LatinAviation From Ireland, joined Nov 2003, 1276 posts, RR: 17 Posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2290 times:
Just read a quick newsbite in Aviation Daily that says US Airways is going to reconfigure some of their 757 fleet into an all-economy configuration for use on leisure routes, but not create a separate LCC entity.
In a quote with their CEO David Siegel, he said that US could probably maintain a revenue premium of 5-10% over Southwest, but not much more than that. That is a sure lot more realistic than AA's targeted revenue premium of 30%.
L1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2072 times:
Hmm. not a bad idea. The 757 is already an economical airplane and adding more Y-class will probably increase revenue per flight. I enjoy the US 757's...I fly on them a lot. I would also add better IFE on them and increase the seat pitch a tad. Just my $.02.
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 11957 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2058 times:
I think this idea just further confuses and to some extent pisses off your premium cabin passengers, especially when it is not explained well, before hand or by the poor crew who gets stuck dealing with it. Keep it simple, fix the problem and stop using band aids.........
LatinAviation From Ireland, joined Nov 2003, 1276 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
Perhaps Aviation Daily misquoted Siegel somehow, but I just re-read it to make certain I got it verbatim from the publication. "[US]...plans to reconfigure some of its Boeing 757s into a single class to stay competitive with low-cost carriers on domestic leisure routes."
Perhaps, they some will get the 8F/185Y configuration while others will go to a full Y configuration? For leisure routes it makes perfect sense given the capacity of the 757.
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1380 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
Luv2Fly, what's confusing about it? IMHO, doing something like this is the least confusing option to the greatest number of individuals. And it's not like converting all of its 757s and subsequently applying them exclusively to certain routes that would otherwise keep premium customers from sitting in the desired section...it might simply do so on certain flights on certain routes.
I ask only because your last statement, when removed from the rest of your post, seems to describe what US is proposing perfectly.
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 11957 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1566 times:
My point being when it was said they were going all coach, it is confusing to pax who were flying first and now change of planes, all of a sudden to be one an aircraft now coach only. Also to have aircraft in your fleet configured only for a certain market, i.e. the leisure Florida market, even the best laid plans get changed, now all of a sudden you have an aircraft mechanical you switch aircraft and you have to explain to x number of pax who might have actually paid for 1st, hey you are now in coach. It looks good on paper and I am sure the bean counters love it, tho in the real world, no.
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1380 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
now all of a sudden you have an aircraft mechanical you switch aircraft and you have to explain to x number of pax who might have actually paid for 1st, hey you are now in coach
ahh, that part makes sense...thanks for clarifying.
I suppose I think that mechanical changes of equipment happen enough that either (1) the exact same configured aircraft is exchanged or (2) one of similar enough configuration is to minimize the net loss of first class or total seats, i.e. to reduce x. According to posts above, this effects anywhere from 16 (if 8F are to remain) to 24 (if all Y) persons per seemingly infrequent situation. I'll defer to your judgment as to how often either situation occurs, but it would appear to me that this simple change best addresses the ratio of demand between F and Y class seats given limited their resources/options.