I have to disagree. When you look at industry RASM fields in Aviation Daily, AA still continues to run well ahead of UA, so it appears that the loss of MRTC hasn't materially affected the yield mix.
You're right that AA's yield has continued to exceed UA's yield on a nominal basis. At one point a few quarters ago, AA's mainline yield was a full two cents ahead of UA's yield. But check out the recovery UA's yield has experienced in recent quarters. Much better improvement than AA in relative terms. UA's yield in the third quarter was 11.39 cents v. AA's 11.96 cents. UA is closing the gap on AA.
I strongly disagree that LRTC is the savior that Arpey thinks it is. Why? In the third quarter, UA just kicked AA's ass. Check out UA's $68 million net profit (excluding reorg items) compared to AMR's $95 million net loss (excluding special items). That's a $163 million spread between the two. That looks like an ass-kicking to me.
Good thing the Arpey brain trust added back all those coach seats! Imagine how much worse things would have been at AA with MRTC!
🙄
Too bad the yes-men working for Arpey didn't have what it took to say "Hold it, you stupid whippersnapper - MRTC may partly explain WHY AA's yield didn't plummet as far as UA's yield." But nope - old ideas - like "higher seating density is the pathway to profits, boss" won out over innovative ways to attract higher-yielding pax. Too bad. IMO, LRTC is partly to blame for AA's dismal performance in what should have been a profitable quarter.
UA showed a profit (when reorg and special items are excluded). Why couldn't AA?
Keep in mind, UA features E+ on all mainline aircraft and even on some larger regional aircraft. And some larger regional jets even feature First Class! Just more reasons why UA will continue to attract more business pax that AA should have attracted.
AA had a good thing going there, but management threw it away.
To AA's management: Keep running out in the street to pick up those nickels. It certainly worked last quarter. Keep up the good work, AA!
🙄