An American Airlines spokeswoman confirmed that AA plans to fly all of its trans-Atlantic routes from Chicago this summer on Dreamliners, with the exception of flights to Manchester, England and Rome. That means four daily flights to London, as well as flights to Paris, Barcelona and Dublin also will be flown on the Dreamliner.

As for United Airlines, a spokesman for the carrier today said there are no plans to operate any of the airline's European routes from Chicago on Dreamliner aircraft this summer. Rather, United is deploying older Boeing 767-300 and Boeing 777 aircraft on its European routes. But the United spokesman noted all Europe-bound flights will feature United's new Polaris international business class service minus the new seat, which is slowly rolling out across United's fleet. United is a unit of United Continental Holdings (NYSE: UAL).

Why does it matter? Seems like an operational decision for AA, although it's not the best use of the plane's capabilities.

This is a significant down gauge in terms of seats on ORD-LHR from the 772.

The rest of them don't surprise me.

It is interesting that UA and AA have the opposite strategy regarding 787s out of ORD. UA 787s are not flying shorter transatlantic flights for the most part.

Yeah, American announced this a few months ago. They are a shell of what they once were internationally at ORD. Old nonstop routes included Moscow, Milan, Brussels, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Stockholm. Delhi, Rio, Zurich and I'm not 100% positive on Amsterdam, Osaka and São Paulo.

UA has also shrunk the amount of int'l seats out of ORD. The 744 did fly to NRT, PVG, HKG, and Beijing. Now all of those flights are on 772s. Additionally UA internationally at ORD is in a bind. The 787s cannot fit between the B and C oncourses. They only can park at the same gate as the 777 and 744. I guess the city that houses the headquarters for United and Boeing will be stuck with aged 767s and 772s.

Product wise a United 767 is more competitive with an American 787, than an American 767 is with a United 767. It really won't make much difference other than for a handful of AvGeeks.

ORD-Europe is pretty much in the sweet spot of the 767s range so it makes sense for United to fly their 787s on longer routes across the Pacific.

No shock. Most of their Asian flights are 787 too. Makes sense to reduce the number of fleet types at the hub. Wouldn't be surprised if we see the same with LAX, in due time.

Polaris or not 8 across 777 business is not in the same Hemisphere as 1-2-1 all asle access 787

I do agree though 787 to Europe is Def not an optimal use of the plane, 767 is Def made for this route, on the other hand AA 767 in Y class is from some time in 1985

UA will be utilizing the 787 on the following European routes this summer:

IAD-CDG 787-9
IAD-LHR 787-9
LAX-LHR 787-9
SFO-CDG 787-9
SFO-LHR 787-9
SFO-MUC 787-8

drdisque wrote:

This is a significant down gauge in terms of seats on ORD-LHR from the 772.

The rest of them don't surprise me.

767 = 209. 28 business seats
787 = 226. 28 as well
777 = 260/289 45 or 37 business seats

Seems like a good in between when looking at the premium seats offered between when it was 767/777. Same amount of business seats as the 767 but in an increase in economy seats. Maybe the 777 is too much right now?

Acey559 wrote:

Where will the 777s currently in Chicago be re-deployed to? ORD will still have a 777 crew base I assume, so those planes have to go somewhere and I'm curious where. Ditto the 767, though with them being phased out that probably accounts for some.

777: FCO 1x

767: DFW 1x, MAN 1x

Those are the only scheduled routes I can find.

Kbud wrote:

Yeah, American announced this a few months ago. They are a shell of what they once were internationally at ORD. Old nonstop routes included Moscow, Milan, Brussels, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Stockholm. Delhi, Rio, Zurich and I'm not 100% positive on Amsterdam, Osaka and São Paulo.

We had a good thread on this a few months ago, but yes, in terms of nonstop coverage, the old "GAAteway to the World" at ORD is long gone. When I started college in Chicago in 1999, it was a common sight to see 767s lined up on Concourse K in the early evening, heading all over Europe. Still, the 787 is a competitive product, and there's been quite a bit of mainline creeping back onto domestic routes now that the hub has been re-banked. For awhile in the late 2000s, the AA hub was something like 65-70% regional jets.

Current summer TATL destinations are Heathrow, Manchester, Dublin, Paris, Barcelona and Rome. For TPAC there's Tokyo, Beijing and Shanghai.

Dropped TATL routes over the years:
Birmingham (cut after 9/11)
Glasgow (dropped around 2005-06)
Stansted (flown for a short time in 1992-93)
Brussels (cut around 2009, shortly after United started the route with better feed)
Frankfurt (cut in 2009)
Dusseldorf (started 2013, cut down to seasonal and finally dropped)
Berlin (flown for a short time in 1992-93 but very heavily hyped in ad campaigns)
Munich (flown for quite awhile in the 1980s and 1990s)
Stockholm (cut after 9/11)
Helsinki (transferred to Finnair)
Zurich (cut in the late 1990s, I believe)
Milan (also cut in the late 1990s, I think)
Moscow (flown in 2008-09 with a 777-200 due to some kind of regulation imposed by Russia. It was way too much plane and they really took a bath on it)

Other dropped longhaul:
Buenos Aires (flown in 2007-08 and performed pretty poorly)
Delhi (they stuck it out on this one for awhile but couldn't compete with the ME3)
Nagoya (cut in 2005 after AA lost corporate contracts)

Osaka was attempted twice from DFW but never from ORD. Amsterdam wasn't served by AA metal until after the US merger, and then only from PHL, although they're finally trying DFW-AMS this summer. I don't believe GRU was ever tried from ORD, but unsure.

Kbud wrote:

Yeah, American announced this a few months ago. They are a shell of what they once were internationally at ORD. Old nonstop routes included Moscow, Milan, Brussels, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Stockholm. Delhi, Rio, Zurich and I'm not 100% positive on Amsterdam, Osaka and São Paulo.

UA has also shrunk the amount of int'l seats out of ORD. The 744 did fly to NRT, PVG, HKG, and Beijing. Now all of those flights are on 772s. Additionally UA internationally at ORD is in a bind. The 787s cannot fit between the B and C oncourses. They only can park at the same gate as the 777 and 744. I guess the city that houses the headquarters for United and Boeing will be stuck with aged 767s and 772s.

AA has never flown ORD-GIG/GRU/KIX/AMS. ORD-AMS was announced in 1999 but never started.

AA never flew ORD-KIX. They very briefly had it from DFW and dropped it. The ORD-DME flight (the other Moscow airport, not SVO) was flown with a 777 because of an instrument issue with the 767 that prevented it being flown into that airport and yes it was ultimately dropped because it was not profitable. Business links between the US and Russia are not strong. Most of the traffic is VFR from the US point of sale.

CONTACREW wrote:

UA will be utilizing the 787 on the following European routes this summer:

IAD-CDG 787-9
IAD-LHR 787-9
LAX-LHR 787-9
SFO-CDG 787-9
SFO-LHR 787-9
SFO-MUC 787-8

Those routes make a lot more sense. SFO and LAX are already big bases for the 787 and those flights are all 10-12 hr flights. The IAD flights are paired with SFO to manage utilization. A 10-12 hr TATL from SFO works well with a 7-9 hr TATL back to IAD.

jsnww81 wrote:

Kbud wrote:

Brussels (cut around 2009, shortly after United started the route with better feed)

ORD-BRU was cut in 2011, just a year before JFK-BRU was cut. ORD-BRU in 2009 was a 777. It was downgraded back to the 763 not long before the route was cut. ORD-BRU was on almost daily if not daily (7x weekly) for 22 years, from 1989 to 2011. ORD-BRU was mostly a 767, except in the early 90s when it was a DC-10 for a few months, and as mentioned a 777 in the late 00s which didn't last long either. I don't think American will ever resume flying ORD-BRU.

drdisque wrote:

This is a significant down gauge in terms of seats on ORD-LHR from the 772.

True, although it's a significant upgrade in product for everyone except possible F vs the 3-class 777s that have been a mainstay on this route for a decade, to say nothing of the 767s which are vastly inferior.

Kbud wrote:

They are a shell of what they once were internationally at ORD.

jsnww81 wrote:

We had a good thread on this a few months ago, but yes, in terms of nonstop coverage, the old "GAAteway to the World" at ORD is long gone. When I started college in Chicago in 1999, it was a common sight to see 767s lined up on Concourse K in the early evening, heading all over Europe.

Indeed. Although, needless to say, AA's network in general, and ORD's place in it specifically, have both transformed so dramatically since the late 1990s. In that time, there has been material transatlantic growth from virtually all of AA's other hubs - including DFW, MIA, JFK, and now CLT and PHL - so ORD isn't as "needed" as it used to be. In terms of Europe, most of the destinations cut since the late 1990s have either been transitioned to JFK (BRU, MXP, ZRH) and/or fallen victim to the inter-hub dominance of United and its Star ATI/JV partners (ARN, BRU, FRA, ZRH). And of course there's also the inescapable fact that AA is at a structural, intractable disadvantage to United at ORD that will never go away - as United has grown ORD-Europe, it naturally displaced some of AA's traffic.

And of course therein lies the raison d'être for shifting almost all of AA's ORD longhauls to 787. In ORD or across the Pacific, the 787 is the airplane for the underdog. In AA's case, similarly to how the 767 three decades ago let AA "sneak by" the 747-dominated coastal hubs and build a viable Europe business based on inland hubs at ORD and DFW, the 787 is the perfect plane to use for fighting from a weak competitive position against bigger, stronger rivals. At ORD and in Asia, AA can pull neither the volume nor the yields of United - thus why United can justify larger, higher-cost aircraft where AA can't. Thus why the 787 is a perfect solution - it gives AA a fighting chance at maintaining a schedule presence in these types of markets. Not to mention - in my personal opinion - it's just a great plane to fly.

All that said, a dozen daily intercontinental departures to nine cities in Europe and Asia - almost all of them on modern, appropriately-configured and generally comfortable aircraft, is nothing to sneeze at. That's still a decent longhaul gateway.

jsnww81 wrote:

Still, the 787 is a competitive product, and there's been quite a bit of mainline creeping back onto domestic routes now that the hub has been re-banked. For awhile in the late 2000s, the AA hub was something like 65-70% regional jets.

It is, indeed, good to see more and more AA mainline coming back into ORD. Just as many of us expected when the merger was announced, the confluence of evolving small jet economics, and the synergies facilitated by combined network, have clearly had a positive effect on ORD. The Republic E170/staffing issues set AA back at ORD for a bit, but things definitely appear to be once again moving in the right direction - more and more routes going from 50-seat RJs to 2-class RJs, and from 2-class RJs back to at least some mainline. And the latest slew of new routes caps off several years of successive domestic additions, including several routes restored from when they were cut during the oil spike. All good stuff.

Sounds like a marketing ploy to me. I can just see the adds on the expressway, "Newest airliner for the gateway to the world." AA flights out of Chicago as others have shown, is a shadow of its International self.

ORD-ZRH was moved to DFW-ZRH in around June 2000. AA later tried a summer seasonal ORD-ZRH in the 2000s but it lasted like one season.

ORD-GLA lasted many years with great Y loads and high cargo uplift, just less so in J. I would still think there would be room for a seasonal service with some OW and connection opportunities at the US end especially and would be a good legacy alternative to low cost DY offerings that only some types want. A 787 probably overkill however. MOM would be perfect!

Rookie87 wrote:

drdisque wrote:

This is a significant down gauge in terms of seats on ORD-LHR from the 772.

The rest of them don't surprise me.

767 = 209. 28 business seats
787 = 226. 28 as well
777 = 260/289 45 or 37 business seats

Seems like a good in between when looking at the premium seats offered between when it was 767/777. Same amount of business seats as the 767 but in an increase in economy seats. Maybe the 777 is too much right now?

Compared to last summer's 2x 763, 1x 777 (old 3-class), and 1x 77W, this summer's 4x 788 represents a loss of only about 70 seats and a pretty good upgrade for both J and Y for 3 of the 4 flights.

Sorry for going a little off topic but is ORD that big of a international hub? I mean, when I travel there I think it's pretty big, but I did not know that AA only served 4 European destinations (I thought it was more like ~10. What other international destinations does AA serve from ORD? Is it one of their largest LH operations or smallest?

It is the smallest Trans-Atlantic presence of any of their hubs other than Phoenix.

LHR is their only year-round TATL destination from ORD. In the Summer they also fly to CDG, FCO, BCN, DUB, and MAN (BCN is new this summer).

Through Joint Ventures they also serve MAD (via IB).

drdisque wrote:

It is the smallest Trans-Atlantic presence of any of their hubs other than Phoenix.

LHR is their only year-round TATL destination from ORD. In the Summer they also fly to CDG, FCO, BCN, DUB, and MAN (BCN is new this summer).

Through Joint Ventures they also serve MAD (via IB).

The Atlantic JV also includes ORD-HEL on AY, IINM.

Don't forget LAX too, with only 2 daily to LHR on AA metal.

Acey559 wrote:

panam330 wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

Where will the 777s currently in Chicago be re-deployed to? ORD will still have a 777 crew base I assume, so those planes have to go somewhere and I'm curious where. Ditto the 767, though with them being phased out that probably accounts for some.

777: FCO 1x

767: DFW 1x, MAN 1x

Those are the only scheduled routes I can find.

Wow that's crazy. I guess the 787 is the wave of the future but still, a little sad not seeing many 777s and 767s around ORD this summer.

There are also 2x daily 763 ORD-MIA

planespotter20 wrote:

Sorry for going a little off topic but is ORD that big of a international hub? I mean, when I travel there I think it's pretty big, but I did not know that AA only served 4 European destinations (I thought it was more like ~10. What other international destinations does AA serve from ORD? Is it one of their largest LH operations or smallest?

Well since you asked: "what other international destinations does AA serve from ORD?' :

CDG
DUB
MAN
FCO
BCN-begins MAY-05
LHR
PEK
NRT
PVG
CUN
PUJ
SJU
SJD
GUA-begins JUL-08
MEX
MBJ
PVR

Also YYZ and YUL on AE

commavia wrote:

The Republic E170/staffing issues set AA back at ORD for a bit, but things definitely appear to be once again moving in the right direction - more and more routes going from 50-seat RJs to 2-class RJs, and from 2-class RJs back to at least some mainline. .

The E175 is/was the perfect plane for many AA domestic routes at ORD. Mainline comfort with RJ economics = happy passengers and happy executives. That's why I was confused when I nosed around in the schedule a few weeks ago and saw almost no E175s this summer. Many routes that have been E175 for years appear to be back to CR7s. Were all the E175s moved elsewhere, or was I misreading the schedule?

planespotter20 wrote:

Sorry for going a little off topic but is ORD that big of a international hub? I mean, when I travel there I think it's pretty big, but I did not know that AA only served 4 European destinations (I thought it was more like ~10. What other international destinations does AA serve from ORD? Is it one of their largest LH operations or smallest?

In peak season, AA operates nine daily flights to six nonstop European destinations (LHR x4, and 1x each to BCN, CDG, DUB, FCO and MAN), plus three daily flights nonstop to three Asian destinations (1x each NRT, PEK and PVG). And that's before counting the five additional daily flights to Europe and Asia operated by AA's metal-neutral JV partners. In any event, it's obviously highly subjective, but as said, personally I'd say that a dozen daily longhaul departures to nine cities in Europe and Asia is still a pretty impressive longhaul hub. Is it the biggest, for AA or in general? No, certainly not. And it's also unquestionably far smaller than it used to be - for all the rasons already mentioned. But it isn't bad - especially considering that almost all of those flights are on modern, comfortable widebodies.

jsnww81 wrote:

The E175 is/was the perfect plane for many AA domestic routes at ORD. Mainline comfort with RJ economics = happy passengers and happy executives.

What an awesome, awesome airplane - one of my absolute favorites to fly.

jsnww81 wrote:

That's why I was confused when I nosed around in the schedule a few weeks ago and saw almost no E175s this summer. Many routes that have been E175 for years appear to be back to CR7s. Were all the E175s moved elsewhere, or was I misreading the schedule?

It probably depends on where you're looking and when. Going out into the summer, there are still plenty of E175s flowing in and out of ORD on a variety of routes.

This was touched on earlier in the thread, was AA gains by switching to 787 for most of Europe is a huge gain in cargo capacity.

From this site: http://www.anacargo.jp/en/int/service/a ... 7_8_1.html

The 788 can hold up to 28 LD3 cans or up to 9 88" pallets (8 96"), with 97390 pounds max load. The 763 holds up up 15 LD4 cans and no pallets, 63550 lbs. My guess is AA is planning on maxing out cargo both ways when the fuel tanks aren't near full for these segments. Sounds like a very smart use of 787 capability to me.

wn676 wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

Compared to last summer's 2x 763, 1x 777 (old 3-class), and 1x 77W, this summer's 4x 788 represents a loss of only about 70 seats and a pretty good upgrade for both J and Y for 3 of the 4 flights.

Gonna disagree. The 788 J seat is just horrific. The worst AA J seat in use IMO. Thanks a lot for that one Dougie!

9w748capt wrote:

wn676 wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

Compared to last summer's 2x 763, 1x 777 (old 3-class), and 1x 77W, this summer's 4x 788 represents a loss of only about 70 seats and a pretty good upgrade for both J and Y for 3 of the 4 flights.

Gonna disagree. The 788 J seat is just horrific. The worst AA J seat in use IMO. Thanks a lot for that one Dougie!

Compared to the NGBC seat and the ones they've just installed in the 767s (which admittedly aren't as bad), personally, I'd still take the 787 J.

wn676 wrote:

Compared to the NGBC seat and the ones they've just installed in the 767s (which admittedly aren't as bad), personally, I'd still take the 787 J.

Agreed. I actually quite like the 787 J. And in any event, I'll put it this way - compared to virtually any other J product(s) that AA has ever flown in the ORD-LHR market, the 787's J is a vast improvement.

I booked an itinerary that included DUB-ORD on a 787 on July 20th about a month ago. Got a nice rear facing J sea too. Then the other day got an email from AA saying there's an equipment change to a 767! Whats going on? Are they using Dreamliners or not?

With JFK and PHL for connections to Europe, and a UA hub in ORD, I would imagine AA can optimize O+D routes with the 787 @ ORD.

by738 wrote:

ORD-GLA lasted many years with great Y loads and high cargo uplift, just less so in J. I would still think there would be room for a seasonal service with some OW and connection opportunities at the US end especially and would be a good legacy alternative to low cost DY offerings that only some types want. A 787 probably overkill however. MOM would be perfect!

Flew this route a few times and it was always full (yes I know the revenue yield story just saying). What was interesting was that for Glasgow based traffic it was always cheaper to connect via CO/EWR.

commavia wrote:

wn676 wrote:

Compared to the NGBC seat and the ones they've just installed in the 767s (which admittedly aren't as bad), personally, I'd still take the 787 J.

Agreed. I actually quite like the 787 J. And in any event, I'll put it this way - compared to virtually any other J product(s) that AA has ever flown in the ORD-LHR market, the 787's J is a vast improvement.

Ok sure the 788 J is "better" in that it's lie-flat but that's it. The shaking? The utter lack of storage? The non-tilting PTV? The utter lack of shoulder room if you're any wider than a size 30 waist? No thank you.

commavia wrote:

wn676 wrote:

Compared to the NGBC seat and the ones they've just installed in the 767s (which admittedly aren't as bad), personally, I'd still take the 787 J.

Agreed. I actually quite like the 787 J. And in any event, I'll put it this way - compared to virtually any other J product(s) that AA has ever flown in the ORD-LHR market, the 787's J is a vast improvement.

Something to remember is that the 787-8 and 787-9 have different J seats. The 787-8 has the Zodiac Concept D like the high J 777-200s, and the 787-9 has the B/E Aerospace Super Diamond like the majority of the low J 777-200s. The latter is definitely the better seat.

OB1504 wrote:

Something to remember is that the 787-8 and 787-9 have different J seats. The 787-8 has the Zodiac Concept D like the high J 777-200s, and the 787-9 has the B/E Aerospace Super Diamond like the majority of the low J 777-200s. The latter is definitely the better seat.

Sure, but again, either seat is still a dramatic upgrade from the 763/772 NGBC.

OB1504 wrote:

commavia wrote:

wn676 wrote:

Compared to the NGBC seat and the ones they've just installed in the 767s (which admittedly aren't as bad), personally, I'd still take the 787 J.

Agreed. I actually quite like the 787 J. And in any event, I'll put it this way - compared to virtually any other J product(s) that AA has ever flown in the ORD-LHR market, the 787's J is a vast improvement.

Something to remember is that the 787-8 and 787-9 have different J seats. The 787-8 has the Zodiac Concept D like the high J 777-200s, and the 787-9 has the B/E Aerospace Super Diamond like the majority of the low J 777-200s. The latter is definitely the better seat.

I haven't yet flown the 789 but yes the super diamond looks far superior. I wish AA had either gone with that seat or the Cirrus throughout. But hey I'm sure the concept d was 5 cents cheaper.

9w748capt wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

commavia wrote:

Agreed. I actually quite like the 787 J. And in any event, I'll put it this way - compared to virtually any other J product(s) that AA has ever flown in the ORD-LHR market, the 787's J is a vast improvement.

Something to remember is that the 787-8 and 787-9 have different J seats. The 787-8 has the Zodiac Concept D like the high J 777-200s, and the 787-9 has the B/E Aerospace Super Diamond like the majority of the low J 777-200s. The latter is definitely the better seat.

I haven't yet flown the 789 but yes the super diamond looks far superior. I wish AA had either gone with that seat or the Cirrus throughout. But hey I'm sure the concept d was 5 cents cheaper.

Man you sound like a person that needs to break up in a relationship. The J seat evolution at AA could be better but also could be miles worse.

I am new to the site so thank you for the great comments. I agree with all the rationale of the comments related to AA flying to fewer int'l long-haul cities from ORD and focusing on smaller more efficient planes. But I do like to see the "big-boys" at ORD such as the 77W or even the 772. It is amazing that they only are scheduled to fly 1 772 to ORD this summer.

UA also reduced their Asia seat capacity from ORD. They seem to be sticking to the 772 as a replacement for the 744 from ORD. I was hoping they'd put the 77W on the HKG flight but we can only wish for the A350 in the future

grbauc wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

Something to remember is that the 787-8 and 787-9 have different J seats. The 787-8 has the Zodiac Concept D like the high J 777-200s, and the 787-9 has the B/E Aerospace Super Diamond like the majority of the low J 777-200s. The latter is definitely the better seat.

I haven't yet flown the 789 but yes the super diamond looks far superior. I wish AA had either gone with that seat or the Cirrus throughout. But hey I'm sure the concept d was 5 cents cheaper.

Man you sound like a person that needs to break up in a relationship. The J seat evolution at AA could be better but also could be miles worse.

Hahaha - every time I say I'm breaking up with AA, I find CX award space or our upgrades clear (preferably on the 77W).

Maybe the not in service MOM planes will re-open ORD-GLA. But I doubt that. AAs long haul at ORD is a thing of the past. Even UA hasn't added anything the last two years.

Of course, there are no gates during peak times for arrivals at T-5. Until more gates are added or more cities get pre-clearance, ORD-Europe is at capacity.