An Industry Gone Crazy
Eight Gun Fighter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Industry Gone Crazy
In an era when you can get almost anything you want from an airline through ubiquitous “ancillary” charges, why does 99 per cent of the industry continue to deny consumers the one thing they value beyond almost anything else?
Australia’s airlines continue their dumbing down of the passenger experience as Virgin becomes more like Qantas in its race to acquire high-yielding business travellers.
Tellingly, that involves the axing of premium economy in favour of a fairly squeezy domestic business and a Jetstar-like economy class of as little as 30 inches (76 centimetres) per seat row.
Most of the action is at the front of the plane, where Virgin’s new 737 business class offers four-abreast seating at 38-inch pitch compared with Qantas’s four abreast at 35-inch pitch. One of Virgin’s best deals will be its three-abreast business class now being installed on its Embraer 190 regional jets, which are now being deployed heavily on Canberra services, as well as its only central Australian route from Sydney to Ayers Rocks/Uluru. (Comically, Virgin’s E190 service departs Sydney for the Rock and arrives at exactly the same as Qantas’s, just like the old Qantas-Ansett days).
But business class is usually five times more than discount economy.
Premium economy of about 34 inches is now being offered on only “selected” Virgin international 737 routes, as well as Boeing 777 flights from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane to Los Angeles.
But here’s the thing: most airlines that now have premium economy price it as an upmarket “product” one rung down from business class, not as a comfortable alternative to economy class. So, for example, a return ticket to Los Angeles will set you back around $1700 one-way on Virgin and nearly $4000 on Qantas for a seat that offers you only 30-50 per cent more space than economy, for which you might be paying as little as $1200 return.
So “premium” economy has gone the way of the dodo Down Under when one of the most successful low-cost airlines in America, Jet Blue, offers 34-inch-pitch economy as standard on its A320s (which includes free live satellite TV in every seat). So did budget Australian carrier Compass 20 years ago (minus the in-flight TV).
And “premium” is also standard economy at 34-inch pitch on most planes in the fleets of Asian carriers Malaysia Airlines, Thai Airways and Korean Airlines. Locally, Air New Zealand is more of a lottery on its Boeing 777s, with economy ranging from 31 to 33 inches. Qantas's standard is 31 inches (78 centimetres) and on Virgin Australia's 777s 32 inches.
American Airlines has also just announced a Main Cabin Extra program, which will give economy flyers four to six extra inches of leg space (10-15 cms) for $8 to $108 per sector, depending on the route.
If airlines are hellbent on turning basic economy seat comfort into a profit centre, how about simply charging for extra space? For example, a standard 17-inch-wide seat in a 737 occupies 510 square centimetres of floor space at 30-inch pitch and 578 square centimetres at 34 inches, an increase of 13.3 per cent.
If an airline wants to get the same yield for that seat as it gets for sardine class, it has to charge a premium of only 15 per cent or so. That’s what people want, but the airlines are determined not to give it.
Australia’s airlines continue their dumbing down of the passenger experience as Virgin becomes more like Qantas in its race to acquire high-yielding business travellers.
Tellingly, that involves the axing of premium economy in favour of a fairly squeezy domestic business and a Jetstar-like economy class of as little as 30 inches (76 centimetres) per seat row.
Most of the action is at the front of the plane, where Virgin’s new 737 business class offers four-abreast seating at 38-inch pitch compared with Qantas’s four abreast at 35-inch pitch. One of Virgin’s best deals will be its three-abreast business class now being installed on its Embraer 190 regional jets, which are now being deployed heavily on Canberra services, as well as its only central Australian route from Sydney to Ayers Rocks/Uluru. (Comically, Virgin’s E190 service departs Sydney for the Rock and arrives at exactly the same as Qantas’s, just like the old Qantas-Ansett days).
But business class is usually five times more than discount economy.
Premium economy of about 34 inches is now being offered on only “selected” Virgin international 737 routes, as well as Boeing 777 flights from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane to Los Angeles.
But here’s the thing: most airlines that now have premium economy price it as an upmarket “product” one rung down from business class, not as a comfortable alternative to economy class. So, for example, a return ticket to Los Angeles will set you back around $1700 one-way on Virgin and nearly $4000 on Qantas for a seat that offers you only 30-50 per cent more space than economy, for which you might be paying as little as $1200 return.
So “premium” economy has gone the way of the dodo Down Under when one of the most successful low-cost airlines in America, Jet Blue, offers 34-inch-pitch economy as standard on its A320s (which includes free live satellite TV in every seat). So did budget Australian carrier Compass 20 years ago (minus the in-flight TV).
And “premium” is also standard economy at 34-inch pitch on most planes in the fleets of Asian carriers Malaysia Airlines, Thai Airways and Korean Airlines. Locally, Air New Zealand is more of a lottery on its Boeing 777s, with economy ranging from 31 to 33 inches. Qantas's standard is 31 inches (78 centimetres) and on Virgin Australia's 777s 32 inches.
American Airlines has also just announced a Main Cabin Extra program, which will give economy flyers four to six extra inches of leg space (10-15 cms) for $8 to $108 per sector, depending on the route.
If airlines are hellbent on turning basic economy seat comfort into a profit centre, how about simply charging for extra space? For example, a standard 17-inch-wide seat in a 737 occupies 510 square centimetres of floor space at 30-inch pitch and 578 square centimetres at 34 inches, an increase of 13.3 per cent.
If an airline wants to get the same yield for that seat as it gets for sardine class, it has to charge a premium of only 15 per cent or so. That’s what people want, but the airlines are determined not to give it.
Paxing All Over The World
Yes, I'm on your side but ... if they can get the pax to pay for a couple of simple seating layouts, rather than having to develop new ones and refit the a/c (order new) and get the pax to understand the new layouts?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that most people base their decision on cost only.... several years ago American Airlines had "extra space in economy" on their transatlantic flights - and they reverted back after a couple of years as not enough customers were willing to pay the small premium....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seem to recall Americans lowest prices when they increased the pitch were typically nearly double that of competitors. BA get it about right, usually there are deals to be had as their PE service is economy with more leg room for small numbers.
I get the impression that while PE was initially a place where economy passengers paid a bit more for extra comfort it is becoming a place where business class passengers are trading down and the airlines are playing to this by raising the prices.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 82
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well - don't hold your breath. This is from Flight Global regarding MoL's specification for his next lot of Boeings for Ryanair:
Outspoken Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has offered a scathing verdict on Boeing's 737 Max, describing the re-engined narrowbody as a "dog's dinner of a design" that had been drawn "on the back of a fag packet as a response to the [Airbus] Neo".
Although talks "are ongoing" with the airframer about future orders of either the Max or current generation 737-800s, he complained "Boeing can't tell you what the Max looks like or what the fuel saving is".
An additional stumbling block is the carrier's concept for a standing-only area on its flights, raising capacity to 230 passengers from 189 on an all-seated aircraft. This would require the removal of the rear lavatories and final six rows of seats in the 737. "We won't place any new order until they [Boeing] come up with a fix for this issue," said O'Leary.
Although talks "are ongoing" with the airframer about future orders of either the Max or current generation 737-800s, he complained "Boeing can't tell you what the Max looks like or what the fuel saving is".
An additional stumbling block is the carrier's concept for a standing-only area on its flights, raising capacity to 230 passengers from 189 on an all-seated aircraft. This would require the removal of the rear lavatories and final six rows of seats in the 737. "We won't place any new order until they [Boeing] come up with a fix for this issue," said O'Leary.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines will tell you anything, before during or after the flight, but it depends when you ask as to what answer you get.
On another matter, I recently had the misfortune to suffer a four hour plus flight aboard a Thos Cook aircraft. The seat pitch was horrendous. I did the calcs and worked out the cost per seat to give each row an extra two inches of legroom was about £4 per seat/flight.
When I complained after the flight, the young lady calmly informed me that "The CAA stipulates the maximum seat pitch we can use." When I said, "Surely you mean minimum!" She corrected me, "No! It is definitely maximum." In the subsequent letter they did at least have it the right way round.
If my experience is anything to go by, unless you have a hip to knee measurement of less than fifteen inches, you are unlikely to fit into a Thos Cook aircraft.
On another matter, I recently had the misfortune to suffer a four hour plus flight aboard a Thos Cook aircraft. The seat pitch was horrendous. I did the calcs and worked out the cost per seat to give each row an extra two inches of legroom was about £4 per seat/flight.
When I complained after the flight, the young lady calmly informed me that "The CAA stipulates the maximum seat pitch we can use." When I said, "Surely you mean minimum!" She corrected me, "No! It is definitely maximum." In the subsequent letter they did at least have it the right way round.
If my experience is anything to go by, unless you have a hip to knee measurement of less than fifteen inches, you are unlikely to fit into a Thos Cook aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outspoken Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has offered a scathing verdict on Boeing's 737 Max, describing the re-engined narrowbody as a "dog's dinner of a design" that had been drawn "on the back of a fag packet as a response to the [Airbus] Neo".
Just a few points here.
The fares charged for the various seat types are determined by what the market will bear. Fares charged have no direct relationship to cost, although the accountants behind the scenes are making the comparison of course. If you just stick another 5" room on some seats and find you can sell them for 10 times as much, so be it.
In an industry where it is by no means unknown for every passenger on the aircraft to have paid a different fare, regardless of all the seats being simlistically the same, it is apparent that charging is based on what pax might pay for any combination of circumstances.
There seem to be a lot of urban legends about American's scheme of about 15-20 years ago, MRTC (More Room Throughout Coach). I was actually a user of AA at the time and experienced it. The fares were not significantly different, as otherwise I would not have been using them. And contrary to what I have often read, many of the pax on board actually did notice it, and commented on it, and seemed to have based their airline choice upon it. What happened was there was subsequently a major change in how US airlines handled their regular passengers, who now seem to get, and even expect, upgrades to the cabin above for their "status", which has among other things resulted in a collapse of paid-for First Class revenue on US carriers, with economy seating sometimes only at 80% occupancy while the F cabin in front is stuffed full of upgrades. Nobody seems to pay for F in the US nowadays, whereas everyone seems to expect it. Most bizarre !
The fares charged for the various seat types are determined by what the market will bear. Fares charged have no direct relationship to cost, although the accountants behind the scenes are making the comparison of course. If you just stick another 5" room on some seats and find you can sell them for 10 times as much, so be it.
In an industry where it is by no means unknown for every passenger on the aircraft to have paid a different fare, regardless of all the seats being simlistically the same, it is apparent that charging is based on what pax might pay for any combination of circumstances.
Seem to recall American's lowest prices when they increased the pitch were typically nearly double that of competitors.
I think that it was TWA who had More Space in Economy - they were acquired by American in 2001 and AA did not embrace the idea after the merger.
At the time TWA was doing poorly and needed something to differentiate themselves. However the airline continued to have a yield problem. This may have been caused by other factors - limited route network, poor reputation, etc. It didn't save the airline.
The yield per square metre of floorspace is generally (hopefully) higher in economy + compared with economy hence its popularity. That said if demand for the product is low on a particular day so can get good deals.
If you travel DL (and I would imagine other airlines) you will see the number of spare F & Y seats and the fee for upgrade (with an eligable fare class). In other words, if you want a free seat next to you don't travel F. Mind you load factors are so high these days you don't often get an empty seat next to you in Y very often.
Airlines line BA have a strict upgrade policy (in my experience it has to be authorised by by a supervisor on the ground and the captain in the air)
At the time TWA was doing poorly and needed something to differentiate themselves. However the airline continued to have a yield problem. This may have been caused by other factors - limited route network, poor reputation, etc. It didn't save the airline.
The yield per square metre of floorspace is generally (hopefully) higher in economy + compared with economy hence its popularity. That said if demand for the product is low on a particular day so can get good deals.
If you travel DL (and I would imagine other airlines) you will see the number of spare F & Y seats and the fee for upgrade (with an eligable fare class). In other words, if you want a free seat next to you don't travel F. Mind you load factors are so high these days you don't often get an empty seat next to you in Y very often.
Airlines line BA have a strict upgrade policy (in my experience it has to be authorised by by a supervisor on the ground and the captain in the air)
Last edited by Peter47; 11th Mar 2012 at 19:01.
Paxing All Over The World
Was it not around 2002/3 that AA did the big 'throwing away seats' thing? Their adverts showed them removing rows of seats from Y and giving more space. As I recall, it was about enticing Americanos back after 9/11.
Further, as I recall, they found that they did not get more bums on seats overall and so the rows went back in again. Is that how it was?
Of course, in the last years of recession, removing capacity outright has been the game and parking up is the preferred option as folks are just not travelling as much in the west and want lowest possible prices. So the 'pack-em-in' times have returned.
Further, as I recall, they found that they did not get more bums on seats overall and so the rows went back in again. Is that how it was?
Of course, in the last years of recession, removing capacity outright has been the game and parking up is the preferred option as folks are just not travelling as much in the west and want lowest possible prices. So the 'pack-em-in' times have returned.
What about seatbelts?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Standing passengers? Not yet they don't, and I don't see even the authorities standing (sorry) for it. Apart from anything else, what about the vertical G forces that a seat has to withstand? The other problem is that the aircraft in its present form can only carry 189 because of the emergency exits. More pax would require re-certification, something I don't think Boeing would be happy to do. Standing pax = bad publicity. MO'L might consider bad publicity is better than no publicity, but I suspect Boeing will think differently.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standing passengers? Not yet they don't, and I don't see even the authorities standing (sorry) for it. Apart from anything else, what about the vertical G forces that a seat has to withstand? The other problem is that the aircraft in its present form can only carry 189 because of the emergency exits. More pax would require re-certification, something I don't think Boeing would be happy to do. Standing pax = bad publicity. MO'L might consider bad publicity is better than no publicity, but I suspect Boeing will think differently.
