dll

The last 18 months have been a crazy whirlwind of international travel for me. Most of my flights have been in business (with a few stray ones in first or economy). Last year I easily made EXP early in the summer so I spread my travel around a bit on other carriers to taste other alliances and other products, and did a 1K challenge with UA too.

Longhaul products I've experienced in addition to AA in the last 18 months, all originating from LAX:

• 2 mega-haul r/t flights on Emirates (from SoCal to South Africa r/t, and to the middle east r/t separately), business
• 1 r/t on SQ to CMB (NRT stopover each way), business
• 1 r/t on LATAM to EZE, business
• 3 r/t on UA (LHR, Lisbon and Xi'an), Polaris ("Fauxlaris")
• BA multiple times in Club World, a couple in First
• JAL in First NRT-LAX (a REAL TREAT!)
• Finnair business
• Swiss (First ZRH-LAX)
• DL LAX-HNL (not a major longhaul, but served by their 767 with Thompson lie-flats)
• Qantas, LAX-SYD in business
• Many trips on AA - HKG, NRT, LHR, GRU, AKL, all in business

The purpose isn't to brag about my travels. I feel very fortunate to have been able to experience this wide variety of carriers over these last months.

What's pretty surprising to me is that I'm coming to find AA's international longhaul product surprisingly competitive, particularly on their 787-9, 772 (Super Diamond) and 77W fleet.

First of all, Delta, United, Finnair and even Qantas cannot hold a candle to AA's direct-aisle access product. Delta's got a LOT of flights on their 767 fleet which are cramped, narrow, not private and very unpleasant. Granted, AA's 763 fleet is even worse as it doesn't have AVOD, but I've not had many trips on one where it was hard to avoid. DL runs them all over the world and they're actually pretty unpleasant IME. Finnair has the same product on their A330 fleet.

Qantas' 2x2x2 A380 isn't the worst in the world with a travel companion but it's not the best when you're alone. Same for UA, which has a total hodgepodge of configs including the 2x4x2 old cabins which still frequent their international network. Their 787s, 2x2x2, are again OK with a travel companion.

But I've been surprised by AA's product even beyond the seats. Most of their fleet have a walk-up bar with snacks and drinks during the flight. I can only name one other carrier I've traveled on - Emirates - that has that beat. It's great on long flights when you get hungry for a snack.

AA's longhaul food service has certainly stepped up a notch. It's never going to be amazing, but it's certainly just as good as most of the carriers on this list.

On their longer flights they offer PJs, always a nice touch. And Casper bedding is a nice improvement that is frankly better than what's offered by Emirates and others.

I think AA don't get enough credit for the strides they've made with their longhaul product. I've been a critic of theirs in the past but when stacked up even against some of the "best" carriers in the business they do compete. My recent flight on Emirates was disappointing to me. Cost cutting was evident in the food service - especially the snacks between meals - and their product is starting to feel very dated. Everything about it - the lounges in Dubai which are severely overcrowded, the seats (2x3x2 on a 777, something AA got rid of already), scaled down snack service (my most recent DXB-LAX actually ran out of most of the food about 5 hours out of LAX, leaving us all waiting impatiently for the lunch service) makes me glad that AA is my primary carrier.

Their investment in Flagship lounges (admittedly also prone to overcrowding), on-board product, food (esp. on NRT, which is now a shared menu with JAL) and seat design all have me genuinely pretty happy with the direction they are taking. The only carrier I've experienced that left me feeling wowed was SQ and that was a truly fantastic experience. Hard to compare AA business to JAL or Swiss first class (and certainly NOT worth comparing AA's fairly uncompetitive longhaul first which isn't very good).

I'm not super thrilled with AA's domestic situation, FWIW (especially 737 MAX and the LUS A321 fleet still doing 6-hour transcons), but even there they have made an effort to increase 2-cabin regional jet flights. I've been looking at two trips back east this summer, both requiring connecting flights into smaller New England airports. AA has a mix of CR7, CR9 and E190 service where UA offers only CRJ (single cabin), and DL a mix of CRJ and CR7.

Am I crazy, suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? Lots of areas for improvement but they've come a long, long way from the NGBC era.

anabolism

Some of AA's longhaul F and J product is much better than some of the competition's, but it does vary a lot. BA has among the worst long-haul J. QF's new J is quite nice, but their older J is worse than BA's. JL's newer J is also quite nice, and CX's J is identical to AA's. QR has perhaps the best J overall, although there are important differences between the equipment. QF does provide PJs in J, along with, on certain flights, QR and AA. BA has perhaps the worst long-haul F. AA's long-haul F is better than BA's, but is on very few routes, and not in the same league as QF, CX, JL, or QF. QF's long-haul F is on very few aircraft, and is better than BA's, but otherwise is surprisingly deficient.

robertablake

I do agree that AA presents a competitive product for international travel, but they don't always have competitive pricing. I read this post just have looking at a RT flight from CLT-NRT for particular days in June. The AA site is showing J pricing for all AA metal flight options that are 3 times that of all the JAL options ($19.4k vs $6.4k)! This pricing is just not one flight option, it's every flight option for AA and JAL. Even JAL's F pricing for my dates are $6k less than AA's pricing. This tells me that AA is saying, "Don't fly us, fly JAL instead". How can they justify this type of pricing? For me, the JAL business class is about the same product as the AA business class - there are some things I prefer with JAL and other things I prefer on AA, but they are roughly the same product to me. But, more times than not, the pricing the AA presents for JAL metal is less expensive than they present for their own metal.

CPRich

I never read much into pricing on one specific day, or a few specific dates. Perhaps AA was more competitively priced/offers a better product, sold most of their seats, and is premium pricing the last available seat. How do prices compare on the non-selective dates?

EDIT: I tried, but couldn't find anything outside of $6.9-8.9K on at least 20 different June date pairs, flexible tickets.
(oops, there's one flight on one day at $9.5K)

JAL's site has $6.1K standard, $19k Flexible.

tphuang

yep, i agree here. AA's long haul product is pretty good. Emirates is only good if you get the A380. Their 777 is very underwhelming, but the food is good. I like CX the best, but that's mostly due to the fantastic lounge experience. BA is very lack luster.

ijgordon

I don't think it'll come at too much of a surprise to folks who have been paying attention here for the last year or two. Almost everyone has been preferring AA over BA on TATL's to LHR (low bar, I know!), and there are often even strong arguments for AA over CX to HKG (same seat, you get Wifi and CX J food sux).
I also think it's easy for people to lose sight of the benefit of all-aisle-access business class on nearly all long-hauls (a smattering of 757s is the exception) when many carriers don't offer that. (Of course I understand that it's not ideal for couples' travel, but it is called business class.)
I may need to go to FRA soon, and it's kind of depressing. DL has a 763, which as OP says isn't great, but the fare for my dates happens to be sky-high. LH is all 2-2-2 and I may end up having to play footsie with a neighbor. I'm trying to lean toward SkyTeam for status purposes, and if I go with a connection, AF is 2-2-2 with ANGLED LIE-FLATS on their 380 which are the only flights at good times, and KL is also 2-2-2 on the JFK-AMS equipment. SQ is surprisingly the lowest fare, but I've been reading the product is dated, service not great on that sector, and I don't like the early return from FRA. I may end up seriously considering AA/BA via LHR, I don't really mind connecting in LHR, even with the T3/T5 shuffle, or if I can get a BA 744 UD window those are good seats.

sinoflyer

I generally agree on your points. AA's international J product is very competitive, and certainly the best among the US3.

However, unlike most people it seems, I prefer the Zodiac Concept D over the Super Diamond seats. I just cannot stand Super Diamond's half-stowed tray table and narrow footwell. Also, I believe the walk-up "bar" is an overstatement. I've never had a flight (LAX-PEK/PVG/HKG) on which the wines and beers were left in the open, not to mention liquors for cocktails. IIRC, there aren't even self-serve coffee, tea, and soft drinks, but only water and orange juice. The snack selections, OTOH, is varied and very impressive. BR has a nice mid-flight snack area as well.

By comparison, I like JL's suite and catering the best, and by how much CX has fallen lately (I still like the seat, obviously), I've come not to expect so much from its catering.

nrunning24

AA hard product on international J is amazingly competitive. I still feel that it has a ways to go in soft product, but still miles better than my recent United Polaris flight from AKL - SFO where every dish was horrendous and the service was atrocious. In J at this point there are only a few airlines I would fly over AA on directly competing routes. Obviously the ME3 don't compete on many with AA, but Virgin Australia, ANA, Air France (referb 777 only) are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.

ckx2

Three reasons why AA is still being competetive:

Hard product.
Hard product.
Elite status caretaking.

Austin787

If I'm booking international J, I would gladly book AA as long as the aircraft is an A330, 777, or 787 - AA business seats on these planes are among the world's best. Not so much with their PTV-less 757s and 767s which are the worst of the US3. Soft product can be inconsistent but hopefully having an impressive J hard product will boost crew moods. Economy is a much different story - not much airlines including AA can do to distinguish economy given the price sensitive market although Singapore does add some perks to make flying economy more tolerable.

lds89

As I fly almost exclusively TPAC, AA wins hands down. CX and JL cabins are too warm, and the CX and JL food, imo, is worse than AA's (JL's not on quality but just on taste / preference; CX on quality though). JL's seat is really great though as long as you get the apex configurations.

AA has excellent hard product and I have only missed one SWU request on a particularly crowded LAX-HKG Sat night flight. To routinely have access to such an excellent hard and typically very good soft product for ~$1,000 cash RT is amazing (thanks to SWU uses) keeps this EXP loyal to AA. AA's snack bar and hot snacks are very good (although Cathay burger and JL curries for mid flight are very good too). And to the poster who mentioned about the drinks set out - all you have to do is hit the service light and they'll happily get you any of the drinks. Never had problems doing that when I wake up and want a cup of tea, etc.

Since as an AA EXP I get access to the other carriers' lounges, AA J + other OW F lounges is a winning combo and preferable for me than risking an inability to sleep in an 80 degree JAL cabin without personal ventilation. And it's no competition compared with much inferior hard products on DL (unless you find the A330) or UA (2-4-2 in business are you kidding me and an absolutely horrendous lounge situation in SFO) and significantly poorer lounge benefits.

jcatman

<bolding mine>

Flew that route back in November 2017. Shameful and disappointing, given all of the hype.

arlflyer

By and large, AA doesn't really need to be "globally competitive". The bulk of its revenue comes from flying people around the U.S., where it has a captive customer base and regulatory protection from competition. The big-dollar international revenue comes either from companies who have contracts with AA, or flyers who are caught up in the FF loyalty side of things and don't want to put their spend elsewhere. Again, captive audience and protected market.

That being said, it's great they they have been putting a good hard product out there, for sure...

wetrat0

Yeah, the pricing is totally logical. Everyone here seems to agree they have among the best J product, so naturally their discount J would be more likely to sell out quickly (resulting in high prices for the remaining available seats).

3Cforme

The OP picked a rather grand title for what is, in effect, a brief discussion of long-haul business class seats.

That is correct. 2017 showed AA with 152 Billion domestic revenue passenger miles and 74 Billion international RPMs, a lot of which would have been on domestic F aircraft.

That is a popular theme on FT but not correct. On how many city pairs that AA serves non-stop is there not at least one-stop competition? What fraction of RPMs do those routes make up? I'm guessing it's in the (low) single digits.

It would be correct to say U.S. carriers are protected from international competition in the domestic market. Prohibitions on cabotage are very common across the world. The U.S. isn't the only country (or, as with EU, trading area) doing it.