Main Cabin Extra Seats

[Barfbag]

Less seats means less NRSA :angry:

 

[fltguymk]

That slipped my mind (or my mind slipped, whichever). So in the near term, 4-5 years, the arriving 737's will not result in a reduction in the need for FA's. The 737-8's already on the property will as they're reconfigured, but that's a relatively minor number of planes so a relatively minor number of FA's. I have no idea what the delivery schedule for the 777-300's is but they'll need FA's - probably 6 minimum although I don't know what the configuration will be either or if AA staffs trans-Atlantic/Pacific flights with the minimum required FA - few airlines do.

Once all the MD80's are gone, the preferred seating in the 737-800's will result in 1 less FA per crew, but that's down the road. So I wouldn't worry too much about this seating reduction unless you're right on the verge of being furloughed without it.

Jim

777-200 is 8 for min crew. The 777-300 will be 10. One per door.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Passenger amenities are all well and good, but I've yet to see any study that says on multi-airline routes (think JFK-LHR), passengers pick Airline A over Airline B because the IFE is better on Airline A, or that Airline A offers me the chance to pay extra to have a smidge more room. I believe the bottom line is still if Airline A's ticket from JFK to LHR is $5 cheaper, then obviously, the better airline is A.

NYC-LON may be the exception since it's such a business-centric route, but while most passengers are looking for the lowest fare that fits their travel needs it's that other smaller percentage that airlines cater to. When 10% of passengers produce 25% of the revenue, keeping that 10% loyal is important for a network carrier. The worst would be to lose some of them to competitors because of an inferior product. With 2 of it's 3 main competitors now offering an upgraded coach product, AA would be the red-headed stepchild without it.

Jim

 

[jimntx]

Actually, the statistic they throw at us is 60% of our revenue comes from 20% of our passengers. And, I fully understand that. So, then why, despite numerous catering papers reports, I still get lime and lemon wedges in F/C catering at DFW that are tiny rind slivers rather than citrus wedges. I've even gone so far as commenting that "if the citrus wedges get any smaller, may we have a pair of tweezers in the galley tool insert to pick them up?" One day, I taped 3 of the "wedges" to the catering papers with a one inch piece of tape. It's embarrassing to serve a vodka/tonic to an Executive Platinum or a Key customer, and have to apologize for the size of the citrus garnish.

It's been my experience both as a flight attendant and someone who used to be one of those F/C passengers on a regular basis that it's the little things--like salt and pepper shakers or the tray instead of a paper packet that is almost guaranteed to spread salt across half the cabin when it is opened due to the plastic liner that gives way suddenly, or decent size citrus wedges--that discerning passengers notice more than the extra leg room. There is so very little that differentiates F/C from coach these days on domestic flights. We've been a red-headed stepchild for some time now.

And, United and Delta offering this product is not new. Why wait for bankruptcy to decide to compete? As I said, this smacks of desperation moves to conserve some Centreport jobs.

 

[BoeingBoy]

AA has, to some degree, paid a price for putting off bankruptcy so long. Sometimes, trying to cut costs in an attempt to make up for that results in things like you mention. The other side, which I have no idea about, is that giving more than your competitors whether it be bigger lemon wedges, bigger meals, top shelf alcohol brands, whatever, increases costs compared to those competitors and that needs to be offset somewhere or AA isn't competitive. It's a balancing act, and just like walking a tightwire there times when you lean to one side or the other. Plus no carrier operates in a static environment, so you have somebody shaking that tightwire you're trying to walk. You can't buy a recipe with instructions on how to be competitive all day every day without spending too much or too little on anything.

As for E+, for years UA was the odd man out that offered it while AA, CO, NW, DL didn't. Now that DL/NW merged and CO/UA are merging, and after DL has announced a similar product it's AA that's the odd man out. So it's not a case of the E+ type product being new - UA has had it for over a decade - but rather that AA isn't in the majority that doesn't have it (or will in DL's case) that's new.

If AA wants to be one of the big boys, it has to almost constantly evaluate it's product compared to the other big boys. Lag too far behind and lose revenue, leap too far ahead and drive costs up unnecessarily. Like walking that tightrope, it's a pretty constant balancing act.

Jim

 

[WorldTraveler]

Are you saying, Jim, that a company cannot make decisions about its product or anything else that might affect CASM without considering the competition?
.
It has been years since UA launched E+ plus the ramp off in revenue increases has been part of their financials for quite some time - but DL execs have said that Economy Comfort is delivering solid additional revenue, either in terms of goodwill to premium passengers or sales of the products to customers who are willing to pay for a somewhat upgraded product.
For both DL and UA, the decision is clearly financial - even if it was in "soft revenue" which is retention of and brand preference by premium passengers.
.
The benchmark for US network carriers is now a premium economy product just as AVOD throughout the aircraft is a competitive necessity on international flights.
.
Since the real issue with this topic seems to be removing one FA on the 738s, AA probably could have removed just one row to create their extra seat section but the few remaining seats wouldn't be worth the extra FA that would be required.
I don't think CO/UA DL has revealed configuration of its 738s with Economy Plus/Comfort but presumably they will be faced with the same challenge because both also have 160 seat configured 738s although CO says they have 738s with 20/132 seats which means they have one extra FA for 2 seats....

 

[wcs]

Lag too far behind and lose revenue, leap too far ahead and drive costs up unnecessarily. Like walking that tightrope, it's a pretty constant balancing act.

Jim

What AA really needs is proper decision making. I criticized the 160 seat configuration when first introduced. It gave the company a slight chance to increase revenue for each flight. But it increased Flight Attendant costs by 33% on each flight. Now we'll have that added cost along with operational problems caused by 3 different seating configurations in the fleet. An article in the Dallas Morning news online edition noted that this will be the fifth different seating configuration used since 1999.
Too much change because of poor decisions is the real cost culprit.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Are you saying, Jim, that a company cannot make decisions about its product or anything else that might affect CASM without considering the competition?

No, I'm not saying that at all. Nor am I saying

And we can agree so long as we say that CASM is a reflection of the aircraft that your competitors will use.

What I said is that a carrier makes decisions at least partially based on the competitive landscape at the time and where it wants to fit in that competitive landscape. The CEO of one of the pizza chains put it very well in that context when he was asked about cutting to cost of making each pizza in order to undercut the competition. "I can make a pizza so cheaply that no one will buy it." The same is true for airlines "making" ASM's. You have to look at the people you want to appeal to, the competition, the best equipment for the range of market you want to serve, the fixed costs of your company, the variable costs of the fleet you decide on, and a host of other factors. Taken all together, that determines CASM. Included in that is the question of whether improvements in one thing can be offset somewhere else so CASM isn't affected at all.

UA and DL both operate 747's - should AA run out and get some just because DL and UA operate them? I'd say no unless AA has identified a mission it can't operate without them. WN, who competes with AA, DL, and UA as well as about every other carrier to some degree, flies basically one fleet type - should DL dispose of everything but the 737's to compete? I'd say no because DL doens's want to be a primarily domestic short-haul carrier. US offers "Choice" seats which are no different than any other coach seat - is AA making a mistake by putting in an E+ type product? I'd say no, US did it because they don't have a FC product that competes with the "big boys" so most elites get free upgrades a fairly high percentage of the time. Hence US' "Choice Seats" doesn't affect CASM.

Decisions about competitive responses may influence CASM, but they are only some of the factors that result in carrier XX's CASM. Blanket statements, which you love to make, are rarely "The Whole Truth."

Jim

 

[WorldTraveler]

minus your last paragraph, we agree. COMPLETELY.
.
Again, I don't put every qualifying statement in every statement- nor does anyone else - because we are not talking to a junior high school group of aviation wannabees... we are talking with people who know the aviation industry and can understand statements in context. Thus unless the intention is to argue or write legal contracts, the context can be understood.
.
I don't know the configuration of AA's 773ERs but they may seat as much as, if not more than UA's 744s... not sure AA will surpass capacity of DL's 744s in their new config although some airlines do operate 773s in int'l config w/ 400 seats.
AA WILL CLEARLY have a CASM advantage against DL or UA if they chose to use the 773ER on markets directly competitive with DL or UA... but that is not likely to happen except perhaps on JFK-LHR where DL's 764s have fairly competitive CASMs on their own.
.
Specific to this thread, if AA can generate more revenue from upsells and increased customer loyalty using their new "extra" seats, they probably will do just fine. Based on what DL and UA have said, there probably will be no problem for them recouping the cost on int'l flights. On domestic flights, the product will be partially upsell for some customers and partly an increased amenity for their most loyal passengers and those who must buy a higher priced coach ticket because of fare rules.
.
AA's extra seat program only returns them to a competitive product offering compared to DL and UA... it doesn't add new routes and won't make or break any route that might be on the fence right now w/ respect to profitabality.
The key remains whether AA can upgrade its overall product (lemon wedges included) and whether they really can grow their network by the amount they say they need to do in order to use all of the airplanes they have ordered... while at the same time potentially adding a very large regional jet which probably will be flown by a regional carrier (perhaps AE) if it is added at all - and which will eliminate much of the need for the 319 which AA said would be a big part of regaining its presence in smaller markets or those where frequency is a necessity.

 

[FWAAA]

What AA really needs is proper decision making. I criticized the 160 seat configuration when first introduced. It gave the company a slight chance to increase revenue for each flight. But it increased Flight Attendant costs by 33% on each flight. Now we'll have that added cost along with operational problems caused by 3 different seating configurations in the fleet. An article in the Dallas Morning news online edition noted that this will be the fifth different seating configuration used since 1999.
Too much change because of poor decisions is the real cost culprit.

I criticised it too. The good news is that the CEO responsible for dismantling MRTC and in charge of AA when the ill-fated decision to increase 738 capacity to 160 did in fact resign on November 29.

I also criticised the decision to remove four F seats from the 738s. IMO, 20F/130Y is the proper configuration. Quite a few FAs posted here that 20 F seats was too many, but for several years prior to the 738s, AA flew over 100 MD-80s with 20F seats. AA said that would help make upgrading easier on business-heavy routes. Well, if 24F is the proper number on a 757, then IMO, 20F is the right number on 738s.

 

[BoeingBoy]

minus your last paragraph, we agree. COMPLETELY.

Once again we've gone full circle and now you agree...

Jim

 

[WorldTraveler]

Once again we've gone full circle and now you we agree...

Jim

and we ended on a cordial note.

 

[kirkpatrick]

777-200 is 8 for min crew. The 777-300 will be 10. One per door.

It's one per fifty seats. If it works out to one per door on certain aircraft it's strictly coincidental.

MK

 

[FA Mikey]

I can only speak for the 772. I believe it was CAL who did the evacuation test with the FAA, and were unable to do in a acceptable time. When AA got the 777 they just went with the 8 min VS praying for a better outcome.

 

[IORFA]

And APFA covinced the FAA that one per door was what the 777-300ER should have as well. IIRC, AA wanted to keep it at 8. So it is minimum 10 now, even though there will NOT be 500 people on it. They put a press release out about it a few months ago, it was also in a hotline. So now any US carrier has to have 10 as minimum crew on it if they receive one.