Originally Posted by
bocastephen
I don't see a major constraint in supply with a one seat per row reduction in capacity along with 1-2 rows to extend more legroom across the national fleet.
17-20% or more reduction in capacity is not a major reduction in capacity?
Originally Posted by
bocastephen
Across the entire system, and given that not every aircraft would be affected as the seat width issue is primarily a Boeing problem, the impact overall would be fairly limited. In normal times, most flights were booked to ~~80% anyway, not 100%, and that will occur again as post virus travel demand eases off. While supply would be constrained to some extent, when prices exceed the market's willingness to pay, it will cause demand to fall until equilibrium is reached again.
Well to start, it's not like Boeing narrowbody aircraft make up a small or insignificant portion of US operations. There are thousands of Boeing narrowbody aircraft operating just with US airlines. WN is all Boeing narrowbody. AS is about to back to being all Boeing narrowbody for its mainline fleet. At UA, Boeing narrowbodies make up 74% of the currently active narrowbody fleet (with well over 400 Boeing 737 MAX's on order). At AA, the Boeing narrwobodies make up 43% of the active narrowbody fleet. At DL, 56% of the active narrowbody fleet. That's my quick math based on currently active fleet numbers but that doesn't read "fairly limited" to me if Boeing aircraft are impacted.
Second, it's likely not just a Boeing problem. I'm pretty sure your proposed minimum seat width of 18.5" even pushes beyond the limits of what an Airbus narrowbody could handle in a 3-3 configuration once you also factor in armrests (since seat-width is measured as the space between armrests) and then account for minimum aisle width requirements so I don't believe the A320 could handle a 3-3 config with 18.5" seats either (unless you don't install armrests between each seat at which point you're back to the initial problem). You've also driven this to be an Embraer and Bombardier issue when their 2-2 layouts have to become 1-2 layouts.
Third, there will be significant costs associated with obtaining and installing new seats across an entire fleet. Yes airlines replace seats on occasion but these will be new seats which will require a new design, new certification, etc and have to be installed across an entire fleet in a short period and suppliers may or may not be able to keep up.
Fourth, making entire fleets or airlines uneconomical and potentially forcing them out of business is going to cause a constraint issue, followed by supply/demand issues, followed by increased fares. This is basic economics and this is all just the beginning.
Fifth, sure, Boeing and Airbus could design new narrowbodies with slightly wider fuselages that could accommodate a 3-3 layout but since that's not as simple as just drawing a bigger fuselage, you're looking at expensive clean-sheet designs that will take years to develop, test, certify, produce, and then integrate into fleets.
Sixth, you seem to be unaware of the downstream consequences of this. Forcing the LCC model out of business means significant job loss across that niche of the industry. Even legacies which may well be able to survive will still operate with a smaller operational footprint, meaning less employees across most aspects of the operation (read: layoffs). This also means less traffic at airports, so less revenue to airport retailers, less revenue for airport revenue streams, etc.. And less travel means less revenue to the industries that are built around air travel, from hotels to rental cars to the industries at the destinations. Among other fall-out.
Originally Posted by
bocastephen
As to LCCs, their business model is not just based on dense capacity - WN is not an ultra dense capacity, but Spirit is. So this would create more product competition in that space, not necessarily drive companies out of business. It will be upto Spirit and Frontier to decide how they want to rework their products to remain competitive.
And it's up to you to explain how you would keep air travel affordable to the masses despite a loss of market supply. You haven't done that. Whether it's been your goal or not, all you've done is outline a plan that puts air travel back as only being affordable for a smaller sect of society.