:38 pm

StudiodeKadent wrote:
Question... we know they're incorporating the -9's tail into the -8 now, so they're giving the 787-8 some improvements. What would the impacts be? We know it would decrease manufacturing costs for Boeing and parts/maintenance costs for the airlines (through increased commonality), but what is the fuel burn impact? range impact? CASM impact? Any chance it would make the 787-8 a substantially more attractive airliner?

Signals the 788 lives on (cheaper to build and more profitable to sell and support), which makes it less likely a new model will be announced in the short-term which overlaps in size and capability.

Erebus · Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:45 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
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.

I would tend to agree with you on that front.

But suppose AA ends up ordering 797s instead of the fleet simplifying A321LRs, it would mean that they do not necessarily have to stick to such a stance. The 77Ws have about 20 years to go before needing replacement, and that's plenty of time for Airbus to make a half-generation improvement on the A350s through re-engines, stretches, wing enhancements etc. And the time horizon is too far out for anyone to predict with certainty what happens in any case. 20 years ago would you have bet on AA ordering any Airbus at all?

O530CarrisPT · Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:50 pm

DDR wrote:
Jayafe wrote:

When there are only 2 providers and pissing off one would mean paying higher prices as an alternative, your market logic fails dramatically. The customer is not always right (I know this is hard to understand from a US pov), specially in situations like this one. AA is indeed an Airbus customer, but according to the number not a particularly large one. There are bigger players around who deserve the efforts.

Wow, you really could not be more wrong. As others have pointed out, but you have refused to acknowledge you are wrong, AA is a HUGE Airbus operator. AA loves the A321. They are a very important customer for Airbus. Just because we are not getting the A350 does not mean the airline is no longer important to Airbus.

AA will still be a large Airbus customer even if only operates the A319/A320/A321 family of narrowbodies (talking only between Airbus airplanes obviously).
So, this was indeed a loss for Airbus, although not a big one, not just because of that, but also because Airbus has already 2 of the 3 US3 carriers (DL and UA) which ordered the A350XWB as I previously mentioned (plus, DL ordered the A330neo).

By the way, this order for 22 Boeing 787-8s is indeed a sign that the smaller of the 787s (the 788) is still attractive to some airlines (even to operate them in medium-haul flights).

vfw614 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:57 pm

DDR wrote:
Jayafe wrote:

When there are only 2 providers and pissing off one would mean paying higher prices as an alternative, your market logic fails dramatically. The customer is not always right (I know this is hard to understand from a US pov), specially in situations like this one. AA is indeed an Airbus customer, but according to the number not a particularly large one. There are bigger players around who deserve the efforts.

Wow, you really could not be more wrong. As others have pointed out, but you have refused to acknowledge you are wrong, AA is a HUGE Airbus operator. AA loves the A321. They are a very important customer for Airbus. Just because we are not getting the A350 does not mean the airline is no longer important to Airbus.

grbauc wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Makes sense. No surprise. AA does not need another long range type. The question is, can they just cancel the longstanding A350 order? Are there any penalties? Is AA really canceling the A350 order or is it switching the deposits to more A321? May be some -LR? I think AA is quite happy with the A321.

They can cancel it, we know that they did. I'm guessing that if they switched any supposed deposits they would of probably announced that also. We don't know and Can't know all/much of the details except what's been said in the news release. Maybe in the coming financials there will be some more clues. HP then US and Now AA all with DP have been big fans of the A321, I agree they are happy with there A321's. I do believe they will need some more replacements for the 772 and later even the 77W's so the A350 will still be in the running for a spot at AA. Tha'ts way off for now it seems.

When I brought this issue up. I was not talking about "pissing off" Airbus, but about forfeiting deposits if AA simply cancelled the order instead of restructuring it. If no non-refundable deposits have been paid until this point, the discussion is moot, of course. If there are deposits at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to get some additional sought-after narrowbody airframes which could at least be sold on, presumably at a decent profit given AA's massive purchasing power?

ikolkyo · Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:58 pm

Erebus wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
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.

I would tend to agree with you on that front.

But suppose AA ends up ordering 797s instead of the fleet simplifying A321LRs, it would mean that they do not necessarily have to stick to such a stance. The 77Ws have about 20 years to go before needing replacement, and that's plenty of time for Airbus to make a half-generation improvement on the A350s through re-engines, stretches, wing enhancements etc. And the time horizon is too far out for anyone to predict with certainty what happens in any case. 20 years ago would you have bet on AA ordering any Airbus at all?

I don't think ordering 797s takes AA away from fleet simplification. The 797 could very easily have a type rating with the 787 and 777, there are already airlines who have a combined 777/787 pilot pool. A321LR is not a proper 757/767 replacement for the US Airlines it seems, if it were they would have already placed orders in my eyes.

Stitch · Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:04 pm

greenair727 wrote:
47 787's for $12B. So does that mean the average price of one is $255M?

That is list price. I expect AA paid maybe half that.

Bjm0517 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:26 pm

D L X wrote:
Looks legit to me.

Bye bye A350?

When AA kept deferring the A350 I already knew they weren’t gonna have it delivered. Imo, the 787 is better for what AA is trying to do with their fleet

Bjm0517 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:36 pm

Flyglobal wrote:
Instead of 777x for 777-300ER they may just add more 789s going for frequency and using their options. They may not get 789 prices for the 777x I expect.

Flyglobal

Hmm... I never thought about it that way. Well, I agree that frequency is a great idea but wasn’t the original 777 founded on the idea of frequency over size? The 772 is a large airplane I get it but I am pretty sure it was founded on frequency, and I am pretty sure the 777X will have some of the same ideas encoporated into the final product

Spacepope · Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:36 pm

Stitch wrote:
greenair727 wrote:
47 787's for $12B. So does that mean the average price of one is $255M?

That is list price. I expect AA paid maybe half that.

If that. If other threads were to be believed, I'd expect sub-100 million bucks each.

UpNAWAy · Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:57 pm

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

Boeing778X · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:02 pm

Erebus wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
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.

I would tend to agree with you on that front.

But suppose AA ends up ordering 797s instead of the fleet simplifying A321LRs, it would mean that they do not necessarily have to stick to such a stance. The 77Ws have about 20 years to go before needing replacement, and that's plenty of time for Airbus to make a half-generation improvement on the A350s through re-engines, stretches, wing enhancements etc. And the time horizon is too far out for anyone to predict with certainty what happens in any case. 20 years ago would you have bet on AA ordering any Airbus at all?

Consider the fact that the 797 is:

A: replacing 757/767s
B: probably be based off the 787

If AA orders the 797 to replace 757s and 767s on the low end, that'd be simplifying the fleet only further.

The 757 and 767 share a common rating as well, and the 797 would be replacing both those.

Hardly see how adding the 797 would hurt.

A321LR or A322 can cover 757 routes on the low end.

Then the NSA will come next decade, which will replace the 738 and A320s

Polot · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:05 pm

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

A 787 is capable of flying to Africa. UA use to fly a 788 IAH-LOS in fact.

RJMAZ · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:34 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Let’s not forget any NMA launch will also be the basis for a NSA.

No it won't. That's your opinion. I have never seen a single piece of evident or quote that suggests this.

Proposals from unqualified armchair engineers on this forum don't count.

QXAS · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:37 pm

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.

UpNAWAy · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:38 pm

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.

AA Executives have consistently said they don't have an aircraft that works for Africa flying, so they still don't. Range isn't the issue.

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:45 pm

vfw614 wrote:
DDR wrote:
Jayafe wrote:

When there are only 2 providers and pissing off one would mean paying higher prices as an alternative, your market logic fails dramatically. The customer is not always right (I know this is hard to understand from a US pov), specially in situations like this one. AA is indeed an Airbus customer, but according to the number not a particularly large one. There are bigger players around who deserve the efforts.

Wow, you really could not be more wrong. As others have pointed out, but you have refused to acknowledge you are wrong, AA is a HUGE Airbus operator. AA loves the A321. They are a very important customer for Airbus. Just because we are not getting the A350 does not mean the airline is no longer important to Airbus.

grbauc wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Makes sense. No surprise. AA does not need another long range type. The question is, can they just cancel the longstanding A350 order? Are there any penalties? Is AA really canceling the A350 order or is it switching the deposits to more A321? May be some -LR? I think AA is quite happy with the A321.

They can cancel it, we know that they did. I'm guessing that if they switched any supposed deposits they would of probably announced that also. We don't know and Can't know all/much of the details except what's been said in the news release. Maybe in the coming financials there will be some more clues. HP then US and Now AA all with DP have been big fans of the A321, I agree they are happy with there A321's. I do believe they will need some more replacements for the 772 and later even the 77W's so the A350 will still be in the running for a spot at AA. Tha'ts way off for now it seems.

When I brought this issue up. I was not talking about "pissing off" Airbus, but about forfeiting deposits if AA simply cancelled the order instead of restructuring it. If no non-refundable deposits have been paid until this point, the discussion is moot, of course. If there are deposits at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to get some additional sought-after narrowbody airframes which could at least be sold on, presumably at a decent profit given AA's massive purchasing power?

These major companies are continually doing business and I'm sure AB is disappointed, but I highly doubt they get pissed off and the relationship is trouble. There are details not known and give and takes in negotiations the such we can only guess at best. AA will be buying more AB in the future and DP has a long history with AB

NateGreat · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:48 pm

So, will CLT and PHL finally get some 787s?

ER757 · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:48 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
If true Boeing really gave some huge concessions to pull this off. For Boeing selling at cost almost seems worth it to kill the 350 no? Keep AA with Boeing more and this really hurts the 350 program if true.

Or......AA, a longtime operator of the type, has loads of data on fuel burn, MX cost, dispatch reliability etc and decided the aircraft is a moneymaker for them and became a repeat customer.

grbauc · Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:49 pm

vfw614 wrote:
DDR wrote:
Jayafe wrote:

When there are only 2 providers and pissing off one would mean paying higher prices as an alternative, your market logic fails dramatically. The customer is not always right (I know this is hard to understand from a US pov), specially in situations like this one. AA is indeed an Airbus customer, but according to the number not a particularly large one. There are bigger players around who deserve the efforts.

Wow, you really could not be more wrong. As others have pointed out, but you have refused to acknowledge you are wrong, AA is a HUGE Airbus operator. AA loves the A321. They are a very important customer for Airbus. Just because we are not getting the A350 does not mean the airline is no longer important to Airbus.

grbauc wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Makes sense. No surprise. AA does not need another long range type. The question is, can they just cancel the longstanding A350 order? Are there any penalties? Is AA really canceling the A350 order or is it switching the deposits to more A321? May be some -LR? I think AA is quite happy with the A321.

They can cancel it, we know that they did. I'm guessing that if they switched any supposed deposits they would of probably announced that also. We don't know and Can't know all/much of the details except what's been said in the news release. Maybe in the coming financials there will be some more clues. HP then US and Now AA all with DP have been big fans of the A321, I agree they are happy with there A321's. I do believe they will need some more replacements for the 772 and later even the 77W's so the A350 will still be in the running for a spot at AA. Tha'ts way off for now it seems.

When I brought this issue up. I was not talking about "pissing off" Airbus, but about forfeiting deposits if AA simply cancelled the order instead of restructuring it. If no non-refundable deposits have been paid until this point, the discussion is moot, of course. If there are deposits at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to get some additional sought-after narrowbody airframes which could at least be sold on, presumably at a decent profit given AA's massive purchasing power?

These major companies are continually doing business and I'm sure AB is disappointed, but I highly doubt they get pissed off and the relationship is trouble. There are details not known and give and takes in negotiations the such we can only guess at best. AA will be buying more AB in the future and DP has a long history with AB (loan I believe) were returns favors what can be returned.

I personally think Boeing was at one time in the past to confidant and was not aggressive in keeping good relationships with a few airlines. I think they underestimated AB. Good competition will make both companies better I believe.

neomax · Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:29 am

NateGreat wrote:
So, will CLT and PHL finally get some 787s?

And MIA and PHX? This is the million dollar question.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net