FWAAA

Except for the 77Ws (20 airplanes) and maybe 13 of the 772s (the 45 J seat configurations), every long-haul plane in the fleet has been (or will be) configured as "VFR beasts."

I'm not certain, but I believe that the 289-seat 772s are planned to have just 37 J seats, while the 13 planned 260-seat 772s will have 45 J seats. There was talk early on, however, of re-re-configuring those 13 772s down to 37 J seats once all 47 772s have been reconfigured. Have no idea if that's still the plan.

While you're right - AA will have a mix of long-haul planes offering higher and lower premium cabin seat counts, that doesn't contradict (nor even address) the point I made that you quoted - and that is that no competitor is outfitting its 787s with so few premium seats - not the competition and not even AA's partners like JAL or BA.

Take LAX-HND for example. DL's 763s currently have more business class seats than AA's 787-8s and NH's new 77W flying LAX-HND has more than twice as many premium seats as AA's 787-8, so right off the bat - AA has signaled that it can't compete with NH.

And before someone posts it, AA isn't just aligning the business class cabin to match demand - it won't have anywhere near as many business class seats to sell as the competition. I don't believe that JAL or NH give away business class seats to their frequent flyers as frequently as AA does (via the plentiful SWUs), so it's not like those carriers purposely outfit their planes with twice the necessary number of J seats and then give them away to upgraders.

And it's not just the foreign carriers - on nearly every fleet type you listed above, DL and/or UA outfit their planes with more premium seats than AA's planned configurations. That doesn't just say that AA is doing away with upgrades - that tells me that AA has conceded that it can't sell as many as even DL or UA. US had the smallest premium cabins across the Atlantic and it appears that in the future, AA will have the smallest premium cabins across both the Atlantic and the Pacific, excepting, of course, the 20 77Ws and maybe 13 of the 772s.

Management recently told employees that it expects LAX to be AA's primary TPAC gateway and perhaps the primary 787 base. None of the Asian competition and neither UA nor DL fly West Coast to Asia with such small premium cabins as featured on AA's 787-8s or (eventually) 787-9s.

Longboater

Probably was a typo with 289 seat 772. Management did an about face with having all 772s in this configuration. I'd figure they recognised how well J sells on several routes and didn't want to order additional 77Ws.

Management is essentially following DL's lead in reducing size of J. True that US had very small premium cabins but this was largely due to the low yields of their hubs. DL indicated several years ago that their sales upfront weren't quite what they wanted so they reduced J cabins on their 747/777s and about half of their 767s. Its also true that DL pushes harder to sell their seats in J rather than give them out as upgrades using their version of SWUs or miles.

I know many of this board will trash management for reducing the number of J seats in addition to the upcoming reduction of SWUs for EXPs next year. However, this is where the industry is headed and would much prefer to sell seats in J. As you mentioned LAX-HND, DL uses a 767 with 36 seats in J on the route. The loads have been mediocre to ok up front. If DL is really struggling on selling J on this route, it makes sense AA places a 788 with 28 J seats on LAX-HND. The ability to sell all of those seats at a decent price than give them up in upgrades or rewards will make or break this route for AA. It should help that AA's new J product is definitely better than DL's narrow coffin seats. AA could have decided to launch LAX-HND with the 77W but they did not since they knew they could not come close to selling the 60 premium seats on the plane. ANA has a much better schedule on LAX-HND, enticing more sales up front.

DL's newest planes on order, the A330/A350, will not come delivered with many J seats. Only 34 out of 293 on the A330/A330NEO and 44 out of 321 on the A350.

Management probably recognises the challenges up setting LAX as their Pacific hub. Selling out J is a top priority for them. A route like LAX-AKL has historically had low yields. Look at Air New Zealand's 787-9 configuration. With the competition already well entrenched on many routes AA will likely serve within the next few years, flying low CASM aircraft makes perfect sense. DL looks a little silly not taking those 18 788s right now. Would have made perfect sense for their SEA operation. They are struggling along, flying 767s to ICN, PEK, and PVG. The 789/A350 give AA the opportunity to actually have a sustainable and profitable Pacific operation whereas operating the 772 is too expensive and even with low oil prices, can't break even.

Ok so my point has been AA could place their most premium aircraft out of LAX but outside of double daily LHR and SYD next month, they have chosen not to as they would have difficulty selling out on many of their new flights. (SYD is an exception and I'll it here that within a year, it will be the toughest upgrade in the system.) However, this management recognised how LAX-LHR was the toughest upgrade in the system before DFW-HKG started, so they added another 77W flight to LHR. Would not be surprised to see a LAX-HKG operated by a 77W within a few years.

77W_12A

You think AA would operate LAX-HKG using a 77W?

I keep hearing rumors from CX ground staff of an impeding 5th daily flight out of LAX? I find it very hard for AA to operate that flight if they had to go up against 5 daily, etc increasing frequencies as well.

They are oneworld and codeshare partners. That's the extent of the AA/CX relationship. I highly doubt CX would be in any mood in forming a JV with AA.

Longboater

CX cannot form a JV with AA due to lack of Open Skies with China. It would be wise to start LAX-HKG sooner than later before CX pulls the trigger on a fifth daily. It is important to note how this route is the largest market operated out of LAX that is a monopoly. Quite frankly, the 77W is the only aircraft that AA could market this route. Doug Parker has already said they did not envision having just one flight to HKG. ORD won't work as CX tried but failed with ten weekly frequencies. AA doesn't even operate a flight to Asia from JFK anymore. The only real choice AA has is LAX. As I've said many times before, if AA wants to be serious about LAX as their Pacific hub, then they need to operate LAX-HKG with their most premium aircraft, the 77W.

Austin787

787-9 would be more appropriate, if AA decides to start LAX-HKG.

77W_12A

If I'm correct, HKG has its own bilateral agreements. It doesn't need any approval from the PRC.

I agree. AA would have to pull the trigger on this flight before CX does. If CX does go through, AA will have a difficult decision.

bbmatt

CX flies the 77W with the exact same J seats. I don't see why AA couldn't fill one 77W from LAX-HKG. They can compete easily on Y/J. I'd prefer AA in MCE on the 77W vs CX anyday!

itchief

All of the seat numbers talked about in this thread are from before AA dumped Zodiac as the main seat supplier. Only the 788 and a few 772's will finish out with the current J seat, this was in the AA press release when Zodiac was dumped.

No one knows what kind of seat will go into J now that AA is going to change their plans with the seat. This could cause a lot of changes to the numbers on J and Y seating with the 789 and the re-furb 772.

Longboater

Since AA's first 789 is tentatively scheduled to arrive at the end of next September, I suspect AA has selected/will select a seat supplier that can meet the order in time. Zodiac was going to be unable to meet that deadline. I'd say based on past history that management had with B/E, the the B/E Super Diamond seat will likely the new seat in J, i.e. what QR uses on its 787/A350, which is one of the best, if not the best, available. AA was going to have seven rows of J between Door One and Door Two. The size of the B/E Super Diamond seat should fit in that configuration.

Longboater

Too few premium seats. The 789 will have more seats in Y than the 77W. Actually, going forward, excluding the 767s as they retired, only the 788 and the small subfleet of high J 772s will have fewer seats in Y than the 77W. The low J 772, 789, and A350 will all have more Y seats than the 77W.

JonNYC

This is my position as well-- that the new seat selected will in all likelihood change, potentially, -only- the number of J-seats, not the size of the J-cabin (it may go up or down a couple of seats, depending on seat model/design) nor, in my opinion, the number and ratio of Y and Y+ seats, appreciably.

And, the genesis of this particular discussion-splinter was if 789 would potentially have F or not, and that has certainly not changed.

pineapplejet

I'm just wondering instead of competing with CX on HKG, why not SZX. The place is a major trade, manufacturing and shippings hub; and it's just getting started pending demise of HK. That provides a lot of business travel and potential to sell J seats.

Looking into Chinese politic, HK caused a scene with their activism last year, majorly pissed off Xi and the communists don't forgive easily. In fact, Chinese gov is already starting to crush HK economically, building out free trade zone throughout china and placing an increasing emphasis on PVG shipping, trading and banking. HK shopping is expensive and banking has definitely gone down the drain crushed by OECD and FATCA.

Besides, SZX to HKG is just a short hop. I vaguely remember there's some kind of express link in the works between the two.

Don't get me wrong, I worked there for years and I loved it while there but things just aren't the way they were. Now every time when I'm in HKG, besides meeting old friends and colleagues, I ask myself, why the heck am I here.

Austin787

CX dominates the route, will be tough for AA to make a profit. A 789 is lower cost than the 77W, so lower risk. Plus, the 789 has more MCE seats than the 77W. Of course, AA could switch to the 77W in the future if demand can support it.

itchief

For all the FlyerTalk Airline CEO's,

This is quote from a Bloomberg article,

"The cargo hold on a 777-300ER is so roomy that a passenger airline can hold 7,120 cubic feet (202 cubic meters) of freight -- 25 percent more than a four-engine 747-8 jumbo can take beneath its cabin. A 777 also can carry as many as 386 people."

Next time you are taking a flight on a 77W watch the ramp and see how much cargo is being loaded onto the aircraft. It is not all about how many seats you fill. Lots of money to made with the space under your feet. AA has a whole department called AACargo.

Longboater

The 789 would be a better aircraft for this route, if it had more seats up front. AA's configuration would essentially end any chance of upgrades and J will probably sell out weeks in advance for off peak days and potentially a couple of months on peak days. Even F on DFW-HKG has sold out several weeks in advance on non-peak days. LAX-HKG has the advantage of being almost a thousand miles less than DFW-HKG. Unlike the DFW flight that goes out without cargo and, particularly in the winter, has to either block off seats or bump passengers due to the wind, a flight out of LAX could actually carry some cargo and a pretty hefty load out of HKG.

I confess I'm not too familiar with cargo capabilities v. range for the 77W. I know the range for the 789 isn't all that great with a full load, especially with a dense configuration as AA will roll out. (UA does not carry cargo on their relatively premium 789 on LAX-MEL, which is just under 700 miles longer than LAX-HKG.) While the 789 absolutely has a huge advantage over the 77W with fuel, (UA has been rumoured to be considering returning to LAX-HKG with the 789.), the only aircraft that makes sense if AA pulls the trigger on LAX-HKG is the 77W.