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?

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 ?

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.?

bse118

I don't follow. AA is in the process of expanding access to it's top tier lounges. And I get a number of benefits (including lounge access) when I fly in the back of the bus on BA - because of my elite status.

Bottom line - buy a coach ticket, expect coach benefits.

And I have hard time complaining about that when I can fly to other side of the planet for a few hundred bucks.

bse118

Ok, points on etymology made.

Anyone want to actually talk about AA?

DenverBrian

Has AA become more stingy? Yes. Like every other airline in the industry.

Is anyone going to actually argue that point?

bse118

Like I said 3 posts in to this:

Often1

Shockingly, back on point.

What exactly do people expect in a business where the passenger is often not the customer because the ticket is paid for by a third party such as an employer?

Most of the complaints here are not really about AA, they are deflected complaints against el cheapo employers by people who are stuck where they are.

Dallas49er

An interesting point I haven't considered.

On my own dime, I am .....rdly, cost effective, cheap, and looking for good value for my money.

On my employer's dime, I am .....rdly, cost effective, cheap, and looking for good value for my employers money. Because most firings in my business are expense account related. but true.

bse118

I fly on my employer's dime - but that doesn't mean I am not the customer.

I have full control over where I spend my travel dollars - on what carriers, on what routes - as long as I stay within policy. I am the one making purchasing decisions for my travel.

Let's try not to generalize everyone travelling on business under a single umbrella, mkay?

CloudCoder

Back on topic, it's been proven (over and over again) that the public will not pay the cost of transit. Airlines are transit, just like city bus lines, trains, subways, etc. The price of tickets covers just some of the cost to provide the service, because people just flat won't pay the full cost. The cost of air transit is subsidized by cargo, a few big , tax breaks, etc ... which are all necessary because the public has never paid the full cost of transit.

Beltway2A

The folks doing mileage runs don't have any fewer EQDs than would otherwise be required for status. Doug seems to decry them not for the miles they earn, but as to why they do it.

If Saks started started distinguishing buyers between people who needed a purse to store items and people who wanted a new fashion item, I'd imagine they'd be met with similar scorn from their customers.

Often1

So are many people, especially those who are senior enough to understand that expenses matter and drop to the bottom line as well as revenue. They also understand that employers do evaluate employees for how they spend company and customer money and that people who play games in obvious ways with ticket prices, will play games in less obvious ways too.

But, that does not change the fact that it is important to look at the least expensive cash outlay vs. the best net revenue. Unhappy employees, whether at the top or the bottom of the heap, are less productive and more likely to leave for greener pastures. The better ones are in demand (if the industry is part of the economic boom) and that leaves the employer with the dregs.

I am not suggesting that people leave a job over an occasional middle seat, but that poor travel conditions for those who travel a lot make the job unhappy and thus, leaveable.