New Engine Key to AA Fleet Renewal

[Diamondbacks2004]

Flight Global talks with AA's VP of Operations, Bob Redding, about narrowbody fleet renewal. Bob's underlying point is that a new engine with up to 30% increases in efficiency is necessary for the next quantum leap in narrowbody aircraft design to occur. He said AA is looking for a plane that will carry about 150 people.

He also notes AA is considering the A350 and 787, although widebody fleet renewal isn't as important as replacing the narrowbody fleet. He also said the A380 is likely too large for AA. No real new information, but a slightly different take on the topic and an interesting read, none-the-less.

Follow the link below for the full article.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...wal-growth.html

 

[Diamondbacks2004]

Very interesting and please see concept narrowbody plane pictures of A360 future replacement aircraft for the A320 series and B797 future replacement aircraft for B737NG series.

http://pages.infinit.net/camsim/

Jumbo widebody B700 is so cool....

 

[ual777fan]

What I would be interested to see is if AMR puts in an order for the forthcoming C Series 110's and 130's. They seat between 100-130 and offer about a 15% fuel savings over the 737-700 and A319 and a near 40% reduction in fuel burn when compared to the old MD-80's and F100's.

These are planes that would do really well in RDU, STL, west coast operations were AA would have an approximate 15% operating cost advantage on Southwest and United just with fuel savings alone. The planes ER models of the plane have a range of about 2700nm so they could do transcontinental with a few weigh restrictions. The planes offer the old 3-2 interior layout which I love on the MD-80's and 18.5''-19'' wide seats, so they would be super comfortable. They also have pivot overhead bins, like widebodies, so more room for carry-ons and large windows for every row.

I think its an impressive plane and no I don't work for Bombardier. I just don't think the 737-800 and 757-200 are all that comfortable.

On the issue of fleet expansion...I'm sure that AA will get in line for the 787 for both the -3 (replacing the A300) and the -8/-9 to replace the 767's. I just hope they use Airbus's 2-4-2 layout instead of Boeing's idiotic 3-2-3 layout on the inside. I doubt they are going to be replacing their 777's with the A350 regardless of the A350's superior operating dynamics since I doubt it will be so significant that it would make up for the massive capital expenditure adding the plane would require. I see no replacement for the 757 on the horizon (within 10-15 years) and the 738's will continue to replace a portion of the MD-80 fleet. AA is going to be waiting for Airbus and Boeing to unveil their next generation A320/737's before replacing all 350 MD-80's. I would be interested to see what they do to replace F100's and what they will use on the lighter MD-80 and 738 routes. I think the C Series would do fantastic here.

 

[777 fixer]

On the issue of fleet expansion...I'm sure that AA will get in line for the 787 for both the -3 (replacing the A300) and the -8/-9 to replace the 767's. I just hope they use Airbus's 2-4-2 layout instead of Boeing's idiotic 3-2-3 layout on the inside.

In which aircraft is this layout?

 

[ual777fan]

In which aircraft is this layout?

It was in the Boeing interior mockups for the 787...

 

[777 fixer]

It was in the Boeing interior mockups for the 787...

Is it possible this is the just the way that particular mock up was set up? Maybe this is just an option and other configurations are avaliable. Or maybe its only 3x2x3 to keep production costs down.

 

[ual777fan]

I don't see how 3-2-3 costs any less than a 2-4-2 configuration. In a 2-4-2, everyone is just one seat away from the aisle which makes for a more comfortable trip.

 

[The Goose]

Flight Global talks with AA's VP of Operations, Bob Redding, about narrowbody fleet renewal. Bob's underlying point is that a new engine with up to 30% increases in efficiency is necessary for the next quantum leap in narrowbody aircraft design to occur. He said AA is looking for a plane that will carry about 150 people.

He also notes AA is considering the A350 and 787, although widebody fleet renewal isn't as important as replacing the narrowbody fleet. He also said the A380 is likely too large for AA. No real new information, but a slightly different take on the topic and an interesting read, none-the-less.

Follow the link below for the full article.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...wal-growth.html

Granted - present-day materials haven't been pushed to their operating limits in search of this 'efficiency' thing; probably a good idea, also. Spools run too damned fast to be playing any kind of roulette with.

Until the magic "Unobtainium" that another poster sometimes refers to shows up and enhances every aspect of our lives (yeah - right), the airframe would seem to be where the most gains can be made re: gas mileage and such and not the engine. The CFM motor, considering what 'state-of-the-art' was in my early days, with its 1 HP stage and less than 12" in that area (annular can + HPT), is the real miracle. Aside from it being French design and no doubt some of its design perculiarities have much to do with wine and cheese breaks, its a damned fine engine. However - with the civilian marketplace not yet embracing the 'whisker' ceramics for the HP area, it will be a while before any real progress is made in that arena.

 

[ual777fan]

From the article...

American is “very supportive” of new technology efforts, including the Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan (GTF) that has been selected by Bombardier for its proposed 110/130-seat CSeries airliner and by Japan’s Mitsubishi for the Mitsubishi Regional Jet (both with 2013 entry-into-service dates). However, the carrier is really looking for a next generation narrowbody that will have an average of 150 seats.

American operates about 300 MD-80s and 125 757s. Replacing these aircraft and acquiring new-design narrowbodies for which to grow the fleet is of paramount importance. “We could operate 130 seats in several of our markets but we look at what we really need that makes the most sense for us and it’s really the 150-seat aircraft,” says Reding.

“It doesn’t mean if we had an absolutely wonderful airplane with 140 seats that we wouldn’t take a close look at that. But we are asking the OEMs to really take a close look at 150 seats. Our 757s have 187 seats. Since our 757s fall into that potential replacement as well, we need an airplane that could really replace our 757s [as well].”

So apparently I wasn't just pulling stuff out of my ass (i.e. planes that I really like and hope AA buys). That GFT sounds extremely interesting, although I wondering how a transmission would work in a jet turbine... and I wonder if it will be an old school GM Turbo-Hydramatic. Those things are damn near invincible.

 

[IORFA]

It would be nice if the head of M & E knew how many seats were on the 757!!!

 

[Nor'Easta]

It would be nice if the head of M & E knew how many seats were on the 757!!!

That's hilarious ! Last I checked 22+166 = 188!!

 

[TWU-GOTTA-GO]

He's right in management math terms because when one always gets a seat in first class whenever they travel, and never worries about being bumped, to them the seating arrangement is 21 and 166 for 187 total. If his family travels, just adjust the first class number as necessary. :down: <_<

 

[ual777fan]

He's right in management math terms because when one always gets a seat in first class whenever they travel, and never worries about being bumped, to them the seating arrangement is 21 and 166 for 187 total. If his family travels, just adjust the first class number as necessary. :down: <_<

He was off by one. If any VP of the company I work for had a clue that close to reality they would be my new hero for the day. These MBA's will be the death of American business.

 

[777 fixer]

I don't see how 3-2-3 costs any less than a 2-4-2 configuration. In a 2-4-2, everyone is just one seat away from the aisle which makes for a more comfortable trip.

I know that a 3-2-3 configuration is not going to cost any more or less than a 2-4-2 production wise. What I mean is are they going to do just one standard configuration which would save on production costs.

 

[ual777fan]

I was under the impression that airlines could configure the interiors just about anyway they wanted within certain limits. I know the 777's fly in both 3-3-3 and 2-5-2 configurations so I'm not sure what the extra cost would be to configure a 787 from 3-2-3 to 2-4-2. I would figure that it would be nominal.