hsmythe

I (MVP-G for 9 or 10 years straight -- not sure which) attended the seating configuration study this morning. Here's my report, including some subtleties I'm not sure everyone picked up on:

1. First Class is going away on all routes, even transcons - this was stated by the AS manager as pretty much a done deal. What AS is trying to determine is what "premium economy" cabin configuration would replace FC "without degrading the product too much" ... his exact words.

2. The premium economy cabin options we were shown and asked to evaluate (to replace the FC cabin):

a. Concept "A":
- seating is 5 seats per row (in a 2 and 3 config), with 5 rows total; ie, 25 premium economy seats
- seat pitch is 36" (standard economy pitch will remain 32")
- seat width is 19" (standard economy width will remain 17")
- seats will be new as 19" width seats not currently on AS fleet

b. Concept "B"
- seating is 6 seats per row (in a 3 and 3 config), with 5 rows total; ie, 30 premium economy seats
- seat pitch is 36" (standard economy pitch will remain 32")
- seat width is 17" (standard economy width will remain 17")
- seats will be identical to the economy seats, either current seats or the eventual fleetwide replacement economy seats (eventually all leather)

3. For the transcons only, and only if Concept B is adopted (ie 6 across 17" wide seats), then the middle seats will be guaranteed not occupied ("blocked") nor even sold. In fact, the AS manager demonstrated that the middle seat would be physically blocked prior to boarding (not just computer inventory blocked): this would be accomplished by installing something akin to the slide-in shelf of a toddler's highchair into the middle seat. This results in both preventing someone from moving into that seat, and also provides a very wide and useful flat surface to be shared by the premium aisle and window passengers; also, the seat arms can be raised resulting in now a 19" wide seat, rather than the original 17" wide seat.

4. After trying out the configs, the elites in my group discussed this; the near unanimous preference was for Concept "A" (5 across 19" width) (except for me -- I withheld judgment as I still had some reservations and questions). I asked the AS manager to confirm that for the transcons middle seat blocking would take place only if Concept B (6 across premium) was implemented -- he confirmed this to be true. That is if "A" (5 across, 2 and 3) is adopted, the middle seat will not be blocked, and AS "will actively attempt to sell that middle seat" ... his own words.

5. In filling out the evaluation, I felt the questions were not well constructed. In particular, the first question asked the user to rate 3 options (existing FC, and Concepts "A" and "B") for comfort on a long-haul flight, assuming any adjacent middle seat was not occupied (scale of 1 to 10); but this is rather contradictory: I'm sure many elites jumped to the conclusion that for a transcon, "A" with a blocked middle seat would be the best of A vs B, but as I stated above, the only way the middle seat will be empty in "A" is if you just get lucky -- AS will not be blocking middle seats for Concept "A", only for Concept "B".

The remaining questions were of the sort: "...given that Concept "B" provides far more premium seats than existing FC, and thus a much greater chance of securing an "upgrade", wouldn't you be much happier with Concept "B" ?"

6. In summary:

a. AS is discontinuing FC, and replacing it with an all economy airplane with a UA-inspired Economy+ cabin in front for elites/full fare Y/ and mileage or dollar upgrades (think UA's Ted)

b. It appears AS has already chosen Concept "A" (5 across, 2 and 3), and is just seeking validation from it's elites that the elites "want" this Economy+ configuration (in place of FC)