jeffrey1970 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Its been over 5 years since the merger, things change. That's honestly the way I see it. Before the merger the AA hubs saw no Airbus flying, now they do after they right size and optimize their flying.

Technically that is not true. AA used the A300 out of JFK for many years before the merger.

Technically you're right but this thread was started with the narrowbody Airbusses in mind, not the legacy AA A300s.

Cubsrule wrote:

I thought at least some Airbus narrowbodies could fit in most of those gates but I may be mistaken. It seems to me that I've seen 319s using C3 and C5 and I imagine that whatever wingspan issues there are become less of an issue as gate numbers/distance out on the concourse increase. Pushing a 320 or 321 (or a 738, which would fit wingspan-wise if the 319 does but is obviously longer) off of the low-numbered gates would be challenging even if they fit in the gates.

I believe C5 and C9 are RJ-only (Google Maps seems to confirm this, with the E-175 parked at C5 looking to take up most of the available space...). The rest of the C gates can take 319s/320s at a minimum, with most also fitting 738s and 321s.

FSDan wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I thought at least some Airbus narrowbodies could fit in most of those gates but I may be mistaken. It seems to me that I've seen 319s using C3 and C5 and I imagine that whatever wingspan issues there are become less of an issue as gate numbers/distance out on the concourse increase. Pushing a 320 or 321 (or a 738, which would fit wingspan-wise if the 319 does but is obviously longer) off of the low-numbered gates would be challenging even if they fit in the gates.

I believe C5 and C9 are RJ-only (Google Maps seems to confirm this, with the E-175 parked at C5 looking to take up most of the available space...). The rest of the C gates can take 319s/320s at a minimum, with most also fitting 738s and 321s.

I can check the parking lines tomorrow. Judging by the the construction projects visible Google maps is a couple years old. I'm not sure why but AA has decided to not currently park 737s on C but they occasionally did immediately after the merger but not in a while.

Can't find the AA fleet thread (If there even is one). So I'm making this thread.

Jon has tweeted a lot of info about the configuration of the incoming A321XLRs and new 789s.

A321XLR:

AA, stated:
"'321 XLR will have flat bed business class (was a given) and a 'real premium economy' section (a bit surprising?)

Source is Crew news, so on the 321XLR thing: "...Less dense plane capacity. Lie flats, PE and MCE and MC. Probably like the 321T -minus the BC 2-2"

787-9:

"The new 787-9 will be AA's new "flagship" aircraft. New branded hard product like Polaris/DeltaOne.*

(*another source confirms the gist but adds "Dunno about naming though it may just stay as “Flagship Business”)

And, unknown what that says..

The 'next batch of 787-9s will have a different configuration. Still determining 'how many business class seats, what kind of J class seats''"(Ascent?)

on 789 he stated they are designing and rethinking every aspect-- seats, ovens, galleys, lavatories, the number and type of business class seats and number/type of premium economy seats.

"It was a long answer to a different question but Isom said that they are in the design...

I guess to parse out what is -not- in doubt; 789 J-class will be entirely new and better than any other current AA J(w/ door etc.)
The "flagship aircraft" (or whatever) would need a lot more details/clarity (largely as it relates to 77W.) In terms of 772, one assumes days #'d

He would later confirm all this information as fact seen here: https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1416781680703115266


Quoted Tweets below:
https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1416745883094462467
https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1416781472204271617
https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1416790681436180481
https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1416792511608205314

AA definitely needs a premium heavy aircrafts like the B77W to face the competition with UA on LHR market, but with the smaller B787s. BA and UA has shown LHR can work with premium heavy network. I think the ex-US management has seen the evidence in last few years and got to understand the economics on premium heavy market.

Also surprised to see A321XLR will have PE. That would be a first. However, I do not see AA's bean counters would be happy to install 2-2 seating. My guess is 2-3 configuration with 3-4 rows gives it 15-20 PE seats. J is likely to be 16J or 20J pending on lavatory location design.

Would be really interesting to see the final layout.

PS: the old American Airlines Fleet thread is:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456041

chonetsao wrote:

AA definitely needs a premium heavy aircrafts like the B77W to face the competition with UA on LHR market, but with the smaller B787s. BA and UA has shown LHR can work with premium heavy network. I think the ex-US management has seen the evidence in last few years and got to understand the economics on premium heavy market.

Also surprised to see A321XLR will have PE. That would be a first. However, I do not see AA's bean counters would be happy to install 2-2 seating. My guess is 2-3 configuration with 3-4 rows gives it 15-20 PE seats. J is likely to be 16J or 20J pending on lavatory location design.

Would be really interesting to see the final layout.

Has anyone ever done a 5 abreast 320 Series aircraft? PE is the equivalent of Domestic US first class so I doubt that would change for the XLR. From the posts above it seems like they will have significantly less seats than the LAA 757s that had lay flat seating.

JohanTally wrote:

Has anyone ever done a 5 abreast 320 Series aircraft? PE is the equivalent of Domestic US first class so I doubt that would change for the XLR. From the posts above it seems like they will have significantly less seats than the LAA 757s that had lay flat seating.

Not exactly PE, but the old BA Club Europe (European Business class) product was 2-3 seating. Also JAL to my mind had 2-3 in their narrowbody domestic first/business products. Should AA introduce a PE cabin in A321XLR that would be the first we heard of. I just don't see how AA can justify 2-2 PE seating in a narrow body. If they do choose 2-2 in the end, good for everyone. But I am very cynical when we talk about the LUS cost cutting mentality.

JohanTally wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

AA definitely needs a premium heavy aircrafts like the B77W to face the competition with UA on LHR market, but with the smaller B787s. BA and UA has shown LHR can work with premium heavy network. I think the ex-US management has seen the evidence in last few years and got to understand the economics on premium heavy market.

Also surprised to see A321XLR will have PE. That would be a first. However, I do not see AA's bean counters would be happy to install 2-2 seating. My guess is 2-3 configuration with 3-4 rows gives it 15-20 PE seats. J is likely to be 16J or 20J pending on lavatory location design.

Would be really interesting to see the final layout.

Has anyone ever done a 5 abreast 320 Series aircraft? PE is the equivalent of Domestic US first class so I doubt that would change for the XLR. From the posts above it seems like they will have significantly less seats than the LAA 757s that had lay flat seating.

Everybody thinks this because the seats look identical but they’re not. 321/737 domestic first class seat is 21” wide whereas PE on a 777 is 19”. Also the armrest is very noticeably narrower in PE. I wouldn’t be surprised to see five abreast PE on the 321XLR. And before the usually suspects jump in, yes Deltas PE is 19” too on the Boeing, and actually less on the 330/350.

chonetsao wrote:

Should AA introduce a PE cabin in A321XLR that would be the first we heard of. I just don't see how AA can justify 2-2 PE seating in a narrow body. If they do choose 2-2 in the end, good for everyone. But I am very cynical when we talk about the LUS cost cutting mentality.

SAS has a 2-2 PE cabin on their A321LR, so AA could copy that?

Will the 787-9 replace the 777-200ER fleet? Seems a bit small to cover growth in Asian, cargo heavy markets. It would reduce up to 10t of payload per flight on many routes. https://epsilonaviation.files.wordpress ... debody.jpg

I don't presume that AA will be terribly concerned about prospective loss of freight revenue in long-range markets where the 787-9 carrying capacity is inferior to the 777. Total cargo revenue was 2.1% of 2019 passenger revenues. No, they won't be buying A350s, no matter how wishful one may be. Observe that chart didn't have a projection for the 777-9, nor data for the 77W, of which there are 20 in the AA fleet.

Take fleet discussion here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456041

chonetsao wrote:

AA definitely needs a premium heavy aircrafts like the B77W to face the competition with UA on LHR market, but with the smaller B787s. BA and UA has shown LHR can work with premium heavy network. I think the ex-US management has seen the evidence in last few years and got to understand the economics on premium heavy market.

Also surprised to see A321XLR will have PE. That would be a first. However, I do not see AA's bean counters would be happy to install 2-2 seating. My guess is 2-3 configuration with 3-4 rows gives it 15-20 PE seats. J is likely to be 16J or 20J pending on lavatory location design.

Would be really interesting to see the final layout.

Huh? AA doesn't need to "face" the competition from UA or BA at LHR. BA and AA are partners, have been for decades, and now co-locate at LHR T5. AA's premium cabins could do with a bit more branding and marketing spin, but the seats are quite good (except for the rocking seats found on some 788s and 772s.

keesje wrote:

Will the 787-9 replace the 777-200ER fleet? Seems a bit small to cover growth in Asian, cargo heavy markets. It would reduce up to 10t of payload per flight on many routes. https://epsilonaviation.files.wordpress ... debody.jpg

I think eventually AA will order the 787-10 and that will be the replacement aircraft for the 772s, but it won't happen for a few years. The 772s are 1999-2002 builds so still have some life in them yet, but eventually, the 47 fleet strong will need to be replaced and given the increasing prominence of the 787 at AA, it would stand to reason more would be ordered, including the -10 to replace the 772.

chonetsao wrote:

AA definitely needs a premium heavy aircrafts like the B77W to face the competition with UA on LHR market, but with the smaller B787s. BA and UA has shown LHR can work with premium heavy network. I think the ex-US management has seen the evidence in last few years and got to understand the economics on premium heavy market.

Also surprised to see A321XLR will have PE. That would be a first. However, I do not see AA's bean counters would be happy to install 2-2 seating. My guess is 2-3 configuration with 3-4 rows gives it 15-20 PE seats. J is likely to be 16J or 20J pending on lavatory location design.

Would be really interesting to see the final layout.

PE today is the domestic F seat already on the A321, just add a few rows of the known product. Would be great option on the 321LR but then again, would that take too much space.

JohanTally wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

AA definitely needs a premium heavy aircrafts like the B77W to face the competition with UA on LHR market, but with the smaller B787s. BA and UA has shown LHR can work with premium heavy network. I think the ex-US management has seen the evidence in last few years and got to understand the economics on premium heavy market.

Also surprised to see A321XLR will have PE. That would be a first. However, I do not see AA's bean counters would be happy to install 2-2 seating. My guess is 2-3 configuration with 3-4 rows gives it 15-20 PE seats. J is likely to be 16J or 20J pending on lavatory location design.

Would be really interesting to see the final layout.

Has anyone ever done a 5 abreast 320 Series aircraft? PE is the equivalent of Domestic US first class so I doubt that would change for the XLR. From the posts above it seems like they will have significantly less seats than the LAA 757s that had lay flat seating.

South African Airways has 5-abreast club class on their narrowbodies.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

keesje wrote:

Will the 787-9 replace the 777-200ER fleet? Seems a bit small to cover growth in Asian, cargo heavy markets. It would reduce up to 10t of payload per flight on many routes. https://epsilonaviation.files.wordpress ... debody.jpg

I think eventually AA will order the 787-10 and that will be the replacement aircraft for the 772s, but it won't happen for a few years. The 772s are 1999-2002 builds so still have some life in them yet, but eventually, the 47 fleet strong will need to be replaced and given the increasing prominence of the 787 at AA, it would stand to reason more would be ordered, including the -10 to replace the 772.

Replacing the 772ER's by 787-10s would basically mean surrendering cargo on Pacific flights.

keesje wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

keesje wrote:

Will the 787-9 replace the 777-200ER fleet? Seems a bit small to cover growth in Asian, cargo heavy markets. It would reduce up to 10t of payload per flight on many routes. https://epsilonaviation.files.wordpress ... debody.jpg

I think eventually AA will order the 787-10 and that will be the replacement aircraft for the 772s, but it won't happen for a few years. The 772s are 1999-2002 builds so still have some life in them yet, but eventually, the 47 fleet strong will need to be replaced and given the increasing prominence of the 787 at AA, it would stand to reason more would be ordered, including the -10 to replace the 772.

Replacing the 772ER's by 787-10s would basically mean surrendering cargo on Pacific flights.

They have the 77W for that, and AA's Pacific network is quite small, with no 772s flying TPAC routes in full passenger service at the moment (cargo, yes, pax, no). The 787 and 77W are the planes AA uses for TPAC.

keesje wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

keesje wrote:

Will the 787-9 replace the 777-200ER fleet? Seems a bit small to cover growth in Asian, cargo heavy markets. It would reduce up to 10t of payload per flight on many routes. https://epsilonaviation.files.wordpress ... debody.jpg

I think eventually AA will order the 787-10 and that will be the replacement aircraft for the 772s, but it won't happen for a few years. The 772s are 1999-2002 builds so still have some life in them yet, but eventually, the 47 fleet strong will need to be replaced and given the increasing prominence of the 787 at AA, it would stand to reason more would be ordered, including the -10 to replace the 772.

Replacing the 772ER's by 787-10s would basically mean surrendering cargo on Pacific flights.

You might want to look up how AA actually used their 772ER’s pre pandemic. A vast majority were/are used for TATL and South America ops. I think there might have been only one or two TPAC routes, AA long shifted those over to 787s and the 77Ws.

AA does not need the 77E’s max capability for most of their flights. The reason AA is operating 47 of them is because they were a loyal Boeing customer and in the late 90s when they wanted something larger than the 767 that left them with the 777. It wouldn’t surprise me if the average AA 77E stage length was around 4000nm, AA never worked them as hard as the likes of UA, CO, etc.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I think eventually AA will order the 787-10 and that will be the replacement aircraft for the 772s, but it won't happen for a few years. The 772s are 1999-2002 builds so still have some life in them yet, but eventually, the 47 fleet strong will need to be replaced and given the increasing prominence of the 787 at AA, it would stand to reason more would be ordered, including the -10 to replace the 772.

Replacing the 772ER's by 787-10s would basically mean surrendering cargo on Pacific flights.

You might want to look up how AA actually used their 772ER’s pre pandemic. A vast majority were/are used for TATL and South America ops. I think there might have been only one or two TPAC routes, AA long shifted those over to 787s and the 77Ws.

AA does not need the 77E’s max capability for most of their flights. The reason AA is operating 47 of them is because they were a loyal Boeing customer and in the late 90s when they wanted something larger than the 767 that left them with the 777. It wouldn’t surprise me if the average AA 77E stage length was around 4000nm, AA never worked them as hard as the likes of UA, CO, etc.

That is exactly on point. AA shifted the 77Es off TPAC that had them a long time ago and replaced them with 787-8/9. The 77W was only used on LAX/DFW to HKG, NRT, and on and off to SYD from LAX, which transitioned to a 787-9 not too long after LAX-SYD was launched. The 77E is the backbone of deep South America and TATL and yes, it hauls cargo, but to/from those places and right now a lot of them are used on domestic operations.

During their tenure AA also merged with USairways, with the 777 flying from PHL and CLT. Flights from those hubs to Europe are about 1,000 miles shorter than the traditional AA hubs. The 777 used to fly Chicago to Tokyo and China, sadly these routes are no longer flown by any AA plane. AA's Pacific network has become centered on DFW, no surprise, and LAX to Tokyo and Sydney. Hoping that AA has expansion plans to Asia, what they have now is sad.

Part of AA's Pacific "problem" is they have three very strong OW partners in JAL, Cathay Pacific and Qantas. AA "hands over" too much to their partners, AA should fly ORD to Tokyo. Hong Kong should be flown from another point parallel to DFW, perhaps from SEA with their new Alaska partnership. AA could do many things to the Asia Pacific with 789 and 777, more J class seats on the 789 would help.

I found this article about SFG. It seems like a weird place to house plane, but I really don't know AAs network that well.

https://sbj.net/stories/from-the-ground ... ngar,75053

Leasing a new hangar on the opposite side of the runway from its current property will allow American Airlines to fly larger planes out of the Springfield-Branson National Airport, according to Jason Clark, senior engineer and project manager for Crawford, Murphy & Tilly Inc. Passengers should notice the difference, he said. “It’s going to impact the region,” he said. City of Springfield-issued bonds are paying for the construction project, but that outlay of funds will be recouped through lease payments by American. The airline plans to house three of its 76-seat Embraer 175 aircraft on-site while supporting 60 employees. Also included in the project are administration offices, a break room, storage and shop areas, a training space, a classroom and a testing area. Clark said the project is on track to finish at the end of October for the hangar’s November opening.

Jshank83 wrote:

I found this article about SFG. It seems like a weird place to house plane, but I really don't know AAs network that well.

https://sbj.net/stories/from-the-ground ... ngar,75053

Leasing a new hangar on the opposite side of the runway from its current property will allow American Airlines to fly larger planes out of the Springfield-Branson National Airport, according to Jason Clark, senior engineer and project manager for Crawford, Murphy & Tilly Inc. Passengers should notice the difference, he said. “It’s going to impact the region,” he said. City of Springfield-issued bonds are paying for the construction project, but that outlay of funds will be recouped through lease payments by American. The airline plans to house three of its 76-seat Embraer 175 aircraft on-site while supporting 60 employees. Also included in the project are administration offices, a break room, storage and shop areas, a training space, a classroom and a testing area. Clark said the project is on track to finish at the end of October for the hangar’s November opening.

This is a new maintenance base for Envoy at SGF. “Housing” planes is a bit misleading, the planes won’t be based there or exclusively fly there, but maintenance work for the E170 and E175 will be done there like it is at XNA, LIT, CMH and CVG.

jfk777 wrote:

During their tenure AA also merged with USairways, with the 777 flying from PHL and CLT. Flights from those hubs to Europe are about 1,000 miles shorter than the traditional AA hubs. The 777 used to fly Chicago to Tokyo and China, sadly these routes are no longer flown by any AA plane. AA's Pacific network has become centered on DFW, no surprise, and LAX to Tokyo and Sydney. Hoping that AA has expansion plans to Asia, what they have now is sad.

Part of AA's Pacific "problem" is they have three very strong OW partners in JAL, Cathay Pacific and Qantas. AA "hands over" too much to their partners, AA should fly ORD to Tokyo. Hong Kong should be flown from another point parallel to DFW, perhaps from SEA with their new Alaska partnership. AA could do many things to the Asia Pacific with 789 and 777, more J class seats on the 789 would help.

AA only just began flying 777s out of CLT regularly this year, to HNL, MIA, LHR. 777s were also deployed to PHL very recently, not shortly after the merger. The 77E's were indeed the mainstay of ORD-PEK/NRT/PVG and pre-modifications in 2013-2014, sported First Class cabins which were part of the problem. AA has always been weak to Asia, nothing new there. Yes, they have strong partners, but the CX dynamic will no doubt change as HKG evolves. I could see take over the CX flight at SEA to HKG but only if travel to the region recovers and HKG retains its position as a major business destination which has been eroding since 2019. I don't think AA will grow much to Asia beyond what it already has and it will be centered around DFW and SEA.

Parker to revisit seatback screens if UA and DL gain a greater competitive advantage.
https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... l_July2921

So all the money he spent retrofitting the planes to not have TV's for project Oasis would just be turned to toilet paper and flushed down the drain to be forgotten about?

If this comes to be, talk about a waste of both time and money.

That piece is pretty thinly argued. There isn't much news, really. CEOs in every industry will make the generic statement:

'If competitors ZZ by doing xxxxxxxxx gain a meaningful advantage on us, we will have to look at reacting.'

AA execs will be eating some crow if they do put them back - and they'll be years behind Delta. It's not as if they can retrofit 700+ planes in a single weekend.

Typical Dougie. How the hell does he keep his job? Insanity.

I bet no one even read the article before commenting...

The competition already has an advantage. Doing this would just be catching up. And it would take several years to accomplish.

It's inconceivable how this guy keeps his job.

AA is on a massive backfoot and are losing goodwill with customers every day. There's little reason for people to book with AA when they're priced like a legacy and offer a product similar to a LCC.

I don't understand people's argument against seatback IFE, its a good thing whether you use it or not. I fly Delta most of the time now after being an AA loyalist for a few years and haven't looked back. I don't usually use the IFE on 2 hour flights like LGA-MIA but having the inflight map open while I'm listening to the music on my phone is excellent.

AAs management is trying to save face more than anything it seems. It's going to be interesting to see how they fare once business travel returns.

Most of my FF miles are with AA since I live in the Phoenix area (I have the Aviator Red), but this would be a game changer if it comes true. I have been using Rewards Network to build my miles with DL and UA while dining at participating restaurants (I linked my Aviator Red to SkyMiles Dining and my WF Visa Signature and Propel Amex to MileagePlus Dining), and with UA now adding PTVs domestically, I really hope AA follows suit.

9w748capt wrote:

Typical Dougie. How the hell does he keep his job? Insanity.

Sure seems like a pattern to me. Refuses to pay profit sharing…DL does it big time and then AA eventually does it on a much smaller scale. I laugh when I read his statement that they would consider putting seat IFE back in if it became a competitive disadvantage. Hello? Check out the DOT Aviation Consumer Report for May ( they get the final numbers 2 or 3 months after). Mishandled bags: UA, roughly lost or damaged 13,000. DL 22,000, AA 51,000.
Flight cancellations DL-24. UA-248, AA-1,599. I know Mr Parker is a nice and personable man, but the policies he had at US ( if I am not mistaken US did not have IFE…someone correct me if I’m wrong) combined with an embittered work force there, has caused AA to take an accelerated descent to the bottom. It’s very sad to see decisions made that drive away loyal customers. On one of my last flights prior to retirement, I was talking to a first class Platinum. He told me he had finally had enough and was going to DL. True, something like IFE is not likely to be a huge factor in remaining loyal to an airline, but it could at least be something to give back to those that pay the salaries….the valued customer.

The only way I see this happening IMO is if Parker either resigns or removed. No way would he admit defeat regarding IFE.

ozark1 wrote:

f I am not mistaken US did not have IFE…someone correct me if I’m wrong

The Airbus narrowbody fleet had inseat power (Empower ports) and drop-down LCD monitors that Parker had ripped out during the 2008 GFC.

Doug Parker needs to go. A complete joke.

Anyways.. I vote for IFE in the seatbacks. I enjoy them every time.

I have repeated this several times in the past in other threads: the only way AA can remain competitive is if they totally unlock their wifi to all passengers and make it free. That's the only way they can differentiate from the other two legacies at this point without having to rip out the hundreds of new Kodiak/Oasis seats. Frankly, I would be fine with being able to log into YouTube or A.net on my flight in lieu of a seatback screen. Sure, having both would be great but at least wifi would make AA's case a bit more compelling.

I don’t get it. I’ve flown Alaska my entire life and they never had in seat entertainment. Ever. But for the better part of a decade now Alaska has streamed movies directly to my phone or iPad for free. Why would any airline not go the wireless route combined with power at every seat is beyond me. Everyone has a smart phone these days. And if you don’t, you’re probably not flying based on which entertainment options are available.

This thread is completely misleading. I was on the call when this question was asked. What was said is they are 100% committed to having the best wifi out there and the best media content, and that there are things they can still do from a competitive standpoint without added a seatback monitor. If at such a time they decide a monitor is needed (Highly unlikely as most people will prefer their own devices and they will always be technologically more advanced) it will be a wifi monitor only, with a seatback holder costing little, being a much better (and newer) product and from a MX standpoint much better reliability than a hard wired seat. They will never do a complete avoid like system.

Boeing757100 wrote:

So all the money he spent retrofitting the planes to not have TV's for project Oasis would just be turned to toilet paper and flushed down the drain to be forgotten about?

You mean like how they flushed down all the seatback TVs they had already installed?

Flushing money is adding a hard wired tv system. 2-3 years outdated by the time you buy it. 5-6 years out dated by the time it is installed on the majority of the fleet. 3 Years later decade old tech, that is your number 1 delay drive. None of you would buy that for an airline you ran.

BTW, the seats that have LAA Avoid are by far the worst coach seat from both a comfort and reliability standpoint. They had to be replaced regardless.

UpNAWAy wrote:

BTW, the seats that have LAA Avoid are by far the worst coach seat from both a comfort and reliability standpoint. They had to be replaced regardless.

I think DL mostly uses the Collins Aerospace (formerly B/E Aerospace and Rockwell Collins) Pinnacle, which is also used on some UA aircraft (UA I think is a mix of Collins Aerospace and Recaro). Some 738s and the 763ERs have Safran (formerly Weber/Zodiac), and I think the A350s have Recaro.

The AA AVOD aircraft I think are Recaro.

I understand not wanting to feel left behind, but honestly, don’t most people these days have a device phone or otherwise, that can stream entertainment just fine? Sure, I love the map, but I’m ok without that (heck, you could give access to that on aainflight if you really wanted to). I question many of Parker’s decisions as much as the next guy, but this one seem to be a good way to save weight while minimizing disruption.

I would love IFE back! And for those about wifi streaming, last 2 trips on Delta either wifi didn’t work, or on one of the connections only half way in the air. On my last Southwest flights wifi did not work. On my last United flight it did not work. Funny only on American did it work most of the time.

they already have tablet holders on the aircraft, why not hand out an iPad to everyone who wants one right after takeoff. Make it free for first/main cabin extra and $$ for cattle class.

I'm sorry, but IFE is a total bonus IMO. From a customers perspective, it is nice to have the ability to watch shows, movies, live TV, and whatever else it can do. I would rather fly with IFE than use say my phone to pass the time.

Chapmads wrote:

I understand not wanting to feel left behind, but honestly, don’t most people these days have a device phone or otherwise, that can stream entertainment just fine? Sure, I love the map, but I’m ok without that (heck, you could give access to that on aainflight if you really wanted to). I question many of Parker’s decisions as much as the next guy, but this one seem to be a good way to save weight while minimizing disruption.

Most devices also aren't going to last more than two hours if you're lucky. What do you do on a 6-hour flight or a 10-hour flight.

AirKevin wrote:

Chapmads wrote:

I understand not wanting to feel left behind, but honestly, don’t most people these days have a device phone or otherwise, that can stream entertainment just fine? Sure, I love the map, but I’m ok without that (heck, you could give access to that on aainflight if you really wanted to). I question many of Parker’s decisions as much as the next guy, but this one seem to be a good way to save weight while minimizing disruption.

Most devices also aren't going to last more than two hours if you're lucky. What do you do on a 6-hour flight or a 10-hour flight.

Every seat has USB and Wall outlets with the Oasis/Kodiak refit so you would charge your device while watching. I'm a fan of IFE but at least they finally have power at every seat.