Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > American Airlines | AAdvantage (Pre-Consolidation with USAir)
Reload this Page >

ARCHIVE: AA 787 Orders / Delays / Changes / Delivery Dates, 2012 and later (consolida

ARCHIVE: AA 787 Orders / Delays / Changes / Delivery Dates, 2012 and later (consolida

    Hide Wikipost
Old Jan 23, 15, 9:54 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: JDiver
Wiki Link
Signed in members with 90 days / 90 posts can edit this Wikipost; wiki contents may be printed by using the (lower right wiki corner)

[This thread is obsolete now that N800AN, American Airlines' first Being 787-8, has been announced as arriving DFW for flight trials etc. today. AA9702 departed PAE (Everett, WA) 14:07 hrs Friday, 23 January 2015, and is expected to land DFW at approximately 19:00 (local times).

Please follow the new thread here: AA's first Boeing 787 / 787-8 delivered to DFW today 23 Jan 2015)

Thank you.

/Moderator


Originally Posted by JonNYC View Post
1st AA 787 scheduled to be delivered as AA9702, this Friday (23 Jan 2015) PAE-DFW, arriving DFW at 4:21pm
The first AA 787-8, N800AN, has been built; flight testing began 6 January 2015 with the article currently referred to as "BOE-817".

The initial 787-8 configuration is expected to be 28 J, 48 MCE and 150 MC.

Post 184 (sluggoaafa):

28 B/C, 48 MCE, 150 MC

...last word we had was the 787 is due on 'property' approximately 12/31. January will be tied to FAA. February getting a few more tweaks done. March will be first AA revenue flight.
(Post #186, JonNYC, has details for the 787-9.)

Originally Posted by American Airlines
Boeing 787s
We have plans to acquire 42 state-of-the-art 787(-8) Dreamliners, which are currently scheduled to be delivered starting in late 2014
The All Things 787 Blog states American has 16 787-8s and 26 787-9s on order.

Post #157 states first passenger flights early 2015.

JonNYC depicts what the J cabin layout is likely here in post #260.

roadwarrior84 in post #260 shares some interior photos he found online, here.

To keep things in some semblance of organisation, I've consolidated all of the 2012 threads on the 787 delivery dates, orders or delays into this thread. For reference, here are the threads I found from years past, along with their dates:

. . . ● 14 Jan 2013: American changing jet orders with Boeing, Airbus
. . . ● 12 November 2011: AA 787 delivery schedule?
. . . ● 21 December 2010: AA 787 delivery dates at risk - again!
. . . ● 2 September 2010: American's 787's may fly JFK-LHR
. . . ● 21 February 2010: Boeing 787 Dreamliner: when realistic to fly on AA?
. . . ● 17 April 2009: 787 deliveries pushed back to 2013
. . . ● 15 October 2008: AA Orders 42 787 "Dreamliners" (+ 58 on options)

Please see AA (internally) announces first B788 route for route and inaugural flights information.

Print Wikipost

 
Old Jan 14, 13, 5:08 pm
  #91  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Programs: AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 161
Warning: OT

Originally Posted by hillrider View Post
Heck, the 737s are still sprouting problems and have been grounded because of this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42437823...cracks-so-soon)
What makes me scratch my head about that is that AQ 243 failed after 89,090 cycles, this was at about 1/3 of that, and you'd think somebody would have looked at the 737's after that (even though the 737 model in question was designed before AQ 243). I do know that the next generation 737's were redesigned because of AQ 243, and that after the incident, orders for the 737 actually rose, because people (mostly pilots, if the anecdotes are correct) were so impressed that an aircraft could sustain that level of damage and still make a near perfect landing.
jec6613 is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 5:13 pm
  #92  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
That's been posted a few times since the debut of the A380, but the only published references that have been cited to support that claim are a couple of poorly-written news articles.

Does anybody have any material from Airbus to support the claim that the A380 features higher pressurization and humidity than other conventional aluminum-bodied widebodies, let alone the carbon-fibre bodied 787?

If the claim were true, you'd think that Airbus would be screaming it from the rooftops, no?
Lufthansa had a special system to provide increased humidity in the F cabin

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...irst-a380-0519
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 6:24 pm
  #93  
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Programs: AA PLT 2MM, HH Diamond, Hertz PC, Nat'l EE, GE + Pre✓, Amazon Super Special Prime
Posts: 740
Let us not forget the whole MD-80 debacle that AA went through a few years ago. How many dozens of planes had to be yanked out of the rotation at some point to get their landing gear fixed because of some missing zip-ties on a harness?

It seems like any issue on a NEW plane is highly scrutinized. Especially if it is one of those high-profile problems (a fuel leak, electrical fire) rather than a small one (the lav won't flush). The FAA's call to review the 787 is not surprising. But let us not put the cart before the horse and call it an airframe that is "plagued with problems". There is a feeling out period that needs to happen for every new airframe.

And speaking from some experience in the glass industry, the cockpit glass issue could have just been a flaw in the glass and not a problem with the plane. Though, I have yet to see an official report on that issue. (Anyone have a link? I would like to read it.)

Despite all these recent issues, I think airlines will find it hard to compare these growing pains against the massive decrease in fuel consumption that the 787 offers.
jtav559 is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 8:03 pm
  #94  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: La Jolla, Ca
Programs: AA 2MM LT PLT; AS MVP Gold; HHonors Diamond; IHG PLT
Posts: 3,106
American changing jet orders with Boeing (737 and 787), Airbus

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americ...230650506.html

American said Monday that it updated deals to buy Boeing 737 and 787 aircraft to save money and move up deliveries of the 787s to November 2014.

Another possible indication that they plan to go at it alone, with their own metal.
diver858 is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 8:40 pm
  #95  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP; SPG PLT
Posts: 623
Just seems like good business, along the lines of much of what AA management has started doing and should have been doing earlier. I think they would do this regardless of which outcome management is angling for, no?

P.S. Thanks for sharing the article.
ihdihd is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 9:33 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, AA Advantage
Posts: 5,983
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
From an 8-K filed a bit ago:



Other parts describe the Airbus and engine OEM agreements.
Are the 777 orders all 77W's or are they for 13 77W's and the 5 777-200ER's like orginially planned/
CubsFanJohn is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 10:04 pm
  #97  
Moderator: American AAdvantage, TAP, Mexico, Technical Support and Feedback, and The Suggestion Box
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,841
AA's initial 747-123 was underpowered, and PA's initial 747-141s were as well. And the engines were not exactly super-reliable; my (now deceased) friend, Ken Snow, landed a Pan Am 747-121 scheduled for JFK-LHR at a U.K. air force base when he lost all four engines. Pax bussed into LON, Ken claimed that as the scariest flight in his entire career - and he flew a wide range of aircraft for PA (he began as a celestial navigator and ended his career in the left seat of a 747-400).

I'd normally expect some "teething" problems with new aircraft, and the more radical the design changes, the more likely some modifications will be needed, IMO.

So far, the 787 has really had very few "gripes" for such a radically different aircraft. We can hope things will remain calm.


Originally Posted by jtav559 View Post
But, as history will serve, there have always been a handful of issues with the first planes off the line. 777 had issues, 747 had issues, .... this is nothing new. Just another example of main stream media sensationalizing the news. "Making mountains out of molehills."
JDiver is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 10:41 pm
  #98  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
Originally Posted by CubsFanJohn View Post
Are the 777 orders all 77W's or are they for 13 77W's and the 5 777-200ER's like orginially planned/
No indication in any of the filings or stories about them, but I would bet serious money that the 18 remaining 777s on firm order will all be 77Ws and none of them will be 772s. We'll probably get a better idea after the hearing on Jan 23.

If all 18 are 77Ws, that means the fleet of F-equipped planes has grown to 20 (including the two already delivered). And, of course, there are still 18 options for more 777s. If they turn out to be 77Ws, that would be a total of 38 F-equipped planes.

Some more stories about the filings:

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/a...ners-early.ece

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_t...mber-2014.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90E01220130115
FWAAA is offline  
Old Jan 14, 13, 10:46 pm
  #99  
Moderator: Alaska Mileage Plan
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,480
Originally Posted by JDiver View Post
my (now deceased) friend, Ken Snow, [...] flew a wide range of aircraft for PA (he began as a celestial navigator and ended his career in the left seat of a 747-400).
I didn't think that Pan Am ever flew a 747-400. On this thread, there are several people who "say without a doubt that" Pan Am "never operated the" 747-400.
dayone is offline  
Old Jan 15, 13, 1:50 am
  #100  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: RDU
Programs: AA LTP, Bonvoy Titanium; AA CK before I retired
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by dayone View Post
I didn't think that Pan Am ever flew a 747-400.
Correct, only the -100, -200, and SP. First commercial flight of a -400 was in 1989, when PA was already tight in its graveyard spiral.
ccengct is offline  
Old Jan 15, 13, 3:33 am
  #101  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
No indication in any of the filings or stories about them, but I would bet serious money that the 18 remaining 777s on firm order will all be 77Ws and none of them will be 772s. We'll probably get a better idea after the hearing on Jan 23.

If all 18 are 77Ws, that means the fleet of F-equipped planes has grown to 20 (including the two already delivered). And, of course, there are still 18 options for more 777s. If they turn out to be 77Ws, that would be a total of 38 F-equipped planes.
Whether or not these future deliveries have F or not probably won't be determined until much closer to the delivery date. I think the lead time for changing cabin configurations is as short as 3-6 months before delivery assuming they have the seat units available.
elitetraveler is offline  
Old Jan 15, 13, 10:00 am
  #102  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Programs: SQ & QF
Posts: 1,297
Originally Posted by jec6613 View Post
There are a few reasons for the A380 having so few issues. First, the A380 doesn't break any new technological ground
The 787's problems are with areas that are not ground breaking.

Originally Posted by dayone View Post
I didn't think that Pan Am ever flew a 747-400. On this thread, there are several people who "say without a doubt that" Pan Am "never operated the" 747-400.
It was probably with another airline after Pan Am finished...
FN-GM is offline  
Old Jan 15, 13, 12:37 pm
  #103  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Programs: UA Mileage Plus, AA Advantage
Posts: 5,983
Originally Posted by FN-GM View Post
It was probably with another airline after Pan Am finished...
He likely went over to United during the 1985 Pacific Route purchase.
CubsFanJohn is offline  
Old Jan 15, 13, 12:46 pm
  #104  
Moderator: American AAdvantage, TAP, Mexico, Technical Support and Feedback, and The Suggestion Box
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,841
Nope, I am sure you guys are correct. Ken Snow retired, iirc, when PA shut down, so it had to be the latest version they flew - my misteak. He flew for PA for 35 years, a nice career ranging from DC- and Boeing strats to the Whale, and I do not recall he flew for anyone other than PA (he served in the U S Navy, and later learned to fly).

I flew on AA's 747-123, but iirc they operated a very few TW -SPs - I never flew on those, but it certainly offered performance, if not operating economy.

FN-GM, you truly have a way with words. Ground-breaking problems can be serious, indeed.


Originally Posted by dayone View Post
I didn't think that Pan Am ever flew a 747-400. On this thread, there are several people who "say without a doubt that" Pan Am "never operated the" 747-400.
Originally Posted by ccengct View Post
Correct, only the -100, -200, and SP. First commercial flight of a -400 was in 1989, when PA was already tight in its graveyard spiral.
Originally Posted by FN-GM View Post
The 787's problems are with areas that are not ground breaking...

It was probably with another airline after Pan Am finished...
JDiver is offline  
Old Jan 15, 13, 2:48 pm
  #105  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Programs: AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by FN-GM View Post
The 787's problems are with areas that are not ground breaking.
Most of the problems have been caused by systems that just don't exist on other commercial aircraft so, yes, they are. And I do have an inside source on this, too.
jec6613 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: