Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 17 Posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1458 times:
I was wondering if AA can manage to offer 34/35 in seat pitch in it's planes without losing money, then, why don't the other major transatlantic carriers do the same and give 34 in seat pitch? (UA, BA, DL, LH, CO etc)
Is it because they will lose money doing it? or is it that they just don't simply want to?
Lapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1658 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
Arsenal (god I hate to type that being a Spurs fan ), although they do not get the revenue from having less seats, I would have thought that all they did was reduce the number of seats they have for sale at the consol rates. I know that in the past they used to consol in Q and H class, but now they just sell Q class. They make up their shortfall by selling less "cheap seats"
Bombayhog From United States of America, joined May 2001, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
MRTC is amazing. It's the reason that I've chosen to be loyal to AA, as much as I can. So it worked on me at least. I recently spent more to fly on AA when I could have flown on NW for less. It was about an 80 dollar difference.
Drewwright From United States of America, joined May 2001, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
AA's MRTC is a nice feature. I flew AA MCO-DFW-XNA yesterday 757/ER4 and the ability to stretch your legs out without getting black and blue marks on your shins makes me a true believer that there is a difference. I could really tell the difference.when I stepped on the ERJ which has maybe 31 in pitch.
BUFJets From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
Often, the difference in price between one airline and another is only a few dollars. Assuming everything else the same (except nominal differences in price), I will pick AA because of MRTC. It really makes a difference for me, even on short flights. I'm 6'2" tall and the extra room is greatly appreciated.
Invicta From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1296 times:
I flew AA LAX-LHR-LAX a few weeks ago and noticed the extra space. The seats themselves could be more comfortable though. Compared to the same trip I made last year on Virgin, I have to say the extra room made a huge difference and would be worth paying more (fares were the same though). I would avoid ever flying Virgin again because of the lack of space. I don't have to endure that level of discomfort on an hour hop from LAX-SFO. AA has the right idea I think. Comfort is more important to me than what they serve for dinner or the friendliness of the crew.
AAgent From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 560 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
MRTC is extremely popular with our passengers. People notice the extra space immediately and they really appreciate it. It's becoming clear that the MRTC configuration has created a large group of loyal AA customers that now cringe at the thought of flying another carrier's coach. That's music to my ears!
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7879 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
It is worth noting that the amount of extra room varies throughout the coach cabin. Exit doors and emergency exits dictate where certain seats HAVE to be. I have found that in the foreward parts of the cabin the extra room is noticable, in the back not so much.
Admittedly it is nice to be able to comfortably cross your legs in flight. But I don't really benefit from the extra room, being only 5'9", though I see how the tall guys would like it.
Though I wonder if a smaller carrier could have been successful with MRTC. I think one advantage that American has it that is has so much available capacity each day, that pulling 2 or 3 rows from coach is not much of a loss in total capacity. Perhaps somebody can shed some light on this.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
SegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
actually, none of AA's planes have a 35" seat pitch. A close friend is a mechanic lead @ MIA.. he said most seats have about 1" of extra legroom depending on the length of the aircraft. He also said the MD 80 fleet is a bit wierd, as the seats behind the the emergency exit on the left have the most legroom... but there are only a few consistent rows in the MD 80s that have the same legroom... so it's hit or miss.
The TWA 757s have the most legroom in the *back* of the plane... where you'll see 34" of seat pitch.
I've flown a few more flights than I wanted on AA, mainly AA MD80s, Airbus A300, and the ex TW 757 (including the ERJs and ATRs, but those don't have MRTC) and I must say, I wasn't impressed. Being a 1P at United, I get Economy Plus and I definitely missed United each time I got on board on AA plane. AA's seats are considerably thinner than UA and aren't as plush, and the legroom is a considerable difference on Y+ on UA than MRTC on AA.
The other thing you need to remember about seat pitch.. it's from the back of the seat in front of you to the back of YOUR seat. Most airline seats are bigger than others... ie I flew an AA MD 80 LAS-ORD and an ex TW 757 STL - LAS... the MD80 seat was considerably nicer and more comfy, and *thicker*...
Bombayhog From United States of America, joined May 2001, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
I find it hard to believe that "most seats only have one inch extra legroom." Every time I've been on an AA flight since they did MRTC, which has been 8 flights, I have noticed a considerable difference. I haven't been in UA Y in years, so I can't try to compare, but personally I find the new AA seats very comfortable.
Britair From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 933 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
Well done AA. I have always thought this was such a brilliant move. It's good to see airlines like AA and BA (with World Traveller Plus) giving customers "down the back" what they've been asking for for years. No wonder BA/AA make such good partners
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6358 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
I might be wrong but Caribbean configured A300's don't seem to have been reconfigured to MRTC. For some reason they feel extremely cramped and uncomfortable .
Now you can notice the difference on a 737-800 there is just so much space.
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 25, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1191 times:
I think it is one of the best marketing strategies in awhile. True, I do give credit because if United had not introduced Economy Plus, AA would not have introduced "More Legroom for More Coach Passengers, Only on American."
My first experience with AA's MRTC was on a 4 hour DFW-YVR flight and I was impressed. Last summer, I flew ORD-LHR-ORD and I will definately say that the extra legroom was heavenly and made a difference. I certainly noticed it when I connected to a BA flight after landing in LHR. BA's legroom wasn't bad, but I definately did notice the lack of legroom.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...