Originally Posted by
newyorkgeorge
I think (at least on FT) there are 2 issues. First, is the operational reliability of AA and it's ability to recover from (usually from external forces) IRROPS. This impacts all flyers. The $10K FL suite might be nice but what good does it do if that CK/EXP/Premium paid flyer constantly arrives late and therefore creates headaches for the flyer that AA needs most. This is probably one of the biggest drivers of AA's lackluster financial performance compared to it's 2 major peers. Not to mention it leaves front line employees de-moralized constantly taking the blame and flak from angry and frustrated flyers.
The second is the "flyer experience." Admittedly Parker has not totally neglected the bread and butter business traveler. ACs have been updated and food enhancements made (albeit many would argue a number of major cities still lack an AC). The International J seat is very competitive. He's put money into FLs. On the flip side, the Oasis project produced an inferior domestic F product while the number of SWUs earned from achieving EXP (now requiring $15K EQDs per year) has gone from 8 to 4.
The jamming of more seats into planes a la the ULCC business model is happening everywhere. DL did a little bait and switch by promoting their AVOD while they were cramming more seats into their planes. The US3 have introduced BE fares and other smaller carriers have followed suit or plan to do so. The jamming of adults into a seat made for an eight year old isn't going away, neither are the wide array of fees. And therefore the mixed business model will live on.
An effective leader can address Issue Number 1. Issue 2 is the state of the airline business, as sad as it's become. The thing about Parker is that he doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency with curing what ails AA's financial and operational performance. There's no publicly announced plan to effect change. Yes he can blame the unions and Boeing for the Max but in the end he and his team are paid to deliver comparable if not better performance than like peers.
Spot on. They need to run a reliable organization. However, the ULCC model is not an excuse. If they want to compete in that space, they need to do so. Show me where I can get ULCC fares on AA. All they did was knock 50 bucks off here and there and call it basic economy. Business models like this do not mix. You don't have a premium dress store inside a Kmart or a Bentley dealer on the Kia lot. If AA wants to compete with ULCC, they should do so and do it right. If not, stay out of that market all together, but quit trying (and failing) to mix two very different business models.
Originally Posted by
cmd320
It could sort of be argued that AA was one of the major contributing factors for why Boeing felt pressured to build the MAX in the first place and then again later felt pressured to make it fly like an NG so that AA didn't have to retrain its pilots.
Sort of? AA is the primary reason Boeing started this train wreck of an airplane. Boeing should have never pushed the 737 this far - either plan your business properly and have the (797?) ready prior to 2030 or upgrade a different frame that could handle it. I always wondered why they didn't "MAX" the 757 - seems like it would have been much more suited to upgrades.