AA A321T

sptv · Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:00 pm

How is American doing with their new A321T transcon product? I've flown LAX-JFX-LAX twice in the past month. Once in MCE and 3x in Biz Class. As a passenger, I found the plane very comfortable, enjoyed the AVOD, and would definitely fly American again on this competitive route. Flight attendants seem to have mixed reactions. They all say they miss their "76's" and clearly boarding and cart service on a single aisle plane is more difficult than on a wide body. One FA on my recent flight said she heard rumors that they are changing over to 787s on this route in the fall, though I would be surprised if that were true, a) after making the investment in the A321T sub fleet, and b) seems like 787s are better utilized on long/thin international routes. Anyway, wondering if anyone has more insight into how American is feeling about the switchover to the new planes, both from a operational and financial perspective. Are they really saving that much money?

BTW, may be complete coincidence, but we had a lot of turbulence on all four flights that I was on. Is it possible that the smaller plane gets tossed around more than the heavier 762's? I used to fly this on the 76's and don't recall so much chop. Again, as I said, may be just coincidence and bad weather.

Laxjaydub · Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:57 pm

I flew a few weeks ago (one way in MCE and one way in Biz) and both were pretty turbulent as well. The FAs said that the new A321T is much nicer but they feel turbulence a lot more. Thr FA jump seat at thr front of MCE is also awkward because they face the passengers and literally have to try not to play footsies. Overall way better experience than that old 762!

abirda · Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:44 pm

Quoting laxjaydub (Reply 1):
One FA on my recent flight said she heard rumors that they are changing over to 787s on this route in the fall

Right. I'm sure we'll see that any day now.

Give me a break.

FoxBravo · Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:57 pm

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
BTW, may be complete coincidence, but we had a lot of turbulence on all four flights that I was on. Is it possible that the smaller plane gets tossed around more than the heavier 762's? I used to fly this on the 76's and don't recall so much chop. Again, as I said, may be just coincidence and bad weather.

All things being equal, sure, a heavier aircraft like a 767 generally won't be affected by turbulence quite as much. But this is generally a pretty turbulent time of year across the US--lots of thunderstorms around--so I would say it's at least partly coincidental.

For what it's worth, I flew on the A321T round trip JFK to LAX back in April. The outbound flight was smooth as silk and the return was quite bumpy, but I don't think it would have mattered if we had been on an A380--it was just one of those days.

What I did notice on both of my flights was the "barking" of the hydraulic transfer pumps during taxi and approach. I know all single-aisle Airbuses do this, but it seemed more noticeable than usual on those flights--to the extent that I even overheard other J-class passengers asking the FA about it. Overall though, I think it's a great product and a big improvement over the 767s.

N757ST · Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:01 pm

The a321 tends to dutch roll a bit, especially compared to the a320. Overall it's not bad in turbulence.

usflyguy · Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:44 pm

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
One FA on my recent flight said she heard rumors that they are changing over to 787s on this route in the fall, though I would be surprised if that were true, a) after making the investment in the A321T sub fleet, and b) seems like 787s are better utilized on long/thin international routes.

Quoting abirda (Reply 2):
Right. I'm sure we'll see that any day now.

Give me a break.

I doubt the first AA787 flight will be a long-haul international flight...

It's quite possible to put them on that route while they fly them domestically to get used to them.... Didn't UA fly them between IAH-LAX, IAH-EWR, and IAH-ORD for a couple of months before they dispatched them on the international routes? AA is planning on using them out of LAX to China aren't they? If so, the LAX pilot base will be the ones needing the familiarization, just like it was originally the CO IAH base. So yes, it is quite possible that they'll be flying some rotations on the LAX-JFK route.

INFINITI329 · Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:58 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 5):
It's quite possible to put them on that route while they fly them domestically to get used to them.... Didn't UA fly them between IAH-LAX, IAH-EWR, and IAH-ORD for a couple of months before they dispatched them on the international routes? AA is planning on using them out of LAX to China aren't they? If so, the LAX pilot base will be the ones needing the familiarization, just like it was originally the CO IAH base. So yes, it is quite possible that they'll be flying some rotations on the LAX-JFK route.

I thought that was the common trend but AC for example only had the plane a few weeks before sending it across the pond to ZRH. it would interested to see AA is approach even though i expect an approach similar to UA than AC. AA will probably put it on their hub to hub routes, MIA-DFW, DFW-PHX, DFW-JFK, MIA- JFK, MIA- ORD and so on

miaami · Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:04 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 5):

I doubt the first AA787 flight will be a long-haul international flight...

It's quite possible to put them on that route while they fly them domestically to get used to them.... Didn't UA fly them between IAH-LAX, IAH-EWR, and IAH-ORD for a couple of months before they dispatched them on the international routes? AA is planning on using them out of LAX to China aren't they? If so, the LAX pilot base will be the ones needing the familiarization, just like it was originally the CO IAH base. So yes, it is quite possible that they'll be flying some rotations on the LAX-JFK route.

Although possible, its highly unlikely that the 787 will be used on JFK-LAX with a dedicated 3 class A321-T already on the route. More likely routes for getting the start up teething issues of the 787 smoothed out before use in International routes would be 2 class domestic routes like LAX-DFW/MIA/ORD.

razorbackfan · Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:21 pm

I'd like to fly on a 321T soon, but don't see it happening since Im in DFW.

Does anyone know why AA would go in completely different directions on the A319 and A321T? On the A319 they took out F seats compared to S80 and 737 and they reduced the MCE, but expanded greatly coach. Just seems like they went in totally different directions on these aircraft which seems odd.

FoxBravo · Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:27 pm

Quoting razorbackfan (Reply 8):
Does anyone know why AA would go in completely different directions on the A319 and A321T? On the A319 they took out F seats compared to S80 and 737 and they reduced the MCE, but expanded greatly coach. Just seems like they went in totally different directions on these aircraft which seems odd.

Totally different uses. The A321T is for only two routes, JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO. There are no other domestic routes with a comparable mix of premium vs economy demand. Note that they are also taking delivery of "regular" A321s, with standard domestic first class and a much higher total seat count, for routes that do not require premium business and first class.

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:33 pm

Quoting razorbackfan (Reply 8):

Probably gambling on 2 things :

1. Weakness of UA to retain HVF on ps route

2. True F pax will stay in F and switch carriers instead of going lower cabin

Now queue the "they know best because we're armchair CEOs" comments =)

aviationaware · Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:47 pm

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
One FA on my recent flight said she heard rumors that they are changing over to 787s on this route in the fall,

Maybe for training shortly, but definitely not for the long run. That FA was a bit wishy-dreamy. American has invested serious money in advertising, configuring and switching over operations on those routes, they are not going to switch that over again so quickly.

MesaFlyGuy · Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:06 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 5):
I doubt the first AA787 flight will be a long-haul international flight...

It's quite possible to put them on that route while they fly them domestically

You're right. It was recently said by the airline that they will be using them on DFW-ORD at first.

JoePatroni707 · Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:08 pm

Quoting razorbackfan (Reply 8):

Oh come on easy... DFW JFK SFO DFW, easy day trip!

oc2dc · Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:01 pm

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
They all say they miss their "76's" and clearly boarding and cart service on a single aisle plane is more difficult than on a wide body.

The boarding process is just as easy, if not easier than on the 767. There are only 105 passengers on the entire aircraft. Boarding literally takes 15 minutes or less, it's amazing. Additionally, Boarding shouldn't really bother F passengers or flight attendants working F b/c the isle in F is abnormally wide.

I flew LAX-JFK redeye in early May. Both Y and J were full, while F was half full. All I can say is the experience was beyond my expectations compared to the 767. My flight attendant was okay on the LAX-JFK leg. However, on my return in F a couple weeks later I had a sassy pair of attendants that talked back to passengers and gave them crap for changing their meal order. I was 3 rows back and I could hear the attendants speaking loudly in the galley about how annoying the person in 1A was....Awkward.. I realize F passengers can be difficult, but biting your tongue is probably the best thing you can do as a flight attendant.

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
One FA on my recent flight said she heard rumors that they are changing over to 787s on this route in the fall

The 787 may make an appearance on the route in order to show off the new 787 or to do some training flights, but it definitely will not replace the A321T. Not a chance!

ckfred · Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:10 pm

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 14):
The boarding process is just as easy, if not easier than on the 767. There are only 105 passengers on the entire aircraft. Boarding literally takes 15 minutes or less, it's amazing. Additionally, Boarding shouldn't really bother F passengers or flight attendants working F b/c the isle in F is abnormally wide.

Boarding on a 767-200 is probably easier than an A321T in that there are plenty of places to cut over from one aisle to the other. I know people who would prefer to board a 2-class 767-300 than a 2-class 757, simply because the 767 is a twin aisle.

PRAirbus · Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:50 pm

The first AA 787 routes will be domestic between DFW-ORD prior to international routes.

zchannel · Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:00 pm

Quoting laxjaydub (Reply 1):
I flew a few weeks ago (one way in MCE and one way in Biz) and both were pretty turbulent as well. The FAs said that the new A321T is much nicer but they feel turbulence a lot more.

Was on AA 172 LAX-JFK between LAX and JFK on Thursday of last week (6/19) and returned on AA 9 (JFK-LAX) a couple days ago (6/25). Boths flight were very turbulent. Appeared to be mostly CAT as we weren't flying in any weather. Little kid across the aisle from me kept telling her mom that her tummy hurt, so I kept waiting for her to erupt, but she thankfully never did.

It is probably just me, but I don't recall the turbulence on the 762 being that bad. Someone above stated it is typically turbulent this time of year, so my experience could have just been a atypical.

Overall, the plane was impressive. I sat in Y with the rest of the commoners and it took less than 15 minutes to board and deplane both ways. Flight attendants were very pleasant as well.

lax777lr · Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:16 pm

So here's an interesting thought: is the ride on the AA 321T more turbulent than on the UA P.S. 757? We're speculating there is a ride difference between the 762 and 321T, so how about comparing the premium transcon narrow bodies? Can the 757 climb higher more quickly and thus have a more smooth ride? Discuss...

aviationaware · Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:52 pm

As this concerns the transcon business, what's your take on this?

http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...misses-need-for-a320-cabin-revamp/

Do you think Virgin America need to upgrade their premium cabin? I haven't tried them, but with this sudden massive upgrade spree in virtually all competitors, it looks like Virgin's trace of a competitive edge is at least at stake, if not lost.

MKIAZ · Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:36 am

Quoting AviationAware (Reply 19):

My take is it wouldn't be a smart decision for Virgin to go up against AA/DL/UA - and especially B6 by upgrading their premium cabin on these routes. They still need to serve them, but minimally.

I think they should focus on all other us routes except jfk-lax/sfo and expanding the cities they serve - since they have the most premium product everywhere else.

ozark1 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:43 am

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 12):
You're right. It was recently said by the airline that they will be using them on DFW-ORD at first.

They did the same thing when they first got the 777.
They always break a new plane in domestically.

777STL · Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:05 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 5):
It's quite possible to put them on that route while they fly them domestically to get used to them.... Didn't UA fly them between IAH-LAX, IAH-EWR, and IAH-ORD for a couple of months before they dispatched them on the international routes? AA is planning on using them out of LAX to China aren't they?

There's a few things wrong with this hypothesis. #1, AA didn't spend a significant sum of money on a small subfleet that's intended mainly for two routes just to give up on it a few months into it. #2, the presence of first class on this route is vitally important to SAG and corporate contracts. It hasn't been confirmed whether the 787s will be three class or not, but if they are two class, that would be another reason why this wouldn't happen. (My speculation is that they will be two class.)

uberflieger · Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:23 am

I can't wait for more resourceful people than I am to post some stuff like 'average fare' collected by American JFK-LAX/SFO. I expect

to increase dramatically compared to the old 762s.

JFKPurser · Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:30 am

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
One FA on my recent flight said she heard rumors that they are changing over to 787s on this route in the fall, though I would be surprised if that were true, a) after making the investment in the A321T sub fleet, and b) seems like 787s are better utilized on long/thin international routes.

The rumor that AA will use 787s on transcons is just that -- a rumor -- and totally unsubstantiated. The A321 fleet will be the sole premium transcon aircraft AA flies from JFK to SFO and LAX. To everyone's knowledge at AA so far, the 788 is a two class plane, and the 789 will be three class -- or at least some may be, according to what I have heard being bandied about. The 789 config has not been finalized, and I have not seen any 788 seat map yet -- nor do I know anyone who has. Nonetheless, AA's premium transcons are three class -- that is really the marketing point ( four if you count MCE) so talk of a two class 788 on LAX-JFK is nonsense. That said, let's see if we can all politely agree that FA rumors are not always totally wrong, and that some FAs are, for a variety of reasons, better positioned to glean inside information than others...

On another note -- the company is now officially saying that the first domestic routes will be between DFW and ORD, and that the aircraft's first international deployment will be from DFW to somewhere in Asia after the first of the year. Clearly there was a change of plan, because as recently as two months ago, JFK pilots were being trained and told that the 787 would enter international service on JFK-CDG. Being that a number of NY pilots are already qualified, it would make sense that at some point, 787 destinations from JFK would be indicated. The company is very much in flux right now with fleet optimization, and I would not be surprised if things remained quite fluid.

jfk777 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:08 am

787 on the LAX to JFK route would be a mistake, the reason the "old" AA decided to do the A321t is for the frequency they can offer. More then when they flew 767.

wjcandee · Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:45 am

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
One FA on my recent flight said she heard rumors that they are changing over to 787s on this route in the fall,

We have all learned that f/a rumors are for the most part usually totally wrong. If it doesn't make sense, as this doesn't, then it likely is not true.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 5):
It's quite possible to put them on that route while they fly them domestically to get used to them

No. They have already announced that they are running them between two hubs, both of which are -- get this -- facilities with lots of mechanics to fix broken airplanes and get them back online. That's the kind of intelligent planning we expect from AA.

wjcandee · Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:47 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 25):
787 on the LAX to JFK route would be a mistake, the reason the "old" AA decided to do the A321t is for the frequency they can offer. More then when they flew 767.

Right. Fewer seats than before, with more frequency. The 787 would provide more, not fewer, seats, and it is inefficient to fly an aircraft capable of the distances that the 787 is designed for on such comparatively-short legs.

HInt: what's the capital cost per day of a 787 compared to the capital cost of an A321?

[Edited 2014-06-28 01:49:03]

jfk777 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:20 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 27):
Right. Fewer seats than before, with more frequency. The 787 would provide more, not fewer, seats, and it is inefficient to fly an aircraft capable of the distances that the 787 is designed for on such comparatively-short legs.

HInt: what's the capital cost per day of a 787 compared to the capital cost of an A321?

IF AA configured a 787T in the same proportion they did the A321t it would be the lowest seating 787 in the world. Let say it is 12F/ 40 J and 120Y, it could be done but why you want to ? IF the new AA wanted a wide-body transcon plane they would be better to use USair A330 with an A321t type configuration. But that would present another set of problems ? What would AA use to fly all the current USair CLT and PHL flights to Eurpe. Leave the A321t do their jobs and out the 787 to Asia, Brazil and LHR or new routes to Doha,Qatar or Johannesburg.

FLALEFTY · Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:07 pm

Back on topic, the 762ER used by AA on transcon was always a very nice product. But the advanced age of the aircraft and the 80's-era fuel efficiency has made them obsolete. I applaud AA for replacing them with the new A321Ts. These are well-designed, but efficient solutions to serve the transcon market, which has a high demand for premium service.

As for the ride, the A321 is pretty similar to a B757, so no big deal in turbulence. Imagine what the ride was like back in the "Fab 50's" on DC-6's!

I would not be surprised if that the A321T product is expanded to include other "glamour" routes like LAX-BNA &/or MIA in the next few years. Both routes are popular with famous entertainers and the wealthy.

yv773p · Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:40 pm

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 29):
I would not be surprised if that the A321T product is expanded to include other "glamour" routes like LAX-BNA &/or MIA

I agree about MIA because it is one of three "transcontinental marketed flights" served by AA. The other two are LAX-JFK and SFO-JFK. Maybe one of the frequencies on LAX-MIA will see the A321T while the other ones remain the mix of aircraft we see today.

tommy1808 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:46 pm

Quoting lax777lr (Reply 18):
We're speculating there is a ride difference between the 762 and 321T, so how about comparing the premium transcon narrow bodies? Can the 757 climb higher more quickly and thus have a more smooth ride? Discuss...

Considering the lower wing loading of the 757 I wouldn't expect much of a difference between the two.

Best regards

Someone83 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:23 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 28):
IF AA configured a 787T in the same proportion they did the A321t it would be the lowest seating 787 in the world. Let say it is 12F/ 40 J and 120Y, it could be done but why you want to ?

ANA's 787-8 long haul version has only 158 seat (46C 112Y)

[Edited 2014-06-28 07:24:32]

United_fan · Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:33 pm

I'm sure AA management is loving the lower fuel and landing fee bills from the A321's,too.

sptv · Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:40 pm

But if AA has added frequency on the LAX-JFK route due to smaller capacity aircraft, is there still a net save (in other words: fewer frequencies/higher capacity aircraft which is more expensive to operate, versus more frequencies/lower capacity aircraft which is cheaper to operate)

Byrdluvs747 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:56 pm

Quoting 777stl (Reply 22):
#2, the presence of first class on this route is vitally important to SAG

Incorrect. Thats an airliners.net myth. First class(on three class aircraft) has not been a SAG contract requirement ever since the union agreed to settle for business class back in 2010.

SAG-AFTRA Transportation and Location Expenses

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 24):
That said, let's see if we can all politely agree that FA rumors are not always totally wrong, and that some FAs are, for a variety of reasons, better positioned to glean inside information than others...

Exactly. I take it as a junior FA mistaking the 787 domestic familiarization route as a permanent 787 operation.

VSlover · Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:48 pm

ive done this trip at least 20-25 times this year in J and F and have made my opinions clear on another site.

the new biz seat is wonderful. i am 6-2, with size 13 shoe and aside from crunched toes, the seat is a delight to sit and sleep.

the F seat is a cheap imitation of the amazing cirrus 773 seat. it is unfortunate. the padding is cheap, the finishes are cheap and showing wear already, the angle of the seats is too hard and can dig into your knee with crossed legs.

both cabins have useless remotes, avod that blows up if you actually try and USE the usb port...etc etc. things that should be sorted by now.

last the service is getting steadily worse now that US leadership is taking the helm and trying to steadily erode the premium first experience. the new pursers and those serving up front seem to be poorly trained to work on a flagship route and feel like they just moved over from a 737 route. rarely do i get a purser or f/a who is even close to being as wonderful as the 767 f/as were on this route.

personnel service aside, the soft product downgrades are incredibly depressing and echoed on intl F service on the 773.

it is a sad joke really: AA old mgmt began rolling out a truly impressive hard product with a correspondingly elegant soft product (itnl F) and now that US is in charge...i guess the contraction to cheapest possible product for those paying thousands (either intl or domestic tcon) is the new order.

by738 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:00 pm

Quoting VSLover (Reply 36):
both cabins have useless remotes, avod that blows up if you actually try and USE the usb port...etc etc. things that should be sorted by now.

last the service is getting steadily worse now that US leadership is taking the helm and trying to steadily erode the premium first experience. the new pursers and those serving up front seem to be poorly trained to work on a flagship route and feel like they just moved over from a 737 route. rarely do i get a purser or f/a who is even close to being as wonderful as the 767 f/as were on this route

Cant say I agree with any of that.

VSlover · Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:08 pm

Quoting by738 (Reply 37):
Cant say I agree with any of that.

which you are free to do but with as many flights as i've had since jan across this specific product and LHR-JFK/LAX ... frequency can also breed contempt.

AA767400 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:44 pm

Quoting VSLover (Reply 36):
last the service is getting steadily worse now that US leadership is taking the helm and trying to steadily erode the premium first experience. the new pursers and those serving up front seem to be poorly trained to work on a flagship route and feel like they just moved over from a 737 route. rarely do i get a purser or f/a who is even close to being as wonderful as the 767 f/as were on this route.

These two subjects are not related. US "eroding" the premium first experience, has nothing to do with the FAs working that flight. All AA A321 FAs are, and have been working these flights when they were 762s. It's the same work group. Yes, you'll get a new hire fresh from training. But there really isn't any lead new hires on that route.

But I will agree, many, not all, have very little interest in providing a nice service. I flew roundtrip on it in F. Both flights were not full, and service was lacking. Both crews, wanted to rush everything, and then sit down for 4 hours. The return FA did no pre-departures, and gave out menus after vaguely asking drink orders 30 minutes after take off. They just couldn't be bothered at all. It was almost comical.

I really believe AA's 3-class transcon days will be over. I just don't see the demand for 10 F seats. It will go ala UA 2-class PS, or down to 4 seats maybe.

VSlover · Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:53 pm

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 39):
These two subjects are not related. US "eroding" the premium first experience, has nothing to do with the FAs working that flight. All AA A321 FAs are, and have been working these flights when they were 762s. It's the same work group. Yes, you'll get a new hire fresh from training. But there really isn't any lead new hires on that route.

But I will agree, many, not all, have very little interest in providing a nice service. I flew roundtrip on it in F. Both flights were not full, and service was lacking. Both crews, wanted to rush everything, and then sit down for 4 hours. The return FA did no pre-departures, and gave out menus after vaguely asking drink orders 30 minutes after take off. They just couldn't be bothered at all. It was almost comical.

I really believe AA's 3-class transcon days will be over. I just don't see the demand for 10 F seats. It will go ala UA 2-class PS, or down to 4 seats maybe.

agreed which is why i tried to separate out the service from the product. f/as will improve over time i think since generally, people on that route are not interested in cutting much slack to them based on watching those around me on these flights.

i too cannot see F sticking around for the long run which will be sad from a historic perspective...but with a great J product...

kzba · Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:12 pm

I've flown JFK-LAX twice in F and JFK-SFO once in F and have had a great experience each time. Greeted by name when taking my jacket, pre-flight drinks offered, high visibility during flight. My only complaint is that two of the three flights left from the C concourse. The one time we left from the B concourse, it made a big difference in the convenience department.

global2 · Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:28 pm

Quoting sptv (Thread starter):
Flight attendants seem to have mixed reactions. They all say they miss their "76's"

I flew in J from LAX to JFK, and had a wonderful experience--got to watch a couple of classic movies. I chatted w/ the FA's on my way to the lav, and did mention however, that I miss the 767 (J, but certainly not Y!). I assured them that I felt this flight was lovely, but it's hard not to miss being on a widebody.
But thank you AA for bringing back the choice of ice cream sundaes!

miaami · Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:59 pm

For Good or Bad Experiences you can always let AA know how you feel @

http://www.aa.com/i18n/urls/customerRelations.jsp

[Edited 2014-06-28 11:50:04]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net