pitz

I'd have to disagree. The per capita income of, for instance, China is $11,850/year, India $5600/year on a PPP basis. It logically follows that it takes a positioning in a much higher strata of wealth in those respective countries to purchase air travel, than it does in North America where air travel is literally cheaper than Greyhound or Amtrak in most cases.

May not be rich on a global basis, but I bet your family is in the top quartile or decile on a regional basis if they're enjoying significant amounts of air travel.

In the United States, for instance, simply having a household net worth of $69k places one in the 3rd quintile of net worth, ahead of 60% of the population.

N. American airlines provide a service which reaches most of the population in terms of net worth quartiles. While in Asia, there is still a very large segment of the population which simply cannot afford air travel. So of course the ratio of premium seats to economy seats can be higher, since the aim is only at the top of the overall socio-economic strata.

Assume for a moment that the top 5% of the population will buy premium service. And everyone else buys economy.

In North America, the cut-off level for air travel is, perhaps, at the 50% percentile of wealth. In Asia, let's say it is at 75%.

Hence, in Asia, 5% / 25% = 20% of the demand will be from premium passengers. While in North America, 5% / 50% = 10% of the demand will be from premium passengers. Hence, the Asian premium airlines naturally have much higher ratios of premium passengers.


I didn't say that. I only said that flying in the emerging economies, which tends to characterize much of Asia, is far more of an exclusive luxury than it is in North America, relatively speaking. Because the premium airlines in Asia are catering to that marketplace, they obviously need to, and are providing more luxurious/premium services than we see in North America where the airlines cater to the entirety of the population. Asian LCC's, which are attempting to broaden the scope of air travel in Asia, are being even more draconian in terms of seat pitches, service fees, etc., than we see in North America for good reason -- per capita GDP to support air travel is much lower hence efficiency is even more important in providing a consumer product.

Transpacificflyer

There is no single answer to your question as each country has different rules and regulations. In some countries, there is no real accommodation made for the disabled. A classic example are the airlines in Thailand. On paper, they say they do make allowances. In practice, they do not. Last week I watched elderly and mobile impaired people nearly get trampled on 3 different airlines.
Keep in mind that in much of Asia, concepts such as accessibility and accommodation are ignored.

In respect to the size of the flying public in asia, pax are indeed getting taller and fatter. I have seen as many obese asian pax on an LCC such as NOK or Air Asia as I have seen on a domestic AC flight. Some airline routes in asia cater to foreigners and yet they manage to transport some very hefty Germans and Americans on busy routes. In any case, the affliction in Asia is "carry-on-itis". What Asian pax may not have in fatness, they make up for in the amount of bags they carry on.

superangrypenguin

Thanks for your very intelligent post. I had hoped you didn't read my post so soon (I had edited it over time, haha).

Just so I'm clear (I had a Mao reference), i'm not originally from communist China, but have family in ROC (so democraticish). The income range of China is HUGE, but since CX/BR is based out of Taiwan/HKG, let's start there. The income range even in a small country like Taiwan is huge. It's sort of like Canada vs the US. However, that range is much smaller than China. Taiwan/Hong Kong is closer to Canada than it is China/US. Is the average income/median income less than Canada, absolutely. However, the cost of living is dirt cheap. (no, please don't compare a US style apartment here vs there). I have many friends/family there and i'm shocked at how little they pay to live. When I was in downtown HKG, I could have a pretty decent meal for $1 CDN. Therefore, comparing pure #'s on paper isn't comparing apples to apples.

However, where did I mention that they are traveling a lot? They fly as often (i'm guessing) as the average Canadian. 1 x a year max, if not once every 2-3 years...many in my family are construction workers...it doesn't get any more middle class than that? At least here they are unionized and the minimum wage is a lot better...

Am I saying that a developing nation like China = accessibility of air travel like in N. America, nope - and I should have made that more clear. But if you've ever gone to TPE/HKG, you'll see that it's pretty darn developed...the other half of my family there are teachers...that's pretty middle class, no?

moorw003

Compare to the Asian airlines all you want. AC is North America's answer to KLM.

superangrypenguin

Care to explain? I've never been on KLM...(and never want to, nothing really excites me about them, or is that the point?)

AA_EXP09

Ideally, this would also be the case in Canada, obtained by using similar methods to what the Japanese are doing.
It is a win-win situation for the government.

canadiancow

I was one of those complaints in 2013. My armrest would not go down. FA wouldn't do anything about it. When I emailed after the fact, the response was "this is a problem that needs to be dealt with by the FA".

Since then, I have only flown UA for necessary trips where it's the only *A option (SFO-CUN), and FT dos.

So if they're going to be stupid about giving me the seat that I pay for, I'm going to stop paying for seats for "fun" travel.

I've never had a POS beside me on AC, so I don't know how they'd respond, but I hope it would be better.

P.S. This is actually a relatively minor reason I stopped flying UA, but it's still on the list.

AA_EXP09

or where it is much cheaper than AC and doesn't give you an HD plane.

24left

I really feel for POS because as the column I posted states, there is an issue of discomfort and embarrassment.

However, this problem will only get worse. People are not getting smaller but airlines are filling planes with smaller seats and less space between.

MY personal peeve is all this animal onboard stuff. First it's small dogs or cats in carriers. Apparently, people with allergies are secondary to cats and dogs.

Now, especially in the U.S., it's emotional support animals - some of whom are way to large for underseat carriers and well, you've all heard about the pig on the plane.


So if we move to less width and less pitch, where are all these larger people and animals supposed to go?

winnipegrev

Routing people (in AC's vision, mainly US traffic) through the country to support services it wouldn't otherwise have. Much of KLMs traffic is ABC-AMS-XYZ. Calin Rovinescu has made no secret that his vision for YYZ follows what KL did to AMS.

Similar to what EK does actually. The only reason AC isn't wildly hypocritical is the hub model benefits Americans/Canadians pretty equally. I'd say just as many Canadians route on US airlines via ORD/EWR/ATL/SEA/LAX than Americans through YYZ/YUL/YVR. Unlike EK - where AC's DXB connections through YYZ will most certainly be a sliver of EK's YYZ traffic through DXB.

grumbler

None of this applies to Japanese carriers and I am not sure I agree with the assumptions you are making. However it is correct to point out that Asian carriers are as diverse as European or NA carriers and so it is not useful to lump carriers like SQ with Air Asia.

Transpacificflyer

In respect to you concern in respect to animals, the 'allergic' reaction claims are not supported by the academic literature. In our daily environment we aspirate animal dander and bird excrement regularly. We also consume rodent hair, urine and feces in our food (subject to allowable quantities). Food sourced from industrial kitchens contain various types of impurities and as clean as they try to be, one can't keep out all the beasties. This then brings us back to the topic of animals in the cabin. Much of the allergic reaction is the result of a mental condition rather than a real physical ailment. An allergy sufferer who has an allergic reaction from a dog or cat a few rows away, would have a debilitating health condition requiring medication on a daily basis. I would argue that such a person would present a greater health risk to passengers due to the person's constant phlegm production and sneezing, blowing out a cloud of gunk.Sometimes those allergy sufferers are actually allergic to the skin flakes and skin mites of other humans and not animals. However, if we had to confront the fact that people shed their skin and hair all over a plane's seats, I believe some people would disgusted.

djjaguar64

I can never find AC\s crew where do they hide inflight on ULH's ?

PLeblond

I will avoid using pitch, as one of the diagrams in your OP shows, it does not adequately reflect legroom.

That being said, for me, 1" difference in width is meaningless. If the person next to you is 350lbs, the � inch more between you and them will not change much. I prefer being able to extend my legs straight and lean back as much as possible.

24left

Transpacificflyer

Yes, thank you for this detailed answer. I am well aware of all of this.
Also thank you for the graphic description. I have no illusions of what humans leave behind on airplane seats or elsewhere.

That said, I and others are allowed to be bothered by animals in the cabin, regardless of whether we can do anything about it. You do not have to agree.

My point was: given that there is a progression from small animals in the cabin to larger animals that may be for emotional support, AND given the smaller amount of space available due to more seats etc, I can see this combined issue becoming a bigger problem as time goes on. Period.