AA Orders 460 Airbus and Boeing Aircraft

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 1:51 AM GMT

    http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3286

    A snippet of various headlines from the AA Media Room:

    AMR Corporation Announces Largest Aircraft Order in History With Boeing and Airbus

    American Airlines to Order 460 Narrowbody Jets to Replace and Transform its Fleet

    American expects to create youngest, most fuel-efficient fleet among U.S. industry peers in approximately five years

    Agreement includes options and purchase rights for 465 additional aircraft through 2025

    American to be first U.S. network carrier to take delivery of Airbus A320neo Family aircraft and first airline to commit to Boeing's expected new 737 family offering



    Although I do wish this order was for wide-body, i.e. A340 and B777, aircraft, it's still a big deal! And it's so nice that those fugly MD-80's will finally be replaced by better looking aircraft.

    A rendering of one member of the new fleet:
    fb181de18c.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 10:52 AM GMT
    I haven't flown american in almost 10 years.

    About the same time since I have flown Alaska... I remember such loud, abrubt and nasty landings in the MD-80's. Felt like the landing gear was going to come ripping through the floorboards!

    I'm a United flyer. On a flight this morning to San Diego..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 11:16 AM GMT
    What a coincidence seeing this post today. I had just changed my desktop picture to this:

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-737-823/1954949/L/&sid=9ee2de9ec370de53f4c796f95c58920a

    May AMR never change their colour scheme. A classic.

    The significance of this order to Airbus cannot be overstated. The Airbus320NEO now has some 1,200 orders and options. Now that is what I call a successful launch!

    There is some doubt though of AMR's ability to pay for these planes. They have 17 billion in debt, and just announced a larger than expected Q2 operating loss of $246 million.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 21, 2011 5:26 PM GMT
    I read this story on msnbc.com, to which I commented, "Way to go American Airlines. You're 10+ years behind Continental airlines" (as far as streamlining their jets for more efficiency and less fuel consumption).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 5:37 PM GMT
    It is good news for the Kansas economy. Now if the private jet companies could get some respect from Washington D.C.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2011 5:39 PM GMT
    Sadly they are adding Airbuses....

    I like Airbus airplanes, except for the A320 series. They have a lot of yaw movement (side to side) that the passengers feel, and to me, feel flimsy as if they are made entirely of plastic. While they are safe enough planes, they do not *feel* safe or solid, to me.

    I suppose its unavoidable to fly on them, but I'm glad AA took this necessary step in renewing their fleet. It will mean huge reductions in fuel costs as the MD80s are gas guzzlers, though now they have to pay for the new actual airplanes..... The MD80s were paid for already.

    Although the MD-80s were loud, they certainly feel more solid than the A319/320s.... I much prefer them.

    Thank goodness they also launched the 737RE and added orders/options for the 737!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    surreallife saidWhat a coincidence seeing this post today. I had just changed my desktop picture to this:

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-737-823/1954949/L/&sid=9ee2de9ec370de53f4c796f95c58920a

    May AMR never change their colour scheme. A classic.

    The significance of this order to Airbus cannot be overstated. The Airbus320NEO now has some 1,200 orders and options. Now that is what I call a successful launch!

    There is some doubt though of AMR's ability to pay for these planes. They have 17 billion in debt, and just announced a larger than expected Q2 operating loss of $246 million.


    I've heard about the same thing as well. With an airline having so much debt and continuing to operate at a significant loss, it makes you wonder how they'll be able to pay for the planes. But, sometimes in order to make money, you need to spend some and in the case of AA, A LOT of money. I do hope it pays off for them though.

    Now, only if they could order some more B777's to expand to say, Johannesburg from Miami. icon_smile.gif

    I love Airbus planes as much as I love Boeing planes. My ride on an A340 from Las Vegas to Vancouver on Philippine Airlines was quite smooth and very nice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:43 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidNot too thrilled about Airbus coming into the fleet. Way too much automation.
    I've trained a few retired airline pilots for banner towing in small planes. After seeing their flying skills, I understand why Airbus is so automated. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    Columbusite777 said
    surreallife saidWhat a coincidence seeing this post today. I had just changed my desktop picture to this:

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-737-823/1954949/L/&sid=9ee2de9ec370de53f4c796f95c58920a



    Now, only if they could order some more B777's to expand to say, Johannesburg from Miami. icon_smile.gif



    They did order 5 more 777's - in fact they are the largest kind, the 77W, or 777-300ER. These guys have a range of 7,930.... good for ops... almost anywhere in the world from any of AA's hubs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:36 PM GMT
    Columbusite777 said
    http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3286

    A snippet of various headlines from the AA Media Room:

    AMR Corporation Announces Largest Aircraft Order in History With Boeing and Airbus

    American Airlines to Order 460 Narrowbody Jets to Replace and Transform its Fleet

    American expects to create youngest, most fuel-efficient fleet among U.S. industry peers in approximately five years

    Agreement includes options and purchase rights for 465 additional aircraft through 2025

    American to be first U.S. network carrier to take delivery of Airbus A320neo Family aircraft and first airline to commit to Boeing's expected new 737 family offering



    Although I do wish this order was for wide-body, i.e. A340 and B777, aircraft, it's still a big deal! And it's so nice that those fugly MD-80's will finally be replaced by better looking aircraft.

    A rendering of one member of the new fleet:
    fb181de18c.jpg


    I'm NOT a fan of Airbus products. Meanwhile, I can't wait to see the 777-300ER (aka 77W) in an AA livery. It will be "purdy."

    B787
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:51 PM GMT
    B787 said
    Columbusite777 said
    http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3286



    A rendering of one member of the new fleet:
    fb181de18c.jpg


    I'm NOT a fan of Airbus products. Meanwhile, I can't wait to see the 777-300ER (aka 77W) in an AA livery. It will be "purdy."

    B787


    yes purdy indeed, but not because of AA's aluminum look. simply because the T7 is just purdy...
    their livery is boring and dated... a refresh should be done to accompany the order
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 10:59 PM GMT
    Blackguy4you said

    ...

    yes purdy indeed, but not because of AA's aluminum look. simply because the T7 is just purdy...
    their livery is boring and dated... a refresh should be done to accompany the order


    While their livery, particularly this day in age, can seem rather boring and dated, it goes look quite good on the 777!

    Dated but absolutely gorgeous!
    800px-Aa_oneworld_b777-200er_n791an_arp.

    Now, these are definitely some fun liveries.

    ANA B777 Pokemon 'Peace Jet'
    1953035.jpg

    Finnair A340 'Moomin'
    1390518.jpg

    Turkish Airlines B777 'FC Barcelona'
    1950580.jpg

    Thai Airways International A330 'Royal Barge'
    1728729.jpg

    Swiss International Airlines A340 'San Francisco'
    1919770.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 11:18 PM GMT
    geezus, so many a netters on here!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 11:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ZbmwM5 saidThey have a lot of yaw movement (side to side) that the passengers feel, and to me, feel flimsy as if they are made entirely of plastic.


    Remember, the 787 is entirely made of plastic! icon_eek.gif


    lol, no it isnt! It's made of composites.... the same stuff they make fighter jets out of.

    Perhaps it will also feel like the Airbuses, but perhaps not! We'll just have to wait and see. Usually the larger the plane, the more solid it feels.

    Planes like the 767-300 and 757-200 are ones that feel solid as a rock. I'll be a sad person when those are retired in the not too distant future....

    FC_nowm.file?u=TXwxOTQ5NDQ0fGQ5ZzhoN2o2c
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2011 12:32 AM GMT
    Columbusite777 saidAA Orders 460 Airbus and Boeing Aircraft



    Why do alcoholics need jets?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2011 1:19 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude saidI read this story on msnbc.com, to which I commented, "Way to go American Airlines. You're 10+ years behind Continental airlines" (as far as streamlining their jets for more efficiency and less fuel consumption).


    Yeah, but the attractive thing about the AA MD-80s is that they are all paid for, so, just like the old NW DC-9s, despite the higher fuel consumption, the total cost of operating has been lower compared to purchasing a brand new airplane and operating that.


    It's all about fuel costs. The MD-80's are SO inefficient that this buy is completely worth it in the long term. The planes are being financed by the manufacturers. It's a risk that both were willing to take given the size of the order. Also, these are confirmed orders with options to buy more. I'm sure that played a part in the manufacturers financing these.

    On a side note, the red-blooded American in me loved the fact that AMERICAN Airlines had a completely AMERICAN fleet. I just wish that Boeing hadn't taken so long in deciding to retrofit the 737 with the more fuel efficient engines instead of opting for a completely new plane. Airbus really beat them to the punch with the updated A320en. Considering the considerable delays rolling out the 787, a lot of airlines are more comfortable going with a retrofitted model than an entirely new aircraft. Boeing missed the boat big time on this one...

    As an American frequent flyer, I say good riddance to the MadDogs! I always feel like I'm flying in a Greyhound bus with wings. Now, if they can just update their flight attendants...
  • Roads2Abs

    Posts: 39

    Jul 23, 2011 1:23 PM GMT
    I'm just looking forward to a new shape that looks cool.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2011 6:13 PM GMT
    ksig121 said
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude saidI read this story on msnbc.com, to which I commented, "Way to go American Airlines. You're 10+ years behind Continental airlines" (as far as streamlining their jets for more efficiency and less fuel consumption).


    Yeah, but the attractive thing about the AA MD-80s is that they are all paid for, so, just like the old NW DC-9s, despite the higher fuel consumption, the total cost of operating has been lower compared to purchasing a brand new airplane and operating that.


    It's all about fuel costs. The MD-80's are SO inefficient that this buy is completely worth it in the long term. The planes are being financed by the manufacturers. It's a risk that both were willing to take given the size of the order. Also, these are confirmed orders with options to buy more. I'm sure that played a part in the manufacturers financing these.

    On a side note, the red-blooded American in me loved the fact that AMERICAN Airlines had a completely AMERICAN fleet. I just wish that Boeing hadn't taken so long in deciding to retrofit the 737 with the more fuel efficient engines instead of opting for a completely new plane. Airbus really beat them to the punch with the updated A320en. Considering the considerable delays rolling out the 787, a lot of airlines are more comfortable going with a retrofitted model than an entirely new aircraft. Boeing missed the boat big time on this one...

    As an American frequent flyer, I say good riddance to the MadDogs! I always feel like I'm flying in a Greyhound bus with wings. Now, if they can just update their flight attendants...


    Good insight there! AA had an ALMOST completely American-made fleet, save for the Airbus 300 which they retired in 2009 I believe. It also surprises me that the A320NEO will be replacing the 767's; I didn't think that the 320NEO could do trans-Atlantic flying but I'm still new to reading up the 320 NEO.

    Also, in regards to flight attendants, most US airlines will almost always keep on hand some of those who started working when the 747 started flying commercially! icon_lol.gif The prettiest, male and female, attendants can be found on the Asian carriers such as Cathay Pacific, Thai Airways, Emirates, and Singapore Airlines with their infamous, and somewhat dated and stereotypical, Singapore Girl's. Not only that, but these same airlines usually hire and fire at will and Singapore Airlines, to my knowledge, asks that their Singapore Girl's be under 35-40 years of age!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Girls

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    A small, very small, part of me is going to hate to see the ole' mad dog's go. Still, a very overdue upgrade for the AA fleet. Their product is really starting to show its age.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2011 10:30 AM GMT
    According to this article from Flight Global, the other three large US carriers are planning major procurements for single-aisle aircraft in the near future.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/22/359789/american-deal-drives-vital-fleet-age-and-efficiency.html

    There is some speculation that Airbus's success with the A320neo will force it to open up a new assembly plant, with Mobile, Alabama being the frontrunner.
  • SwimBIkeRun94...

    Posts: 480

    Jul 25, 2011 5:53 PM GMT
    [quote]I for one will miss the MD-80s. Commercial pax aircraft now are all so boring looking from a design standpoint. A tube with an engine hanging off each wing. Yawn......[/quote]

    Unfortunately you'll still see plenty of CRJs roaming tarmacs at any major airport...an aircraft I find to be the most uncomfortable and passenger-unfriendly of anything I've ever flown.

    AA's livery still looks nice. If you want to talk about ugly livery/branding, look at the new UA and their decision to keep a dated white/gold/blue plane. Now that's fugly. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 25, 2011 7:02 PM GMT
    SwimBIkeRun949 said[quote]I for one will miss the MD-80s. Commercial pax aircraft now are all so boring looking from a design standpoint. A tube with an engine hanging off each wing. Yawn......


    AA's livery still looks nice. If you want to talk about ugly livery/branding, look at the new UA and their decision to keep a dated white/gold/blue plane. Now that's fugly. icon_smile.gif[/quote]


    Ugh, I HATE that United decided to go with Continental's livery. Hate. Hate. Hate.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 25, 2011 10:42 PM GMT
    ZbmwM5 said
    SwimBIkeRun949 said[quote]I for one will miss the MD-80s. Commercial pax aircraft now are all so boring looking from a design standpoint. A tube with an engine hanging off each wing. Yawn......


    AA's livery still looks nice. If you want to talk about ugly livery/branding, look at the new UA and their decision to keep a dated white/gold/blue plane. Now that's fugly. icon_smile.gif



    Ugh, I HATE that United decided to go with Continental's livery. Hate. Hate. Hate.[/quote]


    I agree! It just looks...bad. I really can't say much more than that unfortunately. It really makes you wonder what United's advertising and graphic design departments were smoking or drinking or doing when they decided on it. Yuck!

    Here are some alternate liveries proposed by airline enthusiast:

    United.jpg

    Not quite sure about this one; it looks like United is giving you the finger!
    2w4a32f.jpg


    Oddly enough, their new logo looks a lot like Copa Airlines from Panama
    logo_copa.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 3:34 AM GMT
    JUptown saidAmerican's classic color scheme is just a pinstriped aluminum body. The body is not painted, it's just polished aluminum. Paint is heavy and the less paint, the great the fuel savings. Like a classic Shelby Cobra, just a pinstriped aluminum body.


    I may be imagining this, but I think I read somewhere that the money saved by no paint was negated by the need to polish the aluminum. I'm sure some AA employees know more about this than me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 4:01 AM GMT
    o Re AA paying for the planes -- 1/2 of the order (the first half) will be completely financed with lease arrangements -- i.e. minimize current cash flow, sacrificing future NPV. Net: AA's current balance sheet (debt load) is not material to this deal, at least thru the delivery of the first 1/2 of the planes.

    o Re the 320NEO "replacing" 767's and flying intercontinental. This is garbled data -- completely not true. 320s and 73s are NOT 76 replacements. The 77 and 78s are 76 replacements.

    o Re the success of the 320NEO (1,200+ orders) is stunning, and did force Boeing's hand. This cat and mouse game between Boeing and Airbus is constant. Airbus first forced Boeing's had with the 320 fly by wire. They had to respond with the 73NG (700/800/900) series. Then Boeing avoided the super jumbo debacle by doing the 74-8, securing the entire cargo market for themselves, and saddling Airbus with the A380 nightmare. Then they leapfrogged Airbus with the 78, forcing them to respond with the A350 -- and to redesign it multiple times (the -1000 version is still a crock and will need to be redesigned -- likely a new wing). And now Airbus attacks Boeing with the 320NEO and forces their hand on the single aisle decision. It's a never ending game, and a completely fascinating one. They are multi-billion dollar bets where success isn't known until 10 years later, and for product lines that stay in production for 30 years in order to amortize their development costs. Talk about high stakes decisions!

    o Re AA's paint saving fuel costs -- that's an old Bob Crandall red herring. Back when he said that, fuel costs were no where near where they were today. Today -- you save way more weight/money with minor aerodynamic changes (winglets/sharklets etc.) and simple things like removing thick in-flight magazines and catalogs in every seat, carrying less water, etc. than you do with paint. If what Crandall said about paint was really true, then you'd have Ryan and Southwest going paintless. You don't see that. If you want to pay attention to airlines that are good at low costs, you don't look to a showman like Bob Crandall or any legacy carrier -- you look at Ryan and Southwest. Peanuts anyone?

    o Re nostalgia for old fleets: The only thing I'll miss about the MD 80/90s is that they represent the last memory of more than one US domestic commercial aircraft manufacturer. When I was a kid (in my formative aerospace geek years), you had 3 domestic commercial airframe manufacturers. Now you have just one. Much less interesting. But personally, I'll miss the 757 much more. With the RR 211-535s, with their distinctive whine, that thing was so overpowered. The pilots called that the "hot rod" of the sky. Check this vid of a Royal NZ Air Force version of the 75.



    The interesting question now is: what are Airbus and Boeing going to do to fill the missing part of the fleet that was filled by the 757? Stretch the 73/A320? That seems tough. Short haul versions of the A350 and 787? That doesn't seem the right direction either. We'll see what Icelandic Air decides. They are almost all 757 and will be a leading indicator of where the next moves are going to be made in that segment.