KLM 777 wrote:
>The issue is not simply more F class seating, but
>more F class seating in conjunction with less Y
Correct. I never said otherwise.
>One or the other is not too terrible, but both taken
>together could really bite if/when the economy turns
>for the worse and if/when fare wars become a fact of
>life in the near future.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It is easier and quicker to add seats if required than to purchase additional aircraft if needed. In the meantime, AA continues to increase revenue per day.
>You seem to have missed FLY777UAL's point that a
>full F/C cabin does not mean everbody has paid up
>their first class fare. Many are using their FF miles
>to upgrade from economy.
I know. I flew SNA 757s for 7+ years. FC cabin is always full, but seldom is every seat a full fare passenger. OTOH, those upgraded are being rewarded for the revenue they've brought to AA in the past.
>UA has it worse than American in this respect because
>UA has such a high number of Premier, Premier Execs
>and Premier 1K's that are always attempting to
>upgrade but are seldom able to because of the
What statistics do you have to back up this claim? I don't dispute it, but I know AAdvantage has many more members (of what level I do not know) all wanting upgrades just like at UA. So the problem is at both airlines.
>Economy Plus seating makes everyone feel special but
>more importantly increases the number of full-fare
>coach pax and reduces the need for upgrades.
How does "everyone feel special" when many of those in coach do not get the "plus" seating? You're statement is not logical. It does make those lucky enough to get the "plus" seating feel "special" IF they made the effort to get the seats. What if they made no effort and got the seats anyway? What about the pax who made the effort yet sits next to someone who did not? I doubt he'll be feeling too "special."
>I mean, why provide a full F/C service to a passenger
>that didn't pay for it? The costs aren't as insignificant
>as you have laid them out to be.
Actually they are. It is _marginal costs_ that need to be addressed. The FC cabin and service are already being provided. The only added cost is for food/beverage and passenger handling (i.e. time).
>AA's trick of increasing first class seats and reducing
>Y-class seats means more needless uprgraders sitting
>in F/C and a Y-class full (in theory) of more full-fare
If you were an AAdvantage member trying to obtain an upgrade, would you believe yourself to be a "needless upgrader"? And a "Y-class full" truly is theory since AA seldom flys full acft.
>Its a needless gamble IMHO.
Thankfully, neither you nor I are paid to make that type of gamble. AA management is paid to make those gambles and has proven themselves fairly adept at choosing a profitable course of action more often than not.
>What's $86.7 million to an airline like AA anyway?
Almost 10% profit increase per year! I guess you don't own your own business or you would easily understand. To put it another way, would you prefer to take home 10% more in your paycheck each week or not bother with it?
>It will greatly reduce the airline's flexibilty to compete
>in the longer term since the other airlines will still be
>able to offer heavily discounted, yet still profitable,
>tix like sliced bread.
Maybe, maybe not. Folks with a whole lot more info than you or I are making those decisions.
>And if you thought ID90's or deadheading was
Agreed. But then AA is not in the business of flying non-revenue passengers anywhere.
>>>AA revenue per aircraft per day is the highest in the industry and continues to grow. <<<
>Sorry, I'm going to disagree with you there.
>[Year ending 12/31/99]
>Looks like its UAL that keeps costs down and
>revnues high while flying more.
RPM and ASM take into account route structure which makes airline-to-airline economic comparisons virtually useless since no two airlines operate the same identical route structures. AA does not have the long Pacific flights of UA. UA does not have the short haul commutes of US or DL. Etc., etc.
The only constant when comparing airline economics is TIME. Reread my statement you'll note I wrote of Revenue/Acft/Day (i.e.: time). In the final analysis it is revenue/time and costs/time that matter. Revenue/time - costs/time = profit/time.
As noted in earlier postings: UA flys more passenger miles; DL flys more passengers; etc., etc., etc. Different routes to the same objective: maximum profit/time period.
In the end, I suspect UA and AA managements are addressing the same or similarly perceived problem with slightly different approaches. UA partially modified its coach cabins while AA is modifying their entire coach cabin. Both airlines have increased FC seating - UA slightly, AA a lot. A different approach by different management teams at different airlines ultimately seeking the same objective.... higher profits for their airline. IMHO, much better to have differing approaches than to have everybody doing the same thing all the time. You, the customer, get to decide which one you prefer by voting with your $$$$$.
Sadly, my seat isn't gonna get modified so I'm stuck with the MD90's limited leg room but most excellent view. ;-)
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!