Talk:American Airlines fleet

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Airlines

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airline project.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Embraer E-Jet family#E190|Embraer E190]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

787s[edit]

2015-12-22: American announced plans for premium economy earlier this month. I added a citation to an article that talks about a "late 2016" date for the 787-900 model to enter revenue service. Mike (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We use ch-aviation.ch as a source for the fleet which has better coverage, so please stick to this source. Thanks! FonEengIneeR7 ^talk 16:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subtype consistency?[edit]

I wonder, given we specify some aircraft with the subtype used [I.E instead of mentioning they flew a 747-200C the article mentions American briefly operated a 747-273C, or how the 737s acquired from the AirCal merger are listed with their subtypes], how abut we apply it across the board - listing 767s as 767-223ERs and 767-323ERs, MD-80 as MD-82, MD-83 technically where applicable, etc?

(ESPECIALLY SINCE MD-80 is just a label to the MD-8X fleet, and there technically is no aircraft called the MD-80 (and the aircraft line actually started with the DC-9-81 (MD-81))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelsonic (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, we do always use generic aircraft types i.e. Airbus A320-200 instead of Airbus A320-214. As to the MD-line you are right, we should distinguish between MD-82s and MD-83s etc... FonEengIneeR7 ^talk 08:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get rid of the timeline and replace it with a table as seen in many other airline articles. It's much simpler to edit and to understand the syntax. Also, the years listed for each aircraft don't line up with where they are placed in the timeline. I'm going to re-do it as a table. —Comp dude¹²³ 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planespotters.net[edit]

Is www.planespotters.net a reliable source? I see it used as a reference for many fleet tables. Anyone can offer to correct the information, although there are some requirements. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I also found that they use several "unofficial" sources. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

While removing some copyright violations I removed the gallery, commons is the place for images. A few images around the article is fine but a gallery is not needed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special livery section[edit]

Given the size of the airline, is it appropriate to have such a section, given how this is fairly static? --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

American Airlines logo 2013.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consistancy of Descriptions and Aircraft Replacing MD-83 and Airbus a321neo cabin seating[edit]

So can we establish here that the a321neo doesn't repalce the md83, because they hold a difference of 50 some passengers.

Can we also create consistency of the descriptions (like the 787-9 replaces the a330-300, but the a330-300 description is blank) because when I try to add it my edit gets undone.

There are 20 First Class, 47 Main Cabin Extra, and 129 Main Cabin seats. That equals 196. That is what the seatmap shows on the AA website and on other sites such as seatguru. CZ3699 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need help![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I tried to add the flight 93 crash to the 757-200 part, but i caused a serious issue that i cant fix. I'm very sorry, but can you help me? Please put answers below here. (R32 nissan skyline (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Normally we dont list accidents on fleet tables either in airline or stand alone article, normall to have an accidents or incidents section in the airline article for that. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also flight 93 was operated by united, not American CZ3699 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency with "retired" dates for crashed aircraft[edit]

For some aircraft types, the row entry is split to account for crashed aircraft. For others, there is mention of a crash, but the row remains unified. Unless there is an objection, let's get rid of the splits. When a plane crashes, it isn't "retired," which is what the header entry says. At the very least, make all entries the same, and split out all crashed aircraft. But since this is cumbersome, requires more upkeep, and contradicts the plain meaning of "retired," I recommend the first option. I'll leave this here for a while to see if anyone acts on it or objects. Holy (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to point out the same thing. It seems really weird to break out the crashed planes separately, especially since this is not done for a lot of the older types. Plus, there are many planes that were written-off in various non-fatal incidents. The same issue occurs on the fleet pages for Delta and United and I think they should all be fixed to remove these strange splits. 97.127.62.110 (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of 737-800s in the fleet[edit]

According to planespotters.net, which is cited in the article, American has 303 737-800s, but the article currently shows that 276 737-800s are in the fleet. So is the number 303 or 276? Fire9600 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional orders[edit]

In accordance with Wikipedia:Be bold, I just added a new "potential future aircraft" section listing AA's conditional agreements with Boom and Vertical Aerospace for their supersonic and eVTOL planes, respectively. While not firm orders, I still think agreements between AA and aircraft manufacturers have encyclopedic value, as long as that is clearly stated. John298 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just undid the edit before I saw this. While I agree with Wikipedia:Be bold, this information is better mentioned in a sentence rather than an entirely separate table. WP:ALFC states orders only, and there are plenty of other airlines with agreements. We've always just listed firm orders. As such, I think a mention is totally fine and is encyclopedic, but shouldn't be on a separate table. VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]