TWFlyGuy wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

#3 in what objective metric?

Market Cap, Margin, Return to Shareholders...three of the most important. Shareholders only care about ASMs if you tell them you're not going to keep in line with growth (or contraction) that will maintain their returns.

Hate to tell you but AA isn't #3 and Delta isn't #1 on many of those metrics. They're worse. Then is Allegiant or Spirit #1? They have the highest margins


Yesterday is was all about "winning" which no one objectively defined. Now it is all about #1, which again no one can define

Austin787 wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

PRAirbus wrote:

AA might have proved too big and too complex for the ex-America West/USAirways team to handle. Seems they underestimated AA's complexity and toxic labor relationships. Parker's team has yet to decide what they want "the post merger AA" to be...looks like they want to turn AA into a hybrid airline; domestic with the exception of A321T markets into a LCC; removing onboard amenities; taking away individual IFE; unsure about Basic Economy. On the international front, AA should retire all 767s from longhaul; I am aware they announced a 788/789 order however markets like PHL-BUD/AMS/LIS/PRG; MIA-MXP/COR/LIM/GYE continue on 767s; they are an operational nightmare...creeping delays; mega dated interiors, plenty of deferred cabin issues like no audio, no reading lights...and yet AA insists on launching new routes on such an inferior plane. That could not help establish a good reputation or strong brand. The frequent MIA-PHL-MIA 767 runs are often delayed due to mechanicals. How could AA compete with Air Italy's A330 on MIA-MXP? the 767 will come back to MIA-MXP in the Fall...bad, bad, bad. Last year they rushed to launch frontline uniforms from a vendor that had a questionable history. Sadly, the AA uniform mess is out of control, workers wearing anything they want; legacy US old uniforms, AA old uniforms, it's a mix and match hodge podge and the Land's End future collection will take another year to arrive. Next year, AA will have FA and Pilots negotiations...oh boy, good luck to all!

Your first couple of sentences almost make me think it is similar to what United went through. It's like Smisek the sequel

I think it's clear Parker and his team want AA to be the world's largest ULCC - basically Spirit Airlines with long haul international routes. They are doing this by aggressive cost cutting and taking advantage of markets with no competition.

Sorry, I don't agree with calling Parker the next Smisek, as that would be an insult to Smisek.

Funny because AA brought back snacks before UA did and AA
is joining DL in allowing basic economy access to the overhead bins, has UA changed their policy on not allowing basic economy access to overhead bins?

Austin787 wrote:

Sorry, I don't agree with calling Parker the next Smisek, as that would be an insult to Smisek.

Ouch!

Bobloblaw wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

#3 in what objective metric?

Market Cap, Margin, Return to Shareholders...three of the most important. Shareholders only care about ASMs if you tell them you're not going to keep in line with growth (or contraction) that will maintain their returns.

Hate to tell you but AA isn't #3 and Delta isn't #1 on many of those metrics. They're worse. Then is Allegiant or Spirit #1? They have the highest margins


Yesterday is was all about "winning" which no one objectively defined. Now it is all about #1, which again no one can define

If you read the article, it clearly states that analysts are putting them in their peer group of which there are 3. AA, DL & UA. Of those three, AA is not #1 in those metrics. There's a reason analysts do this...it's to objectively define the performance of a company for a shareholder to determine if the return they are getting is appropriate. The reason you don't hold AA/DL/UA against Spirit or Allegiant, or even Southwest for that matter is that their networks are vastly different which in turn drives their revenue, cost and subsequent margin performance. They do this in every industry. You don't compare Walmart with Family Dollar. They're both retailers in brick & mortar spaces but they have vastly different models that drive their individual performance. You don't compare Bank of America with PNC because BofA has a vast global network that drives performance which PNC doesn't.

Does that help explain why when they say #3 and that DL is #1 it's an objective way of comparing?

TWFlyGuy wrote:

PRAirbus wrote:

AA might have proved too big and too complex for the ex-America West/USAirways team to handle. Seems they underestimated AA's complexity and toxic labor relationships. Parker's team has yet to decide what they want "the post merger AA" to be...looks like they want to turn AA into a hybrid airline; domestic with the exception of A321T markets into a LCC; removing onboard amenities; taking away individual IFE; unsure about Basic Economy. On the international front, AA should retire all 767s from longhaul; I am aware they announced a 788/789 order however markets like PHL-BUD/AMS/LIS/PRG; MIA-MXP/COR/LIM/GYE continue on 767s; they are an operational nightmare...creeping delays; mega dated interiors, plenty of deferred cabin issues like no audio, no reading lights...and yet AA insists on launching new routes on such an inferior plane. That could not help establish a good reputation or strong brand. The frequent MIA-PHL-MIA 767 runs are often delayed due to mechanicals. How could AA compete with Air Italy's A330 on MIA-MXP? the 767 will come back to MIA-MXP in the Fall...bad, bad, bad. Last year they rushed to launch frontline uniforms from a vendor that had a questionable history. Sadly, the AA uniform mess is out of control, workers wearing anything they want; legacy US old uniforms, AA old uniforms, it's a mix and match hodge podge and the Land's End future collection will take another year to arrive. Next year, AA will have FA and Pilots negotiations...oh boy, good luck to all!

Serious question. Delta still has a number of 767's. I in no way believe they have a superior maintenance program. AA might be going on the cheap for interiors but I can't imagine Delta is physically maintaining the mechanical aspect of their 767's. As a result they should theoretically have the same reliability issues. I don't believe that is the case so what gives?

For the other issues, I totally agree. I think the move to compete more with DL/UA on basic economy was an admission that their analysis was off. I would also question if it was objectively performed. Did they go in looking for what works best for AA's customer base or did they go in saying what's the bare minimum we can do as a carrier???

The 767 fleet at DL is spectacular compared to AA. The entire cabin retrofits, IFE etc.... I try to book some JFK legs on DL specifically to get on the 763, they feel new. And it’s been about a decade since they aggressively made these birds refreshed. AA 763 don’t get me started. What a pile. Old outdated dingy cabin from late 90’s early 2000’s. No personal IFE, broken seats, stale yellowed overheads panels and horrible yellow tube lighting. The business and first is a pathetic excuse for premium cabin. I’ve flown some 3rd world Airlines that make some of the AA fleet look like an agricultural animal hauler. What an embarrassment for one of the top global legacy carriers. It must be a OneWorld thing because CX and BA aren’t to far behind in ruining an iconic brand with LCC/ULCC experience to boot.

nine4nine wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

PRAirbus wrote:

AA might have proved too big and too complex for the ex-America West/USAirways team to handle. Seems they underestimated AA's complexity and toxic labor relationships. Parker's team has yet to decide what they want "the post merger AA" to be...looks like they want to turn AA into a hybrid airline; domestic with the exception of A321T markets into a LCC; removing onboard amenities; taking away individual IFE; unsure about Basic Economy. On the international front, AA should retire all 767s from longhaul; I am aware they announced a 788/789 order however markets like PHL-BUD/AMS/LIS/PRG; MIA-MXP/COR/LIM/GYE continue on 767s; they are an operational nightmare...creeping delays; mega dated interiors, plenty of deferred cabin issues like no audio, no reading lights...and yet AA insists on launching new routes on such an inferior plane. That could not help establish a good reputation or strong brand. The frequent MIA-PHL-MIA 767 runs are often delayed due to mechanicals. How could AA compete with Air Italy's A330 on MIA-MXP? the 767 will come back to MIA-MXP in the Fall...bad, bad, bad. Last year they rushed to launch frontline uniforms from a vendor that had a questionable history. Sadly, the AA uniform mess is out of control, workers wearing anything they want; legacy US old uniforms, AA old uniforms, it's a mix and match hodge podge and the Land's End future collection will take another year to arrive. Next year, AA will have FA and Pilots negotiations...oh boy, good luck to all!

Serious question. Delta still has a number of 767's. I in no way believe they have a superior maintenance program. AA might be going on the cheap for interiors but I can't imagine Delta is physically maintaining the mechanical aspect of their 767's. As a result they should theoretically have the same reliability issues. I don't believe that is the case so what gives?

For the other issues, I totally agree. I think the move to compete more with DL/UA on basic economy was an admission that their analysis was off. I would also question if it was objectively performed. Did they go in looking for what works best for AA's customer base or did they go in saying what's the bare minimum we can do as a carrier???

The 767 fleet at DL is spectacular compared to AA. The entire cabin retrofits, IFE etc.... I try to book some JFK legs on DL specifically to get on the 763, they feel new. And it’s been about a decade since they aggressively made these birds refreshed. AA 763 don’t get me started. What a pile. Old outdated dingy cabin from late 90’s early 2000’s. No personal IFE, broken seats, stale yellowed overheads panels and horrible yellow tube lighting. The business and first is a pathetic excuse for premium cabin. I’ve flown some 3rd world Airlines that make some of the AA fleet look like an agricultural animal hauler. What an embarrassment for one of the top global legacy carriers. It must be a OneWorld thing because CX and BA aren’t to far behind in ruining an iconic brand with LCC/ULCC experience to boot.

Aa business class at least in terms of hard product is actually pretty good. The only ones that are subpar are the 767s. Thankfully, they are taking those out of jfk.

And yes, I have flown j on various airlines.

And their lounge experience is the best at least in jfk.

vadodara wrote:

It is a case of AA (actually US Air) trying to emulate the UA (CO) and DL (NW) mergers too late. As others have said, both UA and DL gained complementary advantages. AA/US Air brought no such advantage, but AA was forced to divest slots. This has enabled DL to dominate both at NYC airports and DCA.

Essentially at NY, LA, AA plays #3 while is not so strong #2 at Chicago. Its initial advantage to South America is gradually whittled away as well. Other than to LHR (in large part to BA), AA does not dominate any sector meaningfully.

I disagree with a few of your statements.
1) DL in no way dominates DCA. They certainly have a strong presence there, but AA is the airline that dominates DCA with well over half of the slots there.
2) AA is actually the leading airline at LAX in terms of departures, destinations, and I'm guessing overall seats. And I'd say they're a strong #2 in Chicago, although more on the domestic side than the international side. You're correct about them being 3rd fiddle in NYC these days.
3) I'd say AA objectively still dominates South America (especially given that they are also partners with LATAM). Look at the number of destinations served, the frequencies, the aircraft gauge...

nine4nine wrote:

I’ve flown some 3rd world Airlines that make some of the AA fleet look like an agricultural animal hauler.

This had me chuckling out loud.

I still can't believe they're going to fly those 767s until 2020 with no planned update beyond wifi (with no in seat power adapters in the back). Amazing they're able to fill those planes at all. I'd go out of my way to avoid those if they were an option.

Bobloblaw wrote:

Funny because AA brought back snacks before UA did and AA
is joining DL in allowing basic economy access to the overhead bins, has UA changed their policy on not allowing basic economy access to overhead bins?

Actually, UA brought back snacks before AA did. UA announced in December 2015, with full rollout in February 2016. AA announced in February 2016 with full rollout in April that year.

Bobloblaw wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

#3 in what objective metric?

Market Cap, Margin, Return to Shareholders...three of the most important. Shareholders only care about ASMs if you tell them you're not going to keep in line with growth (or contraction) that will maintain their returns.

Hate to tell you but AA isn't #3 and Delta isn't #1 on many of those metrics. They're worse. Then is Allegiant or Spirit #1? They have the highest margins


Yesterday is was all about "winning" which no one objectively defined. Now it is all about #1, which again no one can define

The entire premise of the thread and the analyst question that spurred the Forbes article is discussing the position of the US3 relative to each other, and Delta does indeed handily beat AA in all three of the metrics mentioned: Market Cap (DL: $38.4B, AA: $18.57B), Margin (DL: 13.8%, AA:6.6%), Return to Shareholders (DL: $0.35 ps, AA: $0.10 ps).

vadodara wrote:

It is a case of AA (actually US Air) trying to emulate the UA (CO) and DL (NW) mergers too late. As others have said, both UA and DL gained complementary advantages. AA/US Air brought no such advantage, but AA was forced to divest slots. This has enabled DL to dominate both at NYC airports and DCA.

Essentially at NY, LA, AA plays #3 while is not so strong #2 at Chicago. Its initial advantage to South America is gradually whittled away as well. Other than to LHR (in large part to BA), AA does not dominate any sector meaningfully.

AA is the clear market leader in DCA, they carry half of all passengers at DCA and are more than 3 times larger than DL there, even WN has more DCA market share. There certainly were complementary advantages in the AA/US merger, the US network was substantially stronger in the southeast and into the mid-Atlantic, and the AA network brought in midwest, latin american, and Asia service that was weak or nonexistent in the US system.

http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... report.pdf

OB1504 wrote:

Because the alternative of putting employees in danger is preferable?

There's being proactive, and there's leaning so far forward, that you fall on your face...AA does the latter with regards to DFW...nice try though.

Ziyulu wrote:

My previous post was deleted, but here was what I said. I don't understand why my post was against the terms of conditions. I'm just stating what happened in real life. What's up with the moderators?

I flew the three airlines recently and DL was the best and AA was the worst. Here's why:

On a three hour flight, here's what I got from each airline.

DL: choice of snacks
UA: pretzels
AA: no snacks

Oh yes, those delicious GMO riddled, splinter your DNA one gash at a time snacks. Cool!

vadodara wrote:

It is a case of AA (actually US Air) trying to emulate the UA (CO) and DL (NW) mergers too late. As others have said, both UA and DL gained complementary advantages. AA/US Air brought no such advantage, but AA was forced to divest slots. This has enabled DL to dominate both at NYC airports and DCA.

Essentially at NY, LA, AA plays #3 while is not so strong #2 at Chicago. Its initial advantage to South America is gradually whittled away as well. Other than to LHR (in large part to BA), AA does not dominate any sector meaningfully.

DL does not dominate DCA. Where are you getting that from??
AA is #1 at LAX, not even close to #3
check your facts.

klakzky123 wrote:

I still can't believe they're going to fly those 767s until 2020 with no planned update beyond wifi (with no in seat power adapters in the back). Amazing they're able to fill those planes at all. I'd go out of my way to avoid those if they were an option.

I DO go out of my way to avoid the 767 fleet even if it means taking LA which is absolutely awful from a customer service perspective if you have any kind of service interruption. As an AA EXP / OW Emerald, my status meant nothing to them when trying to resolve operational issues on multiple occasions. Yet still, avoid the AA 767, just as I did the AA A300 in their final days as hangar queens.

WkndWanderer wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

Market Cap, Margin, Return to Shareholders...three of the most important. Shareholders only care about ASMs if you tell them you're not going to keep in line with growth (or contraction) that will maintain their returns.

Hate to tell you but AA isn't #3 and Delta isn't #1 on many of those metrics. They're worse. Then is Allegiant or Spirit #1? They have the highest margins


Yesterday is was all about "winning" which no one objectively defined. Now it is all about #1, which again no one can define

The entire premise of the thread and the analyst question that spurred the Forbes article is discussing the position of the US3 relative to each other, and Delta does indeed handily beat AA in all three of the metrics mentioned: Market Cap (DL: $38.4B, AA: $18.57B), Margin (DL: 13.8%, AA:6.6%), Return to Shareholders (DL: $0.35 ps, AA: $0.10 ps).

But I can invest in any carrier not just the three big legacies.

tphuang wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

TWFlyGuy wrote:

Serious question. Delta still has a number of 767's. I in no way believe they have a superior maintenance program. AA might be going on the cheap for interiors but I can't imagine Delta is physically maintaining the mechanical aspect of their 767's. As a result they should theoretically have the same reliability issues. I don't believe that is the case so what gives?

For the other issues, I totally agree. I think the move to compete more with DL/UA on basic economy was an admission that their analysis was off. I would also question if it was objectively performed. Did they go in looking for what works best for AA's customer base or did they go in saying what's the bare minimum we can do as a carrier???

The 767 fleet at DL is spectacular compared to AA. The entire cabin retrofits, IFE etc.... I try to book some JFK legs on DL specifically to get on the 763, they feel new. And it’s been about a decade since they aggressively made these birds refreshed. AA 763 don’t get me started. What a pile. Old outdated dingy cabin from late 90’s early 2000’s. No personal IFE, broken seats, stale yellowed overheads panels and horrible yellow tube lighting. The business and first is a pathetic excuse for premium cabin. I’ve flown some 3rd world Airlines that make some of the AA fleet look like an agricultural animal hauler. What an embarrassment for one of the top global legacy carriers. It must be a OneWorld thing because CX and BA aren’t to far behind in ruining an iconic brand with LCC/ULCC experience to boot.

Aa business class at least in terms of hard product is actually pretty good. The only ones that are subpar are the 767s. Thankfully, they are taking those out of jfk.

And yes, I have flown j on various airlines.

And their lounge experience is the best at least in jfk.

Unfortunately, neither of you answered the question I was asking. It was stated in previous posts that the 767 presents significant dispatch reliability issues. That has to do with maintenance, not pretty cabins. DL seems to not have as much of a problem with this. Why is that?

soflaflyer wrote:

vadodara wrote:

It is a case of AA (actually US Air) trying to emulate the UA (CO) and DL (NW) mergers too late. As others have said, both UA and DL gained complementary advantages. AA/US Air brought no such advantage, but AA was forced to divest slots. This has enabled DL to dominate both at NYC airports and DCA.

Essentially at NY, LA, AA plays #3 while is not so strong #2 at Chicago. Its initial advantage to South America is gradually whittled away as well. Other than to LHR (in large part to BA), AA does not dominate any sector meaningfully.

DL does not dominate DCA. Where are you getting that from??
AA is #1 at LAX, not even close to #3
check your facts.

DL basically pulled out of DCA (except to hubs and key destinations) when it traded slots with US. DL gained supremacy at LGA and US secured supremacy at DCA.

While the post may have merit as had been discussed above, please don't confuse Forbes online contributors for the "respected" print publication. Online contributors/blog posts are open to anyone to submit.

airzim wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

fbgdavidson wrote:

Ha! Polaris has been possibly the slowest rollout (both lounges and seat) since Lufthansa put a new business product in. It's only started to really gain any traction this year but the 777-200s only have 3/55 completed. Only twelve aircraft have been refitted since Polaris was launched in 2016!

The fact they marketed Polaris so heavily and just chose to rename the old business product as "Polaris Business Class" is hugely deceptive, IMO.

When you compare the Polaris rollout to the DL Delta One Suites rollout, it is incredibly sad. And that doesn't even include the slow rollout of Polaris lounges.

Not really sad, continual mis-perception.

DL has only provided D1 suites on the A350s coming right from the factory and only just started installing on the 777 fleet which won't be done until the end of 2019. That's 11 A350s delivered so far, with 32 seats for an ultimate total of 25 frames, and ultimately 18 777s. Not sure how many 777 are re-fitted yet. But will have 37 seats. Seats are basically a modification of an existing seat, but with added doors.

Announced D1 August 2016. First A350 flight with D1 was Oct 2017. So by August 2018, (assuming all 777s have been retrofitted--which isn't true) that's 29 planes and 1018 seats two years after their announcement. Also, no special business class lounges at Delta.

United has 17 77W delivered new from the factory 17 planes (+1 in Q4), 5 772 with Polaris and 2 or 3 possibly due in the next 30 days. 9 767-300 have Polaris, with 2 more coming in the next 30 days. That's 17 77Ws with 60 seats, 9 767s with 30 seats, 7 777s with 50 seats. Polaris seats are a new custom design.

Announced Polaris June 2016. February 2017 was the first flight. 31 planes and 1,640 seats retrofitted by August 2018. New Polaris lounges in SFO, IAH, EWR, and ORD.

I was generous to Delta, and conservative for United. United has delivered more planes, more seats, and more lounges over a similar duration.

But your missing one crucial aspect. United is advertising Polaris as a system wide experience with all the fanfare of an entire rebranding when in reality it hasn't been. The D1 suites have only been advertised on what aircraft they are already available on, the A350 and now 777. The D1 experience has been consistent since it's launch. Only United has had to put an * on it's own booking page to warn people what they are advertising won't actually be offered.

Bobloblaw wrote:

WkndWanderer wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Hate to tell you but AA isn't #3 and Delta isn't #1 on many of those metrics. They're worse. Then is Allegiant or Spirit #1? They have the highest margins


Yesterday is was all about "winning" which no one objectively defined. Now it is all about #1, which again no one can define

The entire premise of the thread and the analyst question that spurred the Forbes article is discussing the position of the US3 relative to each other, and Delta does indeed handily beat AA in all three of the metrics mentioned: Market Cap (DL: $38.4B, AA: $18.57B), Margin (DL: 13.8%, AA:6.6%), Return to Shareholders (DL: $0.35 ps, AA: $0.10 ps).

But I can invest in any carrier not just the three big legacies.

So go start a thread where you compare everyone elsewhere. This thread is comparing the US3.

twicearound wrote:

airzim wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

When you compare the Polaris rollout to the DL Delta One Suites rollout, it is incredibly sad. And that doesn't even include the slow rollout of Polaris lounges.

Not really sad, continual mis-perception.

DL has only provided D1 suites on the A350s coming right from the factory and only just started installing on the 777 fleet which won't be done until the end of 2019. That's 11 A350s delivered so far, with 32 seats for an ultimate total of 25 frames, and ultimately 18 777s. Not sure how many 777 are re-fitted yet. But will have 37 seats. Seats are basically a modification of an existing seat, but with added doors.

Announced D1 August 2016. First A350 flight with D1 was Oct 2017. So by August 2018, (assuming all 777s have been retrofitted--which isn't true) that's 29 planes and 1018 seats two years after their announcement. Also, no special business class lounges at Delta.

United has 17 77W delivered new from the factory 17 planes (+1 in Q4), 5 772 with Polaris and 2 or 3 possibly due in the next 30 days. 9 767-300 have Polaris, with 2 more coming in the next 30 days. That's 17 77Ws with 60 seats, 9 767s with 30 seats, 7 777s with 50 seats. Polaris seats are a new custom design.

Announced Polaris June 2016. February 2017 was the first flight. 31 planes and 1,640 seats retrofitted by August 2018. New Polaris lounges in SFO, IAH, EWR, and ORD.

I was generous to Delta, and conservative for United. United has delivered more planes, more seats, and more lounges over a similar duration.

But your missing one crucial aspect. United is advertising Polaris as a system wide experience with all the fanfare of an entire rebranding when in reality it hasn't been. The D1 suites have only been advertised on what aircraft they are already available on, the A350 and now 777. The D1 experience has been consistent since it's launch. Only United has had to put an * on it's own booking page to warn people what they are advertising won't actually be offered.

Again, a misconception of reality.

Delta advertises their business class as DeltaOne, regardless of the seat type. New name, new bedding, improved food, etc. How is that different from United, except not having a new lounge dedicated for D1.

https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... class.html

Did UA slow down the roll out of the new seat. Yes. Did they fail to build out the Polaris lounges quick enough. Yes. But that's not that dissimilar from Delta's rollout.

I wish I flew enough to fly all 3 enough to opine on all 3. But I’m virtually always on United. Yes, Polaris felt painfully slow, but now it feels truly well underway- even if you get the old J seat, the Polaris Lounge experience is so good- the seat is fine. If you’ve been on the UA 77W and 763 with Polaris mixed with the old seat, the Polaris experience is now coming in line with its promotion.
People have short memories- in 3/5 years nobody will be thinking about the premature Polaris ads etc.
I do think the number 1, 2 and 3 place should also be cut by customer segmentation. The international business travelers and those who can afford Polaris to Asia, South America and Europe vs Delta and American. Delta and United built Premium Sub-Brands but I’m not sure AA has.
Then there are a much, much larger segment: those who fly in Economy or Premium Economy.
I “think” Premium fliers, big spenders aren’t heard from as often as the much larger “coach” fliers. It would stand to reason that every airline does a better job taking care of their elites and not the masses.
That dynamic needs to be squared with financial performance because we all know that paid J is where the money is. Could United grab top spot by having so many J seats on a WB vs DL or AA? Or will having 50 J on a 772 actually water down the Premium experience?
For me: it seems Delta absolutely is the emotional #1 with the best brand heat, but United has the headroom to grow their emotional position and brand heat with consumers. So, I do think AA has more to fear from UA than DL.
Just my opinion.

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

Why would they, when their CEO says they wont lose money ever again™

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

AA is offering a profit sharing deal.

But AA still has problem in integrating its labour forces (groups) because AA is late in the merge cycle. By meaning of merge cycle, AA is behind UA/CO and DL/NW in terms of merging progress. UA/CO and DL/NW have solved its labour groups issue as they completed their mergers earlier than AA/US.

I am sure AA management would love to solve all the problems at once. But they still have many important things to deal with (union labour contracts which is awaiting for renewal). Then we might see the debt issue to be addressed. One thing by one thing I think they will get there. But it takes time and prioritise the tasks. Obviously AA management do not think debt is an issue, or maybe they want to take advantage of the debt issue. Either way we need one more year to see things through.

VC10er wrote:

I wish I flew enough to fly all 3 enough to opine on all 3. But I’m virtually always on United. Yes, Polaris felt painfully slow, but now it feels truly well underway- even if you get the old J seat, the Polaris Lounge experience is so good- the seat is fine. If you’ve been on the UA 77W and 763 with Polaris mixed with the old seat, the Polaris experience is now coming in line with its promotion.
People have short memories- in 3/5 years nobody will be thinking about the premature Polaris ads etc.
I do think the number 1, 2 and 3 place should also be cut by customer segmentation. The international business travelers and those who can afford Polaris to Asia, South America and Europe vs Delta and American. Delta and United built Premium Sub-Brands but I’m not sure AA has.
Then there are a much, much larger segment: those who fly in Economy or Premium Economy.
I “think” Premium fliers, big spenders aren’t heard from as often as the much larger “coach” fliers. It would stand to reason that every airline does a better job taking care of their elites and not the masses.
That dynamic needs to be squared with financial performance because we all know that paid J is where the money is. Could United grab top spot by having so many J seats on a WB vs DL or AA? Or will having 50 J on a 772 actually water down the Premium experience?
For me: it seems Delta absolutely is the emotional #1 with the best brand heat, but United has the headroom to grow their emotional position and brand heat with consumers. So, I do think AA has more to fear from UA than DL.
Just my opinion.

In AA, it is called Flagship. Although at this moment it is exclusively used on First class only. But I think slowly this name will be expanded to its intercontinental business class as well.

In Boston they're quite happy to languish behind their betters, B6 and DL.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

The 767 fleet at DL is spectacular compared to AA. The entire cabin retrofits, IFE etc.... I try to book some JFK legs on DL specifically to get on the 763, they feel new. And it’s been about a decade since they aggressively made these birds refreshed. AA 763 don’t get me started. What a pile. Old outdated dingy cabin from late 90’s early 2000’s. No personal IFE, broken seats, stale yellowed overheads panels and horrible yellow tube lighting. The business and first is a pathetic excuse for premium cabin. I’ve flown some 3rd world Airlines that make some of the AA fleet look like an agricultural animal hauler. What an embarrassment for one of the top global legacy carriers. It must be a OneWorld thing because CX and BA aren’t to far behind in ruining an iconic brand with LCC/ULCC experience to boot.

Aa business class at least in terms of hard product is actually pretty good. The only ones that are subpar are the 767s. Thankfully, they are taking those out of jfk.

And yes, I have flown j on various airlines.

And their lounge experience is the best at least in jfk.

Unfortunately, neither of you answered the question I was asking. It was stated in previous posts that the 767 presents significant dispatch reliability issues. That has to do with maintenance, not pretty cabins. DL seems to not have as much of a problem with this. Why is that?

Delta maintains their aircraft very well. They have numerous years of experience maintaining older aircraft. It’s not the age...it’s how you take care of it

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

They did just raise wages for a significant portion of the workforce even though negotiations were not open. Unless you know the compensation rates, benefits, perquisites and work rules of each airline, discussing one component such as profit sharing in isolation is not worthwhile.

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

No, I think it’s a case of certain things taking time.
Having the largest fleet and the most flights per day if any airline, not to mention most employees, means certain things move slowly. Add to that there’s still some merger pains to work through and this is what you end up with.
The debt situation isn’t good of course but that is to be expected I’d say if you renew your fleet so aggressively. High fuel makes for immediate financial issues but over a longer period the benefits of having newer aircraft should pay off as competitors will at some stage need to make similar large orders.

Lots of negativity around AA but as with the reviews on the internet negative thoughts get shared significantly more than positive ones.

chonetsao wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

AA is offering a profit sharing deal.

Let's be clear here: AA profit sharing is pathetic compared to DL's. DL paid out $1.1 billion to their 88,000 employees in 2017, which I believe equated to something to the tune of 10-12% of the average employee's salary. AA paid out $241 million over the same time period to nearly 130,000 employees, which I've heard for the average employee was about 3% of their salary. Not even worth comparing the two.

winginit wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

AA is offering a profit sharing deal.

Let's be clear here: AA profit sharing is pathetic compared to DL's. DL paid out $1.1 billion to their 88,000 employees in 2017, which I believe equated to something to the tune of 10-12% of the average employee's salary. AA paid out $241 million over the same time period to nearly 130,000 employees, which I've heard for the average employee was about 3% of their salary. Not even worth comparing the two.

I’m an outsider but seems you may know, are the base salaries for similar functions similar?

chonetsao wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone oin the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

AA is offering a profit sharing deal.

But AA still has problem in integrating its labour forces (groups) because AA is late in the merge cycle. By meaning of merge cycle, AA is behind UA/CO and DL/NW in terms of merging progress. UA/CO and DL/NW have solved its labour groups issue as they completed their mergers earlier than AA/US.

I am sure AA management would love to solve all the problems at once. But they still have many important things to deal with (union labour contracts which is awaiting for renewal). Then we might see the debt issue to be addressed. One thing by one thing I think they will get there. But it takes time and prioritise the tasks. Obviously AA management do not think debt is an issue, or maybe they want to take advantage of the debt issue. Either way we need one more year to see things through.

I think this is a lot of the issue, but part of the problem is that DP & team don't seem to be able to effectively articulate a go forward plan. When your investors say you're lagging they want to hear something that will end that. If they were able to show that they are this far along in the merger cycle, where DL & UA were at this point and hopefully they're ahead or on par with that then what they plan to do as they get further along, investors might not be as frustrated. I do believe that as they get the M80s out of the fleet, gain more 321's to replace 757's and get something to replace the 767's then they can look at growing more outside of their hubs. Right now, the fleet and the labor contracts getting taken care of are the priority.

RvA wrote:

winginit wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

AA is offering a profit sharing deal.

Let's be clear here: AA profit sharing is pathetic compared to DL's. DL paid out $1.1 billion to their 88,000 employees in 2017, which I believe equated to something to the tune of 10-12% of the average employee's salary. AA paid out $241 million over the same time period to nearly 130,000 employees, which I've heard for the average employee was about 3% of their salary. Not even worth comparing the two.

I’m an outsider but seems you may know, are the base salaries for similar functions similar?

In my experience yes, and glassdoor confirms that they're in line with one another.

winginit wrote:

RvA wrote:

winginit wrote:

Let's be clear here: AA profit sharing is pathetic compared to DL's. DL paid out $1.1 billion to their 88,000 employees in 2017, which I believe equated to something to the tune of 10-12% of the average employee's salary. AA paid out $241 million over the same time period to nearly 130,000 employees, which I've heard for the average employee was about 3% of their salary. Not even worth comparing the two.

I’m an outsider but seems you may know, are the base salaries for similar functions similar?

In my experience yes, and glassdoor confirms that they're in line with one another.

They very well could be in line, however Glassdoor is not a reliable source. Again, base salary is only one component of Total Compensation, all components that I mentioned in my post above have to be considered in order to make an accurate comparison.

soflaflyer wrote:

winginit wrote:

RvA wrote:

I’m an outsider but seems you may know, are the base salaries for similar functions similar?

In my experience yes, and glassdoor confirms that they're in line with one another.

They very well could be in line, however Glassdoor is not a reliable source. Again, base salary is only one component of Total Compensation, all components that I mentioned in my post above have to be considered in order to make an accurate comparison.

Here's a discussion of this topic of soreness with AA pilots. AA's entry level base pay rates for FO's at least does look to be higher initially, but the top of scale rates for FO's and Captains at AA and DL only look like they're a few dollars apart from one another.

https://thepointsguy.com/2018/02/americ ... the-money/

soflaflyer wrote:

winginit wrote:

RvA wrote:

I’m an outsider but seems you may know, are the base salaries for similar functions similar?

In my experience yes, and glassdoor confirms that they're in line with one another.

They very well could be in line, however Glassdoor is not a reliable source. Again, base salary is only one component of Total Compensation, all components that I mentioned in my post above have to be considered in order to make an accurate comparison.

Pilot, Flight Attendant, Ground Worker, and ACS salaries are no secret, and glassdoor is pretty accurate at encompassing total compensation for those roles. That right there covers a majority of employees for both AA and DL.

AWACSooner wrote:

747-600X wrote:

I still think AA beats UA on their hard product (IFE, seat comfort, etc). But yah, both are lightyears behind DL.

I definitely agree with you on that. Although I'm a UA loyalist by constraints of my location, I was puzzled by this article. What has UA been "actively changing" that AA hasn't been doing?

Just a shot in the dark example, but take ORD-Europe and ORD-HNL for instance. The AA product is far superior to UA any day of the week (763/772 vs. 788). While Polaris has been a great achievement in marketing the front of the plane, UA has largely neglected coach, which by volume obviously consists of a large segment of its flyers.

TSA125 wrote:

Just a shot in the dark example, but take ORD-Europe and ORD-HNL for instance. The AA product is far superior to UA any day of the week (763/772 vs. 788). While Polaris has been a great achievement in marketing the front of the plane, UA has largely neglected coach, which by volume obviously consists of a large segment of its flyers.

AA is no better in economy on those routes. And AA's advantage in the front cabin isn't enough to overcome UA's advantage in ORD. UA beats AA hands down on ORD-Europe. On ORD-HNL, AA flies a 787-8 seasonally, while UA flies a 777 year round.

SteelChair wrote:

If everyone in the world knows AA is lagging, why aren't their leadership doing more to close the gap?

Please dont blame it on the unions. Yeah, they're bad, but AA could at least offer the same profitsharing as DL, and they also have the cash to raise wages.

I'm beginning to think that their mgmt just doesn't know what to do.

Yeah, this is pretty much the crux of the issue.

TSA125 wrote:

Just a shot in the dark example, but take ORD-Europe and ORD-HNL for instance. The AA product is far superior to UA any day of the week (763/772 vs. 788). While Polaris has been a great achievement in marketing the front of the plane, UA has largely neglected coach, which by volume obviously consists of a large segment of its flyers.

Three aircraft remain where this is the case. Most of the 763s out of ORD (besides LHR) are two-cabin with the old CO BF seat and fully renovated Y cabins with new interiors, seats, AVOD, etc.

Moreover, I don't think the Concept D seats on AA 788s and some 777s is "far superior" to anything, really, and Chicago has a lot of them.

codc10 wrote:

TSA125 wrote:

Just a shot in the dark example, but take ORD-Europe and ORD-HNL for instance. The AA product is far superior to UA any day of the week (763/772 vs. 788). While Polaris has been a great achievement in marketing the front of the plane, UA has largely neglected coach, which by volume obviously consists of a large segment of its flyers.

Three aircraft remain where this is the case. Most of the 763s out of ORD (besides LHR) are two-cabin with the old CO BF seat and fully renovated Y cabins with new interiors, seats, AVOD, etc.

Moreover, I don't think the Concept D seats on AA 788s and some 777s is "far superior" to anything, really, and Chicago has a lot of them.

I recently flew on a UA 763 ORD-IAH and that aircraft (N642UA) was ancient in Y. The window shade was broken, the "AVOD" seemed like it hadn't been altered since the '90s, the seats were worn. If this was a domestically-configured aircraft it would be one thing. But the aircraft went on to fly to LHR and other European cities the same week.

While I've certainly seen photos of the updated UA 763 Y (which look good, especially the updated AVODs), AA seems to be doing better in terms of product consistency and continuing its cabin refurbishments swiftly. Of course there must be several reasons why this is, and I'd love to hear more about it.

TSA125 wrote:

I recently flew on a UA 763 ORD-IAH and that aircraft (N642UA) was ancient in Y. The window shade was broken, the "AVOD" seemed like it hadn't been altered since the '90s, the seats were worn. If this was a domestically-configured aircraft it would be one thing. But the aircraft went on to fly to LHR and other European cities the same week.

While I've certainly seen photos of the updated UA 763 Y (which look good, especially the updated AVODs), AA seems to be doing better in terms of product consistency and continuing its cabin refurbishments swiftly. Of course there must be several reasons why this is, and I'd love to hear more about it.

UA 763, including the "ancient" configs, are superior to AA 763.

AA widebodies, after completing cabin refurbishments, are very inconsistent. Some have PTVs, others don't. In business, there are several different seats depending in aircraft: Concept D (788, some 773), standard zodiac (77W, A330), B/E Super Diamond (789, some 772), and Thompson Vantage (763). UA widebodies, after their refurbishments are completed, will be consistent: all will have PTVS and all business seats will be the Polaris style.

TSA125 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

TSA125 wrote:

Just a shot in the dark example, but take ORD-Europe and ORD-HNL for instance. The AA product is far superior to UA any day of the week (763/772 vs. 788). While Polaris has been a great achievement in marketing the front of the plane, UA has largely neglected coach, which by volume obviously consists of a large segment of its flyers.

Three aircraft remain where this is the case. Most of the 763s out of ORD (besides LHR) are two-cabin with the old CO BF seat and fully renovated Y cabins with new interiors, seats, AVOD, etc.

Moreover, I don't think the Concept D seats on AA 788s and some 777s is "far superior" to anything, really, and Chicago has a lot of them.

I recently flew on a UA 763 ORD-IAH and that aircraft (N642UA) was ancient in Y. The window shade was broken, the "AVOD" seemed like it hadn't been altered since the '90s, the seats were worn. If this was a domestically-configured aircraft it would be one thing. But the aircraft went on to fly to LHR and other European cities the same week.

While I've certainly seen photos of the updated UA 763 Y (which look good, especially the updated AVODs), AA seems to be doing better in terms of product consistency and continuing its cabin refurbishments swiftly. Of course there must be several reasons why this is, and I'd love to hear more about it.

There are 3 ships left in the 767 configuration you describe... have you had occasion to fly in an AA 767 in Y any time recently? No PTVs at all, let alone AVOD, and those aircraft still operate a number of longhaul routes, although there is a trajectory for their retirement.

In the 1990s, the leading U.S. global airline, by consensus, was American. In the early 2000s it was Continental.

Uhh...was this author even alive during the 2000s? CO may have fared better than most but it was by no means the “leading U.S. global airline” by any consensus. It’s best claim to success was not going bankrupt while the other majors did in the post-9/11 environment, which only WN can co-claim (might have a little something to do with being Texas-based airlines with a Texan president in office, but I digress).

TSA125 wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

747-600X wrote:

I still think AA beats UA on their hard product (IFE, seat comfort, etc). But yah, both are lightyears behind DL.

I definitely agree with you on that. Although I'm a UA loyalist by constraints of my location, I was puzzled by this article. What has UA been "actively changing" that AA hasn't been doing?

Just a shot in the dark example, but take ORD-Europe and ORD-HNL for instance. The AA product is far superior to UA any day of the week (763/772 vs. 788). While Polaris has been a great achievement in marketing the front of the plane, UA has largely neglected coach, which by volume obviously consists of a large segment of its flyers.

The "active change" being referenced is more of a systemwide change to the company than a "tangible" change if that makes sense. The actual product is pretty similar between UA and AA, but UA is much more aggressive in experimenting and implementing changes such as with economy and Polaris as well as with new routes and competing against AA and DL head on. UA is more focused on long-term changes that will make the company more sustainable whereas AA seems to have its eye on the short-term. ORD is a great example of this strategy in practice. The actual product between UA and AA is pretty similar and AA might even have the edge until UA starts deploying newer equipment at ORD, but in the grand scheme of things, UA's network, schedule, and rollout of Polaris in ORD completely blows AA out of the water and is cementing a new kind of longer term strength that is stronger than AA and will last the test of time. The changes UA is making matter more to its market than those that AA is making; AA's changes are cosmetic, UA's are systemwide and will benefit people with more consistency and thus they stand to gain the most in attracting pax with this method over a longer period of time.

747-600X wrote:

There's no competition.

A cliche that's often cited here, but rarely backed up.

In fact, the case can be made that competition is stronger than ever... with the comparative fares (both decade-over-decade and relative to several non-industry economic indicators) lower than ever before, with more people traveling ever before, to more destinations served nonstop than ever before-- from everything from the FAA "large hubs" (handling 1% or more of total national traffic) to the non-hubs.

But of course, that'll never deter the random A.netter from screaming "the mergers have destroyed competition!!!!!" as if it were somehow obvious or an indisputable fact.

I’ve flown on AA a few times in the last couple years. I’ve never had an issue. I won’t lie though I tend to book flights aircraft.