B787 to fly ORD-NRT

[jimntx]

(From Jetnet--internal web news page)
 
[SIZE=11pt]Dreamliner to serve ORD-Tokyo Narita[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]We plan to fly the state-of-the-art Boeing 787 Dreamliner between ORD and Tokyo Narita (NRT), starting Aug. 18. Customers can book these flights beginning this Sunday, May 3. The aircraft will make its debut for American on May 7 between DFW and ORD, and then be launched on its first international route on June 2 between DFW and Beijing, China [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]I don't suppose there will be any chance of non-revving on a DFW-ORD flight just to see what it is like.[/SIZE]

 

[IORFA]

Is it going to be daily now?

 

[jimntx]

Is it going to be daily now?

According to nonrev travel planner, there are going to be 2 787 flights daily on DFW-ORD.  (I'm assuming that there will be an equal number on ORD-DFW).  All 787 flights from DFW-ORD from 07May through 10JUN are already booked and oversold.  I checked random dates in July and it appears it drops to 1/day early in July.  However, there are at least listable seats for nonrevs in July.  May go away as we approach July, of course.  Interestingly, it appears that DFW-ORD loses all 737 service about the same time.  So there will be all S80 and 1 787 on that route starting in July!!!!  Surely that is a mistake with the computer people.

 

[WorldTraveler]

so, what is happening to the 777s that are being pulled off this and other routes which are getting the 787s?

 

[jcw]

It's great that AA can put a superior product into the market

 

[FWAAA]

According to nonrev travel planner, there are going to be 2 787 flights daily on DFW-ORD.  (I'm assuming that there will be an equal number on ORD-DFW).  All 787 flights from DFW-ORD from 07May through 10JUN are already booked and oversold.  I checked random dates in July and it appears it drops to 1/day early in July.  However, there are at least listable seats for nonrevs in July.  May go away as we approach July, of course.  Interestingly, it appears that DFW-ORD loses all 737 service about the same time.  So there will be all S80 and 1 787 on that route starting in July!!!!  Surely that is a mistake with the computer people.

The ORD-NRT route is a surprise, because it's the only ORD route announced so far. ORD-NRT is about 27 hours round trip, so it requires about 1.2 airplanes to support that flight (27 hours for the round-trip plus two more hours at ORD to prepare for another flight to NRT).

With the other 787 flights centered at DFW, including EZE, PEK and PVG (announced so far), the rotation can be worked out so that there isn't a lot of ground sit for the planes. My guess is that DFW-ORD keeps a daily 787 (as well as ORD-DFW) at least until ORD gets a second daily 787 flight so that a 787 doesn't have to sit at ORD for 20-21 hours of ground time. Recall the now-discontinued 777 that used to fly DFW-ORD-DFW which acted as a spare airplane for both ORD and DFW.

 

[WorldTraveler]

It's great that AA can put a superior product into the market

 
you mean the 77s are not?
 

The ORD-NRT route is a surprise, because it's the only ORD route announced so far. ORD-NRT is about 27 hours round trip, so it requires about 1.2 airplanes to support that flight (27 hours for the round-trip plus two more hours at ORD to prepare for another flight to NRT).

With the other 787 flights centered at DFW, including EZE, PEK and PVG (announced so far), the rotation can be worked out so that there isn't a lot of ground sit for the planes. My guess is that DFW-ORD keeps a daily 787 (as well as ORD-DFW) at least until ORD gets a second daily 787 flight so that a 787 doesn't have to sit at ORD for 20-21 hours of ground time. Recall the now-discontinued 777 that used to fly DFW-ORD-DFW which acted as a spare airplane for both ORD and DFW.

are the 787 pilots based at DFW for now?

given that the 2 LAX-Asia routes will likely be converted to 787s, the rotation could happen there.

the bigger question is what AA transpac routes will NOT be 787s within a couple years.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Is it going to be daily now?

 
If this is true, a certain dreamer of DL grandeur might be spending some time in a white padded room ... ... ...

 

[jcw]

some are so slow - let's go through all new aircraft deliveries - they are always better than the 20 year old jet - no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig
 
So yes the 787 is better than the 772 on the route today - see not hard to admit something - to bad others can never admit anything
 
One airline is on track to have the youngest most fuel efficient fleet one is not - different strategies

 

[WorldTraveler]

one airline is on track to spend tens of billions of dollars more on new aircraft while saving very little on costs..... some people seem to forget that new aircraft cost billions of dollars for a fleet the size of the big 3.

Since AA is not generating the cash necessary to buy that much aircraft in cash, they have to borrow money - to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in additional debt expense.

and given current fuel prices, new generation aircraft are not saving much on fuel and they still require maintenance at some point.

Yes, some people are fascinated with boasting about the new cars in their driveway while the neighbor who has a 10 year old car in the bank likely has a whole lot more money in the bank - and his retirement accounts.

and given that AA has operated ORD-NRT on a less than daily basis, they undoubtedly realize they have to operate it on a daily basis like the other carriers in the market or walk away.

 

[nycbusdriver]

some are so slow - let's go through all new aircraft deliveries - they are always better than the 20 year old jet - no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig
 
So yes the 787 is better than the 772 on the route today - see not hard to admit something - to bad others can never admit anything
 
One airline is on track to have the youngest most fuel efficient fleet one is not - different strategies

 
From the airline's perspective, I agree that a new airplane is better than a 20-year-old one.  Less likely to give maintenance headaches is probably the prime reason that airlines regularly retire airplanes with much service life left in them.  Also, newer airplanes are always more efficient since they have updated aerodynamic designs and structure, and more efficient engines.
 
From a customer standpoint, as long as the interior is not 20-year-old (similar to the embarrassing LUS 767s at their retirement), few would even know the difference....or care even if they did.  A sardine coach seat is pretty much the same across all fleets after about 5 hours of flight time.  I doubt one would find many thusly afflicted passengers muttering, "Oh, but I am in a new 787!  That makes it all better!"

 

[WorldTraveler]

but newer aircraft cost money... a lot of them.

and the airline that some here have bashed as having an "Old" fleet has a higher maintenance dispatch reliability than carriers that have far newer fleets.

maybe some carriers know how to operate older fleets and do it more efficiently and more reliably?

and yes customers have no idea what they are flying on.

NW did a very good job of keeping the interiors looking modern... DL has moved the process one step further by having customer service amenities as good as if not better than what AA and UA have on their fleets... EVERY seat on every DL longhaul int'l aircraft has AVOD at every seat; AA and UA can't say that.

new aircraft could be an asset but they could also be a noose around an airline bean counter's neck, esp. if it comes at the cost of having to retire aircraft that do have ample life in them - and like AA's 777s are not at all obsolete.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Newer aircraft cost a lot of money, but so many are leased which requires so much less cash up front from the airline.  And when they are worn out (think LUS 767s) just turn them back to the owner.
 
"Oh, the rude bast**d in the seat in front of me just broke my kneecaps and now his hair is in my dinner.  But, I'm on a brand new 787, so I don't mind at all!"

 

[WorldTraveler]

Leased or owned doesn't necessarily cost more or less money. Any new asset that is being acquired is going to tie up cash one way or another. Airlines are big enough companies and aircraft are expensive enough that AA could create leases that have very similar cash outlays.

The error in the thinking above is that new aircraft always are cheaper to operate than older aircraft and have better amenities and are more reliable.

Any older aircraft can be equipped with comparable amenities. DL is putting every one of the same passenger amenities that AA will put on its new 787s on its 767s - satellite TV, AVOD, lie flat seats etc.

DL's maintenance reliability is the highest in the US industry even with DL's older fleet.

DL says that it has the lowest fleet costs in the industry which includes maintenance.

DL chose one strategy which they are making work for them.

AA embarked on an aggressive fleet replacements strategy well before the merger, part of which was predicated on aggressive growth of its int'l network, and then merged with US which also had a lot of int'l aircraft on order.

AA is simply not going to grow its int'l network enough to use all of the aircraft it has on order without beginning to retire aircraft that could have been or could be economically left in service.

There will be data that will show that other carriers will operate routes alongside new generation aircraft that will have costs as low as or lower than the 787s and 350s that each of the big 3 have on order.

The 787 is a great airplane and will help AA improve the economics of a number of routes where it needs to do so, including to Asia.

But since other carriers are operating older generation aircraft like the 330 and 767 (including Air Canada) across the Pacific which have lower CASM due in part to lower ownership costs (leases and/or ownership included), the hurdle for improved costs has to include that part of the equation as well.

Given that other carriers can update their aircraft with newer amenities - just as AA is doing with the 772 - the decision is far bigger than simply that an aircraft type is no longer viable and has to be replaced and doing so will make for less costs - or that because AA or UA or anyone else is operating a new generation aircraft, they will automatically have an advantage in the marketplace over other carriers.

AA and DL both made their fleet decisions based on the capabilities they had thruout the company - both at the time of the order and based on what they wanted to and expected to have down the road.

for both AA and DL, their fleet decisions and strategies reflect far more than just a decision to keep older aircraft vs. replacing them.

AA and DL can both succeed with their differing strategies but they have enormous effects on every part of the way the company is operated.

 

[commavia]

AA's management knows the numbers better than self-appointed internet "experts," and AA's management believes that investments in new aircraft are still NPV positive and thus value-creating for shareholders.  Reality.