eh, I just saw this thread and allow me to toss my hat into the "hell no!" ring. E+ is nothing more than another cabin class as far as I'm concerned. There are thousands of people who are 6'2" and over, and I am in that group. No I don't like middle or window seats either, but I survive (5 trips to the South Pacific in coach--thankfully none on UA).

I'd suggest that the OP spend more time on UA if he wants to have more space and legroom...either that or pay for a guaranteed F ticket.

As for having to go through a corporate travel office, I'm requried to do the same. To lessen the seat stress issue, I always ask for a copy of an itinerary to then immediately go and select seats, as they rarely do that for me. Its the best way around that hurdle. Now if only the government would drop, yes DROP UA as the contract carrier SEA-DCA I would be one happy camper.

Since you seem to have no issue with standard AS Y class, my proposal wouldn't be any skin off your nose, right? As an MVPG, you'd be no less well off than you are now, and possibly better. And if it's a money maker for AS -- which is the only reason I'd expect them to do it -- wouldn't that be a good thing?

I've been able to dig up references where both UA and VX say their premium economy products (I know, it's a stretch to call E+ premium economy, but...) are money-makers for them. Don't know about B6 yet.

But the lack of F upgrades on transcons and the advance assignment of exit row seating to MVP/G's is part of AS's "product". Honestly, it sounds like UA's E+ outweighs all of AS's benefits for your particular situation.

BTW, I once made the same choice. I was an mid-tier Elite FF on America West primarily because of my leisure travels. Later, I started traveling for wokr and having to book about a week before my trip. On America West, I kept getting stuck in a middle seat on a near-transcon length flight. I subsequently changed my favored airline because of this.

So, it's okay if UA meets your particular needs -- AS can't/won't do it right now (I think everyone here understands...)

E+ is definitely a PREMIUM economy product. I purchased an "upgrade" to E+ last Christmas and arrived in HNL refreshed rather than feeling cooped up for 5.5 hours. I'd gladly do it again!

That being said, I'm much less likely to purchase E+ for a West Coast AS flight.

The only way I see removing seats to increase legroom being good for Alaska are the ETOPS flights to Hawaii which need more fuel and weight savings to avoid the occasional diversion for additional fuel. The flipside of that is you are earning less revenue for those seats you take out of service and those seem to be pretty high revenue routes.

I disagree. The other reason (as I mentioned above) is to eliminate 1 FA at the cost of 7 seats.

Remember that AS is a business that is trying to make a profit while providing customers with low fares. Less seats equals a higher CASM and more seats equals lower CASM. If AS were to remove seats but stil try to be competive in terms of costs with other carries, they would start to see negative margins on flights. I am all for rewarding those Elites who travel with a sepcific carrier as a way of "Thank You for Your Business" but remember the bottom line that the airlines are in the business of making a profit and being competitive at the same time. Just my 2 cents.

You're right. On most of the 738s, at 16 F + 141 Y, that's 157 total pax. Dropping that by 7 gets you down 1 FA. So they could remove 1 row between 7-11 plus 1 more seat (probably in the back) and go down to 3 FAs.

The more I think about it, the more I think AS really should run a test of this concept. It has the potential to reduce expenses, increase revenue, and increase elite loyalty. But there's no way we'll know for sure unless they try.

You're right in pointing this out. But CASM would also drop somewhat due to lower fuel costs and lower FA costs (in the case of the 738). I don't know if that would be enough to offset the increase as you describe, but it would at least ameliorate it somewhat. And if my theory is right, as an upsale product, even to elites, it could generate additional revenue, ultimately increasing RASM. Again, though, the only way to be sure is to test the concept.

$100 for transcon, $50 for medium-length flights, $25 for short haul as a day-of-flight upgrade (F is $250/100/50 as a similar upgrade).

As a data point... there's usually no problem grabbing day-of-flight VX Main Cabin Select and First going SEA-SFO/LAX (I've done it as a lark, though to be honest, VX Main Cabin/Y is fine for me- 32" pitch is fine in a slimline Recaro like VX's, and the seat width is considerably more comfortable than a 737- my big problem in Y is rubbing shoulders, and even half an inch is a life-saver there). So I sort of wonder if this is the revenue maker you think it will be. (Generally, transcon F and MCS is harder to come by on VX, often selling out before the 24 hour upgrade period. F SEA-LAX is something like $200-250 one way as a purchase... F SFO-JFK pushes $1000 one way.)

Keep in mind, also, that AS doesn't pass out digEplayers on the shorthaul flights, or serve anywhere NEAR the food options that VX has, so you'd have some costs involved with that.... and for much of AS's route network, they are up against the king of low CASM 737s, WN.

Oh, while I'm at it: F as a day-of-flight upgrade on an AS transcon today is $150. Having a "North of Coach" option is going to cut into F sales at the gate AND for advance sales.

IMO, this sort of speculation is why we (coming at this from the point of view of passengers) wouldn't be helpful running AS's revenue management department...

Well, you might note that AS DID test some concepts, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, and didn't get much positive feedback.

I have my answer. From B6's most recent 10-Q filing:

I disagree -- not in the sense that I think we're smarter than AS, but in the sense that we may have a different perspective and certainly may have original ideas.

We're operating with incomplete data. If we were in the revenue management department of AS, we would have access to all sorts of historical data that we could use to model the possible effects of a change like this. So we're at a disadvantage here on FT. But that doesn't make our speculation useless.

Also, the long history of business, and the recent history of crowdsourcing, both suggest that it's always possible for customers to think of ideas that hadn't been considered (or considered properly) by the businesses they patronize. Take Starbucks' MyStarbucksIdea.com, for example. This isn't a dig on business, just a testament to the power of distributed thinking.

I'm gonna join the nope group too. I'm 6 foot 3 and I'm fine in a normal coach seat.

The problem is that most of Alaska's flights are so short that an E+ wouldn't work. UA is an international carrier with MANY long hauls...AS on the other hand has the bulk of its flights as short haul west coast flights. It is easier to justify paying for more legroom on a longer flight, than a 2 hour hop down to LA.

Besides UA has less pitch in E-, and the economy cabins are much worse off...

I know it sucks to be stuck in a middle seat, but seats do open up. If you really need peace of mind you could always choose another flight, or even worse...another airline :p if it makes that much of a difference.

Why would AS want to copy a feature from two airlines that are both almost dead??

Alaska is a very well run airline compared to the rest, and obviously they have to be doing something right ;)

Load Factor: Generally refers to the percentage of occupied seats on an aircraft and can also be expressed as the ratio of revenue passenger miles (RPM) to available seat miles (ASM).



Are award seats considered revenue seats? If they are, then this idea could further limit award seats, impacting everyone!

Of course, most of the crowd you're sourcing is going "um, I don't like this idea". :p