By By old gal.. 767-200 now all gone
#46
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,620
By By old gal.. 767-200 now all gone
Is AA getting out of the economy transcontinental market? Since the 321s arrived, coach roundtrip fares are $550-$700 while competitors are $400.
#47
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: 대한민국 (South Korea) - ex-PVG (上海)
Programs: UA MM / LT Gold (LT UC), DL SM, AA PLT (AC), OZ, KE; GE and Korean SES (like GE); Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,996
Isn't it "bye bye" rather than "by by"? That evil spell checker hits again, I guess .
#49
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,620
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
I am sure they will make for some excellent "airplane salad": http://www.dallasnews.com/business/a...s-boneyard.ece
#51
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,438
With only 72 seats to sell rather than 128, seems to make sense that AA can set its pricing so as to have less very low fares offered
#52
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 30,000 Feet
Programs: LY Top Platinum, AA Platinum, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 863
Loved flying the 762 JFK-MIA in J seats sold as Y.
Also, I think these were the first birds to get Gogo back in the day.
Also, I think these were the first birds to get Gogo back in the day.
#53
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,620
That's my point. Seems like AA made a conscious decision to no longer compete in economy by reduce capacity in coach by configuring the 321 the way they did. Less coach seats per flight than DL or UA.
#54
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,438
You asked whether AA was getting out of the economy transcontinental market. I would say no , just that they may be targetting a higher fare per passenger, which seems a fair approach
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,191
I'd venture a guess that within 7-14 days from departure, their fares will be competitive.
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSY (finally); previously NYC, BOS, AUH
Programs: AA EXP, 6MM; BA GLD
Posts: 17,203
By your logic, AA could "compete" for economy passengers by dramatically increasing capacity on this route. Sure, the fundamentals of economics assure that they'd have to drop prices as capacity increases, and thus they likely would be assured of losing money on every ticket sold, but they'd make it up in volume, right?!?!
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
It's apparent to me that AA did give up trying to attract the "backpacker crowd" (probably politically incorrect term these days) - the young, hip, Kayaker crowd with no elite status (or maybe Gold) who want to fly back and forth between NYC and LAX for dirt cheap. Years and years ago they flew Tower Air. Now they can fly B6 or pay low fares to help fill up those Delta 767s.
In the third quarter of last year (most recent gov't fare data available), AA had the largest share of the JFK-LAX market at average fares in excess of $500 each way. That high average fare wasn't due to the 128 seats in the back of each 762; that high average fare was due to the 40 bigger seats up front.
We won't know for quite some time whether AA is successful in raising its average fare on the JFK-LAX transcons as a result of its decision to reduce Y seating by 56 seats per flight but my guess is that the average fare will increase. And like happens every day, if AA can't sell those 72 Y seats for the fares it seeks, we can rest assured that AA will cut the price to the level it feels will maximize revenues and/or profits. AA has people on staff with that job description.
In the third quarter of last year (most recent gov't fare data available), AA had the largest share of the JFK-LAX market at average fares in excess of $500 each way. That high average fare wasn't due to the 128 seats in the back of each 762; that high average fare was due to the 40 bigger seats up front.
We won't know for quite some time whether AA is successful in raising its average fare on the JFK-LAX transcons as a result of its decision to reduce Y seating by 56 seats per flight but my guess is that the average fare will increase. And like happens every day, if AA can't sell those 72 Y seats for the fares it seeks, we can rest assured that AA will cut the price to the level it feels will maximize revenues and/or profits. AA has people on staff with that job description.
#59
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,620
By your logic, AA could "compete" for economy passengers by dramatically increasing capacity on this route. Sure, the fundamentals of economics assure that they'd have to drop prices as capacity increases, and thus they likely would be assured of losing money on every ticket sold, but they'd make it up in volume, right?!?!
Please point out any evidence to support they are in fact losing money on that segment of the market. Competitors are still serving that segment whether it is legacy UA/DL or B6/VX seems to indicate it is not not necessarily losing money. No doubt less margin than the front of the plane.
#60
Join Date: Oct 2010
Programs: SPG Gold, Hyatt GP Platinum
Posts: 466
This really sucks... for someone who flies SFO-JFK often.
Also, can someone help explain why first class cost less than business? I can't seem to figure out why.
Thanks.
Also, can someone help explain why first class cost less than business? I can't seem to figure out why.
Thanks.