American Airlines New Logo

[BlueSky]

However, the new airline will be run by USAirways.

Call me crazy, but I love the rebrand.

Well isn't this special...from AA's merger FAQs, re the new livery just revealed:

===

It's unclear if the merged carrier will keep the new brand that American revealed or if it will try to come up with something that reflects both US Airways and American's legacies.

===

DOH!

On the merger, in effect American Airlines died today. A sad, sad day for me and I'm sure tens of thousands of current and former AAers. Would love to fully understand how we got from here (sorry for crappy quality)...

...to today.

[-kj]

USscare's going to take over operations? There goes AA as a pleasant airline.

[BlueSky]

USscare's going to take over operations? There goes AA as a pleasant airline.

Looks that way, at least their CEO is going to be the new big cheese so I imagine that means this is going to be a giant USAirways but called American.

[bosrs1]

However, the new airline will be run by USAirways.

Call me crazy, but I love the rebrand.

And US Airways is being run by America West Airlines. So the old America West will now be in full control of American Airlines. Wonder if they'll move the "CACTUS" radio designation over to AA like they did when America West took over US Airways.

[tBBP]

However, the new airline will be run by USAirways.

Call me crazy, but I love the rebrand.

And US Airways is being run by America West Airlines. So the old America West will now be in full control of American Airlines. Wonder if they'll move the "CACTUS" radio designation over to AA like they did when America West took over US Airways.

And furthermore, this new mega-airline will now be the conglomerate of six—count them, six different airlines...one of which was born in the same place the acquiring airline in this merger was once headquartered prior to it acquiring the airline once ran by the guy who'll soon preside over the whole dang shebang!

Still with me there?

Follow me on this one, and try to keep up: Allegheny Airways was founded in (the) Pittsburgh (area). It, along with Piedmont and the airline formerly known as Pacific Southwest Airlines all merged to form the then-newly minted USAir, which some time in the '90s (IIRC) renamed itself US Airways, which at the time based its operations in Pittsburgh (and actually still has an ops facility there, scaled down though it may be). It acquires America West and installs their CEO as head of the new US Airways...then proceeds to acquire the #1 airline in terms of size but will keep the American name. That guy by the way is Doug Parker.

Anyone dizzy yet? Feeling deja vu? (Because with this, the Delta/Northwest merger and Southwest's takeover of AirTran, which itself had just acquired Midwest Airlines not long before, soon the airline industry will be right back where it was pre-deregulation.)

[BrandMooreArt]

the whole thing feels like that point in a Monopoly game when theres 1 player killing the others and all the other players are doing whatever they can just to stay in the game: merging, trading properties, working deals, etc. . . unless no one else plays Monopoly like me

[jstraper]

Amazingly, I still think there's considerable "airspace" in the competitive airline industry. If/when alternative forms of transportation become more commonplace (high-speed rail; cheap EVs), the airline industry in the US will have to operate more like those in Europe -- EasyJet, Vueling, WizzAir, Ryanair for example.

Southwest today, the "low fare" US carrier, is considerably more expensive than those low-cost carriers in Europe.

[Cosmic]

Amazingly, I still think there's considerable "airspace" in the competitive airline industry. If/when alternative forms of transportation become more commonplace (high-speed rail; cheap EVs), the airline industry in the US will have to operate more like those in Europe -- EasyJet, Vueling, WizzAir, Ryanair for example.

Southwest today, the "low fare" US carrier, is considerably more expensive than those low-cost carriers in Europe.

What do they do differently than someone like Southwest does? I know Ryanair has a reputation for floating ideas like pay toilets and standing room "seats", but that can't be that big of a difference.

[cajunaggie08]

Amazingly, I still think there's considerable "airspace" in the competitive airline industry. If/when alternative forms of transportation become more commonplace (high-speed rail; cheap EVs), the airline industry in the US will have to operate more like those in Europe -- EasyJet, Vueling, WizzAir, Ryanair for example.

Southwest today, the "low fare" US carrier, is considerably more expensive than those low-cost carriers in Europe.

What do they do differently than someone like Southwest does? I know Ryanair has a reputation for floating ideas like pay toilets and standing room "seats", but that can't be that big of a difference.

I flew on Easyjet back in Dec. from Rome to Paris. Ticket was about 50€ per person. The biggest difference was they charge for just about every extra feature. Checked bag had a fee. You were only allowed one carry on as opposed to the standard one plus a "personal item." All food and drink cost money. You could pay extra to pick out your seat as opposed to the airline picking one for you. As long as you can do without all the "extras" the cost was well worth it.

[BlueSky]

Amazingly, I still think there's considerable "airspace" in the competitive airline industry. If/when alternative forms of transportation become more commonplace (high-speed rail; cheap EVs), the airline industry in the US will have to operate more like those in Europe -- EasyJet, Vueling, WizzAir, Ryanair for example.

Southwest today, the "low fare" US carrier, is considerably more expensive than those low-cost carriers in Europe.

What do they do differently than someone like Southwest does? I know Ryanair has a reputation for floating ideas like pay toilets and standing room "seats", but that can't be that big of a difference.

I flew on Easyjet back in Dec. from Rome to Paris. Ticket was about 50€ per person. The biggest difference was they charge for just about every extra feature. Checked bag had a fee. You were only allowed one carry on as opposed to the standard one plus a "personal item." All food and drink cost money. You could pay extra to pick out your seat as opposed to the airline picking one for you. As long as you can do without all the "extras" the cost was well worth it.

Also, Ryanair is famous for cost-cutting measures like not having emergency procedures cards in seatback pockets (it's embroidered on the back of the seat ahead) and having no window shades on their planes. They also think this is feasible and would be a great option if the authorities would allow it:

I'm a little foggy on why all the passengers would be bald and naked.

[cajunaggie08]

Amazingly, I still think there's considerable "airspace" in the competitive airline industry. If/when alternative forms of transportation become more commonplace (high-speed rail; cheap EVs), the airline industry in the US will have to operate more like those in Europe -- EasyJet, Vueling, WizzAir, Ryanair for example.

Southwest today, the "low fare" US carrier, is considerably more expensive than those low-cost carriers in Europe.

What do they do differently than someone like Southwest does? I know Ryanair has a reputation for floating ideas like pay toilets and standing room "seats", but that can't be that big of a difference.

I flew on Easyjet back in Dec. from Rome to Paris. Ticket was about 50€ per person. The biggest difference was they charge for just about every extra feature. Checked bag had a fee. You were only allowed one carry on as opposed to the standard one plus a "personal item." All food and drink cost money. You could pay extra to pick out your seat as opposed to the airline picking one for you. As long as you can do without all the "extras" the cost was well worth it.

Also, Ryanair is famous for cost-cutting measures like not having emergency procedures cards in seatback pockets (it's embroidered on the back of the seat ahead) and having no window shades on their planes. They also think this is feasible and would be a great option if the authorities would allow it:

I'm a little foggy on why all the passengers would be bald and naked.

Hey, if it works on a roller coaster, why not a sky coaster....oops I mean airplane

[Lee Noire]

Not familiar with how far they fly but wouldnt that type of seating become kinda uncomfortable on longer flights? I mean batman is only a few minutes long.

[BlueSky]

Not familiar with how far they fly but wouldnt that type of seating become kinda uncomfortable on longer flights? I mean batman is only a few minutes long.

Few bigwigs will let little details like that get in the way of making more money.

In fairness, the airline industry is a very, very tough business. In the years after 9/11, airlines collectively lost more money than had ever been made in the history of airline travel. With that said, I think many executives are guilty of tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff.

For example, someone I know at a major airline said they launched transcontinental service in a new market with great fanfare. Using long-range 737s made the route economically feasible.

But my contact said that when that first flight arrived many of the passengers deplaning were totally p***ed off and swearing they'd never take that flight again. Why? Because it was before the days of onboard entertainment systems on 737s. A 5 1/2 hour flight is tough enough in a narrowbody airplane with IFE...with nothing more than the inflight mag and whatever you brought along, it was pretty miserable.

Same with flying 757s on trans-Atlantic trips or flying long segments on regional jets. I'm 6'2" and they're fine on a 90 min flight; two hours gets me stewing; anything longer than that and I'll go another way. I'm just not going to subject myself to taking an RJ on a 3-hour flight.

Many airlines can't seem to understand the concept of counterproductivity. From pricing to fees to the seating issues discussed above, what's the point of running a business if your policies and product consistently fill your customers with rage?

[-kj]

Just seeing CRJ on a potential itinerary makes me cry.

[BlueSky]

When I was with AA in San Jose we were flying BAe146 jets acquired along with AirCal. A doctor wrote a letter complete with numerous illustrations stating his case that it was anatomically impossible for an average adult male to use the lav standing up with the door closed. You can't make this stuff up.

About those planes, a joke was born based on their reliabiility. It was said BAe stood not for British Aerospace but "bring another engine." That was also the first time I saw an AA plane painted gray. The tail logos were disproportionately large, the fuselage titles too small, I'm sure because they didn't plan to keep them and thus didn't make custom decals. Not a great look.

Maybe better than the "slap on the new name" version though...

The one in the AA livery interestingly has a foreign registration. Not sure why 'cause it would usually get an "N number" here in the States. Anyway, I always like to follow up and see what these planes are up to now. This one, built in 1988, has been re-registered as LZ-HBZ and is still tooling around Europe for Bulgaria Air.

[Ben7]

total crash IMO,

Can't believe the silver birds with the blue-white-red stripe, the capital red/blue As and the eagle were iconic, instantly recognisable all over the world are gone and replaced by something so bland.

the logo and wordmark are a bit less horrible than the awful tail design and the grey base color.

[njmeadowlanders]

Many airlines can't seem to understand the concept of counterproductivity. From pricing to fees to the seating issues discussed above, what's the point of running a business if your policies and product consistently fill your customers with rage?

Don't even start me on how AWFUL United has become post-merger. Continental was enough of a disaster. Now United comes in and it's a cluster-you-know-what.

Also, I've never understood: Why do one-way fares cost MORE than round trip ones? I understand that it should be more than half of a round-trip one way. But MORE? How about I just book round trip and then "miss" the return trip? Anyone? Buehler?

[BlueSky]

Why wow? Merchandising opportunities for one game? They're printing cash.

More important to build a brand - and they have the best traditional look in the NFL IMO

Many airlines can't seem to understand the concept of counterproductivity. From pricing to fees to the seating issues discussed above, what's the point of running a business if your policies and product consistently fill your customers with rage?

Don't even start me on how AWFUL United has become post-merger. Continental was enough of a disaster. Now United comes in and it's a cluster-you-know-what.

Also, I've never understood: Why do one-way fares cost MORE than round trip ones? I understand that it should be more than half of a round-trip one way. But MORE? How about I just book round trip and then "miss" the return trip? Anyone? Buehler?

You can do that, or at least you could back when I was in the industry. The problem came in when people tried that trick but wanted to fly the return leg. In other words, they bought a round-trip ticket from A to B but drove to B with the intent of only using the return (B to A) portion of their ticket. Airline computers were smart enough that if a passenger no-showed the first leg of their itinerary the system assumed the person wasn't traveling at all and canceled the remainder of the reservation.

The same thing tripped up a lot of so-called "hidden city" itineraries. For example, you want to go from A to B and B happens to be a big hub city. You notice that there's a connecting flight from A through B to C where the fare is cheaper than from A to B. Yeah, I know, it doesn't make sense on the surface but stay with me.

So you buy the A to B to C ticket thinking you'll just go from A to B, not use the B to C and C back to B legs, then fly home from B to A. Nope. The computer zaps your reservation when you don't show for your connecting flight to C.

This is all driven by opportunity cost. We as consumers tend to assign value using the obvious parts of the equation. For example, your question assumes we should pay less because we believe it costs the airline less to only fly us from A to B. And in a vacuum, it does.

But airlines assign value quite differently. To your question, most people buy round-trip tickets, so when the airline sells you a one-way ticket they're giving up the opportunity to sell that seat to someone else who likely wants to fly round trip (AKA give them more money).

The same principle is at work when people question why it costs more to fly from A to B than from A to C through B. For example, a ticket from Austin to DFW may cost more than Austin to DFW to wherever. That's because if Bob buys the last Austin-DFW seat, it's no longer there for Mary who wanted to go Austin-DFW-Frankfurt (again, more money for the airline).

I saw numerous instances like this where sales were completely closed off for local traffic (AUS-DFW in this case) when a fair number of seats were still available. But if you owned the airline, would you sell Bob a $79 one-way ticket when analysis indicated there was a 90% chance you could tell Bob no and sell someone else a $1600 round-trip to Europe?

These are some of the basics of what Revenue Management is all about. A lot of resources go into analyzing stuff like historical data and what's going on in a particular city (think traffic-drivers like Super Bowls, holidays, Final Four, etc.) and airlines have become very adept at predicting exactly who wants to buy tickets, to where, when, and for how much.

This is also how they predict no-shows and thus how much to overbook. And again, it's opportunity cost. Think of a TV on the shelf at Wal-Mart. If no one buys it, it's going to be there for them to sell tomorrow. An empty airline seat becomes worthless the instant the flight departs - it won't be there to sell tomorrow. This is called spoilage and it's a mortal sin in Revenue Management. People say overbooking should be outlawed. Okay, but while we're at it we're going to outlaw no-shows too. Not overbooking would cost airlines hundreds of millions of dollars and guess who would get to make up that deficit through higher fares?

If you think I'm exaggerating the effect of no-shows, consider one extreme example from years ago at AA. I was in Day-of-Departure - basically putting out fires. Say a flight was booked to 215 in a 200 seat airplane. We get a message 6 hours before departure saying the 200 seat plane has broken down. The spare plane seats 140. My job was figuring out and coordinating what to do with the other 75 people booked on the trip. (Let me know if you care about the answer and I'll explain in another post.)

Anyway, the capacity analysts (who determined overbooking levels) always tried to give us a heads-up about flights that could go sideways. The guy who handled NY-Miami came by one day a couple of weeks before Christmas and mentioned a flight that was a week or so away and would fly with 273 seats. "Know what the system is saying about that trip? That I should book it to 600 to get a full boat." Do that math. The RM system predicted we'd have more no-shows (320+) than the plane actually held! If it was correct and we weren't allowed to overbook, the flight could conceivably leave empty.

I asked, "Are you seriously booking this thing to 600?" and he said, "God, no. We'd need the National Guard if they all showed up." He capped it at 450 reservations for 273 seats. Which, I'd like to point out, is still 177 people more than the plane's capacity and thus sounds quite insane.

So what happened? Booked full at 450, the flight left with 183 people aboard. American lost 90 fares because while we trusted the system, the analysis in that instance was just too far out of everybody's comfort zone.

So there you go, a peek into those "stupid" airline pricing policies.

I did that work for years and hate the way they price as much as anybody, but the logic makes sense. If you have any questions, fire away.

[njmeadowlanders]

Well written and some great insight, including stuff I'd never thought about.

I HAD thought about the "it's cheaper to fly Boston > Newark > San Diego than Newark > San Diego so why not just only make the "connection" in Newark" thing before; however it was probably you or someone else on here who said once I don't show up at Logan I'm considered as having missed all legs, so it doesn't work.

Maybe I'm missing something here though with the one way/round trip thing.

I fly EWR > FLL or PBI and back all the time to visit my parents while they're being snowbirds, a few weekends a winter. Let's just for simplicity's sake say it's $100 round trip. If I pay $100 for a flight there and back, I see that as $50 each way. Pretty simple right?

Now let's say I was going down there to drive their car back up north come the springtime. I'd only need a one way fare. Now, I understand completely it's going to cost more than "half". It's the same reason a 6" sub doesn't cost half of a 12"; why the larger size of a soda or popcorn or whatever at the movies isn't directly proportional to the smaller size, etc.

So let's say a one way fare should cost $75 if the round trip is $100, just for argument's sake. United instead charges me $200 for the one way fare. Again: I intend to only want the flight down to Florida, not the one back north. So I book the $100 round trip fare, thus saving myself $100.

Now I'm booked on two flights. One to FLL/PBI, and one back to EWR. I will be on the one to FLL/PBI, so that seat will not be occupied by anyone else. (It'll also be a premium plus exit row seat because I'm 6'7", so thanks for that kick in the nuts too, but that's neither here nor there at the moment). Now, on the return flight, I'm booked and won't be showing up. They don't know that.

Here's now what I guess I need clarification on:

Had I only booked that one-way fare, that seat on the return trip never would have been booked. Thus anyone who was starting a trip in Florida or making a connection there to Newark (IDK who'd connect there since it's so decentralized but I guess maybe from the Caribbean it'd be possible). So they could still book a round trip fare originating in Florida.

So if they're charging me LESS to fly that round-trip flight (and also I'd be picking whatever return flight was absolutely the cheapest regardless of the date--because again--I'm not going on it) how is that more beneficial than booking me one way and letting someone else book an ADDITIONAL itinerary that maybe they otherwise wouldn't have if they're only allowing an allowance of "X" people being overbooked?

Does that question/rambling statement make sense?

[BlueSky]

Well written and some great insight, including stuff I'd never thought about.

I HAD thought about the "it's cheaper to fly Boston > Newark > San Diego than Newark > San Diego so why not just only make the "connection" in Newark" thing before; however it was probably you or someone else on here who said once I don't show up at Logan I'm considered as having missed all legs, so it doesn't work.

Maybe I'm missing something here though with the one way/round trip thing.

I fly EWR > FLL or PBI and back all the time to visit my parents while they're being snowbirds, a few weekends a winter. Let's just for simplicity's sake say it's $100 round trip. If I pay $100 for a flight there and back, I see that as $50 each way. Pretty simple right?

Now let's say I was going down there to drive their car back up north come the springtime. I'd only need a one way fare. Now, I understand completely it's going to cost more than "half". It's the same reason a 6" sub doesn't cost half of a 12"; why the larger size of a soda or popcorn or whatever at the movies isn't directly proportional to the smaller size, etc.

So let's say a one way fare should cost $75 if the round trip is $100, just for argument's sake. United instead charges me $200 for the one way fare. Again: I intend to only want the flight down to Florida, not the one back north. So I book the $100 round trip fare, thus saving myself $100.

Now I'm booked on two flights. One to FLL/PBI, and one back to EWR. I will be on the one to FLL/PBI, so that seat will not be occupied by anyone else. (It'll also be a premium plus exit row seat because I'm 6'7", so thanks for that kick in the nuts too, but that's neither here nor there at the moment). Now, on the return flight, I'm booked and won't be showing up. They don't know that.

Here's now what I guess I need clarification on:

Had I only booked that one-way fare, that seat on the return trip never would have been booked. Thus anyone who was starting a trip in Florida or making a connection there to Newark (IDK who'd connect there since it's so decentralized but I guess maybe from the Caribbean it'd be possible). So they could still book a round trip fare originating in Florida.

So if they're charging me LESS to fly that round-trip flight (and also I'd be picking whatever return flight was absolutely the cheapest regardless of the date--because again--I'm not going on it) how is that more beneficial than booking me one way and letting someone else book an ADDITIONAL itinerary that maybe they otherwise wouldn't have if they're only allowing an allowance of "X" people being overbooked?

Does that question/rambling statement make sense?

First, thanks - I really enjoy discussing/explaining airline stuff. To me it's the most fascinating industry in the world.

Your question makes sense and it's compelling. A lot depends on specifics and that brings me to the bolded lines above.

1. Not always. This is what I was talking about in the other post. To the airline, the value of the same seat varies and they price accordingly.

2. Oh but they do. It's truly amazing how accurately they can predict no-shows. They don't know you aren't coming or the reason, but if you're booked on the 5pm flight on a Friday two weeks before Labor Day, they know X percent of the people booked aren't coming. Exactly who and exactly why doesn't matter.

If the airline's RM process is working properly, their pricing represents the best business decision. In almost every industry, fees and high prices are often meant to discourage unwanted behavior. Ironically, maybe the best example I can provide involved my airline's employees, not customers.

For many years employees paid a very small surcharge for personal travel in First Class. Then Consumer Relations started getting complaints from Platinum fliers because those high-value customers - many of them riding in First - didn't like having anyone, especially some employee (or worse, the employee's child) in the adjacent seat. The airline knew they have a mutiny if they tried to cut off First Class travel for employees, so what they did was jack up the surcharge. It was still worthwhile to pay it on longer trips but employees would definitely think twice before taking First Class.

So in a perfect world, if the system is working properly, it's accounting for the things you brought up and setting fares in a way that achieves the best possible outcome for the airline. With that said, rarely is it a perfect world and there are plenty of instances I ran across where stuff just plain doesn't make sense.

BTW, in my previous explanation I forgot a critical piece - competition. Fares sometimes don't make sense because the airline is matching a competitor. Because the routings are usually different that can give the appearance of random insanity. Newark-Chicago-San Antonio and LaGuardia-DFW-San Antonio look like apples and oranges. In reality the bottom line is NYC to San Antonio and the airline would lose business if they didn't match the fare.