Originally Posted by
birdible
I'd second all of this. AA isn't in as bad shape as I think we (at least many of us) and Kirby think. There are a lot of strong parts they've lucked into or have from previous, less bad leadership. They could turn things around in 5 years and be competitive with DL and UA in 10. But, that does require the board and C-suite doing something about it. It does seem if they don't do something, they'll start to fall so far behind that in 5-10 years they'll truly be boxed in and have a hard time recovering.
Two things I think have been highlighted but need emphasizing:
1. I've had the best soft product flying and the worst. The inconsistency in service is their biggest problem. Like, many on here, I flew over 80 segments on AA last year, and am at over 50 this year. About 1/3 of the flights are some of the best service I get. About 1/2 are neither good nor bad. But that remaining portion are truly, truly terrible experiences. They need to raise the bottom up and then push for consistency.
2. There's reason to possibly be optimistic - Nat Pieper brings a unique perspective from his time at Oneworld about how actually decent airlines run. If Isom actually lets him implement changes, like he did Vasu, we might start to see more careful, forward thinking changes. Or at least changes that stop the bleeding and turn AA in the right direction.
I agree with some of this, but AA is actually boxed in financially with both a large debt load and expensive long-term union contracts. Their cost base requires high fares and more premium paying passengers. The product as it currently stands is not good enough to justify those fares. I can't remember the last time I considered AA to be a premium airline. It's a full service global airline that penny pinched while buying new planes and missed the pivot to premium.
Having said all that, if you look at United's Polaris and Delta One, they aren't all that amazing. Delta hard product on many of their planes is worse than AA's, United started off with a very fancy Polaris concept and quickly dropped many of them, and AA on their best day can compete on all fronts. The marketing from Delta and United is better than AA and they play to their strengths. I'm NYC based and fly all 3 of them regularly.
I would argue that AA doesn't have a single item that they do well enough to market. I'm keeping the focus on J as that's where marketing would focus, and economy passengers as a whole have similar experiences on all 3 airlines and choose based on cost and schedule.
Polaris - Hard product is consistent across the fleet and fairly good. Best bedding in the sky and good seat for sleeping. UA app is also excellent. Polaris lounges are solid across the network. UA metal flies to a ton of destinations and is the most global airline of the 3.
Delta - If you need to get somewhere on time, Delta is the airline of choice (many disagree after a few recent meltdowns, but the halo persists). New J seats with doors are great, food is average, and FA service is the most professional of the 3. Handles most issues well, generally avoids the lows that a bad AA can be. I'm partial to Delta as a NYC flyer (VS Clubhouse at JFK and LHR, most flights out of JFK/LGA compared to the others) but acknowledge that the Delta halo is not always deserviced.
AA - Inconsistent at times but has outsourced most of their international flying to OneWorld partners to a greater degree than Delta and UA. Spent years building out an extensive domestic network but avoids competitive routes at all costs (see LAX and NYC as an example). Decisions such as removing seat back entertainment, lagging with free wifi, no plan to stand out from UA and DL in any area, and lack of building out a premium culture are biting them hard now and those are hard to fix. It's not expensive to offer fancy new bedding, really solid food in J, or even pajamas on intl red-eyes. It would put AA on the map for something positive and give them a base to build on.