Clipper110A

Were you in a row of 4 with the wife and (smaller) kids, or a row of 4 with three other 6 foot tall wide shouldered guys ?
That might be the key to it not having been so bad...

jamar

And on some routes I don't see AA being that even with 3-4-3. That and the disconnect with its ATI partners across either ocean.

carlosdca

Flying next to a loved one is a totally different experience to flying next to a stranger.
Kids are small and don't take much space. One can lean onto the other half's shoulder, for example. I also read upthread comparisons to LH but LH 3-4-3 is on 747s not 777s. Not fair comparisons, IMO.

I really do not understand the point of saying that 3-4-3 is going to be ok. At least from the customer point of view.

I understand and appreciate the discussions of the economics of 3-4-3, that some people will just buy the cheapest seat regardless of configuration and others would pay for a premium for more comfort. And that 3-4-3 is arguably the right path for AA nowadays (or not).

Still, IMO, it is fact that 3-4-3 is going to much less comfortable (shoulder/butt/elbow room wise) than 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 (no speculation there). And (this is speculation) the reduced width is not going to be compensated by extra-pitch, pitch will be the same.

WRCSolberg

That doesn't mean those non-elites in UA's Y+ are actually paying for it though(yields vs butts in seats). I've flown UA trans-atlantic a bit lately, and typically what happens is the cheap seats(Y-) are all assigned weeks before the flight, Y+ is empty for the most part aside from the elites and the few who've paid for it, and the rest of Y that won't pay the premium for Y+ has unassigned seats. Then, at check-in, all of those who bought a regular Y ticket, didn't pay for Y+, and don't have seat assignments are automatically assigned Y+ seats.

So, like I said, don't be confused by butts in seats versus yields. In my experience as a statusless peon on UA, it's very easy to get into Y+ without paying an extra dime.

Does anyone know how AA plans to sell and market Y+? From what I've read, elites will get them gratis as well as non-elite full fare Y, however what I'm not clear on is if AA will sell Y+ upgrades at a nominal price similar to UA.

jordyn

United's been pretty clear that Y+ has been a net positive for them. To the extent that we're just taking American at their word that MRTC was a failure, I don't know why we wouldn't apply the same logic to United. (Further, since they're rolling it out to the PMCO fleet, they are backing this statement with an action that would be a huge money-loser according to the "people won't pay more for quality so you can only make money by adding more seats" crowd.)

gegarrenton

Do you enjoy strawman arguments?

Herb687

And if we take American at their word that MRTC was a failure, was it a failure because of the strategy or the execution???

I argue that MRTC failed due to execution. As I mentioned upthread, AA's MRTC implementation was half-assed. The pricing and yield management alignment that needed to happen in order to properly execute the MRTC business strategy was not there.

makfan

When I talk with my friends who are occasional flyers about seat width, pitch, or 2-5-2 vs. 3-4-3 they get glassy eyed. They don't comprehend that you can research these things and make a choice based on what you like best.

They see Expedia or Orbitz saying that there is a flight on BB at 10 am that costs $320 and a flight on CC at 1 pm that costs $375. So they pick BB at 10 am for $320. They don't look at the aircraft type and click to SeatGuru to see what seats are what.

This is why we'll see things like 3-4-3 with a small number of rows at 3-3-3. And we'll get stuck in a 3-4-3 when a flight cancels or we miss a connection, or worst of all, book late. Ugh.

jordyn

Not really. Fortunately, this isn't one.

Quoting sxf24 from upthread:

and

bubba198

Absolutely correct and typical of our society. Moreover for many people who don't fly much or don't fly far this is a reasonable strategy. For every body else it either takes a lot of money or attention to detail and perseverance to stay out of steerage.

It's not unlike houses where I live. The big driver in selling a house is a low price per square foot. People seem to be pleased w a 4000 sq ft house on a yard with a 20 ft back yard, 5 ft sides, and 15 ft toot front. That's reality.

carlosdca

I was reading about the 787 configurations. ANA and JAL have 2-4-2 in economy (8 abreast). UA's 787 is planned to have 3-3-3 (9 abreast).

I can guess already what AA's 787s will have.

WRCSolberg

It's been shown time and time again that it simply isn't the case. To me, it seems AA's strategy in introducing Y+ is to also introduce a Y-, as in something worse than what previously existed. I'm sure AA plans to drive demand for the premium by reducing the status quo, whereas with UA, I'm fairly certain it didn't decontent Y to bolster Y+ when it was introduced.

Not only that, but that's also the mandate with many corporations these days as well. The F500 firm I work for has a strict policy that employees should fly the cheapest as long as the schedule is reasonable. Rewards programs, elite status, etc. should not play into decision making process.

Indeed. As much as I hate it as a pax, it's a great business model for AA. The vast majority of pax pick the cheapest fare regardless of airline, aircraft type or hard product. Anyone that's savvy and discriminating enough to realize the disadvantages of Y-(and the seating arrangement of the aircraft they're flying on) will probably fly enough to get elite status and thus the free upgrade to the Y+ seat, or are willing to upgrade to Y+ for a nominal fee. Everyone else will suck it up, because, well, it was the cheapest flight that came up on Expedia and that's all that matters.

Gamecock

Being on the long slow slide from EXP to thin flimsy plastic status, I guarentee you if I find myself in deep steerage I'll pay to "upgrade" to Y+.

gegarrenton

In which you are clearly skipping over the word "almost". UA and AA are gambling on a different percentage of people willing to pay more, and that is it.

Edit: Look, my whole point that you conveniently glossed over, and indeed used a strawman in response, is that the blanket statement "People will pay more for better coach" has been indeed shown false, that is what things like MRTC and their ilk were. The statement " A certain amount of people will pay more more for a better coach" has been shown to be unequivocally true, as evidenced across many airlines, and is a totally different concept. All thats left is to determine what percentage to use

jordyn

Huh? No I'm not. Go back to the original quotes upthread; the word "almost" does not appear in either of them.

No. AA is gambling that no one will care about how crappy their baseline product is and that hardly anyone will pay more for something better. I think both of those propositions

What strawman? Seriously, I provided the exact quotations that was responding to. A strawman is an argument that no one else made.

No it hasn't. People keep acting like this proposition has tons of data behind it, when in reality the best anyone can come up with is that MRTC failed. That proves that AA didn't do a good job with MRTC, or wasn't able to earn more on it than it cost them. On the other hand, there's significant contrary evidence. Economy Plus disproves it. JetBlue disproves it. Heck, even Southwest disproves it and all they do is provide an extra inch of pitch and manage to treat you roughly the same on every flight.

"A certain amount of people" is a subset of "people", so if the second statement is true, the first must be as well since no one is asserting that everyone will pay more for a better product--that's not the point of product differentiation anyway.

United has clearly shown that the subset approach works fine, but I contend there's ample evidence that AA consistently loses ground to other competitors who charge just as much or more but manage to deliver a better coach product for all of their customers.

AA's response is to continue the race to the bottom in terms of service and prices, but this is a strategy that will never succeed for them because they will never have the lowest costs. So they shouldn't try to play the game in the first place.