The Future Fleet At Aa

[Andre1980]

With AA announcing the retirement of the A300 by 2011 and the partial retirement of the 767-200 that are already parked what will AA replace these birds with when they are all gone? I will guess that AA may order the 767-400 for the A300 replacement and probably the 7E7 for the 762 replacement. This will leave them with a 4 type fleet size but some may speculate that AA may order the 7E7 to replace both but I don't think that may happen since AA is trying to remove sub fleet types from their operations which would therefore mean that the every plane would have the same interior (e.g. the 767-300 reconfigerations going on at present). What do you forecast happening to the fleet types as they are retired and replaced?

I have been hearing rumours that AA may be shrinking and dropping destinations in the furture but I don't see that happening because management has realised that as a result of rationalizing the way their hubs are operating they are finding themselves with a few extra planes that are now being deployed to add additional frequencies to current routes and to start new services and I think that is good efficency that management should be given credit for since you cannot shink an airline to profitablity.

 

[twasilverbullet]

what's a 7E7?

 

[FWAAA]

With AA announcing the retirement of the A300 by 2011 and the partial retirement of the 767-200 that are already parked what will AA replace these birds with when they are all gone? I will guess that AA may order the 767-400 for the A300 replacement and probably the 7E7 for the 762 replacement. This will leave them with a 4 type fleet size but some may speculate that AA may order the 7E7 to replace both but I don't think that may happen since AA is trying to remove sub fleet types from their operations which would therefore mean that the every plane would have the same interior (e.g. the 767-300 reconfigerations going on at present). What do you forecast happening to the fleet types as they are retired and replaced?

I disagree with your characterization of the parking of 14 762s as a "partial retirement." AA parked them in the midst of its worst cash crunch in its history in order to defer heavy maintenance (thereby saving $$$). AA cut its schedule about 20% immediately following September 11, 2001, and has yet to fully restore its schedule to that in effect on that fateful day.

There are persistent rumors that AA is planning to bring them back earlier than currently scheduled, so that AA can continue to grow.

I'm probably alone on this one - but I see 777s replacing some of the A-300 flying in order to carry the ever-increasing volume of freight. 767s can't do it and 7E7s will probably be no better equipped to handle the freight carried by an A-300. As AA's finances continue to improve, look for Boeing to cut AA some nice deals to get AA buying again.

I also predict that the A-300s will disappear sooner than the current fleet plan projects; another tail falls off on takeoff and the type will be grounded. I don't want that to happen, but I'll bet it happens. When it does - Bye-bye Airbii.

 

[FWAAA]

what's a 7E7?

See this link for all the details:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html

It is planned as a fuel efficient replacement for the 767.

 

[twasilverbullet]

FWAAA, thanks.

 

[jimntx]

See this link for all the details:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html

It is planned as a fuel efficient replacement for the 767.

However, I understand that it is also being designed to correct the "lack of cargo" problem with the 767 so as to compete better with the Airbus 300 series of aircraft.

 

[FWAAA]

However, I understand that it is also being designed to correct the "lack of cargo" problem with the 767 so as to compete better with the Airbus 300 series of aircraft.

You may be right.

But Boeing says that the base model is planned to hold 5 pallets plus 5 LD3s while the stretch model will hold 6 pallets plus 8 LD3s. Is that enough cargo capacity to overcome the 767's shortcomings? Maybe it is.

 

[Andre1980]

Boeing 777??????

That aircraft is way too big for the caribbean routes especially when you look at the passenger capacity without MRTC, no first class and a business class seating of 18 passengers (like the A300s). I believe a 777 will seat over 300 passengers when you include all those things that AA will do to aircraft being deployed to their caribbean routes. Another thing AA is trying to avoid having sub fleets with one type of plane having more than one configuration and I cannot see AA having 3 different types of 777 configuration that will lose the effecientcy that AA is looking for since they are trying to implement what Southwest does in their model of business.

 

[FWAAA]

Boeing 777??????

That aircraft is way too big for the caribbean routes especially when you look at the passenger capacity without MRTC, no first class and a business class seating of 18 passengers (like the A300s). I believe a 777 will seat over 300 passengers when you include all those things that AA will do to aircraft being deployed to their caribbean routes. Another thing AA is trying to avoid having sub fleets with one type of plane having more than one configuration and I cannot see AA having 3 different types of 777 configuration that will lose the effecientcy that AA is looking for since they are trying to implement what Southwest does in their model of business.

You may be right that the 777 is too big, but here's why I don't think so.

Everyone knows that business travelers demand frequency. VFR travelers demand low price - frequency is not so important to these pax.

Given the above - there really isn't any need for JFK-SJU to feature 7 daily flights(like on tomorrow's schedule), with 6 of them on A-300s and one 763, when the same lift could be provided by fewer 777s. After all, it's not like the LRTC A-300 pax to SJU demands frequent service the way the business pax do between ORD-LAX or JFK-LAX, right?

Sure, you couldn't run 7 daily 777s JFK-SJU and fill every seat, but 4 or 5? Probably could, and it would give AA even more cargo capacity than the current mix of A-300s and one 763 (for which demand is bound to increase in coming years). B)

 

[JFK777]

The Caribean, its cargo market and JFK-SJU have to fit the overall AA plan. JFK -SJU is the flagship route to the Caribean, the level of frequency wil remain. Whatever airplane flies in place of the A300, a 777 it won't be. 777's are bad for the same reason 747-100 were bad a generation ago; the flight is too short for the effenciency of the airplane. I think 7E7 will replace 763's, because the 7E7 will fly across the Atlantic and deep Latin America. 763 are not the best A300 replacement but whatever cargo can't be sent in their belly can be sent on a freighter aircraft. Ever seen all those Cargo planes at the Miami airpaort, they fly all over the Caribean. I can't see A330's in AA fleet , can you?

 

[LiveInAHotel]

AA has already said they will not order the 767-400, due to the fact the flight deck is different from the 767-200/300 and 757. I had a Boeing Representative on one of my flights a few weeks back and he said AA was going to be the launch customer for the new 7E7.

 

[gogogadget]

My bet is the A300 will disappear on sched. All A300s will be replaced by 7e7's primarily and with 777's and 737's. the 767-200 will not come back and the flying will be shifted around as to utilize the now older 767-300's. It is not only the cargo lift that is a factor. The 767-300's are more effecient and less prone to breakage. Hince the real draw for the 7e7's will be effeciency! All backlogged 767-300 orders will be exchanged for any combination of 777's,7e7's and 737s once we start taking delivery again.

according to my crystal ballbearing

 

[MAH4546]

The problem that AA faces with the A300 replacement is that there is no single plane other aircraft on the market that can profitablly carry a lot of passengers and a lot of cargo on very short hops, like MIA-PAP. The only equal replacement would be to replace the old A300-600s with new A300-600s (the A300 family is still in production, despite no outstanding passenger version orders). Though I don't see that happening.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

AA has already said they will not order the 767-400, due to the fact the flight deck is different from the 767-200/300 and 757. I had a Boeing Representative on one of my flights a few weeks back and he said AA was going to be the launch customer for the new 7E7.

"hotel",
I agree with you, that "soon" AA will have 4 models of BOEING "only" (737 757 "7E7" and 777.

Just one problem though.

While AA has it's "cargo bases covered" on transcons(JFK/BOS/MIA---LAX/SFO/HNL)(767's and later on 7E7's),Asia(777's), S.A.(777's), and Europe(777's), it does,nt(now) have a solution(later) for JFK/BOS---SJU, once the A-300's are retired...

NH/BB's

 

[FWAAA]

The Caribean, its cargo market and JFK-SJU have to fit the overall AA plan. JFK -SJU is the flagship route to the Caribean, the level of frequency wil remain. Whatever airplane flies in place of the A300, a 777 it won't be. 777's are bad for the same reason 747-100 were bad a generation ago; the flight is too short for the effenciency of the airplane. I can't see A330's in AA fleet , can you?

Maybe you're right that 777s won't replace any A-300 flying (I only predicted that they would replace some A-300 routes).

But 1597 miles is too short a flight for a 777 to be efficient? Come on, now. How many miles is required to fly a 777 efficiently? B)

Funny how the Japanese (guardians of efficiency) manage to fly widebodies all over Japan on dense domestic routes (very few of which are half as far as JFK-SJU). B)

Someone else mentioned that AA would not permit a sub-fleet of 777s; I disagree. AA tolerates 34 A-300s now - and I see room for 40 to 50 two-class 777s for the Caribbean, Hawaii, and routes where the 7E7 is not a good fit. DC-10s flew transcons and Hawaii routes until very recently. That's why I can see 777s doing them in the future.

And transcons? Once UAL folds up shop, the only real transcon competitor will be DL, and they don't have the following that AA has. To meet demand, AA could easily fly 3 class 777s LAX-JFK, LAX-BOS, LAX-MIA (already doing this one), SFO-JFK, SFO-MIA. In several years, look for plenty of 777 transcons. Just my WAG. Feel free to differ.

A-330s? No way.