Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA "lrtc" Process Begins On 738s And 763s  
User currently offlineNYCAAer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 692 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 6400 times:

After much debate and discussion, the actual work of going back to standard seating on American's 737-800s and 767-300ERs has begun, and the new cabin configurations have been introduced to the F/A workforce. The new configurations aren't as bad as I thought they would be- only 1 row is going to be added to the 738, giving coach a total of 132 seats instead of the current 126.

On the 763 Classics delivered from 1988-1999, (tail nos. 351-399) total coach seating will be 189, up from the current 182. The new 763s delivered in 2003 (tail nos. 342-350) will have 10 seats added, for a total of 193.

The change to standard seating on these aircraft types should be complete by summer, as SABRE is showing the new configurations for future bookings.

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA777-200 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 322 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 6293 times:

Why dont you call is SRTC (Standard room thruout Coach) since they are going back to the industry standards. Actually with the new configured acft they will have an inch more over industry standards.

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5775 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 6218 times:

Uh, because it's LESS room than they have now, hence LESS ROOM THROUGHOUT COACH.

This is a bummer- the only aadvaantaage Americaan Airlines had over any other legacy was MRTC, in my book. I live in Dallas. I have switched to Continental. Nicer widebodies anyway- PTVs all the way around. And newer, with Boeing signature interiors.

Anyhow, it's at least good that they're only adding ONE row, considering they originally took TWO out. It's kinda splitting down the middle.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 6177 times:

American claims that adding the seats will add more revenues (more seats=more pax=more revenues), what they are failing to see, or don't care about is

1)quality of service
2) loss of premium pax because of this..i've read many posts on this board, and i'm sure there are many pax who will no longer fly on AA because of this loss of service, and especially the MRTC.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 6142 times:

If AA has only added a few seats to each aircraft, the impact to seat pitch is certainly going to be noticeable, but IF the pitch is still above industry standard, excuse me, WHAT ARE YOU WHINING ABOUT?

The reality is that AA (and everyone else) needs to cut costs. One way of doing this is by adding seats to the aircraft. When you add seats to an aircraft, you increase capacity while not increasing your costs. As a result, your unit costs go down. This allows AA to be able to suck up these crappie fares that they must compete with and be able to either break even or not lose as much as they would with fewer seats on the airplane.

The whole concept of less room through coach was in response to United creating their "Economy Plus" product, a one up on their idea with the target the 6% of the passenger market, the road warriors who pay the high fares, but unfortunately do not get upgraded. If a few low fare paying passengers choose AA because of more room, gee whiz, that's OK too.

Now, with noone paying the high fares, AA is just going back to a STANDARD seating arrangement on their aircraft, or from what I have heard, slightly better than standard on the 738 and 763, which means that all things being equal, if I have a choice and I have to fly and most often I choose my flying by aircraft type (because of the seating configuration), then I may choose AA vs. brand X because they have a little more room.

If you going to whine about less legroom, then go pay the high fares and sit in First Class or go fly UA full fare and sit in Economy Plus. However, its been my experience that the whiners are also cheapskates, it really doesn't matter who you fly, since the amount of revenue you are going to contribute isn't really going to matter in the grand scheme.

Its the guys who DON'T whine, the real road warriors who deserve the better treatment, and by and large, the airlines are trying. Resources are limited these days and until someone does what I have been suggesting on these threads for the past year (other people have been suggesting this too), then we're in for a rough period.

The reality is until we are prepared to pay for the service we perceive we want on an airplane, we aren't going to get it. PERIOD.

So get over it.

baw716

To those of you at AA, hang in there. don't let the whiners beat you down.



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 6138 times:

MRTC makes sense, if passengers are willing to pay a premium over other carriers, whether CO, UA, B6, or WN. It seems, however, that many people simply see air travel as a commodity, and that no airline is any better or any worse than any other.

Why this is troubling is that people who see no difference in air carriers often have preferred hotels, or at least avoid certain brands due to a lack of amenties.

I know a few people who fly the cheapest airline, whether it's UA, AA, WN, or FL, but they would never think of renting a car from a company that isn't located on the airport property, or parking a car in a remote lot, let alone at a lot off the property.

Until airlines that do not want to follow the Southwest model of low frills/no frills figure out how to market increased service and command higher fares for increased service, we're doomed to the kind of in-flight service recductions that AA is doing.


User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 6068 times:

Bad move in my opinion. Packing in more passengers who are going for the lowest fare isn't going to help AA. What DOES help is accomodating the frequent flyer and the (high-fare!) business passenger, both of which will not be happy about LRTC.

Not once during the past year have I chosen to fly another carrier besides AA, even if the price was lower. Yet considering the spiralling levels of service, I'm tempted more and more to jump ship. This move to LESS Room Throughout Coach (I don't care what anyone says about "industry standard"...MORE room is why I flew AA anyway, and as far as I'm concerned anything less is just that: less!) isn't going to endear AA to the big-bucks business flyer any more than it will be mid-tier elites like myself.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineBAW716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months ago) and read 5998 times:

Trlvr,
With all due respect, I believe you may be missing the point.

From the airline perspective: Adding a few seats to an airplane reduces unit cost per seat. Therefore, it it has to deal with lower fares, it can spread that cost over a few more seats on the same aircraft. If the seating is still better than industry standard (which I am given to understand that it is), then while you may have a legitimate concern about a loss of product for your dollar, jumping ship is not the answer, because: a) the grass is not greener on the other side and b) be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it.

I agree with you that the big bucks business flyers are not going to be happy about this. However, with this said, what are their alternatives? Short answer? Damn few. They are better served sticking it out with their airline, because loyalty through the bad times generally is rewarded through the good times. If history is any teacher, good times will come again, the only question is when and what will be the catalyst? While I don't know the answer to that question, what I do know if the business flyers start abandoning their corporate carriers en masse, then they have noone else but themselves to blame when the whole air transportation system comes crashing down on their heads. Remember, it is the CUSTOMER that drives the entire equation. If the CUSTOMER refuses to pay what the airline needs to make a profit (based on competitive factors, then one of two things will happen: a) they will continue to support carrier a) or switch and support carrier b). If they do the former, carrier a will survive and carrier b will go out of business. If they do the latter, then carrier a will go out of business and carrier b will grow.

So you see, it is not so much driven by the air carriers as you might think. It is driven by YOU, the consumer. So as I said before, it is up to you. If you want the services on the airplane, you can pay for them. Either through the cost of the ticket, or through ad hoc sales on board the aircraft. Its up to you. My point is the industry has changed. People have to accept that premise and move forward. What choice do you have?

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4009 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5843 times:

I was on the MD-80 with "new" MRTC (more ROWS throughout coach) and it was quite comfortable - not that sensation of separation with the previous pitch but more than enough room for someone 6' 1" tall. It's much better than Delta's widebodies in domestic service.

Also F seats on MD-80s are going from 14 to 16, so there is a greater chance of getting upgrades.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5803 times:

So we'll have less pitch than Jetblue, less than Song, and less than United P.S. in some very important AA markets.

User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3404 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5744 times:

Increasing pitch didn't noticeably increase revenue per seat. Why should decreasing it hurt revenue?


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5724 times:

I'd agree with that. Systemwide is will not hurt. Passengers will gripe all they want but in the end they pick the airline at the top of the list that came up as the cheapest fare. This is a commodity business.

User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5642 times:

BAW716: I think we see the airline industry in fundamentally different ways. While I do believe that a significant percentage of the flying public has "commodified" air travel, these are flyers that have only appeared on the scene because of airlines like Southwest and jetBlue. Legacy carriers that try to capture this segment of the market are missing the point entirely, and ignoring the opportunities to keep those passengers who will provide them with consistent, profitable revenue. Extending the plague of overcapacity in the industry will not help the legacies at all.

Until recently, American had one of the best operations out there, from a FF standpoint. Large network, solid loyalty program, decent service including MRTC etc. Yet over the past few months the value of AAdvantage has diminished tremendously. In my opinion, some service cuts have been smart (simplification of meal service means less work for FAs, and hence a better chance for AA to renegotiate wages), while others have been not so smart (this latest move). What AA and the rest of the legacy carriers need to do right now is decide whether it wants to be everything to everyone, or concentrate on segments of the market which are likely to be profitable. In my opinion, United seems to be farthest ahead on this learning curve: their equivalent MRTC product, Economy Plus, is intended for full-fare passengers and frequent flyers. E+ benefits only those customers who are likely to produce a profit for United and probably flies enough to know a thing or two about inflight service, not the student backpacker who finds the lowest fare on a third party website and doesn't even care about the airline he's flying on, much less a few extra inches of legroom. UA's p.s. service is another example of service tailored to a specific, profitable market. Ditto recent network expansion in Asia and Europe. Whether or not these decisions can save the United remains to be seen--most of them came late in the game. United, along with American and Delta and pretty much everyone else, have many other problems to address, including bloated operations and immense labor costs.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineFlflyguy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 244 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The other factor that I have heard several times is that not only did we lose SEATS with MRTC (i.e., potentially less total revenue), but we lost a good deal of F/C and B/C bookings, particularly on short hauls.

With MRTC, the legroom was almost as good as the front on the MD80's, 757s, and 737s. Evidently we found that more and more business travelers would buy coach and hope for an upgrade, whereas before they bought the front for the legroom.

Hopefully, we will see an increase in B/C and F/C bookings again, which will offset the passengers we lose because we only have 1" more legroom than everyone else, instead of 2".

I will never understand the traveling public!!!!



The views expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer.
User currently offlinePadcrasher From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

UA is losing their ass on the United PS service. The 57's only have 110 seats and they yield less than AA in these Transcon markets. That is not the way to go. The only way to go is to drive costs lower and leverage AA's superior route structure.

User currently offlineScott4AA From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

Could this process be the reason AA.com will not let me see the seat map for my 763 CDG-DFW flight on June 5th?


American Airlines - We Know Why You Fly
User currently offlinePDXtriple7 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5594 times:

Any chance my June 19th SFO-DFW or return DFW-LAX on an AA763 would not have the "lrtc" added? Also, when will I be able to select my seats on my 763 flights? While I'm at it...if I'm booked on a flight through AA, with a pdx-sfo and a lax-pdx flight on AS, can I call AS and have my seats switched, since I'm traveling with two other friends on seperate bookings and we aren't quite together?

User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5528 times:

I am a loyal AA flyer, I am a member of AAdvantage, I fly too much those short legs with the 757's and A300's they are horrible.

But if they put the 76's and 77's with the same pitch, I will have to think twice, the 77's are so comfortable and the 76's.

AA will lose a lot of pax if they take MRTC on the 767's and 777's.



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, if they still have an inch over industry standards that's good... my grandfather used to say, an Inch is as good as a mile..... I'm not sure that he ever once flew on a commercial aircraft though..... heh...

-AA777


User currently offlineThunder9 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

BAW716 -

Welcome to my Respected Users List. You seem to understand why AA is making this change - attempting to survive in the long run.

This subject has been brought up before, when AA started reconfiguring the 757's & A300's. Some of the folks who are "thinking twice" about flying on AA because of this sound, IMO, like they see AA as taking something of theirs away. Perhaps in a manner of speaking, and inch or so was theirs, but AA cannot continue to operate in this manner. Some of the posts on here sound like these persons are taking it personally. confused 

Working at DFW, I've been told by respected Managers (AA Mgmt) and more than one pilot who has worked for or with the APA MEC (union labor) that since the inception of MRTC back in 2000, AA has lost money on the product. I'm positive that this is due to the fact that in the majority of markets, the "premium" economy fares that AA was looking to attract have come way down. There aren't that many routes where a carrier can charge a cool grand for a walk-up full-fare coach seat. I feel that many of those who travel on business (and actually take notice of the monies spent on travel) see $200-$300 or so as the highest one-way fare they should be paying for last minute trips.

With that lower premium revenue (which probably still exceeds costs on each segment), coupled with the loss-leader advance purchase fares, fuel costs still climbing, and upper management still unwilling to make any real labor cuts in their areas (at AA anyway), the legacies have got to do everything they can to wring each penny out of every dollar spent by their passengers.

If "SRTC" will help in the long run, then those that will miss that one inch or so may leave, but I suspect some will be back at a time when circumstances dictate (via fare or schedule), and they'll see that the new cabin configurations aren't that bad.

Going somewhat off-topic, I've got a question that is geared toward business travel. Why have companies hit up the airlines so hard over the last four years to lower their fares for corporate travel, when they still pay exorbitant rates to hotel chains & rental car companies? Just yesterday (Mon), I was helping an AA Platinum who missed a connecting flight. His travel dept/agt booked his hotel & car in his PNR and I noticed that he was staying in the SJC/SFO area for $197.00 per night and a full-sized car was running $99.00/day, and each of these rates is before the taxes & fees. Two nights and three days made his lodging and car costs higher than his ATL-SJC air fare! BTW, I won't name the hotel or car chains, but they are both major, world-wide brand companies. banghead 

Anyway, that's my little soapbox episode. Thanks for listening!

-J



"Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee." - William Kershner
User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting Trvlr (reply 6):
Bad move in my opinion. Packing in more passengers who are going for the lowest fare isn't going to help AA. What DOES help is accomodating the frequent flyer and the (high-fare!) business passenger, both of which will not be happy about LRTC.


That's the point you're missing. Airlines are no longer having trouble filling seats. Load factors are back to pre-9/11 levels (in some cases exceeding) however yield is still in the tank. So, means one or both of two things. 1) The domestic airlines's yield management departments are failing miserably in trying to extract the most high-yield fares as possible or b) people simply are not paying what they used to.

People like to talk about these high-yield travellers as it was in the days of old. However, the primary economic driver in the late-90s was the tech boom. Companies suddenly had a lot of money at their disposal and the idea of buying full-fare, economy and first tickets was barely an afterthought. Now, companies have had to rein in spending where they can and travel is always the first to go. The fact is, while there are frequent travellers still (and there always will be) the number of them that are on high yield tickets has diminshed greatly. And until those numbers start returning, the airlines will have to do what they have to get by.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Bad move in my opinion. Packing in more passengers who are going for the lowest fare isn't going to help AA. What DOES help is accomodating the frequent flyer and the (high-fare!) business passenger, both of which will not be happy about LRTC.


Don't worry about us Elites. We'll just keep booking the exit rows reserved for us  Wink I fly a lot on AA (2-4 flights a week) and only about 1 out of 10 flights is NOT in the exit row.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4009 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4098 times:

Quoting Thunder9 (reply 19):
that since the inception of MRTC back in 2000, AA has lost money on the product. I'm positive that this is due to the fact that in the majority of markets, the "premium" economy fares that AA was looking to attract have come way down.


I couldn't agree more. Comparing American's and Southwest's latest financial statements, you will see that actually Southwest's revenue per passenger mile is higher than American's. So, on average, Southwest charges more per mile than American.
Part of this is because Southwest has shorter hauls, but it is a telling comparison.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4072 times:

First of all, AA is not cutting anything that is standard, AA is cutting an extra which costs them quite a bit.
They will not get any lower than industry standards by that.

Second, why the talk about the premium and business pax? Business pax sit mostly up front, and premium pax are those who can reserve the exit row in advance. If people are no gold-members or higher, which is all very easy to become with AA, they are no premium pax.

Third, corporate travel is done through corporate accounts or by schedule. Most beancounters and travel-people in companies do not really care about MRTC or no MRTC. Most travellers sure want a lot of comfort, but when the schedule is more urgent, that is the selling point.



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineOrd From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4052 times:

"Southwest's revenue per passenger mile is higher than American's. So, on average, Southwest charges more per mile than American."

This statement is completely false. Revenue does not equal price charged. Southwest has much lower costs than AA. So even if Southwest and AA charge the exact same amount, Southwest's revenue will be higher.


25 Post contains links Incitatus : Not false, but somewhat inaccurate. But I am wondering if you know what revenue means. Let's make an accurate statement then. Go to: http://www.south
26 Starlionblue : "Southwest's revenue per passenger mile is higher than American's. So, on average, Southwest charges more per mile than American." This statement is c
27 Midway2AirTran : Lets look at the Legacy carrier equation... More seats=More losses Less seats=More losses It's not how many seats they have on a plane, not even reven
28 Starlionblue : Lets look at the Legacy carrier equation... More seats=More losses Less seats=More losses It's not how many seats they have on a plane, not even reven
29 N1120A : Well, WN has a better seat pitch than AA and actually offers more in the way of food/snacks on most flights. AA is selling the same/similar snack pac
30 Incitatus : That sounds kind of fuzzy. "Business systems"? My crack at it: 1. All companies have internal friction because of competing claims. In the case of th
31 LY4XELD : I doubt AA will lose "a lot of pax" because of this move. It hasn't been very publicized (except for this forum), and the driving factor behind a lei
32 Seamus : I've often thought about how airlines can differentiate themselves like Hotel chains have done. There are travelers who are extremely loyal to a part
33 Lvkewlkid : yet, AA still has IFE, more comfortable seats, and F/As that do not shout at you, and F/As that come around for drink orders.
34 Bronko : What are my chances of flying on one of the new updated interior 767-300ER's from MIA-SFO on April 9th? Also, how is AA's domestic first class on the
35 Scott4AA : Piggy-backing off of Bronko's post... Are the new interior 767-300ER's more likely to appear on more business oriented routes (say DFW-CDG) versus lei
36 Hiflyer : i think i know the answer but what is your source for the exact data?
37 Daron4000 : what is the answer?
38 NYCAAer : The 767-300s are assigned randomly with no regard as to whether or not it's one of the older "classics" or the 2003 deliveries with the new interiors.
39 Bronko : Thanks NYCAAer. Anyone have the reg numbers of the 767's with the new interiors?
40 MaverickM11 : If you have been paying attention to the airline industry at all in the last five years, you'd know that airlines can no longer exert any kind of prem
41 Padcrasher : I get yield/booking data/load factor reports from the airline I work at but put that aside. AA's average fare in the LAX-JFK market is $309 (per the l
42 Amhilde : I dont have much to contribute to the business side of this discussion, but ill throw in my two cents on the leg room issue. Im off tomorrow home goin
43 NYCAAer : The 763s with the new interiors use the same reg. numbers as the tail numbers- N342AN, N343AN, N344AN, N345AN, N346AN, N347AN, N348AN, N349AN, and N35
44 Rojo : I see LRTC hurting AA on some markets… It will be, mainly, on the markets where they face more competition and have a lower quality product, for exa
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA "More Room Throughout Coach" On 757s posted Tue Jan 31 2006 12:29:42 by Mudboy
"Boeing Shares Tumbling On Wall Street" - And More posted Thu Oct 27 2005 11:32:05 by 797charter
Excellent Articles On 777Xs And 747"NG"s posted Thu Oct 17 2002 18:41:51 by Singapore_Air
AA's "super 80" MD-80 Name Change And False Print! posted Sat Apr 7 2001 01:34:52 by Mr. 717
"...more To Come On The 747-8." Orders? posted Thu Feb 23 2006 08:06:27 by 797charter
AA "V" Class Ticket posted Tue Dec 27 2005 03:19:56 by JasYHZ
AA's Cabins On B752 And A300 posted Thu Dec 8 2005 18:04:15 by Captaink
Conviasa "to Start" Flights To Spain On Jan 2006 posted Thu Dec 1 2005 01:34:08 by Luisde8cd
Latest/most Recent AA "Super 80" Developments posted Tue Sep 13 2005 02:19:36 by September11
AA"s Classic 737 @ LGA Today posted Mon Jan 31 2005 23:45:47 by 777WT