MSN095

Yesterday, former AA CEO, Bob Crandall, said; ‘Customers have insisted that the one thing that’s more valuable than anything else is the cheapest possible ticket. Well, if you want the cheapest possible ticket, you’re gonna have the smallest possible seat and the least possible facilities...’

And the current CEO, Doug Parker, has reinforced the revenue based model over miles flown; ‘those who pay us the most are the most valuable...’

But has this approach had a knock on effect? Are AA prioritising high yield passengers to the detriment of those further down the pecking order? Have AA followed United’s Project Quality. AA claim it can achieve savings through an increased use of technology and changes to processes, but what does this actually mean - more subtle cost cutting, such as reducing legroom further, prohibiting all but the smallest carry-on luggage on basic economy tickets etc? Possibly adopting a European LCC model i.e. you pay extra for every little comfort that was previously included in the service.

Is this just the tip of the iceberg? Will function and low cost triumph over decadence and expense?

ryan182

I'll take my popcorn with real butter and some salt please

bse118

Is AA materially different from it's primary competitors (DL, UA) in this regard? - No.

Do we need another thread on this topic? - IMO, No.

Recent Crandall/Parker comments being discussed here: American CEO Doug Parker Attacks Mileage Runs...

Yes, please.

rjw242

+1.

However luxurious flying was prior to the 1970s is irrelevant if I never would've been able to afford it.

Dave Noble

I am lost that such comments would come as any surprise

Want to pay the least - expect the least
those paying the most are the most valuable

What is surprising that a company would think that way ?

757FO

To the original poster, your choice of wording for your post is disgraceful. I only wish I knew your name, so I could ensure you NEVER fly on one of my flights.

Dave Noble

What is wrong with the wording?

controller1

I disagree. The OP's profile indicates a French residence. The word that I'm sure you're referencing has only seen issues in the U.S., IMO from the ignorant as to its meaning, even though the word's meaning is fine.

757FO

Regardless, very poor taste.

lov2fly

IBTL.

Dave Noble

.....rdly is a normal word meaning stingy


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/.....rdly

adjective

1Ungenerous with money, time, etc.; mean.

1.1 Meagre and given grudgingly.

Usage
The word .....rdly has no connection with the highly offensive term ...

bse118

Headed to OMNI territory here - but the word I believe you are thinking of, and the word used in the thread title are not etymologically related in any way.

757FO

Many other more suitable, less offensive words can be used. The rest of my crew is all appalled.

MSN095

Yes, but can you see AA pursuing something such as the QR approach - protecting those passengers on business tickets (higher revenue), granting Al Mourjan access vis-a-vis those elite flyers on an economy tickets (lower revenue) but allowed access to ‘first’ and ‘business’ lounges. Or do you see something akin to the BA approach - business is business but if you’re further back then it doesn’t matter who you are you’re going to pay: pillows, blankets, food, IFE, amenity kits etc. etc.?

josmul123

Completely different words with completely different roots. Just because a word sounds like a racial slur doesn't mean it's in poor taste or in any way related to said slur.