Originally Posted by
spin88
What United is doing - and this thread and others show - is driving away the segment of travelers who are paying more to fly Y, but can't afford/company will not pay for J.
I understand this theory. I've yet to see any data that supports it. Got any to share??
Fare and schedule remain the dominant factors. Loyalty and comfort matter but they trail significantly. That's real world studies based on lots of travelers, not the niche, self-selected segment that plays here on FT.
Originally Posted by
spin88
I get that AF flew bone crushing configurations head to head vs ULCCs (running 9x on 333s) on routs to overseas beach destinations, or that EK has used these configurations hauling people to/from SE asia via the ME. But none of this says anything about how these bone crushing configurations will work, in reality, for an airline with high labor cost which is kept afloat by and large by FFers and business travelers who is flying mostly Americans, who perhaps it ought to be pointed out are statistically the largest people in the world.
AF is running 10-abreast on its 777s to such beach destinations as JFK. Ditto KLM. Air Canada is doing it on its horribly leisure routes like Australia, China and Hong Kong.
Yes, the tighter seats launched on leisure routes but they're rapidly expanding across the industry. I do not agree that it is reasonable to dismiss it as a leisure-only phenomenon.
Some airlines are also addressing the challenge with premium economy. I'm certain UA will too, eventually. What's old is new again in the cycle of splitting the difference in on-board comfort and ticket price.
Also, I think 9-abreast 330s are a different beast to 9-abreast 787s or 10-abreast 777s. Plus there's the 10-abreast 350 flying today on Air Caraibes, so it is possible on the Airbus models, just less common due to overall trip costs on those models compared to similarly sized Boeing frames.
Originally Posted by
spin88
It takes a while for people to catch on to how bad these configurations are (and AA put 3-3-3 in MCS at first, and only has a few planes with these ultra tight configruations for elites, United is the "discomfort leader" at this point).
Only a few with 3-3-3 MCE (MCS is the old VX product) and that's not the direction the company is planning to move going forward.
Originally Posted by
spin88
This said, it appears that you and I agree that the A350 is a much more comfortable plane than the B787 in Y, and that is even more true with the 77W/772 in 3-4-3.
Indeed, we do agree on that. Always good to find something where that happens.