AA: 3-class A321s On JFK-LAX/SFO, PTVs

AeroWesty · Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:45 am

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 98):
Where will the employee providing commensurate service come from?

Interesting interview today at Frequent Business Traveler covers this topic.

Interview: Alice Liu Reveals American Airlines’ New Planes and Products

"JS: What will be the impact of the new aircraft on in-flight service?

AL: We work very closely with the Flight Service department [in developing our plans for the aircraft]. Over the years, I’ve learned that our flight attendants are eager to do a great job. Part of my responsibility is to give them the right tools and the right product to give so. I think that’s what we’re doing today and have been moving towards in the past couple of years. I think our product is something our Flight Attendants will be very proud to offer to our customers, especially since we’ll have the youngest fleet among the five legacy carriers at the end of our fleet renewal."

BMI727 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:54 am

Quoting carpethead (Reply 97):
The nerve of AA and the abuse of it.

American is using Chapter 11 exactly as it was intended.

SPREE34 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:55 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 100):

Interesting interview today at Frequent Business Traveler covers this topic.

Interview: Alice Liu Reveals American Airlines’ New Planes and Products

Interesting enough. I hope the FAs feel the way Alice claims.

Longhornmaniac · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:03 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 96):

Of course those are options. He was making a comment about connecting from international F to domestic F being a huge step down in product offering, and I was merely saying that just about anywhere you go if you're connecting from long haul F to short haul F, it's going to be a huge let down. It's not a problem unique to US airlines, or AA in particular. In fact, the legacies in Europe don't even offer a short haul F product. It's a Y seat with the middle blocked out. The soft product is still fine, but the seats are a joke.

I also think he missed the point that currently, these flights are operated by widebodies that already have a considerably different product offering from the standard domestic F found in the narrowbodies. You're not "squeezing down" onto a 738 or S80 on a transcon as it stands. And the transcons that do (IAD-LAX comes to mind), likely won't see these premium A321s (though I could be mistaken, I've been operating under the assumption that these are going to directly replace the 762 Flagship Service). In fact, the new product will be "squeezing down" onto a narrowbody, though this offering will be decidedly different from the product on the 319 or 737MAX.

Transcons have always been a different breed. If you're stepping off an AA transatlantic flight in F, and onto an AA transcon in F, it's still very clearly a premium product. The A321 isn't bringing anything new there (except a new product, which, of course, also would've been rolled out on the 762 had they not been in line for replacement).

Cheers,
Cameron

copa330200 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:04 am

Quoting commavia (Thread starter):
Premium transcons (JFK-LAX/SFO) will get 3-class A321s (F10J20W36Y36) beginning next winter.

as frequent flyer i just love this move ! finaly AA is taking care of the people who pays them . hopefully competition will take note and follow them

AAIL86 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:09 am

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 44):
Personally, I think AA should have gone the other way, and refit some of the 763s to offer Flagship transcon service.

That could have been a solution, but perhaps very risky one as well given market conditions. We all like the idea of domestic widebody service - but the reality is that the market is different then it was back in the 70s when that was more common. Since the 763 is considerably larger then the 762, its hard to see how they could operate a 763 subfleet without reducing frequency on most of these routes. This way AA offers the transcon customer a brand new aircraft with an exceptional interior and can maintain frequency.

Also this aircraft subfleet could potentially be used on other transcon routes like MIA-SFO/LAX / JFK-SAN/SEA / LAX-BOS/DCA/IAD etc ... something a refitted 763 could certainly not do profitably.

Smart decision by American, glad to see them moving ahead ....

allegiantflyer · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:23 am

Nice custom made 777 first class i like it! good idea for aa im not much of a fan for them but if they pull this off i will become the biggest AAdvantage member out there maybe! love the entertainment in economy

mogandoCI · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:42 am

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 103):
Of course those are options. He was making a comment about connecting from international F to domestic F being a huge step down in product offering, and I was merely saying that just about anywhere you go if you're connecting from long haul F to short haul F, it's going to be a huge let down. It's not a problem unique to US airlines, or AA in particular. In fact, the legacies in Europe don't even offer a short haul F product. It's a Y seat with the middle blocked out. The soft product is still fine, but the seats are a joke.

But isn't that true for Asia too ? CX doesn't offer intra-Asia F even on certain HKG-NRT frequencies, and SQ (the king of F) only does intra-Asia F on very select markets (HKG, NRT, ICN ... etc, and only certain frequencies) US domestic F maybe very mediocre, but still way better than intra-Euro-trash.

[Edited 2012-07-23 19:58:01]

infinit · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:51 am

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 34):
It's not needed, it's preferred. People, particularly on transcons like these, would much rather have the freedom of choice, and by flying more frequencies with smaller aircraft, they can provide more options at about the same (or even less) cost. A 777 is much more expensive to operate than an A321.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
Yes. Schedule flexibility is important on these routes due to many of the people taking these flights not working a set schedule (meetings, film/tv shoots, etc.).

I made the assumption that having fewer flights eg 6 wide bodies instead of 12 narrow bodies would be cheaper in terms of fuel and staff costs but admittedly I have no idea about fuel. Staff cost would definitely be less thoughl.
But in terms of passenger comfort, maybe its just me but I would go out of my way to take a wide body.

Maybe it really is a preference as Longhornmaniac suggested. For example, SIN to Kuala Lumpur is a 30 minute flight and among the busiest in the world. SQ uses wide bodies on it like their 330s and 777 with 3-4 daily flights whereas MH and MI and the LCCs use narrow bodies with more flights. From experience, SQ loads in J and Y are usually around 80% whereas MH and the LCCs are considerably lower. Not sure about MI. My point is that if they take 2-3 consecutive narrow body flights off the schedule and put one big bird in between, some will want that option simply because its a wide body.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 74):
Because people in the USA are under the faulty assumption that if they had to wait an additional 30 minutes until the next flight, they would die instantly. So, we're left with major gridlock at LGA / JFK / EWR where it often takes 1 hour just from pushback until wheels up.

Precisely! Would it make all that much of a difference if you flew at 10am instead of 9 or 11? And airports like LAX are among the busiest in the world. This is a bit of a stretch here but If the American carriers could take 30% of the flights out and replace the rest with some wide bodies, it'll definitely save the airlines and airports a lot of manpower

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 95):
This is always going to be the case, on any airline. Even the best airlines, SQ, CX and the like all have considerably different premium long haul products compared to their regional offerings. The difference with those carriers is they operate widebodies, which have more room to play with. Even still, most of them don't offer a proper F on their regional flights.

Not sure about CX, North Asian is alien to me. In Southeast Asia, SQ has axed F on most regional flights except Jakarta. For F on Jakarta, half of the fleet uses their new F which they use on long haul flights, the other half use the old F which is comparable to their new J on long haul flights- http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/flying-with-us/first-listing/
I like that SQ uses only wide bodies but I think I have established that I'm a small bird hater :P

[Edited 2012-07-23 20:05:36]

lightsaber · Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:08 am

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 4):
102 seats? On an A321? That seems ludicrous.

Yea. Why aren't they giving all the business to UA...

I flew lie flat LAX-DFW and I couldn't believe how much more rested I was than Y.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Well UA is also putting almost 30 lie-flats on its p.s. remodel.

Good for them. I doubt it is 1-1 though!

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):
those 762s are no longer economically viable aircraft.

Quoting carpethead (Reply 97):
All this while in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The nerve of AA and the abuse of it. Oh well.....
Different country, different methods.

Yea. How dare they aim for a profitable market. Look at ANA's international 787 configuration. Why do they cut seats? To increase the space for a better *more profitable* product. That doesn't work for all markets. Hence why we are only talking JFK-LAX/SFO.

If you were buying a premium ticket, would you rather be at the front of 200 people or mid-ship with a far smaller number? I'd pick the later. You?

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 99):
Keeping the business competitive is important to retaining value for the creditors.

I think AA could do a small number of additional city pairs (ORD-LGA, but not ORD-JFK, and a few high premium markets to DFW).

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 100):
Over the years, I’ve learned that our flight attendants are eager to do a great job.

In 2012, AA F/As have been EXCELLENT. I couldn't say that before the bankruptcy.

Lightsaber

atlflyer · Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:18 am

Quoting allegiantflyer (Reply 106):

Looks like there is absolutely no privacy in the International F seat. Not good IMO.

mogandoCI · Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:32 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 109):
I think AA could do a small number of additional city pairs (ORD-LGA, but not ORD-JFK, and a few high premium markets to DFW).

NYC-CHI is too short to justify this new A321 Transcon F seat ... you could count the paid demand in half a hand (if they have to charge to $2500 RT to justify the floor space used by the seat)

LAX-MIA should definitely qualify for this new plane

DocLightning · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:00 am

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1):
10 seats of lie-flat for domestic is probably one of the dumbest things I have heard recently...

Yeah, that doesn't compute for me, either. The West-to-East red-eye is often shorter than five hours. Between takeoff and landing, you would be lucky to grab four hours of shut-eye, and that assumes you can fall asleep on command right after takeoff and not get woken by any turbulence or whatnot. The East-to-West legs are the longer ones, but they are never overnights. Makes no sense to leave JFK at 11:30 PM and arrive at SFO in the wee hours of the morning.

Their J-class also looks like lie-flat (or almost) and seems much more appropriate for such a use.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
Passengers on that route are willing to pay for it.

I'm inclined to believe that anyone on that route willing to pay for it would rather go NetJets. I predict that AA is going to have trouble filling those ten seats with revenue customers.

Longhornmaniac · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:05 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 107):
But isn't that true for Asia too ?

That's precisely my point. Long haul F is a very different breed from short haul/regional F everywhere on the planet. I was responding to Wingtips56's apparent assertion that this is a problem unique to the US.

Quoting infinit (Reply 108):
some will want that option simply because its a wide body.

Sure, there are some that would use a widebody, including myself, either because they like the novelty of flying a widebody (and its perceived/real increase in available space), or because the product is better. But for 99% of people, if the product is the same, the equipment doesn't matter. Here we're going to have AA's A321s having the same F hard product as the 763's J. As long as they know they're the same seat/service, most of the flying public won't give a hoot (or even know the difference) between a 763 and an A321.

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 110):

Well it's not going to have a door, and I'll grant you that compared to other international F, there seems to be more contact with the aisle on AA's Flagship Suite, but it definitely doesn't lack privacy.

Cheers,
Cameron

FlyASAGuy2005 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:20 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 82):
I know Delta does actually carry a decent passenger share but at very reduced fares. DL and B6 sort of compete for the bottom traveler.

Average one-way fares will always be a bit skewed and RASM will always be in favor of UA/AA due to the fact that they offer more premium seats than DL. Delta's front J cabin only seats 16 vs. UA and AA's 3 class service. FWIW, Delta's RASM on the JFK-LAX/SFO flights has risen over the past couple years. But as Panamair pointed out, they're spreading 9.XX across a 757 with much more available seats while UA's 12.XX is on lower density 757s (premium heavy) and AA's 762s that aren't exactly economical in today's environment when their competition has transitioned to all narrowbodies.

The true winner here IMO is VX. Beating out AA to SFO and very close to UA/AA to LAX while using 320s...

Acey559 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:37 am

Quoting infinit (Reply 108):
Staff cost would definitely be less thoughl.

Not necessarily. Fewer flights of course means less crews needing to be paid, but with widebody crews they're considerably more compensated compared to most/all narrowbody crews. Not to mention if some of the current frequencies are with regional aircraft and crews that's a significant savings. I understand your argument but even with all the current frequency, flights are packed and people appreciate the convenience.

AeroWesty · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:40 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 112):
I'm inclined to believe that anyone on that route willing to pay for it would rather go NetJets. I predict that AA is going to have trouble filling those ten seats with revenue customers.

When a fairly down-to-earth friend was made a VP at a record co. in LA a few years back, she was always booked in J on trips to their NY office. When she became a Sr VP, she was booked in F. One day when she had the unmitigated gall to suggest that she was really just fine in an exit row seat in coach, the travel mgr. told her that it was company policy that it would be bad form for their executives to be seen riding in a class of service beneath their station in the company, and they'd continue booking her flights in F.

Will AA fill all 10 F seats on every flight? Doubtful. But I bet they'll be filling enough with paid fares that come about for whatever reason—connections to int'l flights, travel policies/contracts, people willing/able to pay, etc.—that it'll make it worthwhile to continue serving that sector of the flying public with an F cabin.

lightsaber · Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:03 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 111):
LAX-MIA should definitely qualify for this new plane

The reason I think ORD-LGA would work is that I've seen FULL front cabins every LAX-DFW when the 767 is rotated in with its lie flat seats. Ugh... I used to know exactly which flight too... I liked the 767, even in Y as it was an international configuration.

But hey, I'll probably be wrong. So LAX-MIA? Sure! I would think JFK-MIA too (if connecting further to South American flights).

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 116):
it'll make it worthwhile to continue serving that sector of the flying public with an F cabin.

Lightsaber

AAplat4life · Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:45 am

Could AA add LAX/LGA or do all flights from LA have to go into JFK?

mogandoCI · Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:47 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 117):
The reason I think ORD-LGA would work is that I've seen FULL front cabins every LAX-DFW when the 767 is rotated in with its lie flat seats. Ugh... I used to know exactly which flight too... I liked the 767, even in Y as it was an international configuration.

Or is it just a function of being elite heavy hub to hub ? One or two flights a day timed for DFW's international bank(s) might be strategically valuable, but to put LAXDFW flagship transcon style might be a tough nut to crack

even tougher nut for LGAORD since the only unique international dest from there that's not a major backtrack from nyc would be PEK/PVG.

qf002 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:08 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 117):

In my mind, it makes more sense for AA to just extend an international aircraft beyond MIA to JFK (and with other examples, ie LAX-DFW) than to start using these A321's on these shorter flights...

AeroWesty · Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:28 pm

Quoting AAplat4life (Reply 118):
Could AA add LAX/LGA or do all flights from LA have to go into JFK?

Due to the perimeter rule for LGA, LAX-LGA could only be flown on Saturdays. Flight lengths cannot exceed 1,500 miles on the other 6 days, DEN being an exception.

AA94 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:16 pm

Quoting carpethead (Reply 97):
All this while in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The nerve of AA and the abuse of it. Oh well.....

The point of Chapter 11 bankruptcy is to restructure the company's assets favorably, and with the oversight of a court, so that the company can come out of bankruptcy in a better position than it was before. The point of CH.11 isn't to throw in the towel and act dejected ... it's to show creditors that there is still value in your company.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 109):
Yea. How dare they aim for a profitable market. Look at ANA's international 787 configuration. Why do they cut seats? To increase the space for a better *more profitable* product. That doesn't work for all markets. Hence why we are only talking JFK-LAX/SFO.

Bobloblaw · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:42 pm

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 105):
[/

This product won't be used on routes other than
[quote=AAIL86,reply=105]Also this aircraft subfleet could potentially be used on other transcon routes like MIA-SFO/LAX / JFK-SAN/SEA / LAX-BOS/DCA/IAD etc ... something a refitted 763 could certainly not do profitably.

No it wont. You wont see the 3 class A321s on these routes. The type of premium traffic doesnt exist. Same reason UA limits PS to JFK and doesnt fly it out of IAD or BOS or even EWR. Also in EWR and IAD UA gets all the premium traffic anyways so why introduce PS to those markets? IT wount increase revenue and would only increase costs.

Bobloblaw · Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:46 pm

Flying the 3-Class A321s out of MIA or DFW would only increase costs and not increase revenue since AA gets all the premium traffic anyways

N62NA · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:09 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 111):

LAX-MIA should definitely qualify for this new plane

Well, we do have two of the 3 class 777s on the route at the moment (first time ever, at least as far as I can recall) and sometimes we have seen the 762 on this route (though not often) but I don't think we would see any kind of regular transcon-equipped A321s on this route.

* What I AM hoping for is a "dream routing" of one of the new 777-300s going GRU-MIA-LAX-NRT and back so we can get the 77W on MIA-LAX-MIA one day!

ozglobal · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:22 pm

Looks great. What an improvement for this airline from the half broken, 1980's style seats I had in so called "First Class" domestic a few years ago. I would seriously consider flying them with those cabins in J or F, if they can survive, that is. Then there's the poor jaded aging FA's, bitter about their 401K's that serve you. That will also require some investment

eagle125 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:25 pm

Here is a nice Q and A the Dallas Morning News put together...

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...-aircraft-on-transcon-routes.html/

I noticed throughout this announcement they did not mention the A320neo, saying they are going with the B738 over the A320 in the link posted above. Are they still planning on bringing it into the fleet (given it is still a few years away), or converting them to A319/A321?

atlflyer · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:34 pm

Anyone know why the domestic new configuration seats will be leather but long-haul domestic and international will be cloth?

mrskyguy · Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:35 pm

So who is supplying the IFE? It's either Panasonic or Thales, right? My money is on Thales.. but I haven't the first clue. IFE isn't my area of expertise.

Polot · Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:21 pm

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 128):
Anyone know why the domestic new configuration seats will be leather but long-haul domestic and international will be cloth?

That is actually fairly common. Leather, while more durable than cloth and has a more upscale look, is usually less comfortable when seating for hours at a time (you start to stick to it).

VC10er · Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:46 pm

Well as a UA GS flier, I hope Smisek takes this chance to one-up them! Or perhaps I switch!

Nothing like competition!

mogandoCI · Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:58 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 131):
Well as a UA GS flier, I hope Smisek takes this chance to one-up them! Or perhaps I switch!

Nothing like competition!

I'm curious to see how much of AA's existing F on their transcons are filled with comp upgrades for EXPs. If comp upgrades plus redemptions account for a large portion of the cabin, then i'm not so sure those few SAG actors would be enough to foot the bill for the rest of them (especially for a new plane that has amortization costs as large as the fuel savings).

And since AA's goal is to steal 3-class F pax from UA yet ceding them on most international routes that don't use the 77W, then international F connecting traffic definitely didn't play a role in the decision.

STT757 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:20 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 131):
Well as a UA GS flier, I hope Smisek takes this chance to one-up them! Or perhaps I switch!

Nothing like competition!

I can almost guarantee that their new 737-9MAX will take over from the PS 757s, however that will not be before 2017, until then they are updating the PS 757 interiors including new Businessfirst cabins and AVOD throughout.

laca773 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:04 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 116):

Will AA fill all 10 F seats on every flight? Doubtful. But I bet they'll be filling enough with paid fares that come about for whatever reason%u2014connections to int'l flights, travel policies/contracts, people willing/able to pay, etc.%u2014that it'll make it worthwhile to continue serving that sector of the flying public with an F cabin.

I think the P cabin should be brought down to 6-8 max, and in turn add another 4-8 J cabin seats.
SAG contracts are now for J cabin travel, not P. Perhaps those individuals can pay the difference and upgrade. This is one particular market where people will pay to sit in P.

BOS/PHL/EWR/IAD, are definitely more along the lines of F or C cabin for premium seats, not PJWY a/c. The only other markets I could see being able to sell P class seats is MIA-LAX, or perhaps, DCA-LAX/SFO, and I'm not clear how the premium demand is in this market.

ldvaviation · Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:05 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 132):
I'm curious to see how much of AA's existing F on their transcons are filled with comp upgrades for EXPs. If comp upgrades plus redemptions account for a large portion of the cabin, then i'm not so sure those few SAG actors would be enough to foot the bill for the rest of them (especially for a new plane that has amortization costs as large as the fuel savings).

I think it is fair to assume that AA did some research before deciding on this configuration.

And, while it is quite possible, that there are two extra F seats because of the space in the forward section of the A321, that's not necessarily a bad thing considering that even if AA fills the seats with a complimentary upgrade it is an upgrade from a J class fare.

Plus, given the upgrade scheme at AA, if you want to maximize revenue, it is better to have two extra F seats than two extra J seats.

gigneil · Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:33 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 112):
I'm inclined to believe that anyone on that route willing to pay for it would rather go NetJets. I predict that AA is going to have trouble filling those ten seats with revenue customers

Fortunately, we already know in advance you're wrong.

it's not like this is a new route.

NS

BMI727 · Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:48 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 112):
I'm inclined to believe that anyone on that route willing to pay for it would rather go NetJets. I predict that AA is going to have trouble filling those ten seats with revenue customers.

Who wouldn't rather go with NetJets? Unfortunately price can be an issue.

Actually that would be a great marketing slogan for NetJets: First Class: For when you want to spend some time with middle management.

Bobloblaw · Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:49 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 134):
The only other markets I could see being able to sell P class seats is MIA-LAX, or perhaps, DCA-LAX/SFO, and I'm not clear how the premium demand is in this market.

There maybe premium demand in these markets (not like JFK) but it is irrelevant. AA is already the #1 carrier by far on MIA-LAX, (DCA alone is a better marketing tool than a 4 class plane versus flying from IAD) so what exactly would be gained by having a 102 seat A321 on MIA-LAX??? You cant shift share from a competitor. There is no additional revenue to be earned from a 4 class A321 versus a regular 757 or 763 on MIA-LAX. Only a higher CASM.

People on A.net dont seem to understand the concept of UA's PS or AA's new A321. They are marketing products used to shift high yield share from a large competitor. In markets with low premium demand like PHL/BOS-LAX/SFO or where one carrier completely dominates (Like UA on IAD/EWR-LAX/SFO), a PS type product serves absolutely no purpose other than to raise costs. There is no revenue premium to be gained. Period, end of story. There are exactly TWO markets where this works. JFK-LAX and to a lesser extent JFK-SFO. That is IT. Anywhere else is a bad financial move.

gigneil · Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:05 am

Quoting eagle125 (Reply 127):
I noticed throughout this announcement they did not mention the A320neo, saying they are going with the B738 over the A320 in the link posted above. Are they still planning on bringing it into the fleet (given it is still a few years away), or converting them to A319/A321?

The 320NEO is one thing.... and they haven't been discussing what the breakouts of either them or the MAX will be.

But I could have told you there'd only be 321s and 319s of the OEO variety. The 320 and 738 are too close to the same size.

American will operate the optimal aircraft in each size class of the current gen.

NS

qf002 · Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:06 am

Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 129):
So who is supplying the IFE? It's either Panasonic or Thales, right? My money is on Thales.. but I haven't the first clue. IFE isn't my area of expertise.

Panasonic (thank God...)

tonytifao · Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:12 am

Did I read right that AA has a total of 119 A321s on order?

mrskyguy · Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:26 pm

Quoting tonytifao (Reply 141):

120 split between A319s and A320s. Exact makeup unknown.. keeps changing.

ckfred · Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:46 pm

Quoting AA94 (Reply 70):
No word on the existing 738s. I've reached out to AA, but the way the press release reads, I'd say that they won't be retrofitting existing 738 interiors, which seems to leave quite the large disparity in terms of product.

I'm guessing that they won't retrofit the 757s. The press release makes no mention either way, but considering they're the aircraft that are going to be phased out and replaced, I don't see AA throwing a lot of money into them.

EDIT: Just received confirmation from AA that they don't have plans to retrofit existing 737s or 757s with PTVs.

Wouldn't you figure that they would get the retrofit, when they go in for a C-Check? If you strip the cabin bare, then you can just as easily put in the PTV system. Otherwise, you have to deal with putting 737s without PTV on shorter routes (presumably passengers can deal with 1 or 2 hours without PTV) while putting the 737s with PTVs on longer routes, such as ORD-West Coast. That gets to be a scheduling headache.

blink182 · Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:13 pm

Quoting ckfred (Reply 143):
Wouldn't you figure that they would get the retrofit, when they go in for a C-Check? If you strip the cabin bare, then you can just as easily put in the PTV system. Otherwise, you have to deal with putting 737s without PTV on shorter routes (presumably passengers can deal with 1 or 2 hours without PTV) while putting the 737s with PTVs on longer routes, such as ORD-West Coast. That gets to be a scheduling headache.

For that matter, AA is continuously taking 738 deliveries. Does anybody know when the first aircraft will be delivered with that interior? If I were in AA's shoes, the sooner the better, no?

laca773 · Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:15 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 138):
There maybe premium demand in these markets (not like JFK) but it is irrelevant. AA is already the #1 carrier by far on MIA-LAX, (DCA alone is a better marketing tool than a 4 class plane versus flying from IAD) so what exactly would be gained by having a 102 seat A321 on MIA-LAX??? You cant shift share from a competitor. There is no additional revenue to be earned from a 4 class A321 versus a regular 757 or 763 on MIA-LAX. Only a higher CASM.

Gee! I don't think the majority in this thread need to be enlightened about this!!. It's a given! Perhaps an OC thing?

N62NA · Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:21 pm

Quoting ckfred (Reply 143):
you have to deal with putting 737s without PTV on shorter routes (presumably passengers can deal with 1 or 2 hours without PTV) while putting the 737s with PTVs on longer routes, such as ORD-West Coast. That gets to be a scheduling headache.

But AA (or any other USA airline) really doesn't care enough to do that. So you'll get a 738 without PTV on MIA-LAX one day and then the very next day on the same flight, you'll get a 738 with PTV.

gigneil · Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting mrskyguy (Reply 142):
120 split between A319s and A320s. Exact makeup unknown.. keeps changing.

There are no A320s on order at all, and never were. Split between A319s and A321s.

NS

STT757 · Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:21 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 147):
There are no A320s on order at all, and never were. Split between A319s and A321s.

Correct, they have the 738 and 737-8 MAX on order to fit between the A319s and A321s.

Josh32121 · Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:07 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 134):
I think the P cabin should be brought down to 6-8 max, and in turn add another 4-8 J cabin seats.
SAG contracts are now for J cabin travel, not P. Perhaps those individuals can pay the difference and upgrade. This is one particular market where people will pay to sit in P.

I doubt that would be feasible with the door configuration on the A321's. I'm guessing P will be between doors 1 and 2, J between doors 2 and 3, and W/Y between doors 3 and 4. Because of the interlaced layout of the seats, I don't think you could just substitute a row of P for a row of J. Regardless, I do agree that it's an awfully premium-dense layout. I just find it bizarre that the definition of "first class" in these entertainment contracts that everyone uses to justify having first at all is so specific that UA's BusinessFirst and DL's BusinessElite would not qualify. Both of those products and AA's own business class are comparable (if not superior to) AA's P on the 767-200 transcons flown now, right? If I were writing the contracts, I would specify a particular seat size, pitch, meal service, etc. What the airline calls it seems irrelevant.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net