American Matches Much Of Dl's New Fare Structure

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Good thread, thanks to all for the good read.

Mr.Bob Crandall spoke well back in '92 when AA attempted to institute value pricing (same as DL now) but when the other airlines, led by NW clobbered AA the simplified fare structure was withdrawn, and Uncle Bob said:

"First I try to do what is right, then I do what I have to do"

Think how different the airline industry would be today if simplified fares were adopted back in '92.

Bob Crandall also said that sooner or later, if this country wants to keep an airline industry, that fares must go higher.

Why doesn't a legacy carrier try instituting all 1st class seating on a heavy route, say JFK-LOS, with the appropriate fare increase?

 

[jimntx]

Why doesn't a legacy carrier try instituting all 1st class seating on a heavy route, say JFK-LOS, with the appropriate fare increase?

[post="238782"][/post]​

Actually, UAL started a similar service in October, 2004 with a modified 757. The flight is LAX-JFK (and JFK-LAX) with 12 lie-flat premium F/C, 26 Business Class, and only 72 Economy Plus seats. This is substantially fewer seats than could be put on a 757. Haven't heard how well the service is selling.

 

[mweiss]

Think how different the airline industry would be today if simplified fares were adopted back in '92.

[post="238782"][/post]​

Indeed. It might have stunted the growth of WN and FL, and prevented altogether the creation of F9 and B6.

 

[FWAAA]

Actually, UAL started a similar service in October, 2004 with a modified 757. The flight is LAX-JFK (and JFK-LAX) with 12 lie-flat premium F/C, 26 Business Class, and only 72 Economy Plus seats. This is substantially fewer seats than could be put on a 757. Haven't heard how well the service is selling.

[post="238786"][/post]​

It's a step in the direction suggested by whatkindoffreshhell, but isn't exactly all-F service. All p.s. represents is a replacement of retiring 762s featuring 3 class service on JFK-LAX. Nothing more.

AA's and UA's 3 class transcon 762s seat substantially fewer people than could a maxed-out 762. Same is true about a 3 class 757-200.

Celebs who want all-F service already have it in privately owned G-IVs and G-Vs.

Don't know how the UA ps flights are selling but AA still owns the market with 11 daily 762s v. 6 daily 757s by UA.

 

[TechBoy]

Actually, I just worked a 3-day trip on the 757 (22 F/C seats). Very few to no non-revs on any leg. The most I had was 4 non-revs on a DFW-LAS leg. On that leg, I had 18 revenue passengers--only 2 were listed on the paperwork as upgrades.

[post="238585"][/post]​

This is not surprising considering that AA is selling F tix DFW-LAS for $460 r/t. That proves that reasonable fares will cause people to buy F and Y tickets. On the other hand, I'll bet the farm that most of the pax flying F IAD-LAX ($2018) and JFK-LAX ($4499) are upgraders. I know that there are still some people buying F tix (particularly JFK-LAX and international connections) but the overwhelming majority of F pax on domestic routes are upgraders. Not a bad deal for the airlines if they are on $1-2k Y tickets, but not so good when they buy rock bottom fares.

 

[goingboeing]

"AA better be careful, WN has more room than AA LRTC and leather seats as well. How does AA expect to have a competitive coach product with higher fares, less service, less leg room, more likely an RJ, than WN."
Couldn't have said it better. I can't tell you how many times passengers--both business and leisure--have told me that MRTC is the reason they are willing to pay a bit more to travel on AA.

[post="238773"][/post]​

You have made some good points with your postings.That is why this forum is good for airline employees to exchange ideas.

I have many OPINIONS and just because they are mine does not make them all good.

I do like reading other people's views,even if they are 180 from mine.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The reason the legacy airlines have multiple fleet types - several of which serve similar missions - is because those airlines have been around for a while. The only reason the LCCs don't have multiple fleet types is because they have not been around long enough to have multiple aircraft types that have been acquired in different technology cycles. The obvious exception is WN who has chosen to keep their new generation 737 aircraft compatible with their older 737 at the expense of some of the new technology otherwise available on those aircraft. Even considering WN, JetBlue and AirTran have both chosen to add second aircraft types to their fleets in order to expand their capabilities. Even though the 737NGs and A320 families could be pushed to be used across the Atlantic, if the LCCs choose to fly longhaul flights they will have to add yet another aircraft type.

With the exception of AA's decision to buy 767s and A300s at the same time, there are few examples in modern history of airlines intentionally choosing to buy similar competiting aircraft.

 

[777 fixer]

AA better be careful, WN has more room than AA LRTC and leather seats as well. How does AA expect to have a competitive coach product with higher fares, less service, less leg room, more likely an RJ, than WN. Also note that WN now carries more business travelers than leisure, and more domestic passengers than AA, most direct without a hub stop. AA has got to produce a better coach product if it wants to compete for AA busines traveler. The only thing AA has for the coach business traveler at this point is the ability to upgrade. Note I am an AA Ex Plat and NW Plat and am flying more WN everyday

[post="238771"][/post]​

First of all please back up your statement that SWA has more legroom than AA. Second, SWA flies to 60 domestic destinations while AA flies to over 70. That's NOT including American Eagle flights. Add them it's even more. In additon it's a falacy to think that on SWA you don't make stops in route to your destination whle on AA you kae a "hub" stop.

Example, say you want top fly from Chicago to LAX. SWA has 13 flights, only five of which are non-stops. AA has 11 ALL of which are non-stops. Or you want to from Dallas to LAX. On SWA you can't, AA on the other hand has 14 non-stop flights

 

[777 fixer]

We wouldn't need 300 MD 80'S if we reduced our gate turn times and utilized each a/c 1 more revenue flight per day.
Plus getting rid of the A-300'S B767's MD'80'S and the spare parts would provide a big chunk of change to purchase B-737's.Operating 3 fleet types would increase effiency and reduce operating costs to help pay for the B-737's.
The N200 tail numbers are pushing 20 years old and will have to be replaced in the next 5 years anyway.
The remaining MD's routes could be flown by AA Eagle RJ'S to reduce cost even farther.

DFW-LAS is not an average route as it is a very high demand market which makes it an exception.

I flew an MD80 a few months ago and my wife and I and 1 other person were the only people in F/C.

[post="238640"][/post]​

If you were to sell off all the A300's, 767, and MD-80's along with the associated spares you still would not even come close to having the money to purchase more 737's. That's almost 500 aircraft you would have to purchase. Even if you did have the financing it would take years to replace them. It's not like Boeing has a lot of open production slots for the 737. Then there's the fact that you simply cannot fly the 737 on some of the routes the 767 flies.

 

[goingboeing]

If you were to sell off all the A300's, 767, and MD-80's along with the associated spares you still would not even come close to having the money to purchase more 737's.  That's almost 500 aircraft you would have to purchase.  Even if you did have the financing it would take years to replace them.  It's not like Boeing has a lot of open production slots for the 737.  Then there's the fact that you simply cannot fly the 737 on some of the routes the 767 flies.

[post="238961"][/post]​

AA would not need 500 airplanes if each a/c flew 1 more leg per day by reducing gate turn times. AE RJ's can cover probably 75% of the routes that MD80's currently fly. AE operates a flight from XNA-LAX for example.
B757's can cover some of the routes that 767's presently fly.We are already operating B-757's LAX-HNL.I'm sure we could buy some more B-757's on the market from some of the airlines in chapter 11 trouble.
B757 could also be used to cover MD80 routes such as DFW-SAN
There are all kinds of options available of which many I'm not even aware of.

How would you replace the 100 MD80'S that are going to be HIGH-TIME HIGH CYCLES A/C in the next 5 years?[N-200 series tail numbers]

 

[WorldTraveler]

Given that McDonnell Douglas aircraft have very long structural lives, the motivation to replace them will be because there are more fuel efficient aircraft on the market rather than that the S80s wear out. It probably makes sense for AA to say they will retire the aircraft unless the APA agrees to allow AE to fly them. As long as AE flies them, some AA pilots might have a job. If AA grounds them, no AA pilots will have a job. DL used that strategy back in the mid-90s when Delta Express was created. The company was either going to get rid of the 737-200s or the pilots could fly them at lower pay rates. While DL Express was not a long term solution, it did work for several years.

I also suspect the economics of UA's PS product just dramatically fell apart when DL simplified fares. The price is now even more premium than it was before. Given that UA is wincing in the face of competition in the transcon markets, I suspect UA will be forced to draw down its transcon service in the not too distant future particularly in light of Independence's venture into transcon markets from IAD. At the same time DL is expanding in the transcon markets while AA is certainly holding its own.

Crandall was well ahead of its time with fare rationalization. Yes, had it happened, the LCCs would not have grown to the point they are at today. Unfortunately, the airline industry has never been driven by rational, long term thinking.

 

[WorldTraveler]

fresh from the WSJ:

"Jordan Dea-Mattson found that not all pricing had been rationalized when he went looking for a business-class ticket on United Airlines from San Francisco to New York: "I was shocked. We are still looking at $3,800 vs. $530 for the same itinerary! They just don't get it. Do they really believe that business class is worth seven times the base fare? Neither I, nor my company, will pay that much for business class. That said, if they gave me the option to purchase a ticket for $100 or $150 more than coach, I would do it. I would do it out of my own pocket. It would be worth it."

I checked United's Web site on Thursday, and business class for a last-minute trip on United was $3,679. Business travelers will pay that for international trips, but in the current domestic-fare environment, that's probably a hard sell." -

more from Scott McCartney in Friday's edition.

 

[mweiss]

First of all please back up your statement that SWA has more legroom than AA.

This one's easy. Take a look at AA's LRTC coach 757. 31" pitch everywhere but the exits. WN has either 32" or 33", depending on where on the plane you are.

Second, SWA flies to 60 domestic destinations while AA flies to over 70.

So that means that AA's at risk at only 86% of their domestic mainline destinations. Whew! I thought it might be serious.

In additon it's a falacy to think that on SWA you don't make stops in route to your destination whle on AA you kae a "hub" stop.

Who said that WN is only nonstops and AA is only connections?

It's not like Boeing has a lot of open production slots for the 737.

[post="238961"][/post]​

Um...yes they do. They ramped down production because demand fell, but they'd happily ramp right back up if AA wanted to place the order.

 

[777 fixer]

This one's easy. Take a look at AA's LRTC coach 757. 31" pitch everywhere but the exits. WN has either 32" or 33", depending on where on the plane you are.

The 757 is but a small fraction of AA's fleet. Using it as a bench mark is not accurate.

Who said that WN is only nonstops and AA is only connections?

You bascially implied it when you said "...more domestic passengers than AA, most direct without a hub stop". As I pointed out if you are flying between major city pairs AA has more non-stops.

Um...yes they do. They ramped down production because demand fell, but they'd happily ramp right back up if AA wanted to place the order.

You must be thinking of an other aircraft because you can't be refering to the 737. Last year Boeing deliverd 202 737's and recieved orders for a 147. That does not sound like a fall in demand to me.

[post="239037"][/post]​

 

[mweiss]

The 757 is but a small fraction of AA's fleet. Using it as a bench mark is not accurate.

[post="239162"][/post]​

Except that the only LRTC aircraft are the 757 and A300, both of which are 31" of pitch. What's your evidence that the others are going to be different?

You bascially implied it when you said "...more domestic passengers than AA, most direct without a hub stop". As I pointed out if you are flying between major city pairs AA has more non-stops.

Except that I didn't say that.

Last year Boeing deliverd 202 737's and recieved orders for a 147. That does not sound like a fall in demand to me.

Oh, really? How can a number without a comparison sound like a rise or fall at all?