• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
bigjku wrote:
But for the love of god we should be able to agree that 2 meters or so extra length means another 2-3 rows and that the taper at the end cost you a few seats making things overall pretty close.

We should, but the Airbus guys want to still think it magically can fit 40 extra seats.

Pointing out something so obvious will just get you called a "Boeing salesman who just passed the Boeing academy with the best graduation results a candidate ever had."


TheFlyingRaven wrote:
I notice that your A333 has two extra toilets than your 787-9 - 7 versus 5. That's two extra seats right there. ;) . But clearly one toilet takes up 6 seats in rows 15 and 16.

I made this just for you.

Image

Identical layouts, toilets, meals area. Shock horror the 787-9 still wins. :lol:

TheFlyingRaven wrote:
You just happen to invent a graph showing that the B787 seat width is the perfect width. What's that based on, except your own fantasy? You're going to argue that if an airline did 9 abreast on a A330 for $50 less, almost no one would take it as that's 'too' narrow? Well AirAsia are already doing that and cheaper.

And as you said, any product can have a similar curve. The 330 could have one showing that it is the 'optimum' width and no one will pay extra to fly on a slightly wider B787.

You've missed the point of the graph.

The average standard economy seat is very close to 17.5inch. If we assume a 50/50 Boeing Airbus market we can develop a nice average. Nearly all Airbus products have an 18" seat. Boeing products have approximately half 17" seats and half 17.5" seats. That makes the average 17.625"

Now If we look at the extreme seat widths out there I would estimate there are more small 16.5inch wide seats than larger 18.5inch wide economy seats. This would lower the average very close to 17.5inch.

If the average is 17.4" 17.5" or 17.6" it is irrelevant as that is not the point of the graph.

You could fit 10ab in the 787 using 15" seats and 15" aisles but as the bell curve shows less than 1% of the population will find that acceptable. The price would have to be significantly lower and with only 10% extra seats the profit would be less. I would definitely fly a 10ab 787 if the tickets were half price. Simply buy two tickets and out the armrest up. :bigthumbsup:


rheinwaldner wrote:
We have to concede, that in the ultimate race to the bottom the A339 can offer a significantly higher seat count than the 789. The difference is real. The seatcount gap between existing low-cost configs is 60 seats. And by the regulator this gap will never shrink to less than 20 seats..

Or we could agree that at 420 seats the 787-9 beats the A330-900 convincingly?

We could also agree that squeezing in an additional 20 seats into the A330 requires the ticket price to drop at a greater percentage than the percentage of extra seats. That means overall less profit.


How do you know that extra point, do you have access to AirAsia’s yield data? We’ve seen plenty of 777 operators go from 9 to 10ab, with no ill effects. Your graph about the sead width is awfully, awfully convenient. For what it’s worth 9ab A330s are not unheard of but the airlines still use them, and there are even 10ab A350s. The airlines using them seem happy enough. I think your ideas require passengers to have a far greater understanding of aircraft type and layout than they actually do.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:38 am

MrHMSH wrote:
How do you know that extra point, do you have access to AirAsia’s yield data? We’ve seen plenty of 777 operators go from 9 to 10ab, with no ill effects. Your graph about the sead width is awfully, awfully convenient. For what it’s worth 9ab A330s are not unheard of but the airlines still use them, and there are even 10ab A350s. The airlines using them seem happy enough. I think your ideas require passengers to have a far greater understanding of aircraft type and layout than they actually do.

The 777 going to 10abreast doesn't drop below 17". That stays well within the acceptable part of the bell curve I posted. So airlines can still charge close to full price but gain 10% extra seats. That's just extra revenue.

When you drop to the extremes of the bell curve you will have to change price to compensate customers. In the case of the current Scoot 787 and Asia X A330 cabin both have equal seats. Scoot can and does charge a premium because it's more comfortable.

Scoot would have the outgoings of a ULCC but with the income of a LCC. That's just extra profit margin that Asia X can't get because it has to run cheaper prices due to their lower comfort.

I am highly confident that Asia-X could operate 420 seats 787-9's at a 5% ticket price premium over the 440 seat A330-900. This would result in more total revenue and the yields most likely would increase. The extra comfort is well worth the 5% and demand would increase.

Now that the 787 prices have dropped I expect most LCC and ULCC's to eventually operate 787's.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
How do you know that extra point, do you have access to AirAsia’s yield data? We’ve seen plenty of 777 operators go from 9 to 10ab, with no ill effects. Your graph about the sead width is awfully, awfully convenient. For what it’s worth 9ab A330s are not unheard of but the airlines still use them, and there are even 10ab A350s. The airlines using them seem happy enough. I think your ideas require passengers to have a far greater understanding of aircraft type and layout than they actually do.


The 777 going to 10abreast doesn't drop below 17". That stays well within the acceptable part of the bell curve I posted. So airlines can still charge close to full price but gain 10% extra seats. That's just extra revenue.

When you drop to the extremes of the bell curve you will have to change price to compensate customers. In the case of the current Scoot 787 and Asia X A330 cabin both have equal seats. Scoot can and does charge a premium because it's more comfortable.

Scoot would have the outgoings of a ULCC but with the income of a LCC. That's just extra profit margin that Asia X can't get because it has to run cheaper prices due to their lower comfort.

I am highly confident that Asia-X could operate 420 seats 787-9's at a 5% ticket price premium over the 440 seat A330-900. This would result in more total revenue and the yields most likely would increase. The extra comfort is well worth the 5% and demand would increase.

Now that the 787 prices have dropped I expect most LCC and ULCC's to eventually operate 787's.


Yes, it stays well within the boundaries of the arbitrary graph. The one that shows a very convenient fact for your narrative, that has no official recognition would indicate that 777 operators can do it, but there’s no way of knowing whether it’s actually true for airlines that 18 to 17 can still charge the same premium but 17 to 16.5 not.

Does Scoot charge a premium because it’s more comfortable or does it charge a premium because it’s based out of the country with much much higher Individual wealth? I mean yields are very high out of Singapore in general. Higher costs to cover as well.

Comfort increases demand? Airlines are missing a trick by not ordering more Airbus A380s! I assume that only 17 inches raises demand and not 18 or 19 inches though.
 
TheFlyingRaven
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:05 am

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
How do you know that extra point, do you have access to AirAsia’s yield data? We’ve seen plenty of 777 operators go from 9 to 10ab, with no ill effects. Your graph about the sead width is awfully, awfully convenient. For what it’s worth 9ab A330s are not unheard of but the airlines still use them, and there are even 10ab A350s. The airlines using them seem happy enough. I think your ideas require passengers to have a far greater understanding of aircraft type and layout than they actually do.

The 777 going to 10abreast doesn't drop below 17". That stays well within the acceptable part of the bell curve I posted. So airlines can still charge close to full price but gain 10% extra seats. That's just extra revenue.

When you drop to the extremes of the bell curve you will have to change price to compensate customers. In the case of the current Scoot 787 and Asia X A330 cabin both have equal seats. Scoot can and does charge a premium because it's more comfortable.

Scoot would have the outgoings of a ULCC but with the income of a LCC. That's just extra profit margin that Asia X can't get because it has to run cheaper prices due to their lower comfort.

I am highly confident that Asia-X could operate 420 seats 787-9's at a 5% ticket price premium over the 440 seat A330-900. This would result in more total revenue and the yields most likely would increase. The extra comfort is well worth the 5% and demand would increase.

Now that the 787 prices have dropped I expect most LCC and ULCC's to eventually operate 787's.


You're hilarious mate. People WILL pay more to sit in a 17" seat over a 16.5" seat, but WON'T pay more to sit in a 17.5" seat over a 17" seat. Then you use your completely made up graph to prove it! I presume Air Caraïbes, who have squeezed in 10 abreast on their A350, are wrong too and should have bought 787s too.

To fiddle your seating capacity, you've reduced the pitch on the B787 remember. This means that it won't be more comfortable, so they won't be able to charge a premium. And as is endlessly said on Anet, people supposedly notice pitch over width in economy. Unless could you make a graph of seat pitch and width showing that people only notice these on Airbus planes, then I'll be convinced.

The fact is that Air Asia already operate A330s at 9 abreast and they actually have the data about who will pay what. You don't. You just have being 'highly confident'.

BTW, I'm not an Airbus fanboi. I would never set foot on a 9 abreast A330. I wouldn't fly your pitch negatively compensated for "extra-wide" seats on the B787 either.
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
...Boeing products have approximately half 17" seats and half 17.5" seats. That makes the average 17.625"


You should defo review those maths if you are trying to build an argument.Read your calculations again, but slowly.

RJMAZ wrote:
You could fit 10ab in the 787 using 15" seats and 15" aisles but as the bell curve shows less than 1% of the population will find that acceptable...


The graph you just made up to match your predefined opinion and then you are using as proof of fact of your opinion? :roll:
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14163
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:38 am

FlyHappy wrote:

It's a little bit more than a photo:

“AirAsia X will need more planes. We are now looking at (Airbus) 330 (and) 350s, (Boeing) 787,” Fernandes told reporters on the sidelines of a business forum in Manila.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/bus ... et-growth/


The headline says it all.

AirAsia has no plan to buy Boeing B787: CEO Fernandes

The article says

“AirAsia Bhd has ruled out any plans to buy Boeing B787 from the US aircraft manufacturer.”

“I go to Seattle more than I have ever done. Right now, we are still very much an Airbus customer. We have no plan to buy from Boeing at the moment,” he was responding to NST Business query after officiating the AirAsia RedQ in Sepang, yesterday.“


https://www.nst.com.my/business/2018/03 ... -fernandes
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:53 am

Jayafe wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
...Boeing products have approximately half 17" seats and half 17.5" seats. That makes the average 17.625"


You should defo review those maths if you are trying to build an argument.Read your calculations again, but slowly.

50/50 Market share between Boeing and Airbus.
50% of seats are 18" on an Airbus
25% of seats are 17.5" on a Boeing
25% of seats are 17" on a Boeing

18 + 18 + 17.5 + 17 then divide by 4. That's is 17.625inch average economy seat for the market.

Jayafe wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You could fit 10ab in the 787 using 15" seats and 15" aisles but as the bell curve shows less than 1% of the population will find that acceptable...


The graph you just made up to match your predefined opinion and then you are using as proof of fact of your opinion? :roll:

Acceptable seat width if plotted on a graph will be a bell curve. It will not be a linear straight line. Anyone that knows statistics will tell you that.

The centre value simply represents the average standard economy seat size. It's exact value is irrelevant it was simply to show how going from 18" to 17.5" has a minor effect on comfort where as going from 17" to 16.5" has a major effect on comfort.

I could have simply put -1" -0.5" 0 +0.5" and +1" on the x axis on the graph but I put in a bit of effort to work out what would be the average economy seat used in the world.

If 17.5" is incorrect please tell me what do you think the average standard economy seat width is?

If seat acceptance was linear it could be as follows:
18" 100% acceptance
17" 80% acceptance
16 60% acceptance
15"40% acceptance

If it was linear it means there would be a market for 15" seats. But we all know there is no market for 15" seats. That is why it is not linear. It is a bell curve.

The bell curve would show a drop off rate that is much quicker as you approach the shoulder width of a small person. The seat acceptance quickly reachs zero once you reach that point.

A bell curve would give the following acceptance percentages for example:
17.5" 100%
17" 90%
16.5" 50%
16" 10%
15.5" 2%
15" <1%
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
...Boeing products have approximately half 17" seats and half 17.5" seats. That makes the average 17.625"


You should defo review those maths if you are trying to build an argument.Read your calculations again, but slowly.

50/50 Market share between Boeing and Airbus.
50% of seats are 18" on an Airbus
25% of seats are 17.5" on a Boeing
25% of seats are 17" on a Boeing

18 + 18 + 17.5 + 17 then divide by 4. That's is 17.625inch average economy seat for the market.

Jayafe wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You could fit 10ab in the 787 using 15" seats and 15" aisles but as the bell curve shows less than 1% of the population will find that acceptable...


The graph you just made up to match your predefined opinion and then you are using as proof of fact of your opinion? :roll:

Acceptable seat width if plotted on a graph will be a bell curve. It will not be a linear straight line. Anyone that knows statistics will tell you that.

The centre value simply represents the average standard economy seat size. It's exact value is irrelevant it was simply to show how going from 18" to 17.5" has a minor effect on comfort where as going from 17" to 16.5" has a major effect on comfort.

I could have simply put -1" -0.5" 0 +0.5" and +1" on the x axis on the graph but I put in a bit of effort to work out what would be the average economy seat used in the world.

If 17.5" is incorrect please tell me what do you think the average standard economy seat width is?

If seat acceptance was linear it could be as follows:
18" 100% acceptance
17" 80% acceptance
16 60% acceptance
15"40% acceptance

If it was linear it means there would be a market for 15" seats. But we all know there is no market for 15" seats. That is why it is not linear. It is a bell curve.

The bell curve would show a drop off rate that is much quicker as you approach the shoulder width of a small person. The seat acceptance quickly reachs zero once you reach that point.

A bell curve would give the following acceptance percentages for example:
17.5" 100%
17" 90%
16.5" 50%
16" 10%
15.5" 2%
15" <1%


But what is this 'acceptance' based on? If it's not based on real world data then it's quite easily dismissed as being very arbitrarily picked and not really relevant. Why is it that 17.5in is 100% accepted? Where does that figure come from. There is little evidence to suggest passengers care enough about the difference between 17 and 16.5in seats in large enough numbers that an airline will struggle, there have been plenty of 9ab A300s, A310s, A330s and 10ab A350s, and the airlines flying them haven't really struggled for that reason.

Worth noting that Airbus once published a study that suggested 18in seats meant a 53% increase in sleep quality over a 17in seat. I'd trust that research more than yours (carried out by London Sleep Centre) but I still think that's unlikely to make much of a difference in the real world, seems a little bit too much like they (Airbus) wanted a result that favoured their stance, and thus set up the study to favour them. That doesn't mean it's accurate.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:57 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

............

The bell curve would show a drop off rate that is much quicker as you approach the shoulder width of a small person. The seat acceptance quickly reachs zero once you reach that point.

A bell curve would give the following acceptance percentages for example:
17.5" 100%
17" 90%
16.5" 50%
16" 10%
15.5" 2%
15" <1%


So here is my curve, less 787 tinted, more neutral and closer to reality. I agree ist not linear.

> 18,y + armrest and 'belly' space (A380) = 100% (the current Optimum) (don't know the CS300 yet.)
18.0" 90%
17.5 80%
17.0" 70%
16.5" 50%
16.0" 10-20%
15.5" 2%
15.0" <1 %

Flyglobal
 
Fiend
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:53 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:00 am

kengo wrote:
Fiend wrote:
AIr Asia and Air Asia X cater towards the predominantly Asian clientèle, who are of smaller stature than most others. 9ab on an A330 is not a major problem for their target market.


WOW! What a stereotype response! When was the last time you visited Asia? Yes, compared to an average "most others" , an average Asian is not overblown is proportion but that does not mean the A330 in 9ab is okay for us but not for the "most others". Have you tried Air Asia A330 9ab? I have and it SUCKS! Way worse than 9ab 787 or 10 ab 777. Like some have said here, if Air Asia X orders 787s with 9ab, it would be a major upgrade for passergers from the 9ab A330s.


I've visited Asia quite a lot, actually.... my wife is Asian and I will be retiring to Asia in 4 years time. . My experience of flying on a 787 is that I find it uncomfortable and cramped.... My wife doesn't.
BAC 1-11, A300, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380, B737, B747, B757, B777, B787, L1011, Fokker 100, ATR 72, MD83
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:21 am

MrHMSH wrote:
But what is this 'acceptance' based on?

It is based on the worldwide fleet.

We don't see every aircraft in the world filled with lie flat beds because only a minority of passengers are willing to pay 3+ times the price for excessive comfort.

We don't see every aircraft filled with 16.5inch economy seats because not everyone wants to arrive to their destination feeling sore and only saving $50.

We have premium carriers down to ultra low cost carriers. But the majority sit in the middle again with a bell curve. The reason why most airlines sit in the middle is because they provide acceptable comfort for an acceptable price for the majority of the population.

Statistically there would be a seat size that has maximum acceptance. But you would need the dimension, price, distance of flight and yield of every seat on every flight in the world.

Another fact that is common sense to me is that the seat size with maximum acceptance would be smaller as the flights get shorter. This is why only a handful of narrowbody aircraft have lie flat beds.

I personally will accept a 17" seat on a 1 hour domestic flight but not on longer flights. Being in Australia our international flights are often 8+ hours. I personally do not accept even 18inch seats on international flights.

On international I fly JAL on their 8ab 787 in economy as their seats are over 18".
I fly Scoot and Jetstar business class with their 7ab recliners.
I wouldnt fly Qantas even in their premium economy as it's the same seats as scoot and Jetstar business class but 3 times the price. I would never fly in a lie flat bed as I am not willing to pay for the excessive comfort.

Every one of us have our own personal bell curve on what seat size we will accept depending on our body size, price and duration of flight.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:35 am

Flyglobal wrote:
So here is my curve, less 787 tinted, more neutral and closer to reality. I agree ist not linear.

> 18,y + armrest and 'belly' space (A380) = 100% (the current Optimum) (don't know the CS300 yet.)
18.0" 90%
17.5 80%
17.0" 70%
16.5" 50%
16.0" 10-20%
15.5" 2%
15.0" <1 %

Flyglobal

This is completely wrong.

You have put the largest economy seat at 100% or at the peak of the bell curve. This is not how a bell curve work. The bell curve graph is centred around the average seat size. With larger seats to the right and smaller seats to the left.

What do you consider the average standard economy seat width? It would be around 17.5 inch yes?

So this 17.5inch average seat would be at the highest point of bell curve.

With nearly all Boeing aircraft having economy seats smaller than 18inch it is impossible for the average seat to be 18inch.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:43 am

RJMAZ wrote:
It is based on the worldwide fleet.


Have you got a rough percentage of how many seats are 18, 17 and 16.5in? Seems that 18 and 17 would have roughly the same proportion each. Virtually all 767s, virtually all 787s, many 777s vs some 777s, vast majority of A330s and A340s, most A350s, all A380s. Seems that 18in has a very wide public acceptance and also for the airlines that have selected it.

We don't see every aircraft in the world filled with lie flat beds because only a minority of passengers are willing to pay 3+ times the price for excessive comfort.


But it's still a necessary service, every class and subclass has its own market.

We don't see every aircraft filled with 16.5inch economy seats because not everyone wants to arrive to their destination feeling sore and only saving $50.


But then there is a market for those seats if the price is low enough, and bear in mind plenty of these airlines are doing reasonably well in terms of finance and load factors.

We have premium carriers down to ultra low cost carriers. But the majority sit in the middle again with a bell curve. The reason why most airlines sit in the middle is because they provide acceptable comfort for an acceptable price for the majority of the population.


But for some people that comfort isn't enough (hence Premium Economy) and for some cost is the only factor, hence tiny seats.

Statistically there would be a seat size that has maximum acceptance. But you would need the dimension, price, distance of flight and yield of every seat on every flight in the world.


Data you do not have, and thus are unable to pinpoint, which means your graph is not helpful. Sure, if you put the line so that the highest plotted point is at 17.5in, then it will tell you 17.5in has '100% acceptance'. But then we know for a fact it's not 100%: you yourself don't accept it! For the record, I tend to go for 18in seats and although I consider some 17in options I haven't felt inclined to do so yet. Most of my long flights are between SE Asia and Europe.

Another fact that is common sense to me is that the seat size with maximum acceptance would be smaller as the flights get shorter. This is why only a handful of narrowbody aircraft have lie flat beds.


That's fair. Bear in mind for this comparison that AirAsiaX's A330s don't fly much more than 8hrs usually.

I personally will accept a 17" seat on a 1 hour domestic flight but not on longer flights. Being in Australia our international flights are often 8+ hours. I personally do not accept even 18inch seats on international flights.

On international I fly JAL on their 8ab 787 in economy as their seats are over 18".
I fly Scoot and Jetstar business class with their 7ab recliners.
I would fly Qantas in their premium economy but not their business class as I am not willing to pay for the excessive comfort of a lie flat bed.

Every one of us have our own personal bell curve on what seat size we will accept depending on our body size, price and duration of flight.


Which as I mentioned above throws your '100% acceptance' figure for the 17.5in seat into huge doubt. If everyone has their own personal bell curve then unless you plot every single one (or a large enough sample size) it's pretty much worthless to say that *this* seat width of 1 less inch has 100% acceptance but *that* seat width of 0.5 more inches has 50% acceptance.

And also, sometimes people don't have a choice and have to live with what is chosen for them. Airline makes money either way.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:18 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
That stays well within the acceptable part of the bell curve I posted.

1. Your bell curve has a variance that is not backed by any real evidence but is simply chosen so that it proves your point. There is no way anybody can figure out the correct variance of that curve. I would be equally entitled to put in a variance that yields in a curve that proves the opposite of yours. Your curve is entirely made up out of thin air.

RJMAZ wrote:
You have put the largest economy seat at 100% or at the peak of the bell curve. This is not how a bell curve work. The bell curve graph is centred around the average seat size. With larger seats to the right and smaller seats to the left.

There is no evidence, that the bell curve is even applicable for the pax acceptance probability. In fact I can easily list some reasons, why pax acceptance is not a bell curve:

1. Your curve says, that 20" wide seats would be less acceptable than 19" wide seats. Which is nonsense of course. Looking just at seat width the acceptance would ever increase, the wider the seats get.

2. Most of the times seat width correlates with seat price too. So how acceptable a seat is, also strongly depends on the ticket price. The success of the low cost operators with Airbus widebodies tells us, that the seat (which is at the limit of the feasible, I agree) is acceptable for the price it is offered.

3. As the curve left to 16.0 must drop sharply to zero, it is per definition not a bell curve. The curve has a discontinuity where the acceptance jumps from zero to a low, but coupled with low fares marginally acceptable value -> no bell curve.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
c933103
Posts: 3891
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:22 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
...Boeing products have approximately half 17" seats and half 17.5" seats. That makes the average 17.625"


You should defo review those maths if you are trying to build an argument.Read your calculations again, but slowly.

50/50 Market share between Boeing and Airbus.
50% of seats are 18" on an Airbus
25% of seats are 17.5" on a Boeing
25% of seats are 17" on a Boeing

18 + 18 + 17.5 + 17 then divide by 4. That's is 17.625inch average economy seat for the market.

Jayafe wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
You could fit 10ab in the 787 using 15" seats and 15" aisles but as the bell curve shows less than 1% of the population will find that acceptable...


The graph you just made up to match your predefined opinion and then you are using as proof of fact of your opinion? :roll:

Acceptable seat width if plotted on a graph will be a bell curve. It will not be a linear straight line. Anyone that knows statistics will tell you that.

The centre value simply represents the average standard economy seat size. It's exact value is irrelevant it was simply to show how going from 18" to 17.5" has a minor effect on comfort where as going from 17" to 16.5" has a major effect on comfort.

I could have simply put -1" -0.5" 0 +0.5" and +1" on the x axis on the graph but I put in a bit of effort to work out what would be the average economy seat used in the world.

If 17.5" is incorrect please tell me what do you think the average standard economy seat width is?

If seat acceptance was linear it could be as follows:
18" 100% acceptance
17" 80% acceptance
16 60% acceptance
15"40% acceptance

If it was linear it means there would be a market for 15" seats. But we all know there is no market for 15" seats. That is why it is not linear. It is a bell curve.

The bell curve would show a drop off rate that is much quicker as you approach the shoulder width of a small person. The seat acceptance quickly reachs zero once you reach that point.

A bell curve would give the following acceptance percentages for example:
17.5" 100%
17" 90%
16.5" 50%
16" 10%
15.5" 2%
15" <1%

50% would accept 16.5"? Then why's there so few 8-abreast 767 around
And, are we going too far away from the topic of "AirAsia" and "A350"?
Peace cannot counter violence when violence are being used by the powerful without mercy. #HongKong
But there is one possible exception. That is if the world could come together and make those who use violence lose their power. #China
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:47 pm

Yup I think you are!!
Clearly he didn't think they were too expensive when he ordered 10.But now he does - so it follows he has been offered something cheaper by Boeing -no? It has to be the 789 so I guess that's what he's been offered cheaper.If true then over to Airbus.Stick or twist.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Flyglobal wrote:
So here is my curve, less 787 tinted, more neutral and closer to reality. I agree ist not linear.

> 18,y + armrest and 'belly' space (A380) = 100% (the current Optimum) (don't know the CS300 yet.)
18.0" 90%
17.5 80%
17.0" 70%
16.5" 50%
16.0" 10-20%
15.5" 2%
15.0" <1 %

Flyglobal

This is completely wrong.

You have put the largest economy seat at 100% or at the peak of the bell curve. This is not how a bell curve work. The bell curve graph is centred around the average seat size. With larger seats to the right and smaller seats to the left.

What do you consider the average standard economy seat width? It would be around 17.5 inch yes?

So this 17.5inch average seat would be at the highest point of bell curve.

With nearly all Boeing aircraft having economy seats smaller than 18inch it is impossible for the average seat to be 18inch.


This is not completely wrong, rather it is the realistic curve of a real customer. I don’t care your own created graph.
We are not talking about statistics, we talk about acceptance and % of acceptance.

For me the 100% starts where the best comfort is, and that’s the 18" 'plus' of the A380. nothing better to get. This even you should accept. If I have a choice on a route, I will always take the A380 and probably even pay a reasonable premium.

From there my curve gets downwards, not linear / 0.5”, but in steps. A regular 18 Inch (E.G. A330 or A350) I added as 90%, as it is still 18 Inch and I prefer it instead of a 17.5 or even 17” seat wise if there is a choice.
So it should be clear that the regular Airbus standard is not 100% but little less then the A380 premium standard. So 90%.
Now we come to the more narrow category starting to get less comfortably. 17.5 inch = 80% is fair to must people who may (have) to take this smaller seat. They know it could be better, but probably it’s no choice.
Downwards 17.5 inch, 17” it becomes more crazy, I gave 70% instead of 80% for 17.5 and I agree it gets down more linear. So 65% instead of 70% could have been right, or to take the middle ground 67.5%.

Now it becomes worse quickly: 16.5” instead of 17.0” is an even further step change then from 17.5” to 17.0”, so I agree to your figure of 50% compared to the 100% of A380.
Then, also following your sharp drop, the 16.0” will feel crazy (can’t imagine) – so if 10% or 20% is academic. Below I follow your 1 and 2 %.

So my percentage figures are all logical, the only difference is that you do not want to agree that all the 18” width planes flying around in majority here in Europe provide a widely accepted comfort standard and you should simply accept it you’re your 100% figures on that.

I don’t even talk to the pitch. For me as one with 1,92m height, the ANA economy with 34” seat distance is 100% by the way (if you ever intend to do a curve).

Greetings

Flyglobal
 
kengo
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:04 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:15 pm

Fiend wrote:
kengo wrote:
Fiend wrote:
AIr Asia and Air Asia X cater towards the predominantly Asian clientèle, who are of smaller stature than most others. 9ab on an A330 is not a major problem for their target market.


WOW! What a stereotype response! When was the last time you visited Asia? Yes, compared to an average "most others" , an average Asian is not overblown is proportion but that does not mean the A330 in 9ab is okay for us but not for the "most others". Have you tried Air Asia A330 9ab? I have and it SUCKS! Way worse than 9ab 787 or 10 ab 777. Like some have said here, if Air Asia X orders 787s with 9ab, it would be a major upgrade for passergers from the 9ab A330s.


I've visited Asia quite a lot, actually.... my wife is Asian and I will be retiring to Asia in 4 years time. . My experience of flying on a 787 is that I find it uncomfortable and cramped.... My wife doesn't.


Have you tried Air Asia X 9ab A330? If not, you should try just for fun one day. You may find 9ab 787 with same pitch way more comfortable. If you are anywhere near Japan after retirement, drop me a line and maybe we can get together over a beer talk about planes.

Cheers!
 
masA380
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:54 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:41 pm

zeke wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

It's a little bit more than a photo:

“AirAsia X will need more planes. We are now looking at (Airbus) 330 (and) 350s, (Boeing) 787,” Fernandes told reporters on the sidelines of a business forum in Manila.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/bus ... et-growth/


The headline says it all.

AirAsia has no plan to buy Boeing B787: CEO Fernandes

The article says

“AirAsia Bhd has ruled out any plans to buy Boeing B787 from the US aircraft manufacturer.”

“I go to Seattle more than I have ever done. Right now, we are still very much an Airbus customer. We have no plan to buy from Boeing at the moment,” he was responding to NST Business query after officiating the AirAsia RedQ in Sepang, yesterday.“


https://www.nst.com.my/business/2018/03 ... -fernandes


I wonder what makes you think they won’t buy 78J. Since the very beginning you’ve been saying they won’t. I’m not saying they will. But never says never.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:41 pm

You guys still don't understand the graph.

The peak of the bell curve at 17.5inch does not mean 100% of the passengers accept that seat size. It means 17.5inch is the seat size that is accepted by the most people. There is a big difference between the two.

So the 100%, 50% 20% values posted represent a percentage of the max peak of the bell curve.

The reason why the bell curve drops down again as the seat becomes larger is because it also takes into account price. Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat.

A passenger from a poor country for example might have a 0% acceptance rate on the A380 economy seats. They will never pay a price premium and they will stick to ULCC's. There are millions of passengers that will not pay extra for the A380 seat. So flyglobal you are completely wrong in giving the A380 100% it would not have the highest acceptance rate or be at the peak of the bell curve.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:32 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
You guys still don't understand the graph.

The peak of the bell curve at 17.5inch does not mean 100% of the passengers accept that seat size. It means 17.5inch is the seat size that is accepted by the most people. There is a big difference between the two.

So the 100%, 50% 20% values posted represent a percentage of the max peak of the bell curve.

The reason why the bell curve drops down again as the seat becomes larger is because it also takes into account price. Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat.

A passenger from a poor country for example might have a 0% acceptance rate on the A380 economy seats. They will never pay a price premium and they will stick to ULCC's. There are millions of passengers that will not pay extra for the A380 seat. So flyglobal you are completely wrong in giving the A380 100% it would not have the highest acceptance rate or be at the peak of the bell curve.


One problem you fail to take into account: how many airlines actually have 17.5in seats? I don't think many aircraft have it as standard.

The 767, 777 (9ab), A320 family, A330, A340, A350 and A380 have 18in as the standard.
The 737, 787, 777 (10ab) have 17in as the standard.
The A330 (9ab) has 16.5in as standard, I think, it may actually be 16.7in.

Without figures establishing the cost of tickets, factoring in differences in wage, taxes, cost etc. your model is pretty much hopeless as an indicator for the real world. It's far too theoretical. Where did you get the figure for 19in commanding a price twice as large as a 17.5in one? Is it something else that you've presumed and then used for evidence?
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:56 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
It means 17.5inch is the seat size that is accepted by the most people.

So less people are accepting an 18" seat? What stuff have you been smoking?

RJMAZ wrote:
The reason why the bell curve drops down again as the seat becomes larger is because it also takes into account price. Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat.

First you talked about seat widths only (check your diagram, price is not mentioned). It only made sense if everything else is the same. Now you want to add the effect of prices. That is moving goalposts. The acceptance curve, where the price is considered as dimension looks totally different than the curve you posted.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9733
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:57 pm

You guys are over thinking the graph and RJMAZ’s responses. He is saying that most people do not have problem with 17.5” seats and would view that as “baseline” width (common for years in narrow bodies and the 747), and would see 18” seats as an improvement and possible justification for a higher ticket price, and a 16.5” seat as a downgrade which may require a cheaper ticket price to be seen as acceptable to the consumer.

Nothing more, nothing less.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:24 pm

Polot wrote:
You guys are over thinking the graph and RJMAZ’s responses. He is saying that most people do not have problem with 17.5” seats and would view that as “baseline” width (common for years in narrow bodies and the 747), and would see 18” seats as an improvement and possible justification for a higher ticket price, and a 16.5” seat as a downgrade which may require a cheaper ticket price to be seen as acceptable to the consumer.

Nothing more, nothing less.


Thank you! This was getting tedious and pedantic.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9274
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:32 pm

...was....
Understatement of the year............
Now back to our regular schedule topic...will they replace the A330 with the 787?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:26 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Where did you get the figure for 19in commanding a price twice as large as a 17.5in one? Is it something else that you've presumed and then used for evidence?

Qantas flying Sydney to Los Angeles
Economy 17.5" wide = $1328
Premium economy 19" wide = $3389

Flying Sydney to Tokyo
Jetstar 787-9 17.5" wide 9ab economy = $355
JAL 787-9 19" wide 8ab economy = $747
Qantas is $1000+ so dont try and say JAL is expensive premium

You will struggle to find a 19" seat that is cheaper than a 17.5" seat on any given route on the same day. Only the very top premium airlines would be able to justify a 17.5" seat to cost as much as a low coast carriers premium economy 19" seat.

So a 19inch seat costs anywhere from 50% more to well over double the price of a 17.5inch seat on average.

rheinwaldner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
It means 17.5inch is the seat size that is accepted by the most people.

So less people are accepting an 18" seat? What stuff have you been smoking?

Consider we have 6500 737's in service with an average of 1250 in the air at any given moment. A 737 can't fit 18inch economy seats. The average can never be 18inch simply due to the huge quantity of 737 passengers accepting 17.5inch wide seats.

You are just being stubborn as you've clearly lost the argument. You keep chasing tiny cracks but anything you find comes from not understanding what I've posted, not from there being a crack in the argument. It just fills the threads up with crap and wastes time.
 
2175301
Posts: 1584
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:31 am

RJMAZ

Your curve and reasoning is nonsense:

My hips fit into a 18" seat. My shoulders do not. I am forced to very uncomfortable twist and turn if seated next to another broad shouldered person in a 18 in seat (and it does happen).

The fact that I am forced to use an 18" seat at times (or worse yet a 17.5" seat) does not mean I "accept" 18" seats. Give me a 19 or 20" seat anyday (and yes, I buy those when they are reasonably priced and available). Unfortunately, for many flights they are not even available or an option.

Have a great day,
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:06 am

2175301 wrote:
RJMAZ

Your curve and reasoning is nonsense:

My hips fit into a 18" seat. My shoulders do not. I am forced to very uncomfortable twist and turn if seated next to another broad shouldered person in a 18 in seat (and it does happen).

The fact that I am forced to use an 18" seat at times (or worse yet a 17.5" seat) does not mean I "accept" 18" seats. Give me a 19 or 20" seat anyday (and yes, I buy those when they are reasonably priced and available). Unfortunately, for many flights they are not even available or an option.

Have a great day,


you are too hung up on semantics.
the use of "acceptance" means you are buying the tickets and taking the flight, despite your shoulder discomfort. You are doing so - as are most of us, as evidenced by the actual loads in Y on most passenger aircraft. It matters not a whit that you feel "forced" or that your shoulders do not fit. You buy, thus you "accept"...... just like most of us.

You are not getting the more comfortable 19"/20" seats most of the time, because you limit your spend ("reasonable priced", likely excluding true premium fares) - which means you are not "accepting" of the price (for that seat/class). This what his bell curve reflects. He's conveying the relationship between seat size/cost and sales (ie, "acceptance").

That wider seats may not be available for your chosen trip, is a macro reflection of the lack of "acceptance" by the market at large, for higher price seats on that route. It does not comment on your individual desire for more space.

The curve may or may not be accurate, but the general reasoning does seem to reflect reality.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:22 am

zeke wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

It's a little bit more than a photo:

“AirAsia X will need more planes. We are now looking at (Airbus) 330 (and) 350s, (Boeing) 787,” Fernandes told reporters on the sidelines of a business forum in Manila.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/bus ... et-growth/


The headline says it all.

AirAsia has no plan to buy Boeing B787: CEO Fernandes

The article says

“AirAsia Bhd has ruled out any plans to buy Boeing B787 from the US aircraft manufacturer.”

“I go to Seattle more than I have ever done. Right now, we are still very much an Airbus customer. We have no plan to buy from Boeing at the moment,” he was responding to NST Business query after officiating the AirAsia RedQ in Sepang, yesterday.“


https://www.nst.com.my/business/2018/03 ... -fernandes


I won't put much stock into Fernandes' proclamations. He may say one thing, but do another.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14163
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:30 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
I won't put much stock into Fernandes' proclamations. He may say one thing, but do another.


I guess that means he will be buying the A350, as this thread is about saying he won’t.....
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Qantas flying Sydney to Los Angeles
Economy 17.5" wide = $1328
Premium economy 19" wide = $3389

Flying Sydney to Tokyo
Jetstar 787-9 17.5" wide 9ab economy = $355
JAL 787-9 19" wide 8ab economy = $747
Qantas is $1000+ so dont try and say JAL is expensive premium

You will struggle to find a 19" seat that is cheaper than a 17.5" seat on any given route on the same day. Only the very top premium airlines would be able to justify a 17.5" seat to cost as much as a low coast carriers premium economy 19" seat.

So a 19inch seat costs anywhere from 50% more to well over double the price of a 17.5inch seat on average.


So two flights cost twice as much on two route (on one day?), therefore you can say that on average a 19in seat costs twice as much as a 17.5in seat? I assume you've factored in how much everything else costs, i.e. the figure for the ticket prices excludes the wages, food, entertainment, taxes and such? I think that's a stretch, it's simply too small a sample size, you would need to compile data from many, many flights where these seat sizes are flown. Since you don't have access to that data you cannot assume that 2 flights are representative. And why are you comparing two different classes of service? QF's Y+ also features a lot more legroom and space, and a premium could easily come from the fact that it's popular and a relatively small cabin.

Polot wrote:
You guys are over thinking the graph and RJMAZ’s responses. He is saying that most people do not have problem with 17.5” seats and would view that as “baseline” width (common for years in narrow bodies and the 747), and would see 18” seats as an improvement and possible justification for a higher ticket price, and a 16.5” seat as a downgrade which may require a cheaper ticket price to be seen as acceptable to the consumer.

Nothing more, nothing less.


But his graph is completely theoretical, not based on real world data and is difficult to back up with real world facts. Sure, passengers will probably accept 17.5in seats, but then for AirAsiaX and all the other 9ab A330 operators there are enough people who accept the 16.5in seats for them to fill the plane, and enough passengers also accept the price to pay for 18in seats. He's quite arbitrarily decided that 17.5in is the absolute Goldilocks point based on scant evidence and unless he can back up his claims with data and/or evidence then it's hard to say anything other than he's giving the 787 a little bit too much of an advantage that skews his arguments about the merit of each plane for AirAsia.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:12 am

zeke wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
I won't put much stock into Fernandes' proclamations. He may say one thing, but do another.


I guess that means he will be buying the A350, as this thread is about saying he won’t.....


With Tony, I'll only believe it when the first plane arrives.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:52 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
zeke wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

It's a little bit more than a photo:

“AirAsia X will need more planes. We are now looking at (Airbus) 330 (and) 350s, (Boeing) 787,” Fernandes told reporters on the sidelines of a business forum in Manila.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/bus ... et-growth/


The headline says it all.

AirAsia has no plan to buy Boeing B787: CEO Fernandes

The article says

“AirAsia Bhd has ruled out any plans to buy Boeing B787 from the US aircraft manufacturer.”

“I go to Seattle more than I have ever done. Right now, we are still very much an Airbus customer. We have no plan to buy from Boeing at the moment,” he was responding to NST Business query after officiating the AirAsia RedQ in Sepang, yesterday.“


https://www.nst.com.my/business/2018/03 ... -fernandes


I won't put much stock into Fernandes' proclamations. He may say one thing, but do another.


"At the moment". It could be tomorrow. It could be never. But just not at the moment.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
2175301
Posts: 1584
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:23 am

FlyHappy wrote:
2175301 wrote:
RJMAZ

Your curve and reasoning is nonsense:

My hips fit into a 18" seat. My shoulders do not. I am forced to very uncomfortable twist and turn if seated next to another broad shouldered person in a 18 in seat (and it does happen).

The fact that I am forced to use an 18" seat at times (or worse yet a 17.5" seat) does not mean I "accept" 18" seats. Give me a 19 or 20" seat anyday (and yes, I buy those when they are reasonably priced and available). Unfortunately, for many flights they are not even available or an option.

Have a great day,


you are too hung up on semantics.
the use of "acceptance" means you are buying the tickets and taking the flight, despite your shoulder discomfort. You are doing so - as are most of us, as evidenced by the actual loads in Y on most passenger aircraft. It matters not a whit that you feel "forced" or that your shoulders do not fit. You buy, thus you "accept"...... just like most of us.

You are not getting the more comfortable 19"/20" seats most of the time, because you limit your spend ("reasonable priced", likely excluding true premium fares) - which means you are not "accepting" of the price (for that seat/class). This what his bell curve reflects. He's conveying the relationship between seat size/cost and sales (ie, "acceptance").

That wider seats may not be available for your chosen trip, is a macro reflection of the lack of "acceptance" by the market at large, for higher price seats on that route. It does not comment on your individual desire for more space.

The curve may or may not be accurate, but the general reasoning does seem to reflect reality.


You are incorrect on your assumption on what I would pay. In many cases there are no large premium seats to be had - sold out - or they don't exist on aircraft that is even close to an acceptable schedule (I cannot add days to a trip to get wider seats).

Sorry, I don't accept the concept that because we are forced to do something that we accept it. What other industry claims that?

Have a great day,

Edited to add: A reality is when looking at potential schedules and available aircraft seats... That Southwest ends up getting the majority of my air travel at this time. I see no reason to fly 2 of 3 legs in commuter aircraft even if there is a wide seat available on the middle leg; when I can often do at most a single connection with Southwest and get there a lot faster. Also, I just drove 14 hours each way because by the time you did the early check in, the connections, debord, get luggage, rent a car, etc it would be a minimum of 13 hours travel anyway.
Last edited by 2175301 on Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8951
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:26 am

zeke wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

It's a little bit more than a photo:

“AirAsia X will need more planes. We are now looking at (Airbus) 330 (and) 350s, (Boeing) 787,” Fernandes told reporters on the sidelines of a business forum in Manila.

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/bus ... et-growth/


The headline says it all.

AirAsia has no plan to buy Boeing B787: CEO Fernandes

The article says

“AirAsia Bhd has ruled out any plans to buy Boeing B787 from the US aircraft manufacturer.”

“I go to Seattle more than I have ever done. Right now, we are still very much an Airbus customer. We have no plan to buy from Boeing at the moment,” he was responding to NST Business query after officiating the AirAsia RedQ in Sepang, yesterday.“


https://www.nst.com.my/business/2018/03 ... -fernandes



At the moment, means it could change tomorrow.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:04 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
zeke wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
I won't put much stock into Fernandes' proclamations. He may say one thing, but do another.

I guess that means he will be buying the A350, as this thread is about saying he won’t.....

With Tony, I'll only believe it when the first plane arrives.

Totally agree - He has said many times that D7 will return to London soon but they are yet to do so.

Now, they have a firm order for ten A350s and he says they won't buy the A350. No orders were placed for the B787, either direct or from lessors. Will they be taking delivery of any B787s? ;)

So yes, I will believe it when I see it. Don't take too much notice of what he says.
 
TheFlyingRaven
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:15 am

RJMAZ wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Where did you get the figure for 19in commanding a price twice as large as a 17.5in one? Is it something else that you've presumed and then used for evidence?

Qantas flying Sydney to Los Angeles
Economy 17.5" wide = $1328
Premium economy 19" wide = $3389

Flying Sydney to Tokyo
Jetstar 787-9 17.5" wide 9ab economy = $355
JAL 787-9 19" wide 8ab economy = $747
Qantas is $1000+ so dont try and say JAL is expensive premium

You will struggle to find a 19" seat that is cheaper than a 17.5" seat on any given route on the same day. Only the very top premium airlines would be able to justify a 17.5" seat to cost as much as a low coast carriers premium economy 19" seat.

So a 19inch seat costs anywhere from 50% more to well over double the price of a 17.5inch seat on average.



Good job. You've just proven that your own fabricated Bell chart is nonsense. Unless Qantas and JAL are flying around empty seats, people ARE will to pay much more for a 19" seat. Alternatively, airlines flying 17.5" seats have to charge much less to fill their seats. Remember you said must wouldn't accept paying the extra for a bigger seat - well clearly they are.

Edited to find your quote: "Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat." All sorts of different people will pay different prices. The lowest cost would be on a 9 abreast A330 and people will accept the discomfort to save pennies.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:58 am

TheFlyingRaven wrote:
Good job. You've just proven that your own fabricated Bell chart is nonsense. Unless Qantas and JAL are flying around empty seats, people ARE will to pay much more for a 19" seat. Alternatively, airlines flying 17.5" seats have to charge much less to fill their seats. Remember you said must wouldn't accept paying the extra for a bigger seat - well clearly they are.

Edited to find your quote: "Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat." All sorts of different people will pay different prices. The lowest cost would be on a 9 abreast A330 and people will accept the discomfort to save pennies.

You are just showing a lack of understanding on the topic.

Only a fraction of aircraft have premium economy. Premium economy fills only a fraction of the aircraft. There are very few premium economy seats on the market. Percentage wise it would be under 10% easily.

Why is that? Because only a very small amount of people will pay twice as much for a 19inch seat.

So my quote "Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat." Is spot on.

If most people would except premium econony then most aircraft would have a premium economy section. The premium economy section would also make up most of the cabin with only a small section of normal economy at the back for the plebs.

But that is not the case. Standard economy with 17" to 18" seats make up the majority of aircraft cabins because most people accept that.
 
TheFlyingRaven
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:16 am

RJMAZ wrote:
TheFlyingRaven wrote:
Good job. You've just proven that your own fabricated Bell chart is nonsense. Unless Qantas and JAL are flying around empty seats, people ARE will to pay much more for a 19" seat. Alternatively, airlines flying 17.5" seats have to charge much less to fill their seats. Remember you said must wouldn't accept paying the extra for a bigger seat - well clearly they are.

Edited to find your quote: "Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat." All sorts of different people will pay different prices. The lowest cost would be on a 9 abreast A330 and people will accept the discomfort to save pennies.

You are just showing a lack of understanding on the topic.

Only a fraction of aircraft have premium economy. Premium economy fills only a fraction of the aircraft. There are very few premium economy seats on the market. Percentage wise it would be under 10% easily.

Why is that? Because only a very small amount of people will pay twice as much for a 19inch seat.

So my quote "Most people will not accept paying twice as much for a 19inch premium economy seat opposed to a 17.5inch seat." Is spot on.

If most people would except premium econony then most aircraft would have a premium economy section. The premium economy section would also make up most of the cabin with only a small section of normal economy at the back for the plebs.

But that is not the case. Standard economy with 17" to 18" seats make up the majority of aircraft cabins because most people accept that.


Keep on twisting and turning and moving them goalposts. Your nonsense bell curve had 0 people "accepting" 19" seats:

Image

By your own examples you've found examples of where people will pay double for more space. So why wouldn't there be be people at the other end of the normal distribution will to pay much less for less space? Even if it only a "fraction", it'll still be enough to fill AirAsia's planes.

You decided to include 19" PE seats for some unknown reason, but in doing so you proved that SOME people will pay more for space at all price points. As you pointed out, JAL have based their B787 strategy on this. On the other hand, SOME people will always accept less space for less cost, and has been proven by the densification of B777s and B787s.

You decided that the "seat acceptance" limit is conveniently exactly where Boeing's seat width is, then invented a graph to prove it, then based your future argument on your graph. You even decided that people will accept less pitch only in Boeing planes because the width is greater. Handily ignoring that AirAsia and others already fly 9 abreast A330s and 10 abreast A350 (and other planes with dense seating configurations) and people are flying them.

All this to try to show that you can fit more seats in a B787 than a A330. In 9 abreast the 330 is longer and will fit in more seats. It has a higher exit limit so is allowed to carry more passengers.

Finally AirAsia has A330s on order and not B787. That's the most important data point. AirAsia might order B787s. AirAsia might cancel their A330s. Good for them. I won't be flying any configuration of any plane. Give me Thai, Cathay, Singapore any day for any extra cost.

I only continue to argue with you because you deny that facts that people will accept narrower seats for cheaper fares and that the A330 will squeeze in more seats.

I understand the situation perfectly, it is you that is "just showing a lack of understanding on the topic."
 
NZ321
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:46 am

My pick is Fernandes has gone cold on any future aircraft orders past the A333 classic and he is using the cancellation of the A359 to drum up speculation as to the Boeing / Airbus win that is forthcoming to generate publicity when in fact the reality is Air Asia X don't have any coherent expansion strategy which calls for or can sustain an aircraft optimised for long range flying. We have seen the unsuccessful forays into long haul and resulting retreats and although Air Asia have had plenty of time to think about it we still don't see a coherent solution to the problems they have faced in these markets. I see the value of Air Asia as a local short - medium haul product, period. So I am not expecting an order out of this but if we do get one I'm not picking it will be for substantial units. From memory they still have A330 classics inbound.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14163
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:57 pm

He is getting the A330neo....
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:01 pm

NZ321 wrote:
From memory they still have A330 classics inbound.

Thai Airasia X has just taken delivery of an ex-China Eastern A333 on an operating lease. A further three leased second hand jets are due this year before the first of the 66 A339's on order from the Airbus factory arrive.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:05 pm

"Too Expensive" - isn't that what former DL CEO Richard Anderson said about the 787 when commenting on the A350 order?

zeke wrote:
He is getting the A330neo....


Makes perfect sense as the Air Asia X only uses the A330...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirAsia_X#Fleet

Note: Wiki page has EIS of A330neo as 2018 - has that changed?
Last edited by bmacleod on Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14163
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:06 pm

TheFlyingRaven wrote:
I understand the situation perfectly, it is you that is "just showing a lack of understanding on the topic."


Everything they posted was contrived, they put words like average and standard in the same sentence.

The real world data should not represent a bell curve, many different wide body and narrow body widths, and different ways airlines use them.

The real distribution should have both kurtosis and skewness, not a bell curve.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Kikko19
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:10 pm

NZ321 wrote:
My pick is Fernandes has gone cold on any future aircraft orders past the A333 classic and he is using the cancellation of the A359 to drum up speculation as to the Boeing / Airbus win that is forthcoming to generate publicity when in fact the reality is Air Asia X don't have any coherent expansion strategy which calls for or can sustain an aircraft optimised for long range flying. We have seen the unsuccessful forays into long haul and resulting retreats and although Air Asia have had plenty of time to think about it we still don't see a coherent solution to the problems they have faced in these markets. I see the value of Air Asia as a local short - medium haul product, period. So I am not expecting an order out of this but if we do get one I'm not picking it will be for substantial units. From memory they still have A330 classics inbound.

unless they buy a350-1000 and go 10 abreast (with a new feud about .5 inches differents on a.net) :)
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:29 pm

As much fun as pages of economy class seat width debates are, is there any talk of A350 production prices coming down to make the airplane more attractive for Air Asia X?
 
brindabella
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:32 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
As much fun as pages of economy class seat width debates are, is there any talk of A350 production prices coming down to make the airplane more attractive for Air Asia X?


Spoilsport.

cheers
Billy
 
TheFlyingRaven
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:50 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
As much fun as pages of economy class seat width debates are, is there any talk of A350 production prices coming down to make the airplane more attractive for Air Asia X?


I think the A350 is just too much plane at any price. Norwegian are losing their shirt filling B789s with a vaguely similar business case, so imaging filling something even bigger, as undoubtable AirAsia would do 10 abreast on the A350.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:53 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
As much fun as pages of economy class seat width debates are, is there any talk of A350 production prices coming down to make the airplane more attractive for Air Asia X?


That would seem to be the critical thing here. There was this which is interesting.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what- ... 2018-04-26

“A330 PRODUCTION: A dearth of recent deals and lost campaigns at Hawaiian Airlines and American Airlines Group Inc. have left Airbus with unfilled production slots for its A330 plane as early as next year. Pressure is mounting to cut production if deals can't be secured soon, analysts believe.”

Continuing to deny the A330 is under pressure is silly at this point but more importantly my question would be where are Delta and Air Asia X in this? By themselves they would fill a ton of production slots. If they truly have empty slots in 2019 then it almost seems as if the airlines with orders aren’t yet eager to actually get them going.

With the Iran order at risk, they just ordered Russian planes today, you need Delta and Air Asia X to take planes relatively quickly but I don’t see them being willing to do so. You have a theoretical delivery rate of 72 a year and a backlog 303 in theory if you include Iran. There are 60-65 more planes to be delivered this year so going into 2019 you will have 240 or so left, again including Iran.

Without Iran to maintain production rates I would guess Delta needs to take 6-8 a year which is reasonable if they want to. Air Asia X needs to take 15-20 which I doubt they can support. Otherwise I don’t see who you can deliver the planes to. The next largest order is Air Lease Corp and lessors are already having to turn to the likes of Hi Fly to place these aircraft. They aren’t going to be highly eager to take lots of deliveries right yet either.

I would guess there are lots of interesting discussions around this program between airlines and Airbus right now. Being late the airlines have some options. Airbus appears to be running out of wiggle room quickly.
 
brindabella
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: AirAsia X won't buy "too expensive" Airbus A350: Tony Fernandes

Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:25 pm

bigjku wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
As much fun as pages of economy class seat width debates are, is there any talk of A350 production prices coming down to make the airplane more attractive for Air Asia X?


That would seem to be the critical thing here. There was this which is interesting.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what- ... 2018-04-26

“A330 PRODUCTION: A dearth of recent deals and lost campaigns at Hawaiian Airlines and American Airlines Group Inc. have left Airbus with unfilled production slots for its A330 plane as early as next year. Pressure is mounting to cut production if deals can't be secured soon, analysts believe.”

Continuing to deny the A330 is under pressure is silly at this point but more importantly my question would be where are Delta and Air Asia X in this? By themselves they would fill a ton of production slots. If they truly have empty slots in 2019 then it almost seems as if the airlines with orders aren’t yet eager to actually get them going.

With the Iran order at risk, they just ordered Russian planes today, you need Delta and Air Asia X to take planes relatively quickly but I don’t see them being willing to do so. You have a theoretical delivery rate of 72 a year and a backlog 303 in theory if you include Iran. There are 60-65 more planes to be delivered this year so going into 2019 you will have 240 or so left, again including Iran.

Without Iran to maintain production rates I would guess Delta needs to take 6-8 a year which is reasonable if they want to. Air Asia X needs to take 15-20 which I doubt they can support. Otherwise I don’t see who you can deliver the planes to. The next largest order is Air Lease Corp and lessors are already having to turn to the likes of Hi Fly to place these aircraft. They aren’t going to be highly eager to take lots of deliveries right yet either.

I would guess there are lots of interesting discussions around this program between airlines and Airbus right now. Being late the airlines have some options. Airbus appears to be running out of wiggle room quickly.



Launches a far more fascinating speculation IMO.

I am a long-time advocate of a "small-wing" 8ab MOM.
But once the fuse + systems etc for an 8ab are done, then a bit of wing-work gives BA the rest of the 8ab space?

Bye Bye A333/A339?

Well most of the (tiny) quanta of info. from BA actually refers to 7ab EXCEPT the 50K engines.

But if BA really goes 7ab - I would interpret that as meaning that:

1) 7ab better competes with 321neo etc. etc., and
2) BA has a very handy 9ab which will out-compete any 8ab.

cheers
Billy
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos