Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan - Premium seating on CRJs

Now that PDX-Bay Area is serviced as much by Horizon as AS, it seems to me that it's time for a "premium" seating arrangement on the CRJs. Those of us who are tall (6'4") and like to actually use the time on the flight to work would be willing to pay $100-150 or so extra per RT seat for the option of being able to sit in a seat with a bit of extra leg room.

So, about 18 months ago when Horizon became a significant part of the PDX-Bay Area service, I dropped a note to Horizon's Customer Relations Mgr. suggesting that they pull a row from the CRJs, spread out the first 3-4 rows of the plane and charge a premium for these seats. Got a nice reply, stated that Horizon's CEO brought it up at a strategy meeting, and nothing ever happened. I was going to bring it up at the recent MVP Gold lunch in PDX but I was out of town that day :(

Anyone else here on board with the idea? Or am I the only MVPG who's tired of having a sore back, stiff knees and a bit more work to do when I land?

While I dont fly Alaska Airlines I would be VERY much in favor of a "mini-premium" section on CRJ's, not only more legroom but also a bit bigger seats. In a 2x2 configuration I would LOVE to see the first 2 rows be a premium seating arrangment. 95% of my flights are CRJ's because of where I live and am tired of being sardined in.

While I dont fly Alaska Airlines I would be VERY much in favor of a "mini-premium" section on CRJ's, not only more legroom but also a bit bigger seats. In a 2x2 configuration I would LOVE to see the first 2 rows be a premium seating arrangment. 95% of my flights are CRJ's because of where I live and am tired of being sardined in.

Just get rid of the CRJs and replace them with a better plane. Even a Q400 would be better.

Just get rid of the CRJs and replace them with a better plane. Even a Q400 would be better.

The DH4 would work on PDX-SMF/OAK/SJC flights. Unfortunately, QX can't park props at the terminal (one reason why flights operate SUN-OAK).

And I'll vote for the premium seating. The Q400 currently seems more comfortable than the CRJs.

So would the MVPG's really pay to get upgraded to those or would they just complain if they didn't get a free upgrade? It's human nature... I can't say that I blame them, but I wouldn't think QX could charge much of a premium for the seats.

I am 6'2" so I would love the idea if they started doing this. Does anyone know which airlines offer a premium area on RJ's? I believe UA does. Do you know how well it works in terms of additional revenue?

So would the MVPG's really pay to get upgraded to those or would they just complain if they didn't get a free upgrade? It's human nature... I can't say that I blame them, but I wouldn't think QX could charge much of a premium for the seats.

I am 6'2" so I would love the idea if they started doing this. Does anyone know which airlines offer a premium area on RJ's? I believe UA does. Do you know how well it works in terms of additional revenue?

UA does, but it's on the new Embraer jet series. UA has a 3 seat across F section, a 4 seats across with 34" pitch E+ section, and the usual 31" pitch Economy section.

The difference is that the Embraer jet series is a FULL sized jet with 4 across (18" seats) seating, not a toy jet with miniature seating like the RJ's.

HP used to have an F section on its CRJ-900 jets, but gave it up (due to lack of profitability??).

So would the MVPG's really pay to get upgraded to those or would they just complain if they didn't get a free upgrade? It's human nature... I can't say that I blame them, but I wouldn't think QX could charge much of a premium for the seats.

I am 6'2" so I would love the idea if they started doing this. Does anyone know which airlines offer a premium area on RJ's? I believe UA does. Do you know how well it works in terms of additional revenue?

UA offers F and Y+ on Skywest and Mesa CR7s.

By most accounts, it has not created additional revenue on routes where the a single class aircraft was previously flown.

So would the MVPG's really pay to get upgraded to those or would they just complain if they didn't get a free upgrade? It's human nature... I can't say that I blame them, but I wouldn't think QX could charge much of a premium for the seats.

Herein lies the problem. If there was revenue to be had from this type of an arrangement I think that management would be all over it. As it is, I imagine that the seats would all go as upgrades and there would be no additional revenue seen as a result. Even if they refused to upgrade to these seats in advance, everyone would just play the waiting game rather than pay the additional fee (whatever that might be).

I've heard that UA is not seeing an increase in revenue on the routes they fly the RJ's with F seating.

UA offers F and Y+ on Skywest and Mesa CR7s. By most accounts, it has not created additional revenue on routes where the a single class aircraft was previously flown.
I've heard that UA is not seeing an increase in revenue on the routes they fly the RJ's with F seating.

True, but it is keeping UA flyers with UA and not moving on to other carriers who offer mainline service, so it is not eroding revenues, either. :)

Seriously, QX should consider two rows of F as UA has done with their larger RJs. It could improve revenues (F through Q fares), and it will also help keep AS flyers and elites less...annoyed...about RJ service out of airports like PDX.

True, but it is keeping UA flyers with UA and not moving on to other carriers who offer mainline service, so it is not eroding revenues, either. :)

Exactly. It also allows UAX to fly a great range of routes.

Seriously, QX should consider two rows of F as UA has done with their larger RJs. It could improve revenues (F through Q fares), and it will also help keep AS flyers and elites less...annoyed...about RJ service out of airports like PDX.

I can't imagine AS sells many F class tickets between PDX and the Bay Area or ONT/BUR. Premium traffic goes to SFO (on UA) and SNA/LAX, which has mainline.

True, but it is keeping UA flyers with UA and not moving on to other carriers who offer mainline service, so it is not eroding revenues, either. :)

I believe, that in most markets that see the CR7's and EMB170's, there really isn't any nonstop competition, so they would most likely keep their loyal flyers for that reason.

Seriously, QX should consider two rows of F as UA has done with their larger RJs. It could improve revenues (F through Q fares), and it will also help keep AS flyers and elites less...annoyed...about RJ service out of airports like PDX.

I imagine that they would lose about three revenue seats in most of the markets that have the CR7 service, if they converted to two rows of F. I wonder if the additional revenue that they would sometimes get from the Q to F fares would be enough to compensate for the loss of those seats. I think the idea of adding a small F cabin is with merit, but I wonder if there would be a loss of revenue. I honestly don't have a good idea.

Here's the other problem. Since QX flies Frontier Jet Express routes with their CR7's, they would not be able use the CR7's at either carrier as they do now. That would be a problem in that Frontier doesn't even have a F/C cabin and I don't know that there management would agree to QX sometimes using planes with a F/C cabin on their routes for several reasons. So, only reconfiguring part of the fleet would cost QX money because they wouldn't be able to cross utilize this fleet between F9/QX. Sometimes things aren't as simple as they seem.

I believe, that in most markets that see the CR7's and EMB170's, there really isn't any nonstop competition, so they would most likely keep their loyal flyers for that reason.

If the UA forum members are any indication, if UA doesn't have F and someone else does, they fly someone else so they can upgrade or buy a ticket, even if they have to connect.

When UA started installing F on their RJ fleet, the cheers were so loud they almost drowned out the wailing and gnashing of teeth about TED and the lack of F. :D


I imagine that they would lose about three revenue seats in most of the markets that have the CR7 service, if they converted to two rows of F. I think the idea of adding a small F cabin is with merit, but I wonder if there would be a loss of revenue. I honestly don't have a good idea.

Per flight, probably. If for no other reason then most folks upgrade instead of pay. But if you have AS fliers moving to other carriers that do offer F (be it UA or whoever), that's revenue lost across more then that one flight.

I do agree it's a tricky thing, and I expect AS/QX HQ have crunched the numbers. UA is the only(?) domestic carrier to offer F in their RJs, so if it was indeed some panacea of maintaining customer loyalty, one would think AA, US, CO, NW, and DL would be doing it to. But then, UA seems to be trying hardest to trying to keep flying more then just airborne mass transit - especially elites and paid premium cabins - so UA might see it as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition (as they do on mainline with E+ and their p.s. service) to try and hold on to their top revenue folks.

I do agree it's a tricky thing, and I expect AS/QX HQ have crunched the numbers. UA is the only(?) domestic carrier to offer F in their RJs, so if it was indeed some panacea of maintaining customer loyalty, one would think AA, US, CO, NW, and DL would be doing it to. But then, UA seems to be trying hardest to trying to keep flying more then just airborne mass transit - especially elites and paid premium cabins - so UA might see it as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition (as they do on mainline with E+ and their p.s. service) to try and hold on to their top revenue folks.

I'm not being argumentative at all. This is actually a pretty interesting discussion.

I have to agree with your above statement. If it was such a goldmine, I think the other airlines would be all over it. As far as UA trying to keep flying more then just airborne mass transit, I think they are losing that battle, as evidenced by the fact that they can't seem to see light at the end of their bankruptcy tunnel. They keep saying they can but then they ask for more money from the courts or ask for more concessions for their employees or they delay their expected emergence from bankruptcy. I think it's sad what air travel has come to in these times but it seems obvious that UA management is having a hard time trying to turn back the hands of time.


Per flight, probably. If for no other reason then most folks upgrade instead of pay. But if you have AS fliers moving to other carriers that do offer F (be it UA or whoever), that's revenue lost across more then that one flight.

I'm just not sure how many customers AS loses to another airline that offers F. Basically, the only markets where most of this applies are the north/south markets on the west coast, and much of it from PDX. You would be hard pressed to find a flight on UA, in markets that AS only flies RJ's, where you wouldn't be on an RJ or prop for at least one leg on UA. PDX-SFO perhaps. PDX-BUR/ONT both require connections to RJ's or prop planes at either LAX or SFO. PDX-SMF requires a connection to an RJ or prop at SFO. UA doesn't even fly PDX-OAK. Basically, in most of those markets, I think the flights are so short that most people are going to opt for convenience and time savings over a First Class seat. Especially a First Class seat on an RJ, which isn't quite as large or spacious as that on a mainline jet.

Here's the other problem. Since QX flies Frontier Jet Express routes with their CR7's, they would not be able use the CR7's at either carrier as they do now. .

I don't know about the interiors but the Frontier Jet Express planes are painted in the frontier colors, so I doubt that there is much if any aircraft swaps between mainline QX and Jet Express.

I don't know about the interiors but the Frontier Jet Express planes are painted in the frontier colors, so I doubt that there is much if any aircraft swaps between mainline QX and Jet Express.

I think there's one less F9 painted aircraft then needed. You often see a QX plane in DEN.

Planes are also routed to PDX for heavy maintenance.

I don't know about the interiors but the Frontier Jet Express planes are painted in the frontier colors, so I doubt that there is much if any aircraft swaps between mainline QX and Jet Express.

It's not uncommon at all to see a Frontier Jet Express CR7 in SEA or PDX flying around on the native QX system, or to see a QX painted jet flying the Frontier Jet Express system. I think, ideally, they would like to keep the F9 jets within the F9 system but they routinely rotate them through the QX system. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.

Basically, in most of those markets, I think the flights are so short that most people are going to opt for convenience and time savings over a First Class seat. Especially a First Class seat on an RJ, which isn't quite as large or spacious as that on a mainline jet.

Well, I started this so I think I'll jump back in now at "most people want..."

AS has always dominated WN in the PDX-Bay Area market, back to the days where Intel didn't have its own airline running out of Hillsboro Airport and 75% of the 630a PDX-SJC flight every day were Intel people. And, since WN doesn't service SFO and UA "services" SJC with a bus from SFO, AS is the Bay Area's only "full service" carrier for PDX. According to many of the AS and QX FAs on the routes, the PDX-Bay Area routes have some of the highest concentrations of business travelers of any AS/QX routes in the system. (By the way, coach on UA and a CRJ seat are about the same when it comes to working on a laptop during the flight...)

The flight is about 1h20m wheels up to wheels down. I've been traveling it for 17 years now -- all of those either MVP or MVPG -- and I'll be the first to admit that the ability to work on the laptop on the flight has saved my backside more times than I can count. The number of venture capital fundraising presentations I've done on the way to the meeting on that route...well, I've lost track. It's more than long enough to make a difference from a work-in-the-air perspective.

The CRJ seating takes away the capability to use a laptop on the plane. I went to a Nokia 9300 handset/handheld computer just so I could work presentations and spreadsheets on CRJs. Highly inefficient, but it beats "can't be done" every time.

Simple way to collect real market data on "what people want": reconfigure a few of the CRJs for the PDX-SFO route and run the experiment. The same CRJ does the up-and-back loop in the AM, just like a different CRJ does the down-and-back loop in the PM. So, reconfigure two planes, email some marketing on premium seats to MVP and MVPGs, and see what the heck happens.

For me, if I keep getting stuck on a CRJ where I can't use my laptop, I may have to do the unthinkable -- start flying WN into SJC or OAK. Now that's a desperate move if I've ever seen one.

Well, I started this so I think I'll jump back in now at "most people want..."

AS has always dominated WN in the PDX-Bay Area market, back to the days where Intel didn't have its own airline running out of Hillsboro Airport and 75% of the 630a PDX-SJC flight every day were Intel people. And, since WN doesn't service SFO and UA "services" SJC with a bus from SFO, AS is the Bay Area's only "full service" carrier for PDX. According to many of the AS and QX FAs on the routes, the PDX-Bay Area routes have some of the highest concentrations of business travelers of any AS/QX routes in the system. (By the way, coach on UA and a CRJ seat are about the same when it comes to working on a laptop during the flight...)

The flight is about 1h20m wheels up to wheels down. I've been traveling it for 17 years now -- all of those either MVP or MVPG -- and I'll be the first to admit that the ability to work on the laptop on the flight has saved my backside more times than I can count. The number of venture capital fundraising presentations I've done on the way to the meeting on that route...well, I've lost track. It's more than long enough to make a difference from a work-in-the-air perspective.

The CRJ seating takes away the capability to use a laptop on the plane. I went to a Nokia 9300 handset/handheld computer just so I could work presentations and spreadsheets on CRJs. Highly inefficient, but it beats "can't be done" every time.

Simple way to collect real market data on "what people want": reconfigure a few of the CRJs for the PDX-SFO route and run the experiment. The same CRJ does the up-and-back loop in the AM, just like a different CRJ does the down-and-back loop in the PM. So, reconfigure two planes, email some marketing on premium seats to MVP and MVPGs, and see what the heck happens.

For me, if I keep getting stuck on a CRJ where I can't use my laptop, I may have to do the unthinkable -- start flying WN into SJC or OAK. Now that's a desperate move if I've ever seen one.

Let me first say that I'm sad to see any customers leave us, truly I am. So I'm not addressing that you may have to leave in my response. I hate to see that. Less customers means less job security - I'm smart enough to know that.

Reconfiguring two CRJ's and then dedicating them to a particular route reduces the flexiblity that you have with that fleet, raising your costs, sometimes significantly. The CRJ fleet isn't that big to begin with.

Secondly, I was under the impression that the yields on the PDX to bay area flights are some of the lowest in the Alaska Airlines system. I don't know what the ratio of business flyers to leisure travelers are on these flights but I can tell you that we aren't seeing a premium because there is a large business clientele here. That gives me little reason to believe that they would pay a premium to sit in a CRJ with bigger seats. I have to believe that it would be business as usual in that the seats would generally always go as upgrade seats, in this case in a market where yields are remarkably low to begin with. Southwest does okay in these markets for many reasons. They have a lower cost structure, which can be attributed to many, many differences between their operation and ours. With Southwest's point to point system, a flight might go from PDX-SJC, but it may have started in GEG and be continuing on to ABQ then AUS from SJC. Southwest is getting revenue not only from PDX-SJC but also from GEG-AUS, GEG-ABQ, GEG-SJC, PDX-AUS and PDX-ABQ, allowing them to not only cash in on the revenue from that one market, PDX-SJC, but also the other direct flight markets. Alaska has some connecting traffic in PDX, but not nearly as much as we do out of SEA. SEA always has been the primary connecting hub. Much of our service in/out of PDX to the bay area is local traffic I believe, but RASMguy could correct me if I was wrong on that. That limits our revenue on these flights to mostly PDX-SJC and whatever that particular flight allows us to charge, while continuing to be competitive.

I know that the people of PDX are missing their mainline service, and I miss the sizeable operation we once had there. Perhaps, as conditions change, Alaska will once again beef up the operation there, but for now I don't see that happening. Fares may be rising but they haven't gone up significantly in a long, long time and fuel has risen dramatically in a relatively short time. Recent fare increases are only starting to allow us to catch up.

(By the way, coach on UA and a CRJ seat are about the same when it comes to working on a laptop during the flight...)

Just for the record, that is only with UA Economy.

UA Economy Plus offers 35-36" of pitch, so if you have a mid-size (14" screen or so) laptop, you should be able to work. It is available to any Star Alliance/UA elite or anyone travelling on a high (Y/B/M) fare basis at booking. In the past you could get it for free if you asked, but more and more UA is offering it as an upgrade. Also, if a mid- or top-tier elite, you can reserve the exit row at booking, which allows those with even the largest laptops (like my 17" monster) sufficient room to pop it open and work.

I'm 6' 8" and I'd be willing to pay a premium to always get an EXIT ROW seat. Some of these have better legroom then First.

keith ^