Greedy Airlines & SlimLine Seats!

[Heathrow Harry]

Spent 2.5 hours in a BA A.319 (in slave) - fitted with the thin seats - my God - the pain

No cushioning at the base of the spine, rock hard seat - I've seen more comfortable seating at a football match :(:(

[theredbarron]

I came up from Lisbon in one not so long ago and thought much the same as you HH. Very disappointing but sadly just a sign of the continuing downward spiral of BA service levels.

[ExXB]

No doubt a big bonus was paid to someone for squeezing in more seats ...

[Basil]

That's a bit disappointing. Cue increasing sales of inflatable cushions ;)

[Espada III]

It's a shame because the thin seats on EZY are more than OK and provide far more space than the fat seats on BA. Flying BA shorthaul on a full flight is torture with thick, reclining seats.

[HeartyMeatballs]

It's such a shame as the cabin looks great. Stylish, yet no frivolity like fancy mood lighting and unmistakably British. However, BA's new cabin seems to get almost as many complaints as a ten abreast 777.

Are there any plans to move to Spaceflex? I know the toilets are cramped but I'd much rather have more legroom and simply put up with a cramped loo for the 30 seconds that I'm in it. Spaceflex would free up some cabin space however no doubt they'll just cram more seats in. Not to mention the militant unions. I can't see them being happy. Not without a fight anyway. But I do think it would make operational sense for all IAG A320s to have the same layout.

When a ULCC is doing it better than you are, then you have a problem. No matter how many 'free' drinks or packets of birdseed you feed people.

[Espada III]

When a ULCC is doing it better than you are, then you have a problem. No matter how many 'free' drinks or packets of birdseed you feed people

Indeed. For the MAN-LHR sector that I use occasionally I would prefer the space from EZY and no worrying if the trolley dollies will get to me with my drink before we get to the point they have to go back in their galleys. (Or worse and have to go around - happened to me twice). I once flew BA on this route and had a huge and very smelly man next to me; I was by the windows. An extra 50mm would have let me breathe and escape to the loos without to much disturbance.

[Heathrow Harry]

Thinking about it I've flown a lot on BA A.319's - even with the new seat - it's never been terribly comfortable but the latest one really was bad - the worst seat I've ever had in years of flying anywhere - so maybe it was a one-off

or maybe the new seats degrade fast to benches...........

[Swedish Steve]

The BA A319 that are based at LGW are ex BMA and have different seats and layout to the A319 that are based at LHR. They were not fitted with the new BA seat, they have the BMA seats still covered in BA leather. They are not as good as the new BA seats.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

It's my fault and yours.
No one will pay the required fares to have decent legroom and in house well trained airline ground staff. It's so 20th Century, so by all means gripe, I do often, but it's your fault as much as mine.
BA would love to hang onto the prestige and classy aura of ye olden days but they'd be even less competitive and I'd just book EZY and gripe about how stuck up BA were.

#really

It's like competing with the other guy who is filling his B777s at ten abreast in Economy, you have no choice. Come the next cabin refit, we all know what has to happen as not nearly enough people will pay nearly enough money to maintain a credible business case for status quo.

[mockingjay]

I do feel for them however they still have a good short haul product. They're only marginally more expensive that EZY or DY however it has T5 which still looks amazing almost ten years on. BA also have a much better preflight experience with no barnyard style hoarding of passengers or bag police at the gate. The onboard snackage is a real disappointment compared to days gone by and the crew inconstatant. However it's still a good product. 186Y on th A320 should help too.

Also, Alex Cruz has written to crew promising major changes so who knows what the future may bring.

[Muzzey]

I don't mind the new Pinnacle? interior too much, yes the seats are thin but even at 1.85m tall, I can manage a two hour hop within Europe, for sure its not club seating but no worse than other carriers in Europe (I have to fly Lufthansa again to Munich next week ��) With
similar seats - last time I flew short haul with LH the seats seemed to be recycled from an old 2CV!
I guess it's economics - more lightweight seats, less fuel burn?
Muzzey

[Heathrow Harry]

Absolutely Muzzey -that was the whole reason for the new seats - plus you can maybe squeeze in another row of the suffering....................

[HZ123]

Alex Cruz will want more for less and has already told the BA community of more cost cutting !

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

They're also outsourcing maintenance, LGW is going soon I believe?

[Doors to Automatic]

The whole problem here is one of "derived demand" - put simply people do not purchase an airline ticket because they derive pleasure from the product (i.e. The flight) - the flight is simply an unavoidable hurdle to get from A to B.

As such any airline that undercuts on price will quickly pick up market share. In economic terms it is a very price elastic market. The inevitable product of all of this is a race to the bottom. As one poster said previously as soon as one carrier starts ramming in 10-across seating into their 777s everyone else is forced to follow suit in quick succession.

Ryanair leads the market with a cost per seat of around 27 Euro for a one hour sector. Wizz is close behind at around 30 - the others are scrambling around to do anything they can to hold onto their market.

This, sadly is 21st Century short-haul aviation. My prediction is that Ryanair and Wizz will have 80% of this market by 2030 unless other carriers rapidly sharpen their pencils.

[Hotel Tango]

DtA, unfortunately you are right, much to my dismay. But am I the only one who still wishes for, and is willing to pay for, a little extra comfort? Business Class within Europe is ridiculously expensive and I certainly don't need that product for a 1 or 2 hour flight. But where I might now pay €150, I personally would be happy to pay an extra €100 for a little more leg room. Whenever, I fly to distant holiday destinations within Europe I always try and find carriers which offer a comfort class product. Generally I find it to be full or close to full, which would indicate that there obviously is demand for it. If an LCC was to sell a small percentage of seats at an appropriate fare with a more generous seat pitch, but with the same pay-as-you-go cabin service, they would fill them. It would quite likely generate an increase in their client base too.

[Doors to Automatic]

Hotel Tango, they do - they are typically the emergency exit row seats and row 1 :)

[Hotel Tango]

Indeed DtA, but these emergency exit seats are not the best on the a/c (other than the legroom). Also (for obvious reasons) no armrest by the emergency window seat (may depend on type). I would still prefer the 1st three or four rows or so to be the prime seats, but without over charging for them the way the legacy carriers do. A good product I use whenever possible is Condor's Premium Class to destinations such as the Canaries. Decent seat pitch, guaranteed empty middle seat, extra weight allowance for hold (25kgs iso 20kgs) and cabin (10kgs iso 6kgs), dedicated check-in and upgraded complimentary catering. The catering option is not important for me, but on a 4.5 hour flight the lack of hassle and extra space is. On average the extra cost from Germany to the Canaries amounts to approximately €225 per seat each way. Many may think :eek: at that, but the fact that Condor sell these seats without any difficulty indicates that there is a market for them. I'm not flush with funds but it has always been my philosophy that my vacation starts as soon as I close my front door and not when I check-in at the hotel/appartment. Now I fully appreciate it isn't an option for a majority of travelers, especially those with families. My point and my worry is that I don't want to see future air travel excluding these reasonably priced options. In a European travel world dominated by the likes of RYR and EZY this could likely be the outcome.

[PAXboy]

Hotel Tango I agree that there are people prepared to pay a bit more as the great success of the PE cabins has shown, I'm just back from x4 sectors with SQ in their new PE and the small number of seats were booked.

BUT, the greatest majority of people paying their own ticket want the lowest price and the carriers will show them the lowest price to get their attention.

For example, an advert that was presented to me whilst looking at a UK newspaper site was touting 'Broadband for £2.50 a month'. I knew that was a come on and waited to see the adverts next page. The 2.50 was for the first year and then 5.00 a month, so a not untypical 'bait'. Then the small print says, 'line rental 16.99 a month'. So that's £22.00 a month then.

Humans are hard wired to go for the lowest price.

[Evanelpus]

I don't think 'trolley dollies' is acceptable now.

What about wagon dragon then?;)

[Phileas Fogg]

BUT, the greatest majority of people paying their own ticket want the lowest price and the carriers will show them the lowest price to get their attention.

That's not true ... One want's the most cost effective and convenient trip and 'cost effective' includes travelling to/from airport of departure, transport costs, car parking, buggeration factor etc. etc. etc.

Now, let me think when I lived in the East Midlands, probably 1.5 hours from LHR, my regular destinations included AMS, CDG, DUS, FRA, MUC, CPH, ARN, MXP, FCO, RIX, KBP, SIN & HKG and, amazingly, I could achieve all of these, regularly, at schedules that suited my purpose, and at trip prices that suited my pocket, from BHX!

Now how many imagine that one needs to travel to London, perhaps Manchester, to travel to these destinations? ... It's a case of educating the travelling public, many will be driving past such an airport as BHX on their way to/from London, spending perhaps hundreds in travelling costs to save a tenner on an air far?

[PAXboy]

I agree there are those who want the right deal PF but the advertising goes where the money is. On holiday I was talking with a retired man ( a genuine multi-millionaire) and he was complaining about the LCCs and how they charged him $$ for being 1Kg overweight.

At his local airport there are at least three carriers to take him on his regular domestic sector in Australia. So I asked him what made him choose a particular carrier? "The cheapest". [unquote]

[Hotel Tango]

Yeah, but he was an Aussie! :E

[Doors to Automatic]

Hotel Tango - this issue for a short-haul LCC is how many seats to convert to less dense config. If they are lowering the capacity of the plane they need to make sure that the seats fill. The problem is that the demand for premium seating will be different by month, time of day, day of week and destination so getting the mix right if you are a large LCC like easyjet with a diverse network is nigh on impossible. You can of course run different configs on different aircraft but all of this detracts from the one feature common to successful LCCs - simplicity.

[Hotel Tango]

Yes indeed and I am of course aware of that. Going back to Condor, they have a number of rows with just that little bit more leg room. When booking Premium the seat selection engine offers only row 1 until such a time row 2 is required, and so on, until all YP seats are allocated. If for instance at a given time (I don't know what criteria they use for this) some of these YP rows remain free and the Y cabin is full, then those remaining YP rows are released for sale as Y. Yes it means that some lucky people will have the extra 2 inches or so but they get none of the other extras. The airline therefore retains a certain amount of flexibility with the cabin configuration.

[Capot]

A real benefit for customers of airlines using this seat, or a triumph of accountant-led cost reduction and who-gives-a-toss-about customers' comfort and well-being? You choose.......

Boeing Selects New 737 Seat Supplier (http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2016/04/07/boeing-selects-new-737-seat-supplier/?utm_content=bufferec30f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Here's a typical response in one forum....

All of the new slim line seats are substandard. There is little to no back or seat support, the maximum time a customer can be reasonably comfortable is about 1 1/2 hours. A three to six hour trip leaves the customers complaining of back and hip pains. The bottom cushions last only about 45 days when in normal service, regardless of what the different manufactures say their durability and Life Cycle tests show. The airlines demanded lighter weight seats, the stockholders demanded lower costs for profit. The airline company line was for fuel reduction costs. The real reason was the ability to add an additional two to three rows of seats in coach. The seating industry complied with the airlines demands. THE AIRLINES GOT WHAT THEY PAID FOR, a sub standard seat product, with overall more frequent seat cushion replacement, more frame repairs because the frame cannot withstand constant use and movement by overweight passengers. The real end result is more dissatisfied customers complaining.

[ExXB]

I actually like squeezie's slim line seats. In particular the 'no recline'.

[Heathrow Harry]

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/576813-ba-319-seats-torture.html

[Espada III]

I actually like squeezie's slim line seats. In particular the 'no recline'.

Here here!

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Jet2 were the first to introduce these slimline seats a few years ago. I can't say that I find them at all uncomfortable, I have been as far as Larnaca and back in them, 5 hours, no trouble.

The additional legroom that they facilitate is a great benefit, I'd much rather that than my last Monarch flight with the "old" padded seats with no leg room at all.

[Heathrow Harry]

"The additional legroom that they facilitate is a great benefit"

Ho ho ho - the airlines fit them so they can squeeze in more seats....... you don't get extra leg room - just more bodies to checkin and get on and off the plane and a rotten seat as well................

[PAXboy]

Possibly 'more useful legroom'?

[ExXB]

HH U2 was already at the max number of pax seats with the old seats. Fitting slimline did not give them more seats. As I said I find them more comfortable - and I love the no recline

I hope they have all their aircraft configured with them soon.

[DaveReidUK]

the airlines fit them so they can squeeze in more seats....... you don't get extra leg room - just more bodies to checkin and get on and off the plane and a rotten seat as well................

To get even one more row in a 737/A320, the new seat would have to enable seat pitch to be reduced by an inch-and-a-half (i.e. 2 inches in practice).

No amount of seat redesign would achieve that without also involving a significant reduction in legroom.

[Espada III]

Emergency exits and crew numbers determine the maximum number of seats. If already at maximum number with regular seats then slimline seats by default increase the pitch.

My only arguments on board have been about morons reclining their seats to maximum deflection, at full speed and no prior warning. Not great if there is a glass of liquid on your tray table.....

So three cheers for slimline, no recline seats, which I also find are comfortable.

Was on a Brussels A320 this week with a new interior. 30 rows (so same as EZY), with the same number of seats, but a different arrangement with much smaller toilets and the last row of seats has no windows. Far less comfortable, despite the recline and less space for the cabin crew on their rest. What a waste....

[DaveReidUK]

Emergency exits and crew numbers determine the maximum number of seats. If already at maximum number with regular seats then slimline seats by default increase the pitch.

I think you mean they increase legroom, not pitch.

[ExXB]

Seat pitch is the distance from the back of one seat to the front of the seat behind it. As slimline are thinner the distance (seat pitch) increases.

[rjtjrt]

......As slimline are thinner the distance (seat pitch) increases.

Or, alternately, if enough room is made, airlines can put another row of seats in, whilst not increasing "needlessly" the distance for passengers legs.

[DaveReidUK]

Seat pitch is the distance from the back of one seat to the front of the seat behind it.

No, it isn't, never has been.

It's the distance between any (fixed) point on a seat and the same (fixed) point on the seat in the next row (for example the attachment points on the seat rails).

http://www.trolleytips.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/pitch.gif

[ExXB]

... Provided they do not exceed the certified maximum number of seats. U2 (Squeezie) had 159 seats on their A319s before the slimline seats. As that is the maximum for that aircraft they couldn't add any more seats. An improvement in pitch and legroom

Airlines that have fewer than the maximum could, of course, squeeze in more seats if possible. Aircraft in mixed configurations are candidates for this.

[fa2fi]

U2 (samelegroomasBaJet) has never had 159 seats on the A319. samelegroomasBaJet don't have slimline seats installed on any of their A319s which seat 156Y.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Ho ho ho - the airlines fit them so they can squeeze in more seats

Not true, the aeroplanes have the same number of seats as they had with the "old" style seats.

[ExXB]

Apologies 156 seats on an A319, both before and after the slimline seats.

[fa2fi]

There are no slimline seats on the A319 to my knowledge. It's A320s only I believe.

[DaveReidUK]

EZY differ from other A319 operators in having four overwing (Type III) emergency exits instead of the usual two, which allows them to exceed the standard 145 passenger maximum for the A319.

EZY's limit is 160 pax, though it's hard to see any way they could physically squeeze in more than 26 rows, hence their 156 passenger configuration.

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm sure there is a whole pig-pen of guys and girls at EZY working on exactly that issue Dave

4 more seats!!!! = possible 2.5% more revenue per flight

[fa2fi]

The A319s are gradually being replaced with brand new A320 CEO and NEO from next year and will feature an additional 6 seats and the Spaceflex rear galley.

U2 have had the A319 for well over a decade. If there was a way to fit additional seats into the A319 then I'm sure they would have figured out a way to do it by now. Removing, combing or moving toilets, galleys or anything just wouldn't work. I'm surprised it's certified for 160. Maybe Airbus had ideas back when it was ceritified?

Four more seats doesn't sound a lot but with half a dozen flights every day multiplied by 364 then that's a lot of money.

[Capot]

possible 2.5% more revenue per flightAnd a 50% increase in net income, perhaps....the mantra in the last airline I worked with full-time was that the last 4 seats in the cabin (all economy) gave us a return on the flight.

[chefrp]

I recently flew 4 sectors on Qatar. BKK-DOH, DOH-JFK and back JFK-DOH, DOH-RGN...

The flight from BKK was 5hrs on the A380 and was great. In DOH we boarded the brand new A350 for a 14hr trip to JFK... the plane is gorgeous. The main circular entrance amazing, than you step into the Economy cabin. My wife's 1st statement was "the seats are so small!" The FA said oh yes they are... cabin was very well designed...except these seats...they didn't even line up with the aisle numbers above (must have been a late decision). Well we were very lucky, no one sat in our row, or in front of us...maybe the word is out, even so the seats where awful, cramped, no leg room, tight, hard! My wife had really bad problems with swelling in her legs. It was miserable. On the way home we flew one of their older 777's with the 3-3-3 config (which they are switching to 3-4-3). What a difference, I slept the whole way in comfort.

What is with these airlines, so greedy... they are turning record profits and just cram more seats in the planes. Are they safe? And why on super long haul? Oh and one more thing, when someone reclines you have to as well, and still your LCD screen is about 2 inches from your face.....:mad:

I use to like Qatar...

[chefrp]

The whole problem here is one of "derived demand" - put simply people do not purchase an airline ticket because they derive pleasure from the product (i.e. The flight) - the flight is simply an unavoidable hurdle to get from A to B.

As such any airline that undercuts on price will quickly pick up market share. In economic terms it is a very price elastic market. The inevitable product of all of this is a race to the bottom. As one poster said previously as soon as one carrier starts ramming in 10-across seating into their 777s everyone else is forced to follow suit in quick succession.

The problem with racing to the bottom is that when you get there, there is nowhere else to go! I blame the airlines, not the customers. Greed is the real driving force. A quality product for a fair price no longer happens in this day and age. Oil prices are rock bottom, planes are more fuel efficient, does the customer gain any benefit? No, unless you pay thousands to sit up front... I'd love to see a new business model based on quality come along and sweep all of these CEO's and cost cutters into the sewer where they belong. It will happen, once they reach the bottom of the bottom, someone will come along and do it.... and they will be some sort of visionary for actually giving a s#%t...

[Andy_S]

Welcome to Economy Class.

Like it or not, Airlines are businesses. They exist to make money out of you. Accept it. It’s pointless complaining about airlines being “greedy” – they will always look for ways of maximising the return on their assets, and are fully entitled to do so.

Equally, you are entitled to travel on a different airline or to pay more and upgrade.

[chefrp]

I agree with you mostly. Recently I upgraded to Premium Economy on Singapore, and it was great. But it is not realistic for the average customer to upgrade to business, as the price differential has become so steep. What I am saying is that the business model will eventually fail. Do you know they haven't even done health test on these seats? Yes the customer lets this happen by wanting super cheap tickets, but the airlines are taking advantage of this. I guess it is the case with most corporations nowadays, they are all "greedy"....

[HeartyMeatballs]

Is it safe? I believe it is and most likely the aircraft config actually seats way less than it is certified to carry.

Supply and demand. The airlines are providing what the market is prepared to buy. With options for those who want to upgrade.

Cramped seating is nothing new. AOM, Corsair, what is now Air Caribes, Britannia and other tourist bombers have always had cramped seating 20 years ago. It did us no harm then. The thing is people still expect to pay 1996 prices and expect luxury.

Something has to give. If people aren't prepared to pay for it, then why should airlines provide it? Just look at AA who have recently gone 10Y on the 777 and have just two rows of first class on the A32S. Why? Because it was full of free upgrades. Nobody was prepared to pay for First, so they've acted accordingly. BA now have LCC legroom on their A32S. Times are changing.

Aircraft are vastly expensive assets and airlines have every right to configure and operate how they seek fir in order to get a return on their investment.

[Andy_S]

Yes the customer lets this happen by wanting super cheap tickets, but the airlines are taking advantage of this.

And therein lies the problem.

As long as passengers prime motivation is the cheapest fares, the airlines will cut corners to ensure those fares are available. Because if they don’t their competitors surely will. I’m sure passengers will insist that they’re willing to pay more for a better travelling experience, but how much more? £30 each way? £40? I suspect that once you start getting into the realms of £50 or more, interest will rapidly wane (there is an economic term for this sort of price vs demand relationship, although I can’t remember it right now). The higher the premium, the more that pax will be inclined to suffer in cattle class.

I think there is a modest subset of the economy class travelling public who, while unwilling or unable to pay business class fares, are happy to pay significantly more for a more comfortable experience, hence the increasing availability of Premium Economy cabins (which Singapore have recently started offering, as you say). I’m actually surprised that none of the Middle Eastern carriers have started offering this yet – it would be a good differentiator to the competition.

[PAXboy]

Talking of American, around 2002 they had a big advertising campaign showing them removing seats and increasing the pitch. Folks love it - but not enough and the seats went back in again.

[PAXboy]

Regrettably, for as long as the Western world remains with a heavily depressed economy - nothing will change. I do not expect the Western economy to return to anything like the 1990s ever. We might recover a bit but as we have not yet recovered from 2008, it is clear that the 2nd Depression is going to last for some time.

[HeartyMeatballs]

AA did have More Room Throughout Coach or something similar. The cynic in me believes that AA did this knowing that post 9/11 the planes would be a struggle to fill so removed the seats anyway boosting load factors at the same time. As soon as the market started to recover they put the seats back in.

[TomU]

I really believe that we need an industry agreement (I hate to suggest legislation) that seats with less than 32 inch pitch should have no recline or very limited recline.
I really detest it when the seat in front reclines to max. Unable to access my meal tray, someones sweaty dandruff scalp right uner my nose, and my knee caps crushed.
I do take note of airlines with short pitch and large angle recline in economy, and avoid those airlines.

[Hotel Tango]

As far as Long Haul is concerned, I fly Business while I can still (though barely) afford it. There will come a point one day (soon) when I will be forced to downgrade to Economy Plus (though only on sectors of maximum 8 hrs mind). With present Y cabins I will give up L/H travel rather than fly Economy. Most Economy cabins have now become intolerable. There does indeed need to be worldwide legislation for a comfortable Economy seat pitch and seat width.

[Hotel Tango]

it is clear that the 2nd Depression is going to last for some time.

So why are Business Class fares going through the roof right now?! Presumably, I guess, because there's a healthier demand for them. To me that signifies that things must be looking up (well, at least for the time being) ;)

[Dont Hang Up]

As long as passengers prime motivation is the cheapest fares, the airlines will cut corners to ensure those fares are available.

Once again the old cliches are trotted out: It's the passengers' fault; You get what you pay for; Only yourself to blame!

Actually that is not how it works.

1st: Some 'entrepreneur' decides to enter the airline market with a low cost business model - seeing multiple different ways to squeeze the cost: suppliers; staff; turnaround times; passenger comfort & consideration.

2nd: Many who could not previously afford to fly can now do so.

...so far so good, however...

3rd: Many who did afford to fly but for whom it was a financial struggle now move to the low cost supplier.

4th: The established airlines see their economy class load factors drop.

5th: The established airlines join in with the low cost competitors on the economy-class race-to-the-bottom on quality.

6th: Business fares escalate in a bid to maintain the profit margins - hopefully the new levels of discomfort pulling in a few of the more comfortably-off from the economy cabin.

Which basically leaves the remaining majority of us sitting in discomfort, treated like cattle, and resenting those smug so and so's telling us we're only getting what we deserve.

[Andy_S]

As far as Long Haul is concerned, I fly Business while I can still (though barely) afford it. There will come a point one day (soon) when I will be forced to downgrade to Economy Plus (though only on sectors of maximum 8 hrs mind). With present Y cabins I will give up L/H travel rather than fly Economy. Most Economy cabins have now become intolerable. There does indeed need to be worldwide legislation for a comfortable Economy seat pitch and seat width.

With respect, I disagree. Aviation is a competitive market and you have abundant choice of airlines and cabins. Quite apart from the wholly unrealistic expectation of “worldwide” legislation, what you propose is blatant interference in the running of someone else’s business. What you’re actually suggesting, effectively, is that airlines should subsidise your desire for more comfortable economy class travel (and BTW, how do you define a “comfortable” pitch and width?)

Have Economy Class cabins really become intolerable? It might seem that way if you’re used to flying First or Business, but speaking personally I don’t think they’re any worse than they were, say, 20 years ago. If anything, I find the Long Haul economy experience more bearable than it used to be. Maybe some of that comes with experience, but more modern and quiet aircraft, better cabin air and individual and more sophisticated IFE also play a part.


2nd: Many who could not previously afford to fly can now do so.

...so far so good, however...

3rd: Many who did afford to fly but for whom it was a financial struggle now move to the low cost supplier.

Which pretty much proves my point.

.......resenting those smug so and so's telling us we're only getting what we deserve.

I'm not sure if that was aimed at me, but for the record I never suggested that passengers get what they deserve, more that they get what they (mostly) want; low fares.

[ExXB]

Someone ironic to see some seeking industry agreements to regulate seat pitch and density. The regulators did away with IATA agreements on this a couple of decades ago as they were anti-competitive and had a price fixing effect.

Yes airlines are greedy and have made 'shocking' profits over the last couple of years. But this is a result of high demand and low fuel costs a combination that rarely happens to this industry. But this too will change ...

[ExXB]

HT watch what is happening with air freight. A downturn in demand for capacity is quickly followed by a downturn in demand for Business Class.

Hasn't happened yet but ...

[Hotel Tango]

To be honest I don't know too much about the air freight business, but doesn't it always see a downturn as the Summer approaches? Anyway, I for one will be pleased if Business Class fares become more competitive again.

[Hotel Tango]

Have Economy Class cabins really become intolerable? It might seem that way if you’re used to flying First or Business, but speaking personally I don’t think they’re any worse than they were, say, 20 years ago.

That's interesting. I did almost all my L/H flying in Economy at a time when, in contrast to today's product, it was still a pleasant enough experience, even on the charter airlines of the time (mainly non UK airlines). After a particularly uncomfortable ride in a crowded Airbus A340 of a well known scheduled operator some 16 years ago, I turned to my wife and announced that from then on we would fly L/H in Business or not at all. Since we flew for leisure, and thus booked earlier than the average business man, we discovered plenty of affordable Business Class fares out there. That's how it came about. I'm afraid I cannot agree with you at all that Economy travel today compares favourably or better than 20 years ago and beyond.

With regard to worldwide legislation, my argument is that if a minimum comfort factor is legislated then all carriers are competing on a level playing field which is not detrimental to the basic comfort of the travelling public. As for what constitutes "comfortable" that would be a matter of debate of course, but I would venture to suggest anything but what is considered "normal" today :)

[PAXboy]

Seat size appears to be having another side effect.

The Airplane Seating Arrangement that Triggers 'Air Rage' (http://gizmodo.com/the-airplane-seating-arrangement-that-triggers-air-rage-1774254543)

[Metro man]

I recently flew 4 sectors on Qatar. BKK-DOH, DOH-JFK and back JFK-DOH, DOH-RGN...

You're lucky you didn't fly on the B787, then you would have something to complain about. I avoid it like the plague unless its on a short haul sector where the alternative is a narrow body.

Back in the 1970s engines weren't powerful enough to carry the loads in todays cabins so seat numbers were limited and density wasn't so high. More powerful and fuel efficient engines meant greater loads could be lifted and carried further. London - Sydney became one stop instead of three, increasingly on a twin engined aircraft rather than three or four.

Passengers want low fares, they then complain about the cost cutting required to achieve those fares. They then say they will pay a bit more for increased comfort, a couple of inches more leg room and a better quality meal. However next time they book they will choose the cheapest option and continue complaining.

The bare bones low cost flies with a full cabin of whinging punters whilst the operator with the better product flies half empty losing money.

Soon there will be either low cost or premium carriers and nothing in-between. RyanAir compete on price and have non reclining high density seats with no meals or baggage on a basic ticket. Singapore Airlines offer a top class service with everything included and charge accordingly.

Aer Lingus had a particularly hard time as they were high cost and poor service. They tried cost cutting by reducing meals and baggage but were still more expensive and their customers thought why spend extra for a reduced service when we can get this standard even cheaper elsewhere.

Cathay have reduced the standard in economy as they have to compete with the middle east airlines but have kept up the profitable premium cabins.

These days an airline has to be either good or cheap. Premium economy is normally double the regular economy ticket price, rather than the 3 - 5 times multiple for business class but is still expensive for a few inches more legroom and a slightly better meal.

Basic economy ticket conditions are increasingly being eroded with fewer frequent flyer miles given and sometimes reduced baggage allowances but the reduced fares are able to come out on top of the important travel search engine results. Of course when you go to book you find the fares are unavailable for the timings you want and you end up with a dearer ticket.

BTW I find Qatar Airways to be generally very good and often one of the cheapest options.
The new B777s are being configured 3-4-3, the old ones are staying 3-3-3 as the expense involved in a major cabin reconfiguration isn't worth it on an aircraft with limited life remaining.

[FlightlessParrot]

IME, it is quite hard to discover seat pitch when booking. I have chosen to fly Air NZ, rather than cheaper alternatives, because their economy cabins tend to be better suited for long haul, but that could change without my knowing.

Competition is supposed to be good for customers, not businesses. But this only has a chance to work if the customer has reasonably good information. It would be nice if we knew about flight crew recruitment policies, too: or should that just be left to the profit motive, too?

[chefrp]

HeartyMeatballs said

Is it safe? I believe it is and most likely the aircraft config actually seats way less than it is certified to carry.

Aircraft are vastly expensive assets and airlines have every right to configure and operate how they seek fir in order to get a return on their investment. Which airline do you lobby for? smh
Have you never heard of DVT (deep vein thrombosis)? There have been no studies to determine if the new slim line seats make the risk greater. And as this article discusses possible rage!

https://travelersunited.org/policy-columns/are-shrinking-airline-seats-unsafe-and-unhealthy-too/ :eek: (https://travelersunited.org/policy-columns/are-shrinking-airline-seats-unsafe-and-unhealthy-too/)

Have you ever flown 14hrs in cramped seats with 32" pitch? No one is forcing these airlines to cram extra rows in, they are doing because they are greedy. Like I said, lower fuel cost have neither lowered the cost of flying or improved the service...

The problem is everyone is copying the Middle East airlines because of thier success, so, we can look forward to 10 accross on the 777 .... :mad:

[Metro man]

IME, it is quite hard to discover seat pitch when booking.

Try Airline Seat Maps, Flights shopping and Flight information- Best Airplane Seats - SeatGuru (http://www.seatguru.com)

[Andy_S]

Passengers want low fares, they then complain about the cost cutting required to achieve those fares. They then say they will pay a bit more for increased comfort, a couple of inches more leg room and a better quality meal. However next time they book they will choose the cheapest option and continue complaining.

This summarises my own feelings very concisely.

You know, pitch and width isn’t everything. I’ve already referred to IFE and air quality, but another factor is how crowded the cabin is. I find having an empty seat next to me a transformational experience when travelling economy. Give me a cramped seat with an empty space next to me over a couple of inches extra leg and elbow room any day of the week.

Competition is supposed to be good for customers, not businesses. But this only has a chance to work if the customer has reasonably good information.

Again, we’re so much better off than we were 20 years ago. Seat maps, timetables with equipment types, passenger reviews and more – all are available within seconds.

No one is forcing these airlines to cram extra rows in, they are doing because they are greedy.

Once again, I have to take issue with this. Airlines are businesses, not charities – maximising profit is what they do. There’s absolutely nothing immoral about that. Remember that we, as consumers, also have the right to take our custom elsewhere.

[Hotel Tango]

Again, we’re so much better off than we were 20 years ago.

You are mixing two things up. Technological advances: yes. Cabin comfort and service: A most definite no.

Is IFE the be all end all of travel? I did many 10 and 11 hour sectors on LTU L-1011s with two young kids (one who never slept) and no IFE. We never got bored!!!

You can have your IFE, I'll take more comfort, thank you.

[Andy_S]

Is IFE the be all end all of travel?

Of course not. I'm just making the point that it's one element that contributes towards how endurable a long haul economy class journey is. I find that with plenty of on demand entertainment the hours just seem to slip away. But we’re all different I guess.

[Dont Hang Up]

Passengers want low fares, they then complain about the cost cutting required to achieve those fares. They then say they will pay a bit more for increased comfort, a couple of inches more leg room and a better quality meal. However next time they book they will choose the cheapest option and continue complaining.

Again missing the point entirely.

Lo-cost suppliers gouge maybe the bottom 20% out of the regular airlines economy class load factors and that is enough to start the downward spiral whether the remaining 80% want it or not.

This idea that we have lots of choice and continue to choose the cheapest is just not the case.

[Metro man]

Qantas gave some of their leisure routes in Australia to their low cost off shoot Jetstar, some of the passengers were upset at having to fly low cost when they were prepared to pay for full service, however there weren't enough of them to justify retaining QF on the route who had to get their prices down or lose out to the competition.

QF codeshares with J* on some routes and their passengers get a meal, blanket and baggage allowance together with the FF miles even though the operation is low cost, if they've booked it as a QF flight number.

Air travel these days is a cheap as its ever been when calculated in number of weeks pay to ticket price. If you took the same number of weeks pay as it cost in the 1960s to fly London - Sydney return economy, at todays prices you could do the journey in business class and have change.

Choice today is greater than ever, with premium economy and business class slotting in the middle between economy and first. On most routes I have a reasonable number of options depending on how much I'm prepared to pay, on a short sector I can't justify paying twice as much just for a cup of tea and a sandwich.

On longer flights, daytime travel on a decent airline, perhaps with a short connection in the middle to stretch the legs, and paying for a preferred seat is an acceptable alternative to a premium cabin.

For my summer holidays I bought two return economy tickets for $2000, P/E would have been $5000 and business $10 000. The difference in price will nearly cover accommodation and car hire for ten days.

[PAXboy]

I recently went to SYD and back on holiday. We choose PE and paid a fair amoutn for it but, for us, it was worth it. I know others who have used it and said it was not worth it and continue to do l/h in Y. That's the choice.

When out there, I was talking with a man who was complaining about JetStar charging him extra for being 1 Kg overwight. Since he has a choice of three carriers on his usual internal flight, I asked him how he chose his carrier? "The cheapest" He is a bona fide Millionaire.

Are they greedy? I think it's just human nature to want to make as much money as possible. Airlines are subject to enormous swings of demand, often at short notice (9/11 and the crash of 2008 etc.) and they make what money they can. If people pay for a Suite or Y, they wil get as much as they can. Companies selling chocholate bars will get as much money from you as they can.

DVT is difficult. I have known cases where the person hasn't been on an aircraft in a year and so nothing to do with it.

Is it safe? For an emergency evacuation? I doubt it. I have been sceptical of these evacuation timings for over 20 years - long before they started squeezing in the extra rows. Unfortunately we shall never know. Because, if the crowded rows cause a problem, the pax thus delayed will not be able to tell us about it ... In other words, business as usual.

Originally published in 1999, this is still the way things are: The Tombstone Imperative: The Truth about Air Safety by Andrew Weir

[Davef68]

I was row 31 on my EZY A320 on Monday (new style seats) - Seats A, B C in Row 31, the other side had the toilet

[gdiphil]

Metro man- I absolutely agree with your views on the B787. Last month I flew Bangkok - Muscat on Oman Air in Y, on a B787 for the first time. The aircraft was configured 3-3-3. I don't ever recall in over 50 years or more of flying L/H in Y being so cramped. The plane is really an updated (in size) B767. And just over a week later I flew ORD-LHR on an AA B767 configured as you would expect 2-3-2.
Wherever possible on L/H I will avoid the the B787.

[Metro man]

The B787 was designed for a 2-4-2 seating configuration but IIRC there are only two airlines, All Nippon and Air Canada which ordered it like this, everyone else went 3-3-3. I flew one eight hour flight in 9 across economy, luckily the aircraft was half empty and I got a full row of seats but it still felt cramped.

The return flight was on an A350 which was a pleasure even though the cabin was almost full. This is now my aircraft of choice, ahead of the A380.

[chefrp]

Happy to see this thread take off, and yes this is a topic we all want to talk about. Whether you agree with me or not that the airlines are greedy, we all seem to agree that economy class has become very uncomfortable. But lets break it down. If any of you out there are professionals and can put in some $numbers, please do.

We will use United Airlines as our example...
777-300 ER
lowest possible price quoted
One way EWR-NRT

keep in mind this is a 3-3-3 setup, so not as greedy

108 Economy seats at $500 each = $54,000
114 Eco-Plus seat, (no price) $1000 each = $114,000
20 Business seats at $1889 each = $37,780
20 1st Class seats at $1889 each = $37,780

total profit if plane is full
$240,000
% paid by Eco/Plus = 70%

1.Anyone know how much it costs to run this flight?
2.Shouldn't economy class get better treatment based on the % they pay for the flight?
3.Why not make it 2 classes, Middle Class and Rich Class, get rid of Business and Eco Plus. Make Middle class comfortable and charge a fair price. Make Rich class ridiculous and charge a fortune.

These other classes are ploys... Economy plus only exists because Economy Class is so awful. Ditto business class....

Thats the new business model ... tell me what you think ...
We can have a security guard between the 2 classes with a velvet rope :D

[PAXboy]

Eeeer, it's not $240,000 'profit' but Gross Income. You will never find out what it costs to operate the sector. Part of that is that each sector has to carry not just the cost of it's own operation but a percentage of the overall cost of running an airline. (Think about insurance for a moment)

Further, they have to allow for the cost of flights that do not run with high loads. They are looking at operations across the whole year. Since each flight is priced to maximise it's income (naturally) they could operate ten sectors in 2016 and the same ten sectors (with the same aricraft and identical loads) in 2017 and make less money.

[chefrp]

oh yeah, sorry gross :*

point is, they are making money, and making it on the backs of the economy cabin. The legacy carriers should never have gotten into the cheap seat business, thats the greedy part.

But there has to be an average cost for 1 long haul flight. It cant be that much of a mystery...

[PAXboy]

The airlines charge what the market will bear - just like every other commodity. Sometimes, house prices go down and someone loses and someone gets a good deal - when the scales tip the other way someone loses and someone gets a good dea.

I do not like cramped seats and narrow aisles anymore than the next person and I choose whether to fly or not - just like every other commodity.

[ExXB]

On the 777 UA uses on EWR NRT the configuration is 8F, 40J, 113Y+, 108Y. They don't have a Y+ fare per se, but any Y passenger can pay a flat amount to upgrade.

Unlikely that every seat is filled on ever date. More likely 85-95% of Y; 75-85% of Y+; 60-70% of J and 50-60% of F. (These are guesses I have no knowledge of what they actually are)

As a network airline many of UA's customers are connecting onto and off of this flight. As fares are not set sector by sector you need to assume a 20-45% (sometimes more) dilution from prorate costs. (i.e. A passenger travelling from Washington to Singapore could travel IAD-EWR-NRT-SIN. Fares for that journey could be Y/486, J/1890, F/7078 which would have to be prorated over the three sectors. The EWR-NRT flight is about 65% of the total journey giving it Y/316, J/1228, F/4600 from the ticket price before deducting taxes.) ...

Now Children and Infants (and Ship's Crews, Staff, Travel Agents, etc.) get discounts ..


Estimating an airline's total revenue for flight is not easy and is prone to error. In fact the airlines rarely try and track revenue per individual flight. You have likely overstated the potential revenue by a significant amount, and the proportions are likely wrong as well.

And don't forget that this aircraft type will burn something like 8,100kg per hour for a 14 hour flight. Refinery fuel costs are around $429 per metric tonne, airlines probably pay 10% more so the fuel bill alone more than likely eats up all of the Y/Y+ revenue. They you add in the other costs ...

Damn greedy airlines

[tomuchwork]

Anyway, old story. Woodclass makes the flight happen and J and F make the sugarcoating(still need to pay off salaries, aircraft lease, insurance, company infrastructure,+++ from that money remaining after removing fuel costs).

Branson said it once right - how to make a small fortune with airline business? Easy - start with a big fortune.... ;-)

[Peter47]

chefrp

I suspect that if you asked a dozen accountants what a flight costs you would get at least two dozen replies. Different airlines will account for costs differently and make different decisions.

You have the direct costs (fuel, crew, landing fees, etc) but also overheads (running the head office, etc). You can always look up an airlines accounts and divide the total costs by the available seat km which gives cost per available km. Costs such as handling may be a bit higher for longer distance flights but certainly don't rise in line with stage length so longer flights should have a lower cost/ASKm. The other approach, as suggested, is calculate the fuel cost per sector (hours x tonnes/hr x cost/tonne) and divide this by the proportion of costs accounted for by fuel. This approach would work if fuel costs were stable (of course they never are).

If you look at airline seat plans long haul J class seats may occupy three times the floor space as Y. However the load factor will be lower. Take this into account and you would expect to pay four times as much. I don't know how catering costs differ between the two or indeed total passenger service costs including lounges, etc.

I suspect that the average yield for J compared with Y is more than 4 times as much on some routes although it will obvious vary by time of year. A few years ago I read that all the profit on the North Atlantic came from premium traffic and that Y made a loss (although again this will vary by airline, route, time of year, etc).

One of the reasons for the growth in premium economy is the huge gulf between J & Y. I have read that its profitability is closer to that of J than Y, its good for the bottom line. Looking at fares it seems that many travellers are willing to pay a high premium.

Its interesting that BA are reconfiguring some of their 747s increasing J and reducing Y. They obviously think that the money is in J.

It would be interesting to know how much it would cost to reduce density and if people would pay. Airlines claim that punters won't pay extra, although that may depend upon how tall one is.

[PAXboy]

History shows that there are not enough people willing to pay a penney/cent more than they have to. The airlines know the price tipping point for any sector. They know when/where there is a big event and plan capacity and prices acordingly. There are still 'bucket shop' type operations but far fewer than there used to be (hint: Computers!)

[Metro man]

There is a basic economy class being talked about and even offered by some airlines. Seating is a higher density in that part of the cabin or involves getting the middle seat, limited if any baggage allowance and possibly no meal or frequent flyer points. Its a step down from regular economy in the same way that premium is a step up.

Fares reflect the lack of frills, however the frills are available on the same aircraft at a higher price. This enables full service airlines to compete with low cost carriers without setting up a separate operation. Passengers can buy the level of comfort that they are prepared to pay for and have no justification in complaining as product and price are laid out at the time of booking.

I sometimes see four levels of economy ticket available; Fully flexible, regular, saver and super promo with decreasing flexibility and increasing cost to alter the tickets as the price goes down. However the cabin and amenities are still the same.

Basic takes this a step further enabling the cost conscious to pay less for a lower standard in the cabin. A college student going home on holiday on a two hour flight would probably be quite happy with basic, a couple going on honeymoon would want a bit more and a business man would want flexibility. Everyone could be catered for by the same airline on the same aircraft.


Airlines to Introduce a New Passenger Class Below Economy - Fortune (http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/airlines-basic-economy/)

[El Bunto]

They then say they will pay a bit more for increased comfort, a couple of inches more leg room and a better quality meal.'A bit more' would be fine. But as usual the airlines aren't interested in a bit more, they want it all.

BA online one-way fares per seat for the Gatwick - Orlando service, May 2017. Typical for a family heading to Disney, for example:

Economy: £1298
Premium Economy: £1800That's 40% more per seat, per sector. Is there 40% more space? No.

Let's expand that request to two adults and two children, still one-way:

Economy: £5,045.28
Premium Economy: £7,199.28Obviously five grand one way isn't sufficient to ensure comfort, the airline needs another two grand to consider offering that.

[Andy_S]

Firstly, if you’re paying those sort of fares for economy, you’re dumb anyway.

Secondly, I don’t think anyone pretends that Premium Economy or Business represent value for money. Those cabins exist because some passengers are willing to pay for them.

[HeartyMeatballs]

TravellersUnited - the site that claims 'too many' people are denied boarding or removed for being 'drunk', 'unfit', 'unruly' or being too fat. They are an anti-airline hobby blog. Nothing more, nothing less. They are not authoritative.

At the end of the day, YOU choose who you spend your money with. If a service provider does not provide a service that meets your demands and needs, then go elsewhere to someone who does.

Airlines exist to make a profit. Period. They are not public services nor do they operate for the benefit of passengers.

People seem aggrieved that the airlines are finally making money after years of huge losses and in some places government bailouts. Now they're making money people seem somewhat annoyed.

Should we go back to the days of bloated government run money pit airlines? After all these were the 'good times' of 'free food', 'free bags' and massive legroom. Oh, and terrible reliability and safety. Or maybe we should re-regulate the airlines and make them fly with 2% load factors to places that don't warrant all jet services? Or maybe we should go back to the days or £600 day return for UK domestics or AMS/CDG routes? No?

Airlines are providing services for which the market can support. They're making money too. Good on them.

[Metro man]

The fares quoted are one way, I can easily find return tickets for half of those prices. Booking a year in advance is a bit too much, around three months ahead will get a better deal. Premium economy is nearly twice the economy fare and for a flight of around eight hours, difficult to justify. Also P/E fares on a direct route with a major airline get quite close to business class fares on a second level airline involving a connecting flight.

The London - New York route is weighed towards premium passengers who keep the price down in the rear cabin. A business class ticket is typically 5X the economy fare, where as London - Bangkok is around 3X.

Someone wanting LON - SYD without a stopover on the way might be able to justify the extra expense as they will be onboard for nearly 24 hours with only a short refuelling stop to break the journey and will need to get a few hours sleep.

An Auckland - London flight via Los Angeles or Singapore would be one of the few routes where business class could be worth paying for.

[Heathrow Harry]

even in Business it's a killer................ you come off with your brain totally scrambled.............

[PAXboy]

metro man
Someone wanting LON - SYD without a stopover on the way might be able to justify the extra expense as they will be onboard for nearly 24 hours with only a short refuelling stop to break the journey and will need to get a few hours sleep.

I agree and we did pay extra for PE but hundreds of people choose to pay the least possible and be cramped up for nigh on 24 hours. Every day of the week, hundreds go from the UK to Oz in Y. What percentage who will pay more?

[ExXB]

I did that route quite a few times, with GVA-LHR and SYD-CBR connections. In the end, for me, doing the entire journey in one go was best. Breaking it up with a day or two in BKK or SIN was the worst. Can't imagine a DXB routing either. One medium and one ultra LH wouldn't appeal to me.

I certainly wouldn't do any of the above in Y though.

[chefrp]

Hearty Meatballs said

Airlines exist to make a profit. Period. They are not public services nor do they operate for the benefit of passengers.

So this is what business has come to these days. No benefits for their paying customers? Wow! You seem to come from the Ebenezer Scrooge school of business. But remember what happened to him.

and.... of the good old days when we all were so smug for being comfortable while traveling...

Oh, and terrible reliability and safety.

This statement is unrelated to the topic. Safety standards today are due to the new planes and training, nothing to do with the airlines themselves, they have to follow these rules, period!...god help us if they didn't, could you imagine what they would cut for profits?

"we only need one pilot"
"who needs seatbelts"
"regular checks are expensive, we will cut back on them"
"if everyone stands we can cram in more passengers" (we have heard about this idea)

So Hearty, Singapore Airlines is a government owned airline, the best airline in the world, offers good legroom, free meals, clean planes and outstanding service...what is so wrong with that? They seem to be doing just fine...

[HeartyMeatballs]

Um, passengers do benefit. They get from A to B in great safety and airlines deliver the product that they have been contracted by the passenger to deliver at a price they are willing to pay.

Airlines that are state run or state subsidised have an unfair advantage and provide poor value to taxpayers in their respective countries that have to bankroll bloated organisations or vanity projects. SQ is indeed a very good airline, however the government is a 55% shareholder.

You're entirely wrong about airlines not contributing to safety. Many airlines have made numerous safety improvements. To say it's all about new aircraft (I don't recall a statistic to prove that there's a direct correlation between aircraft age and the likelihood of a hull loss) and training is a little narrow minded.

[PAXboy]

With all this talk of greed - if the millionaire I mentioned a while back - only wants to pay the cheapest price and (although he can easily afford it) only travels in Y:- is he greedy too? Or does greed only attach to the receiver of the money?

[Hotel Tango]

is he greedy too?

No, but he doesn't impress me. I consider him a sandwich short of a picnic!

[Stanwell]

Hey, PAXboy .. Here's one for you.

A relative of mine was, at the time, (late 1800s) the wealthiest man in Australia.
One day, he was recognised travelling 2nd Class on a train.
When discreetly queried about this, he gruffly responded...
"That's because they don't have a 3rd Class on this train!"

So, there you go. :cool:

p.s. I hasten to add .. Neither his wealth nor parsimony rubbed off on me.

[The SSK]

I left the world of airline economics two years ago (and I don't miss it) but one of the standard metrics throughout the industry is cost per ask (available seat-km). Ryanair and the like used to trumpet how they got their unit costs down through quick turnarounds, low user fees etc, but the biggest gulf between the (then) BA, Lufthansa etc was the seating density. Increase the capacity by 25%, your seat-km costs come down by 20%. No other single cost saving can come anywhere close to that.

[Andy_S]

So this is what business has come to these days. No benefits for their paying customers?

Not if those benefits cost them more money than they can claw back in higher fares. That’s not how business works.

You seem to come from the Ebenezer Scrooge school of business. But remember what happened to him.

Ebeneezer Scrooge was a fictional character.

Singapore Airlines is a government owned airline, the best airline in the world, offers good legroom, free meals, clean planes and outstanding service...what is so wrong with that?

SQ are, indeed, a first rate airline and I’ve enjoyed flying with them in the past. But they’re not cheap…… I’m planning a trip to Singapore later this year, and while I’m considering a number of airlines, SQ aren’t one of them simply because the fares for the dates I’m interested in are significantly higher than many of the alternatives. This is what you seem to struggle to understand. I have many choices in how I get to Singapore, and while I could afford to pay more to fly with SQ I have chosen not to do so. Others may choose differently. That’s the joy of a competitive aviation market.

[Hotel Tango]

That’s the joy of a competitive aviation market.

Yes, as long as it remains so. Unfortunately, the way things are going, my concern is that the way even the majors are being forced into following the cheap & nasty module (at least in Y that is) there soon will be no choice other than cheap and nasty.

[Metro man]

Singapore Airlines are government owned but commercially run, the idea was to make money rather than have a state subsidised, inefficient, poor service, jobs for the boys excuse for an airline like so many developing countries. Air India or Kuwait Airways come to mind.

The fares tend to be in the upper range unless you get lucky with a special deal but the airline is profitable so they must be getting it right.

Yesterday, I had a flight on a full service airline but budget economy ticket ie last class. The baggage allowance was 10kg rather than 20kg but I had no check in bags anyway. The wife and I ended up in middle seats in separate rows and got only 50% of the normal airmiles. No complaints at all and quite acceptable for a 1:20 flight. The fare was only slightly higher than a low cost and I needed to keep my account active to avoiding losing my miles, so it was worth it for me.

[Sultan Ismail]

The best airline in the World?
During last 20 years I have used Malaysian Airlines and Singapore Airlines for travel to Europe and South Africa, in fact I have almost 90 return trips to South Africa in that time. I also thought SQ were No. 1, probably because they said so.
However my last trip to Europe was with British Airways, not my favourite airline but the fare offered was irresistible.
I was in the back row of economy for 14 hours in a seat that gave me at least 7 hours of deep sleep, and meals were as good as they get, fillet steak and cheese omelette for breakfast.
So which is the best airline?

[Rwy in Sight]

Andy_S,

An airline tend to be more expensive for flights to/from its base and less expensive when selling a ticket involving a connection via/through its base. So maybe you are a bit unfair to SQ.

To the thread: Unfortunately all airlines offer a similar seating so it is hard for the customer to choose the one with the largest pitch.

[Metro man]

BA and SQ B777s are 9 across in economy compared with 10 across in EK and many other airlines. Width is as important as pitch.

[Heathrow Harry]

Actually SQ was originally the long haul bit of the old MSA - which was already developing a good reputation.

Lee Kwan Yew wanted it to "brand" Singapore as a go-ahead, first world, full service, friendly and efficient place to attract tourists and business so he gave it his full attentrion - a rather frightening prospect but boy did they succeed................

[Stanwell]

How are Garuda getting on?
Have they fitted roof-racks with ladders to their aircraft yet?

[Andy_S]

They apparently have a good reputation these days.

9 across economy config ex-LHR on their 777's as well.

[Metro man]

Garuda have a 5* rating with Skytrax and most of the recent reviews are very positive.

[Phileas Fogg]

Some years ago, thanks to Frog Air, I learned that if an airline has 10 across seating in a B777 economy then they can go shove their product up their butt.

I haven't travelled long-haul since 2011 but when I come to do so I shall be checking online seat plans before booking.

[PAXboy]

In that case, Garuda have improved consideraly. In the late 90s they had a very low reputation.

[Heathrow Harry]

flew them last year in Business and they were very good - especially at passenger handling at Jakarta

[chefrp]

Andy S wrote:

This is what you seem to struggle to understand. I have many choices in how I get to Singapore, and while I could afford to pay more to fly with SQ I have chosen not to do so.

Enjoy your flight. I am sure you will be cursing me the whole way, and kicking if you could move your legs (thinking about the pleasure of flying SQ)...

and

Ebeneezer Scrooge was a fictional character.

Yes, but there was a valuable lesson to the story that apparently you and all of the Airline CEO's missed, what a shame :ugh:

And finally, this was just in the NY Times today: great read and wraps up the current state of our discussion...

http://nyti.ms/1WVu0wK

[ExXB]

Rubbish. Free bags have little if any effect on amount of carry-on. At airports where Southwest is dominant there are the same problems.

It just sounds right, but it isn't.

[HeartyMeatballs]

I don't see the issues. Airlines are providing bare bones fares where you pay basically for the seat and fuel. My optional extras will cost you more. You control how much you pay and pay for things that you need. I don't expect the vegetables and gravy to come for free when I buy a joint of beef.

Processing baggage incurs a real cost to airlines and therefore should be passed on. The same goes for food. If you want extra legroom it's available. If you want premium classes they're available too.

It's a free market. Airlines provide a service that the market will support whilst generating profit and shareholder benefit. Shareholders can include pension funds or mom and pop investors so a lot of people do benefit.

Nobody forces anyone to do anything they don't want. Choice is choice and if you don't link they way someone runs their business, hit them where it hurts and vote with your model.

It seems to me people are bitter and very anti LCC and blame them for the changes in their full size airline. This is BS. LCCs compete on a tiny fraction of long haul routes.

If it all gets too much for you then there's Seat61.com. A really cool site that tells you how to get around without giving a penny to their airlines.

[Metro man]

I knew a Captain who used to use the coach between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur rather than fly, even though he had access to staff travel. Door to door the coach journey was only two hours longer, it stopped closer to his home, no-one weighed his luggage, he could sleep most of the way in a comfortable seat and the coach never diverted because of bad weather.

For my next dive holiday I'm looking at using a ferry instead of flying. The airfare is very expensive, baggage is limited, the airport in question is small and has many diversions/delays/cancellations during the wet season and I have to wait before I can fly after diving.

The ferry is 1/3 the price, saves me two nights hotel accommodation as the sailings are overnight, I can take all my dive kit with me, I don't have to worry about decompression sickness and it can still sail in weather that would close the airport. I'll spend half the journey asleep onboard instead of sleeping in a hotel at origin/destination so I don't really lose any holiday time at all.

[Heathrow Harry]

hope it isn't a PELNI ferry.......................

[El Bunto]

Processing baggage incurs a real cost to airlines and therefore should be passed on.So does provision and servicing of a toilet. Yet oddly airlines don't charge for that. Why not?

[HeartyMeatballs]

You can go several flights without water and waste and it is usually covered by ground handling as a fixed cost included in the contract so comparing toilets to baggage is rather moot. Depending on the routing and time of day theta one water and waste visit will serve 600+ pax. It will be done every night and then usually at a crew change or at the request of the crew. You can't compare the two.