Posted by Seth on January 26, 2012 under News | 
There have been a few stories today about the unveiling of the American Airlines 777-300ER cabin interior configuration. Most of them (including Ben’s) have been rather effusive, raving about the new Business and First class cabins. And, no doubt, the press photos of those look pretty nice.
But there is a third photo included in the press release, the shot of the economy cabin:
The good news is that the photo shows a pretty nice individual IFE screen, universal power plugs and a handset to control the IFE, meaning reduced likelihood of someone tapping on the back of your seat the whole flight. And those are all good things, but there’s one really big bad thing, too. The seating configuration appears to be incredibly tight. Based on this point of view it appears that the cabin will have a 3-4-3 configuration, bringing American in line with Emirates and Air France for offering one of the most cramped coach cabin configurations in modern aviation. The aisle actually looks ridiculously narrow, too, making me wonder if this is even a real shot of the cabin, but if it is that looks like a VERY uncomfortable coach experience.
Some back of the napkin math based on the size of the power ports and the representation of things in the image suggests that the seats are about 17" wide, maybe a tiny bit less. That’s quite a bit tighter than their current economy products, especially compared to their current long-haul configurations. And they’re articulating – or "slidey" – seats, which means the legroom gets worse when reclined. Ouch.
There was some suggestion that there is going to be a "Premium Economy" product rolled out as well, but no details on that in these photos or in the release. That leaves me a smidge skeptical. Adding that to match their oneworld alliance partners would make sense in many ways. It is also the fastest growing segment of seating in the industry. Then again, when starting from zero relatively recently, it is easy to make "fastest growing" show up. It would be a first for a US-based carrier, so it is worth keeping an eye on.
The premium cabins look quite nice. Matching Cathay Pacific for the business class seat is particularly nice. But most passengers are going to be stuck in those economy seats and it looks painful. I hope it is better than that makes it appear.
It also seems that American has decided in the past 8 weeks to shift the planes from the originally announced service to London, putting them on the Dallas-Sao Paulo route instead. That’s a pretty inefficient utilization plan for the newest, nicest, planes, so they must think they’re going to drive some serious premiums on the route. Good luck.
Posted by Seth on December 15, 2011 under News |
Delta has scheduled a big event to announce their plans for the new slots at LaGuardia now that the deal with US Airways is finalized. They’re expected to announce, among other things, many of the details for the routes they plan to serve with the new slots. Funny thing is, the information is already loaded in the timetable. So if you don’t want to wait for the press release, here are some of the new frequencies to look forward to:
- LGA-DFW: 6x daily
- LGA-MIA: 4x daily
- LGA-BTV: 3x daily
- LGA-GSO: 3x daily
- LGA-ORF: 4x daily
- LGA-RIC: 5x daily
- LGA-BUF: 6x daily
- LGA-ROC: 4x daily
- LGA-SYR: 5x daily
- LGA-MHT: 2x daily
- LGA-SDF: 1x daily
- LGA-DAY: 2x daily
The first two are going after American Airlines hubs and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. The Miami service will be on MD88s (useful for keeping the AA folks comfy, I suppose) while the DFW service will be on E70/E75s which is probably right for the market size but it may be hard to shed the "regional" stigma, even if it isn’t really so bad with a first class cabin and in-flight internet on those planes (both works in progress, but both happening). In related news, perhaps my theory that jetBlue should use all their LGA and DCA slots to attack American at DFW is looking like even less of a good idea.
There are a few other destinations also coming, including Wilmington, DENC (Damn, that was an awkward mistake), which adds that state back on to the Delta route map. Of interest on the ILM route is that they seem to think the LaGuardia flights are useful for international connections. Apparently they don’t hate the Van Wyck nearly as much as I do.
These numbers represent only about half of the frequencies that Delta acquired so there will certainly be more to come as things shake out.
Related Posts:
Posted by Seth on December 8, 2011 under Flying |
Chatting with some folks today about JetBlue‘s new DFW-BOS service got me to thinking. And that’s never a good thing. JetBlue paid a king’s ransom by some accounts for the eight slot pairs each at LGA and DCA. They’re going to need to realize some serious profits on that investment. So they’re going to want to go to markets where there are high yields and limited competition. Both airports are limited by perimeter rules in terms of flight distances that can operate so it is basically Texas or east (and not even all of Texas works) for the routes. So what would I do if I were sitting at the white board working on routes?
A somewhat disturbing and almost certainly untenable option came to mind: Attack DFW.
Assuming you could get another gate or two at DFW, why not attack the American Airlines hub? JetBlue has already shown that they’re willing to attack a little bit, putting 3x daily on DFW-BOS starting next year. Why not go all-in? Sure, they don’t really own any market share at DFW. Or LGA. Or DCA. But they could try, right?
It wouldn’t be a half-assed effort like Spirit Air‘s gambit. We’re talking about a total of 19 daily frequencies, all to major business cities and all where the competition is VERY limited. US Airways flies E-Jets 3x daily on the DCA-DFW route. US, Spirit and Frontier all list DFW-LGA but they all fly it as a one-stop direct flight. Seems like there could be a lot of fun to be had with some new blood bringing competition on these routes.
Then again, it would require the additional gate at DFW. And the stage length is a bit high for fleet utilization and yield management. Still, showing up at DFW with that much lift would be an incredibly entertaining challenge to the incumbent.
Another great option would be service from Austin, connecting folks from the west coast, too, but that’s just outside the perimeter at both LGA and DCA. Sad.
Besides, what else are they going to do? Fake shuttle service?
Related Posts:
Posted by Seth on December 7, 2011 under frequent flyer, News, points |
A couple months ago things seemed all nice and rosy between American Airlines and JetBlue. The two signed an interline agreement just over a year ago that added not only traffic feeds between the two but also a limited frequent flier reciprocity scheme and the relationship appeared to be growing stronger. Today JetBlue announced that they are going to be starting service to Dallas-Fort Worth, one of the two fortress hubs that American Airlines operates where they still hold some pricing leverage. Whoopsie.
JetBlue is launching 3x daily service between DFW and Boston starting in May. The pricing isn’t loaded into reservations systems yet so it isn’t clear what the impact will be on fares in the market but it seems more likely that JetBlue entering the market will have an effect versus the announcement from Spirit Air that they will also be entering the market in February. But with 3x daily from the largest operator at Boston it seems much more likely that the competition is really heating up.
Related Posts:
Posted by Seth on November 26, 2011 under frequent flyer, News, points |
Virgin America wants things to be different. Very different. David Cush, the carrier’s CEO recently was interviewed by Scott Mayerowitz from AP and there are a few interesting bits in the Q&A that offer up a rather unique view of how he sees the company fitting in the market and how his old company, American Airlines, is doing these days. Here are a few of the bit I found most entertaining.
Q: How much more are people willing to pay for [food & entertainment on demand] services?
A: The model is getting them to pay the same amount with a much lower production cost.
For a guy who thinks he’s looking at the bigger picture and the long-term view of the airline it is not at all clear how he plans to maintain this approach. Every airline starts out with lower costs initially. The problem is that maintaining that cost structure is incredibly difficult as labor seniority (and the correlated costs) only go up over time. Yes, the new fleet means decent fuel efficiency but that will erode (or require major capital expense) over time as well. Doesn’t seem to be a particularly useful approach to long-term survival.
Q: How can you attract business travelers when your miles can’t be redeemed for Hawaii, Europe or other places you don’t serve?
A: The mile problem will be solved early next year. We have basic agreements with Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Australia that will be fully reciprocal. We also have agreements with Cathay Pacific, Singapore and Emirates that will develop into frequent flier relationships.
This is quite interesting and certainly will be a welcome change. Even if the reciprocity rates aren’t particularly great – and I’d bet they will not be – having more earning and redemption partners is a great thing for customers. Of the independent US-based carriers Alaska Airlines has done the best at this (and they’ve also been around the longest to figure it out) while JetBlue has a minimal partnership with American Airlines. Growing those relationships is about more than just having an interline agreement for ticketing and baggage; it is nice to see Cush recognize that value.
Q: In Dallas, you’re telling fliers to "dump your older airline for a younger, hotter one." American responded by slashing fares to San Francisco and Los Angeles. Can you survive this fare war?
A: We’ll survive. At current fares, it will not be a profitable route but it wouldn’t be such a loss-making one where we would consider any type of reduction. You have to be in Dallas-Fort Worth if you’re going to be a business airline.
This is a particularly interesting view on the value of certain markets (elsewhere in the interview there is also discussion of pulling out of the Toronto market). Apparently there are some markets so important that losing money over a long period of time while serving them is OK. He doesn’t note just how much they’re losing or for how long they’re willing to keep losing that money, but it is quite a claim. Definitely makes me wonder about the long-term plan once again.
Q: Do you think that American is on the right path?
A: It’s hard to tell. There’s a culture there that is perhaps a bit risk-averse. In the past, it was always an airline that was willing to accept risk. The industry’s consolidated around it and all of a sudden American finds itself in third place. I don’t know if they have the answer. I do know their top guys. They’re smart, capable but at some point you need to stick your neck out a little bit if you’re going to get out of a rut.
Well, cutting chunks of the route map is one version of sticking ones neck out, I suppose. For a guy so keen to run a very limited airline with a very limited route network, it seems that telling others who are running a much more complicated setup that they’re not trying hard enough is an entertaining stretch. That’s not to say I think the AA plan is particularly great, but they also cannot really effect wholesale change just by flipping a switch. There’s a lot of momentum to be dealt with there.
Q: Mile for mile, airplanes burn more fuel than cars, trucks or trains. Do you think this poses a problem for the industry?
A: If we don’t find a way to clean up air travel, we’ll become a pariah. We’ll be what the coal companies used to be.
How about, "Planes are ever improving in efficiency and they allow for connectivity in the world and great advances that cannot be had any other way," as a response rather than shying away from the problem with your tail between your legs?
Q: In ten years, do you see Virgin America being a full-blown national airline?
A: That’s not our goal. The biggest discipline we need to have is not outgrowing the model. That means maybe 100, 150 aircraft, probably no more. The goal would be to be consistently profitable, the highest quality airline where we can hopefully make a few hours of people’s day a little bit nicer.
This is perhaps the most interesting of all the responses. It makes sense from one point of view, but that is a very simplistic approach. No airline is going to be all things to all people; the numbers simply don’t work out. At the same time, however, artificially limiting yourself to only serving major cities or only serving limited frequencies is a sure fire way to make sure that you’re not going to meet customer needs. And when serving those markets becomes a matter of entering into markets that area already rather competitive the revenue pressures are going to be even harder. I respect the theory but I don’t think it maps to the real world very well.
It seems to me that most of the answers Cush offers up are rather small-ball or short-sighted views of the market and how to operate successfully in it. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m certainly not feeling all warm and fuzzy about the company’s future reading his views.
Read the whole story here if you want more.
Related Posts:
