Old May 13, 19, 12:30 am
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,469
Originally Posted by brunos View Post
777 9 abreast is a relique of the past. Most airlines have moved to ten abreast on 777 (AF, EK, QR,LX,...). BA was the first one to introduce 10 abreast many, many years ago, but the market response was awful and they moved to 9. However they are now retrofitting to 10.
And 787 at 9 abreast is no better as the cabin is 38cm narrower. A350 9 abreast is better than 787 as A350 cabin is 12cm wider than 787.
Unless on an old plane, you will need to be paid to travel in Y.

Let me first say, I sympathize with the true road warriors / travelers who fly in Y. I was there before and this "enhancement" must be dreadful.

But industry-wise, I don't see how it can be avoided. Passengers *on the whole* (maybe not people who read this forum, but tens of millions of other passengers) vote ruthlessly with their wallets. Save $25 USD to fly SFO-HKG in economy? Most pax "say" sure by paying up again and again. Airlines can easily see this data in the aggregate by just comparing yields, normalized for aircraft type and layout. The economy class yields don't lie. Passengers *on the whole* (again, not this forum) do not pay up enough to justify being 9 across vs 10 across and airlines that insist on sticking with 9 across are punished. Passengers on the whole like cheaper, period in economy class. I will add, for airlines like JAL with a significantly smaller international footprint, it might actually make economic sense for them to do so (I haven't seen their yields, but I do have EK, BA, AA and CX in hand...). But once you reach a certain size, you are competing on many of your routes with another big carrier, two or three, and it's not always nonstop traffic you're competing with. CX is giving up money, plain and simple, if they insist on 9 across and pretend customers pay up for it, when in reality they don't, overall. Like in Godfather I, when Tom Hagan is advising the Godfather to do the deal with Solozzo, if you don't do it, somebody else will, and they will use the money they earn to build up more power...and in our world, build up better products and services that attract even more customers.

EK is 10 across. They operate more 77Ws than anyone globally. CX is #2 . I'm actually surprised CX held out as long as they did. AF, QR, AA, BA, now BR, and god knows who else is 10 across. Unless you have a very specific footprint like JAL where O&D demand is sustained on every route (and even then, it frankly may be the wrong economic decision, but I am not privy to their numbers), it's not possible. CX is now a major competitor with QR and EK on European routes to Australia; part of the huge European increase the last 5-7 years has driven that. Similar to competing with AA (who not only operate 10 across 77Ws, but the jammed 9 across 787s, which is also standard these days) on North America to East and SE Asia.
QRC3288 is offline  
Reply With Quote