This all stemmed from someone asking why is it OK for Boeing to reduce seat size on the 787 below 18" but it's not OK for Airbus to reduce seat size even further down to 16.5". There's no double standards. My graph explained this perfectly where most people understood.
Your curve does not answer that question. It is nonsense. It is labelled incorrectly and has the completely wrong shape to have any meaning (have you noticed, that the correct curve would be equally suitable for your purpose?). You can only use it to jerk around those, who want to hear your message and who lack the knowledge in statistic even more than you do. Others wont be convinced by your diagram. Better try to explain you argument in words. It looks a lot less dilettantish than spreading fantasy curves.
As long as your reply categorically is, that the 16.5" seat is not OK, you are wrong anyway. Because the evidence, that it can be OK is flying around each day. It is obviously OK under certain conditions and in an admittedly rather small niche of the market.
As you say, the price must be considered. So no "seat width distribution"-curve and no "acceptance vs seat-width"-curve will prove anything. The correct function, to find out whether 16.5" is OK or not, is the 3D function "acceptance vs. seat-width vs. ticket-price". But you are not able to determine this function in a useful way. Me neither. So better forget all the graphs and try to bring up good reasons, why you think you are right.
My reasons, why it is OK for airlines to operate 16.5" seats:
- Mostly the same reasons, why Boeing operators recklessly get away with 17" mainline services: only geeks care, the general public is not aware, the majority simply will pick the lowest fare, the flying public is spoiled so nobody simply expects any comfort anymore....
- In the low-cost/low comfort business it matches expectation
If a seat gets filled then it is accepted. So the seat acceptance would closely match the seat width distribution.
First issue with this: the decision to book a seat with an airline in the most cases is driven by other factors long before seat width is considered. Therefore there is no causality between these two things (the booking and the seat width). Seat width is insignificant even in the worst case. Therefore the argument is nonsense.
Second issue with this: it is entirely evidence based. You need first the seat width available on the market to draw conclusions. You violate basic scientific principles, if you go and make claims about the future or not existing (or rare) seat widths using this argument.
You can also easily place a line of best fit over your bar graph joining the point together. Add a high amount of smoothing to the line and it would form a bell curve. This shows my bell curve is actually the best way to plot acceptance.
Do you still not understand, that you should not do that having only so few samples? If you do that, the resulting curve is affected by so large inaccuracies, that any conclusion tells more about your agenda than anything else. The meaning of the standard distribution is, that if you only add enough samples, the resulting distribution will match the curve more and more and after infinite samples it will match it exactly. How do you want to accomplish that with seat widths?
You also still fail to comprehend that acceptance is not following the seat width distribution. That is like saying, a fuselage length of about 52m has the largest acceptance for pax because this length by accident is the mean of all fuselage lengths.
Based on your graph the 100% acceptance would continue to 22inch seats, 26inch seats, private first class cabin and then right up to your own G650 private jet.
The graph is labelled with "acceptance vs seats with", right? Nowhere it mentions ticket price or any other variable. You need really more discipline when discussing these things.
Acceptance will never decrease going to wider seats. Even not extremely wide seats. As an engineer I am used to check the validity of such functions at the extremes. And I have to say, even a seat with 1 or 2 meters width would be as acceptable as an 18" or 19" seat (in fact, acceptance should even be higher, because for 19" you can expect to still get some no-responses). The curve is perfectly valid at the extremes too.
Passengers do not have the ability to accept flying alone on a G650 private jet due to the $100,000+ ticket price. The acceptance would be zero.
Ok, no the price comes into the picture. That is moving goal-posts when we discussed "acceptance vs. seat-width" just before.
But, ok, your argument, is "acceptance vs. seat-width vs. ticket-price". See above, how we should deal with that function. You and I will not be able to come up with a meaningful graph for that, that proves anything.
You correct approach would be to ask the same 100 people "What seat they would fly on with a 4 class cabin aircraft with the following average industry prices.
A) Budget economy 17" - $500
B) Standard economy 18" - $800
C) Premium economy 19" - $1500
D) Business class 22" beds - $3500"
Now this is how you would get acceptance.
Wrong, that way you would get "acceptance vs seat width vs ticket price". You need to be precise, otherwise you are fooling yourself and others. But, understood, you wanted to argue about "acceptance vs seat width vs ticket price" anyway from the beginning, so this is one of your better proposals.
The strength of this proposal is, that you introduce price sensitivity without going to a 3D function, by simply assuming a correlation between seat width and ticket price. The disadvantage is, that you only consider one of many possible correlation functions between seat width and ticket price. For the first added inch, the price increase is $300, for the second $700, for the next ones $667 per inch. Why the peak at the 18" to 19" transition? One would expect, that a proportional or maybe a exponential correlation curve would fit better. Anyway, you see, it is very hard just to model the truth using this approach.
Small things to improve the accuracy of your poll:
- Leave away not relevant information: the 4-class cabin information does not add anything and also mentioning the seat class would only detract from only judging the seat width and nothing else.
So, fine, assume we exercise your proposal. Do we know the outcome? Can we draw any conclusion and contribute anything meaningful to this thread? No, because we cant actually run the poll. So we are back to the normal discussion with as good as possible arguments. But leave away this pseudo scientific number crunching.
My graph includes price so it the best and most easy to understand form to use.
I got that meanwhile. Why not label it correctly? And use a more realistic shape for it? The bell curve is in no way the correct function to describe that.
My graph answers the original question. Why you would lose customers from reducing your seat width from 17" down to 16.5" but you would not lose customers from reducing seat width from 18" seats down to 17" seats.
The last thing, your graph does is providing this answer. It is wrong in any aspect and you terribly failed to provide opposite evidence.
Even if we would run the poll, create a correct graph for "acceptance vs. seat-width vs. ticket-price". It would still be meaningless and academic only because 95% of all passengers don't have the information about seat width available at the time of booking. So a guy could say, "I would never pay <so much> for a seat <this> wide!". But as the airlines don't show the seat width when the booking is done, the same guy will book, travel and curse about the seat anyway the next time he flies! In the large majority of all cases....