American Airlines' CEO Says the Least Important Customers Get the Worst Planes
Mar 27, 2018, 7:42 pm
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
That doesn't mean WM is close to going the way of Toyrs R Us
Mar 27, 2018, 7:46 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
Mar 27, 2018, 8:23 pm
#33
Ambassador: Alaska Airlines
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BWI
Posts: 7,390
The issue I have here is not the business logic but the fact that they were bemoaning the 767s and 757s as a dump of a plane without admitting that it is not the equipment that is the problem; its the decisions made by the same people who simply refuses to invest in bringing the product up to standard. It’s silly that due to lack of investment they are inflicting further operational complexity on themselves (i.e. we need to factor in which product is a dump and which product isn’t when scheduling flights) that shouldn’t even be a part of the equation in the first place. Those planes aren’t leaving in 1-2 years - invest already.
Vasu’s comment about how the aforementioned dumpy 767 is a good plane to test new markets is completely divorced about how important brand is when trying to penetrate a new market and the condition of the product you are bringing into the market does have a significant influence in that regard.
Nonetheless, they are correct with their notion that lower yielding markets will have a lower priority when it comes to type of product.
Vasu’s comment about how the aforementioned dumpy 767 is a good plane to test new markets is completely divorced about how important brand is when trying to penetrate a new market and the condition of the product you are bringing into the market does have a significant influence in that regard.
Nonetheless, they are correct with their notion that lower yielding markets will have a lower priority when it comes to type of product.
Mar 27, 2018, 8:37 pm
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: Rapid Rewards, AAdvantage, SkyMiles
Posts: 2,931
Enjoy your 30" 737MAX trip. The only planes in the narrowbody fleet that aren't complete trash are the RJ's and the Super 80's, which are unfortunately going bye bye. Also the E190's but those are also going bye bye.
Mar 27, 2018, 8:38 pm
#35
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: Rapid Rewards, AAdvantage, SkyMiles
Posts: 2,931
The MD80's along with aircraft in 2X2 or 2X1 configurations are the only good narrowbody aircraft in AA's fleet.
Mar 27, 2018, 10:50 pm
#36
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: GIG
Programs: AAdvantage ExP 1MM, Smiles/GOL Diamond, TudoAzul/AZUL Diamond, HHonors Gold, Accor Platinum
Posts: 190
Mar 28, 2018, 12:52 am
#39
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: AA EXP, AA Million Miles, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,586
The link provided by the OP is repeating the original source, a Gary Leff blog post.
Mar 28, 2018, 1:57 am
#40
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA & UK -- AA EXP 3.5MM, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Plat, Avis President's Club
Posts: 6,411
Every airplane must pass a regular, stringent inspection to get an airworthiness certificate. If a plane were truly a junk heap of bolts, it wouldn't be allowed to fly. Some are nicer than others, but all are operationally sound.
Mar 28, 2018, 2:19 am
#41
Join Date: May 2004
Location: HYI/AUS/SAT originally TTN/EWR/PHL
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards, Jetblue TrueBlue, American Advantage
Posts: 1,190
Are you referring to the loyal herd that books according to the lowest fare? Look at what happened with MRTC... Not enough people wanted to pay enough to fly an airline that offered more room in all of economy.
So, yes, why spend the money for improving in an area where customer are continually voting with their feet to get the lowest fares. If this was not true, there would be no need to have airlines like Spirit and Allegiant.... except maybe for people that want nonstop flights from PIE (Clearwatear-St Pete) to PIA (Peoria) to visit their grandkids. I flew Allegiant to avoid the connection, but many people due it solely due to pricing.
So, yes, why spend the money for improving in an area where customer are continually voting with their feet to get the lowest fares. If this was not true, there would be no need to have airlines like Spirit and Allegiant.... except maybe for people that want nonstop flights from PIE (Clearwatear-St Pete) to PIA (Peoria) to visit their grandkids. I flew Allegiant to avoid the connection, but many people due it solely due to pricing.
Mar 28, 2018, 2:33 am
#42
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: AA EXP, AA Million Miles, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,586
Many of AA's planes have products that are as good (and in some cases better) than their US competitors. Many of AA's planes have average products. Many of AA's planes have arguably inferior products (Note: I do not personally consider seatback IFE on domestic flights to be important).
AA's product is widely inconsistent. It is not uniformly (or even primarily) "complete trash".
And I won't be riding the 737Max in 30" pitch (which by the way is standard in lots of non-US markets) - I'll be riding it in MCE or F.
Mar 28, 2018, 2:37 am
#43
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: AMS
Programs: BAEC Silver, Flying Blue Gold, TK M&S Nobody
Posts: 2,482
Vasu’s comment about how the aforementioned dumpy 767 is a good plane to test new markets is completely divorced about how important brand is when trying to penetrate a new market and the condition of the product you are bringing into the market does have a significant influence in that regard.
Not necessarily - without the FT bubble where people will research the particular new product thoroughly it may be that merely selling a flight with the 767 is enough to give AA [or any other airline] the information it needs to evaluate the market. They may even think they get most of the necessary information before they operate a single rotation.
If they have confidence in their modelling of the difference between serving routes with different aircraft types, then any toe dipped in the water may be enough. It's certainly different from BA's apparent modus operandi of sending the 788 [no F cabin, cheaper to operate per seat-mile and shiny, new-plane image] out on new routes to guage demand, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
Mar 28, 2018, 5:01 am
#44
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: HHonors, TrueBlue, Delta SkyMiles, Hyatt Discoverist, Starwood Preferred Guest, American Airlines.
Posts: 2,035
None of their customers must be important then seeing as all of their planes are outdated. You can't even get seat back screens or power in first class on an A321 version two, which is most likely domestic first class if I had to guess.
.
.
Mar 28, 2018, 6:40 am
#45
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: USA
Programs: Chase Sapphire Reserve, WFBF
Posts: 1,573
I don't find this outrageous at all. It seems this is mostly about the 767, which I agree is dumpy, especially in coach. But the 767s are around, and the choice is either fly them somewhere or don't fly to as many destinations, as AA doesn't have unlimited new planes. AA certainly aren't going to put that product on JFK-LHR. I remember some years back taking the 767 on RDU-LHR before it went back to the 777. Even then the 767 was a dump. But it got me to London without having to connect, which far outweighed the negatives.