YYCguy

As per the press release, the only real change in the "regular economy" seat pitch will be on the -800 series aircraft. The majority of the fleet is still -700 series. The change on the -800s will bring it in line with the -700s and -600s.

The addition of "premium economy" seats is just another value added service. You are hungry, you pay for food. You don't want to watch free tv, you pay for a movie. You are tall and you want more legroom, you pay for a seat with more room. See the pattern?

Westjet is still getting you safely from Point A to B on one of the newest fleets in North America and the staff will still work hard to make your travel as stress free as possible, all the while with a smile. Seems like everything will be okay!

HangTen

If you want to fly non-stop from Vancouver to Cancun this winter, your choices have narrowed as Air Canada have bowed out of the market.

Now one has to wake up at 4:30am for a 7am flight to Toronto and you finally get to Cancun at about 8pm the same day.

The non-stop leaves at 9:40am and arrives at 5:30pm in time for cocktails!

I'll take the non-stop in premium economy and my IPAD over the round-about route EVERY time!

Altaflyer

Well, the WS website says the 600 and 700 are an average of 32" NOW. The new config will have 31" so there is a reduction on every 600 and 700 aircraft.

aerobod

Another factor in knee room is seat thickness. Newer generations of seats that have now become available are approximately 1.5" thinner than the seats fitted to most aircraft, as they have a much more optimised design that still meets crash worthiness requirements.

YYC Guy

I love the Westjet PR claims that nobody will even notice the difference in the rest of the cabin, i.e. the vast majority of the cabin, where rows have been squeezed closer to create the space for the front three rows.

I avoid any carrier with a 31" seat pitch like the plague, which is why I try to stay away from most US carriers and only fly AC or Westjet (til now).

As a frequent business traveller (1) I will not sacrifice my comfort for an airline's shareholders and (2) I will not pay a premium for the "luxury" of the ability to move my legs and not have my kneecaps crushed. (Two reasons: first, principle. You want my business, you don't take away my personal comfort. Second, my employer lets me choose my airline but will not allow expensing of premium economy surcharges.)

Westjet: 31" pitch = FAIL

Altaflyer

WS advised me they were looking at charging the equivalent of 50% of J fare on an equivalent route for their Y+. Either this person is not in the know or they are drinking some kind of special Kool-Aid in Calgary! If you want to do a Y+ section fine but don't kill my knees in the process as I can't expense anything but the basic fare.

StuMcIlwain

It's not so much asking us to pay more for more that I have an issue with. It's paying the same thing for less.

The extra 16" have to come from somewhere. The -600s and -700s now have 32" pitch throughout. They are saying these planes will have 31" / 32" pitch, which suggests to me that they are considering changing 16 rows from 32" to 31" pitch. The seats aren't changing, so no gain in legroom there. I would love to be proved wrong.

I'd pay something equivalent to what Jet Blue charges for a premium economy seat, but not 50% of J. That's insane!

StuMcIlwain

Or fly via the U.S. There are other airlines out there besides AC and WS.

arf04

If that's the case, there can't be any way that will succeed. 36 inch seat pitch in a three across row doesn't = half a J seat. UA's E+ works because it isn't much of a premium, and even then many of the seats go to members of their FF program as a benefit.

The $30 - $60 charge that a poster above cites as Jetblue's practice looks to be about right to make this successful.

FlyerJ

Bingo! Very well put -- that's exactly what they're doing.

Westjet's actions are that much more disappointing given the ludicrous spin that they're putting on this. In order to create their new Y-plus section, they're taking away from the comfort of their existing product (but keeping prices the same). It's a shame they can't just be open and honest about that. Instead they're shrouding it with all of the silly statements about "people won't even notice" and "we're still within North American airline standards". What hogwash.

HangTen

In my world, non-stop trumps everything else, be it one stop, or the horrible inconvenience of driving to a border airport to save a few bucks, and worse, having to deal with an extended drive home after a long days traveling to begin with. Ugh.

Time and convenience is worth WAY more than collecting points I'll never use or being able to sit in airport lounges eating $5 worth of free dried out egg salad sandwiches and diet cokes whilst waiting hours for flights when I could already be half way to my destination!

In my world, getting there is not fun. Being there is fun, or better yet, profitable!

sokolov

This is a disappointing move.

And, really, the first row is to be avoided. I would maybe pay a couple bucks NOT to sit there, even if it provided a furlong of legroom.

I'm afraid that this new pricing approach will not stop with less legroom for the vast majority of their passengers. This might result in several tiers of tickets, where the cheap fare would have extra charges for things like luggage and checkin.

I've only started flying Westjet last year. I enjoyed it and I like the idea of employees holding the majority. So I got a RBC Westjet World Mastercard and picked Westjet over Porter on some flights (for myself and other people).

Edit: But, then again, Porter is in a very different financial situation, so they might just follow suite with extra charges for luggage, checkin, etc. And Porter has already raised their prices in the last half year or so. On those routes where I could have used them, they have hardly been competitive any more. Their smaller planes do have downsides.

sokolov

I don't think they will get in new seats. Yes, this way they could increase the number of seats on the plane.

But a) they would have announced the new seats with great ado
and
b) they would probably need more flight attendants on each flight that actually sells all those seats
and
c) it would reduce the load factor if they can not sell a good portion of these extra seats (which, in turn, might increase their refinancing costs, but that is just speculation).

b) would make extra seats not financially viable in most cases, I think. But I don't have the financial numbers to crunch.

With thinner seats they could keep legroom for most passengers as is AND increase it in rows 2-4. But that would require actual investment for a better product.

sokolov

Having thought a bit more over the whole thing: Maybe the higher revenue from Premium seats will enable WS to be more agressive on pricing with the normal seats?

What do you think?

StuMcIlwain

Unlikely. Higher revenue on premium seats will mean more profit not lower fares.