AAplat4life wrote:

I miss the old days of bad earnings from the airlines when we had better service.

And that's why you've seen changes, there may be a correlation between those things. AA and other tger airlines will swing to far at some point, such as US charging for water, and they will pull back. For some reason i doubt 18 of 174 seats having 29" pitch will do it, considering the A319 at 30" wasnt that point.

Don't really see an issue. 30" is common and carriers like United, BA and even good old Lufty offer it (even in J in Europe) on 320/737 series aircraft. The back 3 rows will probably only be filled with Basic economy anyway, so unless you book über cheap fares, you won't need to worry.
Don't see all THAT much of a problem

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

Some people know little about the aviation business and government especially on this board. That would be a horrendously bad idea.

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

You mean American shouldn't be allowed to do what Spirit, Frontier, and Allegiant have already done to achieve industry leading profitability?

ahj2000 wrote:

Don't really see an issue. 30" is common and carriers like United, BA and even good old Lufty offer it (even in J in Europe) on 320/737 series aircraft. The back 3 rows will probably only be filled with Basic economy anyway, so unless you book über cheap fares, you won't need to worry.
Don't see all THAT much of a problem

Basic economy isn't and won't be only uber cheap fares. DL & UA already have it as their baseline fare in many markets on fares that aren't particularly cheap, and have no ULCC competition. I have no doubt that AA will follow suit with this strategy.

winginit wrote:

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

You mean American shouldn't be allowed to do what Spirit, Frontier, and Allegiant have already done to achieve industry leading profitability?

They can do whatever they want, it doesn't make them scumbags, but NK & F9 have the lowest customer satisfaction ratings for a reason. Additionally, it is reasonable to question AA's strategy on this as they are making their product worse than their main competitors and not differentiating themselves from the lessor competition. Does AA want to be a carrier that attracts HVC or a ULCC? This move and other signify the latter.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

winginit wrote:

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

You mean American shouldn't be allowed to do what Spirit, Frontier, and Allegiant have already done to achieve industry leading profitability?

They can do whatever they want, it doesn't make them scumbags, but NK & F9 have the lowest customer satisfaction ratings for a reason. Additionally, it is reasonable to question AA's strategy on this as they are making their product worse than their main competitors and not differentiating themselves from the lessor competition. Does AA want to be a carrier that attracts HVC or a ULCC? This move and other signify the latter.

They may have low customer satisfaction ratings, but at least NK also has strong profits. As a publicly traded for profit company, profits is what AA wants. The whole reason they exist is to create profits for their investors. The way you do that is by giving your customers what they want (i.e. value enough to pay $ for). Customers may say they want space and service, but what they actually buy is cheap prices.

ahj2000 wrote:

Don't really see an issue. 30" is common and carriers like United, BA and even good old Lufty offer it (even in J in Europe) on 320/737 series aircraft. The back 3 rows will probably only be filled with Basic economy anyway, so unless you book über cheap fares, you won't need to worry.
Don't see all THAT much of a problem

The tricky part is that it is not the back 3 rows. It is in different locations. So even seasoned travelers/or those using seat maps could end up there on a swap.

winginit wrote:

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

You mean American shouldn't be allowed to do what Spirit, Frontier, and Allegiant have already done to achieve industry leading profitability?

If I told you to jump off a cliff would you ? And No an airline should not follow the other each airline does not have to be the same as the other. AA was in a good place when they had more room throughout coach they got tons of my business because of it ! Which I am sure some airport & flight personnel are thankful that I paid for their salaries for years from my business I gave to AA. Airports like PVD, BOS, MIA, JFK, ORD, SFO, LAX, HNL, SEA, DFW, BNA, TVC, TPA, SJU all benefited from my businesses. And the crews of the D10,S80, 757,767,F100,American Eagle SF-3, ATR, Shorts 360, 330,& J-31 crews also.
Especially that Flight crew on the D10 who got me out of a hurricane that was hitting JFK as you handled that with ease to get me to SFO to wait that storm out back in 1995 ish.

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

Many here are also capitalists. Flying an airline is not a right nor a public service, it is a business. If you don't like an airline fly another one. If you don't like any airline then take a train or drive.

You can't go on and regulate everything... a very socialist comment in my opinion.

AA can do what they want, but the continued effort to make their product worse while charging a premium to ulcc of the world probably won't work out in the long run. They just have much higher cost, they can't succeed charging same price as Spirit. Can they get away with charging much more for the same product? Time will tell. It's not something we will know for a while, since reputation is not built on one day and people will continue to pay more for AA vs Spirit in short term just due to perception.

sagechan wrote:

AA and other ... airlines will swing to far at some point, such as US charging for water, and they will pull back. For some reason i doubt 18 of 174 seats having 29" pitch will do it, considering the A319 at 30" wasnt that point.

I tend to agree. If/when airlines push too far, and consumers don't accept it, said consumers will push back - just as has happened before in the airline industry (like the aforementioned paying for water example) and just as happens constantly in every other industry as well. This is how a free market works. All the stakeholders - investors, employees and customers - are all constantly striving to capture more of the economic value creation from a firm. It's a daily give and take. In this case, AA is attempting to recapture a greater share of the economic value it creates as an enterprise for distribution to investors and employees, perhaps somewhat at the expense of customers. Will AA "get away" with it? Will customers - like those, apparently, here on A.net - rebel and simply refuse to fly on this plane? Maybe. We'll see. Personally, I tend to think the above is right - AA and other airlines may one day get there, but I'm personally skeptical if this will be that point.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Additionally, it is reasonable to question AA's strategy on this as they are making their product worse than their main competitors and not differentiating themselves from the lessor competition. Does AA want to be a carrier that attracts HVC or a ULCC? This move and other signify the latter.

Again - we'll see. AA is investing a ton of money in improving products and services for high-value customers. AA clearly believes that it can do both - cater to high-value corporate contracts and business travelers with things like upgraded lounges, upgraded longhaul premium cabins, wifi and powerports, etc. and also cater to occasional/highly-price-sensitive travelers with basic economy and tight legroom.

avi8 wrote:

You can't go on and regulate everything...

I strongly disagree. On the contrary, our legislators absolutely could decide to re-regulate the domestic airline industry, as some here seem to want. That would certainly be well within Congress' Constitutional prerogative. But - and of course this is the key - the inevitable and unavoidable net result will be less competition and higher fares.

And, as I've said previously, I believe this actually guides us to the true root cause of a lot of this whining and complaining about the airline industry. These days, unlike during regulation, "the riffraff" (or at least more of it) gets to fly. But lower fares and more choices for the hoi polloi are only sustainable if the economics work for all stakeholders - so not just passengers, but also employees and shareholders. That means, in practice, that the people who want more are going to have to pay more so that the people who want less can pay less. In short, pricing and service are stratifying.

The fallacy of some of these arguments is that Bush and Obama allowed such extreme consolidation that there isn't any way for consumers to "push back" or fly roomier competitors. As long as both airlines on a duopoly route treat customers badly in equal ways, there is no alternative.

Further, you can try to avoid the UA A320 or the AA 738, what happens when they are the only aircraft on a route out of ORD? No choice at all.

Also, it's a product you can't "try on" when you buy. Considering most people don't fly enough to know what's changing or what they are buying, it's only when they sit down that they will find out.

That's a reason for a standard minimum right there. Think about any other product where you can't return it or get a refund but also can't examine it before you purchase. Not only that, but you can't even cancel and advance order for this product, no matter how far in advance you place the order.

ikramerica wrote:

The fallacy of some of these arguments is that Bush and Obama allowed such extreme consolidation that there isn't any way for consumers to "push back" or fly roomier competitors. As long as both airlines on a duopoly route treat customers badly in equal ways, there is no alternative.

The above is the true fallacy.

What percentage of domestic U.S. city pairs today are true duopolies? I don't know the exact answer - although I'd love to know - but I'm quite confident it's an extremely percentage. And as a related question, what percentage of domestic U.S. passengers today face a true duopoly on the city pair they're flying? Again, don't know the exact answer - but I'm quite confident that it's an even lower percentage. That doesn't necessarily mean that someone will always have more than one nonstop competitor in a given market (although in the biggest, highest-volume, city pairs, they almost always do), and it also doesn't necessarily mean that someone will always have more than one nonstop competitor at exactly the time they want to fly, either. But, alas, free markets don't guarantee perfect outcomes for all consumers.

ikramerica wrote:

Further, you can try to avoid the UA A320 or the AA 738, what happens when they are the only aircraft on a route out of ORD? No choice at all.

You connect through DTW or MSP or ATL on Delta, or you fly JetBlue, or go over to MDW and get on one of Southwest's 200+ daily flights, and on and on. People have choices - if they elect not to take them because said choices are less convenient, or because they're limited by a policy arbitrarily imposed by their employer, that's not the airline's choice. But again, that's how markets work - everyone doesn't necessarily always get perfect competition tailored exactly to their precise, specific, individual needs.

ikramerica wrote:

Also, it's a product you can't "try on" when you buy. Considering most people don't fly enough to know what's changing or what they are buying, it's only when they sit down that they will find out. That's a reason for a standard minimum right there.

Completely and totally disagree. Airlines don't hide this stuff - all of this information is publicly available. If consumers don't take the initiative to seek out information about the products and services are providing, or only procure said products or services so infrequently that they feel it's not worth their time, that's their choice - and nobody else's. I continue to find astounding that people think "minimum standards" - as arbitrary and subjective as they would, by definition, be - are reasonable because consumers voluntarily choose not to research what they're buying.

ikramerica wrote:

Think about any other product where you can't return it or get a refund but also can't examine it before you purchase. Not only that, but you can't even cancel and advance order for this product, no matter how far in advance you place the order.

Uh, how about tickets to virtually any time-specific event on earth? I can't examine the seat in the baseball stadium before I show up for the game, nor the seat at the theater when I go see a concert or play. And, in almost all cases, I can't cancel said purchases and get refunds for that stuff, either.

Ikramerica,
If I had those choices or take something else I would choose Amtrak or Greyhound!

commavia wrote:

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Additionally, it is reasonable to question AA's strategy on this as they are making their product worse than their main competitors and not differentiating themselves from the lessor competition. Does AA want to be a carrier that attracts HVC or a ULCC? This move and other signify the latter.

Again - we'll see. AA is investing a ton of money in improving products and services for high-value customers. AA clearly believes that it can do both - cater to high-value corporate contracts and business travelers with things like upgraded lounges, upgraded longhaul premium cabins, wifi and powerports, etc. and also cater to occasional/highly-price-sensitive travelers with basic economy and tight legroom.

The problem is that the two groups of customers are not completely separable. If I need to go to XYZ last minute and the only option available is NK pitch on an AA 738, that's what I'm doing (and as far as product versus price I'm probably paying way too much for that lousy a seat). Is that experience supposed to engender goodwill for and loyalty to AA?

ILUVDC10S wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

user444555 wrote:

According to this article, F will stay at 16 but Y will vary from mostly 30 inches to a few rows with 29 inches pitch. The article compares this to LCC and ULCC pitch -- their words, not mine

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/news/co ... s-legroom/

Hell, meet No. I'll drive first.

Instead of driving how about: All Aboard Amtrak
or Leave the driving to us : Greyhound
save your cars wear and tear.

I like trains just fine. SEA-PHX or SEA-PSP (fairly common runs) are not exactly convenient by train. PHX isn't even directly on the Amtrak line, and both are tri-weekly as well. I'd prefer to either fly/rent a car or just drive and see the country while getting there faster and not having to rent a car when I get there.

I'm not doing the bus - not because I'm above it, but because it's basically and airplane that goes slow and on the ground. You can't really see much and you take days to get where you're going.

Cubsrule wrote:

The problem is that the two groups of customers are not completely separable. If I need to go to XYZ last minute and the only option available is NK pitch on an AA 738, that's what I'm doing (and as far as product versus price I'm probably paying way too much for that lousy a seat). Is that experience supposed to engender goodwill for and loyalty to AA?

Jeez - this again.

One last time - AA has run the numbers. AA clearly believes this makes sense. AA knows that the situation above is bound to happen at times, and knows that some elites are going to get stuck in tight legroom seats because they book at the last-minute and can't get a better-legroom seat or won't accept the ones that are free (e.g., middle). AA apparently thinks that the cost of lost "goodwill" from such situations is sufficiently small or manageable to be offset by the higher-profit-potential of adding those new seats, and/or higher-profit-potential baked into the elite population overall as a result of the new elite qualification system.

For the final time - none of us know if AA's math is right. Maybe this will end up being a smart move - AA will get essentially pure profit on another dozen seats on these 737s, and that will be far more than any "goodwill" cost. Or, alternatively, maybe there will be a wave of angry EXPs forced to sit in 36E that they refuse to fly AA and the airline has to cave and retreat. The good news is that AA's financial performance is public - so we'll see.

Let's look at it this way. If AA were to give all 16 F seats in the current configuration as upgrades to AAdvantage elites, that is still 16 seats in Y that get sold, above the actual seat count.

I'm curious as to who actually buys first class tickets. Most people I know who fly for business can't buy a domestic F ticket on a corporate expense account. People I know tell me that they can only book a premium cabin for travel to Europe, Asia, and some parts of South America.

Here's some irony to think about. Back in the 1990s, the MD-80s often had 12 seats in F. Then, they were standardized at 14, before eventually getting 16 seats. Meanwhile, the 737s were originally delivered with 20 seats in F. Then, when AA started to put some seats back while scaling back MRTC, AA went to 16 F, maintaining MRTC even though 2 rows of Y were added.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Hell, meet No. I'll drive first.

Instead of driving how about: All Aboard Amtrak
or Leave the driving to us : Greyhound
save your cars wear and tear.

I like trains just fine. SEA-PHX or SEA-PSP (fairly common runs) are not exactly convenient by train. PHX isn't even directly on the Amtrak line, and both are tri-weekly as well. I'd prefer to either fly/rent a car or just drive and see the country while getting there faster and not having to rent a car when I get there.

I'm not doing the bus - not because I'm above it, but because it's basically and airplane that goes slow and on the ground. You can't really see much and you take days to get where you're going.

Yep You have to go from PHX-LAX then take that coastline train to SEA .

Well Greyhound has gotten better relatively speaking. From free WIFI to electrical outlets to recharge your items to no TSA and some decent food in some Greyhound stations such as Pittsburgh or Cleveland Ohio. Syracuse NY. Now I agree it does take a long time to get long distances on Greyhound that is one issue they need to work on I tell ya .

so now AA's 738s will have about the same seating and WN's. WN doesn't use space for first class, no baggage fee, no change fee. I like flying all the airlines, but, I'll always check with Southwest.

commavia wrote:

AA apparently thinks that the cost of lost "goodwill" from such situations is sufficiently small or manageable to be offset by the higher-profit-potential of adding those new seats, and/or higher-profit-potential baked into the elite population overall as a result of the new elite qualification system.

Help me out with this one: how does the new elite qualification system increase profit potential? It compensates for some of the lost benefits by thinning the ranks, but I have a hard time understanding how that increases profit in a straightforward way.

ckfred wrote:

Let's look at it this way. If AA were to give all 16 F seats in the current configuration as upgrades to AAdvantage elites, that is still 16 seats in Y that get sold, above the actual seat count.

I'm curious as to who actually buys first class tickets. Most people I know who fly for business can't buy a domestic F ticket on a corporate expense account. People I know tell me that they can only book a premium cabin for travel to Europe, Asia, and some parts of South America.

Here's some irony to think about. Back in the 1990s, the MD-80s often had 12 seats in F. Then, they were standardized at 14, before eventually getting 16 seats. Meanwhile, the 737s were originally delivered with 20 seats in F. Then, when AA started to put some seats back while scaling back MRTC, AA went to 16 F, maintaining MRTC even though 2 rows of Y were added.

Honestly crazy companies who care less on what the people spend. Or you got the Hollywood celebs & the NYC Media folks or trust fund kids turned adults who toss money around like its grass seed on a golf course. Before the economy turned south I could book F or J at will now every cent is audited even tip money must be accounted for and justified in a binding expense report narrative document which has threat of termination if deemed improper . Thankfully I do keep expenses to under budget as much as I can .

ILUVDC10S wrote:

ckfred wrote:

Let's look at it this way. If AA were to give all 16 F seats in the current configuration as upgrades to AAdvantage elites, that is still 16 seats in Y that get sold, above the actual seat count.

I'm curious as to who actually buys first class tickets. Most people I know who fly for business can't buy a domestic F ticket on a corporate expense account. People I know tell me that they can only book a premium cabin for travel to Europe, Asia, and some parts of South America.

Here's some irony to think about. Back in the 1990s, the MD-80s often had 12 seats in F. Then, they were standardized at 14, before eventually getting 16 seats. Meanwhile, the 737s were originally delivered with 20 seats in F. Then, when AA started to put some seats back while scaling back MRTC, AA went to 16 F, maintaining MRTC even though 2 rows of Y were added.

Honestly crazy companies who care less on what the people spend. Or you got the Hollywood celebs & the NYC Media folks or trust fund kids turned adults who toss money around like its grass seed on a golf course. Before the economy turned south I could book F or J at will now every cent is audited even tip money must be accounted for and justified in a binding expense report narrative document which has threat of termination if deemed improper . Thankfully I do keep expenses to under budget as much as I can .

Two observations:

1) People sometimes upgrade themselves with personal funds if the cost is not outrageous.

2) Sometimes, F is the cheapest ticket. It happens to me once or twice a year, usually on trips to out-of-the-way places bought close to the day of travel, but also systematically to a few larger cities like MEM.

Cubsrule wrote:

Help me out with this one: how does the new elite qualification system increase profit potential? It compensates for some of the lost benefits by thinning the ranks, but I have a hard time understanding how that increases profit in a straightforward way.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If the airline is expending the cost of providing specialized, premium services to a smaller group of elite customers who, by definition, can now have only attained that elite status by contributing at least some minimum level of revenue, it seems logical that the incremental profit contribution of each remaining elite customer should go up. I'd speculate that this basic math explains why AA, Delta and United have all gone in the same direction in terms of new, revenue-based elite qualification systems. Now, of course, this is yet another example of math that these airlines may well have gotten "wrong" - but only the airlines themselves, with access to the real proprietary numbers, can know that for sure.

commavia wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

The problem is that the two groups of customers are not completely separable. If I need to go to XYZ last minute and the only option available is NK pitch on an AA 738, that's what I'm doing (and as far as product versus price I'm probably paying way too much for that lousy a seat). Is that experience supposed to engender goodwill for and loyalty to AA?

Jeez - this again.

One last time - AA has run the numbers. AA clearly believes this makes sense. AA knows that the situation above is bound to happen at times, and knows that some elites are going to get stuck in tight legroom seats because they book at the last-minute and can't get a better-legroom seat or won't accept the ones that are free (e.g., middle). AA apparently thinks that the cost of lost "goodwill" from such situations is sufficiently small or manageable to be offset by the higher-profit-potential of adding those new seats, and/or higher-profit-potential baked into the elite population overall as a result of the new elite qualification system.

For the final time - none of us know if AA's math is right. Maybe this will end up being a smart move - AA will get essentially pure profit on another dozen seats on these 737s, and that will be far more than any "goodwill" cost. Or, alternatively, maybe there will be a wave of angry EXPs forced to sit in 36E that they refuse to fly AA and the airline has to cave and retreat. The good news is that AA's financial performance is public - so we'll see.

Conversely when AA advertises you that 178 .00 ORD-MSP AA& DL seat as I stated earlier and guess what when seat selection happens poof that 178.00 seat becomes 200.00 thats bait & Switch and false advertising when no 178.00 seats are being offered for seat selection forcing you to select a seat that you are forced to pay the upgraded price on which should be waived since you booked a 178 fare with no chance to select your seat at that price kinda like you wanting a first row 50 yard line aisle seat at a foot ball game when you look at the grid it shows available for 50 bucks well you hit select seats it says oh only seats you can choose is a seat behind a pole for 250.00 now how would you feel in that case huh? You see a problem here huh?

avi8 wrote:

Many here are also capitalists. Flying an airline is not a right nor a public service, it is a business. If you don't like an airline fly another one. If you don't like any airline then take a train or drive.

You can't go on and regulate everything... a very socialist comment in my opinion.

avi8 if you're such a free market advocate and against government regulation, then you should be pushing for granting foreign carriers increased numerical freedoms so they can transport pax on domestic routes

commavia wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Help me out with this one: how does the new elite qualification system increase profit potential? It compensates for some of the lost benefits by thinning the ranks, but I have a hard time understanding how that increases profit in a straightforward way.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If the airline is expending the cost of providing specialized, premium services to a smaller group of elite customers who, by definition, can now have only attained that elite status by contributing at least some minimum level of revenue, it seems logical that the incremental profit contribution of each remaining elite customer should go up. I'd speculate that this basic math explains why AA, Delta and United have all gone in the same direction in terms of new, revenue-based elite qualification systems. Now, of course, this is yet another example of math that these airlines may well have gotten "wrong" - but only the airlines themselves, with access to the real proprietary numbers, can know that for sure.

Profits per elite go up but the number of elites goes down. EQDs probably help incrementally with loyalty in the sense that there are now however many fewer elites and thus it is more meaningful to have status (I am skeptical that the number of elites went down that much, as the EQD requirements are not onerous for anyone but the most ardent mileage runners), but I'm not really sure we can see it in P&L. I agree with the move but I think the benefits are likely softer.

Just in from internal AA post

Fleet management typically begins many years before the actual aircraft show up into service. Along the way, decisions are made about things like seat count, galley size and lavatories.
As we’ve planned for the arrival of 100 B737 MAX airplanes, the first of which arrive later this year, the interiors of those aircraft are of keen interest to many. As a sidenote, the MAX is a new-generation B737 with more fuel-efficient engines. Here’s a preview of how we are setting up the interior.
Most Main Cabin seats will have a pitch of 30 inches. Although this is less than the 31 inch pitch we have today on the B737-800s, it doesn’t feel one inch smaller. That’s because we’re using a new Meridian seat made by Rockwell Interior Systems. The Meridian seat is thinner and lighter but configured more comfortably than some of the bulkier seats you find on other aircraft. It is also being used in service today by other airlines. These seats are designed to make efficient use of the space available, so they give the feeling of an extra inch of legroom and feel wider.
Three rows on the MAX will have a pitch of 29 inches, and while this is a bit tighter, we believe customers will come away with a different viewpoint once they try the product. Not only are the Meridian seats engineered more efficiently and more comfortably, but not having the bulky inflight entertainment screens that extend inches into one’s face (and prevent one from opening their laptop all the way) will vastly improve the experience.
Customers will also have more foot space because the inflight entertainment box underneath many seats on other planes will not exist on the MAX. Customers will have a power source at every seat for charging their personal devices and they can stream from a vast library of free first-rate movies and contemporary television shows. Lastly, customers will also have the option to pay for access to a fast satellite-based internet connection that will allow them to watch shows from streaming providers such as Netflix and HBO.
In addition, the larger overhead bins that are on current B737-800 deliveries will also be on the MAX.
The MAX will have 172 seats, including 16 in First Class, 36 in Main Cabin Extra and 120 in Main Cabin. Compared to today’s B737-800s, this setup adds six more seats to Main Cabin Extra and six more seats in Main Cabin, while keeping the number of First Class seats the same.
This same layout is also being considered for the B737-800. Configuring the B737-800 similar to the MAX would have the advantage of a uniform seat count across our entire B737 fleet. That means both aircraft types could be deployed on a wide variety of routes, giving our planning team greater flexibility in how those aircraft are used and a more consistent customer experience. More to come on this planning process down the road, but that’s the thinking currently under way.

avi8 wrote:

Many here are also capitalists. Flying an airline is not a right nor a public service, it is a business. If you don't like an airline fly another one. If you don't like any airline then take a train or drive.

You can't go on and regulate everything... a very socialist comment in my opinion.

I'm pretty much as Capitalist as they come and vehemently believe in the power and necessity of markets. However, markets can and do fail due to a variety of factors. If you want to examine market efficiency you're going to come across terms like elasticity, competition, information symmetry, transactional costs, etc, etc. The problem with the airlines, and perhaps air travel in general, is that these aren't very efficient markets.

For instance, I live in the central part of the country and am several hours away from the nearest "major" airport. My travel choices aren't governed by price as much as where in the country I'd like to go. Going west? United. Going east or southeast? American. My airline of choice is governed by the available hubs. I *can* choose to go with another, but that would often involve not just extra money but a significant time cost. I would love a competitor to arise that offered me service that was somewhere between F and Y in terms of comfort and affordability. However, this will simply never happen due to several factors:
1) Insane initial capital costs
2) Insane regulatory and transactional burden
3) Complete supply inelasticity in terms of slots in major markets
4) Market already dominated by oligopoly (and it appears congress will go to bat to prevent further competition, ie, ME3)
5) Did I mentioned insane initial capital costs?

All of these factors are detrimental to perfect markets and perfect competition.

I think it's a little optimistic to believe that consumers are just getting what they deserve. Most consumers never had a choice and it appears that the US3 are playing a game of intentional or unintentional collusion through signaling. Is it possible that a carrier could be profitable by offering an airplane full of economy premium? I don't know and in all likelihood we never will. The fact that we never really will is what makes this market very inefficient imo.

Unrelated, I canceled my AAdvantage card because it quickly became obvious that my miles were bullshit. The only time an upgrade was even offered to me I was told it would cost 75k miles a piece. United recently let me upgrade for $75. When you realize that's how much your miles are worth it becomes apparent they aren't worth the effort and better to just get some cash back.

There is a tipping point to everything. YX was fatally flawed when they put only 88 seats in a 717. Now UA and the other domestics are going the other way. There will be a tipping point of too many seats and passengers will rebel. I think some of that is already coming true with passengers acting out, fighting flight crews and causing general disruption. We can talk economic theory and all but their is a psychological point that you have to take into consideration. The airlines can practice all the capitalism they want, but push too much and you might have a rebellion and spend more time than they want before congressional committees.

DanDun wrote:

The Meridian seat is thinner and lighter but configured more comfortably than some of the bulkier seats you find on other aircraft. It is also being used in service today by other airlines. These seats are designed to make efficient use of the space available, so they give the feeling of an extra inch of legroom and feel wider.
Three rows on the MAX will have a pitch of 29 inches, and while this is a bit tighter, we believe customers will come away with a different viewpoint once they try the product. Not only are the Meridian seats engineered more efficiently and more comfortably, but not having the bulky inflight entertainment screens that extend inches into one’s face (and prevent one from opening their laptop all the way) will vastly improve the experience.
Customers will also have more foot space because the inflight entertainment box underneath many seats on other planes will not exist on the MAX. Customers will have a power source at every seat for charging their personal devices and they can stream from a vast library of free first-rate movies and contemporary television shows.

I'll withhold judgement until I've actually sat in it myself, but my personal expectation is that - the optimistic tone above aside - these seats will, indeed, be noticeably tight. Slimmer (but somehow more comfortable ) seats, and no underseat IFE boxes, will help - but 29 inches is still 29 inches.

DanDun wrote:

The MAX will have 172 seats, including 16 in First Class, 36 in Main Cabin Extra and 120 in Main Cabin. Compared to today’s B737-800s, this setup adds six more seats to Main Cabin Extra and six more seats in Main Cabin, while keeping the number of First Class seats the same.

Happy to hear official confirmation that F is staying at 16.

DanDun wrote:

This same layout is also being considered for the B737-800. Configuring the B737-800 similar to the MAX would have the advantage of a uniform seat count across our entire B737 fleet. That means both aircraft types could be deployed on a wide variety of routes, giving our planning team greater flexibility in how those aircraft are used and a more consistent customer experience. More to come on this planning process down the road, but that’s the thinking currently under way.

Assuming there isn't, in fact, massive customer backlash, I think it's a virtual certainty that the legacy 737s will, indeed, ultimately be reconfigured to this same configuration. This may occur down the road concurrent with a bigger and more extensive retrofit to add the bigger bins, rip out the seatback PTVs on the planes that have it, and standardize the entire 737 fleet with the new, high-speed, satellite-based wifi. Again, if - big if - AA doesn't seem significant customer pushback or bookaway in the market, the economic incentive will be huge - not only to add 12 more sellable seats to over 300 737s that are, effectively, almost pure profit, but also because of the efficiency and operational flexibility of having a single configuration

DanDun wrote:

Just in from internal AA post
Most Main Cabin seats will have a pitch of 30 inches. Although this is less than the 31 inch pitch we have today on the B737-800s, it doesn’t feel one inch smaller. That’s because we’re using a new Meridian seat made by Rockwell Interior Systems. The Meridian seat is thinner and lighter but configured more comfortably than some of the bulkier seats you find on other aircraft. It is also being used in service today by other airlines. These seats are designed to make efficient use of the space available, so they give the feeling of an extra inch of legroom and feel wider.

What other airlines currently use this seat and what aircraft?

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Yep You have to go from PHX-LAX then take that coastline train to SEA .

If the whole trip was done on Amtrak it would have to be Maricop/Flag/Tuscon-LA-SEA as PHX doesn't even have a line serviced by Amtrak at all, which I find pretty damn ridiculous, but that is for another thread.

commavia wrote:

DanDun wrote:

This same layout is also being considered for the B737-800. Configuring the B737-800 similar to the MAX would have the advantage of a uniform seat count across our entire B737 fleet. That means both aircraft types could be deployed on a wide variety of routes, giving our planning team greater flexibility in how those aircraft are used and a more consistent customer experience. More to come on this planning process down the road, but that’s the thinking currently under way.

Assuming there isn't, in fact, massive customer backlash, I think it's a virtual certainty that the legacy 737s will, indeed, ultimately be reconfigured to this same configuration. This may occur down the road concurrent with a bigger and more extensive retrofit to add the bigger bins, rip out the seatback PTVs on the planes that have it, and standardize the entire 737 fleet with the new, high-speed, satellite-based wifi. Again, if - big if - AA doesn't seem significant customer pushback or bookaway in the market, the economic incentive will be huge - not only to add 12 more sellable seats to over 300 737s that are, effectively, almost pure profit, but also because of the efficiency and operational flexibility of having a single configuration

At 300 frames, the 738 fleet is large enough that we could conceivably see short-haul and medium-haul subfleets. 29-inch slimlines are much more palatable on DFW-OKC than on LAX-BOS.

The problem is the average customer only fly's AA once a year at most so they really don't care about someone who goes out their way to fly them they are going for that customer that looks at the cheapest airfare and that's it. Most of their elites will have Y+ or F seats. I hope UA & DL take the high ground and don't cheapen their product to the likes of AA cause I will not fly the 777-300 in 10 across in Y and I wont be flying in their Y- class either. Doug needs to check himself cause those elites will end up in Y- and then they do they will bitch and complain and if they have pull and their not at a AA hub only they will be losing Elite customers.... Sad Sad to see AA turn into USAIR

commavia wrote:

DanDun wrote:

The MAX will have 172 seats, including 16 in First Class, 36 in Main Cabin Extra and 120 in Main Cabin. Compared to today’s B737-800s, this setup adds six more seats to Main Cabin Extra and six more seats in Main Cabin, while keeping the number of First Class seats the same.

Happy to hear official confirmation that F is staying at 16.

Also significantly to both elites concerned with upgrades and those willing to pay for extra space, there's also six more MCE seats.

commavia wrote:

DanDun wrote:

This same layout is also being considered for the B737-800. Configuring the B737-800 similar to the MAX would have the advantage of a uniform seat count across our entire B737 fleet. That means both aircraft types could be deployed on a wide variety of routes, giving our planning team greater flexibility in how those aircraft are used and a more consistent customer experience. More to come on this planning process down the road, but that’s the thinking currently under way.

Assuming there isn't, in fact, massive customer backlash, I think it's a virtual certainty that the legacy 737s will, indeed, ultimately be reconfigured to this same configuration. This may occur down the road concurrent with a bigger and more extensive retrofit to add the bigger bins, rip out the seatback PTVs on the planes that have it, and standardize the entire 737 fleet with the new, high-speed, satellite-based wifi. Again, if - big if - AA doesn't seem significant customer pushback or bookaway in the market, the economic incentive will be huge - not only to add 12 more sellable seats to over 300 737s that are, effectively, almost pure profit, but also because of the efficiency and operational flexibility of having a single configuration

You hit the nail on the head. This will be a good market test. If the planes see sales challenges/lower average transactions vs the rest of the fleet, we won't see the the NGs reconfigured. If they start reconfiguring the -800s, then you know the market has accepted the new seating configuration.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Yep You have to go from PHX-LAX then take that coastline train to SEA .

If the whole trip was done on Amtrak it would have to be Maricop/Flag/Tuscon-LA-SEA as PHX doesn't even have a line serviced by Amtrak at all, which I find pretty damn ridiculous, but that is for another thread.

okay just to let you know it would be:
Amtrak Schedule 11 SEA-LAX the Coastal Starlight
Amtrak Schedule 2 LAX-MRC Sunset Limited OR 422 Texas Eagle
Greyhound Thruway Bus Service 8902 MRC(Maricopa Amtrak Station) to Phoenix Greyhound Station Note they do have Greyhound stop at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport too(PHX).
As a schedule search on Amtrak.com
Now back to the regular scheduled forum postings ...

How about this then.

If the economy cabin is getting less pitch, I'm sure the FC will also be shrinking to probably 38 inch like on A321B or 37 inch like on Delta. Now, the FC on the current B738 is pretty nice. It has slightly more room, seat is comfortable and generally a pretty good ride on transcon flight. You can certainly argue AA has the best FC hard product amongst the legacies.

Now on routes like BOS to LAX, DCA to LAX and MIA to LAX, AA uses a mix of A321B and B738. In each of these routes, they will go against lie flat options (Delta 1 and mint) if you count FLL to LAX. We just a thread few days ago about AA poaching exclusive corporate accounts from UA, with clients who will pay anything for first class options. Now that flat bed are available on all these routes and priced at much cheaper than AA’s 37/38 inch recliner seat, what are the odds AA start loosing exclusivity on these accounts once the hollywood execs start demanding to have best of the best on their transcon travels. And btw, in some of these cases, they are charge twice as much as B6’s mint. So competitors are improving premium products and AA is making it worse.

Reading https://www.wsj.com/articles/discount-b ... 1488990556, it’s clear some hollywood studios have already moved their transcon business over.

DanDun wrote:

Most Main Cabin seats will have a pitch of 30 inches. Although this is less than the 31 inch pitch we have today on the B737-800s, it doesn’t feel one inch smaller. That’s because we’re using a new Meridian seat made by Rockwell Interior Systems. The Meridian seat is thinner and lighter but configured more comfortably than some of the bulkier seats you find on other aircraft. It is also being used in service today by other airlines. These seats are designed to make efficient use of the space available, so they give the feeling of an extra inch of legroom and feel wider.

Southwest has chosen Meridian seats for remaining 737-800s and Max 8s. Does that give you confidence about AA's choice? Not me.

http://crankyflier.com/2016/08/22/south ... ok-inside/

tphuang wrote:

How about this then.

If the economy cabin is getting less pitch, I'm sure the FC will also be shrinking to probably 38 inch like on A321B or 37 inch like on Delta. Now, the FC on the current B738 is pretty nice. It has slightly more room, seat is comfortable and generally a pretty good ride on transcon flight. You can certainly argue AA has the best FC hard product amongst the legacies.

AA already has mainline F cabins with pitch as low as 36".

user444555 wrote:

user444555 wrote:

According to this article, F will stay at 16 but Y will vary from mostly 30 inches to a few rows with 29 inches pitch. The article compares this to LCC and ULCC pitch -- their words, not mine

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/news/co ... s-legroom/

Re-reading the article, it says it is "nearly" the same as Spirit and Frontier, although their chart shows UA at 30 inches.

Which in itself is a bit misleading as UA is 30 or 31 depending on the aircraft. CNN doesn't always have the best track record when it comes to aviation articles so I would take their belief that F class will not be cut with a grain of salt. I suppose if AA cuts F class to 36 or 35 inches they may gain enough room to add a row and still keep 16 seats....it will be interesting to see the final configuration of that aircraft.

By introducing a 29" seat pitch into the mix, AA is effectively providing a product less than an LCC and equal to an ULCC. In some instances a basic economy fare would be equivalent to the latter. If these seats were restricted to basic economy pax, I would be 100% okay with it. My company has us book travel inside of 2 weeks, and we never book basic economy. It would not affect my 60+ flights a year on AA. Unfortunately, they are not restricted to the lowest fare classes, and as such, my $600 V fare is worth a 29" seat, while a $200 BE fare is worth a 31" seat. Typically, as a plat, I am able to reserve the MCE seats, so it doesnt often affect me, however...on popular and often long routes, booking so close in puts me in E- if I dont watch the seat map, or if there are no upgrades. I recently flew on F9 and was reminded how good I have it on AA...errr...how good I did have it on AA. I book away from WN because of my ability to secure MCE seats usually, and an occasional opportunity to upgrade to F. It wont take too many trips in a 29" seat to shift my spend to WN. I'm sure my $14,400 - $20,000 per year spend doesnt mean anything to AA, but I would imagine if 100 people like me in the top 25 domestic cities did the same, that $36M - $50M might get noticed.

I think Cramming people in on a ULCC is fine but not on AA so I agree with you on that.

DanDun wrote:

Just in from internal AA post

Fleet management typically begins many years before the actual aircraft show up into service. Along the way, decisions are made about things like seat count, galley size and lavatories.
As we’ve planned for the arrival of 100 B737 MAX airplanes, the first of which arrive later this year, the interiors of those aircraft are of keen interest to many. As a sidenote, the MAX is a new-generation B737 with more fuel-efficient engines. Here’s a preview of how we are setting up the interior.
Most Main Cabin seats will have a pitch of 30 inches. Although this is less than the 31 inch pitch we have today on the B737-800s, it doesn’t feel one inch smaller. That’s because we’re using a new Meridian seat made by Rockwell Interior Systems. The Meridian seat is thinner and lighter but configured more comfortably than some of the bulkier seats you find on other aircraft. It is also being used in service today by other airlines. These seats are designed to make efficient use of the space available, so they give the feeling of an extra inch of legroom and feel wider.
Three rows on the MAX will have a pitch of 29 inches, and while this is a bit tighter, we believe customers will come away with a different viewpoint once they try the product. Not only are the Meridian seats engineered more efficiently and more comfortably, but not having the bulky inflight entertainment screens that extend inches into one’s face (and prevent one from opening their laptop all the way) will vastly improve the experience.
Customers will also have more foot space because the inflight entertainment box underneath many seats on other planes will not exist on the MAX. Customers will have a power source at every seat for charging their personal devices and they can stream from a vast library of free first-rate movies and contemporary television shows. Lastly, customers will also have the option to pay for access to a fast satellite-based internet connection that will allow them to watch shows from streaming providers such as Netflix and HBO.
In addition, the larger overhead bins that are on current B737-800 deliveries will also be on the MAX.
The MAX will have 172 seats, including 16 in First Class, 36 in Main Cabin Extra and 120 in Main Cabin. Compared to today’s B737-800s, this setup adds six more seats to Main Cabin Extra and six more seats in Main Cabin, while keeping the number of First Class seats the same.
This same layout is also being considered for the B737-800. Configuring the B737-800 similar to the MAX would have the advantage of a uniform seat count across our entire B737 fleet. That means both aircraft types could be deployed on a wide variety of routes, giving our planning team greater flexibility in how those aircraft are used and a more consistent customer experience. More to come on this planning process down the road, but that’s the thinking currently under way.

IF its like they say FC is 16 still and they have added MCE seats I can see this working. A lot of my friends when booking a trip laugh at me when I ask if they want a FC seat but after the flights they all say the same thing Its MRC seat or first class only next time..

avi8 wrote:

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers.

Many here are also capitalists. Flying an airline is not a right nor a public service, it is a business. If you don't like an airline fly another one. If you don't like any airline then take a train or drive.

You can't go on and regulate everything... a very socialist comment in my opinion.

Indy, to add insult to injury, the bathrooms on American's 737 Max jets will also be smaller, one person familiar with the planning said. So regardless of who's pissing, there's going to be less room to do it in.

Avi8, flying an airline is not a right nor a public service, it is a Federally Regulated business. Meaning minimum standards are set, and those minimum standards can be changed.

And, US taxpayer money is used to fund airports in some regard, so there is a right for the Govt. to have a say-so for consumers, in the running of the airline "business".

ckfred wrote:

Let's look at it this way. If AA were to give all 16 F seats in the current configuration as upgrades to AAdvantage elites, that is still 16 seats in Y that get sold, above the actual seat count.

I'm curious as to who actually buys first class tickets. Most people I know who fly for business can't buy a domestic F ticket on a corporate expense account. People I know tell me that they can only book a premium cabin for travel to Europe, Asia, and some parts of South America.

Here's some irony to think about. Back in the 1990s, the MD-80s often had 12 seats in F. Then, they were standardized at 14, before eventually getting 16 seats. Meanwhile, the 737s were originally delivered with 20 seats in F. Then, when AA started to put some seats back while scaling back MRTC, AA went to 16 F, maintaining MRTC even though 2 rows of Y were added.

Lots of us buy first. Airlines have brought fares down out of the stratosphere and I think DL said 51% FC sell and by 2018 they expect 80%

Indy wrote:

Lets call the American executives what they are.... scumbags. 29"??? Why use a toilet when you can just piss directly on your customers. This is inexcusable and why we need to bring back serious airline regulation. I know this idea will never fly on a website fill with airline apologists but form a consumer standpoint this is a complete disgrace. Queue the crying from apologists.

Perhaps there should be a regulation requiring a certain number of bathrooms on a plane based on the maximum number of seats. Another idea is to bring the airline execs into a congressional hearing, but sit them all in a row with 29" pitch. Also, did you notice the wording that the new seats give the "feeling" of more room? This really undermines the veracity of AA's management. Let's hope that the adverse publicity keeps up on this.