On an AS 738, row 12 would remain in place, and probably row 6 as well. One of the rows 7-11 would be removed. That would give another 32" in pitch to be divided 6 ways, or another 5" in pitch, which would make AS E+ (at least on the 738) 37.3". If row 6 were moved back as well, that would mean dividing the 32" in pitch 7 ways, which would make AS E+ 36.5".

AS 738s carry 167 pax (by my count). AS is running 80.7 percent load factors, which means 32 seats go empty. (I'm aware that load factors for 738 quite possibly vary from their fleet-wide average, but since I don't have that data, I'm going with what's published.) So what I'm asking is that AS remove 6 of those 32 unsold seats.

In a perfect world, AS wouldn't lose any pax because of this, and so any revenue they would gain would be gravy (as would the lower weight and other benefits you pointed out). In the real world, of course, there are going to be flights that go above 96.5 percent load, which is what would have to happen for the removed seats to have a revenue impact. Here, your revenue analysis takes over.

As a 1K, there are two things unique to UA that keep me coming back to them: E+ and their new international F/C. The latter isn't something I do more than a few times a year, so it's really all about E+. It's my insurance policy that no matter how full a flight is, no matter how late I make a reservation, I won't have to put up with a seat with less than 36" pitch. Your note about loyalty is spot-on. If it weren't for E+, there'd be no way for me to differentiate UA from any other airline.

That leads to a related question: If UA lost E+, where would I go? Having been AA EP in the past, my belief is that all the airlines treat their top-tier mileage-qualified elites about the same. I'd look for an airline that had multiple partners on which to accrue EQMs on North American travel (for UA today, that's US and AC, with CO coming soon), to give myself maximum flexibility. In this regard, AS probably has the best options out there, with AA, DL, and NW as EQM-earning partners. The only thing I'd be giving up would be SWUs, but UA's new C is good enough that I'd be happy being booked straight into that.

But unless a) UA has been lying about E+ making money or b) UA as we know it today goes away, this isn't going to happen. So the way that AS can turn me from the 40K/year BIS flier I am for them today (and prevent me from dropping down to a 20K/year BIS flier, MVP only) into a 90-120K/year BIS flier is to install their own equivalent of E+. Of course, being AS, I'm sure they could find a clever way to implement it that would be more attractive than UA's version.

Sure, you've figured that out, but you're a seasoned traveller on FT. You're deliberately not selecting a seat knowing this will allow others to pick the available E- seats, knowing the flights you're on always fill up. Then they offer you the buy up at the kiosk, and you say no thanks, chuckle thinking they'll offload the no shows 30 minutes out and op up, hopefully me, to E+.

Good for you, but the average leisure traveller has no idea what Elite seat bocking, what a no-show factor is, and is a bit confused by the Departure Management card he gets at boarding, and is the guy wondering, "I bought my ticket 2 weeks ago, what do you mean there's no seat for me?"

Some people just sit and wait for their name to be called. Some are more antsy. The antsy types are the ones that buy the E+. You just roll with it, keeping your credit card securely in your wallet. ;)

One more item to point out: IRROPS or rebooking. I know that no matter what happens, I will likely be placed in an E+ seat on my rebooked flight.

I do a lot of VDBs, and I used to fly CO a lot, and it was a real drag to bump off that reclining exit row aisle, and get put in some random seat on the next flight. With UA, I don't have to worry about that.

Or if I misconnect or need to change at the last minute, chances are they'll have something decent for me.

I guess from my experience I rarely ever see people upgrading. If you don't have an assigned seat and the flight is full in non E+, you learn to not take the upgrade, because you'll be forced to get a seat up there. Or you end up seeing non revs up there and free upgraded elites. I've never paid the E+ fee and 90% of the time have gotten up there by default. I purposely don't reserve a seat assignment on UA for that reason. And they are notorious for overbooking so odds are good on a lot of flights that you can get bumped up there for free.

If AS put in E+ it would be just as bad as F is now with free upgrades. When you compete against WN on so many of your routes, we're talking about a different type of pax that will be hard pressed to want to pay more money on a shorter west coast flight.

It's exactly the same reason we went with a first checked bag, because people were not gravitating towards us after competitors implemented the fee. Everyone wants the cheapest ticket they can get and asking them to pay a bag fee, and an E+ upgrade fee at the kiosk probably looks to most people like more nickel and diming.

AS already treats the front cabin like E+ by reserving it for elites until the last minute. If you're buying a ticket and finding only middle seats available, it would probably be the same scenario with E+. If F is sold out, and you can't find an aisle or window in the front cabin, well, that's what happens when you book a popular flight last minute. Your fellow elites who booked earlier will get to them first regardless. It sounds like the main advantage of UA is that their planes aren't as packed and it's easier to score a decent seat.

If I must sit in Y, I try to get Row 6. It has E+ type legroom, and although the armrest doesn't move, it has the advantage of functioning as a wall, preventing intrusion by my seatmate. If the flight isn't full, 6E is often the last open seat remaining.

The MD80 used to have a few rows with extra legroom, too bad the seats were so uncomfortable.

The one time I've felt compelled to pay for E+ has has been on the CRJ7's. No there's somewhere you don't want to get shoehorned in at the rear.

An 85% load factor doesn't mean that every flight across the board is 85% full, it means that 85% of all the available seat miles were "occupied." Some flights at less popular times might be 50% full, others might be consistently 100% full. An E+ model means foresaking 6 seats worth of revenue on those consistently 100% full flights.

Airlines are not shy about imitating each other. I suspect that if E+ was such a money maker, UA wouldn't be the only domestic carrier offering it.

Per alaskaair.com:

737-400 12/132
737-700 12/112
737-800 16/141 (there are a couple at 16/144)
737-900 16/156

I for one will say if UA dropped E+ they'd lose all my transatlantic business (if I'm stuffed into E- I'd rather have some Lufthansa food) and domestic along with it (may as well save some cash with US/WN).

I mistakenly added in an extra row of seats forgetting that AS doesn't have row 13. My numbers are still off by one or two, though. Must have been the early hour.

Well, B6 and VX sort of emulate UA- B6 sells "Even More Legroom", VX sells "Main Cabin Select" (which is legroom, food, drinks and complete run of the IFE), and some airlines sell exit row/bulkhead seat selection (NW/DL). Some even sell ANY advanced seat selection (G4, FR).

So it's not as unimitated as it seems. The difference is that UA deliberately structures the fleet to give elites LOTS of E+, by comparison- and deliberately degrades the rest of coach to "E-"- if AS wanted to REALLY imitate UA, they'd reduce pitch in a lot of rows to 31" while enhancing pitch in their version of E+ and F.

That being said...

I think you're seeing that here, as well as:

And that is a huge factor. There's a reason why AS is expanding hard to Hawaii- WN can't fly their 737s there. Degrading coach when a big competitor is an all-coach airline that has lower costs anyways is a problematic decision.

I'd never suggest that AS degrade Y pitch to 31" for customers behind the exit rows. And I like the VX concept -- I could see AS offering their version of E+ not as a perk to elites, but as a paid upgrade, including choice of a meal, a drink, and a DigEplayer. How much does VX's upgrade cost? I'd happily pay $50-100 each way for that on a transcon.

What AS could do would be to create a VX-style product. Let's call it "North of Coach" for now. Rows 6-12 on a 738 are reserved for it. It's a fixed premium of -- let's make this interesting for AS -- $100 each way on a transcon. For elites who want legroom but don't want to pay, the exit rows are still available if they reserve early enough. And to build elite loyalty, let's give them discounts -- say, it's $100 for the general public, $75 for MVPs, and $50 for MVPGs. Or maybe charge them full price but give them four free North of Coach credits per year. Something like that.

An obvious question would be, what happens when AS doesn't have enough takers but rows 14 and back are oversold? I see two options:

1. Physically hand each paying North of Coach passenger a meal / drink / DigEplayer chit upon boarding. Put overflow passengers into North of Coach seats but don't give them the chits. I'm not a fan of this.

2. More interestingly, let's say you have 0 seats remaining in row 14+, 10 standby passengers, and 10 seats available in North of Coach. So the AS GA makes an announcement: "Ladies and gentlemen, our coach section is full, but we do still have seats available in North of Coach, our award-winning premium economy section. There's more legroom, your choice of a meal and a drink, and you get a DigEplayer with movies, television shows, and other entertainment for the duration of the flight. North of Coach is available for an additional fee of $100, with discounts for our MVP and MVP Gold members. If you're waiting for a standby seat, and you'd like to go out on this flight, and enjoy everything that North of Coach has to offer, please come see me at the desk and we can accomodate you immediately." How many people would take them up on that? How much extra revenue would that represent?

I'd love to see AS run a test of something like this. Pick a couple of planes, implement the change, and measure the results. Would it be work to run the test? Yes. But if it worked, the rewards to AS could be tremendous.

UA is pretty much clinging to life. I have a hard time that anything they do is actually working for them. E+ seems to be taking revenue seats out of the cabin for a product that really doesn't yield revenue.

Actually, Jet Blue was forced to remove some seats to provide a closet to accomodate wheelchairs. This is required by the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) and they had not been in compliance. They tried to get around this requirement when they brought the E-190's online, to no avail. They then removed a few more seats to be able to reduce minimum required staffing to three FA's instead of 4 on their A320's, which apparently saved them enough to recoup the costs of those seats. Jet Blue was forced to remove seats and probably wouldn't have if not for the pesky ACAA. They turned the removal of seats into a good PR boost, making it seem as though they were removing seats just to provide more legroom. It wasn't a choice. I might also add that Jet Blue, when removing the seats initially, did not project a revenue increase as a result of providing the seats with more room for sale.

Again, UA's stated position is that E+ is a money-maker for them. They could be mistaken, or less than completely truthful, but absent evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume this is the case.

I just registered northofcoach.com, .net. and .org.

On ne sait jamais...