OK, so I understand what sharklets are. What I don't get is why it so frequently appears on website booking interfaces like below. Is anyone really going "Well this flight has sharklets so I'm definitely booking that one"? I book by price, flight timings and cabin comfort, as I'm sure most people do.



Then consider that there's the likely majority of passengers that have no clue what sharklets are. It seems to be saying that there are somehow juvenile apex predator fish on the plane (Baby Sharks on a Plane - the Samuel L Jackson sequel nobody asked for).

I applaud the use of anything that saves fuel but putting it up as a single word on the booking page with no explanation is just weird.

Important to some, less important to others. Gives airlines the ability to differentiate themselves as well as specific aircraft in their fleet since, as shown in your screengrab, not all AA A321s are alike. On GFlights, you get an actual calc as to your carbon impact. If I fly LAX-JFK on a 752, GFlights says my impact is 591 kg of CO2. If I fly LAX-EWR on a 78J, I'm assessed at 440 kg. Of course, the planes are flying anyway and if there are fewer persons on board, our average assessed carbon impact is higher but that's just math.

David

If they want to differentiate themselves, I think "amenity kit" or "free wifi" or free alcohol might bring more passengers than sharklets.

Yeah, but "free alcohol" is not necessarily looked upon right now (by some) as a good idea...

David

Although not much interest to the regular flyer, from an operational perspective, different sub types may need to be handled differently.

For example, an aircraft with winglets/sharklets may have a longer wing which at some airports affects which gates it can occupy.

The airline will convey this info to the airport operator or air traffic services and consequently this may filter through to the reservations system the passenger sees.

Possibly. But why would someone care about this when booking a ticket? It's unnecessary information that clutters up the page.

I agree that in this case just "A321" would suffice for the average passenger.

Some may like the added info as it may indicate an aircraft with a newer interior etc.

Looking at the routes, the A321 "Sharklets" would be operated by A321Ts with the F and J cabins that are generally reserved for the premium transcon routes, while the routes with just an A321 appear to be operated by standard A321 with standard domestic F seats. This is important to those buying F/J. If that is the case, perhaps the code for aircraft type could be made in a way that's more clear/useful to passengers but this could also be how the airline opts to differentiate between the two types in their own internal systems (note: all "speculation" on my end here - I don't know if AA also codes standard A321s that do have new winglets as "A321 Sharklets" as well in which case my above speculation would be off base).

This, If you care about environmental impact then a CO2 kg rating would be of more use than just "Sharklets!".

I may have been thinking about this for too long, but it does remind me of when a kid at my school had mild Tourettes and would occasionally shout either "toast" or "baddy" loudly in class. I can totally see him shouting "Sharklets!".

By the way, if you're choosing on this basis then bravo. This kind of decision tilts the consumer preferences to lower carbon journeys and pressures the airlines into investing in more fuel efficient equipment.

But wouldn't it be a bigger pull to say "new equipment" or "new cabin"? Seems like a bit of a Mason's handshake way of telling customers about a better product to just write "Sharklets".

Oh, I have no doubt. But as a differentiator, it might help. I might be wrong, but I see the mask mandate being the issue more in the US and alcohol in the UK.... but as I said, I could be wrong.

It could be, But I'd wonder how many different labels would have be to applied and how up to date it might be. Seems like a lot of additional work that would not be appreciated.

In the old days (decade+ ago), blended winglets on the 737 NGs (and later 757s?) apparently gave better range so an a/c flying on long (typically) westbounds near the range limits may have a better chance of doing so w/o an unscheduled technical stop.

The description that includes "sharklets" is probably just part of the text in whatever database has equipment information (and that database is used by many different systems), and I assume the reservation system also simply uses that same database. AA probably thinks it's not worth the effort (and money) to craft a new database with different descriptor words just for marketing purposes.

That is the most boring, and likely the most accurate explanation for this 😂😂😂. Thank you!

99% of the flying public doesn't care. We have to remember we're on a site called flyertalk. AA could have put Tu-95 (Bear) on their website most people wouldn't have any idea or care.

That may still be preferable to one of their 737 MAX's