Interesting.

Wouldn't it stand to make sense that having fewer seats on the plane would provide lower operating costs over the long run?

Less seats = less weight. Less weight = lower fuel consumption, whether they are occupied or not. If only (and I'm pulling this number out of my rear) 10% of flights go out at 100% then for 90% of those flights they have the higher costs for shuttling these empties around. I don't have time to do the math, but it seems you'd never reach a "break even" for the cost associated with having that seat on board. (apparently I'm wrong though as someone must have done this calculation?!?)

And if you remove enough seats so that you can hit the critical number on certain aircraft to reduce a FA (ala B6) then you further reduce your costs.

I think UAL really hit the nail on the head with Economy Plus. They fly with one less row in coach, create an incentive to fly them for their VFF's, and it creates some sort of up-sell for non elites.

Granted, UAL isn't administring this, or capitalizing on this as well as the could / shoud in my opinion. But overall E+ has succeeded in the long run where AA's more room throughout coach failed. It didn't create enough added value.

And at the end of the day if you have a more generous seat pitch you create a USP over any other airline. I would pay more and be more loyal if I had more room. Being 6'3" I fly US because I'm usually in F and F gives me more space.

When that goes away. I go away.