Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
KarelXWB wrote:They can always intruduce 8-abreast Premium Economy.
flyingclrs727 wrote:TK's experiment in 7 abreast Premium Economy on the 777 wasn't successful.
MoKa777 wrote:No real chance. It will be leaving too much revenue in the table. Why offer something that no-one will pay for and which your competitors already get away with not offering anyway? It would be super awesome but it's highly, highly unlikely...
NZ321 wrote:8 abreast Y+ in 789 is not competitive. They will go 7 abreast for sure if they do Y+ at all.
8 abreast in Y is an interesting idea. But I don't see it, sorry. Unless they go one cabin 8 abreast and one cabin light economy at 9.
JamesCousins wrote:Really don't see it happening to be honest, people are so used to 9-abreast 787's, and aside from the likes of us on a.net I don't think people really notice it and/or care. Even then I'll take a 9-abreast 787 over an 18inch A330, 767, A340 etc anyday - there's too many standout features like the huge windows, cabin height & pressure and overhead bins that genuinely make such a huge difference for me to favor the 787...
airzona11 wrote:but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.
qf789 wrote:JamesCousins wrote:Really don't see it happening to be honest, people are so used to 9-abreast 787's, and aside from the likes of us on a.net I don't think people really notice it and/or care. Even then I'll take a 9-abreast 787 over an 18inch A330, 767, A340 etc anyday - there's too many standout features like the huge windows, cabin height & pressure and overhead bins that genuinely make such a huge difference for me to favor the 787...
Passengers outside of a.net do notice it, my wife for example was on a EY 789 back in September and first thing she complained about was the seating compared to a previous A332 flight onboard the same airline
LAX772LR wrote:airzona11 wrote:but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.
With what, exactly?
airzona11 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:airzona11 wrote:but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.
With what, exactly?
Every other airline that has a 9 abreast Y/Y+? Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against. I am not saying their PY product should be 8. Generally, Y+ is only more leg room, if you got a wider seat (Anet says that is the holy grail) too, seems like a great product.
airzona11 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:airzona11 wrote:but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.
With what, exactly?
Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against.
LAX772LR wrote:airzona11 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:With what, exactly?
Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against.
Then lemme help you:
1) Cost
2) Total revenue
As for cost - if you're pulling out seats from a typical config, you're going to raise your CASM. Why would they do that?
As for revenue - again, you're pulling out seats, so you're going to have to demand a market premium in order to make up for the lost revenue of one seat per row; TK was not able to do that with their 777s, and there's nothing magical about a 787 that's going to change that. They'd be setting themselves up for needing a market premium just to break even with other carriers. Why would they do that?
airzona11 wrote:would be market leading from a comfort perspective.
airzona11 wrote:I agree with everything you are saying about the financials, how if they offered a differentiated product, they would have to charge a premium.
airzona11 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:airzona11 wrote:Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against.
Then lemme help you:
1) Cost
2) Total revenue
As for cost - if you're pulling out seats from a typical config, you're going to raise your CASM. Why would they do that?
As for revenue - again, you're pulling out seats, so you're going to have to demand a market premium in order to make up for the lost revenue of one seat per row; TK was not able to do that with their 777s, and there's nothing magical about a 787 that's going to change that. They'd be setting themselves up for needing a market premium just to break even with other carriers. Why would they do that?
My post was in reply to someone that said 8 abreast Y+ would not be competitive with other carriers, the poster said they would need 7 abreast. I was showing that 8 abreast Y+ would be market leading from a comfort perspective. You are arguing something that I wasn't. It was about comfort, it would be a better Y+ then what is out there.
I agree with everything you are saying about the financials, how if they offered a differentiated product, they would have to charge a premium.
flyingclrs727 wrote:airzona11 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:Then lemme help you:
1) Cost
2) Total revenue
As for cost - if you're pulling out seats from a typical config, you're going to raise your CASM. Why would they do that?
As for revenue - again, you're pulling out seats, so you're going to have to demand a market premium in order to make up for the lost revenue of one seat per row; TK was not able to do that with their 777s, and there's nothing magical about a 787 that's going to change that. They'd be setting themselves up for needing a market premium just to break even with other carriers. Why would they do that?
My post was in reply to someone that said 8 abreast Y+ would not be competitive with other carriers, the poster said they would need 7 abreast. I was showing that 8 abreast Y+ would be market leading from a comfort perspective. You are arguing something that I wasn't. It was about comfort, it would be a better Y+ then what is out there.
I agree with everything you are saying about the financials, how if they offered a differentiated product, they would have to charge a premium.
I was differentiating Y+ from full premium economy. The old 7 abreast premium economy product was good enough to undermine the J sales. An 8 abreast Y+ is unlikely to undermine the J product but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y. I think the 9 abreast seating configuration should have given at least 17.5" seat width rather than 17.0".
flyingclrs727 wrote:but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.
LAX772LR wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.
While still leaving revenue on the table compared to competitors.... and when airlines have to choose between more revenue and Economy pax's comfort, guess which one wins?
flyingclrs727 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.
While still leaving revenue on the table compared to competitors.... and when airlines have to choose between more revenue and Economy pax's comfort, guess which one wins?
A 9 abreast 787 has 17.0" seats. That's narrower than the seats on a 737 but for a plane that flies much longer flights. TK still flies its 777's with 9 abreast Y with 18" wide seats while many of its competitors fly theirs 10 abreast in Y. Tbe 9 abreast 787 has a lot less sear width than TK still allocates on their 777's.
Their flights to North America are quite long, around 11 to 12.5 hours on the IST-IAH route. I can imagine quite a number of people would be willing to pay a little more for more space on such long flights.
JustSomeDood wrote:Come April this year, QF will be busy flying their brand spanking new 9-abreast 789 from PER-LHR
JustSomeDood wrote:if there's any route that can justify 8-abreast Y, because they'd be likely blocking seats anyways
lightsaber wrote:Plain Y passengers will not pay for the space of 8 across. It seems wise to offer 8 across Y+ (not PY, Y+). Say with 38" pitch. I don't understand premium economy, either sell a discounted J (narrower lie flat such as US airlines), shink the J cabin, but revenue manage to profit.
Lightsaber
NZ321 wrote:8 abreast Y+ in 789 is not competitive. They will go 7 abreast for sure if they do Y+ at all.
8 abreast in Y is an interesting idea. But I don't see it, sorry. Unless they go one cabin 8 abreast and one cabin light economy at 9.
KLAM wrote:I need to fly to Cyprus in June, and I can't seem to find any 1-stop flight for less than 1700 USD ex-MEX. The worst part is, some of the flights are on 9-abreast 787s with non-refundable fares, no free seat selection and so on. I still remember when you could get from MEX to CDG on L'Espace Affaires for 300-400 USD more (and I still thought it was expensive). There is of course some good penny pinching from the side of the airlines, because most people choose whatever is available at the lowest price, and sometimes the lowest price is not on the worst of the products. Aeromexico consistently charges more than their competition on their packed 9-abreast dreamliners.
KD5MDK wrote:lightsaber wrote:Plain Y passengers will not pay for the space of 8 across. It seems wise to offer 8 across Y+ (not PY, Y+). Say with 38" pitch. I don't understand premium economy, either sell a discounted J (narrower lie flat such as US airlines), shink the J cabin, but revenue manage to profit.
Lightsaber
I just bought a W ticket the other day for a personal trip to France. (Ok, I'm getting partially reimbursed, but my wife is coming along at our expense.)
It was a $300 premium over Y, for 50% more elite qualifying miles and a nicer seat. It may not be the best possible use of the money, but it was attractive enough for me to spend it.
On the other hand, if my company was sending me on a trip that distance, I'd want a real J experience. I've heard of places flying you in Y and giving you an extra hotel night and personal day at arrival to recover, which sounds logical (my time isn't work $2k per day) but there's a lot more revenue to be made by flying me in J and airlines should continue to push that as long as they can. Limited size W cabins so that it isn't available for shorter notice business travel is a good way to do that.
flyingclrs727 wrote:LAX772LR wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.
While still leaving revenue on the table compared to competitors.... and when airlines have to choose between more revenue and Economy pax's comfort, guess which one wins?
A 9 abreast 787 has 17.0" seats. That's narrower than the seats on a 737 but for a plane that flies much longer flights. TK still flies its 777's with 9 abreast Y with 18" wide seats while many of its competitors fly theirs 10 abreast in Y. Tbe 9 abreast 787 has a lot less sear width than TK still allocates on their 777's.
Their flights to North America are quite long, around 11 to 12.5 hours on the IST-IAH route. I can imagine quite a number of people would be willing to pay a little more for more space on such long flights.
NZ321 wrote:If QF are going to be blocking seats why didn't they go for 8 abreast? It's extra weight. As for TK I would think they will want to retain their point of difference if they can. So when it comes to PY I would expect 7 abreast akin to several other airlines that don't compete at the same service level and some others who do. If they're going to put 9 in economy they will put 7 in PY is my bet.
EddieDude wrote:NZ321 wrote:8 abreast Y+ in 789 is not competitive. They will go 7 abreast for sure if they do Y+ at all.
8 abreast in Y is an interesting idea. But I don't see it, sorry. Unless they go one cabin 8 abreast and one cabin light economy at 9.
I agree with NZ321. If TK (and that is a VERY BIG if) chooses to install Premium Economy, it would be 7-abreast (2-3-2) but definitely not 8-abreast (2-4-2). In any case, Y will be 9-abreast (3-3-3) just like everyone else except JL.
If anything, TK could think about a Y "comfort" with slightly more recline and legroom but the same 9-abreast seats... like UA and KL do. This might not be a bad idea if TK chooses to not install a proper Premium Economy cabin.KLAM wrote:I need to fly to Cyprus in June, and I can't seem to find any 1-stop flight for less than 1700 USD ex-MEX. The worst part is, some of the flights are on 9-abreast 787s with non-refundable fares, no free seat selection and so on. I still remember when you could get from MEX to CDG on L'Espace Affaires for 300-400 USD more (and I still thought it was expensive). There is of course some good penny pinching from the side of the airlines, because most people choose whatever is available at the lowest price, and sometimes the lowest price is not on the worst of the products. Aeromexico consistently charges more than their competition on their packed 9-abreast dreamliners.
AF's A380s have too many premium seats. I flew MEX-CDG-PRG in April of 2017 and MEX-CDG-DEL in November of 2017 and I saw lots of cheap upgrades available. On the April flight, upgrading from Premium Economy to L'Espace Affairs was 195 EUR one way. On the November flight, upgrading from L'Espace Affaires to La Première was 900 EUR one way. I think AF is having a hard time filling F and J solely with paying customers.
KLAM wrote:offer me some good Y+ like the one on KL, AA or UA, where for a reasonable surcharge, you can get the same seat you used to get some 15 years ago.