Originally Posted by
Rebelyell
The suggestion was made that when there was 3-across seating, that seats be offered on each side of an empty seat for a 50 percent premium. Thus the airline would not lose any money, and would actually gain revenue by not having to fool with the extra passenger. perhaps I should have been more plain; Obviously this would only apply in cases of 3-across seating.
That doesn't work.
Or more accurately, that only works in the case where
both seats alongside such a seat were sold AND they both paid the premium for the empty seat.
But: why would I pay that premium if the other passenger already paid it, such that the seat will be left empty? You can't occupy half a seat. And if I were flying with a companion, I might pay the premium so we have three seats to ourselves. But then, again: there is no reason to pay the premium twice because I've already paid it once and a seat can't be 50% occupied. And in that case I can be sure of the seat being empty because I
know the premium was paid.
The airline can't demand the premium be paid twice (apart form simply selling the seat at 100% of course) because they'd be offering the service to single seats but without the actual guarantee of the other neighbour paying the same premium, in which case the service would not be delivered.