The 16 first class seats will be replaced by 30 economy plus seats, increasing capacity by 14 additional passengers per flight and reducing cost of first class food and equipment to serve.
A win-win for company and shareholders but a loss to consumer choice.
More like a supply and demand issue I would think, the issue here being there is no demand for first class seating so they are limiting the amount of “supply” of those seats to accommodate for less demand. Some airlines don’t offer first class seating at all, like Southwest.
There is demand for first class seating from nearly 100% of fliers. They’re just not willing to pay what AA is charging. This isn’t a supply and demand decision. Econ 101 says that means AA should reduce the price, but capitalism in practice says the constant desire for more profit and the monopoly that most industries have been allowed to grow and maintain means never lower the price and find a new way to fuck the plebs who don’t even own a single yacht.
That is the definition of no demand. Whether customers don’t want your product or the price you’re charging, it’s the same. It’s then up to your business decision which way you go from there, increase coach seats or lower the price of first class. Make the right choice and you stay in business.
Employee: “Customers are not seeing the value on the service priced at 4X of an economy seat. Let’s offer first class at a discount. Market research shows customers willing to pay a premium markup of up to 2X for it.”
Boss: “Great idea, let’s increase plane occupancy by making more economy premium seats and marking up all of them 2X!”
Boss gets bonus for innovation and promotion. Employee gets RTO orders, 1% merit increase, 2% COLA adjustment and a pizza party from the boss to thank for being part of the AA family!
It’s less that there’s not a demand so much as supply and demand work together. Not appart. When it comes to accounting, there are different ways to look at different things. The main one is financial accounting. Another one is taxes.
In the case of this: managerial accounting. Something that a lot of corporations seem to be failing at lately. Managerial accounting is basically finding information to report to the managers. For instance, breaking down the cost of an item to see how much it costs to produce, comparing it to how much it makes, etc.
One thing they do is figuring out how much to raise the cost of a good/service. It’s a slight gamble in that you can never be 100% sure, but they try to find that sweet spot where they can raise it without scaring away too many people and eventually losing money. In this case, they charge too much. The cost of flying, like everything else, has gone up. And we get worse service while there. So if you’re raising the cost of the different services, and you find that people are now only going with the cheaper option, you have likely started over charging. You need to drop the price of both services.
For instance, I might be willing to spend an extra $50 for an upgrade. But if you raise the price of the cheap service by $100, now I don’t have the money. Make the gap between the two $100, and now I really don’t have enough.
Of course, when every company made it a race to riase proces as much as possible, at this point I don’t think many companies have much of a choice. They all kind of fucked everything all at once, including themselves. But they made a profit in the short term, so there’s that.
If you have 40 first class seats instead of 60 regular seats, why would you drop the price of the first class if you could make more with the 60 regular seats.
“People don’t want to pay what you’re charging so you should drop the price”
AA: “No”
Repost to scare an economics 101 class.
Replacing those seats with regular price seats is just as proper.
The 16 first class seats will be replaced by 30 economy plus seats, increasing capacity by 14 additional passengers per flight and reducing cost of first class food and equipment to serve. A win-win for company and shareholders but a loss to consumer choice.
Nobody is making that choice, so what does it matter? This is spooky and demand doing what it does.
It doesn’t matter.
Would this technically be anti-capitalistic? They’re refusing to charge what the market will bear.
More like a supply and demand issue I would think, the issue here being there is no demand for first class seating so they are limiting the amount of “supply” of those seats to accommodate for less demand. Some airlines don’t offer first class seating at all, like Southwest.
There is demand for first class seating from nearly 100% of fliers. They’re just not willing to pay what AA is charging. This isn’t a supply and demand decision. Econ 101 says that means AA should reduce the price, but capitalism in practice says the constant desire for more profit and the monopoly that most industries have been allowed to grow and maintain means never lower the price and find a new way to fuck the plebs who don’t even own a single yacht.
That is the definition of no demand. Whether customers don’t want your product or the price you’re charging, it’s the same. It’s then up to your business decision which way you go from there, increase coach seats or lower the price of first class. Make the right choice and you stay in business.
In this market I imagine this has transpired:
Employee: “Customers are not seeing the value on the service priced at 4X of an economy seat. Let’s offer first class at a discount. Market research shows customers willing to pay a premium markup of up to 2X for it.”
Boss: “Great idea, let’s increase plane occupancy by making more economy premium seats and marking up all of them 2X!”
Boss gets bonus for innovation and promotion. Employee gets RTO orders, 1% merit increase, 2% COLA adjustment and a pizza party from the boss to thank for being part of the AA family!
It’s less that there’s not a demand so much as supply and demand work together. Not appart. When it comes to accounting, there are different ways to look at different things. The main one is financial accounting. Another one is taxes.
In the case of this: managerial accounting. Something that a lot of corporations seem to be failing at lately. Managerial accounting is basically finding information to report to the managers. For instance, breaking down the cost of an item to see how much it costs to produce, comparing it to how much it makes, etc.
One thing they do is figuring out how much to raise the cost of a good/service. It’s a slight gamble in that you can never be 100% sure, but they try to find that sweet spot where they can raise it without scaring away too many people and eventually losing money. In this case, they charge too much. The cost of flying, like everything else, has gone up. And we get worse service while there. So if you’re raising the cost of the different services, and you find that people are now only going with the cheaper option, you have likely started over charging. You need to drop the price of both services.
For instance, I might be willing to spend an extra $50 for an upgrade. But if you raise the price of the cheap service by $100, now I don’t have the money. Make the gap between the two $100, and now I really don’t have enough.
Of course, when every company made it a race to riase proces as much as possible, at this point I don’t think many companies have much of a choice. They all kind of fucked everything all at once, including themselves. But they made a profit in the short term, so there’s that.
“”- econ 101 student
AA: “No” cocks gun
They could simply be chasing the largest profit.
If you have 40 first class seats instead of 60 regular seats, why would you drop the price of the first class if you could make more with the 60 regular seats.