Rumor: DL Going To 10 Abreast On 777

FlyASAGuy2005 · Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:00 am

So, I'm on good word for some folks at the DL GO that revenue MGMT is seriously looking at going to 10 across on their 777 fleet some time towards the end of this year (retrofit to begin in W16). It won't be the entire economy cabin but rather all non Economy Comfort seats. This is allegedly to off set the seating capacity they will loose from their new Premium Economy product.

Have no idea what the new configuration will look like but you will have Delta One, Premium Economy (whatever they decide to officially call it) Economy Comfort then regular E. Regular E seating will be in a 3-4-3 layout. Currently their 777s are in a 3-3-3 layout.

commavia · Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:13 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Thread starter):
So, I'm on good word for some folks at the DL GO that revenue MGMT is seriously looking at going to 10 across on their 777 fleet some time towards the end of this year (retrofit to begin in W16).

Personally, I won't be at all surprised if this does, indeed, happen.

As many of us speculated back when AA confirmed it was going to 3-4-3 on the 777s, if such a configuration proved financially advantageous (both in terms of resulting lower CASM balanced with manageable, if existent at all, customer bookaway), then AA's main U.S. competitors would likely, ultimately, have no choice but to match.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Thread starter):
Have no idea what the new configuration will look like but you will have Delta One, Premium Economy (whatever they decide to officially call it) Economy Comfort then regular E. Regular E seating will be in a 3-4-3 layout.

So sounds like Delta would essentially end up with basically the same configuration as what AA will have on its 777s - lie-flat/all-aisle-access J, premium economy, more-legroom economy and "regular" economy.

[Edited 2016-01-10 19:54:34]

Cubsrule · Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:40 am

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
So sounds like Delta would essentially end up with basically the same configuration as what AA will have on its 777s - lie-flat/all-aisle-access J, premium economy, more-legroom economy and "regular" economy.

Has UA announced any widebody reconfigurations lately? I don't follow their fleet that closely.

Alitalia744 · Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:44 am

Have heard it will end up:

J: 1/2/1 all-aisle
PE: 2-4-2
EC: 3-3-3
E: 3-4-3

global1 · Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:51 am

2017 will bring about many exciting changes.

New aircraft
New routes
New products, including a revamped DeltaOne
New uniforms

I would not be surprised, especially given that the 777 and 767-400 fleets were the first to be outfitted with the current lay flat seats and therefore be first in line for a product refresh. I assume new aircraft like the A350 and A330neo will be delivered with the new product.

[Edited 2016-01-10 19:58:39]

Sightseer · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:13 am

The A350s can't get here fast enough.

compensateme · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:14 am

Unfortunately, it's my understanding that this is has went well beyond the planning stages, so it'll likely come to frutation.

United1 · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:18 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
So sounds like Delta would essentially end up with basically the same configuration as what AA will have on its 777s - lie-flat/all-aisle-access J, premium economy, more-legroom economy and "regular" economy.

Has UA announced any widebody reconfigurations lately? I don't follow their fleet that closely.

UA is at least partially moving to 10 across as well...

77G configuration (the 19 Hawaii/Domestic 777-222 non ERs) will have 10 across in regular Y as will the 77Ws....UA hasn't said anything about the ERs yet but would assume they will follow at some point.

LAX772LR · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:25 am

Definitely going to be interesting to see what ramifications this has for their elite program benefits.

Some think it's a given at this point that if P makes it to domestic mainline fleet, on anything other than the transcon.... then free elite upgrades will be to that, and not F, for everything other than maybe Diamonds or people who bought full fare P.

I'm not sure I agree.

DL has gotten good at selling some of its Y fares for HIGHER than some of its paid F, rather often, and I think that reflects the reality that many businesses don't even look at domestic F inventory, but pay whatever Y fare is convenient to their schedule.

In the last year, I've flown routes like LAX - MSY/SEA/etc and gotten paid F for often several hundred less than the advertised Y fares.

[Edited 2016-01-10 20:30:14]

PSU.DTW.SCE · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:47 am

As it is now, when its just my wife and I traveling, I've avoided the 777 where possible when they've been on TATL flights and taken A330 or 767 because of the 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 where we could get the 2 seats to ourselves. The 777 meant always sharing with someone else. A section of 2x4x2 on the 777 might actually be worth the additional cost to get seats to yourself.

MSPNWA · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:51 am

It would surprise me if they didn't go to 3-4-3 in regular Y. Airlines can't shy away from the extra revenue. It also encourages more upsells.

compensateme · Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:43 pm

I've also heard that DL will trial changes to its Economy Basic fares, including implementing fees for carry-on baggage and offering advanced seat assignments for an additional fee. They feel it's necessary to counter the influx of cheap seats by NK & F9 at its trunk hubs.

StTim · Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:48 pm

I would not want to sit in the back on the JNB-ATL filght at 10 across. I have done the flight once and it was quite comfortable really - but that much more squeezed - no thank you.

321neo · Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:53 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 1):
Personally, I won't be at all surprised if this does, indeed, happen.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 3):
J: 1/2/1 all-aisle
PE: 2-4-2
EC: 3-3-3
E: 3-4-3

Perhaps making this move will give them insight into how EK performs so well? EK has been at 10-abreast in Y and 7-abreast in J for years, yet Richard Anderson seemed to conveniently omit this detail whenever he has attacked EK.

Quoting global1 (Reply 4):
New aircraft
New routes
New products, including a revamped DeltaOne
New uniforms

Any sign of better quality food ?

georgiaame · Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:53 pm

Doesn't sound overly pleasant to me, but it's still better than 10 abreast on a 767. Or maybe I shouldn't have even suggested that idea to the bean counters...

longhauler · Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:20 pm

I would really be surprised if Delta didn't reconfigure it's B777s to 10 abreast. Unless an airline can charge a premium for a 9 abreast seat over an airline offering 10 abreast seats then it is always operating at an unnecessary economic disadvantage.

While it is true that presently the world's B777 fleet has slightly more 9 abreast B777s than 10, new build B777s are presently about 95% 10 abreast, indicating what the future holds.

It seems any time an airline does a major cabin refresh requiring new seats ... it ends up 10 abreast. I am always more curious about the airlines that stick to 9 abreast, and what is it about their operation that would make such a configuration advantageous.

ksphkca · Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:03 pm

More reason to avoid them then, nothing wrong with the 777 per say, I just don't like a 3-3-3 cabin,
3-4-3 even less so but as I love 747's then exceptions can be made..
Fortunately at LHR I think all we get from Delta is 763/764 so not an issue with 2-3-2 seating. If not flying Delta
I look for 330/340 if possible, much prefer the 2-4-2 cabins though aren't somebodies 330's out there with 3-3-3 too??

cschleic · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:15 pm

Quoting ksphkca (Reply 16):
I look for 330/340 if possible, much prefer the 2-4-2 cabins though aren't somebodies 330's out there with 3-3-3 too??

Some of the leisure carriers have 3-3-3 Airbus widebodies. Some of have 2-4-2 767s, too.

Quoting 321neo (Reply 13):
EK has been at 10-abreast in Y and 7-abreast in J for years,

True, although I believe some of their 777s have more seat pitch in Y than some of the other airlines. At least for now.

theflcowboy · Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:26 pm

Aren't the AF 777's 10 abreast as well? With all the other (proposed) changes to the premium economy cabin, wouldn't this bring their true economy product more in line with some of the other larger members of SkyTeam?

justloveplanes · Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:43 pm

This is the right way to go to me. Give the market a chance to work. I prefer the wider seats, but other folks may want the cheaper seats, regardless of comfort. This keeps the airline from having to go ALL 10 abreast, much to the relief of many here. So I think Delta has the split exactly right, showing everybody (again..) that they are one step ahead.

I am a UA million miler, basically nothing on Delta, but giving credit where credit is due.

EddieDude · Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:44 pm

Quoting theflcowboy (Reply 18):
Aren't the AF 777's 10 abreast as well? With all the other (proposed) changes to the premium economy cabin, wouldn't this bring their true economy product more in line with some of the other larger members of SkyTeam?

AF, KL, AZ have within SkyTeam 10-abreast 777s. Not sure if KL has finished the reconfiguration process, but at least all the new 77Ws have this config.

KL has an "economy plus" type of situation, while AF and AZ have true premium economy cabins.

KE and AM are 9-abreast, but the AM birds are being retired soon. They are only four and two leave this year; the other two probably in 2017. They will be replaced by 789s, which are also 9-abreast.

MU is 10-abreast, whereas CZ is 9. I seem to believe SU is 10-abreast, whereas GA is 9-abreast.

Not sure of other SkyTeam 777 operators. VN? KQ? CI? SV?

VA is another major partner of DL, but it is outside of SkyTeam. Their 77Ws are 9-abreast.

VS does not have 777s and the brand-new partner 9W is phasing the 777s out and its largest plane will eventually be the A332.

DTWPurserBoy · Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:26 pm

Quoting 321neo (Reply 13):
Any sign of better quality food ?

Choosing an airline for its food makes about as much sense as choosing a restaurant for its ability to fly.

You can only do so much when reheating food that was prepared 12 hours earlier.

PGNCS · Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:36 pm

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 19):
This is the right way to go to me. Give the market a chance to work. I prefer the wider seats, but other folks may want the cheaper seats, regardless of comfort. This keeps the airline from having to go ALL 10 abreast, much to the relief of many here.

Great point. Giving customers the options they want is a great (though not always common) approach, and this seems to be calculated to do just that in a very balanced way. I will be interested in what the eventual cabin configuration looks like.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 21):
Quoting 321neo (Reply 13):Any sign of better quality food ?

Choosing an airline for its food makes about as much sense as choosing a restaurant for its ability to fly.

You can only do so much when reheating food that was prepared 12 hours earlier.

Nice, DTW, and absolutely correct!

You surely didn't expect an unbiased analysis of anything Delta related in that post, did you?

Flighty · Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:37 pm

The revenue justification is now clear. By selling 3-3-3 as Y, DL is missing out on EC and PE capacity. Product that is a well proven revenue generator. Goodbye 9Y. And goodbye me ever flying DL 777 in Y. If their EC product meets an Airbus carrier's Y on price then maybe I will do it. Otherwise it is simple to just choose an Airbus carrier.

na · Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:41 pm

Cattle-Shuttle to the routes to the slaughterhouses of Chicago?

PGNCS · Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 23):
And goodbye me ever flying DL 777 in Y.

That's fine; like justloveplanes pointed out, some people will be willing to pay for more room than others and if you aren't willing to pay, you'll have to seek other alternatives. You were correct when you said "the revenue justification is now clear". It is.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 23):
Otherwise it is simple to just choose an Airbus carrier.

I definitely don't disagree with you there. If there is an Airbus widebody (or a 767) on a route instead of a 777 or 747 I will go with the Airbus or 767 every time all else being equal.

MSPNWA · Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:53 pm

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 19):
I prefer the wider seats, but other folks may want the cheaper seats, regardless of comfort.

But therein lies the rub. Customers won't simply see a 10% discount if they stick with the cheapest seat. They likely won't see one at all, at least not a noticeable one. Nor will people sticking with 3-3-3 keep the same price. It's another case of getting less for more in the airline industry. I don't blame airlines for doing it, but I still hate it.

PGNCS · Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:06 pm

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 26):
Customers won't simply see a 10% discount if they stick with the cheapest seat. They likely won't see one at all, at least not a noticeable one.

I have no idea what the pricing of the product will be, but customers in the cheap seats will definitely see a lower price than those who are willing to pay for more comfort. Airlines are for-profit businesses and if the conversion allows an airline to diversify it's offering across pricepoints while maximizing revenue they are going to do it. This actually seems like a pretty balanced approach if the rumored configuration is anything like actuality.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 26):
Nor will people sticking with 3-3-3 keep the same price.

Airfares will rise over time due to inflation if nothing else: inflation-adjusted airfares are still at extremely reasonable levels compared to other consumer products and services.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 26):
It's another case of getting less for more in the airline industry.

Or not. It's a case of getting a different product for a different fare which is largely unlike coach travel has been in the past.

EddieDude · Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:11 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 23):
And goodbye me ever flying DL 777 in Y.

Why? There will be different seating and comfort options if the 777s end up having economy, Economy Comfort, the new and so much talked about Premium Economy, and Delta One. If you don't want the 10-abreast layout, there will be 9-abreast at economy comfort or 8-abreast at Premium Economy.

StrandedAtMKG · Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:18 pm

Quoting compensateme (Reply 11):
I've also heard that DL will trial changes to its Economy Basic fares, including implementing fees for carry-on baggage and offering advanced seat assignments for an additional fee. They feel it's necessary to counter the influx of cheap seats by NK & F9 at its trunk hubs.

This graf makes my head hurt. They think they're going to start charging additional fees for simple things that have been rolled into their already-exorbitant airfares since the dawn of time, and that's going to help them compete with cheaper carriers...how?

AirbusA6 · Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:26 pm

Quoting ksphkca (Reply 16):
I look for 330/340 if possible, much prefer the 2-4-2 cabins though aren't somebodies 330's out there with 3-3-3 too??

Only charter carriers or certain LCCs

Quoting theflcowboy (Reply 18):
Aren't the AF 777's 10 abreast as well? With all the other (proposed) changes to the premium economy cabin, wouldn't this bring their true economy product more in line with some of the other larger members of SkyTeam?

To generalise, aren't French people shorter and slimmer than Americans? Surely this must have an effect on how well such 10Y arrangement work?

LAX772LR · Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:54 pm

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 14):
but it's still better than 10 abreast on a 767.

Slightly impossible.

Quoting ksphkca (Reply 16):
aren't somebodies 330's out there with 3-3-3 too??

Only charter.

ssteve · Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:47 pm

Quoting StrandedAtMKG (Reply 29):
This graf makes my head hurt. They think they're going to start charging additional fees for simple things that have been rolled into their already-exorbitant airfares since the dawn of time, and that's going to help them compete with cheaper carriers...how?

The implication is that they're matching fares already.

flightsimer · Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:46 pm

Ok, what Premium economy section is delta implementing? I thought they were just going to be selling economy+ Seats as it's own class rather than it being an after purchase upgrade like it is now?

It doesn't really make sense to have three economy section with different hard products all in the same plane.

RyanairGuru · Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:21 pm

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 19):
This keeps the airline from having to go ALL 10 abreast, much to the relief of many here. So I think Delta has the split exactly right, showing everybody (again..) that they are one step ahead.

What? Take a gander at AA's 77W seat map. Delta are about 2 years behind, definitely not a step ahead.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 21):
Choosing an airline for its food makes about as much sense as choosing a restaurant for its ability to fly.

You can only do so much when reheating food that was prepared 12 hours earlier.

But some airlines can apparently do a lot, lot more than others. I'm not referring to Delta specifically, but if this food "you can't do much with" is all that I'm eating for 14 hours then I will choose a carrier that can do better.

jacobchoi · Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:52 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 30):

To generalise, aren't French people shorter and slimmer than Americans? Surely this must have an effect on how well such 10Y arrangement work?

To generalise, aren't Asian people shorter and slimmer than the French? Surely this is why SQ, CX, JL, BR, CA, KE, OZ all have 9 across Y

Av8rDAL · Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:44 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 8):
DL has gotten good at selling some of its Y fares for HIGHER than some of its paid F, rather often, and I think that reflects the reality that many businesses don't even look at domestic F inventory, but pay whatever Y fare is convenient to their schedule.

In the last year, I've flown routes like LAX - MSY/SEA/etc and gotten paid F for often several hundred less than the advertised Y fares.

I have seen this on a few flights taken ex-ATL to PHL and a couple other cities in New England on US and AA. Full F was selling for ~$50 less than Y. I can also understand the gravitation to searching for Economy only when booking. The companies I've worked for always require economy bookings, and and an F booking would mean you're automatically in hot water with the accounting department.

Quoting StTim (Reply 12):
I would not want to sit in the back on the JNB-ATL filght at 10 across. I have done the flight once and it was quite comfortable really - but that much more squeezed - no thank you.

I've done LAX-SYD and back on Delta 9-abreast in the back of the bus, and I've done CDG-YUL on Air France 10-abreast, both on 777s. The 15 hour Delta flight was actually quite comfortable, sitting on the aisle. The 10-abreast AF experience was absolutely dreadful. If it moves forward, I will do anything possible to avoid 10-abreast 777s on future DL long-hauls, even if it means taking a competing carrier for more money.

tristarcrazy · Tue Jan 12, 2016 3:18 am

I have a friend who is a DL777 pilot and he said their monthly news letter says that they are considering a move to 307 seats from the current 291 and that this is to include 4 classes. He said the news letter did not mention 10 abreast but if they add a premium econ as the 4th class then going 10 would be the only way to get to 307?? Also, mods would start in the Fall.

LAX772LR · Tue Jan 12, 2016 5:32 am

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 28):
Why? There will be different seating and comfort options if the 777s end up having economy, Economy Comfort, the new and so much talked about Premium Economy, and Delta One. If you don't want the 10-abreast layout, there will be 9-abreast at economy comfort or 8-abreast at Premium Economy.

Basically, what the poster just said is:
"Despite the fact that the airline has given me three different levels of Economy product to choose from, and the onnnnnly thing I have to do is pay for it, I'm still choosing (or only able to) pay the lowest fare... so bye!"

To which the airline, like most others, will happily respond with a pair o' twin deuces.
It's really that simple.

FlyASAGuy2005 · Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:55 pm

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 33):

A true premium economy product. AA announced theirs recently. Basically domestic F seats with domestic F food. Below C/J but well above regular Y or EC. See below. So agsin you will have Delta One (Business Class), Premium Economy (see below), Economy Comfort, Regular Economy. This will be for international widebody service.

http://www.aa.com/i18n/urls/premiume...ion=DirectURL&title=premiumeconomy

tlecam · Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 26):
But therein lies the rub. Customers won't simply see a 10% discount if they stick with the cheapest seat. They likely won't see one at all, at least not a noticeable one. Nor will people sticking with 3-3-3 keep the same price. It's another case of getting less for more in the airline industry. I don't blame airlines for doing it, but I still hate it.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 27):
I have no idea what the pricing of the product will be, but customers in the cheap seats will definitely see a lower price than those who are willing to pay for more comfort. Airlines are for-profit businesses and if the conversion allows an airline to diversify it's offering across pricepoints while maximizing revenue they are going to do it. This actually seems like a pretty balanced approach if the rumored configuration is anything like actuality.

I think you're making two different points. MSPNWA is pointing out that it's unlikely that the plane that sells tickets in a 3-4-3 configuration is actually paying less money. Rather, the customer in the new 3-3-3 will likely be paying more.

The customer in 3-4-3 is paying the same (all other things equal) for less space / comfort etc..

You're right that on a relative basis, the customer paying for the new 3-4-3 will pay less than the person paying for a little more comfort.

[Edited 2016-01-12 06:08:03]

FlyASAGuy2005 · Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:40 pm

Quoting tlecam (Reply 40):

I honestly don't get what the big this is about 3-4-3. Clearly you are fitting more seats into the same space but people complsin about "climbing over". The guy in the "middle" still has to climb over someone its no difference than 3-3-3 although yes your chance of being in a middle seat increases due to the layout.

delimit · Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:50 pm

Quoting StrandedAtMKG (Reply 29):
already-exorbitant airfares

Flying has never been cheaper. You don't understand the effect of inflation over time. Airfares have stayed fairly constant but the values of the currencies they are purchased in has declined.
The US DOT actually has charts that demonstrate this if you want to go looking for more information.

[Edited 2016-01-12 06:51:58]

DTWPurserBoy · Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:52 pm

Quoting jacobchoi (Reply 35):
To generalise, aren't Asian people shorter and slimmer than the French? Surely this is why SQ, CX, JL, BR, CA, KE, OZ all have 9 across Y

One of the better flight attendant one-liners I have heard was after a female passenger loudly complained that DL's seats were too small. Said the unnamed f/a "Madam, I believe it is not the size of OUR seat that is the problem." Got a good laugh, even from the complainer.

flightsimer · Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:55 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 42):
Flying has never been cheaper. You don't understand the effect of inflation over time. Airfares have stayed fairly constant but the values of the currencies they are purchased in has declined.
The US DOT actually has charts that demonstrate this if you want to go looking for more information.

That is true, but I believe it is also true that overall, income has not nearly kept up with inflation.

global1 · Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:41 pm

I think the sticker shock is in great part due to the fact that for many years after deregulation, the traveling public became addicted to the $99. coast to coast airfares.

These were unrealistic and unsustainable.

Airlines require tremendous capital outlays and at the same time the traveling public wants new planes, etc..

The markets through consolidation have acted as an equalibrium

[Edited 2016-01-12 12:42:35]

delimit · Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:22 pm

Which is about $200 now corrected for inflation (using $99 in 1988 in the calculation) so we're actually not far off that. I don't think people really get just how little airfares have moved in real dollars over time.

Flightsimer's point about declining incomes is valid, but only partially addresses just how stable airfares have been.

compensateme · Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:58 pm

Quoting delimit (Reply 42):
Flying has never been cheaper. You don't understand the effect of inflation over time. Airfares have stayed fairly constant but the values of the currencies they are purchased in has declined.
The US DOT actually has charts that demonstrate this if you want to go looking for more information.

This argument is a tiring fallacy.

Do you realize how much, in adjusted dollars, the Big 3 save in labor costs vs. 1988? The answer in in the tens of billions. This is a derivative of technology, automation, outsourcing and efficiencies. Not to mention the billions saved in real estate -- everything from hanger space (outsourced) to thousands of high-rent city ticket offices to smaller corporate footprints. And that's just the beginning. We could also discuss auxiliary and change fees collected.

Here's the kicker: in a competitive market, when the cost to provide a product or service drops, the price of the product or service drops. Nobody would think that paying $10,000 for an entry-level laptop today is justified because that's the price with inflation from 1988. Yet airline tickets...

LAX772LR · Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:22 am

Quoting compensateme (Reply 47):
Here's the kicker: in a competitive market, when the cost to provide a product or service drops, the price of the product or service drops

Prices are just as much dependent on perception of market value, as they are costs.
And you're completely ignoring that.

You're also ignoring that demand for flight has skyrocketed relative to what it was in the days of higher cost that you're alluding to, and I'd venture to say that the graph for that is far steeper than that of efficiency/cost reduction in labor/acquisition/etc.

[Edited 2016-01-12 16:25:20]

delimit · Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:27 am

Quoting compensateme (Reply 47):
Do you realize how much, in adjusted dollars, the Big 3 save in labor costs vs. 1988? The answer in in the tens of billions. This is a derivative of technology, automation, outsourcing and efficiencies. Not to mention the billions saved in real estate -- everything from hanger space (outsourced) to thousands of high-rent city ticket offices to smaller corporate footprints. And that's just the beginning. We could also discuss auxiliary and change fees collected.

No one said airfares couldn't be cheaper, but their costs don't come into consideration in a conversation about the price a consumer pays to fly. I question labelling anything as "exorbitant " when the price has been falling; unless you are working from the premise that they were completely unattainable. I also wonder why you're bringing costs into a comment about fare price rather than profits?

Please tell me how "Flying has never been cheaper" is a fallacy in real dollars?

Quote:
Here's the kicker: in a competitive market, when the cost to provide a product or service drops, the price of the product or service drops.

Which they have.

Quote:
Nobody would think that paying $10,000 for an entry-level laptop today is justified because that's the price with inflation from 1988. Yet airline tickets...

Cost less than they ever have before.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net