Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's The Point Of A Spacious Y?  
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2218 posts, RR: 24
Posted (2 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 9029 times:

Before anybody thinks I'm just being incendiary, it's actually a serious question. I've been thinking of AC inducting the 787 in two years. And going over the discussions I've had in various threads about serving India (and how that's too low yield a market for AC).

In my mind, this raises an interesting issue. What's the point of airlines offering anything beyond minimal space in Y? Why not just go with 17in wide seats and 31in pitch? In my mind, it would seem to me that more profit can be had by constricting Y and then offering a decent premium economy cabin for those who are willing to pay.

Looking at Air Canada's two class setup, it does not seem optimized to get the best return. Sure, 9-abreast is nice in the 777s. But couldn't airlines like AC get better yields by cramming Y a bit more (ten abreast for 777s) and then upselling a Y+ cabin? The gulf between Y and J just seems huge at the moment. And I don't see how a "spacious" (relatively speaking) Y cabin helps airlines get the best yields out of the limited floor space they have on their airplanes, when that gap can be filled with Y+.

Most Y pax only book by fare anyway. Very few will pick airlines by comfort. And even if they have an opinion of an airline, they'll still fly it, if it's the cheapest. In essence, Y cabins are becoming the international flying equivalent of discount airlines. So with this in mind, what sense is there for mainline operators having spacious Y cabins? Why not a crammed Y and a decent Y+?

And yes, I detest a crammed Y. But it's the business logic that I'm thinking of here. To me, what NZ is doing on its 773 would seem to be the way to go. J with lie flats. A solid Y+. And a tighter Y with some upsell potential from the SkyCouch.

59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 8971 times:

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
Looking at Air Canada's two class setup, it does not seem optimized to get the best return. Sure, 9-abreast is nice in the 777s. But couldn't airlines like AC get better yields by cramming Y a bit more (ten abreast for 777s) and then upselling a Y+ cabin?

In my opinion, no. Not enough passengers will be willing to pay the Y+ premium, and with major competitors like BA (and all U.S. carriers operating 777s) still 9-abreast on 777s, they would lose passengers there also. Also results in inconsistent products since a 10-abreast 777 is much worse than an 8-abreast A330 or 7-abreast 767.

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
Most Y pax only book by fare anyway. Very few will pick airlines by comfort. And even if they have an opinion of an airline, they'll still fly it, if it's the cheapest.

I disagree. Many companies now require their employees to fly Y class, even on international routes. Many are frequent travellers and are familiar with the differences beween carriers and aircraft and will choose the 9-abreast 777 carrier over any carrier with 10-abreast.

It depends a lot on the carrier's total route network, but I think AC's network works best with their current 2-class product.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8904 times:

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
What's The Point Of A Spacious Y?

Assuming you have a Y+ option for your elites, there is none.

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
Why not just go with 17in wide seats and 31in pitch?

Airlines increasingly are. When they aren't, these days, it tends to be because the airframe doesn't work with 17" (or 17.2", more often) seats. The A320, 767, and A330/340 all fit in this category, as will the A350.

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
Most Y pax only book by fare anyway. Very few will pick airlines by comfort.

  

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
I disagree. Many companies now require their employees to fly Y class, even on international routes. Many are frequent travellers and are familiar with the differences beween carriers and aircraft and will choose the 9-abreast 777 carrier over any carrier with 10-abreast.

That is what Y+ is for. Only a few routes (most of them domestic) have so many elite travelers that they won't fit in a relatively small Y+ section.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Also results in inconsistent products since a 10-abreast 777 is much worse than an 8-abreast A330 or 7-abreast 767.

At least 75% of Y travelers are strict price bookers and won't notice or care (or if they do, it won't affect their buying decisions in the future). The rest should usually be in Y+.

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
To me, what NZ is doing on its 773 would seem to be the way to go. J with lie flats. A solid Y+. And a tighter Y with some upsell potential from the SkyCouch.

I think NZ is going too far with Y+. It will need too much of a fare premium to work. If I were NZ, I'd swap out the current Y+ section with a small section of 9-abreast, 35" Y+. Make the frequent and knowledgeable flyers happy, and cram the low price hunters into 10-abreast Y in the back with a fancy TV to distract them.

Do I sound cynical? Probably. But buyer behavior really is just about that simple.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8869 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
I disagree. Many companies now require their employees to fly Y class, even on international routes. Many are frequent travellers and are familiar with the differences beween carriers and aircraft and will choose the 9-abreast 777 carrier over any carrier with 10-abreast.

That is what Y+ is for. Only a few routes (most of them domestic) have so many elite travelers that they won't fit in a relatively small Y+ section.

But many companies won't pay the Y+ surcharge.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8849 times:

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
What's the point of airlines offering anything beyond minimal space in Y?

There isn't one. Coach air travel is a commodity and is traded chiefly on price just like corn or oil. Sure some corn is better than other corn, but not enough to really matter.

Quoting YTZ (Thread starter):
But couldn't airlines like AC get better yields by cramming Y a bit more (ten abreast for 777s) and then upselling a Y+ cabin?

It wouldn't surprise me.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
But many companies won't pay the Y+ surcharge.

They employees might. $1000 for business isn't going to happen, but a couple hundred for Y+ is a much easier sell.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5906 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8842 times:

Can this please not degenerate into a 10-abreast/EK/NZ/KL etc bashing thread

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
with major competitors like BA (and all U.S. carriers operating 777s) still 9-abreast on 777s, they would lose passengers there also

I think, that whatever one might of them, Emirates categorically prove that this is not true. They are one of the fastest growing airlines in the world, and the largest operator of the 777. And each and every one of them is 10 abreast.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Also results in inconsistent products since a 10-abreast 777 is much worse than an 8-abreast A330 or 7-abreast 767.

The A330 can be 9 abreast and the 767 8 abreast



YTZ you raise some interesting points. And to be honest, I think you're absolutely right.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8814 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 5):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Also results in inconsistent products since a 10-abreast 777 is much worse than an 8-abreast A330 or 7-abreast 767.

The A330 can be 9 abreast and the 767 8 abreast

Those charter-type configurations are incompatible with a major scheduled airline. They're both even worse than a 10-abreast 777.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8812 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
But many companies won't pay the Y+ surcharge.

Most frequent business travelers will be elite and will qualify for free Y+ upgrades. And as Y quality declines to satisfy price hunters, willingness among businesses to pay a relatively small surcharge for a relatively modest Y+ product for their frequent travelers may increase.

We are talking about 10Y 777s, but something else that may eventually happen is an 11Y A380 lower deck. It should be doable with 17" seats. The paradox is that it will only happen among airlines with relatively extensive premium sections, because on all-economy or almost-all-economy airlines, 11Y on the lower deck would likely exceed the certified capacity.

[Edited 2012-03-03 06:04:21 by SA7700]

User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2218 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8737 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Also results in inconsistent products since a 10-abreast 777 is much worse than an 8-abreast A330 or 7-abreast 767.

I was thinking more to the future. When AC gets its 787s, it's in a position to offer a consistent Y by going 9 abreast in the 787 and 10 abreast in the 777.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
Many companies now require their employees to fly Y class, even on international routes. Many are frequent travellers and are familiar with the differences beween carriers and aircraft and will choose the 9-abreast 777 carrier over any carrier with 10-abreast.

True. But they are also constrained by schedule. For example, would companies tolerate employees taking a one stop flight to avoid getting on an AC 777 to China? And are there tolerances for employee travel? I know in my work place (being CF), it's simply the lowest fare that AMEX (the Government of Canada travel agent) gives you. If you are picking a higher fare (regardless of the amount), you better have some solid substantiation for that deviation. Sure companies ask employees to fly in Y. But are they then lifting travel time and cost restrictions? This would imply that an airline could draw more corporate Y pax by bolstering the Y product.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
At least 75% of Y travelers are strict price bookers and won't notice or care (or if they do, it won't affect their buying decisions in the future). The rest should usually be in Y+.

This what I was getting at.... And really, the full planeloads for EK's 777s kinda shows that most pax really aren't that picky.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
But many companies won't pay the Y+ surcharge.

Though, depending on how often they travel, how much they get paid, and what the premium is, you might get quite a few who would pay the difference themselves. Let's face it, companies do cut back on air fare. But per diems in most workplaces are still good. If the fare is 10% more, I do believe quite a few would that out of pocket and gladly collect the miles and enjoy the other perks (better food, more legroom, etc.). Though maybe not if you're flying every week....

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 5):
Can this please not degenerate into a 10-abreast/EK/NZ/KL

The thing is....as much as people bash these airlines and the likes of Ryanair, the proof is in the pudding. These airlines are popular and profitable. EK is particularly interesting. It's cattle class is pretty close to discount international long-haul. But the same airplanes also have some of the most luxurious F cabins. To be fair though, the Y seats on EK's A380s are more in line with a Y seat on a 9 abreast 777. And unless they go for 16 in seats on their A350s, the Y seats on those airplanes will be wider than the Y seats that most airlines are piling on to their 9 abreast 787s.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
Those charter-type configurations are incompatible with a major scheduled airline. They're both even worse than a 10-abreast 777.

Concur. And I wouldn't go that far. That should strictly be LCC territory. But really, is it difficult to fathom most airlines going 17.2 in. wide and 32 in. pitch?


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1023 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8729 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
Airlines increasingly are. When they aren't, these days, it tends to be because the airframe doesn't work with 17" (or 17.2", more often) seats. The A320, 767, and A330/340 all fit in this category, as will the A350.

TS has 9 abreast on its 330s and 310s.

And I m sure someone can pull of an 8-abreast 767.

I don't disagree with the merits of the argument. Why not? My gut feeling is that it may be because the status-quo maintainers will gain a niche market without having to alter their yeild management, while the ones who change it will face customer resentment.

Personally, I wouldn't touch EK or AF with a bargepole. Even if it means paying a little more to fly some other airline. I suspec that there may be others like me out there.


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8681 times:

Maybe all of these "penny-pinching" accounts have some semblance of humanity in their black holes..

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
Do I sound cynical? Probably. But buyer behavior really is just about that simple.

No, you sound realistic. Most Y (well, they're more like U/T/Z/X ha) travelers don't care. Heck, they wouldn't even know until they got on the plane.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
and cram the low price hunters into 10-abreast Y in the back with a fancy TV to distract them.

I'd prefer a "fancy TV" any day.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2218 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8680 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
Most frequent business travelers will be elite and will qualify for free Y+ upgrades. And as Y quality declines to satisfy price hunters, willingness among businesses to pay a relatively small surcharge for a relatively modest Y+ product for their frequent travelers may increase.

Exactly what I was thinking. This is also a much cheaper way to reward your frequent fliers more often. Today, frequent fliers have to rack up a fair bit to upgrade to J. If there's a Y+ cabin, a frequent flier could be burning precious points going to Y+ on every second or third flight.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
The paradox is that it will only happen among airlines with relatively extensive premium sections, because on all-economy or almost-all-economy airlines, 11Y on the lower deck would likely exceed the certified capacity.

This is true today on every airline that has more than two classes in long-haul. Personally, this is why I tend to avoid 3-class airlines in long haul. Particularly where the middle class is J and not Y+. With space having to go to two premium cabins, Y becomes about as close to the literal definition of cattle class as you can get.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
I think NZ is going too far with Y+. It will need too much of a fare premium to work. If I were NZ, I'd swap out the current Y+ section with a small section of 9-abreast, 35" Y+.

I asked this a few days back. Nobody answered my thread. What's the seat pitch on NZ's Y+? While the seat looks amazing, space efficiency comes down to seat pitch as well as width. Consider for example, a comparison of NZ's Y+ and TK's Y+. TK offers an astounding 46in seat pitch. The seat premium should be about 52-53% more (as compared to a 9 abreast Y with 32in seat pitch). If we assume that NZ's seat pitch was 36in, the premium against a 9 abreast 32 in Y would be ~46%. Comparing the two, while TK's Y+ seat is more traditional in appearance, NZ's seat is phenomenal both on appearance and design. But ultimately, the seats don't cost nearly as much as what they translate into in terms of dollars generated from the floor space. NZ may well have found a way to get people to pay lots for a 36in seat (if this is the pitch).

NB. The premium between TK and NZ are about the same if NZ's seat pitch is 38 in.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
Make the frequent and knowledgeable flyers happy, and cram the low price hunters into 10-abreast Y in the back with a fancy TV to distract them.

Or upsell them a 'SkyCouch'. Unless Y loads are greater than 90%, NZ is not losing money selling this product.

This is utterly brilliant marketing on NZ's part. They've come up with a way to monetize couple/family time. Whether, that's snuggling on a SkyCouch or getting the middle SpaceSeats and dining together facing each other, NZ has found a way to make you pay more for the quality time you spend on an airplane with a loved one.


Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 10):
Personally, I wouldn't touch EK or AF with a bargepole. Even if it means paying a little more to fly some other airline. I suspect that there may be others like me out there.

I'm with you on this. But the thing is, we are far too few in number to really make a substantial difference to any airline. I seriously doubt that there's enough discriminating Y pax to make an airline think think twice about such seat changes. Maybe the publicity like you mentioned:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 10):
My gut feeling is that it may be because the status-quo maintainers will gain a niche market without having to alter their yeild management, while the ones who change it will face customer resentment.

This is easy to get around though. If I was an airline doing this, I would do it exactly like how NZ did it. Sell something like the SkyCouch and argue that you are giving your customers more options, from a bed to snuggle in, in Y, to a regional business class seat in the Y+ cabin. Also let's you offer consistency actually...making the Y+ seat on long haul, same as J on domestic flights.


Quoting ghifty (Reply 11):
No, you sound realistic. Most Y (well, they're more like U/T/Z/X ha) travelers don't care. Heck, they wouldn't even know until they got on the plane.

And for all their complaining (if they even realize the difference....most don't know fly often enough to know better and they assume the worst in Y anyway), they would rebook with you every time, if the fare is lower or the connections are more convenient.

The frequent business travelers can be more discerning. And these folks should rightly be served with Y+ seats. I honestly believe this customer segment is underserved today by airlines. They get a so-so Y seat in North America because J gets ruled out by their employer. And that's mostly because J fares are ridiculous, especially since beds in J started becoming standard. But, I can see many an employer agreeing to pay even 50% over Y for Y+ or the odd business traveller actually paying the premium out-of-pocket.

[Edited 2012-03-03 06:23:09 by SA7700]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8628 times:

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 10):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
Airlines increasingly are. When they aren't, these days, it tends to be because the airframe doesn't work with 17" (or 17.2", more often) seats. The A320, 767, and A330/340 all fit in this category, as will the A350.

TS has 9 abreast on its 330s and 310s.


Only TS A330-200s are 9-abreast. Their A330-300s are 8-abreast. I can't think of any major alliance member carriers that have ever operated cramped 9-abreast A330/340s. 8-abreast 767s are even worse and to the best of my memory have only been operated by a few leisure/charter carriers, mainly UK-based.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2218 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8558 times:

A simple question to discuss. Let's look at AC and flying to India again. Supposedly the market is low yielding. Isn't this here the ideal solution for a tighter Y? You offer a tighter Y class to be competitive and then sell your service on the fact that it's direct to India. At the same time, most J pax will pay a premium to go non-stop. A win on point-to-point. And a way to drub the likes of EK, EY and QR.

Another example: TATL. AC has to compete with the likes of TS which has an 18in seat but with 31in pitch. Going 17.2 and 32 is only slightly worse. Indeed, if you take a rudimentary measure (seat width X seat pitch), AC has 18 sq. in. more than TS today, but would be only 7.6 sq. in. less. AC goes from offering 3.22% more space to 1.36% less space while fitting in 1 extra passenger (12.5%) per row. I'd say that's huge. And because of a larger 777 and a more efficient 787, the tighter Y should allow AC to be pretty competitive against TS...allow while freeing up room for the money making premium cabins.

Of note, TS's Club Class has the same dimensions as NH's 787 Y seat. (19in width, 34in pitch).


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8511 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 16):
Let's look at AC and flying to India again. Supposedly the market is low yielding. Isn't this here the ideal solution for a tighter Y? You offer a tighter Y class to be competitive and then sell your service on the fact that it's direct to India. At the same time, most J pax will pay a premium to go non-stop. A win on point-to-point. And a way to drub the likes of EK, EY and QR.

The problem with a route like India is that there are very few J passengers, and Y passengers are extremely price-sensitive and will usually choose the lowest fare regardless whether it's a nonstop or not.

Regardless of stops, in markets like that all carriers are going to offer competitive fares, and the lower cost-structure of the Gulf-based carriers make it very hard for carriers like AC to compete profitably.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

I'll throw one thing out there:

When airlines have gotten ridiculous enough and the "free market" has led to a race to the bottom (recent example: excessive tarmac delays), the public starts to get really pissed off. And when the service gets to a certain point, the public starts demanding regulatory and legislative action.

I'm surprised that the airlines haven't figured this out yet. Mark my words, within a decade there will be an uproar about cramped Y conditions. A few pulmonary embolus deaths will make the news and the next thing you know, the government will be mandating seat pitch and width minimums.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 8250 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
And when the service gets to a certain point, the public starts demanding regulatory and legislative action.

And if the politicians have any sense at all they will tell the people that it's not their problem and stop clicking on the lowest fare, otherwise shut the f--- up.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
A few pulmonary embolus deaths will make the news and the next thing you know,

That's self inflicted. Drink water and get your ass out of the seat once in a while and you'll be fine.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCZ346 From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 95 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 8192 times:

I agree YTZ. I'm really sick of the whole E+ deal and just giving 5 extra inches of leg room. Even being 6' 8"....

I jumped on a flight back to the US a couple of months ago (on DL out of NRT) and when I got to the counter the gate agent told me I was upgraded. Well, I think you can imagine what I was "upgraded" to. And to be honest, even at my height, it didn't add too much benefit. I typically book exit row or bulkhead on 10hrs+ anyway - and great, with Y+ you give me free wine to knock me out. Thanks for making my jet-lag worse.

I think even if they offset the seats a little bit, maybe took a seat out or added a footrest it would at least make me a little happier with it. At this point, I can assure you I wouldn't pay any extra money for a standard Y seat with a couple of inches of leg room like they're advertising right now. I'll go with an int'l carrier. Its not like I won't get the miles.

I was flying back from PEK yesterday on CO and thankfully got bumped up to businessfirst (mainly due to the generosity of the F/A's) but, I must admit I still really don't fit in BusinessFirst. But its about the legroom, which a lot of US carriers aren't understanding. It's the accommodations and seat. Charge me $600 more on an int'l flight, give me a seat that reclines more, has 5-7 inches more legroom and a footrest.

Long story short - I agree. I think they could make a LOT more money marketing a realistic median between Y and J - even if it was closer to J. Even at a higher cost.

Chris


User currently offlineAirCanada787 From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 8166 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
Most frequent business travelers will be elite and will qualify for free Y+ upgrades.

That's assuming that that carrier liberally upgrades people based on status. Not all of them do, it seems like common thing for American carriers to do, but not so much in the rest of the world. That also doesn't work if Y+ is a successful product offering and often books up by itself.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
When airlines have gotten ridiculous enough and the "free market" has led to a race to the bottom (recent example: excessive tarmac delays), the public starts to get really pissed off. And when the service gets to a certain point, the public starts demanding regulatory and legislative action.

I'm surprised that the airlines haven't figured this out yet. Mark my words, within a decade there will be an uproar about cramped Y conditions. A few pulmonary embolus deaths will make the news and the next thing you know, the government will be mandating seat pitch and width minimums.

  



The mind, like a parachute, functions only when open.
User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1023 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 8130 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 16):

A simple question to discuss. Let's look at AC and flying to India again. Supposedly the market is low yielding. Isn't this here the ideal solution for a tighter Y? You offer a tighter Y class to be competitive and then sell your service on the fact that it's direct to India. At the same time, most J pax will pay a premium to go non-stop. A win on point-to-point. And a way to drub the likes of EK, EY and QR.

That may sound great in theory, but theres too many loopholes.

1. AI already offers a direct product with a 33"-34" seat pitch and rock-bottom prices. No way AC can compete with them on prices. Whatever they offer, AI will undercut. AC will effectively be left to make its money of J - traffic, which can be tricky.

2. 9W is also getting 787s. They may put it on the same route. It does have a strong reputation in the Indian diaspora, so it will remain a strong presence into the future.

3. Point to point only works for DEL and possibly BOM, if AC is willing to dedicate that many aircraft to India. All other destinations in India are one-stop. EY, EK, QR win on that by virtue of serving tier 2 Indian cities. 9W is tied up with EY to pick up feed to India from AUH itself. AC can't win on that since it would have to undercut airlines that are masters at undercutting others.

This idea of yours might work for low-yield pax from Canada-Europe a la whatever AC is trying these days with its hope for an LCC, but it won't work on Ultra Long Haul routes. India is served by some high quality carriers, and if AC can only bring its competitive edge by degrading its product, I fail to see how it ll work. That said, it may work on YYZ-BCN etc.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
That's self inflicted. Drink water and get your ass out of the seat once in a while and you'll be fine.

ANd ban people sitting in aisle seats from sleeping on red eyes, because their sleep may stop people from moving around.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1732 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 8075 times:

There is a point at which being more crowded turns some customers to consider alternate plans. I tend not to fly unless I get a 17 inch seat and 32 inch pitch. There are a multitude of holidays I have in mind. This is one of the factors in choosing. And I will pay more (not a lot) for a little more room.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 8045 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
I disagree. Many companies now require their employees to fly Y class, even on international routes. Many are frequent travellers and are familiar with the differences beween carriers and aircraft and will choose the 9-abreast 777 carrier over any carrier with 10-abreast.

Even if they are flying Y they are probably paying full fare so business people are by no means low yield passengers in the traditional sense.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):

I'll throw one thing out there:

When airlines have gotten ridiculous enough and the "free market" has led to a race to the bottom (recent example: excessive tarmac delays), the public starts to get really pissed off. And when the service gets to a certain point, the public starts demanding regulatory and legislative action.

Very true however the amount of aircraft seats must still be able to meat the evacuation regulation so it's not like a 777 can squeeze in more that 10 abreast in Y. The race to the bottom will bite them in the @$$ at some point as it has done for the US legacies and the smart ones have begun to change their ways

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
And if the politicians have any sense at all they will tell the people that it's not their problem and stop clicking on the lowest fare, otherwise shut the f--- up.

If people demand it then it will be done, remember politicans represent us and are there to do what we elect them to do, if they don't then we will elect ones that will.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 8095 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
When airlines have gotten ridiculous enough and the "free market" has led to a race to the bottom (recent example: excessive tarmac delays), the public starts to get really pissed off. And when the service gets to a certain point, the public starts demanding regulatory and legislative action.

This is why all but bargain-basement charter airlines have drawn a line at 17". You see 10Y 777s in major airline service, but you don't see 9Y A330s or 8Y 767s.

Quoting AirCanada787 (Reply 21):
That's assuming that that carrier liberally upgrades people based on status. Not all of them do, it seems like common thing for American carriers to do, but not so much in the rest of the world. That also doesn't work if Y+ is a successful product offering and often books up by itself.

My theory is that if carriers offer more Y+ seats (not W, just Y+, like Y but with slightly more width and/or pitch) then that will free them up to use the truly cramped Y products in the back for the price-sensitive travelers. As with any other configuration decision, it's a balance of yield management and flexibility. I think the U.S. carriers are pointing the way here.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2218 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
When airlines have gotten ridiculous enough and the "free market" has led to a race to the bottom (recent example: excessive tarmac delays), the public starts to get really pissed off. And when the service gets to a certain point, the public starts demanding regulatory and legislative action.

You say this like it's a bad thing. This would hurt LCCs far more than it would hurt legacy carriers. Regulations and standards set a threshold which nobody can cross. That's exactly what I'd want as a legacy carrier. It's set a bar which the competition can't cross on the race to the bottom. Yet, unlike LCCs, the legacies can still make money from their premium cabins.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
And if the politicians have any sense at all they will tell the people that it's not their problem and stop clicking on the lowest fare, otherwise shut the f--- up.

I partially agree. Politicians will respond to public pressure. But how would the public react once fares went up in response to such legislation? LCCs would have no where to go once a floor is set on seat space. After all, one of the fastest ways to reduce CASM is to up the number of seats per aircraft. And the government will have effectively set a limit on that tactic.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 23):
I tend not to fly unless I get a 17 inch seat and 32 inch pitch.

This is the limit I was suggesting. I am not suggesting a 9 abreast A330. But I am asking why more airlines aren't following NZ's lead and going down to 17-32 in Y for all long-haul flights. If NZ can do this (and still sell these seats) with most of its long haul routes approaching ULH territory, why wouldn't more airlines do this for TATL routes that are less than two-thirds of the trip of AKL-LAX?

Of note, I thought of this because looking at AC inducting the 787, it struck me as an opportunity for AC to go to 17-32 across its long haul fleet: 9-abreast on 787, 10-abreast on 777.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
The problem with a route like India is that there are very few J passengers, and Y passengers are extremely price-sensitive and will usually choose the lowest fare regardless whether it's a nonstop or not.

How much evidence is there for this? AC in the past has tried direct flights. And I remember reading a newspaper article interviewing the CEO who said India didn't work because there wasn't year round demand. With the 787 being a smaller aircraft than the A340 they dedicated to the route in the past, surely this might not be as big a deal.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Regardless of stops, in markets like that all carriers are going to offer competitive fares, and the lower cost-structure of the Gulf-based carriers make it very hard for carriers like AC to compete profitably.

I don't know why people keep saying this. Look at any air fare finder website. EK,EY,QR are almost never the cheapest. (I've certainly never seen them as the lowest fare). It's their convenience that travellers like. And that's a characteristic AC can beat them at.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 22):
1. AI already offers a direct product with a 33"-34" seat pitch and rock-bottom prices. No way AC can compete with them on prices. Whatever they offer, AI will undercut. AC will effectively be left to make its money of J - traffic, which can be tricky.



I'm pretty sure YYZ alone could support 2 daily 788/789 runs per day to DEL. So 9W getting 788s is no biggie, especially not if they join *A. And there's a limit to how low AI can go without the Indian government deciding enough is enough. They have to make money at some point. And AI's supposedly low fares are still not the cheapest. It's usually SU, or some combination of AC and LH, or 9W usually.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 22):
3. Point to point only works for DEL and possibly BOM, if AC is willing to dedicate that many aircraft to India. All other destinations in India are one-stop. EY, EK, QR win on that by virtue of serving tier 2 Indian cities. 9W is tied up with EY to pick up feed to India from AUH itself. AC can't win on that since it would have to undercut airlines that are masters at undercutting others.

Yeah, but unlike the US which tends to draw migrants from all over India, traffic from Canada is pretty heavily skewed to DEL and BOM (mostly DEL though). AC doesn't need to really serve the other cities in India to take away a ton of traffic from EK/EY/QR.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 22):
This idea of yours might work for low-yield pax from Canada-Europe a la whatever AC is trying these days with its hope for an LCC, but it won't work on Ultra Long Haul routes. India is served by some high quality carriers, and if AC can only bring its competitive edge by degrading its product, I fail to see how it ll work.

Note that I am not just saying this for India. My point in bringing up India is that this is a way for AC to compete against the Gulf carriers. And similarly with the TATL example. How do you compete against Transat which is really gaining on AC? The only way I can see is for AC to beat them at their own game. Run the back end like it's an LCC. As for "degrading their product".....does it really matter? The legions of Y who book flights using Expedia could scarcely care about the quality of AC's product. And the Y pax who travel for business will now have options they didn't have before with Y+.


User currently offlineairlinebrat From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 7961 times:

If I had a choice of airlines and one offered decent legroom while the other didn't, it wouldn't take rocket science to figure out which carrier I would choose. I am at a point now that I refuse to fly airlines like Spirit. I'll travel less and pay a little more for a better experience when I do fly. Now that airfares are up there and will probably remain so for a long time, I don't want to be treated like a cheapskate. Don't get me wrong, I will pay extra for Y+ but it is about time that carriers stop being misers and start respecting their back of the bus customer base.

If I am going to fly on an aircraft for 15 hours, 31 inch seat pitch is inhumane and I am more apt to get aggro if the numnuts in front of me reclines their seat so I have microscopic vision of their balding head and am no longer able to read my book, work on my laptop or eat my food.

If AC is up against top ranked foreign carriers on international routes, they better provide a superior product that exceeds that of their competition otherwise they will lose potential customers. Now that air travel is becoming expensive, each customer is more precious. I just finished a J class Star Alliance round the world trip and avoided US carriers like the plaque when I was selecting which airlines I was traveling on. Since I was going to be flying some long segments, I decided to dip into my retirement for a better seat. Why fly on United when I could fly on Air New Zealand?



I'm leavin on a jet plane. Don't know when I'll be back again....
25 DocLightning : It doesn't matter. If enough people die, it will be used as fuel for the debate. It doesn't matter whether it's scientifically validated or actually
26 blueflyer : It is far more nuanced than this statement would make it to be. Some require Y for all trips, some for domestic trips, some for all trips under a cer
27 SchorschNG : You probably lose those Y-flyers that are on a business trip and bound to a class but not necessarily very price sensitive. So they can take the 30%
28 RamblinMan : Really? You think that would happen? More likely it will be taken up as a cause (remember you only need a few to get started), a committee formed, re
29 bobloblaw : Its all about shifting revenue from your competitors. There are business pax who fly frequently and arent allowed to fly C/J class. But their tickets
30 abrelosojos : = Actually, it is not just India. Canadian markets in general are significantly lower yielding than (say) U.S. markets. This is one reason why AC J c
31 DocLightning : It is very true. What the "free market fundamentalists" realize is that market forces drive game theory in the airline industry and the result is not
32 YTZ : All things being equal yes. And again, you have flexibility when its your money. But what happens when your employer is paying? Yet many of AC's comp
33 Viscount724 : I flew BA premium economy LHR-YYZ-LHR last October (744 both ways). On both flights the load factor in J was much higher than in World Traveller Plus
34 YTZ : I have always suspected this. But I get shouted down on here by those who say that India is just low-yielding for AC. I'm not an airline industry ins
35 readytotaxi : Just a late Saturday night thought. When you look at how Business Class has changed on airlines over the recent years. What if one of the big US playe
36 YTZ : That's why I'm suggesting this can only be done by cramming Y more than they do now. Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful every time I fly AC that they d
37 YTZ : They'd go under in record time.... Nobody would. The rest aren't suicidal. American Airlines, "More room in coach", campaign proved fairly conclusive
38 Viscount724 : In my opinion, that's far too few J seats, too many W seats, and too few Y seats. On many flights with strong J demand you'd never be able to compens
39 Post contains links darksnowynight : That is literally the wrongest post I've seen this week. It is exactly their job to what their constituents want, good bad or otherwise. By the time
40 seabosdca : Result of that? Most international airlines pulling out of the U.S., and most U.S. airlines bankrupt. Legal remedy? For seats with 17" width and 31"
41 abrelosojos : = India IS low yielding for AC. But that is because AC has zero commitment to the market. Add to the fact, that Canada is not of much strategic impor
42 YTZ : It was just an example. Can of course be played with. My point was that an airline could keep seat count up by reducing seat width and not really sac
43 Post contains links YTZ : And then when the airlines go under because their CASM has shot up, the public will pillory the politicians for expensive bailouts or the rapid rise
44 ElPistolero : But they don't HAVE to compete with Gulf carriers. In my estimation, any victories AC scores against gulf carriers are likely to be pyrrhic. They hav
45 ElPistolero : Interesting that you should bring this up. I m not entirely sure I agree. Earlier today, I did an ITA matrix check for a friend from YSJ who wanted t
46 Post contains images mandala499 : Why not cram it all in? 60-75% of all business passengers travel in economy these days, that's why! These are the ones who are willing to pay the mor
47 darksnowynight : Oh well. They'd have earned it. But I really don't think would be the case, as CASM is a very small factor in the overall operations picture (hence w
48 Post contains images lightsaber : The only point is to attract junior customers who have a good change of becoming elite. Sadly true. For long haul, at least J seems to be returning.
49 DocLightning : No they do not necessarily. In some cases, when game theory has won the day and all the airlines are doing the same thing, that is not possible. When
50 BMI727 : Maybe we should get to work outlawing junk food before we start worrying about DVT. Then you better start clicking on Y+. If you don't like the produ
51 Post contains images darksnowynight : Lol, good job not reading what I wrote (or at least bothering to absorb). But, as I said, in manner that your free market impulses will surely get, n
52 BMI727 : Because representatives are not there to make whatever whim the people have reality. Doing that makes the representatives redundant. Representatives
53 DocLightning : No, they are there to get re-elected. And that is why they do silly stuff.
54 darksnowynight : Why not take care of both at the same time? It'll happen sooner or later. Neither consumers nor the gov't will be impressed with the response that es
55 BMI727 : Because no matter how many rules and regulations you put on the books you will never, ever conquer economics or physics. That's precisely what the re
56 fiscal : Based on area consumed (in a small sized cabin), Y+ should only be priced at no more than 1.5 times Y unless extra are provided beyond the seat and sp
57 Post contains images mandala499 : Yes and when they don't want one, simple, they pay more. I wonder what these people think to make them feel they deserve a $59 dollar fare with 38" p
58 YTZ : So essentially you are suggesting that all airlines should be regulated into being like Southwest? No airline should serve high value customers becau
59 Viscount724 : I disagree. In the summer or during other periods (and routes) with very weak premium class demand, it makes perfect sense not to let those unsold J
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ryanair - What's The Point Of This? posted Mon Sep 26 2005 21:24:54 by Drinkstrolley
What's The Point Of Ssss? posted Wed Jan 26 2005 21:37:51 by Ahlfors
What's The Point Of A Codeshare? posted Thu Sep 9 2004 05:16:51 by Cory6188
What's The Point Of Non-Bed New Business Classes? posted Wed Nov 12 2003 23:22:04 by Singapore_Air
What's The Point Of DL/NW posted Fri Nov 7 2003 16:49:39 by Dtwclipper
What's The Point Of The Airbus A318? posted Tue Feb 26 2002 03:42:23 by AdamHarvard
What's The Point Of Searching Dave Barry? posted Mon Dec 3 2001 19:12:54 by Ironminds
What's The Point Of Bermuda Ii?!? posted Thu Oct 25 2001 00:08:28 by Airplanetire
Security - "What Was The Point Of All The Hassle?" posted Fri Feb 5 2010 01:37:11 by Standby87
What Is The Point Of Delta Shuttle? posted Wed Mar 5 2008 13:01:54 by BR715-A1-30