AApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 567 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9389 times:
This would be a point worth mentioning if they offered a couple of treadmills per row.
However, a wider seat for obese passengers while the seat is narrower for non obese passengers doesn't sound all that great. In fact, it sounds a lot like the same as today. My point being that as a non-obese passenger, my seat space is always given up to those persons of wider girth. I like the Soutwest point of charging for an additional seat. Why make the non-obese passengers suffer?
cschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1029 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8738 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 25): Quoting wilco737 (Reply 15):
I see what you mean. Then it should work. But I am sure airlines will charge extra for the wider seat. Like some do already for emergency exit row...
Of course they will, that's the whole point. i don't believe for a second that they will give these wider seats away for "free" just because someone is obese. Anyone will be able to purchase those. At least that's how I think it will be done.
Exactly. Since they'd be isle seats, the airlines could charge even more for them, and plenty of people probably would pay for it just for more room. Just like any other "preferred" seat in Y.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 2, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8738 times:
Yeah. The thing here is not "Fat Americans". Its a economy plus offering that is in superior in several dimensions, not just one.
Quoting par13del (Reply 3): I'm still confused, since the 737 seats more than the A320 by being longer if an airline opts to use the same seats they would beat those numbers, unless these are special seats that can only be installed on the A320?
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8385 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 5): The 320's cabin is wider by about 7 in (or 17.5 cm), so it is more feasible to fit two extra-wide (50 cm or 20 in) seats per row in an A320 than in a 737.
I really like this idea. It is a clever way for Airbus to use the A320 wider fuselage advantage. I'm never interesed in purchasing economy plus becuase the extra pitch is no big deal to me. However, I would pay a bit more for the wider seat.
I also allows the bigger passenger to take advantage of the adjacent isle a bit to accomodate his girth.
A bigger middle seat, helps a little, but having the bigger seat on the isle really helps the other passengers be a bit more comfortable.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8319 times:
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 33): A bigger middle seat, helps a little, but having the bigger seat on the isle really helps the other passengers be a bit more comfortable.
Yeah but if the post below is accurate, 4 persons are going from 18" to 17" seats to accomodate 2 persons in 20" they would be loosing comfort not gaining. We all agree that the "obese" person in the aisle is better off.
Quoting PezySPU (Reply 14): "The current standard A320 economy seat is 18 in. wide compared to the 17-in. Boeing 737 seat. In a 3-3 configuration, the A320 Extra Wide Seat would be 20 in. wide, while each middle and window seat would be narrowed to match the standard 17-in. 737 seat."
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1988 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8191 times:
Quoting cschleic (Reply 31): Exactly. Since they'd be isle seats, the airlines could charge even more for them, and plenty of people probably would pay for it just for more room. Just like any other "preferred" seat in Y.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8082 times:
The article states that Airbus is offering wider seats. In reality, I think this is a marketing push by Airbus which is a good one. Their cabin is wider, so they can put wider aisle seats in if the airline desires. It might be a revenue opportunity.
In reality, Airbus is only using this for marketing reasons. The airlines are the ones who buy the seats from the seat suppliers. It is up to Recaro, Weber, or B/E to come up with a seat and sell it to the airlines. If they want wider aisle seats, then the airlines can install them. This isn't anything new.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7970 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 36): In reality, Airbus is only using this for marketing reasons.
Of course they are!! And why not? Their (Airbus - 320) narrowbody can accomodate customers of size in coach while maintianing a similar level of comfort as their primary competitor's (Boeing -737) narrowbody for the remaining passengers.
Their primary competitor cannot accomodate a customer of size without:
1. Crowding other passengers in coach.
2. Requiring the customer of size purchase an additional seat.
This is an advantage worth mentioning. It's a simple solution to an ever 'growing' problem. Their primary competitor cannot implement this solution.
Seat suppliers are not going to mention it, because they do not want to pitch one manufacturer against another. Afterall, they want to sell seats to both manufacturers, whether they are 17", 18" or 20" form factors.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10443 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7841 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 27): I'm not obese at all and I'd pay extra for a 20" seat. My shoulders are wider than 17" and are always getting in my neighbors' way.
I'm glad to hear your shoulders are not wider than your tuchus, it's not healthy.
Sadly, that wasn't the case for the woman I was sat next to for four hours. Before I knew it, she popped up the arm rest and her flabby butt cheek was pressed up against me for four hours. One of the most unpleasant flights for me, ever. I would have paid to move her to a 20 incher, but I bet she still would have spilled over to her neighbor's great displeasure.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 27): This is a compelling way for Airbus to turn lemons (its fuselage that's wider than necessary) into lemonade for its customers.
Leave it to John to dive into a pile of manure and find a pony!
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7652 times:
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 37): Seat suppliers are not going to mention it, because they do not want to pitch one manufacturer against another.
It wouldn't surprise me if they were doing it as part of their negotiations. They just aren't as public. John Leahy and Airbus love press.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7300 times:
Quoting AApilot2b (Reply 30): owever, a wider seat for obese passengers while the seat is narrower for non obese passengers doesn't sound all that great.
I agree. So now, the average joe who manages to not wet his pants at the sight of a doughnut has to sacrifice seat width (for the same money) because Mr. Damn-I-haven't-eaten-anything-in-30-minutes-with-large-soda needs a shoehorn to get in a regular seat.
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6414 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 40): Quoting Revelation (Reply 38): to dive into a pile of manureA 17cm wider fuselage makes the A320 a lemon/pile of manure? I'm glad the airlines didn't notice, then...
It's an english expression used in the united states to describe optimistic people.... When an Optimist encounters a pile of poop, he jumps in, begins searching and says, "With all of this poop, there has to be a pony in here someplace".
He was not calling the A320 a pile of manure (I don't think anyone here on A.net doubts the A320 is a fine plane, and often a better plane than the 737 on many missions), but rather was commenting on JL's optimism. John's ability to turn a perceived negative (fuselage wider than necessary as mentioned by seabosdca, a claim I disagree with...as I like 18" seats as opposed to 17" seats, thank you very much) into a positve.
I love the 739ER (my favorite plane), but I would love it more if it had the A321's 18" seats, 6 across, on the inside.
platinumfoota From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 543 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6346 times:
Airbus should also start thinking of making a wider over the wing exit for these customers
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2320 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4218 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 34): Yeah but if the post below is accurate, 4 persons are going from 18" to 17" seats to accomodate 2 persons in 20" they would be loosing comfort not gaining.
They would. But the Airbus point would be that if they were on a 737 their seat would be 17"-wide anyway.... Which is actually inaccurate since airlines play around with the width of the aisle too...
babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3904 times:
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 6): How about configuring the Y cabin as 3 by 3 with only the last 1-2 rows having the 2 x 2 configuration with the wider seats.
That's a really good suggestion. The last row on a BA A320 juts out across the galley access. If you are sitting there the trolley always bumps you on the elbows.
Having 2 large seats either side of the last row would be good for everyone. However, if 4 large people are sitting on the last row it may cause the tail to scrap on take off.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3175 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 40): A 17cm wider fuselage makes the A320 a lemon/pile of manure?
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 41): (fuselage wider than necessary as mentioned by seabosdca
Just to clarify... I was talking from an airline revenue perspective, not a passenger perspective.
To date, the airlines haven't been able to derive any revenue premium from the A320's wider fuselage, and yet it creates a cost disadvantage. The narrower fuselage and resulting lower weight and drag is one big part of why the 737NG remains competitive despite the A320's other advantages.
This is a way to use that wider fuselage to generate a revenue premium.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
You have to be very careful with this. While I agree that many people (and many Americans) are overweight - the definition of "obese" has been politically motivated to try to shame people into loosing weight - and also by special interests who want to get government (tax) money. The governments defn is based on BMI - body mass index (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm). If you have a BMI of 25 to 29.9 you are "Overweight". If you are over 30 - you are obese.
BMI does not measure fat - but how much you weigh for you height - a muscular man can easily exceed it.
I'm 6 ft tall. If I way more than 177 lbs, I'm overweight. If I way more 213 lbs, I'm "obese".
Guess what, by that measure I'm considered obese - I weigh 220. However, I would challenge any of you to call me "obese" by looking at me, and I'm certainly not in the category that most people consider obese. My shoulders are broader than my hips, by a lot. I happen to be a barrel chested fellow - something about growing up at 9000 ft elevation (I amazed snorkelers in Hawaii related to how long I could stay down). I'm not a body builder or muscle man.
I fit in a standard (width) economy seat with no problem at all - not even tight - heck - I usually have my laptop slipped down on my side.
Next week - I'll take my "arduous" physical fitness test for my wildland fire certification. That requires; 45 lb pack, walk (no running or jogging allow), 3 miles in 45 minutes. That is a 4mph pace - which is very a very fast walk. The arduous test is quite hard - more than one person dies each year nation wide taking it. It is considered arduous for a reason - it is.
I'm obese? I don't think so.
The point is - any statistic you hear based on government defn of obesity is more political than factual.
Whose going to decide who is "obese". Of course - nobody.
This is purely about revenue generation. If airlines can charge more for a wider seat, and get away with a narrower seat for the rest, they will do so. Just put my wife on a UA flight for a dog show (with the dog). Let's look at the costs. The ticket was $300ish (RT). The dog (in cabin) was $250 RT. Because she used her "carry on allowance" for the dog - she checked 2 bags. $120 RT. Economy plus, $70. So - the $300 ticket had $440 of fees tacked on. Now- if they put these on the aisle, and charge - say $70 extra for that seat (aisle is easier with the under seat dog carrier), they just made $510 in "fees".
Quoting PezySPU (Reply 14): So instead of 6 18-inch seats, Airbus would reduce the width to 17 inches, except for the aisle seat on each side which would be 20 inches wide. Math makes sense to the last inch, calculate yourself.
Airbus is marketing - the airline is offering.
Quoting AApilot2b (Reply 30): However, a wider seat for obese passengers while the seat is narrower for non obese passengers doesn't sound all that great.
UA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (11 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3030 times:
I was always under the impression that seats were manufactured by a third party and shipped to the factory and installed by the aircraft manufacturer (Airbus)?
i would be curious if any operators will elect to purchase this option. It seems as though the traditional 3X3 seating, with the middle seat being blocked off (and the customer in question charged the appropriate fee) allows for greater flexibility and utilization of the aircraft in daily operations- no?
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2778 times:
Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 47): I was always under the impression that seats were manufactured by a third party and shipped to the factory and installed by the aircraft manufacturer (Airbus)?
Yes. The airlines contract with the seat suppliers. The biggest three are Weber, B/E Aerospace and Recaro. The airlines negotiate with the manufacturers and have contract with them for the seats. The seat manufacturers, Airbus and the airline agree on the seat configuration and Airbus installs them.
A few airlines have seats installed by a third party or themselves. This is true for a few airlines with very high end premium cabins.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 917 posts, RR: 25 Reply 23, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Quoting bestwestern (Reply 51): This is nothing to do with Obese - its all to do with airlines finding an extra way to make $10 from Aisle seat passengers.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10649 posts, RR: 100 Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2318 times:
Does anyone really think a 20" seat would be free? More and more airlines sell isle seats as a premium 'as is.' If the isle seat was 3" wider than the others, you had better believe it would cost more.
Quoting bestwestern (Reply 51): This is nothing to do with Obese - its all to do with airlines finding an extra way to make $10 from Aisle seat passengers.
I would say more than $10.
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 37): Their primary competitor cannot accomodate a customer of size without:
1. Crowding other passengers in coach.
2. Requiring the customer of size purchase an additional seat.
Sounds great. Why would it be free? The 'customer of size' would have to pay more at reservation time.
I would want this seat. When I reserved seats for myself and my family, that wider seat would go to myself or my wife. I would make a stink being separated from my children. I have wide shoulders. Why shouldn't I have the wider seat? As bestwestern already noted, these will go for a higher fee. Let the bidding begin.
Every business traveler back in Y would insist on the seat. It is very unlikely the obese would have first access.
Quoting billreid (Reply 48):
Rediculous.
If you don't fit in a Y seat then buy the larger seat in the front cabin.
No need for this stupidity.
There are already seats to accommodate a 'person of size.'
These people aren't disabled. I've yet to meet a 'person of size' who ate less than needed to make myself obese.
This is about added isle revenue. Good for the airlines. It will make the fee for obese people minor enough to not complain. But the fee won't be just another $10 (on top of current isle fees). But this will give a *good* reason to buy the isle seat.
cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1989 times:
I think the report itself is a bunch of mud slinging name calling. I don't think Airbus is marketing this as an obese thing, that is just the newspaper trying to spin it.
Doesn't the C-series offer a 3-2 configuration with the center seat a little wider than the window and aisle seat? I believe this is really targeted as a defense against that. There is a huge difference between your cheapest coach fare and your cheapest first class fare, which is far in excess of the relative gain in space. But airlines aren't about to just give up their first class sales. This offers them a way to provide a true premium economy product, not just economy plus, while still maintaining the number of seats in the plane. And I think it would probably do very well assuming they manage to maintain control over it - not making it a game of chance whether or not you will get the seat. There are many people who would pay a little more for a wider seat that didn't come with the free alcohol or chance at a cold salad, but didn't cost three times as much.
Personally I think it is a good compromise, too. Some people value price over all else. That requires making seats a little too small and sometimes you are going to get caught. But why are they entitled to a cheap price tailored just for their requirements? Why are they so much better? This way, you can buy the real cheap seat and run the risk, or get a seat that is just wide enough and not run that risk. So long as they price it affordably and don't try to turn it into a money making scam.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10443 posts, RR: 20 Reply 26, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 54): As bestwestern already noted, these will go for a higher fee. Let the bidding begin.
Last time I booked, JetBlue got an extra $50 for 4 inches of legroom, for each leg of the trip. I wonder how they'd factor it in?
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 55): I think the report itself is a bunch of mud slinging name calling. I don't think Airbus is marketing this as an obese thing, that is just the newspaper trying to spin it.
Your comment makes me wonder why Airbus would go to newspapers to market this idea. I would think it would go to airlines first. Could it be that they already went to airlines and they didn't find any takers? Or are they floating a trial balloon via the newspapers before putting the money into having firm proposals for the airlines?
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 55): This offers them a way to provide a true premium economy product, not just economy plus, while still maintaining the number of seats in the plane. And I think it would probably do very well assuming they manage to maintain control over it - not making it a game of chance whether or not you will get the seat.
It does seem to create some product positioning issues.
How would you add this fare to a CRS? Do any of them have the idea of an aisle seat costing more than middle or window implemented?
If you do implement it throughout every row of the cabin and you overprice the aisle seat, once the cheap seats fill then the CRS will only show your higher priced aisle seats and customers would likely choose cheaper seats elsewhere, and you could leave with up to 1/3rd of your seats empty.
It seems just marketing your 18" seat as being wider than competing 17" seats is the way to go, or if you really want to be revenue sensitive, give the Y+ seats 18 in each and reduce the plan old Y as 17" so you can sell Y+ with both more legroom and width.
Creating a new "class" with 1/3rds of the seats in that class positioned next to 2/3rds not in that class seems to have a bunch of problems, IMHO.
cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 56): Your comment makes me wonder why Airbus would go to newspapers to market this idea. I would think it would go to airlines first. Could it be that they already went to airlines and they didn't find any takers? Or are they floating a trial balloon via the newspapers before putting the money into having firm proposals for the airlines?
I think that is assuming it was Airbus who went to the newspapers on this one. I tend to think it is the newspapers/magazines who go out hunting for articles.
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 55): It does seem to create some product positioning issues.
How would you add this fare to a CRS? Do any of them have the idea of an aisle seat costing more than middle or window implemented?
If you do implement it throughout every row of the cabin and you overprice the aisle seat, once the cheap seats fill then the CRS will only show your higher priced aisle seats and customers would likely choose cheaper seats elsewhere, and you could leave with up to 1/3rd of your seats empty.
It seems just marketing your 18" seat as being wider than competing 17" seats is the way to go, or if you really want to be revenue sensitive, give the Y+ seats 18 in each and reduce the plan old Y as 17" so you can sell Y+ with both more legroom and width.
Creating a new "class" with 1/3rds of the seats in that class positioned next to 2/3rds not in that class seems to have a bunch of problems, IMHO.
In an ideal world, you would be able to do it by rows - but that would not allow the airline to fit in as many seats. It would be much harder to upsell one inch of seat width than it would two inches. In this case, though, I think it would work for a one-airframe airline such as B6. You would know that the aisle seats - c and d, would always have the extra room. Which would also stop people from reserving the window and aisle seats in hopes of discouraging people from booking the middle seat and potentially gaining an empty seat between them.
As for the pricing - well that is a risk as is anything else. Is it better to risk loosing a few seats (would it be guaranteed 1/3 less) in return for gaining an additional price justification, or do you give up additional revenue in hopes that people choose your airline over another with nothing to differentiate the products except for price? Obviously if people are THAT upset about large passengers, that space has to be worth something.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10443 posts, RR: 20 Reply 29, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 989 times:
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 57): I think that is assuming it was Airbus who went to the newspapers on this one.
Good point, it could have been an airline or a vendor leaking the story.
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 57): It would be much harder to upsell one inch of seat width than it would two inches.
How do you downsell the one inch you're taking away from the other 4 seats in the row?
Granted that makes them the same as the "standard" 17 in seat, but still, if you have to reduce some seats in the same row to upsell the 20 incher, chances are you're making a problem for yourself.
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 57): Obviously if people are THAT upset about large passengers, that space has to be worth something.
I think we have the answer for the truly obsese: book two seats.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 31, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 714 times:
Even if an airline offers it, how do you price it?
If based on supply and demand then only the rich would get the better seat. Problem still exist.
If based on FF status then only high tier get the better seat. Problem still exist.
If based on "people of size" having priority to choose those seats, then it becomes reverse discrimination against "people not of size". New problem created.
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 917 posts, RR: 25 Reply 32, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 621 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 61): If based on "people of size" having priority to choose those seats, then it becomes reverse discrimination against "people not of size". New problem created.
It won't be. This is just about revenue. They will charge more for the wider seats. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 567 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5894 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2320 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1635 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 847 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 785 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6426 posts, 
More and more airlines sell isle seats as a premium 'as is.' If the isle seat was 3" wider than the others, you had better believe it would cost more. 
From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 2645 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
