I was under the impression that the 787s were designed for longer, thinner routes precisely like MIA-JNB, no? Or is this one of those things where JNB is so hot and high that, well.....not so much.

I don't believe that the A350 will have the legs for JNB-MIA nonstop. Airbus shows the range of the A350 as "up to 7,600 nm" which is just slightly shorter than the range of a 772ER.

Several years ago, the 787-9 specifications page at the Boeing site showed a much longer range than it does today - apparently, Boeing wants to reduce its "over-promising, under-delivering" problem.

Delta flies JNB-ATL with the one plane that can certainly fly it nonstop - the 777LR.

Absent the complex variables associated with determining actual Range, the A350-900ULR has a maximum FLYING TIME of approx 19 Hours. The 777-200LR, 18 Hours. Hours is typically a more accurate representation of performance. To date, AA has not ordered either aircraft. The -900 orders, however can be easily converted to the ULR type, if desired. IMO, MIA-JNB is highly unlikely.

359LR and 77L can fly MIAJNB nonstop in both directions.

Other planes could fly the route as a triangle routing MIAJNBCPTMIA. JNB is hot and high which is the issue. The normal 359, 77W, 789 could all run a triangle.

You could also take a technical stop in Dakar, Lome, Accra, or any number of other places.

The 346es South African uses on JFK-JNB can also make the trip nonstop, but I don't see those in AA's future anytime soon.

I don't believe the 787-9 can do JNB-MIA nonstop with AA's planned higher density configuration. UA's 787-9 will be flying SFO-SIN later this year but with a much lower density and for much of the winter, seats blocked in the rear. While JNB-MIA is about four hundred miles less than SFO-SIN, the altitude is a killer. The 787-9 has a much better takeoff performance than comparable aircraft, but I don't believe its engines have the proper thrust to get it off the ground at high altitude. When SAL was in better economic conditions, I don't believe the Dreamliner was ever under consideration. If AA were to consider some shorter Africa routes like MIA-ACC/LOS, they'll probably be operated by the 787-8. Could be a long time before SAL is capable of replacing their A340-600s that fly JNB-JFK nonstop, albeit with payload restrictions especially in the winter.

The A350-900 and 787-9 have close to the exact same range as each other. The 787-9 should have had more range than the A350-900 but Boeing flopped as pretty much everything with the Dreamliner programme has been, well, as you said, overpromised and underdelivered. While the 787-9 has slightly more range than the A350-900, roughly fifty miles given Boeing and Airbus's specific configurations for both aircraft, the A350-900 has much more range once weight is reduced, i.e. no cargo.

There was a great chart floating around that showed how much further the A350-900 could fly than the 787-9 once weight the weight was reduced but I can't remember where I last saw it. More importantly, the A350-900's takeoff performance is better than the 787-9. The A350-900 has much greater thrust than the 787-9. In addition, it has a stronger wheel base than the 787-9.

(I'm basing this off of what I've been told by airline employees familiar with aircraft specifications. The reasons given for the A350-900's performance over the 787-9 partially explain why Delta selected the aircraft to the replace their 747 fleet. It was not entirely a delivery slot issue as Boeing was trying to portray.)

All that being said, I do believe AA could operate the A350-900 JNB-MIA nonstop, but it would have to go with the belly empty and likely block off seats in the rear, potentially year round. In the end, AA would likely carry roughly the same amount of passengers as Delta carries on the 77L, but at a significant cost advantage over the 77L. (US was planning on a 36J/294Y configuration but that'll change. I'm guessing somewhere between 310 and 320 seats in total.)

Boeing revised their range specifications for their aircraft recently as did Airbus. Due to airlines heavier flatbed seating up front and trying to pack in the rear, range specifications have gone down, some aircraft considerably. 777-200ER Range. The 777-200ER's range is much less than the A350-900's range.

The A346s are gas guzzlers. However, those four holers have significantly better performance at JNB than any comparable twin save the 77L. SAL has admitted JNB-JFK is unprofitably, largely due to the equipment they stuck with operating. SAL might have to dump these aircraft and put up with flying A330s, with a stopover they once used at SID, to fly to North America. SAL's financial condition, like most SA parastatals, is in terrible shape but that's a conversation for another forum.

JNB is not a low yielding destination and DL does very well on ATL-JNB, as noted by management on several occasions. The route makes upgrading on DFW-HKG like an automatic upgrade. The problem is the nonstop from JNB and very few aircraft can do it. Arguably, the 77L is the only aircraft proven to make JNB-North America a profitable venture, no thanks in small part to DL working with Boeing in developing the 77L. The 77L has one of the fastest tire speeds on a widebody aircraft to help the twin get off the ground in JNB. However, with the arrival of the A350, its potential capabilities include excellent high altitude takeoff performance for a twin.

AA could buy a subfleet of 77Ls; thing is that beyond MIA-JNB, I have trouble thinking where else they might ever need them in lieu of a 789 or 359 (LAX-SIN? MIA-NRT (even that's probably more a 787 route)?).

That's why I don't see them buying a subfleet of them. The 77L is a niche aircraft for the ME3 and a few others. The over-performance of the 77W killed off many 77L orders in addition to ending any hope the already mentioned A346 had of competing with the 77W. CX bought a small subfleet of A346s to fly JFK-HKG nonstop but when it became apparent the 77W could perform on such routes, they were quickly dumped. The ME3 have been using their 77L fleets for, ironically, long and thin routes/start ULH routes before upgauging to 77W/A380s. DL's motivation for buying them was Australia/South Africa non-stops. It'll be interesting to see what Delta considers replacing them as its probably the most difficult fix since Delta is the only 77L operator that does not have the 77W/789 in their fleet/on order and DL's use the plane is specific to certain destinations like the high altitude of JNB and previously the heat of DXB.

The 789/A359 are the future of AA's longest routes, mostly Transpacs. Unless AA has a select number of A359s fitted to the A359-ULR, LAX-SIN isn't happening. If MIA-NRT does happen, I assume it will someday, probably more likely with JAL's 787-9 than AA due to configuration. AA will be way too heavy in the rear.

I'm not of the opinion that AA will acquire an aircraft with the intention of being able to fly MIA-JNB nonstop. I don't see any route longer than DFW-HKG that AA would be interested in which would require an aircraft beyond the range and capabilities of the 77W/789/359, either.

AA looked at buying the eight Air India 77Ls that were for sale to fly routes like those discussed above. Obviously, they ultimately chose not to pursue them.

Those planes weren't exactly in the greatest mechanical shape. DL was probably offered them and turned them down for the same reason.

If AA really wanted to fly MIA-JNB and back nonstop and found the A350-900 can't quite make it without blocking enough seats where it becomes a problem, they could have the plane fitted to the ULR, with higher MTOW and added fuel tanks. However, I expect Airbus will continue to improve the A350, similar to how they improved the A330 from a borderline TATL plane to have capabilities of operating flights up to 13 hours. PAL's order for a higher MTOW A350, but not the A350-900ULR, to operate JFK-MNL nonstop confirms how Airbus views the future of the A350-900 as an ULH aircraft.

Personally, I don't think MIA-JNB is even on the top of AA's priority list. They are so weak in Asia (they only serve PEK, HKG, ICN, NRT/HND, and PVG), and will probably try to build up an Asian gateway at LAX before focusing on Africa. They also like to build on partnerships, so CX/JL partnerships in Asia will encourage more flights.

Additionally, BA has so many seats to South Africa, and AA seems happy flying customers USA-LHR-CPT/JNB.

Wow, that's interesting-- never knew that! What time-period was this?

Whether or not AA looked at the AI 77Ls (and I wouldn't doubt they did; they should always be looking at every opportunity), history has shown that carriers buying small subfleets to operate particular routes typically doesn't end particularly profitably. DL at 10 77Ls is about the minimum needed for it to make sense at a carrier of this size, IMO.

AA would have to believe MIAJNB will be extremely profitable for them to seriously consider such an acquisition.