IslandRob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Based on the comments from the Bloomberg article it looks like the A350 order is toast.

That's exactly what the "experts" said about UA's A350 order.

Yeah, but weren't they talking about the A350-1000 order? And wasn't that order indeed toast? -ir

Many argued that "the A350 will never see daylight at UA".

Boeing778X wrote:

The seat count is quite similar, which leads me to believe the 787-9 is the ideal 77E replacement for AA.

This is the only part that I have doubts about.

What differs those two airplanes, is weight. Some of this goes to fuel, since 789 uses significantly less trip fuel. But, payload and payload over range also are quite different.

I guess the most basic questions for 77E to answer are:
- is there cargo, that AA wants to carry?
- how many long routes are going to be served, and with what payload?
- how many hot-high remote destinations?

If AA wants cargo over distance, then better replacement is 350. If they don't expect routes over 6000nm or are going mostly for pax load and cargo is of no concern, 789 or 78J are the answer.

I agree to your analysis concerning possible Neos, the question basically is wheter they stick to 350s and negotiate another contract for Neos, or go for swap.

Anyway, interesting thing to read.

Cheers,
Adam

Does AA need 22 A350-900 with RR engines when their 77W and 787 fleets are GE powered, the 777-200ER fleet with RR are gone in 7 to 10 years. 787 -8/=9/-10 should fill most missions for AA long haul system with 77W for bigger routes and 777-9 when more large planes are needed. AA has the long thin and long fat routes covered as well as the medium haul flights to EZE, GRU and LHR. Adding 22 A350-900 doesn't provide a niche for that plane.

Perhaps the PMUS pricing was so low that Airbus would welcome cancellation??

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Perhaps the PMUS pricing was so low that Airbus would welcome cancellation??

The problem is Airbus doesn't want to be locked out of AA's widebody fleet. We are talking about one of the largest airlines in the world here. So they will fight to make sure AA sticks with the A350 or convert to A330neo (as out right cancellation of the order, or conversion to A320neos, puts the A332 fleet in jeopardy which is what I was getting out earlier which some people did not seem to understand). Pitching the business case to AA is trickier though because of AA's large and growing 787 fleet.

Polot wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Perhaps the PMUS pricing was so low that Airbus would welcome cancellation??

The problem is Airbus doesn't want to be locked out of AA's widebody fleet. We are talking about one of the largest airlines in the world here. So they will fight to make sure AA sticks with the A350 or convert to A330neo (as out right cancellation of the order, or conversion to A320neos, puts the A332 fleet in jeopardy which is what I was getting out earlier which some people did not seem to understand). Pitching the business case to AA is trickier though because of AA's large and growing 787 fleet.

The largest airline.

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

Both options mentioned above are good and have their own respective pros and cons. The safe bet would probably be OP1 as it can also opt for many A321neoLRs and base them out of MIA for medium demand LATAM routes where using a 763 isn't viable plus to fly PHL/BOS to U.K./Ireland year round and in the premium config boosting frequencies to LAX/SFO from these two markets along with MIA.

behramjee wrote:

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

Both options mentioned above are good and have their own respective pros and cons. The safe bet would probably be OP1 as it can also opt for many A321neoLRs and base them out of MIA for medium demand LATAM routes where using a 763 isn't viable plus to fly PHL/BOS to U.K./Ireland year round and in the premium config boosting frequencies to LAX/SFO from these two markets along with MIA.

Why would Airbus let them do #1?

Why would rolls agree to either option?

texl1649 wrote:

Why would rolls agree to either option?

Well with Option #2 they are still getting money/business as the A330neo is RR powered...

behramjee wrote:

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

Both options mentioned above are good and have their own respective pros and cons. The safe bet would probably be OP1 as it can also opt for many A321neoLRs and base them out of MIA for medium demand LATAM routes where using a 763 isn't viable plus to fly PHL/BOS to U.K./Ireland year round and in the premium config boosting frequencies to LAX/SFO from these two markets along with MIA.

1. I'm super siked that the A321neo is coming to AA, but I'm guessing it's still a bit early to tell whether more are needed or not. In this situation, the scenario seems unlikely, but if AA wanted to retire further, or completely, the 757, and were not willing to wait for an MoM or A322, they could get the A321LR and go for more frequency.

2. Is the most likely of the two, but I'm curious to see as to whether the -800neo or -900neo would provide as a better fit.

Revelation wrote:

behramjee wrote:

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

3. Walk away and blame the lost deposits on the decisions of the old PM-US management team and/or changing business conditions.

Maybe Boeing will help eat the loss if they want to keep the A350 out of the account bad enough.

4. Do a United - order more A350-900s in order to replace the entire 77E fleet.

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

behramjee wrote:

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

3. Walk away and blame the lost deposits on the decisions of the old PM-US management team and/or changing business conditions.

Maybe Boeing will help eat the loss if they want to keep the A350 out of the account bad enough.

4. Do a United - order more A350-900s in order to replace the entire 77E fleet.

Why? With all those 787-9s, it seems like the replacement is clear. The only thing the A350 has over the 787-9 in this case is payload.

AA may not think it's worth integrating a whole new plane into the fleet.

Revelation wrote:

behramjee wrote:

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

3. Walk away and blame the lost deposits on the decisions of the old PM-US management team and/or changing business conditions.

Maybe Boeing will help eat the loss if they want to keep the A350 out of the account bad enough.

Most of the old PM-US management team, including the CEO, is now in AA management.

scbriml wrote:

Revelation wrote:

behramjee wrote:

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

3. Walk away and blame the lost deposits on the decisions of the old PM-US management team and/or changing business conditions.

Maybe Boeing will help eat the loss if they want to keep the A350 out of the account bad enough.

4. Do a United - order more A350-900s in order to replace the entire 77E fleet.

Oh, you'd love that. Unfortunately for you, that won't happen. The 787 can handle AA's needs, apparently.

777X will almost assuredly displace the A350-1000 at Cathay, United, and others to come. A359 seems secure at United.

A330NEO's for an airline that already operates a large fleet of 787s. Doesn't make much sense to me.

A350 can carry twice the cargo compared to 789 on top of 300 passengers on long flights.

keesje wrote:

A350 can carry twice the cargo compared to 789 on top of 300 passengers on long flights.

While that is probably possible based on weight for a narrow set of routes and requirements, its worth nothing that the 787-9 and A350-900 both can take the same number of LD3s (36). In typical operations the A350-900 can't practically carry twice the cargo, but the A350-900 can carry more payload than the 787-9.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

A350 can carry twice the cargo compared to 789 on top of 300 passengers on long flights.

While that is probably possible based on weight for a narrow set of routes and requirements, its worth nothing that the 787-9 and A350-900 both can take the same number of LD3s (36). In typical operations the A350-900 can't practically carry twice the cargo, but the A350-900 can carry more payload than the 787-9.

Even if the A350 did have more, more does not mean AA wants it. Maybe AA wants slightly smaller. The A350 isn't perfect for everyone.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

A350 can carry twice the cargo compared to 789 on top of 300 passengers on long flights.

While that is probably possible based on weight for a narrow set of routes and requirements, its worth nothing that the 787-9 and A350-900 both can take the same number of LD3s (36). In typical operations the A350-900 can't practically carry twice the cargo, but the A350-900 can carry more payload than the 787-9.

A 777-200ER can carry ~50t over 6000NM, http://oi37.tinypic.com/2hhdipw.jpg
A 787-9 can carry ~38t over 6000NM https://imagr.eu/up/Z0E8O_dsfdsfdsfdsfds.png
An A350-900 can carry ~46t over 6000NM http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirbusGIF2012A359vs7810PRchart1.jpg

If we assume 100kg per passenger, 30t payload is taken by 300 passenger. That leaves 8t for cargo for a 787-9 and 16t for an A350. Not really a narrow set of routes here, but a typical flight from Asia.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ORD-PVG&DU=nm&SU=mph

The question arises, is there cargo opportunity for AA. If so, replacing a 777-200ER by a 787-9 is cutting revenue cargo in half. If that would be the goal, it wouldn't matter. But personally I doubt that. http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/images/PR-images/Infographic_640x989.jpg

I think the case pushed here for 787s over A350s on Asian flights is a kind of lean on factual data and rich on belly feeling.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Great analysis. It makes sense that AA would ultimately rationalize their long haul fleet around the 787, A330, and 777. I cannot image any mission or market contingency those 3 aircraft could not cover when you look at AA's international route network.

Why introduce another plane type that is not necessary and incur the additional costs of training and maintenance for a relatively small sub-fleet?

I agree. If Airbus could switch AA's 359 orders to 338neos, I don't think they're complain too much.

The 330neo program could use a few more orders

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

A350 can carry twice the cargo compared to 789 on top of 300 passengers on long flights.

While that is probably possible based on weight for a narrow set of routes and requirements, its worth nothing that the 787-9 and A350-900 both can take the same number of LD3s (36). In typical operations the A350-900 can't practically carry twice the cargo, but the A350-900 can carry more payload than the 787-9.

A 777-200ER can carry ~50t over 6000NM, http://oi37.tinypic.com/2hhdipw.jpg
A 787-9 can carry ~38t over 6000NM https://imagr.eu/up/Z0E8O_dsfdsfdsfdsfds.png
An A350-900 can carry ~46t over 6000NM http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirbusGIF2012A359vs7810PRchart1.jpg

If we assume 100kg per passenger, 30t payload is taken by 300 passenger. That leaves 8t for cargo for a 787-9 and 16t for an A350. Not really a narrow set of routes here, but a typical flight from Asia.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ORD-PVG&DU=nm&SU=mph

The question arises, is there cargo opportunity for AA. If so, replacing a 777-200ER by a 787-9 is cutting revenue cargo in half. If that would be the goal, it wouldn't matter. But personally I doubt that. http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/images/PR-images/Infographic_640x989.jpg

I think the case pushed here for 787s over A350s on Asian flights is a kind of lean on factual data and rich on belly feeling.

AA has already long since replaced most of their Asian 77E routes with 788/789s so apparently the extra payload capabilities of the 77E wasn't worth it for them.

Sooner787 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Great analysis. It makes sense that AA would ultimately rationalize their long haul fleet around the 787, A330, and 777. I cannot image any mission or market contingency those 3 aircraft could not cover when you look at AA's international route network.

Why introduce another plane type that is not necessary and incur the additional costs of training and maintenance for a relatively small sub-fleet?

I agree. If Airbus could switch AA's 359 orders to 338neos, I don't think they're complain too much.

The 330neo program could use a few more orders

I have no reason to believe they wouldn't either. The A330-800neo could be acquired quickly.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

A350 can carry twice the cargo compared to 789 on top of 300 passengers on long flights.

While that is probably possible based on weight for a narrow set of routes and requirements, its worth nothing that the 787-9 and A350-900 both can take the same number of LD3s (36). In typical operations the A350-900 can't practically carry twice the cargo, but the A350-900 can carry more payload than the 787-9.

A 777-200ER can carry ~50t over 6000NM, http://oi37.tinypic.com/2hhdipw.jpg
A 787-9 can carry ~38t over 6000NM https://imagr.eu/up/Z0E8O_dsfdsfdsfdsfds.png
An A350-900 can carry ~46t over 6000NM http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirbusGIF2012A359vs7810PRchart1.jpg

If we assume 100kg per passenger, 30t payload is taken by 300 passenger. That leaves 8t for cargo for a 787-9 and 16t for an A350. Not really a narrow set of routes here, but a typical flight from Asia.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ORD-PVG&DU=nm&SU=mph

The question arises, is there cargo opportunity for AA. If so, replacing a 777-200ER by a 787-9 is cutting revenue cargo in half. If that would be the goal, it wouldn't matter. But personally I doubt that. http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/images/PR-images/Infographic_640x989.jpg

I think the case pushed here for 787s over A350s on Asian flights is a kind of lean on factual data and rich on belly feeling.

You want facts? Here are some. AA only has 4 routes in its entire network that are over 6000nm. Three of them DFW/ORD-PVG/PEK are using 787-8s (the fourth DFW-HKG is a 77W). AA isn't even using the larger 787-9s on its longer Asia flights. It's using the smaller 787-8, so obviously max payload and cargo aren't big concerns.

You can praise the A350-900 for its long haul capability, and I won't disagree. It is very capable on long missions. However for American Airlines, which this thread is about, the smaller 787s fit better in its Asia network. On most routes where AA is actually flying the 777-200ER or 787-9, putting an A350 on the route would not carry twice the cargo. That would be a very limited number of routes and I can't think of any 787-9 or 777-200ER route over 6,000nm operated by American to fit your example.

Boeing778X wrote:

Why? With all those 787-9s, it seems like the replacement is clear.

It seems to me the 787s are replacing 767s. AA hasn't replaced any 77Es yet.

Boeing778X wrote:

keesje wrote:

IMO a combined order of ~40 787-9/-10s and A350-900/1000's is on the agenda.

A dream of yours indeed, but I don't think so

Let's look at the stats.

AA currently has:

A:
15x A330-200
9x A330-300
22x A350-900 (on order)

B:
28x 767-300ER
47x 777-200ER
20x 777-300ER
20x 787-8
11x 787-9 (+11x on order)

And that includes 58x(?) 787 options yet to be exercised.

The current issues:

-The A330-300s are being retired starting in just a few months. The aircraft are older are are powered by PW engines, which makes them an oddball subfleet.
-777-200ERs will need to be replaced in the next decade. With the exception of two 2006 build units, all were delivered between 1999 and 2003.
-The fate of the A350 order, a remnant of US Airways, is up in the air. The decision will be whether to grow, convert, defer further or cancel outright.
-The number of 787 options allow for the retirement of all 777-200ERs with a little growth.

Twice in the last several months, the Airbus A350-900 has been deferred by AA. The original delivery date was to actually be now in 2017, then to 2018, and now, to 2020.

http://atwonline.com/airframes/american ... -back-2020

There is a lot of discussion about what AA will do. The most intriguing assumption thus far is a possible conversion to another model, specifically the A330neo. Recently, there was a little discussion about the A330-800neo.

The 767-300ER fleet is beginning to dwindle. Non retrofitted 763s are being phased out at a steady pace. Unfortunately, the aircraft remains unpopular and unreliable, and now that the aircraft are/will be doing new int'l routes such as DFW-AMS, PHL-PRG and PHL-BUD, it's dependability is imperative.

Here's my argument. A conversion from the 22x A350-900 to, say 25-30x A330neo is a win-win for both AA and Airbus. AA, because in getting the A330neo and basing them at MIA and PHL, they have a reliable 763 replacement that is common with the young A330-200s in service. The A330 fleet would go from an oddball subfleet to a major subfleet within AA, and Airbus, because they will have freed up A350 slots and another huge airline with the A330neo, something the program could use.

The A330neos, as stated, could be based in PHL and MIA for Europe/South America flying.

The 777-200ER remains the most numerous widebody at AA. The aircraft are currently being fitted with Premium Economy, with a total seat count of 273, with two other layouts containing 260 and 289 seats. All 77Es will be retrofitted with Premium Economy.

The 787-9, the newest addition to AAs Int'l fleet, was the first aircraft delivered with Premium Economy, with seating for 285 seats.

Considering the amount of 787 options AA has, there are more than enough to replace each and every 77E one for one. The seat count is quite similar, which leads me to believe the 787-9 is the ideal 77E replacement for AA. It's already established in the fleet, and is already doing routes that were served be the 77E just last year.

The A350-900, in general, is just as ideal a 77E replacement as its American counterpart, as proven be the recent conversion by UA from 35x A35Ks to 45x A359s.

The situation of AA is different, the way I see it. AA never ordered the A350, and probably never would have on their own. Very little has been done in preparation for the aircraft and there is very little fanfare and enthusiasm in corporate. The previous quarterly meeting was no better.

As for the A350-1000, it's not going to happen. As stated in other threads, the 777 and A350 are not mutually exclusive, but the addition of the A350-1000 saturates a size bracket already well served by the 777-300ER, which are new and not going anywhere. Further acquisition of aircraft this size would likely be additional 777s, even the 777-9.

The 787-10 is possible as well. It does make a good TATL aircraft for AA, and time will tell if they go for it. Right now, I don't see immediately likely. I also don't see additional 787-8s.

Going forward, I see AAs 2020-2022 fleet being:

A330-200 - Replaces 767-300ER
A330-800/-900 - Replaces 767-300ER and A330-300
787-8
787-9 - Replaces 777-200ER
777-300ER

Smart, true and well written. You hit the nail on the head.

behramjee wrote:

There are two options here for AA to choose from:

1. Exchange 22 A359s for 44 A321NEOs

2. Exchange 22 A359s for 25 A330-900NEOs

Both options mentioned above are good and have their own respective pros and cons. The safe bet would probably be OP1 as it can also opt for many A321neoLRs and base them out of MIA for medium demand LATAM routes where using a 763 isn't viable plus to fly PHL/BOS to U.K./Ireland year round and in the premium config boosting frequencies to LAX/SFO from these two markets along with MIA.

Those may be two realistic options but there are way more than two options. Don't underestimate the creativity of a sales team looking for commissions, or of a seller looking to keep deposits (and opportunities open).

keesje wrote:

The question arises, is there cargo opportunity for AA. If so, replacing a 777-200ER by a 787-9 is cutting revenue cargo in half. If that would be the goal, it wouldn't matter. But personally I doubt that. http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/images/PR-images/Infographic_640x989.jpg

I think the case pushed here for 787s over A350s on Asian flights is a kind of lean on factual data and rich on belly feeling.

Last year cargo at AA was a $700 million business in a $40 Billion company. AA is selling available space and weight. If they have less available, they will sell less of it. Cargo is incidental to AA, DL and UA -- like Costco selling postage stamps. It would be idiotic to make a $10 Billion widebody fleet decision based on incremental capabilities of an incidental business.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... ortsannual

scbriml wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

Why? With all those 787-9s, it seems like the replacement is clear.

It seems to me the 787s are replacing 767s. AA hasn't replaced any 77Es yet.

787s are replacing a mix of 777/767 routes, with displaced 777s also helping to fill in lost 767 capacity (in addition to greater 777 utilization as AA completes their reconfigurations).

AA never really needed the 777's full capabilities for most of their network (certainly not 47 frames worth). They just bought them because they were AA's choice in the 90s for an aircraft larger than the 767 after the MD-11 did not worked out as hoped.

The A338NEO unfortunately has got only one customer so far i.e. Hawaiian hence its future is headed down the same path as the A358. If however, AA really pushed Airbus hard and knowing that the latter is desperate to boost the A338NEO viability to future customers, AA can manage to squeeze 28 A338s for 22 A359s. Perhaps maybe even 30 A338s at the very most but not more.

But as pointed out earlier, AA's current A330 fleet numbers 24 units with some already phased out so either they take the easy route by replacing them with B789s for fleet standardization purposes (the smart thing to do) or they take on the A339NEOs and have a sub fleet of 25 aircraft (which the CEO has said doesnt seem viable unless they maintain it exclusively out of a single hub).

If the A339NEO is indeed chosen and positioned at a single hub airport exclusively then I suggest it be MIA only because from here, the A339NEO can cover all of Europe and Latin America with a full payload of pax + cargo easily. It is also the right sized aircraft for high demand MIA-EU/LATAM segments.

FYI A339NEO can operate nonstop from LAX to Europe (up to Germany/ZRH only), ICN, Japan, PEK (borderline) but not to PVG, HKG, MNL, TPE carrying a full payload of pax + cargo.

behramjee wrote:

The A338NEO unfortunately has got only one customer so far i.e. Hawaiian hence its future is headed down the same path as the A358. If however, AA really pushed Airbus hard and knowing that the latter is desperate to boost the A338NEO viability to future customers, AA can manage to squeeze 28 A338s for 22 A359s. Perhaps maybe even 30 A338s at the very most but not more.

But as pointed out earlier, AA's current A330 fleet numbers 24 units with some already phased out so either they take the easy route by replacing them with B789s for fleet standardization purposes (the smart thing to do) or they take on the A339NEOs and have a sub fleet of 25 aircraft (which the CEO has said doesnt seem viable unless they maintain it exclusively out of a single hub).

If the A339NEO is indeed chosen and positioned at a single hub airport exclusively then I suggest it be MIA only because from here, the A339NEO can cover all of Europe and Latin America with a full payload of pax + cargo easily. It is also the right sized aircraft for high demand MIA-EU/LATAM segments.

FYI A339NEO can operate nonstop from LAX to Europe (up to Germany/ZRH only), ICN, Japan, PEK (borderline) but not to PVG, HKG, MNL, TPE carrying a full payload of pax + cargo.

American has 20 787-8s. If they really wanted more, they could buy them. That makes more sense than A338s, which are a complete oddball now given that only Hawaiian has orders for them.

I also don't see the point of A339s with AA already having 789s and more options.

behramjee wrote:

The A338NEO unfortunately has got only one customer so far i.e. Hawaiian hence its future is headed down the same path as the A358. If however, AA really pushed Airbus hard and knowing that the latter is desperate to boost the A338NEO viability to future customers, AA can manage to squeeze 28 A338s for 22 A359s. Perhaps maybe even 30 A338s at the very most but not more.

But as pointed out earlier, AA's current A330 fleet numbers 24 units with some already phased out so either they take the easy route by replacing them with B789s for fleet standardization purposes (the smart thing to do) or they take on the A339NEOs and have a sub fleet of 25 aircraft (which the CEO has said doesnt seem viable unless they maintain it exclusively out of a single hub).

If the A339NEO is indeed chosen and positioned at a single hub airport exclusively then I suggest it be MIA only because from here, the A339NEO can cover all of Europe and Latin America with a full payload of pax + cargo easily. It is also the right sized aircraft for high demand MIA-EU/LATAM segments.

FYI A339NEO can operate nonstop from LAX to Europe (up to Germany/ZRH only), ICN, Japan, PEK (borderline) but not to PVG, HKG, MNL, TPE carrying a full payload of pax + cargo.

AA has 58 options on the 787.

No reason to add another type.

Tedd wrote:

Wouldn`t the A350-1000 be an ideal like-for-like replacement for their B777-200`s? I know it`s a little
bigger so purchase price would be a consideration, but if AA can realize on expected growth I could
see it fitting in well with improved running costs too. It would also directly complement their 300-ER`s.

Look at Delta's 772/77L each has 291 seats 1-2-1 in Delta One, 9x in Delta Comfort+ & 9x in Main Cabin.
Delta's A359 each has 306 seats 1-2-1 in Delta One, 8x in Premium Select & 9x in Main Cabin.
Premium Select is 38" vs Comfort+ 3" and the seats are wider on the A359.

So no the A350-1000 is not an ideal replacement for the 777-200 fleet, the A359 is. Especially when the 280t model becomes available.
The A350-1000 would add about 32-38 seats.

Thats why I wrote "AA's current A330 fleet numbers 24 units with some already phased out so either they take the easy route by replacing them with B789s for fleet standardization purposes (the smart thing to do) or they take on the A339NEOs and have a sub fleet of 25 aircraft (which the CEO has said doesnt seem viable unless they maintain it exclusively out of a single hub)."

In bracket, the smart thing to do reference being my take on it.

When existing 787 customers have used up current 787 contracted orders and options, and flexible contracts for other models, we may see some fragmentation in fleets.

A330CEO and NEO margins are enormous compared to those of the 787, but even so, the model significantly undercuts the 787 (real world, not list prices), providing scope to be very creative.

For large operators, fleet fragmentation will increasingly become the norm for small sized WB's, just as it has / is for NB's.

rbavfan wrote:

Tedd wrote:

Wouldn`t the A350-1000 be an ideal like-for-like replacement for their B777-200`s? I know it`s a little
bigger so purchase price would be a consideration, but if AA can realize on expected growth I could
see it fitting in well with improved running costs too. It would also directly complement their 300-ER`s.

Look at Delta's 772/77L each has 291 seats 1-2-1 in Delta One, 9x in Delta Comfort+ & 9x in Main Cabin.
Delta's A359 each has 306 seats 1-2-1 in Delta One, 8x in Premium Select & 9x in Main Cabin.
Premium Select is 38" vs Comfort+ 3" and the seats are wider on the A359.

So no the A350-1000 is not an ideal replacement for the 777-200 fleet, the A359 is. Especially when the 280t model becomes available.
The A350-1000 would add about 32-38 seats.

Main problem for DL choosing the A351 is its flying range capability as it wont be able to perform many trans-pacific flights nonstop from ATL/DTW/JFK which the A359 could do. The A359 overall is a better versatile aircraft than the A351.

KarelXWB wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

I'm sure AA could swap those 359 orders for more A321Neo's if they wanted.

As always with these contracts, RR is the biggest obstacle. Converting to A330neo could be an easier alternative.

If Rolls Royce engines are the obstacles on the A350 why would they not be an obstacle on A330neo. They are RR as well.

rbavfan wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

I'm sure AA could swap those 359 orders for more A321Neo's if they wanted.

As always with these contracts, RR is the biggest obstacle. Converting to A330neo could be an easier alternative.

If Rolls Royce engines are the obstacles on the A350 why would they not be an obstacle on A330neo. They are RR as well.

The obstacle that KarolXWB was referring to in that scenario is that there is no RR option on the A321neo. So RR would have no incentive to play ball in regards to altering their contract with AA for the Trent XWB if AA wanted to convert to the A320neo.

Planesmart wrote:

When existing 787 customers have used up current 787 contracted orders and options, and flexible contracts for other models, we may see some fragmentation in fleets.

Of course the issue there is there is that AA still has 58 options for the 787 that they have not yet exercised, so if it is an incredibly flexible contract AA has quite a while before they face rigid terms.

When AA first started receiving 787-9s, it was surprising to see them initially placed on DFW-GIG/CDG/MAD, rather short routes for the plane as the 787-8 was already doing ORD-NRT/PEK/PVG, DFW-PEK/PVG, LAX-PVG/AKL/GRU. However, this was temporary. As more 787-9s are delivered, the more they will be replacing 787-8/777-200ER/777-300ERs on long haul routes. Already, DFW-ICN and LAX-NRT, which previously flew the 777-200ER exclusively, are now flown by the 787-9. By the end of next March, LAX will become a 787-9 heaven with LAX-NRT/HND/PEK/PVG/SYD/GRU all going 787-9. The only 777-200ER LAX flight will be one LHR frequency with the other being operated by the 777-300ER, which also operates LAX-HKG. (Due to their premium cabin size and being the only aircraft with International F, these aircraft will likely remain on HKG routes.) In addition to taking over LAX-Asia, DFW-PVG will be upgauged from the 787-8 to the 787-9. DFW-SCL/PEK will remain 787-8 at least past March 2018. Only DFW-NRT, the oldest and likely most profitable AA Trans-Pac will stay double daily 777-200ER. As has yet to fly the 77W to NRT, other than a diversion, its pretty much a given at this point that AA will never schedule the 77W to TYO. If AA didn't schedule the 77W to fly LAX-HND and instead will fly the 787-9, with only 30 seats in J, its obvious where AA is headed in regards to TYO flying. As the 787-9 deliveries are completed in early 2019, its definitely possible that the 777-200ERs will be taken off of DFW-NRT and replaced by 787-9s. My guess is to why the 787-9s were initially placed on shorter routes is DFW-CDG/MAD only require one frame for each route and DFW-GRU-DFW-ICN-DFW only requires three aircraft. AA was just sprinkling in the aircraft unlike when the 787-8s entered service as five were already in the fleet when commercial service began, allowing for AA to start ORD-NRT and DFW-PVG/SCL within months of the first 787-8 commercial flight.

So if AA were to replace the 777-200ERs on DFW-NRT, other than the lone LAX-LHR frequency and the seasonal DFW-FCO, all of AA's 777-200ER routes will be 10 hours and under. Let's not act all surprised here. AA never had much of growing its Pacific operation with the plan of eventually making it profitable, with 777-200ERs. The 787-8/9 and the 777-300ER on DFW/LAX-HKG have given AA the opportunity to establish itself in the Pacific. If and when the proposed AA-QF JV is re-submitted and approved, which it should be that's for another thread, AA will launch LAX-BNE/MEL using 787-9s. The deferment of two 787-9s to 2019, may have to do something with this.

As to replace the 777-200ERs starting towards the end of next decade, exercising all of the 58 787 options into a firm order for 58 787-10s. Its a bit larger than the 777-200ER, but it fits perfectly into stage lengths up to the seasonal DFW-FCO, which performed well the first summer and will be back for an even longer period next summer. It won't be "too much plane" as the 787-10's range is much shorter than the 787-8/9.

Personally I thought AA would take all 22 A350-900s as they retire ALL 767s, instead of 42 767s by the end of 2018, and the nine A330-300s, which will start to leave . Those 767s are well known for maintenance problems, even getting the attention of the press outlets such as Bloomberg. As of right now, AA is scheduled to take all 22 A350-900s 2020 and after, when the standard 280 tonne A350-900 becomes available. These aircraft will have an additional 500 nm of range. AA could replace the 787-9s used on Trans-Pac routes with the A350-900s and maybe start a few ULH routes. It would require more longhaul fleet shuffling where the 787-8 would likely stick on marginal TATL and Deep South America flights, including all ORD-Europe and perhaps CLT-Europe flights. However this only makes sense if AA were to park the rest of the 16 youngest 767s, which so far AA has not indicated they have had enough with their maintenance issues and put them out to pasture. I found Isom's comment about 22 A350-900s being a small subfleet amusing as by the end of this year AA will have 22 older and maintenance needy 767-300ERs with an obsolete engine type. Isom must be calculating that AA really can't afford 22 A350-900 despite the maintenance of keeping a fleet of 16 767s long term. Personally, I think AA should eat up some debt and get these hanger queens out of the fleet. Isn't it true the youngest eight 767-300ERs, which were delivered to replace the ex-TWA 767-300ERs, have high lease payments and are the worst of the worst when it comes to maintenance? One of them was written off last October when an engine caught fire.

MIflyer12 wrote:

keesje wrote:

The question arises, is there cargo opportunity for AA. If so, replacing a 777-200ER by a 787-9 is cutting revenue cargo in half. If that would be the goal, it wouldn't matter. But personally I doubt that. http://s21.q4cdn.com/616071541/files/images/PR-images/Infographic_640x989.jpg

I think the case pushed here for 787s over A350s on Asian flights is a kind of lean on factual data and rich on belly feeling.

Last year cargo at AA was a $700 million business in a $40 Billion company. AA is selling available space and weight. If they have less available, they will sell less of it. Cargo is incidental to AA, DL and UA -- like Costco selling postage stamps. It would be idiotic to make a $10 Billion widebody fleet decision based on incremental capabilities of an incidental business.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... ortsannual

What a non sense. 20 years of double cargo on Asian (it seems you include domestic in this 40Bill ?!) flights definitely won't be ignored.

Boeing778X wrote:

Why? With all those 787-9s, it seems like the replacement is clear.

789 is nowhere near 1:1 replacement. And nowhere close to "clear".

Cheers,
Adam

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

Why? With all those 787-9s, it seems like the replacement is clear.

It seems to me the 787s are replacing 767s. AA hasn't replaced any 77Es yet.

Post #75 suggests otherwise.

Let me try it another way...

As AA has taken on 787s, they've retired 767s. The 787s have not physically displaced the 77E from AA's fleet, they have as many in service today as they did the day before the first 787 was delivered.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

As has yet to fly the 77W to NRT, other than a diversion, its pretty much a given at this point that AA will never schedule the 77W to TYO.

I'm not so sure it will never happen. I could envision a 77W someday making its way onto 60/61 DFW-NRT.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

So if AA were to replace the 777-200ERs on DFW-NRT, other than the lone LAX-LHR frequency and the seasonal DFW-FCO, all of AA's 777-200ER routes will be 10 hours and under. Let's not act all surprised here. AA never had much of growing its Pacific operation with the plan of eventually making it profitable, with 777-200ERs.

Yep. The 787 was the airplane AA's Pacific ambitions were waiting for - that was the critical enabler to making AA's Asia network viable.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

As to replace the 777-200ERs starting towards the end of next decade, exercising all of the 58 787 options into a firm order for 58 787-10s.

One way or another, it does seem like the most efficient 777-200ER replacement is some form of 787. AA will already be operating dozens of them, and the scale economies that would come from a fleet of nearly 100 seem pretty compelling.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Personally, I think AA should eat up some debt and get these hanger queens out of the fleet. Isn't it true the youngest eight 767-300ERs, which were delivered to replace the ex-TWA 767-300ERs, have high lease payments and are the worst of the worst when it comes to maintenance? One of them was written off last October when an engine caught fire.

Most of AA's remaining 767-300ERs were delivered either in the late 1990s (part of the huge 1997 order that also included the first 737s and 777s, and additional 757s) or in the early 2000s (to replace the TWA 767s retired after that acquisition). The challenge with replacing them, at this point, is that there isn't really any alternative on the market that is arguably suitable - operationally or commercially - as a direct replacement. The closest, natural replacement would be the A330-200 - and AA already, obviously, has 15 of those. But even the smallest A330 is still considerably larger than the 767-300ER - about 25% more seats, in AA's current configurations. Those 49 extra seats would, I suspect, prove challenging for the economics of several of AA's current 767-300ER missions - including MIA-CNF/MVD, and PHL-Europe. And on top of that, I'm also not sure how the A330 would do operationally out of some of the Hawaiian airports like OGG and LIH. Purely in terms of size, the closest comparison in AA's fleet - with an almost identical layout - is the 787-8. But there, too, such a replacement seems challenging - AA's current 767-300ER missions would all be quite an underutilization of the 787-8's capabilities.

All that is to say - in my opinion, the better use of that hypothetical capital investment isn't to buy something new but to just address the reliability issues with the fleet that remains, and by all accounts will remain for a while. This isn't new - AA is no stranger to operating small fleets of widebody types for years when they serve an important, and not-yet-replaceable, role or mission in the network. AA did it with the DC-10, did it with the MD-11, and did it with the 767-200.

scbriml wrote:

As AA has taken on 787s, they've retired 767s. The 787s have not physically displaced the 77E from AA's fleet, they have as many in service today as they did the day before the first 787 was delivered.

True, although the 787 introduction's effect on the 767 fleet has been primarily indirect. Ultimately, a large portion of the 787 deliveries have been directly displacing the 777-200ER on Asia/South America routes, thus freeing up those 777-200ERs to directly displace 767-300ERs on Europe routes. The 787's economics are more valuable on longer stage lengths across the Pacific, and the 777-200ER is now probably actually fairly well-optimized for Europe missions. Despite arguably carrying around more weight than is necessary for (primarily) sub-10 hour missions, the 777-200ER today are probably pretty cost efficient: they've been reconfigured to a very high-density layout and likely have very low ownership costs.

behramjee wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Tedd wrote:

Wouldn`t the A350-1000 be an ideal like-for-like replacement for their B777-200`s? I know it`s a little
bigger so purchase price would be a consideration, but if AA can realize on expected growth I could
see it fitting in well with improved running costs too. It would also directly complement their 300-ER`s.

Look at Delta's 772/77L each has 291 seats 1-2-1 in Delta One, 9x in Delta Comfort+ & 9x in Main Cabin.
Delta's A359 each has 306 seats 1-2-1 in Delta One, 8x in Premium Select & 9x in Main Cabin.
Premium Select is 38" vs Comfort+ 3" and the seats are wider on the A359.

So no the A350-1000 is not an ideal replacement for the 777-200 fleet, the A359 is. Especially when the 280t model becomes available.
The A350-1000 would add about 32-38 seats.

Main problem for DL choosing the A351 is its flying range capability as it wont be able to perform many trans-pacific flights nonstop from ATL/DTW/JFK which the A359 could do. The A359 overall is a better versatile aircraft than the A351.

Did you Know:

That the 350-1000 has more range than the 350-900 planes that Delta is about to get in their fleet?

Seems that some in this forum can't quite get their head around this fact.

behramjee wrote:

Main problem for DL choosing the A351 is its flying range capability as it wont be able to perform many trans-pacific flights nonstop from ATL/DTW/JFK which the A359 could do. The A359 overall is a better versatile aircraft than the A351.

The new 316t version of A350-1000 should address any difference in range compared to A350-900.