Kacee

This is a good point. I'm fortunate not to have to fly international Y, but similar downgrades to the domestic Y product have pushed me to shift a decent amount of business to DL and AS. Just not willing to do 5 hours in Y on UA's 772HD or 319/20. The revenue numbers suggest that many others are not quite so selective.

symphonicman

Comparing coach products, E+ is a competitive advantage IMO for the domestic road warrior. Except for the 772HD—which I haven't flown so I don't know—compared to AA and DL it's very consistent fleet-wide and often available. DL availability on Comfort+ is remarkably limited and AA is dealing with maddeningly inconsistent fleets. So I'm curious what you find better domestically about DL and AS?

Kacee

I was very specific on aircraft. I find the Y seat on the UA 319/20 intolerable for more than 90 minutes. 10 across Y speaks for itself. And these aircraft are almost impossible upgrades ex-SFO. So I'd rather fly AS (easy upgrades from SFO/OAK) or DL (no equivalently miserable Y cabin in their fleet) than one of those in Y.

halls120

If I'm flying Y domestically, as long as it isn't the 777HD, I agree that E+ is a competitive advantage, even though I rarely have trouble getting MCE or Comfort+ (unless I'm booking last minute, which I rarely do.) 10-wide on an 777 or 9 wide on a 787 long haul, I'm looking elsewhere.

Darlox

See, and this is why this business is so screwed up... I spent a decade without taking a single flight that wasn't CO, NW or at least in-Alliance. It wasn't really until the whole PQD thing became part of the game that I started really spreading my flying around to multiple airlines, because now it was just easier to buy what previously had to be "earned".

Simultaneously, though, the airlines judged the market correctly... more people started flying. These days, millennials view travel pretty much as a RIGHT, not a privilege or even an elective activity. But we're also in the throes of one of the longest bull markets in history. Politics aside, there's a fair amount of cash rattling around in citizen's pockets right now, and the airlines have homogenized themselves to the point where "selective" isn't really even obvious to non-frequent-flyers. They're all the same.

Next time the market has a correction, and only the people who HAVE to fly are the ones doing it, we'll see how well these airline strategies have actually paid off. There's going to be a lot less butter scraped across a lot more toast, in a new market reality where loyalty means nothing...

spin88

I think there are several things that are going on.

First, non-mainline carriers are a bigger and bigger share of the market. Looking at 2007 (per-crash, per-current wave of consolidation) what are now the three network carriers (AA, DL, UA) domestically had 436B ASM, and 264B internationally. Everyone else (including SWA) had 206B domestically, 6B internationally. Moving to 2017 (last full year of data on MIT web-site) The network carriers had 404B domestically, 302B internationally, while everyone else had 319B domestically, 33B internationally.

Second, foreign competition is greater. In 2007 US flag carriers had 55.6% of the US international traffic, in the year up to March 2018 it was down to 47.3%. (DOT data). That foreign competition is probably even steeper now than it was a year ago.

But, third, we are at the top of a business cycle, and one that has involved more and more trade particularly overseas. The big-three are selling lots of seats to corporate traveler, many of which are "managed." Planes are full, and everyone is making lots of $$$$, with margins that are historically very, very high. But again, a lot of this demand is from major corporations which are flush with money, and tend to spend it on the network carriers with whom they have deals. Those of us who have been around have seen this movie before. In 1997-2000 planes were packed, fares were very high, profits were good In 2005-early 2008 planes were packed, fares were high, profits were good. Both times the demand was in large part driven by major corporations/businesses.

The idea that the the big three can do what they want, because people have to fly them, is IMHO utterly silly. Yes, some of the airlines that kept downward pressure on fares (AWA, ATA, Airtan) went away, but others have sprung up, and the market power of the network carriers is less today than in the past as their market share has decreased and as they compete more and more head to head in major metropolitan areas where one carrier used to be more dominant.

IMHO the big three - each in slightly different ways - have dismantled much of what kept them competitive (elites status gives you less, as do the FFP programs for redemtions, and often the hard product is sub-par and is at times worse than the LLCs) while certain airlines (AS and B6) have been growing and providing highly competitive product that is often better than what the majors are offering (B6 in Y and in its lie flat product; AS in going with 41" pitch in F vs. the 37" UA, etc is using).

I think what we are going to see when the screw turns and we get the next recession (which is coming faster than anyone thinks....) is that much of the managed corporate traffic will vanish. Faced with lower demand, and needing to fill seats, I think each of the big three (but particularly AA and UA, which have most damaged their reputations for good service and product) will have issues they are creating for themselves now by undermining what kept people loyal to them.