AA may buy longest-range Airbus to replace aging 757-200s

[jimntx]

Boeing is to blame for the interest in the Airbus A321-XLR.. They can't make a decision on the dubbed 797 aircraft. They should've designed a replacement for the 757 instead of going with the 737 Max. Just my opinion. Seems SWA drove that decision.
Maybe it's just me, but ever since Boeing moved its headquarters to Chicago, the management culture has changed?

Easy for you to say, but according to Boeing, they couldn't give away 757s. At the time Boeing was having to figure out what direction to go, the argument was that the 757 was too big for most domestic markets in the U.S. and too small for the Transatlantic routes. You know, the "nobody wants to fly for 6 or more hours on a single-aisle narrow body" argument. The 757 never sold enough a/c to even break even on production.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Who needs cargo revenue?

Not America West.

 

[MetalMover]

Easy for you to say, but according to Boeing, they couldn't give away 757s. At the time Boeing was having to figure out what direction to go, the argument was that the 757 was too big for most domestic markets in the U.S. and too small for the Transatlantic routes. You know, the "nobody wants to fly for 6 or more hours on a single-aisle narrow body" argument. The 757 never sold enough a/c to even break even on production.

I said it was MY OPINION!
So if the 757 was too big domestically, and too small transatlantically, then the A321 should not be a success. Let's see how JetBlue does.
I was speaking mainly to its performance and reliability. I've worked on them practically since the beginning.

 

[jimntx]

Here are some basic statistics...
757 was produced from 1981 until 2004. A total of 1050 were built. That's an average of 23 aircraft per year.
777 has been produced since 1993. Already Boeing has built 1593 777s-- an annual average production of 61 aircraft. In the "standard" seating configuration, a 777 carries over twice as many passengers as the 757 with the same number of engines (2) burning fuel. Everybody seems to agree that the 757 is a wonderful airplane (me included), but nobody seems to want to buy it.

 

[jimntx]

I said it was MY OPINION!
So if the 757 was too big domestically, and too small transatlantically, then the A321 should not be a success. Let's see how JetBlue does.
I was speaking mainly to its performance and reliability. I've worked on them practically since the beginning.

Now, now. Don't have a stroke. You get no argument from me about what a good airplane it is. The 757 (and the MD80) are the only planes in the fleet that have a decent First Class galley--easy to work. And both are being retired.

As far as it goes, I'm mistified at the attraction (if any) of the A321--the whole family from A319 up through A321(all variations). The airplane leaves me in a state of indifference approaching the supernatural. The galleys are a joke. The only counter space where you can stand up an open bottle of wine is directly in front of the ovens which means when the meals are ready you have to put the wine bottles either on the floor or on top of the food service cart in order to get the meals out of the oven. The seating configuration is strange to the point that flight attendants have to manually demonstrate the safety features because some seats have to fold away the video screens because they block the emergency exits.

But nobody with decision-making authority (at any airline, it seems) has been interested in the 757. And, I've never heard an explanation why--not that those people would explain to peons like me anyway.

 

[1AA]

Here are some basic statistics...
757 was produced from 1981 until 2004. A total of 1050 were built. That's an average of 23 aircraft per year.
777 has been produced since 1993. Already Boeing has built 1593 777s-- an annual average production of 61 aircraft. In the "standard" seating configuration, a 777 carries over twice as many passengers as the 757 with the same number of engines (2) burning fuel. Everybody seems to agree that the 757 is a wonderful airplane (me included), but nobody seems to want to buy it.

And AA has no 777's on order as of today.

 

[jimntx]

Well, if they load up on Airbus products--particularly the XLR, I think that the day will come when they will regret that decision. Not judgin. Just sayin.

 

[MetalMover]

Now, now. Don't have a stroke. You get no argument from me about what a good airplane it is. The 757 (and the MD80) are the only planes in the fleet that have a decent First Class galley--easy to work. And both are being retired.

As far as it goes, I'm mistified at the attraction (if any) of the A321--the whole family from A319 up through A321(all variations). The airplane leaves me in a state of indifference approaching the supernatural. The galleys are a joke. The only counter space where you can stand up an open bottle of wine is directly in front of the ovens which means when the meals are ready you have to put the wine bottles either on the floor or on top of the food service cart in order to get the meals out of the oven. The seating configuration is strange to the point that flight attendants have to manually demonstrate the safety features because some seats have to fold away the video screens because they block the emergency exits.

But nobody with decision-making authority (at any airline, it seems) has been interested in the 757. And, I've never heard an explanation why--not that those people would explain to peons like me anyway.

Maybe because price is king? Personally, regardless of Airbus or Boeing, I prefer NOT to fly a narrow body across any vast body of water. I know some might argue what's the difference if you're going trans-con or trans Atlantic. It's just a personal preference I would imagine.
But I have a hunch that when JetBlue begins A321 XLR service to Europe and they have good loads, AA might try it as well in order to free up the 777 for markets more important than JFK.

 

[1AA]

Maybe because price is king? Personally, regardless of Airbus or Boeing, I prefer NOT to fly a narrow body across any vast body of water. I know some might argue what's the difference if you're going trans-con or trans Atlantic. It's just a personal preference I would imagine.
But I have a hunch that when JetBlue begins A321 XLR service to Europe and they have good loads, AA might try it as well in order to free up the 777 for markets more important than JFK.

What I see here is more long range narrowbody and so far no further interest in new widebody aircraft orders. The new 777 has very promising performance numbers.

 

[jimntx]

What I see here is more long range narrowbody and so far no further interest in new widebody aircraft orders. The new 777 has very promising performance numbers.

And what I predict we will see is passengers booking on foreign flag airlines that have big airplanes and space to stretch out at a lower cost than AA and other ABXLR users. The thought of that example of DFW non-stop to Central Europe on a single-aisle airplane just gives me cold chills. Doing the food and beverage service will be a nightmare unless all passengers remain seated while the service is being done. We already know that ain't happening--particularly by the passengers who were already in line for the lav when the captain turned on the seatbelt sign.

Passengers love the big dual-aisle airplanes. End of discussion. I remember working an AB321 on an LAX-DFW flight. Now the AB321 is our largest single aisle airplane (I think) carrying almost 200 passengers. As passengers boarded who had just come off of 777s or AB380's, etc from the Orient or South America, I heard more than one turning to a travel companion and saying something like "Oh, it's one of the small planes."

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Ever notice 'Jim', that (arguably) the Best Airline in the World, Lufthansa, doesn't even use a smaller widebody (like a 777) from FRA to the major USA cities, opting for a 748,A346,or a A380 !!!!! To me, that gives your point more credence !!!!!!!!!!

 

[787nightmare]

The 757 just didn’t sell as well as Boeing had hoped. Period.

The issue with them today, though the hot rods that they are....is the fuel burn isn’t attractive anymore.(Though UP, FX don’t seem to have any problem operating them...demonstrates the profit margins they enjoy?)

The 757 replacement is in the works, but again, Boeing moved too slow. The “MAX” should’ve been an ALL NEW aircraft design.
But Boeing opted to do it all on the cheap with a 1960s tube, hang bigger motors on it, longer landing gear legs...and now look what they got on their hands.

We at Boeing hourly feel like, it is this 757 replacement(797?)that will be used as leverage(ala 777X back in the 2016 extension) to ram another contract extension up our a$$ in 2020.
If it’s too deep, concessions ....I’ll leave again. Just isn’t worth it.
I almost don’t recognize the place I was working for less than 4 yrs ago as it is now.

Here are some basic statistics...
757 was produced from 1981 until 2004. A total of 1050 were built. That's an average of 23 aircraft per year.
777 has been produced since 1993. Already Boeing has built 1593 777s-- an annual average production of 61 aircraft. In the "standard" seating configuration, a 777 carries over twice as many passengers as the 757 with the same number of engines (2) burning fuel. Everybody seems to agree that the 757 is a wonderful airplane (me included), but nobody seems to want to buy it.

 

[jimntx]

https://seekingalpha.com/news/34775...max-cancellations-fourth-time?dr=1#email_link

Got above link via email. Doesn't say anything about "cancellations extended until such and such a date." Does anyone know the new ending date for cancellations at AA?

Correction: email did say "early November." Swamt posted a link that specifically said, Nov. 3 or 4--I forgot on the way over from reading it.