MrMarky
Advanced
This is actually a complicated problem. The 80's represent almost half of the AA fleet and they bleed the company with inefficient fuel consumption, further hammered by the increased maintenance costs associated with an aging fleet.
But it takes a long time to correct when you have so many of the 80's. I don't buy the argument about passenger preference though, I don't think they care (though it would be nice if they did). Most pax except maybe the FF's don't have a clue what the AC is when they book their occasional leisure travel.
And the speculation about the "next generation" single aisle is just that -- vaporware. There has been no announcement I am aware of regarding anything of substance replacing the 737 or 320 family going forward as of yet. So you play the hand in front of you and for AA at present that is the 737. Seat wise, it only has like 7 or 8 more than the 80 so it is roughly on parity -- I would guess it has a cargo adavantage though. It would appear AA is content to cede anything smaller to Eagle.
But the bigger picture is international. AA is incredibly weak in the Pacific and not that strong in the Atlantic outside Heathrow. With the pending open skies agreement they would loose their duopoly at LHR and they need to look for other opportunities in Europe where they can compete and make money. Delta's strategy has been to do just that and it appears to be sucessful thus far.
So what this all leads to is that little "option" for 787's. AA can't use the 737's for Atlantic or Pacific growth, and the existing 767/777 fleet is pretty much being fully utilized, so international expansion is going to require more large aircraft. And if AA wants to be a player they can't ignore international. AA may be the biggest airline in world, but when it comes to international they are way down the list, outside LHR.
So the 737 replacing the 80 really amounts to more efficient aircraft used in large measure for domestic feed. But without the international, you don't have anything to feed. There has to be something substantial in the works on that front. They didn't spend the better part of $2 billion for a new terminal at JFK with 59 gates for nothing. My guess is that another shoe is yet to drop.
But it takes a long time to correct when you have so many of the 80's. I don't buy the argument about passenger preference though, I don't think they care (though it would be nice if they did). Most pax except maybe the FF's don't have a clue what the AC is when they book their occasional leisure travel.
And the speculation about the "next generation" single aisle is just that -- vaporware. There has been no announcement I am aware of regarding anything of substance replacing the 737 or 320 family going forward as of yet. So you play the hand in front of you and for AA at present that is the 737. Seat wise, it only has like 7 or 8 more than the 80 so it is roughly on parity -- I would guess it has a cargo adavantage though. It would appear AA is content to cede anything smaller to Eagle.
But the bigger picture is international. AA is incredibly weak in the Pacific and not that strong in the Atlantic outside Heathrow. With the pending open skies agreement they would loose their duopoly at LHR and they need to look for other opportunities in Europe where they can compete and make money. Delta's strategy has been to do just that and it appears to be sucessful thus far.
So what this all leads to is that little "option" for 787's. AA can't use the 737's for Atlantic or Pacific growth, and the existing 767/777 fleet is pretty much being fully utilized, so international expansion is going to require more large aircraft. And if AA wants to be a player they can't ignore international. AA may be the biggest airline in world, but when it comes to international they are way down the list, outside LHR.
So the 737 replacing the 80 really amounts to more efficient aircraft used in large measure for domestic feed. But without the international, you don't have anything to feed. There has to be something substantial in the works on that front. They didn't spend the better part of $2 billion for a new terminal at JFK with 59 gates for nothing. My guess is that another shoe is yet to drop.
