77D/2-cabin 772 enters service today

[AdAstraPerAspera]

actually operated by US and they seat more than AA's 772s.

in fact, AA's 77Ws seat only about a dozen more seats than competitor 772s or 333s.

 
And why do you suppose that is?
 
Could it be because of the premium-heavy cabin configuration that makes it well suited for high-premium-demand missions?
 
Trust and believe there is a reason AA put all that F and J on it and flies it between JFK and LHR.

 

[FWAAA]

And why do you suppose that is?
 
Could it be because of the premium-heavy cabin configuration that makes it well suited for high-premium-demand missions?
 
Trust and believe there is a reason AA put all that F and J on it and flies it between JFK and LHR.

But, but, but . . . AA went bankrupt because management never did a single goddam thing correctly - don'tcha know that? The 772s were too heavy for such a short mission and they featured far too many premium seats. Although AA had numerous problems, one of the biggest was the low-density seating on too many planes. AA's salvation relies on jamming more rows of economy seats on each and every one of AA's planes. Apparently you fail to grasp that fundamental fact.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

But, but, but . . . AA went bankrupt because management never did a single goddam thing correctly - don'tcha know that? The 772s were too heavy for such a short mission and they featured far too many premium seats. Although AA had numerous problems, one of the biggest was the low-density seating on too many planes. AA's salvation relies on jamming more rows of economy seats on each and every one of AA's planes. Apparently you fail to grasp that fundamental fact.

Those are not seats. They are revenue supports/holders. It is all about yield and density, not making powerful business travelers comfortable.

AA seems to have figured this out. They probably realize that some of those humanoid revenue generators may actually be people who make decisions on which airline large corporations use for their travel. And they may actually decide to tell a few freind's if they liked the service.

 

[WorldTraveler]

in the 1st quarter of 2014, the most recent for which DOT revenue data is available, AA used its 77W fleet heavily to LHR.

During that period, UA showed higher average fares than AA.

 

[FWAAA]

in the 1st quarter of 2014, the most recent for which DOT revenue data is available, AA used its 77W fleet heavily to LHR.

During that period, UA showed higher average fares than AA.

During the first quarter, AA flew five 77Ws daily to LHR and the other nine flights were a mix of 772s and 763s, both of which feature the slanted seats, including all flights from Chicago. If UA was able to attract higher average fares, perhaps it's because every UA flight featured lie-flat seats and a much greater number of Economy Plus seats compared to AA's paltry MCE seat count on the 763s and ZERO MCE on the 772s (772s will get MCE with the reconfiguration).

If lie-flat seats result in higher fares, then UA had the clear advantage in the first quarter. That advantage disappears by next June, when all AA TATL flights will feature lie-flat seats.

 

[topDawg]

During the first quarter, AA flew five 77Ws daily to LHR and the other nine flights were a mix of 772s and 763s, both of which feature the slanted seats, including all flights from Chicago. If UA was able to attract higher average fares, perhaps it's because every UA flight featured lie-flat seats and a much greater number of Economy Plus seats compared to AA's paltry MCE seat count on the 763s and ZERO MCE on the 772s (772s will get MCE with the reconfiguration).

If lie-flat seats result in higher fares, then UA had the clear advantage in the first quarter. That advantage disappears by next June, when all AA TATL flights will feature lie-flat seats.

While that is true, that doesn't mean quite as much to me. This is why i hate that stupid avg. fare argument. 
 
higher capacity, which AA has into London is going to likely mean lower avg. fares. Avg. fare is only part of the story. I would think that UA would have the higher avg fare because both AA(BA) and DL(VS) have much more capacity into the market place. Does that mean that they aren't profitable? no, it doesn't.
 
 
 
but you do bring up a good point, AA is behind the curve on the London product. UA and DL are all flat J, while AA is fighting with the old F and J products on the 777/767s for the most part.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

During the first quarter, AA flew five 77Ws daily to LHR and the other nine flights were a mix of 772s and 763s, both of which feature the slanted seats, including all flights from Chicago. If UA was able to attract higher average fares, perhaps it's because every UA flight featured lie-flat seats and a much greater number of Economy Plus seats compared to AA's paltry MCE seat count on the 763s and ZERO MCE on the 772s (772s will get MCE with the reconfiguration).

If lie-flat seats result in higher fares, then UA had the clear advantage in the first quarter. That advantage disappears by next June, when all AA TATL flights will feature lie-flat seats.

the best part of this industry is that there is very specific data available which will confirm or deny these theories.

will you be willing to admit that product really doesn't matter near as much as you think it does if UA manages to retain average fare equality or improve it relative to AA in the markets where AA and UA directly compete, not to speak of in the larger US market?

 

[jcw]

That is the great part no matter what metric you try to pick to bash AA there is specific data showing AA made more money than DL

I know you can't handle that metric so no matter what you come up with AA is outperforming DL in the most important metric

And one more thing AS has a higher margin than DL

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, there absolutely are metrics that show where AA outperforms other carriers including DL.

Those markets are largely to/from Latin America, MIA, DCA and DFW/N. Texas, and in some cases, LHR.

problem is that in every one of those cases, competition is increasing in those markets far faster than it is in other parts of AA's network.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

and in some cases, LHR.

 
I would imagine AA outperforms DL on every LHR on which they directly compete.

 

[FWAAA]

I would imagine AA outperforms DL on every LHR on which they directly compete.

I don't have data to prove it on a route by route basis,  but in 2013,  AA had higher yields and unit revenue than Delta on the Atlantic routes overall.   Except for 2011-12, that's always been the case.
 
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Traffic&Capacity.html

 

[FWAAA]

the best part of this industry is that there is very specific data available which will confirm or deny these theories.

will you be willing to admit that product really doesn't matter near as much as you think it does if UA manages to retain average fare equality or improve it relative to AA in the markets where AA and UA directly compete, not to speak of in the larger US market?

I've never been an adherent of the "he who flies lie-flat seats always beats the slanty seat airlines" theory,  but it's a popular one.   UA has beaten AA on TATL yields and unit revenue since 2007, yet AA has outperformed UA on a total systemwide basis since March, 2012.   Of course, everyone has outperformed UA since March, 2012.  
 
Additionally, if 100% lie-flats was a guarantee of higher yields and unit revenues, then why did AA get higher yields and unit revenues than Delta in 2013 on the TATL region?

 

[WorldTraveler]

I would imagine AA outperforms DL on every LHR on which they directly compete.

which doesn't amount to too many... JFK and now LAX (DL's first LAX-LHR flight on its own metal leaves in a few hours)

AA has a larger and longer term presence at LHR and they do have higher average fares than DL in the US as a whole.

that trend is more the norm than the exception in the airline industry.

it is also the same reason why DL outperforms AA's average fares to CDG even though CDG is one of AA's largest stations in Europe outside of the UK.

and FWAAA,
the reason why AA gets higher TATL yields is because LHR is such a valuable market.

it is also precisely why DL has worked as hard as it has to improve its market position at LHR including investing in VS to the maximum percent allowed by law.

DOT data also shows that DL's average fares to LHR are growing relative to AA's; DL's average fare disadvantage to AA is now less than 10%.

and, in looking at average fares from a foreign city to the whole US, remember that the distribution of each airline's passengers is different. AA's European route system is more heavily skewed toward the eastern US vs. UA's. UA has more routes from the western US to LHR than AA.

UA has higher average fares from ORD to LHR compared to AA but it is the opposite in LAX.

 

[737823]

WT why is DL sending the 763 LAX-LHR? I mean it makes no sense to send VS metal to ATL/DTW where no Virgin affiliates have a presence or following, while in LAX they have a very loyal following and have been there for many years. I get it's a JV and capacity decisions are made jointly but this just seems like a bonehead move. Sure it's a nice trip for the LAX base and DL nonrevs can fly in BE but why take that frequency from VS?

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

because the LAX-LHR flight is starting in the late fall, not the usual time when an int'l flight starts.

as much as you want to believe otherwise, the 767 does not mean that DL can't attract higher value fares compared to other carriers.

there are plenty of examples of where DL gets higher average fares on 767 flights vs. other carrier's larger aircraft - and in some cases even higher even higher total revenue.

on LAX-HND, DL gets higher total revenue than AA gets on LAX-NRT even though AA uses a larger aircraft.

and DL wants its own metal in LAX with its own flight to LAX while putting Virgin's metal into central US cities helps build the Virgin brand.