halls120

That is because MRTC wasn't a "superior" coach product.

Global_Hi_Flyer

Plenty of folks fly Southwest as the "first choice" even though (IME) Southwest is very frequently NOT the lowest fare carrier. There are plenty of other factors at play here.

I am not surprised that AA is doing this, and I fully expect to end up in one of those seats as an EXP sometime (be it IROPS or the need to change flights at the last minute). Someone else noted that frequent flyer programs are changing - that's true: they're in a race to the bottom. We need only look at how the AF, B6, and VX programs work to see the direction others are headed. I fully expect that there will either be co-pays or fare restrictions on VIPs in the near future. We can only hope it's not as bad as DL's restrictions.

sxf24

At the time, it was the best domestic coach product in the market (save for Midwest Express, but we know how that worked out).

Yes, there are other factors at play. We could start an entire thread on Southwest's brilliant distribution and marketing strategy, but that would be unrelated to the topic at hand. What is relevant is that vast majority of people don't book Southwest because they get an extra inch of legroom and Southwest doesn't get better yields because it offers more personal space.

Global_Hi_Flyer

Yet the vast majority of WN flyers do their very best to gain boarding advantage to get the most desirable seats for them (usually window or aisle). So seating is important on WN, too. I'd be willing to bet that it would be even more important if WN found a way to shoehorn another seat into each row.

IME, WN tends to be a better experience - in general - than the legacy airlines, which have treated their service as commodities. WN's found a way to profit from it.

That said, either one is still better than Ryanair or the legroom/pitch found on some inter-Europe coach flights.

jordyn

You just don't like the data, so you are ignoring it with no foundation. To clarify: my thesis is exactly what you proposed in your previous question, that AA could get higher fares with similar load factors (or higher load factors with similar fares) with a better product.

You keep repeating things and acting like that makes them more true. I already linked to a third party explaining why yield was a worse measure. In particular, since it doesn't take load factor into account it's not very interesting.

Yes, that is why I am using PRASM, as I clearly indicated in my last post.

jordyn

Southwest is successful because they consistently deliver a reasonable product to people. That extra inch of legroom is a little bit of it, but so is no bag fees and other aspects that make them somewhat more "full service" than what legacy carriers are providing these days. And at the end of the day, they're another good example of a carrier undercutting AA on cost while getting more in revenue (their PRASM is about 2% higher than AA's).

sxf24

But, are those WN flyers willing to intentionally pay more for the opportunity to pick their preferred seat? While I agree that the WN experience tends to be better, and is differentiated in many ways from the legacy carries, I don't think that is because WN sees their service as something more than a commodity.

For the last time, history has proven your thesis wrong. AA had a better product and failed to get higher fares with a similar load factor.

Load factor is only indicative of demand and does not capture propensity the consumer's willingness to pay a higher price.

You have been trying to use RASM and PRASM interchangeably. If you'd like to discuss PRASM, post those figures instead of RASM.

I can't disagree with why WN is successful. But, this is a discussion about whether passengers will pay more for a better coach seat. Since WN doesn't offer a better seat than AA (in fact, I'd argue the new seats on AA's 737s are superior), I'm not sure what your point is.

sxf24

What about those of us that have flown it. Are you going to insult us too?

Jacobin777

^

I've been flying with EK since the 90's and now EY (since I get AA EQM's out of ORD) and both of them have 10-across on their B777's.

I personally wouldn't have a problem flying 3-4-3 in Y on AA, especially if the seat pitch increases.

Global_Hi_Flyer

Clearly, some do. Maybe not the full business-whatever sale that WN offers, but enough pay for the early/auto check-in. Fortunately, one can still check-in right at the crack of 24 hours and generally end up with boarding group B or better. If I'm doing a short business flight and "don't care", I'll chance the 24 hour check-in. The last 3-4 times I've done that, I've ended up in middle of the "B" boarding group, despite having a check-in time within 15 seconds of T-24. Somebody's buying the early boarding to get better seating....

Personally, I don't see much difference between AA's new 737 seats and WN's seats. With one big exception, I think the AA and WN coach seats feel about the same: the exception is that some of WN's exit row seats are noticeably "shorter" and offer less support to those of us with longer legs. I prefer non-exit rows on longer WN flights for that reason.

GrizShel

I wish they would have gone the other way and done something positively innovative like making economy MORE comfortable or even going with larger premium economy product configuration than their competition. If I have a trip where I have to sit in the 3-4-3 sardine can, I'll do everything I can to avoid taking that trip or fly a competitor with a better product.

doctorjosh

3-4-3 on a B777 would be awful. The only thing worse is 3-3-3 on an A330!
Anyway, my favourite configuration on a B777 is 2-5-2 but it seems that most people prefer 3-3-3. I don't understand why...

jordyn

History showed that AA did a bad job with their product. I provided three counterexamples. You've only attempted to grapple with one, and there only by what appears to be intentionally trying to "misunderstand" my point.

Seriously, you are trying to change the terms of the discussion as it becomes clear you are wrong. You originally asked "if AA implemented JetBlue style cabins on all of its aircraft (same pitch, amenities, etc.), do you think it could charge higher fares while still maintaining the same load factors?" If you look only at yield, you are only measuring the first half of that equation.

As I have clarified several times, the numbers I have been posting have been PRASM. Throughout this discussion. I apologize for being insufficiently clear in my first post, but the 12.0 versus 11.49 comparison is PRASM from both airlines Q1 2012 10Q filings. No RASM data has been posted throughout the course of this discussion. Hopefully that's clear now, although I would have thought the two previous clarifications would have done the trick as well.

It's really about whether they'll pay more for a better coach product (you'll notice that's the word I consistently used in my original post), of which seat is a component. WN is yet further proof that they will.

halls120

I'm not insulted. I've flown 10 abreast, and I hated every minute of it.

sxf24

You're counterexamples weren't relevant to a thesis that improving a standard coach product will bring in more revenue (premium cabins on CX?!?). On the other hand, you're completely dismissing that fact that AA tried to bring in more revenue by improving its standard coach product and failed.

Why do you have to capture the other half of the equation (load factors), if it isn't changing?

I would suggest you're deliberate in how you label the data when it is presented. At one point, you appeared to be using RASM and PRASM interchangeably, which is disingenuous.

PRASM does not indicate how much people are paying. It measures how much revenue the airline generates from each seat mile.