What's new
By:

AA should launch LAX-ICN and ORD-ICN immediately

On the 772 for flights exceeding 8 hours one F seat is blocked, and certain longer flights have two seats blocked in addition to the crew rest facilities.

Josh
 
like the ones over 12 hours where two relief pilots are required... how many flights to Asia that AA operates are less than 12 hours?

so there are now many seats in the F cabin to Asia and two of them on the 772 are for pilots? and the F cabin is coming off the 772s so the pilots will instead get two business class seats?

and the FAs have their crew rest in the area where other carriers have passenger seats?


again, product aside, because hard product is comparable to other US carriers, AA has a cost and revenue generation disadvantage because they don't have industry comparable crew rest facilities on the 772. So are the days of those aircraft numbered at least on the Pacific so AA didn't bother to invest in them?
 
You're a piece of work, WT. You're fishing for anything you can use to try and discredit what AA's doing...

The thread was started not directly because of safety, but because the Korean government is likely to suspend the rights of OZ to fly to the US on one or more routes, and that opens up a limited window of competitive opportunity.

But hey, go ahead and make it about bent metal, crew rest seats, undercutting on pricing, or the number of seats across the cabin.

Seriously, maybe it's time for you to get a different hobby. This one seems to get your blood pressure up a little too high.
 
I'm very calm, but thank you for your concern.

I think the term "immediately" is in the thread title, isn't it?

I'm just trying to understand what will make LAX or ORD to ICN any different than other routes that AA operates or has operated to Asia and why the sense of urgency, even if OZ is penalized.

And further, the penalty is supposed to be for SFO-ICN, not LAX, EVEN IF IT HAPPENS - which is not even considered terribly likely.

and OZ is adding (or perhaps already has) A380 service to LAX which is the proposed west coast point for AA to consider - and ORD isn't even part of the equation....

so, dancing on graves in order to find economic opportunity comes from .... ?

look, if AA can make the US to Asia market work and be economically viable, I am all over the high fives for them.

but thinking that a possible penalty for OZ in a city/on a route that AA isn't even proposing serving is supposed to provide an opening seems like more than just a little bit sketchy....
 
Page after page of nonsensical blather about the "hundreds of millions of dollars" that "AA is losing every year flying to Asia."    Along with re-tread postings of every weakness demonstrated by AA.  Inaccurate postings of aircraft configurations and airliners.net-style blather that AA is doomed to fail because its 777 Y- section features 17.2 inch wide seats, exactly the same as Delta's and UA's 747 economy seats.   

Meanwhile, new AA (combined AA and US) has managed to post profits of $1.9 billion for the first half of the year, despite its huge money-pit in Asia and its less-densely configured 777s and its first class seats "that nobody pays for,"   
 
The stench of desperation is permeating every thread these days - Delta's days as king of the (profitability) mountain may be numbered and it's obviously not sitting well with WT.    
 
stench of desperation?

I think that was what we saw when you posted "immediately" in your recommendation that AA should start ICN service from ORD and LAX.

I didn't post here that AA should start service because of S. Korean airlines' safety records or provide a press release from AA talking about safety.

An AA employee posted a quote from AA's marketing director in SEL which said that AA was winning over customers based on price.

I have long said that I want to see ALL airlines be profitable. You apparently missed that part - probably while you were dragging your cross around.
are you trying to tell us that the seat width on a 9 abreast 777 is the same as a 10 abreast?

good for AA for showing profits. That's what is expected when you go thru BK and then merge with a carrier that targeted AA as their primary target for undercutting prices. Add in that AA merged and emerged from BK at the end of a cycle that involved major capacity reductions by other carriers, and it really isn't that hard for AA to show profits - and large ones at this point.

But that doesn't change the core subject of this discussion which is that you propsed that AA should IMMEDIATELY start new service to ICN.

You haven't dealt with the reality that AA HAS lost hundreds of millions of dollars for multiple years. That is factual and based on DOT data that AA filed.

It also doesn't address that AA's product at least in the economy section is the only one that is 10 abreast on a longhaul 777.

I'm still trying to understand the urgency involved in AA getting into the market and also why another ICN route is going to be different than all of the others.

I have yet to see answers to those questions...
 
I think someone is just butthurt that a "3rd place in Asia" carrier managed to win what is arguably the most highly sought after corporate travel contract in Korea.
 
eolesen said:
Kudos to AA for winning the Samsung contract. That's huge.
Click to expand...
That is huge! As both a shareholder in DL and a big fan of Samsung products, I wish it was us. Maybe next time...
 
In the interim, good on AA for landing such a lucrative deal.
 
 
FWAAA said:
airliners.net-style blather...
Click to expand...
Count me in the camp that prefers avoiding that at all costs.
 
offering service in a market WILL result in getting a certain amount of business.

And it is certain that Samsung employees will NOT be riding in the 10 abreast section of the aircraft.


I'm not sure that Samsung is the largest corporate contract from S. Korea but it is clearly a solid one.

but winning a contract STILL doesn't mean that AA will make money on the route - but presumably it is a good step in the right direction.

and, again, if AA's philosophy is to throw as much service into Asia until they begin to win corporate contracts - even if priced low - then that is one way to get their feet in the market.

But it is still possible that someone else could come along and win the corporate contract back, including KE which presumably had it before.

No one is arguing about AA's presence in Europe or Latin America - or DL's or UA's for that matter - because they aren't losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the process.

and, specific to this discussion, they aren't proposing, or don't have their fans on here proposing starting new service RIGHT AWAY because another carrier might face governmental restrictions because of an accident that happened on another route.

If AA can make S. Korea work, go for it.

Unless UA adds another route, AA would pass UA with nonstops on their own metal to ICN if AA starts another route.

as for a.net style "blather" seat width is a product dimension... and no one called anyone on the carpet for mentioning AA's IFE; there couldn't be possibly another subject more a.net than IFE.

As for Samsung, if DFW is their primary route, then, priced right, AA would have an advantage over any other carrier which competes for ICN-DFW traffic with a connection.
 
Considering that AA has always been as parsimonious as possible with crew rest space in the cabin, I doubt seriously that putting crew rest seats on the main deck would require adding an additional seat to every friggin' row in coach on a 777.  The crew rest area on the 772 (my bad, WT, it is in fact on the main deck) is 4 bunks replacing approx. 2 rows of seats in the center section of main cabin 8 rows into main cabin between the 3L and 3R lavs.  That would be replacing 10 seats.  I doubt that was the motivation for configuring 10 seats per row which by the way does not apply to every row in MC.
 
WorldTraveler said:
no. with 250 of the seats on the aircraft in coach, it is completely illogical to say that coach doesn't matter because business is where the money is made.

If business was the real source of revenue you think it was, AA would have left seats in business. But they didn't; they are shrinking their business cabin.

The simple reality is that average fares in the entire aircraft have to be high enough to justify operating the flight.

And, again, KE and OZ's 777s have 9 abreast in the coach cabin, just like DL and UA have on their 777s.

AA has an uncompetitive product.

They are discounting in order to fill the aircraft; their marketing person in SEL said they are undercutting the S. Korean airlines.
Click to expand...
The money is made in the front cabins, WT.   Sure, airlines need people buying the cattle-car seats in the back to help make flights profitable overall, but the reality is that economy-seat passengers will sit in just about any squalor-style conditions they're given.
 
Here's some back-of-the-envelope calculations to illustrate my point.   The AA 77W seats about 300.   Let's say a typical load factor is 80%, or 240 occupied seats.    If the plane burns 40,000 gal of jet fuel each way, that's $120,000 just for the gas.   If we divide that by the 240 passengers, that's $500 for fuel each way per passenger, on average.
 
Right now, AA is selling seats DFW-ICN in early November for $1,390 all-in round-trip, of which AA gets to keep $1,300 (subtracting out all the government taxes for international travel).   So from that fare,  $500 of the $650 each way pays for the gas, leaving just $150 of revenue per seat to cover everything else.   AA isn't going sell any more (or fewer) of those economy fares whether it's eight across, nine across, ten across or, god forbid, 11 across in econ. 
 
AA's current business class special on those flights is  $3,481 round-trip for an I fare (of which AA gets to keep $3,390) and AA's current First Class special is $5,981 for a P fare (of which AA gets to keep $5,890).   Not only do those premium cabin fares pay for their share of the fuel, they also leave a lot of money to pay for the crew, the plane, the maintenance, the management, the agents at both ends, etc.   And yes, those premium cabin special fares (purchased more than 2 months in advance) are probably a lot lower than the premium cabin fares sold by  DL, UA, KE and OZ.   But those premium cabin fares are where any airline makes it money (except for economy-only airlines).   All airlines need economy fares and passengers, but that's not where they make the profits.   Economy passengers help cover the fuel bill.   
 
I'm the interweb's biggest cheerleader for humane economy seating out there.   My defenses of MRTC place me on an island  - all alone.   eolesen, whom I respect, has politely posted that I'm wrong and that higher seating density does result in more revenue than generous legroom and generous width seats would yield.  I believe him.   Nevertheless, I agree that 10-across would suck, if I ever have to sit in it.           
But I don't have to sit in Y-.   I'm special and I'm a bigshot because I fly AA so much.   I get to sit in the wider 9 across MCE section with more legroom for free because of my top-tier status.   And I get upgrade certificates that I can use to escape the horrors of economy.   Those who pay full fare econ fares for business travel usually get free upgrade certs from their corporate travel rep.   
 
But here's the thing:   AA has placed its 10-across 77Ws on its big flagship routes, like LHR and GRU, places where AA makes money.    Seriously big money.   Enough money to cover its losses in the Pacific with lots of money left over.   $1.9 billion wo in the first half of 2014.     Any evidence that 10-across 77Ws have hurt AA to LHR or GRU?   Nope.   
 
Like you said - Asians tend to be smaller than big, tall and fat Americans and big-shot Asian businessmen/women will be sitting in MCE or business class or first class anyway, so cramped economy is something they won't experience any more than I will.   
 
10-across 777 seats are the exact same economy seats used on DL's 747s and UA's 747s (17.2 inches).   Are those economy sections uncompetitive?     Same seats as UA's 787s (nine across instead of JAL and ANA 8-across 787s).   I hate to say it, but offer the econ passengers a deal, and they'll sit in cramped econ seating.    Meanwhile, the bread and butter passengers are sitting in luxury up front, and they're covering a lot more than their share of the fuel bill both ways.
 
We were always told in new hire training that 60% of the revenue comes from 20% of the passengers (FC and/or BC).  But, judging from the numbers you just threw out there, FWAAA, the percentage of passengers on a 777 might be lower and the revenue percentage higher.  On the 772's that have been reconfigured into BC/MCE/MC, the BC is only 17% of the total seats on the airplane.
 
jimntx said:
Considering that AA has always been as parsimonious as possible with crew rest space in the cabin, I doubt seriously that putting crew rest seats on the main deck would require adding an additional seat to every friggin' row in coach on a 777.  The crew rest area on the 772 (my bad, WT, it is in fact on the main deck) is 4 bunks replacing approx. 2 rows of seats in the center section of main cabin 8 rows into main cabin between the 3L and 3R lavs.  That would be replacing 10 seats.  I doubt that was the motivation for configuring 10 seats per row which by the way does not apply to every row in MC.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
My opinion is that when ordering and configuring the 77Ws, Arpey and Horton looked at what the innovative airlines were doing - like Emirates, with its 10-across 777s, and figured "If it doesn't keep Emirates from selling tickets, then it won't hurt AA's chances of selling Y- tickets."   
 
Someone/something has to "fund" or "pay for" the increased legroom in Main Cabin Extra, and IMO, the people in Y- are paying for it with the one extra Y seat per row.   That extra column of seats helps make up for the missing row to create MCE.   And since the 772s are losing F and getting all-new lie-flat J seats, might as well cram in the 10-across on the 772s to pay for the MCE section there as well.  
 
The FA crew rest module indeed replaces 10 economy seats, and when it was announced that AA would not be retrofitting the overhead FA crew rest in the 772s, I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations to show that AA's failure to install that overhead crew rest was misguided.   If those 10 econ seats could be sold on each long-haul 777 flight for an average of $500 each way, each day, that would be $5,000 per flight per day, or $1.8 million per flight each year.   Probably something like $65 million in revenue each year across all the 772 flights.   I gotta think that 47 overhead crew rest modules could be justified by the $65 million annual revenue estimate for those 10 seats, but they didn't ask me.   I don't agree with EVERY decision of management.   😀
 
Maybe retrofitting the 772s with the overhead crew rest module is much more costly than sourcing it on the new 77Ws?   That's usually the case, but if the 10 seats on the 772s are cheaper than the overhead crew rest, why pay for it on the 77Ws?   
 
We've been told numerous times that it is almost impossible to put the crew rest bunks in the ceiling on a plane that wasn't configured for that from the get go. Be it pilot or F/A. It requires a massive rework to the structure and systems in the plane. I'm not even sure there is a plan out there to accomplish this. Is it worth it to basically rebuild the plane a completely different way to add 10 seats? I think not. The easiest and cheapest way would be to put a module in the cargo hold, ala Delta 767's. If AA really wanted to, they could. I suspect that the numbers in regards to lost cargo space didn't pencil out positive and thus the crew rest modules remain in the cabin.
 
jimntx said:
We were always told in new hire training that 60% of the revenue comes from 20% of the passengers (FC and/or BC).  But, judging from the numbers you just threw out there, FWAAA, the percentage of passengers on a 777 might be lower and the revenue percentage higher.  On the 772's that have been reconfigured into BC/MCE/MC, the BC is only 17% of the total seats on the airplane.
Click to expand...
Good point - but my numbers were mere anecdotes, the opposite of data.   🙂

The business and first class specials are 50-day advance purchase and non-refundable, so they're a lot cheaper than many last-minute business travelers will end up buying.    
 
While everyone and their brother has been bleating on the interwebs that AA's 777s are not optimally configured, I keep returning to AA's amazing first half profit, even with the crummy ski-slope slanted business class seats and the "far too many first class seats that nobody pays for."    It's for that unsophistimacated reason that I think reducing premium seats is the dumbest move ever, given that lots of premium seats has not interferred with AA's recent profitability.   
 
IORFA said:
We've been told numerous times that it is almost impossible to put the crew rest bunks in the ceiling on a plane that wasn't configured for that from the get go. Be it pilot or F/A. It requires a massive rework to the structure and systems in the plane. I'm not even sure there is a plan out there to accomplish this. Is it worth it to basically rebuild the plane a completely different way to add 10 seats? I think not. The easiest and cheapest way would be to put a module in the cargo hold, ala Delta 767's. If AA really wanted to, they could. I suspect that the numbers in regards to lost cargo space didn't pencil out positive and thus the crew rest modules remain in the cabin.
Click to expand...
Very good point.   Figured it was much more costly to retrofit it to the old 772s than to get it as original equipment on new planes.   Besides, international load factors are rarely over 80%, so it's not like those 10 seats would actually be sold every day on every flight.   🙂
 
And again, even without those 10 econ seats, and the slanted ski slopes in J, and the lack of sufficient seating density,  AA's profits don't appear to have suffered in 2014.    Compare to UA, where all widebody business class seats are lie-flat (180 degree, parallel to the floor flat),  and UA's profits aren't keeping up  with AA's profits.   Guess that perfect lie-flat J seats aren't the panacea everyone says they are.    
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top