Stitch wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Most 787-9 specific parts are not lighter, they are stronger and heavier.

The 787-9 did undergo a significant optimization of the weight of many of it's components which resulted in an overall reduction in the aircraft's empty weight. The 787-8 started incorporating many of those weight-optimized parts, as well, and I have heard at full benefit this shed about 4,000kg off the Basic Empty Weight of the 787-8.

That being said, there are of course parts on the 787-9 and 787-10 designed specifically to support the higher Operating Weights of those two frames and in many cases they will weigh more than those used on the 787-8.

As the -10 is now certified the design team can collect their thoughts, then do a pass back review on both the -9 and -8. One item like that is the -10 vertical stabilizer was able to use a program change to continue the -8 part still work on the -10. http://www.aviationfigure.com/how-an-in ... reamliner/.

I am sure there are lots of parts that were optimized from the -8 going into the -9 that are away from the critical structural paths. A fill in job until the next program launch.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

You both seem to be assuming that fitting 787-9 components onto the -8 will add weight. But that's not obvious. The 787-9 was designed after the -8, and using the lessons learned from the -8. It could be the -9 parts are simply better (lighter weight, cost less, lower maintenance, etc.)

I will agree that the main wing spar of a -9 carries more load, and therefore presumably weighs more. But most parts are not on the critical load path.

Finally, I think it's fair to assume that Boeing has competent engineers and accountants. They have more data than we do. They will tend to avoid doing things that are obviously dumb.

Nope this is completely wrong. Making a 787-9 shrink will weigh many tons more than a standard 787-8. This means fuel burn will easily be 1-2% more on the vast majority of routes the 787-8 flies. That's millions of dollars per year in extra fuel for each aircraft just to add 1000nm extra range that probably won't get used. Crazy!

Most 787-9 specific parts are not lighter, they are stronger and heavier.

For example the main landing gear.

The 787-8 uses 50×20.0 R22 tyres the 787-9 and 10 uses larger 54x21.0 R23. The trucks are significantly larger and heavier on the 787-9/10. They have much larger brakes and the wheels are spaced out further to reduce pavement loading. The main strut is also heavier and stronger on the 787-9. This adds approximately 700kg of extra weight. Or a 0.5% increase in empty weight.

Then you have the wing strengthening and the centre wing box strengthening. Both have added reinforcement. Same material but thicker which means extra weight.

I think everyone agrees that if Boeing were stupid, they could add weight to the 787-8. Like the example you give with the main landing gear. But note that (1) Boeing has smart well educated people with more data than us and (2) they are not retrofitting the main landing gear.

I think it's a common belief that some parts on the 787-9 are *better*. They were designed later, and using the data from the 787-8.

If your point is "Unless they are careful they will add weight" then sure.

If your point is "They are stupid and I know better" then I don't believe you.

1989worstyear wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Today's 8K shows that the A330-300 will be sticking around to at least 2021 and B767-300 retirement accelerated, with only 5 frames remaining at YE2020. Looks like a planning change has been made to use new 787 deliveries to park the 763s quickly.

Also, MD-80 and E-190 fleets still being retired in 2019. Fewer 737max deliveries next year, but more 738s stick around.

I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing did a deal to take those 763s. The GE 763ERs are in high demand in the freight market and it is in Boeing's interest to ensure a sustainable supply of 763ER feedstock for freighter conversion.

This fleet planning change proves the A333's were designed and built better.

You're joking, right? The A333 has a more competitive product that the 763 and the remaining 763 are spread out between 1993 through 2003 builds while the A333 are all 2000 to 2001. Both are leaving around the same time meaning it's essentially a wash between the outcast PW4168 engines of the A333 and its superior onboard product.

Either way the 77E will outlast both with 1999-2003 builds.

mikejepp wrote:

Also, MD-80 and E-190 fleets still being retired in 2019.

Does APA have the same type of scope language in their contract that limits the number of 70-76-seaters that can fly under the Eagle banner? UA scope clause is linked directly to a "new narrowbody" such at CS100/E190. If APA has a scope limitation, what is it linked to?

I'm wondering if it's by chance connected to a 100-seater mainline and with the E190s are being retired if this would reduce the number of 76-seaters Eagle currently flies.

jetblastdubai wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Also, MD-80 and E-190 fleets still being retired in 2019.

Does APA have the same type of scope language in their contract that limits the number of 70-76-seaters that can fly under the Eagle banner? UA scope clause is linked directly to a "new narrowbody" such at CS100/E190. If APA has a scope limitation, what is it linked to?

I'm wondering if it's by chance connected to a 100-seater mainline and with the E190s are being retired if this would reduce the number of 76-seaters Eagle currently flies.

Yes there is a cap on large RJs.

grbauc wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

It was discussed earlier in the thread, as stated in the following link it’s a new order not a conversion of options

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-447398/

Yeah, one sentence at media and that's it? Of course they can say this is new order, but contractually it can be everything else. This deal include also options, what you think what happened those options before?

Boeing says it and you refuse to believe anything but your telling. For me until its proven I give Boeing the benefit of the doubt

AA says that it wasn't new order, do you believe now AA or media/Boeing?

On April 6, 2018, American Airlines, Inc. (American), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group Inc. (AAG), entered into an amendment (the Amendment) to the Purchase Agreement No. 3219, dated as of February 1, 2013, between American and The Boeing Company (Boeing) pursuant to which American agreed to acquire an additional 47 Boeing 787 aircraft, consisting of 22 Boeing 787-8 aircraft (the Additional 787-8 Aircraft) and 25 Boeing 787-9 aircraft (the Additional 787-9 Aircraft and, collectively with the Additional 787-8 Aircraft, the Additional 787 Aircraft) with deliveries scheduled to commence in 2020 and continue through 2026. Pursuant to the Amendment, American also has options to acquire an additional 14 Boeing 787 family aircraft in 2026 and 2027 plus, subject to American satisfying certain conditions, options to acquire 14 more Boeing 787 family aircraft in 2027 and 2028.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33311/html

bob75013 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

I am really curious, I would like to compare the savings of simplifying the fleet types versus the paid penalties for canceling the A350 order. Sure, AA would've only gone for this step because they would be gaining financially, but is the difference between the two that much?

Search upthread and you will find a post that says there are no paid penalties to Airbus for cancelling the A350 order -- maybe penalties to engine makers, but not to Airbus.

Yeah, people says many things at internet but it doesn't mean that it's true. AA pay penalties to Airbus:

ITEM 1.02 TERMINATION OF MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT

American and Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus) have entered into an agreement to terminate the parties’ Amended and Restated Airbus A350 XWB Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 2, 2007 (the Airbus A350 Purchase Agreement) and cancel the parties’ obligations thereunder. Under the Airbus A350 Purchase Agreement, American was scheduled to acquire 22 Airbus A350 aircraft with deliveries commencing in 2020 and continuing through 2024. In connection with these actions, American expects to record a special charge to earnings that is not material to American’s financial position.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33311/html
You can assume that those penalties doesn't exceed 195 million$:

Special items - The company expects its pre-tax net special items in the first quarter will approximate $195 million. Net special items principally include merger integration and fleet restructuring expenses.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33336/html

armchairceonr1 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

I am really curious, I would like to compare the savings of simplifying the fleet types versus the paid penalties for canceling the A350 order. Sure, AA would've only gone for this step because they would be gaining financially, but is the difference between the two that much?

Search upthread and you will find a post that says there are no paid penalties to Airbus for cancelling the A350 order -- maybe penalties to engine makers, but not to Airbus.

Yeah, people says many things at internet but it doesn't mean that it's true. AA pay penalties to Airbus:

ITEM 1.02 TERMINATION OF MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT

American and Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus) have entered into an agreement to terminate the parties’ Amended and Restated Airbus A350 XWB Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 2, 2007 (the Airbus A350 Purchase Agreement) and cancel the parties’ obligations thereunder. Under the Airbus A350 Purchase Agreement, American was scheduled to acquire 22 Airbus A350 aircraft with deliveries commencing in 2020 and continuing through 2024. In connection with these actions, American expects to record a special charge to earnings that is not material to American’s financial position.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33311/html
You can assume that those penalties doesn't exceed 195 million$:

Special items - The company expects its pre-tax net special items in the first quarter will approximate $195 million. Net special items principally include merger integration and fleet restructuring expenses.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33336/html

Therefore, something between $1 and $195,000,000. Interesting but not that informative, IMHO.

I think what was said up-thread was that they didn’t owe Airbus any penalties, but that in conjunction with the cancelation they might owe some to the engine OEM for canceling. FWIW.

Also, I’m still not entirely clear on why it matters if these planes are related to their previous contract or are a new contract?

armchairceonr1 wrote:

grbauc wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Yeah, one sentence at media and that's it? Of course they can say this is new order, but contractually it can be everything else. This deal include also options, what you think what happened those options before?

Boeing says it and you refuse to believe anything but your telling. For me until its proven I give Boeing the benefit of the doubt

AA says that it wasn't new order, do you believe now AA or media/Boeing?

On April 6, 2018, American Airlines, Inc. (American), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group Inc. (AAG), entered into an amendment (the Amendment) to the Purchase Agreement No. 3219, dated as of February 1, 2013, between American and The Boeing Company (Boeing) pursuant to which American agreed to acquire an additional 47 Boeing 787 aircraft, consisting of 22 Boeing 787-8 aircraft (the Additional 787-8 Aircraft) and 25 Boeing 787-9 aircraft (the Additional 787-9 Aircraft and, collectively with the Additional 787-8 Aircraft, the Additional 787 Aircraft) with deliveries scheduled to commence in 2020 and continue through 2026. Pursuant to the Amendment, American also has options to acquire an additional 14 Boeing 787 family aircraft in 2026 and 2027 plus, subject to American satisfying certain conditions, options to acquire 14 more Boeing 787 family aircraft in 2027 and 2028.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33311/html

What you bolded makes it sound a new order, what are you trying to get at here?

Not sure why we are suprised the 787-8s will be replacing the 767-300s when thats kind of what it was designed to be.

ikolkyo wrote:

What you bolded makes it sound a new order, what are you trying to get at here?

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What you bolded makes it sound a new order, what are you trying to get at here?

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

The use of the word “additional” in that statement and the lack of the word “options” being present screams to me a new order. Otherwise I feel they would have stated something along the lines of “We have excercised options for the 787 with Boeing into an order for X amount of aircraft ” I feel like they would have made it very clear they were options.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

AA pay penalties to Airbus:

ITEM 1.02 TERMINATION OF MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT

American and Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus) have entered into an agreement to terminate the parties’ Amended and Restated Airbus A350 XWB Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 2, 2007 (the Airbus A350 Purchase Agreement) and cancel the parties’ obligations thereunder. Under the Airbus A350 Purchase Agreement, American was scheduled to acquire 22 Airbus A350 aircraft with deliveries commencing in 2020 and continuing through 2024. In connection with these actions, American expects to record a special charge to earnings that is not material to American’s financial position.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33311/html
You can assume that those penalties doesn't exceed 195 million$:

Special items - The company expects its pre-tax net special items in the first quarter will approximate $195 million. Net special items principally include merger integration and fleet restructuring expenses.

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33336/html

"Paying penalties" and "recording a special charge" are not the same thing.

The special charge is likely writing off any deposits paid years ago (possibly over a decade ago) that were carried on the books as an asset. Cancelling the order means those deposits now have no value and are forfeited.

That's not the same as AA taking out their checkbook and writing a check to Airbus for up to $195 million to get out of the order.

ikolkyo wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What you bolded makes it sound a new order, what are you trying to get at here?

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

The use of the word “additional” in that statement and the lack of the word “options” being present screams to me a new order. Otherwise I feel they would have stated something along the lines of “We have excercised options for the 787 with Boeing into an order for X amount of aircraft ” I feel like they would have made it very clear they were options.

Agree. Although possible they do not, press releases and more certainly, SEC filings, would indicate a conversion of options. Frankly, AA probably got a great deal and decided to keep their options, they may have even gotten to move the options around. I do suspect, however, that the options may include delivery dates earlier than this order, so we may see some option conversions.

Its too bad Boeing doesn't publicly track options like orders and deliveries!

hOMSaR wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

AA pay penalties to Airbus:

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33311/html
You can assume that those penalties doesn't exceed 195 million$:

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33336/html

"Paying penalties" and "recording a special charge" are not the same thing.

The special charge is likely writing off any deposits paid years ago (possibly over a decade ago) that were carried on the books as an asset. Cancelling the order means those deposits now have no value and are forfeited.

That's not the same as AA taking out their checkbook and writing a check to Airbus for up to $195 million to get out of the order.

it has the same influence on profits.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

The use of the word "amended" implies that this is based on the original 2011 purchase agreement. So it could just be a case of Corporate Semantics where American defines it as an amendment to the pre-existing agreement and Boeing defines it as an all-new agreement (as this new amended agreement replaces the original).

hOMSaR wrote:

The special charge is likely writing off any deposits paid years ago (possibly over a decade ago) that were carried on the books as an asset. Cancelling the order means those deposits now have no value and are forfeited. That's not the same as AA taking out their checkbook and writing a check to Airbus for up to $195 million to get out of the order.

mjoelnir wrote:

it has the same influence on profits.

Well American Airlines specifically noted that "In connection with these actions, American expects to record a special charge to earnings that is not material to American’s financial position.". I would think a reduction in net profit of $195 million would be "material to American’s financial position".

Guess we need to try and remember to check American's 10-K filing and see what it was, how it was accounted for, and what impact (if any) if had and come back to this thread to discuss it.

hOMSaR wrote:

"Paying penalties" and "recording a special charge" are not the same thing.

The special charge is likely writing off any deposits paid years ago (possibly over a decade ago) that were carried on the books as an asset. Cancelling the order means those deposits now have no value and are forfeited.

That's not the same as AA taking out their checkbook and writing a check to Airbus for up to $195 million to get out of the order.

Actually term "special charge" or "special item" doesn't tell anything about where money come from and when it moves. It's just unusual or infrequent cost and that's why it's booked separately of other costs.

Stitch wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

The use of the word "amended" implies that this is based on the original 2011 purchase agreement. So it could just be a case of Corporate Semantics where American defines it as an amendment to the pre-existing agreement and Boeing defines it as an all-new agreement (as this new amended agreement replaces the original). [/quote]

Its a fair point, but just because it is amended does not mean it is a conversion of options. It could amend the number of aircraft purchased. This is fairly common because all of the negotiations and changes are incorporated into that agreement of which there are dozens of amendments.

mham001 wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What you bolded makes it sound a new order, what are you trying to get at here?

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

Point taken, it looks possible, but somebody was claiming it was from the 2008 deal.

Not sure what the difference is anyway, an order is an order. Boeing may be good with those option prices with their apparent cost reductions. Option agreements will also have inflation and other material cost variables built in.

I was claiming it, because 2013 deal based to 2008 deal:

Relating to Boeing Model 787-9 Aircraft

THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT No. 3, entered into as of February 1, 2013, (SA 3) by and between THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation with offices in Seattle, Washington, (Boeing) and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation with offices in Fort Worth, Texas, together with its successors and permitted assigns (Customer);

WHEREAS, Boeing and Customer entered into Purchase Agreement No. 3219 dated October 15, 2008, relating to Boeing Model 787-923 aircraft, as amended and supplemented (Purchase Agreement) and capitalized terms used herein without definitions shall have the meanings specified therefore in such Purchase Agreement;

armchairceonr1 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What you bolded makes it sound a new order, what are you trying to get at here?

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

Point taken, it looks possible, but somebody was claiming it was from the 2008 deal.

Not sure what the difference is anyway, an order is an order. Boeing may be good with those option prices with their apparent cost reductions. Option agreements will also have inflation and other material cost variables built in.

AA Pilots forum says AA mechanics have been in Abu Dhabi conducting prebuy inspections on Etihads A330-200's.

Varsity1 wrote:

AA Pilots forum says AA mechanics have been in Abu Dhabi conducting prebuy inspections on Etihads A330-200's.

*eyes wide open* WHAT

hOMSaR wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

AA pay penalties to Airbus:

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33311/html
You can assume that those penalties doesn't exceed 195 million$:

https://americanairlines.gcs-web.com/node/33336/html

"Paying penalties" and "recording a special charge" are not the same thing.

The special charge is likely writing off any deposits paid years ago (possibly over a decade ago) that were carried on the books as an asset. Cancelling the order means those deposits now have no value and are forfeited.

That's not the same as AA taking out their checkbook and writing a check to Airbus for up to $195 million to get out of the order.

The special charge could also be related to other assets that AA acquired in anticipation of adding the A350 to its fleet - for example, the flight simulators, and any training materials that were already procured.

Rookie87 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

AA Pilots forum says AA mechanics have been in Abu Dhabi conducting prebuy inspections on Etihads A330-200's.

*eyes wide open* WHAT

Parts?

UnitedIsBae wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

AA Pilots forum says AA mechanics have been in Abu Dhabi conducting prebuy inspections on Etihads A330-200's.

*eyes wide open* WHAT

Parts?

Etihad currently has 5 newer build in storage (one leased), the oldest delivered August 2010. If AA is going to keep the fleet, why not add a few?

Per the "pilot" site, the used A330s are to hold AA over till the 787s arrive in 2020. It will allow AA to retire all of the 767s now, instead of waiting.

william wrote:

Per the "pilot" site, the used A330s are to hold AA over till the 787s arrive in 2020. It will allow AA to retire all of the 767s now, instead of waiting.

It would be nice to see some of those A330s coming into DFW. The LH 330s always look nice.

seabosdca wrote:

neomax wrote:

ATL-JNB is at the ragged edge of the 777-200LR. MIA-JNB is shorter, but not by much. The 777-200LR was so close to its operating limit that the tires had to be modified so that it could make it. If the 777-200LR can barely make it, the 789 probably won't be able to, at least not without modifications.

Based on the March 2018 published charts, AA's 255-seat 789 with a thrust bump could probably fly about 180-200 passengers JNB-MIA, assuming a nighttime or morning departure with temperatures around 15-20 C. It could easily fly a full passenger load MIA-JNB. The issue is not one of raw range capability, but of field performance at JNB, which is very high and occasionally hot.

Late edit: AA could almost certainly fill all the seats on its 198-seat 787-8, and probably take a bit of cargo as well. The 787-8 has extremely good hot and high performance.

Just as an aside, the 787 doesn’t current have Thrust Bump. The 777-300ER, 777-200LR, KC-46 and 737s do. It’s probably not difficult to add to the 787 though.

If the A333 are not leaving until at least 2021, it's bazaar that they didn't update the cabin to offer premium economy when they upgraded the A332 fleet. However, it does fall into American's reputation of not offering a consistent product domestic or international since the merger.

I have mixed feelings about this decision to go with the 787 to replace the A330's, as does everyone else that has had the pleasure to be on a full flight in a 3-3-3 cabin vs a 2-4-2 cabin for 8+ hours.

Ryefly wrote:

I have mixed feelings about this decision to go with the 787 to replace the A330's, as does everyone else that has had the pleasure to be on a full flight in a 3-3-3 cabin vs a 2-4-2 cabin for 8+ hours.

The 767 was even more comfortable than the 242 cabin in the A330 but that did not make much of a difference to pax flying AA so.............

ikolkyo wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

What you bolded makes it sound a new order, what are you trying to get at here?

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

The use of the word “additional” in that statement and the lack of the word “options” being present screams to me a new order. Otherwise I feel they would have stated something along the lines of “We have excercised options for the 787 with Boeing into an order for X amount of aircraft ” I feel like they would have made it very clear they were options.

Why would an agreement need to be amended to exercise purchase rights which were already in said agreement? It seems pretty clear that AA is saying that the agreement was amended to add more purchases while the options still exist (even if they were also amended).

It is possible that they paid more for this order than they would have by exercising options and want to have the cheaper options available for the future. There could be tax or financing reasons to do this. Maybe they expect interest rates to be higher down the road and would rather use the cheaper options later on when the cost of money is higher?

planecane wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Why would an agreement need to be amended to exercise purchase rights which were already in said agreement? It seems pretty clear that AA is saying that the agreement was amended to add more purchases while the options still exist (even if they were also amended).

It is possible that they paid more for this order than they would have by exercising options and want to have the cheaper options available for the future. There could be tax or financing reasons to do this. Maybe they expect interest rates to be higher down the road and would rather use the cheaper options later on when the cost of money is higher?

My educated guess is because a large purchase contract undoubtedly hundreds of pages long, at least, with lots of detail that has to be agreed upon by both parties. It's much easier to write an amendment to the master contract that simply says (paraphrased) "the parties agree that the purchase rights in section x.x have been have been amended to blah blah blah" rather than writing a whole new contract.

So, reading through the 8-k submitted by American, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... 534d8k.htm, I'm guessing that the original 58 options either expired or were used as part of this order given the original purchase agreement was amended. It's not completely clear, but they do disclose that they have 28 remaining options now. 14 unconditional, and 14 conditional options (the ones that are subject to American satisfying certain conditions). The 28 options expire from 2026-2028.

The original MoU placed in 2011 was for 42 787-9s with 58 options, contingent on AA and ALPA coming to an agreement on adding the 787 to their existing labor contract. As part of that MoU, AA had a "strike date" for each of the frames that they were required to confirm 18 months prior to a frame entered production. AA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization the following month so everything was put on hold.

In January 2013, with US Bankruptcy Court approval, AA and Boeing restructured the deal. The 42 787-9s were now a firm order and AA had the option to swap up to 20 of the frames for 787-8s. It also pulled forward the first deliveries to November 2014. The 58 options remained unchanged.

AAlaxfan wrote:

UnitedIsBae wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

*eyes wide open* WHAT

Parts?

Etihad currently has 5 newer build in storage (one leased), the oldest delivered August 2010. If AA is going to keep the fleet, why not add a few?

With Etihad losing money, I wouldn't mind AA getting some of their A332s to fill in lighter flights.

Ryefly wrote:

If the A333 are not leaving until at least 2021, it's bazaar that they didn't update the cabin to offer premium economy when they upgraded the A332 fleet. However, it does fall into American's reputation of not offering a consistent product domestic or international since the merger.

I have mixed feelings about this decision to go with the 787 to replace the A330's, as does everyone else that has had the pleasure to be on a full flight in a 3-3-3 cabin vs a 2-4-2 cabin for 8+ hours.

This may not be true. If AA indeed takes used A332s (as they are taking used A319s), we could see both 763 and A333 leaving rapidly. Perhaps the A332 will stay for a long time or perhaps they'll leave prematurely when these 787 deliveries come in to get $$$ on the used market.

They just announced the A333s are staying longer.

Stitch wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

To me it sounds like AA exercised their purchase rights based on 2013 order. Many people here claim that AA didn't used their options and I disagree that.

The use of the word "amended" implies that this is based on the original 2011 purchase agreement. So it could just be a case of Corporate Semantics where American defines it as an amendment to the pre-existing agreement and Boeing defines it as an all-new agreement (as this new amended agreement replaces the original).

hOMSaR wrote:

The special charge is likely writing off any deposits paid years ago (possibly over a decade ago) that were carried on the books as an asset. Cancelling the order means those deposits now have no value and are forfeited. That's not the same as AA taking out their checkbook and writing a check to Airbus for up to $195 million to get out of the order.

mjoelnir wrote:

it has the same influence on profits.

Well American Airlines specifically noted that "In connection with these actions, American expects to record a special charge to earnings that is not material to American’s financial position.". I would think a reduction in net profit of $195 million would be "material to American’s financial position".

Guess we need to try and remember to check American's 10-K filing and see what it was, how it was accounted for, and what impact (if any) if had and come back to this thread to discuss it.

I always understood that when an airline orders an aircraft, it pays a deposit to the aircraft manufacturer at that time. If the airline subsequently cancels their order, they loose that deposit.

Those rules may go out the window when the manufacturer drastically changes the specs on the aircraft more than once.

Peterwk146 wrote:

I always understood that when an airline orders an aircraft, it pays a deposit to the aircraft manufacturer at that time. If the airline subsequently cancels their order, they loose that deposit.

The sales contract between the OEM and the Airline will spell out what the conditions of a breach of said contract are and what penalties will apply.

In the case of American and the A350, Airbus has been at least technically in breach of that contract on a number of occasions. The original contract between Airbus and US Airways was signed in 2005 and was for the Airbus A350 Mk. I. This model was cancelled by Airbus in 2006 in favor of the A350XWB. So Airbus was not going to be able to deliver the model US Airways ordered and put down deposits on, which meant Airbus was in breach of the contract. Airbus and US Airways therefore had to write a new sales contract to cover the new model (which they did in late 2007 for 18 A350-800 and 4 A350-900). Airbus subsequently cancelled development of the A350-800, so they were technically in breach yet again. Airbus and US Airways therefore amended the contract to change the A350-800 orders to A350-900s in late 2013. And Airbus was late with putting the EIS into service and therefore would be late in meeting their contracted delivery dates to US Airways, which again put them in breach of the new contract (Airbus and US Airways agreed to defer deliveries first in 2009 and then again in 2013).

Swadian wrote:

There is a myth that the 787 is "too much plane" for transatlantic when it fact with 226 seats in the 788 (likely to go down with PE installation) it would do fine on ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, and BUD plus 789 for MAD, BCN, FRA, CDG, and LHR, and A321neo for DUB/SNN, AMS, LIS, MAN, and GLA.

AA is just about to launch PHL-PRG and PHL-BUD seasonally. What are the chances either of these will go year-round with the new 787?

The additional 787s will start arriving 2020 but at least for PRG, I could see them wanting to launch it year-round sooner (?). How much room to grow is on these markets for AA, aside from more traditional European hubs (ZRH, MUC, FCO, FRA, CDG etc.)?

JakubH wrote:

AA is just about to launch PHL-PRG and PHL-BUD seasonally. What are the chances either of these will go year-round with the new 787?

I'd expect in the short term that new marginal TATL routes would open with the remaining 767s and the 787s would go to more established routes for the capacity, but there are only so many 767s left and you never know.

JakubH wrote:

Swadian wrote:

There is a myth that the 787 is "too much plane" for transatlantic when it fact with 226 seats in the 788 (likely to go down with PE installation) it would do fine on ATH, FCO, VCE, ZRH, MUC, PRG, and BUD plus 789 for MAD, BCN, FRA, CDG, and LHR, and A321neo for DUB/SNN, AMS, LIS, MAN, and GLA.

AA is just about to launch PHL-PRG and PHL-BUD seasonally. What are the chances either of these will go year-round with the new 787?

The additional 787s will start arriving 2020 but at least for PRG, I could see them wanting to launch it year-round sooner (?). How much room to grow is on these markets for AA, aside from more traditional European hubs (ZRH, MUC, FCO, FRA, CDG etc.)?

Why would they go year-round anyway? AA serves a lot of European markets seasonally - in fact, almost all of the ORD transatlantic routes are seasonal. It is very much possible that the 787 will simply do what the 767 is doing right now and only fly those routes seasonally.

Even PHL-ATH and ORD-CDG are still seasonal.

AA's 763 has 209 seats, 788 has 226 seats (probably going down to 214 seats with PE installation), and A332 has 247 seats (already has PE).

A quick thought, both AA and HA have selected GE engines, are the problems facing RR for reliability enough to flip the selection to the 787 as the 330 and 350 both are RR only.

Powerplant efficiency and reliability can't be separated from choice of frame. If efficiency were equivalent, GE would win on reliability. HA went all GE on their B789s. I see a trend.
https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... ines-fleet

JayinKitsap wrote:

A quick thought, both AA and HA have selected GE engines, are the problems facing RR for reliability enough to flip the selection to the 787 as the 330 and 350 both are RR only.

Or perhaps GE has more aggressive on engine deals to encourage customers to the 787 from the A330/A350.

D L X wrote:

Looks legit to me.

Bye bye A350?

Yes no more A350 for them, but however, United and Delta still has an A350 on order. Delta already had 9/25 in fleet while United has not yet received at this time. But maybe from 2022.

1989worstyear wrote:

777PHX wrote:

The oldest 77E isn't quite 20 years old yet. I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon.

Then again, after 1998 Boeing gave up with the 767, so it makes sense these early 2000's junks are facing a nearly death.

Where do get this? I’d say that is not correct at all. Boeing made a lot of improvements to the 767 after 1998. Those 2003 built 767s came with the New Look Interior, Pegasus FMCs with GPS and RNP capability, other avionics upgrades.

amazingly, they have non-FADEC engines for commonality with their older 767s, but Boeing probably wouldn’t have done that for almost anyone other than AA.

william wrote:

Not sure why we are suprised the 787-8s will be replacing the 767-300s when thats kind of what it was designed to be.

I'm not surprised either. Most carriers are leaning towards the economics and upgraded capacity of the -9, but AA are a frequencies carrier and need more -8s for their South America and Europe routes, plus further long-thin Asia route expansion. The only question now is when will they exercise the large number of remaining options (39 in total if my math serves me correct) and what variants will they be? Does the 787-10 have a future in AA's fleet?

fightforlove wrote:

william wrote:

Not sure why we are suprised the 787-8s will be replacing the 767-300s when thats kind of what it was designed to be.

I'm not surprised either. Most carriers are leaning towards the economics and upgraded capacity of the -9, but AA are a frequencies carrier and need more -8s for their South America and Europe routes, plus further long-thin Asia route expansion. The only question now is when will they exercise the large number of remaining options (39 in total if my math serves me correct) and what variants will they be? Does the 787-10 have a future in AA's fleet?

What ideas do y'all have for Asia expansion? Secondary China? NGO/KIX? LAX-SIN? DFW-TPE? More ICN?