Carls
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:19 am

I have been wondering why if the A320 family is an excellent A/C American Airlines don't even consider it as an option?
Or at least here in A.Net nobody mentioned as an option. I know about the accident AA had with a A300, but is that enough for an airline walk away from a good option?

[Edited 2007-09-04 21:20:07]
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5838
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:21 am

AA Fleet Mgmt has considered the A320. Boeing was always there to give AA a better deal.  airplane 
 
PA101
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:28 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:47 am

American obviously buys just American!  Wink
 
albird87
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:15 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:53 am

I guess cause AA likes Boeing giving them heavy discounts and also great support. Airbus would have to hugley discount the A320 to near non profit i think before AA would buy it!!
Why would they also want to ruin their great partnership with boeing??
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:54 am

Quoting Carls (Thread starter):
I have been wondering why if the A320 family is an excellent A/C American Airlines don't even consider it as an option?
Or at least here in A.Net nobody mentioned as an option. I know about the accident AA had with a A300, but is that enough for an airline walk away from a good option?

I take it you mean as a replacement for their 300+ MD8Xs?

They already have the 737NG in their fleet and they like it enormously. Sure, the A320 would be a good fit to replace their MadDogs but the 737 fits better in terms of commonality.

Why do AA not buy Airbus any more? Difficult to say they did have a Gentleman's agreement with Boeing to be their sole supplier but I'm unsure whether this is still the case. The A300-605R is a workhorse for them but there was a lot of ill feeling towards Airbus from many quarters in AA circles because of the findings of the AA587 crash. Briefly, the crash was caused when on encountering severe wake turbulence from a JL 744 departing ahead, the PIC stomped down hard on the rudder pedals right to the floor to correct what he felt was uncontrollable yaw. The rudder went hard over and overstressed the VS which, under massive force, delaminated from the fuselage with inevitably catastrophic results. AA have always maintained that there is an intrinsic flaw in the rudder assembly, and that the crash was not its fault. Airbus has always maintained that it had never intended the rudder to be used in the way it was in that situation, and that the crash was caused by inappropriate rudder inputs from the PIC. The NTSB basically found in favour of Airbus but not conclusively so, and other sources have stated differently. The airframe involved had encountered some VS lamination problems early in its life and these had been fixed to the satisfaction of AA and Airbus but these were later dragged up as possible contributing causes. Other sources have pointed to an Air Transat A310, which as you probably know uses an almost identical rudder and VS assembly as the A300-605R, which suffered a detachment of part of the rudder in-flight for reasons I cannot recall.

At the time there were elements of AA, most notably pilots, who refused to fly the A300 after the crash stating that it was not safe, although how much of this was them looking to clear the name of their fallen comrades by trading on some fairly rampant widespread anti-French feeling from some people in the US, is open to question. The counter argument from Airbus has been that the A300 has been in use in hundreds worldwide, and that the rudder/VS delamination problem would have been discovered by many other airlines were it as serious a problem as AA were making out. The debate rages on, and there have been some very informative threads on here on this very subject.

Then you have the other much-publicised A-net talking point which is that AA find their A300s to be absolute dogs and complete hangar queens. They reportedly have quite a bad despatch reliability rate (although I confess I’ve not seen any actual stats), although again, many other airlines get 98%+ rates out of their A300s that are worked equally hard, so the question is a tough one. It is also plain that the AA cabin and MX crews are, generally, not fond of the A300 and this maybe stems from the AA587 thing, and also that there are many people in the US who find a non-American aircraft in service with American Airlines hard to accept, especially when it is suggested by most that their 767-300ER is equally capable.

As you are no doubt aware, there is a small but vocal minority in the US, and certainly on here, that have a “If it aint Boeing, I aint going” mantra, and are anti-Airbus. In some cases this is down to anti-French/German/British sentiment, and in some cases it is just pure protectionism. Not condoning it, but it happens and we are increasingly seeing the same thing in polar opposite from Europeans. Fact of life I’m afraid. Point is, I think it is fair to say that a big AA order for the A319 or A332 would not be a popular one in many circles although I doubt AA are basing their fleet planning on the small-minded musings of a minority. I think it is more to do with the AA587 thing, and the fact that Boeing has got a product that suits them better and will of course be competitively priced.

Is this enough to prevent AA from ordering Airbus in the near future?

I think so, yes.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:58 am

The A320 and 737 are both great aircraft and have comparable operating costs. Boeing has simply always made AA the better deal it seems. Today, AA seems to have some pull with Boeing and Boeing seems to help out AA to get new planes delivered when they are needed.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14882
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:01 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 4):
not fond of the A300 and this maybe stems from the AA587 thing, and also that there are many people in the US who find a non-American aircraft in service with American Airlines hard to accept, especially when it is suggested by most that their 767-300ER is equally capable.

spin, spin, spin.

aa crew was not happy with the A300 long before AA587. Further, while there may be some people who don't like Airbus, "many people" in the US don't give a damn, and happily fly UA, US, B6, F9, NW and others as they fly A320s and A330s. And of course you have all the Brazilian, Canadian and Swedish aircraft flying about...

But the premise of the original post is: why would any airline not choose to fly the A320 if they could, which in itself is a loaded question.

The 738 suits AA pretty darn well, and has better legs than the A320 (and is a tad bigger), so what exactly does the A320 offer AA that would make it superior for them to the 738? AA is not looking for A319 or A318 sized aircraft, and use their 757s in roles the A321 can't fly, so maybe, just maybe, the A320 series DOESN'T WORK FOR AA and it's as simple as that? Nah, couldn't be...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
charlienorth
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:24 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:04 am

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 5):
The A320 and 737 are both great aircraft and have comparable operating costs. Boeing has simply always made AA the better deal it seems. Today, AA seems to have some pull with Boeing and Boeing seems to help out AA to get new planes delivered when they are needed

Agreed, I have worked both,IMO an airplane is an airplane,each type has it's good and bad,as far as the AA order goes,Ibelieve this was done in 1997 when AA made some kind of a nothin' but Boeing agreement
Work hard fly right..don't understand it
 
EWRCabincrew
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:37 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:05 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
so maybe, just maybe, the A320 series DOESN'T WORK FOR AA and it's as simple as that?

This is a.net, answers can't be that simple? We must debate till the horse is long dead.  Wink
You can't cure stupid
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
The 738 suits AA pretty darn well, and has better legs than the A320 (and is a tad bigger), so what exactly does the A320 offer AA that would make it superior for them to the 738? AA is not looking for A319 or A318 sized aircraft, and use their 757s in roles the A321 can't fly, so maybe, just maybe, the A320 series DOESN'T WORK FOR AA and it's as simple as that? Nah, couldn't be...

...which is basically what I said.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
aa crew was not happy with the A300 long before AA587. Further, while there may be some people who don't like Airbus, "many people" in the US don't give a damn, and happily fly UA, US, B6, F9, NW and others as they fly A320s and A330s. And of course you have all the Brazilian, Canadian and Swedish aircraft flying about...

I said there was a small minority who do. Are you denying that such a minority exists?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
But the premise of the original post is: why would any airline not choose to fly the A320 if they could, which in itself is a loaded question.

No, he is asking why AA do not fly it. I explained why. It is a good fit as a MD8X replacement, but the 737-800 fits better. Many airlines operate fleets of both 737 and A320 but AA doesnt need to and wont do so.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
ckfred
Posts: 5148
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:11 am

AA and Boeing signed a contract in 1996, later revised after AA signed its contract with the pilots in 1997, to make Boeing the sole supplier of AA's aircraft.

As a part of EU approval of the Boeing-McD merger, Boeing had to drop the sole supplier language from the AA contract, as well as its contracts with CO and DL.

But, AA still held purchase rights for over 600 aircraft over a 20-year period, with pricing schedules set for then existing models (737, 757, 767, and 777), as well as formulae for calculating purchase prices for models introduced during the term of the contract.

I believe AA still holds purchase rights to about 400 or so aircraft. Some of those are the 47 737-800s that will be delivered starting in 2009.

So, Airbus would have to beat the prices for 737NG aircraft to get any order for A320-series aircraft.

One of the reasons that AA agreed to the contract with Boeing, besides price, was pilot preference. According to a friend of mine who flies for AA, a number of senior pilots test flew the A319/A320, the 737-700/-800, the A330/A340, and the 777. The preference among those pilots were for the Boeing planes.

And, whereas airlines used to buy from different manufacturers as a means of keeping prices low, airlines now want to buy planes from 1 manufacturer, if possible, because it holds down maintnenance and training costs.

That's why AA will probably continue to buy Boeing planes in the future, including the 787 and the replacement for the 737NG/757.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 7):
Agreed, I have worked both,IMO an airplane is an airplane, each type has its good and bad. As far as the AA order goes, I believe this was done in 1997 when AA made some kind of a nothin' but Boeing agreement

See the following Boeing press release from 1996:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...news/1996/news.release.961121.html

Following excerpt from the last paragraph:

"We're extremely pleased that American Airlines has chosen the Boeing family of airplanes to meet all of its requirements for the next 20 years."
 
tsaord
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:46 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:18 am

To make a long story short AA knows what aircraft is going to work for them. Will Iberia have any or still have Boeing made planes in the fleet??

So airlines mix both and some airlines stick with one type. It's a suit us the most type of thing. Airlines can be set in their ways just like old people.
there are icons, then there are legends, then there is rick flair
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6492
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:31 am

The A320 series (specifically, the A320 and A321) has proven a little finicky in longer-range USA ops. US transcon flights are the longest ordinary narrowbody missions in the world (excluding 757 TATL ops, which no standard NB a/c could do) and, as such, both the A32s and the 737NG were designed with US transcon flights defining their range envelopes. For whatever reason (probably because they were designed after A32s in-service experience), all of the 737NGs ended up having just a bit more full pax range than their A32s equivalents.

Thus you see airlines such as B6 and US having to either stop for fuel westbound on particularly windy winter days or go out weight restricted (or, in B6's case, take seats out of the aircraft), and other A32s operators like UA and NW that also fly 752s using the 752s on their longest transcon routes. The 737NGs also will have to stop from time to time, but they've got just enough extra range (the difference is <200nm) that it happens much less often.

It should be noted that the original 739 has a similar range problem to the A321 and A320; CO no longer uses them on transcons, and AS only uses them on shorter transcons in the summer, using 738s in the winter and on SEA<->Florida routes (I understand their early attempt to use a 739 on SEA-MCO-SEA was a disaster). We'll see how the 739ER does once it's in US transcon service with CO, but it should perform comparably to the 738.

The A319 doesn't have the range problem, but, like the 73G, it's small enough that its economics get tricky on very long flights. And, in any case, the sweet spot in the US market appears to be at the A320/738/MD80 size.

[Edited 2007-09-04 22:41:32]
 
EXAAUADL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:48 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:38 am

Quoting Carls (Thread starter):
I have been wondering why if the A320 family is an excellent A/C American Airlines don't even consider it as an option?
Or at least here in A.Net nobody mentioned as an option. I know about the accident AA had with a A300, but is that enough for an airline walk away from a good option?

A good reason is the poor performance of the A321, plus why would AA want an addiational fleet type.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 14):
Quoting Carls (Thread starter):
I have been wondering why if the A320 family is an excellent A/C American Airlines don't even consider it as an option?
Or at least here in A.Net nobody mentioned as an option. I know about the accident AA had with a A300, but is that enough for an airline walk away from a good option?

A good reason is the poor performance of the A321.

Ok I'll bite.

Taking fleet commonality issues out of this, the A321 will outperform the 752 within its range curve in terms of CASM - it carries a slightly smaller number of passengers but with substantially lower operating costs. AA uses the 752 on a number of shorter routes that do not test the plane's range like their TATL routes or longer Transcons do. The A321 is much more efficient than the 752 on missions like this.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 14):
plus why would AA want an addiational fleet type.

Fair comment I'd say.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 13):
The A320 series (specifically, the A320 and A321) has proven a little finicky in longer-range USA ops. US transcon flights are the longest ordinary narrowbody missions in the world (excluding 757 TATL ops, which no standard NB a/c could do) and, as such, both the A32s and the 737NG were designed with US transcon flights defining their range envelopes. For whatever reason (probably because they were designed after A32s in-service experience), all of the 737NGs ended up having just a bit more full pax range than their A32s equivalents.

Thus you see airlines such as B6 and US having to either stop for fuel westbound on particularly windy winter days or go out weight restricted (or, in B6's case, take seats out of the aircraft), and other A32s operators like UA and NW that also fly 752s using the 752s on their longest transcon routes. The 737NGs also will have to stop from time to time, but they've got just enough extra range (the difference is <200nm) that it happens much less often.

It should be noted that the original 739 has a similar range problem to the A321 and A320; CO no longer uses them on transcons, and AS only uses them on shorter transcons in the summer, using 738s in the winter and on SEA<->Florida routes (I understand their early attempt to use a 739 on SEA-MCO-SEA was a disaster). We'll see how the 739ER does once it's in US transcon service with CO, but it should perform comparably to the 738.

The A319 doesn't have the range problem, but, like the 73G, it's small enough that its economics get tricky on very long flights. And, in any case, the sweet spot in the US market appears to be at the A320/738/MD80 size.

Great post - spot on. Illustrates the state of play nicely.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:21 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 15):

Taking fleet commonality issues out of this, the A321 will outperform the 752 within its range curve in terms of CASM - it carries a slightly smaller number of passengers but with substantially lower operating costs. AA uses the 752 on a number of shorter routes that do not test the plane's range like their TATL routes or longer Transcons do. The A321 is much more efficient than the 752 on missions like this.

......given the flexibility of the B752's, it suits AA's needs much more than the A321 does...its not just trancons or TATL, but also the B752 has more cargo as well as the ability to fly to certain South American routes where the A321 (or B73X) is not capable.

...basically, the B752 rocks.. biggrin 

"Up the Irons!"
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:29 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 17):
...basically, the B752 rocks

Indisputably, and I'd rather ride one any day of the week over pretty much anything else, but the A321 is still more economic over shorter sectors because it has better CASM.

Anyway moot point. AA dont and wont fly them so its a pointless discussion.

A320 sure would look good in AA livery though.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:32 am

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 13):
US transcon flights are the longest ordinary narrowbody missions in the world (excluding 757 TATL ops

There are many narrow-body nonstop services longer than USA transcon flights other than Transatlantic. A few examples:

JFK-LAX 2151 nm. for comparison:

PTY-MVD 2941 nm (COPA 737-700)
PTY-EZE 2879 nm (COPA 737-700)
HNL-NAN 2748 nm (Air Pacific 737-800)
CMN-JED 2567 nm (Royal Air Maroc 757-200)
PHX-HNL 2535 nm (US Airways 757-200 and ATA 757-200)
CDG-RUH 2514 nm (Air France A319)
ANC-HNL 2413 nm (Alaska 737-800, starting December)
LHR-THR 2389 nm (British Mediterranean A321, soon to become bmi)
YVR-HNL 2351 nm (Air Pacific 737-800 and WestJet 737-700/800)
SEA-HNL 2326 nm (Northwest 757-300, and Alaska 737-800 starting December)

And quite a few others, including several other US carriers (e.g. United, America, Aloha) between various US points and several points in Hawaii operating 757s and 737s.
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting Carls (Thread starter):
I have been wondering why if the A320 family is an excellent A/C

The 738 is excellent too.
I love ASO!
 
AA767400
Posts: 1894
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:04 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
There are many narrow-body nonstop services longer than USA transcon flights other than Transatlantic. A few examples:

You forgot to mention BOS-SFO at 2698nm.

Here are another few comparisons:

GUM-DPS 2548nm SA)">CO 738

CPT-MRU 2558nm SA 738/MK 319

NBO-LOS 2377nm KQ 738

ADD-JNB 2528nm ET 73G

VIE-DXB 2624nm OS 738

MIA-SEA 2722nm AS 738

ORD-ANC 2847nm AS 738

All very interesting routes with narrowbody aircraft. MIA-SEA top out at 2722nm!!
"The low fares airline."
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14882
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:29 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
And quite a few others, including several other US carriers (e.g. United, America, Aloha) between various US points and several points in Hawaii operating 757s and 737s.

not to mention flights between the USA and central and south america, which are longer than transcons depending on routing.

and interesting that almost all those listed above are flown by aircraft other than the A320-200, which is the closest in size to the 738. And since AA chose the 738 (not 73G, not 739) it might have something to do with it. The 738 is a fine aircraft, as is the A320, but the 738 has better legs. While the A319 has long legs, it's a bit small for what AA wants.

Don't let any of this be interpreted to mean AA won't consider the A320NG vs. 797 when the time comes. If the A320NG they offer is more capable than the current A320-200, and the A321NG is more capable than the current A321, then you may see AA choose either/or/both.

Never say never.

But right now, it's 738s until further notice, for all the reasons listed above.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Carls
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:48 am

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 20):
The 738 is excellent too.


Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 20):



Did I say something against the B738???? Try to read my post again please.

[Edited 2007-09-05 01:50:13]
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:52 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
Alaska 737-800 starting December

This starts in October. From AlaskaAir.com:

Seattle - Honolulu: Nonstop service begins 10/12/07
http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/Destinations/Route-Map.asp
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
boeing743
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:16 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:17 am

From what I heard and read on A.net that AA really committed to McDonnell Douglas and Boeing for their fleet. I may be wrong. Every airlines has their preference of what company to use for their fleet
 
NWA320
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:06 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:27 am

My Dad's friend was the last one to park the ill fated aircraft that operated flight 587.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:40 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 24):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
Alaska 737-800 starting December

This starts in October. From AlaskaAir.com:

Seattle - Honolulu: Nonstop service begins 10/12/07

Thanks for the correction.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:47 am

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 21):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
There are many narrow-body nonstop services longer than USA transcon flights other than Transatlantic. A few examples:

You forgot to mention BOS-SFO at 2698nm.

Per Great Circle Mapper, BOS-SFO is 2350 nm (2704 statute miles). You may have been looking at the latter units from another source since the numbers are almost the same.
 
bok269
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 10:19 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:52 am

Quoting Carls (Thread starter):
I have been wondering why if the A320 family is an excellent A/C American Airlines don't even consider it as an option?

Sure its a great aircraft, but what you have to remember is airlines aren't aircraft collectors. Just because it is a great aircraft doesn't mean AA will operate it. They aren't going to fly every great aircraft out there. If it isn't the right aircraft for them at the present juncture, they aren't going to buy it. To an airline, an aircraft is how they make their money (plus all the infrastructure, employees,etc.). They consider heavily which aircraft will make them the most money and keep operations running smoothly. They determined the 737 was right for them and the A320 wasn't. Just because they didn't order it doesn't mean they didn't consider it.
"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
 
AirplaneFan
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:47 am

Quoting Carls (Thread starter):
Carls

What a stupid qquestion this is! Gosh!  Wink Ok Carl I'll ask you this question, "Why Not Boeing 737NG's for airlines like AF, LH, LA, IB, BA, NW, UA, US, B6 etc.?? HU!

If AA already operates the Boeing 737-800NG, with more on order, why the heck would they want to order A320 family airplanes?? The best replacement choice for their MD-80's are the Boeing 737-700, -800, -900ER.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 15):

Hey sir, the Boeing 757 and the Airbus A321 can't be compared as the 757 is by far larger with greater range, more passenger capacity, bigger wings, engines, fuselage etc., and weights a lot more. That is the reason why the 757 is more expensive to operate. So when you want to compare the A321 to another aircraft compare it to something its size. In this case the A321 should be compared to its closest rival the Boeing 737-900ER.  Wink
I GOT YOUR SIX
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13861
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:59 am

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 21):
You forgot to mention BOS-SFO at 2698nm.

Here are another few comparisons:

GUM-DPS 2548nm SA)">CO 738

CPT-MRU 2558nm SA 738/MK 319

NBO-LOS 2377nm KQ 738

ADD-JNB 2528nm ET 73G

VIE-DXB 2624nm OS 738

MIA-SEA 2722nm AS 738

ORD-ANC 2847nm AS 738

All very interesting routes with narrowbody aircraft. MIA-SEA top out at 2722nm!!

You left out the longest 737-800 flight of them all, IAH-ANC CO nonstop 2838nm. Exxon express.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
AA767400
Posts: 1894
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:04 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:25 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 31):
You left out the longest 737-800 flight of them all, IAH-ANC CO nonstop 2838nm. Exxon express.

Thanks! I was looking at that and it only showed me CO 753 1-stop service for some reason. That is pushing the 738 to its limits.
"The low fares airline."
 
Mach3
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:56 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:30 pm

AA does not like A because the composite used is inferior to the graphite based composite that Boeing is going to use. Through their experience with the A-300 they have found that the Kevlar composite sucks up moisture up like a sponge. This according to my brother, who's lead in their composite repair Dept. in Tulsa. Kevlar absorbs moisture since it is a porous fiber, where as graphite based composites are solid, hence no moisture is absorbed. He has told me horror stories about the amounts of moisture found on the parts he has repaired.
If you pull on the Tiger's tail, better be prepared for him to bite you in the ARSE
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:34 pm

Isn't it more difficult to have an bare metal Airbus than it is to have a bare metal Boeing? I think it might be since the different type of aluminum used between the two.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6492
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:52 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 31):
You left out the longest 737-800 flight of them all, IAH-ANC CO nonstop 2838nm. Exxon express.

I know nothing about this flight... but is there so much demand, even with the 1-stop 753, that CO can't use a 73G? It seems like IAH-ANC would need fuel stops with some regularity with a 738.
 
Mach3
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:56 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:36 pm

The aircraft skins are composite. They are subject to dents and dings fro FOD, Hail, Birds! Once the paint is cracked and compromised the moisture seeps in. Why do you think Febreze has commercials for it. Kevlar football pads and armored vest stink from the sweat of the person wearing them. Retention of body moisture!!!! Now take the force of moisture hitting an aircraft in taxi, in flight, on descent with compromise paint (cracked) and you have a wet composite!
If you pull on the Tiger's tail, better be prepared for him to bite you in the ARSE
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:09 pm

Quoting Carls (Reply 23):
Did I say something against the B738???? Try to read my post again please.

The way I read it, you implied that why would AA buy the 738 when the A320 is available.
I love ASO!
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:58 pm

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 10):
So, Airbus would have to beat the prices for 737NG aircraft to get any order for A320-series aircraft.

Well that shouldn't be a problem. I learnt reading a.net that Airbus normally gives their aircraft away free of charge  Wink

Quoting Mach3 (Reply 33):
the composite used is inferior to the graphite based composite that Boeing is going to use

Utter rubbish in my opinion. Please substantiate or withdraw this comment
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
AirNZ
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:03 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:11 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
which in itself is a loaded question.

How is it loaded.....it was a simple, straightforward question and being answered appropriately?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
so maybe, just maybe, the A320 series DOESN'T WORK FOR AA and it's as simple as that? Nah, couldn't be.

Funny how, when an airline orders Airbus, you don't happen to say the same equivalent thing or use the same thought process (as, for example, the last EI order). Kind of illustrates CHRISBA773ER's point somewhat!
Flown:F27/TU134/Viscount/Trident/BAC111/727/737/747/757/767/777/300/310/320/321/330/340/DC9/DC10/Dash8/Shorts330/BAe146
 
eyes2thesky
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:15 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:17 pm

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 10):
One of the reasons that AA agreed to the contract with Boeing, besides price, was pilot preference. According to a friend of mine who flies for AA, a number of senior pilots test flew the A319/A320, the 737-700/-800, the A330/A340, and the 777. The preference among those pilots were for the Boeing planes.

I'd be somewhat dismayed if the preferences of a few senior pilots for "yoke rather than side-stick" or "no-envelope-protection rather than envelope protection", etc. figured in AA's long-term fleet planning.

Both the 73NG and A32X families have accrued countless operational flight hours with countless number of crews. Still, no evidence has emerged to suggest that manufacturer X's flight deck design is the clear leader in human factors or ergonomics, or vice versa. So, there simply is no basis (statistical or otherwise) for pilots to fly the 73NG and A32X families for some dozen hours and then say, "Manufacturer X's flight deck design is better".

Someone reassure me that hard economics and finance dictate an air carrier's fleet planning, not pilots' whims and preferences.
AA,AL,B6,CO,C5,C8,DA,DL,FI,F9,HP,LH,MQ,NW,OO,TZ,UA,US,WN,XJ,YV,ZW,VX
 
N1KE
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:47 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:30 pm

Because they don't want it.

God, these damn threads just repeat themselves all the time.

Why does airline X not fly type X etc,etc

Perhaps we could just have one topice called "WHY NOT ................."



 banghead 
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:16 pm

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 10):
AA and Boeing signed a contract in 1996, later revised after AA signed its contract with the pilots in 1997, to make Boeing the sole supplier of AA's aircraft.

Effectively, this contract is still in operation. AA only buys Boeing, and Boeing warrants to AA the best prize it offers to any airline. While it is no longer valid formally, they just stick to it.

It is no big issue either, since the large US legathy ( or is it lethargy?) airlines are no big buyers anyhow.
 
PA101
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:28 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:22 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 42):

Actually, it's "legacy"...  Wink

but "lethargy" describes it well too!  Big grin
 
Carls
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:15 pm

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 37):
The way I read it, you implied that why would AA buy the 738 when the A320 is available.

My question was just why they did not consider the A320 Family as an option. I did not asked, why they chose the 738 over the A320. The implication it is in your mind.
 
Carls
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:21 pm

Quoting AirplaneFan (Reply 30):
What a stupid qquestion this is! Gosh! Ok Carl I'll ask you this question, "Why Not Boeing 737NG's for airlines like AF, LH, LA, IB, BA, NW, UA, US, B6 etc.?? HU!

I don't use to answer this kind of post, but you mentioned some airlines that, in fact, use the B737:
United and Lufthansa. Try to be more accurate before trying to offend someone, because you could look like fool.
 
PA101
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:28 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:27 pm

Quoting Carls (Reply 45):

Well, AirplaneFan is right. Those carriers might use the B737 - such as LH with the B737-300 and -500 - however, they don't use the B737NG! And just the B737NG is to be considered the prime competitor of the A320-family nowadays.
 
Carls
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:29 pm

Quoting N1KE (Reply 41):

If you are tired of this threads, why did you came in ??? You could ignore it, but always it is better to say something negative.
 
Carls
Topic Author
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:31 pm

Quoting PA101 (Reply 46):

Agree but I am not making a comparison.
 
PA101
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:28 am

RE: Why Not A320 Family For AA?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:37 pm

Quoting Carls (Reply 48):

Well, but the question is just, why does a carrier choose the B737NG, while others prefer the A320-familiy, isn't it? Not too many carriers chose to buy both.

I'd assume, there is also political pressure for European carriers to prefer Airbus and American carriers to prefer Boeing. I just realized on my last trip to the US, that the security on US carriers nowadays state "This aircrafts final assembly was completed in the US... or Canada, France, Germany...etc.".

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos