AA should launch LAX-ICN and ORD-ICN immediately

[FWAAA]

I couldn't effing care less if AA is undercutting OZ and KE.   
 
WT:   I realize that it's extremely important to you, and people like you will focus on that like a dog on a bone.   You tend to do it a lot, long after anyone cares.    That's part of your inability to have a conversation with anyone.   Lecturing is all you got.    Sure, it's factual, but if you constantly posted that the moon orbiting the earth is about 250,000 miles away and does not appear to have living organisms on it, people would eventually tire of that factoid.   
 
As indicated in the first post of this thread, we have all taken judicial notice (I don't often speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure it's ok this time) of AA's inferior financial performance to and from S Korea.   And yet, here you are, many days later, still posting the same repetitive assertions.    Is that all the material you have? 

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

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.

 
Nope. People in coach care about entertainment first, and #of abreast seating second, if at all. AA has the state-of-the-art Thales entertainment system. It's a generation ahead of KE, OZ, and now that you mention it, two generations ahead of the Panasonic system DL uses. DL has the uncompetitive product, son. LOL

 

[737823]

Nope. People in coach care about entertainment first, and #of abreast seating second, if at all. AA has the state-of-the-art Thales entertainment system. It's a generation ahead of KE, OZ, and now that you mention it, two generations ahead of the Panasonic system DL uses. DL has the uncompetitive product, son. LOL

True but not to be pedantic the international 77W and 77D will feature a Panasonic system, domestic/North America fleet of 319/32S/32T/73A have Thales.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

I couldn't effing care less if AA is undercutting OZ and KE.   
 
WT:   I realize that it's extremely important to you, and people like you will focus on that like a dog on a bone.   You tend to do it a lot, long after anyone cares.    That's part of your inability to have a conversation with anyone.   Lecturing is all you got.    Sure, it's factual, but if you constantly posted that the moon orbiting the earth is about 250,000 miles away and does not appear to have living organisms on it, people would eventually tire of that factoid.   
 
As indicated in the first post of this thread, we have all taken judicial notice (I don't often speak for everyone else, but I'm pretty sure it's ok this time) of AA's inferior financial performance to and from S Korea.   And yet, here you are, many days later, still posting the same repetitive assertions.    Is that all the material you have?

excuse me but you started the thread about how AA should start 1 or 2 new routes to ICN based on factors such as that your friends wouldn't fly on a Korean carrier plus their safety record.

and now when we mention that AA has bent some metal too and is the only carrier between the US and S. Korea that flies 777s with 10 abreast in coach - which you just said doesn't matter - you all of a sudden now don't care about them.

people in coach want the greatest value for the least amount of money - who doesn't? Every carrier of any repute has an IFE system at every seat on longhaul int'l aircraft. The value each customer attaches to each product element is subjective to them but if everything else is equal - and every carrier offers in-seat IFE, a meal, and reasonably pleasant FAs - then space does matter. A carrier that has a seat that is 1 inch narrower than other carriers is not competitive in product with carriers who have a wider seat and the same other factors. If you want to tell me that AA's seat pitch is greater, then some might prefer a narrower seat with more legroom - but that isn't the case.

Of course, Asians are smaller people in general than Americans and most tourist passengers don't know the subtleties of any carrier's aircraft but travel agents do as do travelers who fly with any frequency - which are exactly the kinds of passengers that AA needs to attract to build long-term success to/from Asia.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

travel agents do as do travelers who fly with any frequency - which are exactly the kinds of passengers that AA needs to attract to build long-term success to/from Asia.

 
And as E hinted, the "travelers who fly with any frequency" as you say, are booked in premium economy where it is 9 abreast. If not there, then they are in business class, where the new reverse-herringbone J class on the 772 is industry leading, or of course long haul first on the 77W which is *especially* competitive on extended long haul vs. DL considering they don't even offer an equivalent. Move it along, you've lost this one.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, there are plenty of customers who fly in standard coach that pay decent fares.

If you want to bring DL into the conversation, then the fact is that DL's average fares between the US and ICN are the highest among the 3 US carriers and, as is typical in transpac markets, AA has a significant fare disadvantage to the industry and is #3 out of 3 among US carriers.

Maybe AA's coach passengers really do pay a lot less than those at other carriers - and maybe that's why AA's marketer in SEL said that AA undercuts even the lower cost Korean carriers.

I've lost nothing. Neither has DL.

you are doing nothing more than trying to justify AA's poor product.


BTW, since you are an FA - maybe you never fly the 777 or it didn't cross your mind to mention it - but the reason why AA had to go with 10 abreast while DL and UA do not is because DL and UA have crew rest facilities that are not on the main passenger deck and have comparable density with wider seats in coach; AA chose not to install crew rest facilities in the crown of the 777 and thus AA's coach passengers have to pay for AA's lack of foresight and planning.

and, no, the 77W is not competitive in costs. It has a few more seats than the 772ER and yet is considerably larger. A walk up bar adds absolutely no revenue. and the first class seats are certainly not generating revenue that brings up the average.

 

[737823]

WT the AA 77W has forward overhead cockpit crew rest and aft overhead cabin crew rest. The 772s do not have this installed nor are there any plans to retrofit them.

Josh

 

[eolesen]

no, there are plenty of customers who fly in standard coach that pay decent fares.

I'm sure there are a few who don't pony up for premium economy, and the ones who do this often enough are likely to wind up with their aisle seat of choice either thru status or because they're paying a fare that allows them access to reserve a preferred seat.

Regardless, as FWAAA has already said, this seems to be a bone you will chew down to a nub while everyone else moves on to more pressing matters...

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

but the reason why AA had to go with 10 abreast while DL and UA do not is because DL and UA have crew rest facilities that are not on the main passenger deck and have comparable density with wider seats in coach; AA chose not to install crew rest facilities in the crown of the 777 and thus AA's coach passengers have to pay for AA's lack of foresight and planning.

 
As Joshie said, this is factually incorrect.
 
 

and, no, the 77W is not competitive in costs. It has a few more seats than the 772ER and yet is considerably larger. A walk up bar adds absolutely no revenue. and the first class seats are certainly not generating revenue that brings up the average.

 
Were we comparing products, or were we comparing costs? Can compete on product so you shift the conversation to something else, I see.

 

[jimntx]

BTW, since you are an FA - maybe you never fly the 777 or it didn't cross your mind to mention it - but the reason why AA had to go with 10 abreast while DL and UA do not is because DL and UA have crew rest facilities that are not on the main passenger deck and have comparable density with wider seats in coach; AA chose not to install crew rest facilities in the crown of the 777 and thus AA's coach passengers have to pay for AA's lack of foresight and planning.

 

This is so breathtakingly wrong, the mind boggles.  FYI, WT, there are TWO crew rest areas in the crown of our 777s complete with bunks, etc.

 

[WorldTraveler]

WT the AA 77W has forward overhead cockpit crew rest and aft overhead cabin crew rest. The 772s do not have this installed nor are there any plans to retrofit them.

Josh

You and Jim can huddle and get the facts straight but he just told me that I was breathtakingly wrong to note that AA’s 772s don’t have crew rest facilities.

The 773 may have them but it isn’t be used for many Asia flights, the 772 is the majority of AA’s 777 fleet, and DL and UA don’t have the 773 – thus the comparison between seats on the 772 between AA, DL, and UA is key.

I’m going with your explanation but you two can huddle and let me know what about your statement and my understanding is incorrect.

I'm sure there are a few who don't pony up for premium economy, and the ones who do this often enough are likely to wind up with their aisle seat of choice either thru status or because they're paying a fare that allows them access to reserve a preferred seat.

Regardless, as FWAAA has already said, this seems to be a bone you will chew down to a nub while everyone else moves on to more pressing matters...

You do realize that an AA FA just posted an article showing exactly what I have said all along – which is that AA is discounting its way into a presence in Asia and the “celebration” is that AA hired a former UA employee away who hit the ground running and is now discounting her way thru the S. Korean market?

I didn’t start the thread saying that AA needs to start ICN to one or two more destinations in part because of the Korean airlines’ spotty safety record, despite the fact that AA has had more accidents since KE’s safety crisis.
I’m trying to understand the advantage that AA supposedly has. We’ve been told that AA has a great IFE system – but do not KE and OZ also? We’ve been told that the 10 abreast doesn’t matter because real paying passengers don’t fly in cattle class. We’ve been told that 10 abreast is the new norm for economy class in the 777 but neither KE or OZ has it on their longhaul aircraft and neither does JL or NH. And of course neither does DL or UA who bought above cabin crew rest facilities so they don’t have to take up floor space on the main cabin with crew rest facilities.
As for costs, AA’s seating configuration on the 772 is comparable to others in the US industry so their costs will should be comparable – but AA used much of the CASM advantage that the 773 provides by adding less than 20 additional seats in part because of the walk up bar.
What other CASM advantage is AA supposed to have? So AA doesn’t have a low budget Capt. Sum Ting Wong but he ended up costing a whole lot more to OZ so that strategy really doesn’t work. FAs? We’re not even going to touch that. Jet fuel? Probably not? But KE and OZ can buy their aircraft thru the ExIm Bank while AA cannot. Beats me where AA is going to have a CASM advantage over the Korean carriers.
And yet AA has the fare disadvantage, their marketing guru in SEL said that AA is winning business by discounting, and AA’s losses on the Pacific could easily top $300M but will certainly continue to exceed $200M this year as they continue to grow despite being #3 out of 3 among US carrier average fares.

Help me understand how AA is going to win in the market adding yet another route to Asia and where the evidence is that they are actually making money and not just buying market share at the expense of employee cost cuts in BK.

 

[737823]

WT-
AA 772s have two crew rest facilities however they are not overhead in the crown of the aircraft. The pilot crew rest is located forward door 1L and the FC lavatory and has two bunks. In my experience flying AA F, very few pilots use this space instead use their allocated Flagship suite. I believe this is because the bunks are good for sleeping but not lounging.

The F/A crew rest is located at door 3L between the forward and aft main cabin seating sections, opposite row 31. Again it is not an overhead facility, so you are correct it does occupy real estate that otherwise could be used for seating. I believe there are 4-6 bunks in this space for the F/As.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

so, AA pilots have blocked seats in the passenger cabin as well as a dedicated crew rest facility but don't use the crew rest facility because the cabin seats are better?

and on the 772, AA didn't bother to spend the money to put in the overhead crew rest facility so they have to remove passenger seats in the main cabin, right? but in order to come up with a comparable seat count, AA had to make their economy cabin 10 abreast, amIright?

Then their fans here justify that valuable customers don't really fly in economy so it's ok to give them an inferior and uncompetitive product.

I'm still searching for how AA is providing a product that customers actually choose above the competition based on quality and not just because it is the lowest priced product.

What I do see is that AA couldn't buy its way into the Asia market so went with a JV with a Japanese airline that didn't move its financial position to Japan but has resulted in significant cuts to AA's Japan network which has freed up aircraft to add flights to other destinations in Asia where AA continues to lose boatloads of money because they are apparently willing to "lose" their way into the marketplace in order to build a presence.

If the AA fans could just admit that is what AA is doing, then we could probably move on from that subject.

 

[737823]

WT, the AA 772s have had the same crew rest facilities since they were delivered beginning in 1999. Pilot crew rest seats are provided on flights over eight hours per the APA agreement, and on aircraft without direct aisle access two seats are provided (763 J cabin). The new 77W does not block any seat-all seats are sold. The 772s have always been 9-abreast 2-5-2, but are transitioning to 10-abreast 3-4-3 in the main cabin as part of the cabin improvement project.

I consider myself familiar with the offerings of US and foreign carriers and in the past several years AA has stepped up their game considerably. It remains to be seen if the new regime will keep all this in place (and elevate the US standards to these levels) but I've flown and paid for all the new cabin products and am pleased. Personally I think AA 77W J is the best among US carriers, although AAs old business class leaves a lot to be desired. The differences in F are more marginal and largely just the IFE and newer/fresher modern cabin, but the 772 Flagship Suite is still adequate and will be missed.

The difficulty with AA (and all US carriers for that matter) is the inconsistency and unpredictability of the crew. I've had amazing crews on AA and downright awful crews that should have been terminated on the spot.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

glad you wrote that last paragraph.

It isn't about IFE. it isn't about safety.

It is about service.

and consistently we hear that Asian carriers do it better than the US carriers.

as for the pilot crew rest, again, we are talking about the 772. Does or does not AA block cabin seats on the 772 in addition to the crew rest facility which is provided for pilots?

And is the root problem here and with the pilots that AA didn't bother to invest in above cabin crew rest facilities? You can do the history but I don't think all DL and UA 777s came from the factory with their current crew rest facilities... but I may be wrong. and if they didn't, that means they were added after the fact.

which raises the question... if AA didn't bother to put the crew rest facilities on the 772s because their Asian system was relatively small and most of the aircraft were used for Latin America and Europe, does AA intend to park the 777s fairly rapidly once the 787s and 350s start arriving - a writeoff that should be several billion dollars - or are they going to put them on routes to Europe and Latin America where the extra weight is even more punishing?

maybe the big picture will become apparent in time but for now all that seems apparent is that AA is spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy its weigh into Asia.


as for the product, if it is competitive or better, the average fares should show it. So far, AA continues to operate at a fare disadvantage to/from Asia. Maybe they will turn the corner soon. But higher average fares come from established routes, something AA is not willing to do because they keep adding Asia routes as fast as or faster than DL and UA who have much larger Asian networks.