Originally Posted by
rkkwan
Actually, I wasn't talking about product uniformity, but fleet uniformity.
The only subfleet CO has right now are 738 (mid-lav and non mid-lav), and 764 (20/236 and 35/200). Most airlines have more subfleet types.
764s are used not only for international routes, but also Hawaii/Guam. So, they'll also have PE on Hawaii routes.
If you put PE on 752s, that's going to decrease the total number of Y seats further for the EWR-Florida runs in the afternoon; as they can't really sell PE for just a couple of flights each day on these routes.
But my original point is that if they do PE, they'll have to put them on all its 787s, 777s, 767s, and 757s. So, you'll see them on Florida, Europe, Asia, Hawaii. Perhaps PE is extremely lucrative for US-London, but will it be equally lucrative for Bristol, Cologne, Athens, Peking? Maybe, but I don't know.
It is very possible that E+ may not be profitable on some of the thinnest routes (which presumably would be operated by the 752's). Then again, it is likely E- is not profitable on these routes either.
Regarding Hawaii, if E+ (and this is so conjectural it's silly) were to be installed it could presumably not be installed on the Hawaii 764 that already has a different configuration (20/233).
Then again, quite a few BF a/c operate domestically, where the BF seat is sold as if were uniform product with domestic FC, so, presumably a Hawaiian 764 could go out with the E+ section filled with OP elites (this would be a case where the blue elite section would truly be meaningful).
Finally, regarding CO's objection to sub-fleets, I'm sorry I misunderstood your point (although there are actually more sub-fleets since there are currently four different 738 configurations used) I have always understood CO's objection to sub-fleets as an operational issue, namely that they want to be able to assign a ship on virtually any route. That's why a BF-equipped 739ER would be very unlikely, because it would make it very hard to assign it to an otherwise appropriate route for this ship such as IAH-BTR.
What the real essence of the issue is, though, is why CO refuses to consider adding a product that could generate net profit? E+ is profitable on TATL and especially on the ultra-longhaul transpac routes where the cost of J is so high. There is an absoute, measurable need for an in-between product, a product customers are willing to pay for, at a rate high enough to ensure profitability.
Just imagine a scenario where an EWR-BOM goes out with J sold at $5,500 rt, Y at an average of $1,500, and E+ at $2,500 rt. That's $1,000 more per person. If E+ represents the loss of two rows this means that the net loss from the lower seat inventory would be about $27,000 in our hypothetical example. Assuming the E+ cabin had only 9 rows, the additional revenue (over E-) generated would be $81,000 for a net gain in revenue of approx. $54,000. I am not taking into account the marginal costs or savings associated with one class or another.
Of course, in reality, an E+ section would likely to be larger, and the net revenue gain commensurately greater as well.