Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

DeltaXNA · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:00 am

It would probably work best on only one current route out of there....ORD-LHR.

Miami · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:07 am

It's been to Chicago before: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMjWcyu5Em4

But to answer your question, I don't think so as they are running out of frames. I see and I think AA sees ORD more as a 787/A350 type.

If not the A350, the 787 for sure.

jpetekyxmd80 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:10 am

For LHR, They used to have 3 evening 772 flights in the summer which I think is down to 2, you'd think one or both of those could support it. Probably not enough to go around though.

[Edited 2015-06-11 22:18:31]

[Edited 2015-06-11 22:29:56]

rta · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:23 am

Right now, I think it is unlikely. AA regularly flies to Beijing, London, Paris, Shanghai, and Tokyo from Chicago. I do not think Paris could support such a premium plane. AA has already implied that the 772 is too big for Tokyo which is why they're putting a 788 on that route. And London already has a lot of flights between AA and BA. Not sure about China.

In the long run its possible they may bring it to Chicago as they acquire more 787s and A350s and reorganize the fleet as necessary. But right now it seems that all the 77Ws are planned for other routes and that AA is not looking on taking anymore.

DeltaXNA · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:03 am

Quoting rta (Reply 3):
I do not think Paris could support such a premium plane.

CDG will never get a 77W from ORD on AA.....at least not until DL de-hubs ATL and WN orders A380s.

[Edited 2015-06-11 23:04:23]

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:38 am

Personally, I expect that it's just a matter of time - when, not if - until a 77W shows up on at least one of the LHR flights (probably 46/87). As the 777s get reconfigured to 2-class, I would expect that AA will want to keep a 3-class F product on at least one ORD-LHR rotation, as the market certainly does have at least some premium traffic. (I have heard it rumored that the ORD K19 Flagship Lounge is closing, which would make sense considering AA will soon be down to just four daily 3-class longhaul flights, and I expect PEK/PVG and the morning LHR to be 787s in the not too distant future, anyway.)

PDX88 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:25 am

AA has at least one competitor on every longhaul market it serves out of ORD, the 77W is too much airplane for any of its routes. A very small chance it'll fly ORD-LHR in the future, but doubtful.

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:13 pm

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 6):
AA has at least one competitor on every longhaul market it serves out of ORD, the 77W is too much airplane for any of its routes. A very small chance it'll fly ORD-LHR in the future, but doubtful.

The number of competitors is of little relevance in the case of ORD-LHR. The 77W does, indeed, have about 65 more seats than the 3-class 777s AA currently uses on ORD-LHR, but lest we forget, AA's capacity in that market is already down materially YOY given the elimination of the fourth daily frequency. As such, it seems entirely plausible - indeed, likely - to me that in the not-too-distant future, AA ORD-LHR will go from 1x 763/2x 777 to 1x 788/1x 777/1x 77W (up less than 12% from capacity today, and still down nearly 17% from capacity just a year ago). If not for T5 gate availability, AA would already be flying a 77W ORD-LHR - I still think it's a matter of when, not if.

As for the rest of AA's ORD longhaul network - I agree that none of those markets are likely to ever see the 77W anytime soon. I still think all of AA's ORD-Asia flights will be 787s in the not-too-distant future and while I think it's at least within the realm of possibility that some of the ORD-Europe flights (particularly CDG) could perhaps get upgauged to reconfigured 2-class 777s in the coming years, I don't think any are realistic candidates for the 3-class 77W.

PDX88 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 7):

The 77W does, indeed, have about 65 more seats than the 3-class 777s AA currently uses on ORD-LHR

Also remember the current 3 class 77Es are being converted to J45/Y215, which is much better suited for the ORD-LHR route than a 77W. The 77Ws will be too busy flying routes like DFW-HKG, LAX-SYD, DFW/MIA/JFK-GRU, LAX/DFW/MIA/JFK-LHR to have any spare aircraft to operate out of ORD.

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:58 pm

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 8):
which is much better suited for the ORD-LHR route than a 77W.

I disagree. ORD-LHR is a not an insignificant premium market. There is space for at least one ORD-LHR flight to retain true F - and I fully expect that will happen, with, as I said, the ~1830 eastbound and ~1200 westbound departures eventually going to the 77W.

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 8):
The 77Ws will be too busy flying routes like DFW-HKG, LAX-SYD, DFW/MIA/JFK-GRU, LAX/DFW/MIA/JFK-LHR to have any spare aircraft to operate out of ORD.

I don't think so. The presently-programmed schedule entails:

DFW-GRU
DFW-HKG
DFW-LHR
JFK-GRU
JFK-LHR
LAX-LHR
LAX-SYD
MIA-GRU
MIA-LHR

As currently scheduled, and depending on how aircraft are routed, that amounts to 17-18 frames worth of service (and that's assuming that all three MIA-GRU flights stay as 77Ws, which I am not sure is the case). Either way, there's room for one 77W to do ORD-LHR. Again - as already discussed by others here well-informed on the subject, AA already intended to be flying the 77W ORD-LHR this summer. It didn't happen only because of gate scheduling constraints at T5.

PDX88 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):

DFW-GRU
DFW-HKG
DFW-LHR
JFK-GRU
JFK-LHR
LAX-LHR
LAX-SYD
MIA-GRU
MIA-LHR

Those are all the exact routes I just outlined in my last post. The last 77W won't be delivered until 2016, which I see being put to better use where F demand is higher, such as DFW-NRT, when all the 77Es get refurbished.

ORD could use a better, more competitive J product with a refurbished 77E and let the 8 F seats go to better use elsewhere.

[Edited 2015-06-12 06:39:29]

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:39 pm

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 10):
Those are all the exact routes I just outlined in my last post.

Okay, and I've taken those routes and attached them to a count of frames.

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 10):
The last 77W won't be delivered until 2016

... which is months away.

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 10):
which I see being put to better use where F demand is higher, such as ORD-NRT, when all the 77Es get refurbished.

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 10):
ORD could use a better, more competitive J product with a refurbished 77E and let the 8 F seats go to better use elsewhere.

Once again, it bears repeating - AA itself wanted the 77W on ORD-LHR this summer, whereas AA itself will be transitioning ORD-NRT to a 2-class 787 later this summer, so clearly AA believes the market potential is not there, at least not currently, to continue operating a 3-class plane on ORD-NRT.

PDX88 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:49 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):

I made a typo and corrected it. I meant DFW-NRT could use the 3 class 77W more than ORD-LHR.

I know they were going to use it, but as of now they deferred. And with LAX-SYD coming online they will be short the frames to start any 77W flying out of ORD until those last frames are delivered, which in my opinion they'd be better served on other routes than ORD-LHR.

I'm not at all opposed to ORD getting the 77W. If AA sees fit, good! I'm just throwing my

out there.

bmacleod · Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:50 pm

Quoting DeltaXNA (Thread starter):
It would probably work best on only one current route out of there....ORD-LHR.

BA schedule has one daily 744 and one 777 ORD-LHR not sure if its 772 or 77W.

With the BA flights and VS flights can AA fill a 77W on ORD-LHR?

jcwr56 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:12 pm

Quoting Miami (Reply 1):
Either way, there's room for one 77W to do ORD-LHR. Again - as already discussed by others here well-informed on the subject, AA already intended to be flying the 77W ORD-LHR this summer. It didn't happen only because of gate scheduling constraints at T5.

That's correct, it was an internal communication issue that caused it going from a 77W to 763 then finally to 772. I do not foresee that error happening again for S16.

The large issue will be if BA desires to op the 380 for S16, will AA want to go to a 77W or keep the 772/763 mix under the JV. There's several dymanics in play currently.

jsnww81 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:02 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
(I have heard it rumored that the ORD K19 Flagship Lounge is closing, which would make sense considering AA will soon be down to just four daily 3-class longhaul flights, and I expect PEK/PVG and the morning LHR to be 787s in the not too distant future, anyway.)

Not surprised at all by this rumor. AA longhaul at ORD isn't quite what it used to be, and neither is that lounge. It's forever 1992 in there.

I would expect the lounge itself might stay open since it handles Iberia and JAL passengers - both airlines that would probably like to offer their premium passengers a little more than the carrot sticks and snack mix available in the Admirals Club. The Flagship Lounge branding may get yanked, though.

usairways85 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:21 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 13):

BA schedule has one daily 744 and one 777 ORD-LHR not sure if its 772 or 77W.

BA currently flies a 744 and 77W

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:39 pm

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 12):
I made a typo and corrected it. I meant DFW-NRT could use the 3 class 77W more than ORD-LHR.

Agree - DFW-NRT can and likely will support a 77W, albeit once daily replacing the double-daily 777s now. Nonetheless, again, there will - theoretically - be enough 77W capacity to go around for both.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 14):
That's correct, it was an internal communication issue that caused it going from a 77W to 763 then finally to 772. I do not foresee that error happening again for S16.

It's hard to imagine AA entirely eliminating F on ORD-LHR and putting all of that on BA.

Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 15):
Not surprised at all by this rumor. AA longhaul at ORD isn't quite what it used to be, and neither is that lounge. It's forever 1992 in there.

Agree - and again, with so few longhaul 3-class F flights left, it's really no longer justified.

Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 15):
I would expect the lounge itself might stay open since it handles Iberia and JAL passengers - both airlines that would probably like to offer their premium passengers a little more than the carrot sticks and snack mix available in the Admirals Club. The Flagship Lounge branding may get yanked, though.

Agree - the model might be like what they did with the "Premium Lounge" used by BA and Iberia at MIA - a lounge used by multiple oneworld carriers by not branded to any one particular airline.

bmacleod · Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:59 pm

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 16):
BA currently flies a 744 and 77W

Well then since AA code-shares with BA, I can't see how AA can fill a 77W on that route....

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:03 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 18):
Well then since AA code-shares with BA, I can't see how AA can fill a 77W on that route....

Again - remember - the joint AA/BA schedule in the market is already down in capacity YOY with the elimination of the fourth daily AA frequency (shifted to become the second LAX-LHR flight). With hypothetically transitioning one of the remaining two AA 777 flights to a 77W, we're talking about a total difference of less than 65 seats from what AA/BA currently have in the market today - that's a drop in the proverbial bucket.

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:08 pm

Funny JL/AA only see 8 F seats worth everyday between ORD and NRT when UA/NH is offering 24 seats.

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:53 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 20):
Funny JL/AA only see 8 F seats worth everyday between ORD and NRT when UA/NH is offering 24 seats.

Funny, perhaps, but not necessarily surprising when United and ANA are just as strong if not stronger at both ends of the route. No different than ORD-LHR, where AA/BA (who jointly have hubs at both ends of the route) offer 60 daily F seats to United's 16.

American 767 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting DeltaXNA (Reply 4):
at least not until DL de-hubs ATL and WN orders A380s.

And B6 orders the 748i.

Quoting commavia (Reply 21):
Funny, perhaps, but not necessarily surprising when United and ANA are just as strong if not stronger at both ends of the route. No different than ORD-LHR, where AA/BA (who jointly have hubs at both ends of the route) offer 60 daily F seats to United's 16.

That's a good observation.

Ben Soriano

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 21):

Funny, perhaps, but not necessarily surprising when United and ANA are just as strong if not stronger at both ends of the route. No different than ORD-LHR, where AA/BA (who jointly have hubs at both ends of the route) offer 60 daily F seats to United's 16.

AA/JL has hubs at both ends as well, so that analogy falls completely flat. On ORD-NRT, both sides are on exactly level playing field. On ORD-LHR, a blind person can see advantage oneworld.

NRT/HND-LAX is a funny case. AA/JL offers twice the F seats as UA/NH, but UA/NH offers more J seats and more total seats.

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 23):
On ORD-NRT, both sides are on exactly level playing field.

So now AA's and United's ORD hubs are on an "exactly level playing field?" Never thought I'd say this, but I think you're giving AA too much credit - as, even a "blind person can see," United's hub at ORD is far and away larger and stronger.

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:25 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 24):

So now AA's and United's ORD hubs are on an "exactly level playing field?" Never thought I'd say this, but I think you're giving AA too much credit - as, even a "blind person can see," United's hub at ORD is far and away larger and stronger.

Not according to MAH, who claims (again, without proof) that AA is the leader in ORD O&D market share despite offering far fewer flights and seats.

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:30 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 25):
Not according to MAH, who claims (again, without proof) that AA is the leader in ORD O&D market share despite offering far fewer flights and seats.

First off, those are two separate things. Having the larger and overall stronger hub is not the same thing as being the largest O&D carrier in a market.

Second, the claim wasn't without proof - and said proof has been provided in threads previous. The "claim" was not made by any poster on A.net but by AA itself in its own presentation on the USAirways merger, in which it showed a graph depicting AA and USAirways combined having a larger share - at least at that time - of the ORD O&D market than United. So if you don't like the statistic, take it up with Doug Parker.

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:39 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 26):
in which it showed a graph depicting AA and USAirways combined having a larger share - at least at that time - of the ORD O&D market than United.

did that graph actually included market share numbers, or just blank bullet point statements with nothing to back it up ?

do you have a link of that presentation ?

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 27):
did that graph actually included market share numbers, or just blank bullet point statements with nothing to back it up ?

Yes, the graph has numbers - not on the bars themselves but you can easily back into them because the graph has a scale.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 27):
do you have a link of that presentation ?

Once again:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701345/000119312513057505/d484344dex991.htm

Slide 14:

"Merged Airline Can Compete More Effectively in Chicago
• The combined airline will have a larger local passenger base in Chicago than United
• United will still have a larger overall operation due to its international flying, but with a solid domestic foundation, the combined airline can compete effectively for international business with United in Chicago"

The numbers appear to be from 1Q11, so several years ago, anyway. Nonetheless, once again, if anyone doesn't like or contests those numbers - that's fine. But don't take issue with an A.net member who merely repeated them. Take it up with AA itself, which published the numbers, or Diio, from where the numbers were apparently sourced.

[Edited 2015-06-12 11:44:39]

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:52 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 28):

"Merged Airline Can Compete More Effectively in Chicago
• The combined airline will have a larger local passenger base in Chicago than United
• United will still have a larger overall operation due to its international flying, but with a solid domestic foundation, the combined airline can compete effectively for international business with United in Chicago"

That first bullet point can also mean "we have more registered FF members in Chicago area". The keyword is passenger "base" not passenger "count". It's like the difference between "voter base" and "voting count".

And that only talks about Chicagoland-based customers (the "O"), and says nothing about pax from outside *arriving* into Chicago (the "D").

I'm impressed how that first bullet point can be extrapolated all the way to "AA has higher O&D share".

commavia · Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:56 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 29):
That first bullet point can also mean "we have more registered FF members in Chicago area". The keyword is passenger "base" not passenger "count". It's like the difference between "voter base" and "voting count".

And that only talks about Chicagoland-based customers (the "O"), and says nothing about pax from outside *arriving* into Chicago (the "D").

I'm impressed how that first bullet point can be extrapolated all the way to "AA has higher O&D share".

Oh jeez.

The first bullet could be extrapolated that way, but for the graph mere centimeters below it that is entitled, "Local Chicago Passengers, Year Ending 1Q 2011 Millions" and footnoted, "Source: Diio YE 1Q11 O&D Passengers," which clearly shows the combined AA and USAirways ahead of United. So it seems pretty obvious that what AA was talking about was - as the chart depicts - O&D passengers, and not "registered FF members," or excluding "pax from outside *arriving* into Chicago (the "D")." I'm frankly not really sure how much more clear they could have made it.

No extrapolation needed other than for those doing rhetorical gymnastics so as to avoid simply reading the chart exactly as it's written.

Again - if you don't like the chart, or think it's wrong - then fine. Provided better/more recent/more accurate numbers. Otherwise, take it up with Doug Parker.

ripcordd · Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:06 pm

Right now the only markets on AA for the 77w from ORD are NRT/LHR/HKG I know they are going to a 787 on NRT but if JL pulled back the route could use AA 77W.

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:21 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 30):

The first bullet could be extrapolated that way, but for the graph mere centimeters below it that is entitled, "Local Chicago Passengers, Year Ending 1Q 2011 Millions" and footnoted, "Source: Diio YE 1Q11 O&D Passengers," which clearly shows the combined AA and USAirways ahead of United. So it seems pretty obvious that what AA was talking about was - as the chart depicts - O&D passengers, and not "registered FF members," or excluding "pax from outside *arriving* into Chicago (the "D")." I'm frankly not really sure how much more clear they could have made it.

No extrapolation needed other than for those doing rhetorical gymnastics so as to avoid simply reading the chart exactly as it's written.

Again - if you don't like the chart, or think it's wrong - then fine. Provided better/more recent/more accurate numbers. Otherwise, take it up with Doug Parker.

ORD carried 66.7M pax in 2011 (not the exact time period but close enough) Assuming UA had 50% share that's 33.35M pax.

That chart only shows 6M pax for UA O&D, so it's implying that only 18% of UA's pax carried through ORD are O&D ? Doesn't it cross your mind that this is ridiculously low, when most large US hubs are in the 40-60% range ?

ldvaviation · Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:25 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 30):
Again - if you don't like the chart, or think it's wrong - then fine. Provided better/more recent/more accurate numbers. Otherwise, take it up with Doug Parker.

He'll take that up with Doug Parker after he's done complaining to the AAdvantage Desk that he can't upgrade on BA metal.

SMH

jetblue1965 · Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:27 pm

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 33):

He'll take that up with Doug Parker after he's done complaining to the AAdvantage Desk that he can't upgrade on BA metal.

And when you're done trolling, you can get back to answering calls for the AAdvantage Desk.

N1120A · Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:58 pm

The answer to you question lies in whether AA thinks ORD can support the F product. Given that there is a chance the A350 will have F, perhaps that will be the plane to run F into ORD.

Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

RE: Will AA Ever Bring The 77W To ORD?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net