While there are more questions than answers as of now, it seems increasingly likely that American Airlines will place a wide body aircraft order in the near future. However, the airline might not go with the obvious choice.
Continue reading: American Plans New Wide Body Aircraft Order, But The Choice May Surprise Us
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
"American could order Airbus or Boeing wide body planes"
That's the type of hard hitting journalism I came here for.....
@ PW -- Especially in retrospect, everything related to US Airways is fascinating, when you consider how both American and United are run by US Airways alum.
@ TC -- I get you're being sassy, but JonNYC has some great scoops, and with what he writes, you sort of have to read between the lines. When he says things, it's intentional.
I think a vast majority of people would assume that only Boeing planes are under consideration, so the fact that American could order Airbus planes is pretty significant.
Bring back the A300s! That aside, I do hope the 787-10 is the choice. Hate to think the 777X would never be considered.
The only logical options (and given how conservative AA is about fleet strategy and long haul route planning) are more 787-9s or the 787-10 or a mix of 9s and 10s. There will be zero chance of an Airbus wide body at AA. That would require a new fleet type, for what would be a small-ish size (20-40 frames) and would then put its fleet development strategy further into complex orders it doesn't want.
The a330neo is actually great from a passamger perspective and could work very well in many AA hubs given the range they need.
I’d imagine they would be primarily focused at CLT and PHL to focus on leisure travel while AA gives the business hubs the 787 because they need the extra range; like LAX and JFK.
looking forward to TD's analysis that the A330-900 is great when DL flies it, but terrible when AA flies it
A "blimp" is a specific type of lighter-that-air craft. Alert might have intended to refer to that specific type as opposed to the more general category.
A "blimp" is a specific type of lighter-that-air craft. Alert might have intended to refer to that specific type as opposed to the more general category.
AA is missing out where the probably only profitable part of the airline business is, long haul premium. It makes sense to close that loop. And if 330NEO are available in the short term that's what AA may have to go with, ironic as it is that the airline had 330s to begin with.
Did you really waste all those pixels and brain cells (yours and mine!) to come to the blindingly obvious conclusion that an airline seeking to acquire more widebodies is going to acquire them from either Boeing or Airbus?
Hard-hitting journalism there, bud.
@ CaNerdIan -- I think you didn't read the post. My commentary centered primarily around *which* of those planes the airline may order.
I have said for quite some time that a 339 order makes sense for AA
the 339 is readily available and far more economical to operate than the 772s. AA could easily spend a big chunk of the cost refurbushing 777s and still pay 25% more for fuel for 10 more years.
Airbus can price 339s well below the 787 and deliver them sooner.
The339 and 789 cost about the same to operate on 4000-4500 mile routes
It just might make sense for AA to buy a large fleet of 330NEOs
Y class on 787 is way too tight and everyone walking aisle hits my shoulder. Would be nicer to have 330neo for that reason. Not sure how fast AA can get them though - the entire industry still suffers from the supply chain issue.
AA does have some "rights" with both Airbus and Boeing to move up deliveries as part of the order back when LAA placed a320 and Max orders so not our of the realm that they could order the 787. I would love to see more 787-9 and add the -10. The cost benefit of a common fleet in the long run out ways a low price in the near term in some cases. Either way, would like to see both European and Asian expansion especially out of PHX (Japan and Spain, with seasonal Rome?) to start. And YES! PHX can support it, 5.5 million people a now the US largest chip and growing high tech and defense industries, we are not the dusty western one horse town anymore.
You absolutely love sucking up to the Frenchies, don't you? It makes you feel so much like your idol and waifu Ed.
And then Raja compared the 359 to a lawnmower or something completely insane. How that didn't get him fired is beyond my comprehension. United should be careful with someone like that. The 339 makes sense for CLT and PHL but so did the 332. I'd love to see the 339 but I think 789 for PHL and CLT and some 781 (as a 772 replacement) for other hubs likely makes the most sense, unless Airbus gives a very good deal.
Don’t knock it until you have tried it ORD …. the superiority of AirBus aircraft …. 🙂
What I find surprising is that we think AA is that adventurous. Of course they could order Boeing or Airbus, that has been every US airline campaign for the past 30 years. Will they order the 330NEO? And further complicate their fleet? Probably not. AA will keep it simple and just load up on the 787-10 as their competitors have done. 330neo which is the same size as the 787-9 but less capable will show that AA management are really as stupid as everybody thinks. Whatever AA is saving in purchase price will be usurped by reintroducing a fleet type they’ve already exited and the fleet savings they get from commonality, evaporated.
Actually AA should lease/buy some 773ER's from QR. Unfortunately given how things are shaping up in the middle east, there maybe a a few ME3 carriers with excessive widebodies. Would be better than parking those aircraft in IST, MEL and SYD.
Alternate Theory:
just lease a few A330 from Hawaiian (oops, I mean Alaska) for a few years till the B787 come thru the pipeline.
This would plug a hole and Alaska would appreciate the extra cash.
Espouse the virtues of OneWorld interconnect and restore the hot pockets to the unwashed in Economy during Hawaiian flights.
Why couldn’t a 777-x work on any of their Heathrow routes? Or even a few domestic transcon routes to make them more comfortable? Not that I’m advocating bringing back the coach piano bar, but some more room would help.
No wide body order is coming. Instead AA will announce an order for 100 E175s.
No one parks aircraft in IST, MRL or SYD. You park them in California or Spain.
Plus Turkish out of IST is probably doing great considering its two strongest competitors are hurting.
The French haven't been superior in anything dealing with aviation since Bleriot.
The French haven't been superior in anything dealing with aviation since Bleriot.
The idea of AA flying A330-900 is just fantasy. Why in the world would they ? A350-900 would be far better. 787-10 would be perfect. 20-30 777-9 would also great for expansion to London, Sydney, and deep Latin Markets.
I don't recall any recent Airbus plane killing people because of a manufacturing error.
How many LHR routes would it work on, though? JFK and DFW, for sure. Maybe LAX, ORD, MIA, and SFO. There's probably enough demand to send them down to SYD from LAX during the holiday peak, and maybe... Maybe... Even a seasonal DFW-SYD service. Other than a few niches, though, it would be very expensive metal not really doing the job it was built for. The 789 or 359 would be more logical; and given their existing fleet, adding more 789s seems like the obvious choice.
I think Ben layed out the reasons why the A350 and 787-10 would be a poor fit, namely cost, delivery order and the aircrafts are simply too large for AA's needs.
I think the A330 would be a great choice for a number of reasons that seem to fit with AA's needs.
Easily do Europe and deep South America. Not to large nor small and the aircraft has a very nice main cabin layout witeh the 2-4-2 configuration.
I love this fake journalism. Like how many planes does UA have on order vs thos planned for retirement etc
And always convenient to say american has no longer haul "when you remove the area they are dominant " haha what a joke
Even if you expected United to retire EVERY 777-200s (74), EVERY 767-400s (16), and EVERY 767-300 (38) - which even includes some odd-ball airframes not flying, like a parked ex-Hawaiian 767, that's 128 maximum total replacements vs. 135 orders.
But there isn't an existing "one for one" retirement of those airframes as new 787s come on line. United has said it plans to fly the 767s thru 2030 at least. And there is still the order for 45 A350s that isn't dead yet (not included in that "135 WB orders") which would be the natural replacement for the oldest UA 777s (currently 52 of them, with 42 flying / 10 in storage).
So there is still plenty of growth baked into the pending WB orders plan.
777-X works on network routes with a single, large hub instead of multiple hubs. BA has Heathrow, Cathay has Hong Kong, Etihad has Abu Dhabi, etc. With all their traffic forced into one hub, one big, large plane for international travel makes sense.
But American - with international travel to the same locations overseas from multiple US hubs - doesn't see the same math. It's too hard to fill that big a plane from one of your several hubs. Better to operate multiple flights on slightly smaller planes from different hubs.
Same calculations for Delta and United, even with "fortress" hubs like Delta has in Atlanta. It's better to have more seat capacity from several hubs than having most of the capacity focused in one hub when you have more than one hub serving international markets.
I agree 100% no chance AA will add the 330s for 20 planes it might need. The order will be for 787-10s
Agreed…
American could do a lot worse.
I have just crossed the Atlantic twice in an A330neo and because of its 18” seat width it was certainly a better experience than in a 787 17” economy seat.
The A330-900neo is less expensive than the 787-9 (the closest 787 match in cabin capacity), is available reasonably soon (unlike the other alternatives) has attractive economics (even more so if you factor in capital costs), and has a clean safety record. American also has a pool of pilots that used to be qualified on A330’s.
For routes that may require the extra range that the 787-9 has they could fall back on their existing 787-9 fleet. If it works for Virgin, it should work for American.
Remember when US Airways ordered the A350
@ PW -- Especially in retrospect, everything related to US Airways is fascinating, when you consider how both American and United are run by US Airways alum.
And then Raja compared the 359 to a lawnmower or something completely insane. How that didn't get him fired is beyond my comprehension. United should be careful with someone like that. The 339 makes sense for CLT and PHL but so did the 332. I'd love to see the 339 but I think 789 for PHL and CLT and some 781 (as a 772 replacement) for other hubs likely makes the most sense, unless Airbus gives a very good deal.
"American could order Airbus or Boeing wide body planes"
That's the type of hard hitting journalism I came here for.....
@ TC -- I get you're being sassy, but JonNYC has some great scoops, and with what he writes, you sort of have to read between the lines. When he says things, it's intentional.
I think a vast majority of people would assume that only Boeing planes are under consideration, so the fact that American could order Airbus planes is pretty significant.
The a330neo is actually great from a passamger perspective and could work very well in many AA hubs given the range they need.
I’d imagine they would be primarily focused at CLT and PHL to focus on leisure travel while AA gives the business hubs the 787 because they need the extra range; like LAX and JFK.
I get he was being sassy or commenting dryly, but I think your reply to him expressed your intentions more clearly than your original text. 'Could order Airbus rather than Boeing wide body planes' would have implied better that it would be a somewhat surprising, and therefore significant development.
I'd rather ride a blimp , than AA .
A "blimp" is a specific type of lighter-that-air craft. Alert might have intended to refer to that specific type as opposed to the more general category.
A "blimp" is a specific type of lighter-that-air craft. Alert might have intended to refer to that specific type as opposed to the more general category.
Bring back the A300s! That aside, I do hope the 787-10 is the choice. Hate to think the 777X would never be considered.
The only logical options (and given how conservative AA is about fleet strategy and long haul route planning) are more 787-9s or the 787-10 or a mix of 9s and 10s. There will be zero chance of an Airbus wide body at AA. That would require a new fleet type, for what would be a small-ish size (20-40 frames) and would then put its fleet development strategy further into complex orders it doesn't want.
I agree 100% no chance AA will add the 330s for 20 planes it might need. The order will be for 787-10s
looking forward to TD's analysis that the A330-900 is great when DL flies it, but terrible when AA flies it
AA is missing out where the probably only profitable part of the airline business is, long haul premium. It makes sense to close that loop. And if 330NEO are available in the short term that's what AA may have to go with, ironic as it is that the airline had 330s to begin with.
Did you really waste all those pixels and brain cells (yours and mine!) to come to the blindingly obvious conclusion that an airline seeking to acquire more widebodies is going to acquire them from either Boeing or Airbus?
Hard-hitting journalism there, bud.
@ CaNerdIan -- I think you didn't read the post. My commentary centered primarily around *which* of those planes the airline may order.
Lol we love to guess what plane they might buy, but you butter not buy Airbus as long as Trump is President 🤣
I have said for quite some time that a 339 order makes sense for AA
the 339 is readily available and far more economical to operate than the 772s. AA could easily spend a big chunk of the cost refurbushing 777s and still pay 25% more for fuel for 10 more years.
Airbus can price 339s well below the 787 and deliver them sooner.
The339 and 789 cost about the same to operate on 4000-4500 mile routes
It just might make sense for AA to buy a large fleet of 330NEOs
Don’t knock it until you have tried it ORD …. the superiority of AirBus aircraft …. 🙂
I don't recall any recent Airbus plane killing people because of a manufacturing error.
@tim-dunn I couldnt agree more....339s are readily available and they have experience running the type....787s will be later half of 2030s....339s can come this decade.....i say about 40 - 339s
Y class on 787 is way too tight and everyone walking aisle hits my shoulder. Would be nicer to have 330neo for that reason. Not sure how fast AA can get them though - the entire industry still suffers from the supply chain issue.
AA does have some "rights" with both Airbus and Boeing to move up deliveries as part of the order back when LAA placed a320 and Max orders so not our of the realm that they could order the 787. I would love to see more 787-9 and add the -10. The cost benefit of a common fleet in the long run out ways a low price in the near term in some cases. Either way, would like to see both European and Asian expansion especially out of PHX (Japan and Spain, with seasonal Rome?) to start. And YES! PHX can support it, 5.5 million people a now the US largest chip and growing high tech and defense industries, we are not the dusty western one horse town anymore.
What I find surprising is that we think AA is that adventurous. Of course they could order Boeing or Airbus, that has been every US airline campaign for the past 30 years. Will they order the 330NEO? And further complicate their fleet? Probably not. AA will keep it simple and just load up on the 787-10 as their competitors have done. 330neo which is the same size as the 787-9 but less capable will show that AA management are really as stupid as everybody thinks. Whatever AA is saving in purchase price will be usurped by reintroducing a fleet type they’ve already exited and the fleet savings they get from commonality, evaporated.
Actually AA should lease/buy some 773ER's from QR. Unfortunately given how things are shaping up in the middle east, there maybe a a few ME3 carriers with excessive widebodies. Would be better than parking those aircraft in IST, MEL and SYD.
No one parks aircraft in IST, MRL or SYD. You park them in California or Spain.
Plus Turkish out of IST is probably doing great considering its two strongest competitors are hurting.
Alternate Theory:
just lease a few A330 from Hawaiian (oops, I mean Alaska) for a few years till the B787 come thru the pipeline.
This would plug a hole and Alaska would appreciate the extra cash.
Espouse the virtues of OneWorld interconnect and restore the hot pockets to the unwashed in Economy during Hawaiian flights.
Alternate Alternate Theory:
American buys Global Airlines out of liquidation, takes over all the A380s, and trades frequency on routes like LGA-ORD for once daily, high capacity service.
Why couldn’t a 777-x work on any of their Heathrow routes? Or even a few domestic transcon routes to make them more comfortable? Not that I’m advocating bringing back the coach piano bar, but some more room would help.
How many LHR routes would it work on, though? JFK and DFW, for sure. Maybe LAX, ORD, MIA, and SFO. There's probably enough demand to send them down to SYD from LAX during the holiday peak, and maybe... Maybe... Even a seasonal DFW-SYD service. Other than a few niches, though, it would be very expensive metal not really doing the job it was built for. The 789 or 359 would be more logical; and given their existing fleet, adding more 789s seems like the obvious choice.
777-X works on network routes with a single, large hub instead of multiple hubs. BA has Heathrow, Cathay has Hong Kong, Etihad has Abu Dhabi, etc. With all their traffic forced into one hub, one big, large plane for international travel makes sense.
But American - with international travel to the same locations overseas from multiple US hubs - doesn't see the same math. It's too hard to fill that big a plane from one of your several hubs. Better to operate multiple flights on slightly smaller planes from different hubs.
Same calculations for Delta and United, even with "fortress" hubs like Delta has in Atlanta. It's better to have more seat capacity from several hubs than having most of the capacity focused in one hub when you have more than one hub serving international markets.
No wide body order is coming. Instead AA will announce an order for 100 E175s.
The idea of AA flying A330-900 is just fantasy. Why in the world would they ? A350-900 would be far better. 787-10 would be perfect. 20-30 777-9 would also great for expansion to London, Sydney, and deep Latin Markets.
I think Ben layed out the reasons why the A350 and 787-10 would be a poor fit, namely cost, delivery order and the aircrafts are simply too large for AA's needs.
i see the 78X over the 350 anyday...AA just doesnt have the network needs for the 359/351.
I think the A330 would be a great choice for a number of reasons that seem to fit with AA's needs.
Easily do Europe and deep South America. Not to large nor small and the aircraft has a very nice main cabin layout witeh the 2-4-2 configuration.
I love this fake journalism. Like how many planes does UA have on order vs thos planned for retirement etc
And always convenient to say american has no longer haul "when you remove the area they are dominant " haha what a joke
Even if you expected United to retire EVERY 777-200s (74), EVERY 767-400s (16), and EVERY 767-300 (38) - which even includes some odd-ball airframes not flying, like a parked ex-Hawaiian 767, that's 128 maximum total replacements vs. 135 orders.
But there isn't an existing "one for one" retirement of those airframes as new 787s come on line. United has said it plans to fly the 767s thru 2030 at least. And there is still the order for 45 A350s that isn't dead yet (not included in that "135 WB orders") which would be the natural replacement for the oldest UA 777s (currently 52 of them, with 42 flying / 10 in storage).
So there is still plenty of growth baked into the pending WB orders plan.
Even if you expected United to retire EVERY 777-200s (74), EVERY 767-400s (16), and EVERY 767-300 (38) - which even includes some odd-ball airframes not flying, like a parked ex-Hawaiian 767, that's 128 maximum total replacements vs. 135 orders.
But there isn't an existing "one for one" retirement of those airframes as new 787s come on line. United has said it plans to fly the 767s thru 2030 at least. And there is still the order for 45 A350s that isn't dead yet (not included in that "135 WB orders") which would be the natural replacement for the oldest UA 777s (currently 52 of them, with 42 flying / 10 in storage).
So there is still plenty of growth baked into the pending WB orders plan.
Agreed…
American could do a lot worse.
I have just crossed the Atlantic twice in an A330neo and because of its 18” seat width it was certainly a better experience than in a 787 17” economy seat.
The A330-900neo is less expensive than the 787-9 (the closest 787 match in cabin capacity), is available reasonably soon (unlike the other alternatives) has attractive economics (even more so if you factor in capital costs), and has a clean safety record. American also has a pool of pilots that used to be qualified on A330’s.
For routes that may require the extra range that the 787-9 has they could fall back on their existing 787-9 fleet. If it works for Virgin, it should work for American.
I like 339, more efficient, and as others have said 2-4-2 in economy is better than 3-3-3; that said, I suspect American (like United) is just pretending to go with Airbus, only to use it as a bargaining chip for a better deal on some more 787s (or eventually 777X). We'll see...
What's "more efficient"? That's rather a vague term as it really depends on a multitude of factors.