American Airlines' CEO Says the Least Important Customers Get the Worst Planes
Mar 28, 2018, 10:50 am
#61
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
A rookie error to conflate "passenger" with "customer". Certainly there are HVC leisure and self-paid business passengers out there. But, the bulk of the revenue comes from corporate customers who are not likely to be moved much by a hot towel with a higher thread count or whatever it is/
Mar 28, 2018, 10:59 am
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,436
A rookie error to conflate "passenger" with "customer". Certainly there are HVC leisure and self-paid business passengers out there. But, the bulk of the revenue comes from corporate customers who are not likely to be moved much by a hot towel with a higher thread count or whatever it is/
Mar 28, 2018, 11:04 am
#64
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: AA EXP, AA Million Miles, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,586
HYPOTHETICALLY, I am flying from, say, ORD to CDG. On AA I get an old 767 with no wi-fi, IFE provided with overhead monitors in Y and tablets in biz and uncomfortable seats or I can fly AF or UA on the same route and enjoy large seatback monitors, wi-fi and better seating...all for the same price...what is my incentive to fly AA? Will the occasional traveler know the difference? No. Will a savvy business traveler who travels on someone else's dime know the difference and will it influence their purchasing decision? Quite possibly and that is my point.
FFP benefits are a big part - it's the reason the programs exist.
If I am on that hypothetical AA 767, chances are I am going to be in SWUed J, or at the very least MCE. Instead of crammed in regular economy.
I am going to have access to the Flagship lounge. Instead of being in the crowded terminal
When there is a flight delay or cancellation I am going to get more rapidly and easily rebooked, via the EXP line or the lounge rather than being in line as a no status customer.
All part of the "product" well beyond the cabin itself. It's a multi aspect issue - not an individual flight in a vacuum.
Mar 28, 2018, 11:07 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,386
I agree that the 767 has a laggard hard product. Bit hard product is not the only thing that influences purchasing behavior.
FFP benefits are a big part - it's the reason the programs exist.
If I am on that hypothetical AA 767, chances are I am going to be in SWUed J, or at the very least MCE. Instead of crammed in regular economy.
I am going to have access to the Flagship lounge. Instead of being in the crowded terminal
When there is a flight delay or cancellation I am going to get more rapidly and easily rebooked, via the EXP line or the lounge rather than being in line as a no status customer.
All part of the "product" well beyond the cabin itself. It's a multi aspect issue - not individual flight in a vacuum.
FFP benefits are a big part - it's the reason the programs exist.
If I am on that hypothetical AA 767, chances are I am going to be in SWUed J, or at the very least MCE. Instead of crammed in regular economy.
I am going to have access to the Flagship lounge. Instead of being in the crowded terminal
When there is a flight delay or cancellation I am going to get more rapidly and easily rebooked, via the EXP line or the lounge rather than being in line as a no status customer.
All part of the "product" well beyond the cabin itself. It's a multi aspect issue - not individual flight in a vacuum.
I should pay for AA for that if I have other options at the same price (some of them better ones, like that Norwegian 787) exactly why?
If AA wants to be NK or NO for me, that's cool. I just don't have any reason to prefer them over NK or NO if all they want to give me is lowest common denominator, self loading cargo treatment on junky old 767s.
Mar 28, 2018, 11:13 am
#66
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: AA EXP, AA Million Miles, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,586
Of course, no-status me is going to be crammed in a Y experience that is worse than a Norwegian 787.
I should pay for AA fly that piece of junk when I have other options at the same price exactly why?
If AA wants to be NK for me, that's cool. I just don't have any reason to prefer them over NK.
I should pay for AA fly that piece of junk when I have other options at the same price exactly why?
If AA wants to be NK for me, that's cool. I just don't have any reason to prefer them over NK.
it's not as simple as just " the hard product is terrible, that's the only thing customers care about."
For some customers that might be true for others not.
customer purchasing criterion and decision making is complex and variable.
Mar 28, 2018, 11:49 am
#67
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
Yes, After emerging from bankruptcy, DL made major investment into their hard product. While they purchased used airframes, they completely overhauled their interiors, installing powerports at all seats, replacing old seats, creating a unified brand in their interiors. As a result of this and other initiatives, they have consistently been able to command a higher fare than their competitors.
- Richard Anderson, DL CEO who engineered the merger, was Northwest's CEO. Gave him a huge advantage in dealing with the less amiable Northwest unions.
- DL legacy had no flight attendant union, and overall better labor relations than AA/UA/NW prior to the merger. And it was materially larger than Northwest, so its culture and practices more easily took over. More important - let DL have more flexible work rules which implicitly lower cost.
- ATL is the lowest cost major hub in the country - giving DL a cost advantage - also very convenient AirTran and Southwest merged, with Southwest gutting the ATL operation
- Its hubs are the most uncontested among the majors - more leverage when scaling up.
- Also for frequent flier program, DL/NW did not need to be as generous as legacy AA and UA were, which operated hubs in large, fragmented business centers like ORD, LAX. Customers were less likely to walk over frequent flier program issues than those at AA/UA. There weren't big third rails like going from 8 to 4 SWUs that send people in competitive cities packing.
AA/UA were in a position of defending legacy high yields while trying to work out more complicated issues with its unions, which impacts reliability and cost, leaving them less *incremental* room to invest.
The answer for AA/UA may well be to take short term margin hits, but tough to get boards / public investors to accept that. Public investors tend to have 1 year time horizons as the investment managers are generally benchmarked against one year performance relative to the market.
Mar 28, 2018, 12:11 pm
#68
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,485
It's unfortunate that when a post is placed to stimulate discussion that some people choose to resort to sarcasm and rude comments that don't add value.
The INTENTION of my post was to stimulate a conversation about how AA's CEO views his own business model and lack of understanding into the client and their needs. Those of you who say this is a business are correct, it is a business and not a charity. However, simply saying AA is s business and leaving it a that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nuances of business strategy and services design. AA is a business that provides a perishable service. As such, they are dependent on demonstrating that their value proposition to consumers exceeds that of their competitors. One way to do that is to design experiences that will resonate with consumers, driving them to some degree of brand loyalty or willingness to pay a premium based on a belief that their experience will be in some manner improved or better than with a competitor. This is part of the strategy of airlines like B6 and why their new Mint service has been a smashing success. The best companies give their customers what they want before their customers even know they want it.
AA is welcome to do as they please, but they are losing out on a tremendous opportunity to differentiate themselves in the marketplace on something other than price. Parker's approach is to provide the bare minimum that consumers will tolerate before jumping ship. That is one strategy, but it is not the strategy of a company that claims to be "Going for great." AA has no consistency of brand in their hard product and that, IMHO, is a major failure of their leadership that WILL matter to a certain portion of the consumer segment.
Yes, After emerging from bankruptcy, DL made major investment into their hard product. While they purchased used airframes, they completely overhauled their interiors, installing powerports at all seats, replacing old seats, creating a unified brand in their interiors. As a result of this and other initiatives, they have consistently been able to command a higher fare than their competitors.
The INTENTION of my post was to stimulate a conversation about how AA's CEO views his own business model and lack of understanding into the client and their needs. Those of you who say this is a business are correct, it is a business and not a charity. However, simply saying AA is s business and leaving it a that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nuances of business strategy and services design. AA is a business that provides a perishable service. As such, they are dependent on demonstrating that their value proposition to consumers exceeds that of their competitors. One way to do that is to design experiences that will resonate with consumers, driving them to some degree of brand loyalty or willingness to pay a premium based on a belief that their experience will be in some manner improved or better than with a competitor. This is part of the strategy of airlines like B6 and why their new Mint service has been a smashing success. The best companies give their customers what they want before their customers even know they want it.
AA is welcome to do as they please, but they are losing out on a tremendous opportunity to differentiate themselves in the marketplace on something other than price. Parker's approach is to provide the bare minimum that consumers will tolerate before jumping ship. That is one strategy, but it is not the strategy of a company that claims to be "Going for great." AA has no consistency of brand in their hard product and that, IMHO, is a major failure of their leadership that WILL matter to a certain portion of the consumer segment.
Yes, After emerging from bankruptcy, DL made major investment into their hard product. While they purchased used airframes, they completely overhauled their interiors, installing powerports at all seats, replacing old seats, creating a unified brand in their interiors. As a result of this and other initiatives, they have consistently been able to command a higher fare than their competitors.
It's no wonder AA's CLT hub is the most profitable given that it's of the same profile. Whereas DFW/MIA/PHL all have to compete against other carrier hubs like DAL/FLL/EWR.
Now I would agree that in hub situations like MIA where AA has to compete against LCCs at FLL, it's less impressive product with high cost is causing defections. But that's a decision AA has to make. I think if DL was in a similar position, it would also have similar problems.
Mar 28, 2018, 12:18 pm
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
- ATL is the lowest cost major hub in the country - giving DL a cost advantage - also very convenient AirTran and Southwest merged, with Southwest gutting the ATL operation
- Its hubs are the most uncontested among the majors - more leverage when scaling up.
- Also for frequent flier program, DL/NW did not need to be as generous as legacy AA and UA were, which operated hubs in large, fragmented business centers like ORD, LAX. Customers were less likely to walk over frequent flier program issues than those at AA/UA. There weren't big third rails like going from 8 to 4 SWUs that send people in competitive cities packing.
ATL is a low-cost hub. CLT is a low-cost hub. DFW is a low-cost hub. Scale is part of what makes a hub low cost. Air carriers choose their hubs. Delta built hubs in LAX and SEA; UA departed a hub at CLE; DL departed MEM (and largely CVG).
Delta's hubs are not uncontested. ATL, MSP and DTW all have far above-average fractions of connecting passengers. While it gives them scale it shows Delta's restricted ability to gain outsize profits from locals. A route xxx-ATL-yyy competes with xxx-yyy non-stops as well as every other one-stop offering xxx-zzz-yyy. BTS data show that two of the top five operating carriers at DTW are Spirit (#3) and Southwest (#5). Delta fights B6 at JFK and with UA for the #2 position overall in NYC. SLC fights with DEN for inter-Mountain traffic. LAX...
Southwest has (up to) 125 departures a day from ATL and a higher average gauge than AirTran ever had.
Your line of reasoning No unions >>> product investment is a little tortured. AA and UA can afford stock buy-backs, $9 Billion for AA, $3 Billion for UA announced just a few months ago. They could have used the $$$ to refurb old planes (or, in UA's case, dump lousy single class E145s/CR2s). They've decided that customers aren't worth it. That is the contempt for customers that Parker's statement reflected. There's nothing wrong with prioritizing assets for best markets but he didn't even have the sense to say that AA is making big investments in new aircraft to improve both cost efficiency and passenger experience but some routes see older products.
Mar 28, 2018, 12:36 pm
#70
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SEA
Programs: AA LT PLT; HH Diamond; AS 75K
Posts: 2,878
In a shining example of what NOT to say to earn the loyalty of your customers, AA's CEO stuffed not one, but both feet in is mouth recently by admitting that AA intentional places crap planes and certain routes and that he has never had the pleasure of the sardine can known as the AA 737 MAX.
.
.
Mar 28, 2018, 1:29 pm
#71
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
Your line of reasoning No unions >>> product investment is a little tortured. AA and UA can afford stock buy-backs, $9 Billion for AA, $3 Billion for UA announced just a few months ago. They could have used the $$$ to refurb old planes (or, in UA's case, dump lousy single class E145s/CR2s). They've decided that customers aren't worth it. That is the contempt for customers that Parker's statement reflected. There's nothing wrong with prioritizing assets for best markets but he didn't even have the sense to say that AA is making big investments in new aircraft to improve both cost efficiency and passenger experience but some routes see older products.
Capital investment (hard product) reduces net margin / EPS via depreciation, reduces cash balances, while soft product improvements hit margin via opex. Without an immediate revenue increase these investments hurt the remaining cash available to dole out to shareholders, and that's the issue AA/UA face. To do the things people here want, costs them margin and cash flow in the near term, which so far public markets don't seem willing to accept given their strong cash generation so far this cycle. I'm sorry, but offering the 'best' product on every route we want isn't going to make them outperform on revenue growth in a quarter, or likely even in a year.
All else equal, Delta set itself up to spend less on the essentials - labor, facilities, landing fees, idling aircraft - which puts itself in a position to spend more than AA/UA on hard / soft product that we say drives a revenue premium, all while delivering a better margin. It had more margin breathing room to reinvest, and wait for revenue gains from these investments to take hold during 2009 - 2013.
If the answer to winning the profit game next cycle is AA or UA having superior product / customer experience, they need to take a significant hit to margin and cash flow now - they also need to reduce buybacks to increase cash on hand to weather the next industry downturn. These are things investors seem unwilling to accept in the public markets today. Witness JetBlue's attempts to hold out on densifying its aircraft, which led to a CEO departure and a grumbling compliance.
https://paxex.aero/2018/03/jetblue-spaceflex-regrets/
Delta's hubs are not uncontested. ATL, MSP and DTW all have far above-average fractions of connecting passengers. While it gives them scale it shows Delta's restricted ability to gain outsize profits from locals. A route xxx-ATL-yyy competes with xxx-yyy non-stops as well as every other one-stop offering xxx-zzz-yyy. BTS data show that two of the top five operating carriers at DTW are Spirit (#3) and Southwest (#5). Delta fights B6 at JFK and with UA for the #2 position overall in NYC. SLC fights with DEN for inter-Mountain traffic. LAX...
AA does at ORD (MDW), DFW (DAL), JFK (LGA/EWR), MIA (FLL). Not at PHL, PHX, CLT.
UA does at IAH (HOU), SFO (SJC, OAK), ORD (MDW), EWR (LGA, JFK), IAD (DCA, BWI). Not at DEN.
There wasn't any at CLE, CVG, MEM, though all were smaller local markets than remaining hubs - which emphasizes that having dominant local market share in cities large enough to support a full hub, but not so large they can support a second airport is an important piece of the competitive landscape.
Last edited by cerealmarketer; Mar 28, 2018 at 1:45 pm
Mar 28, 2018, 1:47 pm
#72
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: YYJ
Posts: 4,137
Of course, no-status me is going to be crammed in a Y experience that is worse than a Norwegian 787 (or soon, a Spirit A320, once the pitch is ridiculous and Basic Economy is everywhere).
I should pay for AA for that if I have other options at the same price (some of them better ones, like that Norwegian 787) exactly why?
If AA wants to be NK or NO for me, that's cool. I just don't have any reason to prefer them over NK or NO if all they want to give me is lowest common denominator, self loading cargo treatment on junky old 767s.
I should pay for AA for that if I have other options at the same price (some of them better ones, like that Norwegian 787) exactly why?
If AA wants to be NK or NO for me, that's cool. I just don't have any reason to prefer them over NK or NO if all they want to give me is lowest common denominator, self loading cargo treatment on junky old 767s.
Only 1 in 7 chance of a middle seat.
Seats that are wider than the 787 & most of the 777/330 seats.
Why on earth would you think the Norwegian 787 is more comfortable?
Mar 28, 2018, 3:27 pm
#73
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ORD / MDW / FLL
Programs: DL DM/1MM, AA EXP, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 2,295
This is not a correct statement, PHL and MIA are both fortress hubs for AA. HVCs living in MIA are not big fans of driving the 30 miles to FLL to fly with a LCC. In PHL, the closest LCC hub is 80 miles down the road at BWI. Yes, there are LCC flights out of PHL but AA dominates the market.
Mar 28, 2018, 3:36 pm
#74
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ORD / MDW / FLL
Programs: DL DM/1MM, AA EXP, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 2,295
A rookie error to conflate "passenger" with "customer". Certainly there are HVC leisure and self-paid business passengers out there. But, the bulk of the revenue comes from corporate customers who are not likely to be moved much by a hot towel with a higher thread count or whatever it is/
As for the comment about selections based on a hot towel and thread counts, I think that is minimizing what customers, passengers, whatever you prefer to call them, value. No, I will not select an airline based on a hot towel, but I will choose an airline if I believe their hard product enables me to get a better few hours of sleep when flying overseas when I need to hit the ground running. This is why I will NEVER fly BA in biz with their 2-3-2 with alternating front and rear-facing seats...no matter how much less expensive their fares are. Some people will and do fly them, I will not.
Mar 28, 2018, 3:38 pm
#75
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
This is not a correct statement, PHL and MIA are both fortress hubs for AA. HVCs living in MIA are not big fans of driving the 30 miles to FLL to fly with a LCC. In PHL, the closest LCC hub is 80 miles down the road at BWI. Yes, there are LCC flights out of PHL but AA dominates the market.
MIA / FLL. Think of the reverse. The presence of FLL siphons local traffic that would have originated in the north metro - plenty of DL/UA options there - it also served to dampen the market overall - one of many challenges Eastern faced. Not as much of an impact as a DAL, HOU, DCA, or MDW which are all closer to the city center, but MIA would be an even better operation for AA without FLL. Not that you'd ever expect South Florida to live without three airports for the metro versus Atlanta's one. Same sized population, but more wealth and more tourism. Point being - the bigger market isn't always the best profit profile for an airline.
Last edited by cerealmarketer; Mar 28, 2018 at 3:44 pm