Table stakes. Then they can start talking about a "premium" product.

UA is having a phenomenal run of success based on operational excellence. UA's recent success is certainly not based on their soft product. And people tend to forget that before Delta became known as a "premium" airline it developed a reputation for unsurpassed operational excellence. Again, this is table stakes. AA cannot move meaningfully forward without developing operational reliability.

Even a broken Sara Nelson is right twice a century.

I don�t claim to be a premium customer. I don�t generally traverse PHL or CLT, but most of AA�s TATL traffic does.

I usually prefer SFO, LAX, SEA, or DFW for good connections to QR, BA and JL with better business class cabins and lounges.

I agree. Hence, my point that AA needs to figure out how to tap the premium market and make money flying passengers again.

I�m talking about brand loyalty and monetizing their product. DL runs circles around AA. DL has a terrible loyalty program but better, more loyal customers who are willing to pay for their product.

I live in a small market and as a �lowly� mid-tier EP for the last decade, could choose any of the big 3. I choose AA because I get good value out of their loyalty program, the benefits of OW emerald, and good global partners.

If AA builds a strategy around my customer profile instead of premium customers in premium markets like UA and DL, god help them.

There was a podcast with Parker last month where he said (paraphrasing) "improvements in hard/soft product don't translate to improvements in share of revenue because your competitors will duplicate the improvement" and then said DL found a way to operate reliably which competitors couldn't match and used that to grow share of revenue.

okay lets look at this another way.. with any business.. your source of income comes from your customers..
you will have all types.. those that will only fly you. those that will fly you most of the times when the price is decent..
and those that will always fly the cheapest ..
If you break down the revenue from each group.. ( am sure that more groups) and use that has a stick to determine
the path going forward for you company.. great..
not to make this utterly boring.. but to me.. when AA started to "re-imagine" the FF program.. it said to me..
they BIS was not the driving force . and $$$$$ was.. even though it was through other partners..
when you upset your most loyal customers.. most times.. those customers start looking else where..
anyway.. hopefully you get my pov

They need more widebodies and international destinations. United and Delta have much better international networks and widebody products in economy and premium cabins. Sure AA has some decent partners but that doesn't fully excuse the lack of a strong international strategy (outside the Caribbean).

Heck, they could start with the 737/max. How many of their "best customers" are stuck sitting in a 30" pitch Y seat because they only have 1/2 as many Y+ seats as UA?

Delta got its cult status pre-COVID by being the airline described by the average flyer as: "my flight was on time, I had a cool touch screen, and the FA smiled when they handed me the Biscoff."

It's not that complicated.

Well, JonNYC did post a message during the earnings call that insinuated Isom was being shown the door at the end of Feb but his source wasn't the most credible. He's been right about a few things over the past year (UA & B6 Blue Sky tie-up, DL 787X + Airbus WB orders, etc.), so let's hope this rumor is true too.

In all seriousness, I can't see how the board can continue to justify keeping Isom on if his projected 2026 profit and free cash flow forecasts highlighted earlier this week aren't met. Four years with not much to show for it and running out of excuses.

Indeed he did. And those were the days when I actually looked forward to flying with AA.

Exactly why it's hard to take AA's "premium" talk seriously. Almost everything the last year has been standard/routine evolution of existing product and approaches, rebranded under this aura of "premium". It's hard to call the XLR for example premium with the tight J and two rows of MCE (both of which are exit rows); it's a standard new AA aircraft for mid/long haul missions with new J seats and PE. PHL FL was already under construction for years. The price of wifi was woefully uncompetitive today and something needed to change. Etc. I guess drinkable coffee will be a legit "improvement" but at the AC, it was AA just 1 year ago that terminated La Colombe, so it's more just a vendor change. IMO the execs are just hawking "premium" because the market says they should be talking about it, but not really doing it.

A few years ago, when AA went all-in on OTP above anything else, they *still* were a step behind DL and at-par with UA. There were a couple of months or quarters where they were on top but those were blips. Now it's not the singular goal anymore (which is fine) but performance has tanked. Bottom line is that AA has failed to consistently at least match competitors' ops performance since at least the mid 2010s.

You're spot on with the MCE issue - AA's 789Ps are the same as the XLRs with only bulkheads/exits for MCE, nothing else. Remove 3 seats on one side and use that to make 24 additional MCE seats. United has 38 fewer Y seats on their High J 789 (bigger J and PE cabins) and manages to have more than twice as many extra legroom coach seats as AA. United's XLRs will have 3x the number of extra legroom coach seats compared to AA.

There are two issues with AA's premium push:

1) They have no cohesive brand message with these announcements, like Premium is Our Priority. It's not everything, but look at these 3 inflight service press releases: Lavazza coffee from October, Bollinger champagne in September, and improved BOB from a couple weeks ago. There is no statement that weaves through all of them outside the word "elevate" being used. It really feels like piecemeal bandaids. There have been improvements, but it feels like they are coming in bits and pieces without a lot of holistic thought behind it.

2) I haven't seen anything with these announcements that feels like AA is gaining a new competitive advantage over DL/UA. The three offerings above are just coming to par with the other two carriers. What new competitive advantage has AA added in the last 12 months from an inflight or on-the-ground product perspective?

AA's focus on OTP was totally bungled. Unlike DL and then UA, which focused on the details of how to run a reliable airline, they put unreasonable pressure on the GAs to close the door on time and made the AA experience even worse for passengers. A great example of really poor management - let's make superficial efforts to manage the symptom (late departures), rather than addressing the underlying causes of missing scheduled departure times.

How is the "hard" product all that different from UA, DL and AA? From what I can see more MCE seats with UA and DL, far more planes with IFE and better domestic BOB. Beyond that? They all jammed more seats in narrowbodies. They all cut back on domestic first catering. They all have their share of grumpy, angry flight attendants. It does seem as though AA flight attendants have gotten much better with serving PDBs, likely as they now get boarding pay.

Operationally is where AA lacks. Again, who is going to care if AA spent 50 cents on a better bottle of wine if they miss their connection to South America because the gate situation at MIA is horrific at night, particularly if it involves your arriving flight getting into one of the two alley ways.

How can institutional investors be satisfied with Isom�s performance and the Board�s inaction?