Aa Vs Ual Transcon

[mweiss]

They cannot afford to sit back and wait...

...so they'll lie flat instead.

 

[Oneflyer]

AA is in the process of selecting a new lie flat business class seat to replace the crap seats we have now. They cannot afford to sit back and wait to see if we are losing market share. At that point its too late.

Would you rather AA completely redo its 762 cabin in a vain attempt to copy United or would you rather them fund your pension? I'm guessing you'd rather see AA continue to fund pensions rather throw money away on half baked idea like a 110 seat 757.

 

[LaBradford22]

I hope they keep 767's on JFK-LAX. People who fly this route expect a widebody.

With the notable exception of the growing contingent of passengers who fly JFK-LAX on B6 in a narrowbody A320. Of course, those passengers likely chose B6 based on DirecTV and blue potato chips. Oh, and a $99 fare doesn't hurt.

The cost with creating a sub fleet has to be expensive. Its 13 planes with low utilization, unless they are worked in to the UAL system doing something else.

It may not be as expensive as you might think. Operationally, this is the same airplane as all of UA's other B757s - the same pilots fly it, the same mechanics fix it, the same F/As bid for trips on it, etc. The only significant operational impact is in the event of a delay or cancellation when an aircraft is "moved up" to take the place of another. This set of B757s would not be able to move up to another B757 route and accomodate the same number of passengers. Likewise, a normally configured UA B757 would not be able to be moved up to one of these transcon routes and provide the same level of service.

The other thing they will have to price match and will be selling some seats to match JB, Virgin, AWA while trying to steal some of AA's bread and butter.

I don't know about that. I don't know if UA will be price-matching B6 and others with these airplanes. I interpret this move as UA basically punting most (if not all) of the $99 junk fares to B6 while trying to pursue its brand-loyal passengers as well as passengers who want a premium product on these routes and are willing to pay a higher fare for it. UA is basically saying, "Okay B6, go right ahead and fill your A320 up with 156 passengers who paid $99 each. We know we can't compete with you at a $99 trans-con fare. So, we're going to provide better service than you on our 110 seat B757 and fill it up with as much premium traffic as we can."

 

[mweiss]

LaBradford, I completely agree with you. It will be the first test of my theory that this is a market worth investment.

 

[FA Mikey]

Would you rather AA completely redo its 762 cabin in a vain attempt to copy United or would you rather them fund your pension? I'm guessing you'd rather see AA continue to fund pensions rather throw money away on half baked idea like a 110 seat 757.

Its not really one or the other. Is it? AA is contributing there under funded pensions. I believe 400 million was put in this last quarter. Currently AA is second only to CAL in terms of closing the gap. Currently UAL is the worst off, underfunded by over 6 billion, down to CAL's 1.1.

I wouldnt think the 757 would work here. But we need some work on our 762's. AA has set up a project to strip down, repair and clean the A300's. Next month 9 go in for that overhaul.

 

[Oneflyer]

Its not really one or the other. Is it? AA is contributing there under funded pensions.

No its not, but when you're plan is to reduce costs and simplify your fleet it’s hard to make the argument to spends millions chasing united. What United is doing trying to maintain the customers it has, this isn't going to steal customers away from AA. The CASM vs. RASM for a 110 seat 757 just doesn't make sense. AA knows they need to upgrade their product and they will do it on AA's schedule not United's. AA needs to be far more concerned with becoming cost competitive with the likes of Jetblue and Americawest, rather than add costs to be style competitive with UAL. Upper management knows this and a decision not to chase UAL is truly one that should show the rank and file that upper management has a good plan and is going to stick by it.

 

[kirkpatrick]

No its not, but when you're plan is to reduce costs and simplify your fleet it’s hard to make the argument to spends millions chasing united.

I think UA is making a mistake. They've already created a low cost "Ted" within UA, now a separate fleet of AC for a premium service. AA should stick with its widebodies and MRTC. We should be able to keep our premium traffic and maybe take some of theirs from pax who don't want to cross the country on a narrowbody.

MK

 

[Fly]

Customers don't see narrow body or wide body on their tickets. They see "First", "Business", and "Economy". When they see there are 3 cabins, they believe (rightly so) that it will be a more comfortable and thorough service. If the price is competitive to AA, they'll go with the more elaborate service if all factors are even.

 

[kirkpatrick]

Many passengers are savvy enough to know the difference. Maybe families going to Disney World jump at the cheapest ticket without caring what type of aircraft they're on, but I'm talking of the businessman who knows the difference. AA has a fine premium product to offer (I'm not saying certain things couldn't be tweaked a bit) without resorting to a specialized subfleet of narrowbodies.

MK