Originally Posted by
halls120
That "measly" half inch might be the difference between no shoulder to shoulder contact with my seat mate over a 10 hour flight. I'm happy for you if you don't mind having to sit in a tiny seat for that long with your arms crossed so you aren't rubbing up against someone else, but I do. I'll be taking my business to the carriers who offer a true PE seat for long haul flight.
As I've said countless times before, I'll still fly UA up front after they go 10 wide in Y. But I find it interesting that you apparently believe I shouldn't give up on an entire airline even though they prioritize their bottom line over my comfort.
It might be, but it also might not be. Here's the deal. There's so many aspects that go into "comfort", and width is only one of them. Say the decision is between a UA 787 and a DL A350. You want that extra half an inch of width, but to do so you're giving up an extra inch of pitch. There's also differences in seats, service, the length of the flights, and in other airplanes, the interior amenities like cabin pressure or gasper vents. And then you have variables out of your control, like where empty seats are and what size your potential seatmates are. And you have differences like aisles seats versus window seats, and the window group of 2/3 seats versus the middle group of 3/4 seats. Or even some planes that have the isolated groups of 2 window seats instead of 3 in the back, or the many seats with more legroom than normal. Even what row matters, as some window seats don't line up well with the window cutout, limiting shoulder room. And I could go on.
The bottom line is that by chasing a half inch and making that your sole decision on comfort, you're still rolling the same dice, with the odds maybe even more stacked against you. If you're not factoring in all of these elements as well, you're making a short-sighted decision based on spite, not logic.
Originally Posted by
sbm12
I've sat in both. I can tell the difference. It is significant, and more than a half inch.
It's not more. The math is half an inch in personal width. I'm pretty sure spin88 has also stated that more than few times when the width chart comes out. The A350 is the tightest Airbus product yet.
Originally Posted by
halls120
At least AF, KL, AA, NZ, CX and many other competitors (DL, SK, LH, BA to name a few) offer a true premium economy on their long haul aircraft, which softens the 10-wide misery in Y by giving us an alternative to slaveship Y and expensive J. UA stands virtually alone among major carriers in not following this industry trend, and is part of the reason UA is so often and deservedly singled out for disdain on FT.
What about KL, KE, QR, EY, and ET (ways away yet), to name a few? Not major carriers? You make it sound like premium economy is this wide-spread, economical choice. Not so. It's a pricey niche product that's having trouble gaining mass traction. And for U.S. carriers, it's a replacement for J, not Y, and it's availability is extremely limited at this point, with no plans to open it up widely.
And that brings us to point two. There's no reason to go on a crusade against a carrier simply because they don't offer the precise product you want them to offer, unless you have an axe to grind. No airline in the world is everything to all people. Move on if they don't offer you exactly what they want, and leave it at that.
Originally Posted by
spin88
In the simplistic spreadsheet version of airline economics pushed by the Hunter Keays of the world, this is correct. But the reality is far different. Airlines make money by (1) having a higher load (less empty seats) and (2) by getting more of the group of business travelers who pay more, and buy later when prices are higher. To profit, an airline does not charge 10% more on every ticket, they must simply obtain a higher portion of the traffic when prices raise. A better mix of fares is how to outperform. This is why overall PRASM is a good indication of how well an airline is doing.
The market has spoken, spin. 10-across 777 is the way to go for most carriers. I think it's wise to trust their economists versus your version of economic fantasy.
Airlines make money by making more money per flight (RASM) than the cost of operating a flight (CASM). Load factors and yield mix are only two of many factors that go into RASM. You could have high loads and a higher amount of high-yield traffic and still have a low RASM. The simple way of determining the revenue economics of 9-across 777 versus 10-across 777 is that the airline will have to charge about 10% more per Y passenger by staying 9-across, assuming equal load factors. Or alternatively, it means an airline can offer discounts of up to about 10% and still earn the same or more revenue per flight, again assuming equal loads. Time and again the competitive environment has shown that you simply can't charge an extra 10+%.
Originally Posted by
coolbeans202
I certainly am. I have taken many flights on UA of 14+ hours in 3-3-3 across 777's and never really had a problem.
I took an ORD-SFO flight in 3-4-3 with an average sized person in the middle and was horribly uncomfortable. Something about the way I need to position my shoulders and lean a little to the side causes a lot of pain in both my shoulder and lower back areas after a few hours. It's truly uncomfortable and not something I will tolerate on a long flight.
You're talking about much more than half an inch in your comparison. You're talking about one of the largest width differences in the sky today (9-across vs 10-across 777). The 787 and A350 are two of the closest.