Understanding this is hard but it appears to be a 777 and 737 order filed yesterday in exchange for delays in the 787 program.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/6201/000000620110000062/0000006201-10-000062-index.htm
link has been updated.. sorry
Additional widebody aircraft
- Thread starter damajagua
- Start date
Understanding this is hard but it appears to be a 777 and 737 order filed yesterday in exchange for delays in the 787 program.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/6201/000000620110000062/0000006201-10-000062-index.htm
link has been updated.. sorry
kirkpatrick
Veteran
I just returned from recall training where one of the instructors told us it was an absolute done deal that we were getting JAL's entire fleet of 747-400's. He said the particular routes we are getting required very large aircraft.
I won't believe anything until I strap myself into the jumpseat.
MK
The 737 portion relates to the additonal 737s ordered in July, 2010 and announced in July, 2010. The 787 portion relates to the revised (delayed) delivery dates for the 787-923s and amendments to various exhibits of the purchase agreement. I didn't read any of these documents to be new orders that have not been previously announced, but I've been wrong before.
jimntx
Veteran
In other words, no one knows anything that doesn't qualify as galley gossip, or wishful thinking.
I won't believe it either,
Oil is approaching $90/bbl and will likely go much higher once the recovery becomes stronger and all of a sudden AA is going to acquire a bunch of 20 year old 744s from JAL? Or a bunch of JAL's old 772s or a few newer 773s? It's as if the spreaders of these rumours don't even think about how silly it all sounds. If AA really wanted 747s, it would call Boeing and get some fuel efficient 748s, not buy a bunch of worn-out JAL 744s. If AA really wanted more 777s, it would call Boeing and accelerate its existing 777-223ER orders, not buy JAL's old A-market 777s.
In any event, here's what's happening to a bunch of JAL's remaining 744s:
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/aersale-acquires-remaining-19-jal-747-400s-1007
The future isn't looking too bright for these airframes. The engines may live on, but the aluminum will be beer cans before too long.
"If AA really wanted more 777s, it would call Boeing and accelerate its existing 777-223ER orders, not buy JAL's old A-market 777s."
While I agree with you FWAA.
The other way of looking at this is........If AA needed the aircrafts in a relative short time it might make sense to go and get aircrafts than
are being sold by another airline then ordering the aircraft from Boeing.
I am not sure how Boeing work. But I do not think they have aircraft sitting around like a car dealer does.
While I agree with you FWAA.
The other way of looking at this is........If AA needed the aircrafts in a relative short time it might make sense to go and get aircrafts than
are being sold by another airline then ordering the aircraft from Boeing.
I am not sure how Boeing work. But I do not think they have aircraft sitting around like a car dealer does.
FrequentFlierCA
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 35
I also don't believe this. AA doesn't need or want to operate a new fleet type, especially one as thirsty as a 744.
With their moderated, strategic growth plan I'm sure the 787s will be more than enough. If there's a shortfall in the interim I'm sure they can shift resources around or lease as needed.
With their moderated, strategic growth plan I'm sure the 787s will be more than enough. If there's a shortfall in the interim I'm sure they can shift resources around or lease as needed.
Agreed on the B744. That rumor seems to be dying down alot over the last month. The 'dog' domestic range B777-200/300 rumors are also questionable. The longer range birds are probably in bigger demand around the world and therefore less available.
As for shifting resources. Good luck. Although MAH* makes a good argument for AA's business travelers remaining with AA, I wonder about AA's long term business model for flying around the world. Oneworld makes a good slogan, but what does the AA Corp sales guy say to the AAdvantage Plutonium client after hearing the DAL or CAL sales guy tell him they can fly his people from Bangkok to Beijing to Johannesburg to Kuwait to Copenhagen all on their own companies aircraft, and will credit all their miles if they switch? Does he tell the guy, "Mr Arpey says it doesn't matter if AA flys you, it is no concern for you, we consider your ticket as Metal nuetral". :blink:
I've seen this in action in a Major European city with one of our Oneworld partners. Confused travelers approach me in my AA uniform. They were on the 3 leg of 4, with an AA ticket folder with AA Flight numbered tickets. They insisted they flew all on AA. They hadn't flown a minute on an AA aircraft since departing the NW USA. Their last leg was on another "Metal Nuetral" flight. I just sent them to the airport info kisok. Personally, I see the high end traveler dealing with a couple of these BS instances and heading to UAL/DAL. It's probably a good plan to have alliances in todays world. It gives the traveler an option to grab a flight from Cairo at different times through LHR or MAD for instance. I still think you need to maintain your own brand as one of the options.
Unless something changes, I see AA dissolving into nothing long term if trying to compete with UAL/DAL.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
That's probably correct, but trying to explain business to the financial 'whiz-kids' is, as the adage goes, like trying to teach a pig to sing.
Ignoring the problems facing American will not make them go away.
True, Boeing doesn't have new airplanes in inventory the way GM stocks Chevy Malibus, but AA's contract with Boeing provides that AA can get new planes with just 12-18 months notice to Boeing, and 12-18 months is a relatively short time frame when you're talking about additional widebody airplanes.
And I agree with you - if AA was in a world of hurt for additional widebodies right now, AA might lease them short-term from anyone with a spare plane. I just don't see AA today in any "we've got to have new widebody airplanes right now" rush, but I've been wrong before.
The Plutonium client will prefer flying on CX and JAL to Asia and BA to Africa over flying on UAL or DAL metal and is already very familiar with the way the alliances work, since Oneworld is more than 10 years old at this point. Besides, the Skyteam flight to CDG is just as likely to be on Air France metal as on Delta metal, and the *A flight to FRA is just as likely to be on LH metal as on UAL metal. International codeshares have been around for many years and all three alliances rely heavily on each other. Flying to HKG? CX has more daily flights from North America than UA, CO and DL combined. Flying to LHR? AA and BA have more daily flights than UA, CO and DL combined. Flying to somewhat obscure secondary European cities? Then perhaps the single daily flight on CO or DL makes sense for some travelers. For me, connecting in MAD or LHR is perfectly fine, as it preserves multiple options.
Flying to Australia? UA and DL don't hold a candle to QF.
The confused travelers were the opposite of the hypothetical Plutonium client you mentioned above. Doesn't matter if they understand the alliances or not, since their next trip (to save $10) will be on US/UA/CO/LH or some combination of *A carriers and they'll be just as confused, but in a different airport.
I'm not quite as pessimistic. AA and BA finally have what NW and KLM had for more than 15 years across the Atlantic: Antitrust immunity. Finally, AA can compete with Skyteam and *A instead of competing with its partner, BA. Across the Pacific, AA has ATI with JAL, so it can focus on competing with *A and Delta to Japan instead of competing with its partner, JAL. I see AA competing just fine.
" I see AA competing just fine. " FWAAA
I hope you are right. I beleive the majority of AA employees want to see AA succeed .
But we can not be blind to the fact that the new United and Delta are way bigger
than us and have a more impressive network than ours. To be in denial about this
is just plain silly.
This is the reason why I personally would like to se a change at the top of this company.
I would like to see a new CEO that wants to grow and take on the competition.
When I was hire 20 years ago AA took pride in being an undustry leader.
It seems like a lot has changed. I know the airline industry has changed forever.
But we can not sit down and just watch the competition take more and more
market share and do nothing about it.
Its time for AA to really become a truly global airline and by that we must
fly our "own" metal to more destinations in different continents.
No flights at all the the middle east, Africa and a very low presence in Asia.
There is more to the world than europe and latin america if we really want to be a global
airline.
I hope you are right. I beleive the majority of AA employees want to see AA succeed .
But we can not be blind to the fact that the new United and Delta are way bigger
than us and have a more impressive network than ours. To be in denial about this
is just plain silly.
This is the reason why I personally would like to se a change at the top of this company.
I would like to see a new CEO that wants to grow and take on the competition.
When I was hire 20 years ago AA took pride in being an undustry leader.
It seems like a lot has changed. I know the airline industry has changed forever.
But we can not sit down and just watch the competition take more and more
market share and do nothing about it.
Its time for AA to really become a truly global airline and by that we must
fly our "own" metal to more destinations in different continents.
No flights at all the the middle east, Africa and a very low presence in Asia.
There is more to the world than europe and latin america if we really want to be a global
airline.
