smi0006 wrote:

Only critique I have is the lack of proper curtains - but I know that’s a US union thing. I just hate light seeping out from a galley or cabin into the cabin when everyone is trying to sleep.

rbavfan wrote:

ERJ170 wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Because the 772s ain't getting any younger. By the time these seats are introduced in 2024, the oldest 772 will be 25 years old, and the youngest will be 19. There really isn't anything wrong with the 772 now (other than the horrible Zodiac Concept D seats)...they have lie flats in J, relatively modern IFE systems, and premium economy.

I would be surprised to see a widebody order to replace them within the next 3-5 years.

I could see replace the 47 777-200ER with an mix order of 20+ 787-8 and 30+ 787-9. Makes most sense to me so as to increase the flexibility of the 787 fleet as the mix could completely take the place of the passenger and cargo aspects of the 777-200ER.

Just another crazy question, but would it make sense for AA to just drop First all together and make their narrowbody fleet Business, Premium Economy, and Economy.. for consistency?

I would expect the 772 to be replaced by the updated 787-10. Similar capacity & closer to the 772's range. Are there many 772 routes at AA that the 787-10ER cannot do.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

This. The 77E fleet (47 units) will fly on for a while longer still, and were overhauled in 2013-2014, but a better and more likely replacement for them is an improved 787-10, with more range, improved MTOW, and more cargo capability. I think that's a more likely scenario than the 787-9. AA has a big network and so can and should be able to fill a larger jet at multiple hubs, like the -10. I don't see AA going for an Airbus wide body like the A350 (reviving an order that began with USAirways and was cancelled). Operational simplicity seems to be a higher focus for AA and I'd think they would get a good deal on new Boeing jets anyway.

questions wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

brabb12 wrote:

If and when they retrofit the A321T into regular a321 would this end the SNA-JFK route? That plane with all the seat wouldn't have the legs to make it to JFK. It works for them now because a321T only has 102 seats on it. I don't think it could make the flight from SNA since the A321 has 187 seats due to the short 5700 ft runway.

They block seats on the A321T currently on the SNA-JFK route and it's possible if they continue the route that the XLR would be able to carry more pax than the A321T. With the more powerful engines, lower fuel consumption and updated flaps the XLR might be the better plane on this route.

What is the issue with the A321T SNA-JFK. The runway length? The climb out of the OC? The distance to JFK?

questions wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

brabb12 wrote:

If and when they retrofit the A321T into regular a321 would this end the SNA-JFK route? That plane with all the seat wouldn't have the legs to make it to JFK. It works for them now because a321T only has 102 seats on it. I don't think it could make the flight from SNA since the A321 has 187 seats due to the short 5700 ft runway.

They block seats on the A321T currently on the SNA-JFK route and it's possible if they continue the route that the XLR would be able to carry more pax than the A321T. With the more powerful engines, lower fuel consumption and updated flaps the XLR might be the better plane on this route.

What is the issue with the A321T SNA-JFK. The runway length? The climb out of the OC? The distance to JFK?

chonetsao wrote:

(...)

My thinking is B787-10 may provide capacity lift from B789, but it can't replace the B77W, based on the assumption AA's next widebody order would have B77W replacement in mind. Plus, B787-10 if ordered, can only support LHR+HND (summer) and SYD +GRU + EZE (winter), with possible CDG/MAD/ATH/BCN in summer and TLV as well. So it means if B787-10 is ordered it will be a small fleet like B77W.

(...)

brabb12 wrote:

questions wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

They block seats on the A321T currently on the SNA-JFK route and it's possible if they continue the route that the XLR would be able to carry more pax than the A321T. With the more powerful engines, lower fuel consumption and updated flaps the XLR might be the better plane on this route.

What is the issue with the A321T SNA-JFK. The runway length? The climb out of the OC? The distance to JFK?

Yes the runway is only 5700 ft length, so with a regular a321 they would have to block a huge amount of seats off to make the flight work. United flies the 737-700 which can make it to EWR. But a regular 737-8 wouldn't be able to make it without a stop somewhere. So im curious how this will work for american in the future, I am assuming if they do keep this route "which they probably will, since they have corporate contracts with nearby companies" how would they make this work?

jetsetterusa wrote:

What I am am wondering and why no one is talking about this (that I can see anyways) I might just of missed it ... But why not the 788? I get why not the 772 but the 788 is going to be around for a long wile... unless there are plans to get rid of the 788 as well but I highly doubt that idea ...

JohanTally wrote:

jetsetterusa wrote:

What I am am wondering and why no one is talking about this (that I can see anyways) I might just of missed it ... But why not the 788? I get why not the 772 but the 788 is going to be around for a long wile... unless there are plans to get rid of the 788 as well but I highly doubt that idea ...

It seems like AA plans on using the 788 on lower yielding leisure routes and originally was going to replace the 763.

jetsetterusa wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

jetsetterusa wrote:

What I am am wondering and why no one is talking about this (that I can see anyways) I might just of missed it ... But why not the 788? I get why not the 772 but the 788 is going to be around for a long wile... unless there are plans to get rid of the 788 as well but I highly doubt that idea ...

It seems like AA plans on using the 788 on lower yielding leisure routes and originally was going to replace the 763.

so then why not put the new seats in the 788 as well? still keep the 20 C but still?

ozark1 wrote:

When i started flying in the late 70s, the 707s and 727s had orange seats with dark brown accents. When F/C was just two wide seats next to each other, on a 707 you just sunk into them. They were enormously comfortable and i remember looking out at the strobes flashing against the engine at night.
Then it became leather in first and blue in coach (we didn’t change to the “main cabin” for awhile”. )Forward years ahead to the 777-300. I worked it to GRU, HKG, and had the privilege of deadheading twice in FC from LHR. To me, the most beautiful section was business. The f/as had tons of work to do before boarding. Water, menus,blankets,pillows, amenity kits. There was so much stuff that it was difficult to find a place,for it all. I cannot remember if we placed the Bose headsets prior to boarding or after. The Bose cart was like an armored car. Inventory was extremely strict.
People have said the on the 300, first was just like business with more amenities. But just 8 people in individual pods. On the outside of the pod, your seat number was lit up. It was truly a lovely experience.
My reaction to the new interiors is i think they are amazingly beautiful.The lie flat bed looks cozy . I am very pleased with the large reduction in blue. The brown leather headrests combined with the slightly darker, classier blue .Wow. That A321X is something else. Could someone tell me the expected seating capacity with those installed? Also i sure would appreciate seat width and seat pitch comparisons. I am glad to read the positive comments about their choices. It is really rough to start with an airline that you were SO proud of, and retire with it in the category of Spirit.
Also, and i promise this is my last comment, I believe i have read where AA ranks behind DL and UA in terms of product. ( lets not get into the staff). Do either UA or DL have something like this now? Or will AA move up to the best interior ( i know, they will begin developing their own competitive interiors)? Also did they go ahead and remove IFE from the 319 and 320/321? The 737 didn’t even have them did they? Thanks for your patience everyone. I give a huge star of approval to the photos above.I apologize for getting off topic at times. Have a great day.

incitatus wrote:

Let me offer a different perspective. In markets where range is needed, AA can go from 77W to 789. With a low-density cabin the 789 range will be great. For markets where a larger cabin is needed, the 787-10 can be used. If demand warrants more seats where the 789 is too small, AA can play with frequency and service addition from different hubs.

With 788, 789 and 787-10 AA can have a single wide-body type.

chonetsao wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Let me offer a different perspective. In markets where range is needed, AA can go from 77W to 789. With a low-density cabin the 789 range will be great. For markets where a larger cabin is needed, the 787-10 can be used. If demand warrants more seats where the 789 is too small, AA can play with frequency and service addition from different hubs.

With 788, 789 and 787-10 AA can have a single wide-body type.

You see, the problem is, B77W as a 300 seat aircraft in AA, often sold out in every cabin during summer to LHR, and winter to GRU. B787-10 is a 220-250 seats aircraft, it needs to match at least 60 J seats of current B77W (8F+52J), which means the total seats would be around 230+-, is still almost 70+- seats less than B77W. In case of DFW-LHR in summer, with 4 B77W daily, that is over 1,200 seats daily (and 240 F+J seats daily), B787-10 can not provide the equivalent seat counts unless adding a flight (which is not very practical for LHR since it is slot controlled).

Another problem is the market plateau. I am afraid it is likely 2019 is the sign the market have reached the plateau in Transatlantic travel. The growth for the next decade will be slow. It is reflected in new aircraft orders. So, any new aircraft orders in a huge legacy carrier like AA will be for replacement rather than growth. Capacity discipline is vital for all US3 in order to retain the higher fare achieved this summer. By adding more premium seats is a great way to grow revenue by giving customer a chance of up sale, it also reduces the capacity by 10%-20% overall. That also point towards a near term future that airlines will be conservative in ordering new aircrafts: relatively smaller but hugely versatile aircrafts like B789 and A359 will be popular.

I personally think the likelihood of AA order B787-10 in next 5 years is ZERO. After 2027? It will depend on market condition by then.

openskies88 wrote:

Very impressive interior finishes.

Something that caught my eye in the below image and the other render taken from the Premium Economy cabin looking forward is that the bulkhead rows of the Business cabins have a different layout; the trim is darker (charcoal), the seat seems to be forward facing rather than angled, the TV appears flush against the bulkhead monuments and the back of the suite sticks out a bit higher.

I'm guessing this will be the answer to the lack of a dedicated First cabin, similar to 'The Retreat Suite' Virgin Atlantic have recently launched in row 1 of the Upper Class cabin on their new A330NEO.

william wrote:

I thought the LAX-JFK route was exclusively A321Ts, are some speculating 787-9s may be used on the route with this new configuration?

chonetsao wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Let me offer a different perspective. In markets where range is needed, AA can go from 77W to 789. With a low-density cabin the 789 range will be great. For markets where a larger cabin is needed, the 787-10 can be used. If demand warrants more seats where the 789 is too small, AA can play with frequency and service addition from different hubs.

With 788, 789 and 787-10 AA can have a single wide-body type.

You see, the problem is, B77W as a 300 seat aircraft in AA, often sold out in every cabin during summer to LHR, and winter to GRU. B787-10 is a 220-250 seats aircraft, it needs to match at least 60 J seats of current B77W (8F+52J), which means the total seats would be around 230+-, is still almost 70+- seats less than B77W. In case of DFW-LHR in summer, with 4 B77W daily, that is over 1,200 seats daily (and 240 F+J seats daily), B787-10 can not provide the equivalent seat counts unless adding a flight (which is not very practical for LHR since it is slot controlled).

Another problem is the market plateau. I am afraid it is likely 2019 is the sign the market have reached the plateau in Transatlantic travel. The growth for the next decade will be slow. It is reflected in new aircraft orders. So, any new aircraft orders in a huge legacy carrier like AA will be for replacement rather than growth. Capacity discipline is vital for all US3 in order to retain the higher fare achieved this summer. By adding more premium seats is a great way to grow revenue by giving customer a chance of up sale, it also reduces the capacity by 10%-20% overall. That also point towards a near term future that airlines will be conservative in ordering new aircrafts: relatively smaller but hugely versatile aircrafts like B789 and A359 will be popular.

I personally think the likelihood of AA order B787-10 in next 5 years is ZERO. After 2027? It will depend on market condition by then.

jholio wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Let me offer a different perspective. In markets where range is needed, AA can go from 77W to 789. With a low-density cabin the 789 range will be great. For markets where a larger cabin is needed, the 787-10 can be used. If demand warrants more seats where the 789 is too small, AA can play with frequency and service addition from different hubs.

With 788, 789 and 787-10 AA can have a single wide-body type.

You see, the problem is, B77W as a 300 seat aircraft in AA, often sold out in every cabin during summer to LHR, and winter to GRU. B787-10 is a 220-250 seats aircraft, it needs to match at least 60 J seats of current B77W (8F+52J), which means the total seats would be around 230+-, is still almost 70+- seats less than B77W. In case of DFW-LHR in summer, with 4 B77W daily, that is over 1,200 seats daily (and 240 F+J seats daily), B787-10 can not provide the equivalent seat counts unless adding a flight (which is not very practical for LHR since it is slot controlled).

Another problem is the market plateau. I am afraid it is likely 2019 is the sign the market have reached the plateau in Transatlantic travel. The growth for the next decade will be slow. It is reflected in new aircraft orders. So, any new aircraft orders in a huge legacy carrier like AA will be for replacement rather than growth. Capacity discipline is vital for all US3 in order to retain the higher fare achieved this summer. By adding more premium seats is a great way to grow revenue by giving customer a chance of up sale, it also reduces the capacity by 10%-20% overall. That also point towards a near term future that airlines will be conservative in ordering new aircrafts: relatively smaller but hugely versatile aircrafts like B789 and A359 will be popular.

I personally think the likelihood of AA order B787-10 in next 5 years is ZERO. After 2027? It will depend on market condition by then.

I think where your discussion falls apart is that that B787-10 would not be a 77W replacement. It would be a 772 replacement. The 772 fleet is 47 strong and needs replacement in the next 10 years.

Before this configuration change, a 772 and 789 were similar in seat count for AA (273 vs 285), so it might make sense to replace those 1 for 1. Now with the 789 seat count dropping to 244, that would remove 30 seats from every flight if they replaced them with 789. The 787-10 probably would land around 260-270 in this configuration, so that would be a much better replacement for the 772.

afcjets wrote:

There is a major disconnect between the comments and what I see in the photos. Aside from a thin red line at the entryway, and brown headrests, and a small red inset in the J shell, this interior looks just as drab as the current J cabin, although the seats and suites look better.

The best interior was the taupe leather and lambswool in flagship F (with later additions of mauve in F and rust in J), and the baby blue and beige Y seats with cloud patterned carpet on the bulkheads.

UpNAWAy wrote:

The 77W are getting the same upgrade. So they will be still used on heavy premium routes, 789 on mid, and 321XLR on light.

The A321, B737 fleets are just finishing a 4 year new interior project. No chance of anything new there for a decade.

UpNAWAy wrote:

The 77W are getting the same upgrade. So they will be still used on heavy premium routes, 789 on mid, and 321XLR on light.

The A321, B737 fleets are just finishing a 4 year new interior project. No chance of anything new there for a decade.

brabb12 wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

have they said the A321T will be phased out? and I wonder? Why?

It literally says in the press release available on AA.com:

American will also retrofit its Airbus A321T fleet to align those 16 aircraft with the rest of its A321 fleet.

The A321XLR will take over the missions that the A321T currently performs, although I am willing to bet you will see widebody aircraft fill in for those missions as circumstances dictate.

If and when they retrofit the A321T into regular a321 would this end the SNA-JFK route? That plane with all the seat wouldn't have the legs to make it to JFK. It works for them now because a321T only has 102 seats on it. I don't think it could make the flight from SNA since the A321 has 187 seats due to the short 5700 ft runway.

INFINITI329 wrote:

brabb12 wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

It literally says in the press release available on AA.com:



The A321XLR will take over the missions that the A321T currently performs, although I am willing to bet you will see widebody aircraft fill in for those missions as circumstances dictate.

If and when they retrofit the A321T into regular a321 would this end the SNA-JFK route? That plane with all the seat wouldn't have the legs to make it to JFK. It works for them now because a321T only has 102 seats on it. I don't think it could make the flight from SNA since the A321 has 187 seats due to the short 5700 ft runway.

Would the A319 work?.....at least performance-wise?

JohanTally wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

brabb12 wrote:

If and when they retrofit the A321T into regular a321 would this end the SNA-JFK route? That plane with all the seat wouldn't have the legs to make it to JFK. It works for them now because a321T only has 102 seats on it. I don't think it could make the flight from SNA since the A321 has 187 seats due to the short 5700 ft runway.

Would the A319 work?.....at least performance-wise?

Yes but the cabin would have to be reconfigured because it only has 8 domestic first class seats. Also this flight might have contracts to offer lie flat seating.

FARmd90 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Would the A319 work?.....at least performance-wise?

Yes but the cabin would have to be reconfigured because it only has 8 domestic first class seats. Also this flight might have contracts to offer lie flat seating.

Depending on how the whole court case comes out with the NEA between AA/B6 I could potentially see AA lease the slots to B6 and have them operate JFK-SNA with their mint NEOs

dfdubflyer wrote:

openskies88 wrote:

Very impressive interior finishes.

Something that caught my eye in the below image and the other render taken from the Premium Economy cabin looking forward is that the bulkhead rows of the Business cabins have a different layout; the trim is darker (charcoal), the seat seems to be forward facing rather than angled, the TV appears flush against the bulkhead monuments and the back of the suite sticks out a bit higher.

I'm guessing this will be the answer to the lack of a dedicated First cabin, similar to 'The Retreat Suite' Virgin Atlantic have recently launched in row 1 of the Upper Class cabin on their new A330NEO.

The Design Air noted the same thing: https://thedesignair.net/2022/09/21/americans-first-class-isnt-entirely-dead-the-new-premium-interiors-may-give-hint-to-the-future-of-its-cabin-strategy/

Makes sense. Low effort way to extract a little bit extra. I think these new finishes look fantastic. From having flown Club Suite recently on BA I think these brighter and more varied colors will look nice as CS was a bit dour.

FARmd90 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Would the A319 work?.....at least performance-wise?

Yes but the cabin would have to be reconfigured because it only has 8 domestic first class seats. Also this flight might have contracts to offer lie flat seating.

Depending on how the whole court case comes out with the NEA between AA/B6 I could potentially see AA lease the slots to B6 and have them operate JFK-SNA with their mint NEOs