Satallite Tv
- Thread starter MiAAmi
- Start date
Fine. But my point is that there are people who do. And if there are enough of them to pay for the additional cost of the system (installation, maintenance, additional fuel burn due to weight and power consumption), then it's money well-spent.
That you focus your energies on belittling those who prefer to watch live television suggests that the feature does actually have value.
That you focus your energies on belittling those who prefer to watch live television suggests that the feature does actually have value.
Mweisss,
Noone is going to pay any additional costs for any system! The bottom line is cost for the majority of passengers and then safety I would venture. I agree it is not cost effective at all for AA to install anything else. On overseas flights, they get a couple of movies and CBS on the 76, on the 77 they have a much wider choice. Noone is going to pay additional (as if we weren't high enough) for a TV!
Noone is going to pay any additional costs for any system! The bottom line is cost for the majority of passengers and then safety I would venture. I agree it is not cost effective at all for AA to install anything else. On overseas flights, they get a couple of movies and CBS on the 76, on the 77 they have a much wider choice. Noone is going to pay additional (as if we weren't high enough) for a TV!
AAStew,
What is your evidence that nobody will pay anything more for this feature? I agree that nobody will pay, say, the 10x price difference that one often finds between B6 and AA for the LA-NY routes in order to have live TV. But if the price differential were 10 cents, I'm equally certain that it'd be an easy sell.
The same applies to frequent-flier miles, upgrades, food, movies, seat pitch, overhead bin space, customer service, etc., etc., etc.
The question isn't whether or not the feature has value; it's what the value of the feature is.
What is your evidence that nobody will pay anything more for this feature? I agree that nobody will pay, say, the 10x price difference that one often finds between B6 and AA for the LA-NY routes in order to have live TV. But if the price differential were 10 cents, I'm equally certain that it'd be an easy sell.
The same applies to frequent-flier miles, upgrades, food, movies, seat pitch, overhead bin space, customer service, etc., etc., etc.
The question isn't whether or not the feature has value; it's what the value of the feature is.
It would be nice if posters didn't insist on speaking in rigid absolutes - like, "NOBODY will pay extra" for MRTC, miles, food, TV, hip trendy snacks, etc. Over and over again, I read that "everyone just picks the lowest price." Trust me, not everyone.
Some people do indeed pay extra. Right now, plenty of people are filling AA's airplanes, flying between JFK and LAX/SFO and they are paying, on average, more than B6 is charging for OAK or LGB.
Frequently I pay more to fly AA than I would to fly B6 or FL or WN. Often.
The real question is whether enough people will pay extra to fly AA in order for AA to survive and prosper. Who knows the answer to that question?
Some people do indeed pay extra. Right now, plenty of people are filling AA's airplanes, flying between JFK and LAX/SFO and they are paying, on average, more than B6 is charging for OAK or LGB.
Frequently I pay more to fly AA than I would to fly B6 or FL or WN. Often.
The real question is whether enough people will pay extra to fly AA in order for AA to survive and prosper. Who knows the answer to that question?
One thing to keep in mind. Ther are a far far greater number of people who sit and watch TV rather than pick up a book and read. About the only reason you'll see people reading on planes is that they don't have TV to watch. It would be interesting to see how many readers there are on any JetBlue flight.
I also think that AA and most other carriers are a little red faced that they didn't think of TVs first. Now they are reluctant to admit some LLC has out smarted them. They need to bite the bullit and get competative on that score.
If ( being the sports fan that I am), I knew I had to fly during a game that I wanted to see yea, I would fly JetBlue and even pay a premium over AA. They both will get me to where I'm going but 1 has the advantage of what I want to see. I now see so many pax running between flights at DFW looking at TVs to catch the latest news or score of a ballgane.
I also think that AA and most other carriers are a little red faced that they didn't think of TVs first. Now they are reluctant to admit some LLC has out smarted them. They need to bite the bullit and get competative on that score.
If ( being the sports fan that I am), I knew I had to fly during a game that I wanted to see yea, I would fly JetBlue and even pay a premium over AA. They both will get me to where I'm going but 1 has the advantage of what I want to see. I now see so many pax running between flights at DFW looking at TVs to catch the latest news or score of a ballgane.
I agree with most of you that AA needs to remain competitive but AA does not have 1 Billion dollars (the amount of money reported by Arpey sometime ago) to pay for installing live TV PTVs on every seat in every aircraft it operates. If AA is to improve inflight programming I believe they would most likely focus on doing it on the 767s that usually fly international routes were people pay more and they are usually very competitive to other US 'legacy' carriers and the foreign airlines who may have good inflight entertainment but if AA wants to improve the domestic programming offering I would suggest that they start by looking at the domestic first class first to see what kind of orginal entertainment programming it can implement that is worth the money and business travellers wouldn't mind purchasing the first class tickets since that is where the money is. However, I don't think AA should follow B6 but should be better than B6 and any other LCC or 'legacy' carrier in passenger entertainment because that Live TV from what I have heard is not anything to shout about but it gives people something to do when it is a long flight.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #23
I think its our domestic product that needs some attention. Yes B6 was the first to test the waters with live TV. It could have failed but turned out to be a nice perk for air travelers. Now it has raised the bar on what the coach pax expects for $99 or whatever the fare. People complained about airplane food for years. I say forget ever bringing back food in coach on the shorter flights and work on a plan to improve entertainment. We have become a nation that needs to be entertained 24/7. AA needs to adjust to demand and keep the pax entertained. I've noticed on flights that are under 2 1/2 hours where we pop in a movie no one complains about there not being a meal on board. AA also needs to change the perception that our fares are 10X higher than the LLCS. I have several friends that choose AA over B6 because our fares are comparable, they get their miles and they have more options on flights.
What about the 767 300's that fly mostly international and transcon's or the 767-200's that also fly transcons. They should also be done and in my estimation they should be done before the 75's and 73's. Just another thought. Plus then you screw everyone flying the 80 for 4 hours to the west coast, they could at least have overhead moniters installed.
jimntx
Veteran
Hey, I bumped my head often enough on the f/c monitor on the 75. If monitors were hanging in the aisles on a S80, I would be comatose before take-off!IORFA said:
