ARCHIVE: Airbus A321 Transcon / A321T / "32B" 3 class (consolidated 2012-2014)
Jul 24, 2012, 2:12 pm
#211
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 288
As much as I hate this new Transcon plane, I don't understand why everyone is touting fewer upgrades in the future because of smaller J/C capacity? While the J/C Cabin will be smaller in the future, so will the Y. So the proportion/percentage remains roughly the same, no?
For example, if there are 15 paid J pax on the current 767, that leaves 15 upgrades available now to upgrades. Now with the a321, just because its a smaller plane doesn't mean there won't still be 15 pax paying for J, which would then leave fewer upgrades available.
Jul 24, 2012, 2:18 pm
#212
Join Date: Oct 2006
Programs: LAN, AA, SPG
Posts: 1,965
For me, the deal breaker was always the angled J seat. The new seats will tempt me to move my int'l travel back to AA, but I won't do it it until the entire long-haul fleet has been converted so I am guessing that is quite some time down the road.
Jul 24, 2012, 2:27 pm
#213
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: AA Exec Plat, CO OnePass, UA
Posts: 287
IJGordon, Just wanted to stick in here, but I don't think the future A321 Transcon C/J seat pairs are angled for privacy (I've only seen that in the future 777-300ER international business). From the photos, they seem to stick straight out parallel to each other.
###
Last edited by ThunderStorm00; Jul 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm Reason: Language Typo
Jul 24, 2012, 2:34 pm
#214
Moderator: Alaska Mileage Plan
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,320
For example, if there are 15 paid J pax on the current 767, that leaves 15 upgrades available now to upgrades. Now with the a321, just because its a smaller plane doesn't mean there won't still be 15 pax paying for J, which would then leave fewer upgrades available.
Jul 24, 2012, 2:49 pm
#215
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 288
But, I hope you're right that there will be increased frequency.
It would be nice if they had a couple of widebodys doing a run or two a day to give people the option to fly that if they want.
Jul 24, 2012, 2:51 pm
#216
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,602
No one has mentioned the gridlock in the skies over NYC, and AA's plan to add smaller planes will serve to increase that gridlock as each AA transcon airbus will have 37% fewer seats that the 767-223s. Those SFO flights when compared to the 767-323s will have even higher percentage of lost seats. All those passengers displaced from the full AA transcons will need to go elsewhere at JFK.
Flights at peak hours are capped at LGA @ 71 flights per hour, and 81 per hour at JFK and EWR so it will be difficult to increase the flights out of JFK because of gridlock on the ground as well as in the air. One solution to reduce the gridlock is to add larger, not smaller planes to the mix with less frequent schedules. Many of us have been delayed flyling throughout the U.S. because of delays at NYC airports, and AA's plan to add smaller planes should increase this gridlock at the same time that predictions are that additional passengers will need to be flying.
Below is a article describing the gridlock at NYC airports.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/s...ked/52893264/1
Flights at peak hours are capped at LGA @ 71 flights per hour, and 81 per hour at JFK and EWR so it will be difficult to increase the flights out of JFK because of gridlock on the ground as well as in the air. One solution to reduce the gridlock is to add larger, not smaller planes to the mix with less frequent schedules. Many of us have been delayed flyling throughout the U.S. because of delays at NYC airports, and AA's plan to add smaller planes should increase this gridlock at the same time that predictions are that additional passengers will need to be flying.
Below is a article describing the gridlock at NYC airports.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/s...ked/52893264/1
Jul 24, 2012, 3:02 pm
#217
Join Date: May 2010
Programs: AA Exec Plat, CO OnePass, UA
Posts: 287
With a J cabin of just 20 seats, assume that AA sells the same number as before - or 15 seats (the better seats probably means that AA sells MORE of them, but let's assume that AA sells the same 15). That leaves those who buy economy fares, hoping to upgrade, with just five seats into which they can fight for upgrades. See the problem?
I guarantee you that a cut of 33% of the J cabin (from 30 to 20) just made it more difficult to upgrade.
Countering all of that is whether AA adds flights to the schedule. If AA adds a few daily flights, then the number of daily premium seats would remain constant, and upgrading would not be more difficult.
I guarantee you that a cut of 33% of the J cabin (from 30 to 20) just made it more difficult to upgrade.
Countering all of that is whether AA adds flights to the schedule. If AA adds a few daily flights, then the number of daily premium seats would remain constant, and upgrading would not be more difficult.
Jul 24, 2012, 3:05 pm
#218
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,968
No one has mentioned the gridlock in the skies over NYC, and AA's plan to add smaller planes will serve to increase that gridlock as each AA transcon airbus will have 37% fewer seats that the 767-223s. Those SFO flights when compared to the 767-323s will have even higher percentage of lost seats. All those passengers displaced from the full AA transcons will need to go elsewhere at JFK.
Flights at peak hours are capped at LGA @ 71 flights per hour, and 81 per hour at JFK and EWR so it will be difficult to increase the flights out of JFK because of gridlock on the ground as well as in the air. One solution to reduce the gridlock is to add larger, not smaller planes to the mix with less frequent schedules. Many of us have been delayed flyling throughout the U.S. because of delays at NYC airports, and AA's plan to add smaller planes should increase this gridlock at the same time that predictions are that additional passengers will need to be flying.
Below is a article describing the gridlock at NYC airports.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/s...ked/52893264/1
Flights at peak hours are capped at LGA @ 71 flights per hour, and 81 per hour at JFK and EWR so it will be difficult to increase the flights out of JFK because of gridlock on the ground as well as in the air. One solution to reduce the gridlock is to add larger, not smaller planes to the mix with less frequent schedules. Many of us have been delayed flyling throughout the U.S. because of delays at NYC airports, and AA's plan to add smaller planes should increase this gridlock at the same time that predictions are that additional passengers will need to be flying.
Below is a article describing the gridlock at NYC airports.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/s...ked/52893264/1
LGA is a lost cause, unfortunately, hence why I avoid it for any flights departing after noon.*However, larger planes have much lower average yields than smaller ones. Eagle's average per-seat yields are considerably higher than mainline AA's average per-seat yields. Why? Because with only 35-45 seats on an ERD/ERJ/135-145, seats will sell at more expensive fare buckets. I used to fly RJs all the time, booking six months out or more, and usually the best fare was a V or N-class fare. By contrast, on an AB6, AA routinely had to offer $99 O-class fares (even on day of departure) just to fill up the back of the bus. Not necessary with smaller birds.
Jul 24, 2012, 3:07 pm
#219
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York
Posts: 7,358
AA Boeing 767-200ER
168 seats with 10F, 30J, and 128Y
(Proportion: 6%F, 18%J, and 76% Y)
If there is no revenue J at all, 4.26 passengers will fight for each J seat upgrade wise.
The New AA Airbus A321
102 seats with 10F, 20J, 36 Y+ and 36Y (72Y)
(Proportion: 10&F, 20%J, and 70%Y)
3.6 Y passengers will in theory fight for each J seat upgrade (presume with zero revenue J again)
Premium seating allocation will increase 6% point, which is sort of against the trend.
In theory, upgrade chances have increased, but of course if the number of sold J seats remain the same, there are actually less seats available for upgrades. However there will be other factors affecting the upgrade opportunities, such as the effect on passengers' buying behaviors after possible increased prices and less availability of Y seats due to the major reduction of Y seats on these A321s, and if elites will continue to be loyal to AA after possibly price increases, the pricing for last minute walkup fares or availability of last minute seats. I still believe that upgrade chances will reduce, as the pool of elites will more or less remain the same especially EXP and Platinums(even if it will turn away some elites, who are more price sensitive), and there are less J seats to fight for. Currently we can't use the sticker upgrades to upgrade most discounted domestic business class fares to first on a three-class transcontinental planes, and I don't see AA changing this rule for domestic flights.
What it will affect is that there won't be the large amount of discounted tickets especially during peak season on the premium transcontinental markets. There is a reduction of 56 seats per flight. The price of economy tickets will continue to increase higher than other domestic flights with this capacity cut.
As pointed out by a fellow FT talker, I apparently don't do math well, and this is perhaps the best I can do. LOL!
Carfield
168 seats with 10F, 30J, and 128Y
(Proportion: 6%F, 18%J, and 76% Y)
If there is no revenue J at all, 4.26 passengers will fight for each J seat upgrade wise.
The New AA Airbus A321
102 seats with 10F, 20J, 36 Y+ and 36Y (72Y)
(Proportion: 10&F, 20%J, and 70%Y)
3.6 Y passengers will in theory fight for each J seat upgrade (presume with zero revenue J again)
Premium seating allocation will increase 6% point, which is sort of against the trend.
In theory, upgrade chances have increased, but of course if the number of sold J seats remain the same, there are actually less seats available for upgrades. However there will be other factors affecting the upgrade opportunities, such as the effect on passengers' buying behaviors after possible increased prices and less availability of Y seats due to the major reduction of Y seats on these A321s, and if elites will continue to be loyal to AA after possibly price increases, the pricing for last minute walkup fares or availability of last minute seats. I still believe that upgrade chances will reduce, as the pool of elites will more or less remain the same especially EXP and Platinums(even if it will turn away some elites, who are more price sensitive), and there are less J seats to fight for. Currently we can't use the sticker upgrades to upgrade most discounted domestic business class fares to first on a three-class transcontinental planes, and I don't see AA changing this rule for domestic flights.
What it will affect is that there won't be the large amount of discounted tickets especially during peak season on the premium transcontinental markets. There is a reduction of 56 seats per flight. The price of economy tickets will continue to increase higher than other domestic flights with this capacity cut.
As pointed out by a fellow FT talker, I apparently don't do math well, and this is perhaps the best I can do. LOL!
Carfield
Last edited by Carfield; Jul 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Jul 24, 2012, 3:09 pm
#220
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
The problem you point to is one that every airline wants some other airline to solve with a unilateral reduction in flights, and certainly not with a rational market-based solution of a mandatory auction of all slots at peak times by the FAA or Port Authority. It's just one of several pathologies of airline economics.
Jul 24, 2012, 3:31 pm
#221
Join Date: Aug 2010
Programs: AA 1.6MM EXP; UA GS; SPG LTG,Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,477
The math may actually be a lot simpler, just using a back-of-envelope approach.
Scenario 1: All AFS transcons go to A321Neo. No additional flights.
Expecting J/F paid revenue to drop proportionally is unrealistic - in fact, IMO it will likely increase (relative to the number of seats offered) due to the improved hard product. So - far fewer upgrades for elites buying Y
Scenario 2: All AFS transcons go to A321Neo. Frequencies increased somehow (!) to provide the approximately same number of total seats
This should (assuming that the new frequencies are all A321Neo) increase the J/Y ratio. So perhaps more upgrade opportunities; even if the number of paid F/J increases somewhat due to the better hard product.
Or somewhere in between - possibly with 77W repositioning, or some middle point in the number of seats offered. In which case the outcome will be somewhere in between.
But I would submit that until AA publishes a schedule so that the number and ratio of seats are known, predicting the likelihood of elite Y-J upgrades is at best a WAG.
My $0.02.
Scenario 1: All AFS transcons go to A321Neo. No additional flights.
Expecting J/F paid revenue to drop proportionally is unrealistic - in fact, IMO it will likely increase (relative to the number of seats offered) due to the improved hard product. So - far fewer upgrades for elites buying Y
Scenario 2: All AFS transcons go to A321Neo. Frequencies increased somehow (!) to provide the approximately same number of total seats
This should (assuming that the new frequencies are all A321Neo) increase the J/Y ratio. So perhaps more upgrade opportunities; even if the number of paid F/J increases somewhat due to the better hard product.
Or somewhere in between - possibly with 77W repositioning, or some middle point in the number of seats offered. In which case the outcome will be somewhere in between.
But I would submit that until AA publishes a schedule so that the number and ratio of seats are known, predicting the likelihood of elite Y-J upgrades is at best a WAG.
My $0.02.
AA Boeing 767-200ER
168 seats with 10F, 30J, and 128Y
(Proportion: 6%F, 18%J, and 76% Y)
If there is no revenue J at all, 4.26 passengers will fight for each J seat upgrade wise.
The New AA Airbus A321
102 seats with 10F, 20J, 36 Y+ and 36Y (72Y)
(Proportion: 10&F, 20%J, and 70%Y)
3.6 Y passengers will in theory fight for each J seat upgrade (presume with zero revenue J again)
Premium seating allocation will increase 6% point, which is sort of against the trend.
In theory, upgrade chances have increased, but of course if the number of sold J seats remain the same, there are actually less seats available for upgrades. However there will be other factors affecting the upgrade opportunities, such as the effect of increased prices and less availability of Y seats due to the major reduction of Y seats on these A321s especially if elites will continue to be loyal to AA or what is the pricing for last minute walkup fares or availability of last minute seats. I actually think the upgrade chances will reduce, as the pool of elites will more or less remain the same (it may turn away some elites, who are more price sensitive).
What it will affect is that there won't be the large amount of discounted tickets especially during peak season on the premium transcontinental markets. There is a reduction of 56 seats per flight. The price of economy tickets will continue to increase higher than other domestic flights with this capacity cut.
As pointed out by a fellow FT talker, I apparently don't do math well, and this is perhaps the best I can do. LOL!
Carfield
168 seats with 10F, 30J, and 128Y
(Proportion: 6%F, 18%J, and 76% Y)
If there is no revenue J at all, 4.26 passengers will fight for each J seat upgrade wise.
The New AA Airbus A321
102 seats with 10F, 20J, 36 Y+ and 36Y (72Y)
(Proportion: 10&F, 20%J, and 70%Y)
3.6 Y passengers will in theory fight for each J seat upgrade (presume with zero revenue J again)
Premium seating allocation will increase 6% point, which is sort of against the trend.
In theory, upgrade chances have increased, but of course if the number of sold J seats remain the same, there are actually less seats available for upgrades. However there will be other factors affecting the upgrade opportunities, such as the effect of increased prices and less availability of Y seats due to the major reduction of Y seats on these A321s especially if elites will continue to be loyal to AA or what is the pricing for last minute walkup fares or availability of last minute seats. I actually think the upgrade chances will reduce, as the pool of elites will more or less remain the same (it may turn away some elites, who are more price sensitive).
What it will affect is that there won't be the large amount of discounted tickets especially during peak season on the premium transcontinental markets. There is a reduction of 56 seats per flight. The price of economy tickets will continue to increase higher than other domestic flights with this capacity cut.
As pointed out by a fellow FT talker, I apparently don't do math well, and this is perhaps the best I can do. LOL!
Carfield
Jul 24, 2012, 3:37 pm
#222
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: Hyatt GLOB, Marriott Lifetime PLT, UA 1K 1MM.
Posts: 1,728
http://www.beaerospace.com/products/...ness_class.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crankyflier/2713215300/
http://chrisjur.wordpress.com/2009/1...nitial-review/
in all honesty i find them to be pretty comfortable, however you're right they are not angled and you either have to climb over/get climbed over to go to the bathroom.
Jul 24, 2012, 3:56 pm
#224
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,397
No one has mentioned the gridlock in the skies over NYC, and AA's plan to add smaller planes will serve to increase that gridlock as each AA transcon airbus will have 37% fewer seats that the 767-223s. Those SFO flights when compared to the 767-323s will have even higher percentage of lost seats. All those passengers displaced from the full AA transcons will need to go elsewhere at JFK.
Flights at peak hours are capped at LGA @ 71 flights per hour, and 81 per hour at JFK and EWR so it will be difficult to increase the flights out of JFK because of gridlock on the ground as well as in the air. One solution to reduce the gridlock is to add larger, not smaller planes to the mix with less frequent schedules. Many of us have been delayed flyling throughout the U.S. because of delays at NYC airports, and AA's plan to add smaller planes should increase this gridlock at the same time that predictions are that additional passengers will need to be flying.
Below is a article describing the gridlock at NYC airports.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/s...ked/52893264/1
Flights at peak hours are capped at LGA @ 71 flights per hour, and 81 per hour at JFK and EWR so it will be difficult to increase the flights out of JFK because of gridlock on the ground as well as in the air. One solution to reduce the gridlock is to add larger, not smaller planes to the mix with less frequent schedules. Many of us have been delayed flyling throughout the U.S. because of delays at NYC airports, and AA's plan to add smaller planes should increase this gridlock at the same time that predictions are that additional passengers will need to be flying.
Below is a article describing the gridlock at NYC airports.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/s...ked/52893264/1
And if by some chance a partner like Jet Blue were to fly to some of those destinations on Embraers...
Jul 24, 2012, 4:11 pm
#225
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL, AA 1MM LT GLD, SPG PLAT, National Exec Selc, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 8,278
That's easy. Go look at Flightstats and search for MQ flights at JFK. Many of them are on ERDs/ER4s. There are your slots you can reallocate to transcon flying where you get much better margins.
And if by some chance a partner like Jet Blue were to fly to some of those destinations on Embraers...
And if by some chance a partner like Jet Blue were to fly to some of those destinations on Embraers...