orbitmic

The new seat map and subtly different MMB looks has been on for about 10 days. The issue relating to availability and pricing in premium classes has been going on intermittently since the big schedule changes of two weekends ago, then seemed to get better, then got bad again with this past weekend's new schedule changes.

It is all annoying, and I think the latter probably has something to do with flights being taken out (the big schedule change meant lots of deletions and new flights being loaded, not necessarily synchronically). My personal wild guess (totally personal, not supported by anything I have been told or anything) is that I wonder if the system might prevent some buckets from being purchased on the new flights for short periods of time to ensure all the people booked on the deleted flights are successfully reaccommodated as the flight cancellations always seem to spread over several days.

It is very likely that my guess is absolutely wrong, but still, I don't think it is probable either that there is any strategy (e.g. "anti TP runs" etc) behind it, most likely either a mere technicality or something to do with that series of old flight deletions and new flights creations.

Fitch

Well, yes.

Quite why AA would have any axe to grind with the amount of TPs granted by BAEC to its members is beyond me

I'm not aware that TPs have any commercial impact on AA (unlike Avios) and in fact from an AA pov, one imagines that TP runners are revenue-positive by the time they've flown multiple sectors in First Class !!

Just my tuppence...

FlyerTalker688786

The change is about:
1>,Release P class to a new PE code (I think, I assume and I speculate); by doing so they need more fare codes for domestic first class codes. Thus the logical thing to do is to borrow from business class codes. Unfortunately C is reserved for upgrades to domestic first, so only JDIR available.

2>, To separate Flagship First from domestic first.

To me the change is very logical since AA will need more fare code in near future as the PE expand and the bare bone economy is born. Also a nice differentiation between Flagship First and Domestic first to avoid the Flagship check-in, lounge, etc. makes travel on AA less confusion.

Blueboys999

I found the very same problem pricing up some TATL routes over the weekend but all of them are now back to normal. I expect that will be the case across the board in due course.

Fitch

You seemed to have quoted me but replied to someone else

scubadu

Well, I'm not at all saying that AA is intending this with the change... but... if I were AA and wanted an ax to grind, I could think of a couple areas where this change might not disappoint them:

1) BAEC members who live and fly AA primarily in the US, but use the ridiculously easy method of tier point runs to obtain status and then access Admiral Clubs and Flagship Lounges even when flying on AA domestic itineraries (obviously, this impacts AA's paid membership method for AC access)

2) Second, easily obtaining BAEC OW status also allows US based AA fliers to use main cabin extra (MCE) and/or exit row seats, etc. when flying AA

Again, not at all claiming that this was their intent, but I also doubt they'd mind a reduction in either of the above points as a result of this change.

Regards

Dave Noble

It doesn't since BA pays AA a fee for those entering the lounge. If the person does it frequently enough, the earning may perhaps be higher than the amount earned from a purchased membership anyway ( if that person would have purchased it )

I cannot see why it would care about this at all

sxc

Do they really? I've seen posted multiple times that on OW (unlike Star), the operating carrier pays for the lounge entry, not the airline of the FF program.

Dave Noble

If a person enters a lounge by virtue of benefit of a membership card, I am pretty sure that the airline whose lounge it is, charges the airline of the FF membership for admission

When accessing a lounge via class of service, then the airline operating the flight on which the passenger is flying, is charged for the admission

gengar

Not sure a 33% reduction in TP earning is going to cull that many Silvers (or even Golds for that matter).

scubadu

First, to all, I think I pretty clearly caveated my statement that I'm not at all claiming AA is doing this with intent, but I also think some in this forum are bit naive to assume AA just has their head in the sand and doesn't realize that with many of their announced changes (EQDs, etc), they run the risk of some switching their flying and crediting to BAEC in order to maintain OW status and benefits on the cheap.

Sure, 33% reduction may not impact many, I don't know, but for those that obsess on TP runs and getting status for as little as possible, it might dissuade some.

Additionally, I think folks are glossing over the lounge access piece a bit too quickly. For example, AA has announced plans to open a few more Flagship Lounges, DFW being a highly anticipated/desired one. This FL will likely be overcrowded the day it opens. Imagine if lots of AA fliers, hoping to avoid EQD spend issues but wanting to maintain OWE, all switch to BAEC and are able to use the DFW FL even when flying DFW to AUS (183 miles)

Regard

Dave Noble

If people switch schemes but continue flying on AA , I cannot see why AA would care in the slightest

GinFizz

The inability to purchase a business cabin seat on AA.com over the last couple of days on a simple JFK-LAX routing was certainly an annoying surprise to me (thanks to Calchas for checking and noting that this related in part to a total wipe-out over the next year of "I"-fare class availability (even stranger that these fares were still available via Expedia it seems).

I just checked again, and now both on the AA.com website and ITA-Matrix searches results in the "I"-fare bucket for the Transcon route are now showing again. Almost certainly I believe related to the anticipated great fare class reclassification event, but whether by design or unintended consequence we can only speculate...

orbitmic

Those are two good points. Of course BAEC pays a small fee to AA when BAEC members use their lounges, but those sums are low and actually unlikely to be anywhere near compensation for the paid membership in the majority of cases, and yes MCE and the complementary drink/food item would cost AA directly. I don't think they'll mind when qualification is perceived to be relatively similar for that 'target group', but with AA tightening their own rules they might. Of course at the same time, my usual comment on that is that airlines prefer us to fly them than others so the fact that Baec members choose AA is of course good.

In the old years, AF and DL had a pact that you could not be a Sm member if based in Europe or an do member if based in North America, i.e. They sort of shared the world. Baec has always had strong membership in the us but if they too find they have too many members who cost them aa lounge access but barely make the 4 BA flights, they too might be convinced to allow some changes that make intra us flying less rewarding.

gengar

How sure is pretty sure? Because there sure seem to be many FT'ers who believe you are wrong as far as OW.

If AA were really worried about overcrowding in FLs, they wouldn't be opening them up to J pax.

Most FT'ers doing crazy TP runs are chasing GGL/CCR. No one aiming for Silver/Gold needs to pay $600 to do HNL-LAX-BOS-MIA-BAQ-MIA-PHL-LAX-HNL for 1240 TPs. Many who do TP runs for Silver/Gold won't need extra TP runs at all, especially if they are already doing 2100+mi domestic F runs, simply because the TP earning is so huge in that mileage band. With a mere 33% reduction, Silvers would have to do at most one extra run and Golds would have to do at most two. I just don't buy that as being a big barrier, especially when BAEC already has a substantial barrier of needing 4 flights on BA metal/flight numbers for Silver.