I beg to differ. It happens all the time.

My observation: the AA website is set up to prioritize “shortest overall travel time” when booking trips. I suspect many pax compare fares and airlines based on total travel time. (Unlike many of us, the average pax are not planning their connection having time to enjoy the lounge at the hub.) 😁 Most pax just want to get where they’re going, as quickly as possible. What they don’t realize is the high risk of misconnects when booking such short connections.

AA doesn't take factors like delays with no marshal crew, attaching the jet bridge or holds because of crowded alley ways in MCT but you should. Had to be re-routed last night DCA/MCO/MIA and we got to MCO late. Of course no crew to bring the plane to the gate. I go rushing across the terminal hallway to the MIA gate and it's already closing at T-20. I had to be a bit adamant about being allowed to board and luckily there was still an open seat in F.

This is a great example of why I'm very confused by this thread. I love low MCTs, because I'd rather book a tight connection and at least try to cut my total travel time by hours.

50% (which is low IME, I make these connections 90% of the time) is great odds to me for getting home earlier!

If you don't like tight connections, don't book tight connections. Why does anyone care if AA offers super tight connections to those of us who would prefer it?

I don't think people are complaining about being offered short connections. The complaint is that the aggressive banking offers the choice between ultra short connections (30m) and ultra long connections (3+ hours). Back when AA ran rolling hubs I always tried to schedule 90m connections. 30m to be late, 30m to grab some food or catch up on email, 30m to board my connecting flight. It was predictable, low stress, and almost always available when flying domestic. Now it's either exit the plane when your next flight is already boarding so good luck getting overhead space and forget about getting any food, or waste half your day in the club.

90% isn't a particularly impressive rate either. Missed connections should be the rare exception.

The problem is that the options are 35 mins or 5 hours.

So unreasonable on both ends.

Why? If trimming a layover from 2 hours to 30 mins leads to missing a connection 10% of the time, and the missed connections cost you 5 hours, you're still saving 8.5 hours over 10 flights. It adds up.

In the current environment, the missed connection can cost you up to 24 hours. I've had numerous missed connections or similar the past 2 months, where the next available flight, even when asking for protection was the next day either 12 hours or a full 24 hours later for tertiary cities.

It's all a perspective issue. In my experience, being last to board or last to the gate in tight connections means 1) running the risk of missing your connection and being stuck for an indefinite period of time on a rebooked flight which often results in suboptimal seat selections, lost upgrades, and delayed plans owing to the missed connection, 2) running the risk that you will be "forced" to gate check your bag because the overheads are full which results in long periods of time in the baggage claim and increasing the risk that your bag does not show up, 3) missing out on the opportunity to have a meal or something even rudimentary to eat if you had not eaten beforehand, 4) running the risk that even if you make the connection, your bag may not make the connection, 5) etc.

My girlfriend was one of those "every minute spent at the airport is a minute you could be productive elsewhere types". She's happily grown out of that.

...none of those things sound all that bad to me? I'm usually traveling with a bag I can fit under my seat, and I'm not that worried about "indefiniteness." I don't remember a time when I've been unable to feed myself while traveling.

This is not one size fits all—it's totally fine if the stress and hassle makes it worth it to you to schedule more time while traveling. But I (and it sounds like previously your girlfriend) think differently. That's ok, and is not something I plan to grow out of. My time at home is much more valuable to me than spending more time at the airport to avoid stress about things that don't stress me out.

What city pairs for example?
I am not seeing that with any of my usual itineraries.
.

Im booked on AA 3176 BNA-ORD then AA90 ORD-LHR in two weeks. At the time of booking, I had 70 minutes between flights. At some point of the last couple of months, AA delayed the domestic flight 5 minutes, and advanced the intl flight 25 minutes. Thus, cutting the connection time to 40 minutes.

This seems potentially worrisome. What recourse do I have here or do I have to cross my fingers and hope things run on time?

Call and have them change your flight due to schedule change.
Plenty of options with 1hr - 2hr connection time. There is even a non-stop on BA.

the agent says that since the flight change was not more than 60 minutes, that it would be considered a voluntary change I am on the hook for fare difference. Is this accurate? HUCA?

How good is AA with allowing changes because of short connect times? DL wouldn't let me change to a more expensive earlier flight after taking my layover from 56 to 35 to 31 (1 minute over MCT-it's a legal connection.), but they did let me cancel and refund.No change in time, but 1:00 I->D in CLT is just too short. Better to plan the overnight, and get a decent next day flight out allowing for a decent night's sleep. Booked in G.