787-9 appalling World Traveller seats

Old Feb 4, 2020, 11:06 am
  #76  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,246
Originally Posted by 13901
Sales per square meter/foot are a measure of efficiency of an aircraft from a revenue side that is very widely used in the industry; it really allows to compare like for like....
Are the club toilets included in the areas for the club revenues?
FlyerTalker39574 is offline  
Old Feb 4, 2020, 11:22 am
  #77  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,419
Originally Posted by richardwft
Are the club toilets included in the areas for the club revenues?
the entire airplane surface for the cabin in question is taken into account. That explains the spaceflex galleys, the new A350 galleys etc...
13901 is online now  
Old Feb 8, 2020, 1:43 am
  #78  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by WHBM
However, it's not 10% more. At ticket purchase time (3 days before departure) PE was double Y. As it was we were probably paying more than many in PE able to buy well ahead.

Regarding the minimum it physically can be, I think we all thought when the 787 was designed and built, as it was specifically sized to be 8-across in Y, that would be it. The extra seat is not in the original design.
I didnít make it clear, but I agree with you. I meant theoretically the market could offer planes with 8 seats in economy - but it didnít work out like that. Hence I think itís the kind of thing where standards need to be enforced by governments.
likethis is offline  
Old Feb 8, 2020, 1:44 am
  #79  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by WHBM
However, it's not 10% more. At ticket purchase time (3 days before departure) PE was double Y. As it was we were probably paying more than many in PE able to buy well ahead.

Regarding the minimum it physically can be, I think we all thought when the 787 was designed and built, as it was specifically sized to be 8-across in Y, that would be it. The extra seat is not in the original design.
I didn’t make it clear, but I agree with you. I meant theoretically the market could offer planes with 8 seats across in economy - but it didn’t work out like that. Hence I think it’s the kind of thing where standards need to be enforced by governments.
likethis is offline  
Old Feb 8, 2020, 2:47 am
  #80  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,643
Originally Posted by likethis
Hence I think it’s the kind of thing where standards need to be enforced by governments.
There's probably more chance of governments mandating that pigs should fly, or that suits, shirt and ties must be worn when travelling.

What the market demonstrates is that there are plenty of people who continue to be prepared to pay (or, more accurately, pay less) for these conditions. We may consider them to be unpleasant, but they are not demonstrably unsafe.

Moreover, the market offers less unpleasant alternatives to people who are prepared to pay more for them.

In those circumstances, it's hard to see why governments would want to get involved, particularly as any such intervention would tend to push up prices, contrary to the preference of those for whom a lower price is the most important consideration (as it is for a substantial part of the market).

The mandated standards are those required by safety. Beyond that, it seems to me to be completely wishful thinking to hope for government regulation of nebulous and subjective concepts like "value for money" (in the sense of comfort vs price).
Globaliser is offline  
Old Feb 8, 2020, 4:48 am
  #81  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,262
Originally Posted by likethis
I didnít make it clear, but I agree with you. I meant theoretically the market could offer planes with 8 seats across in economy - but it didnít work out like that. Hence I think itís the kind of thing where standards need to be enforced by governments.
There will come a point where it becomes medically unsafe to spend more than xx hours in a certain size of seat. At that point, risk of law suit will probably act faster than government in putting a floor (so to speak) under further densification. But the problem with setting minimum standards (which can only really be justified on medical grounds) is that, in the airline market, all economy seats will immediately shrink to that standard. We may be getting there anyway, but we'll get there faster if there's a mandated standard, either through legal or liability concerns.

My issue is much more that PE is too much of a step up, particularly for mid-length flights, and also in the UK it attracts extra APD. I always feel that 32" pitch with 9 across on a 777 was fine, but 30" pitch and 10 across is intolerable for flights of more than 3 or 4 hours. I would certainly be willing to pay 10% more for such seating, but AA's experiments showed that few people would agree.
lhrsfo is offline  
Old Feb 8, 2020, 5:29 am
  #82  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London, Sth Africa or LAS
Programs: VS Silver, BA Blue - finally; but hotels.com Gold :)
Posts: 1,858
Currently, both Virgin (Econ-Delight) and AA (Main Cabin Extra) offer some kind of better legroom and other 'perks' for upgauging from standard economy. Delta also but I'm not familiar with that product.
However, they miss the mark in that the problems with 787 9-across is width not legroom. Same issue but even worse on 777s with 10 across.
So whilst Delight/MCE are all very well ... they do not solve the seat width discomfort issues from densification. Looking at data from my AA economy flights it does look like a high proportion of the MCE occupants are Card Holders / Elites. Similarly, with fewer datapoints, I'm not seeing Delight hogging new market share the way Premium Economy has.
A lot of this is fairly new so interesting to see how the market settles after a couple of Summer seasons.

I think there is some space for better regulation. I understand pitch needs to be measured and published (although this could/should be stronger and clearer for sure). Anyway, no reason why seat width metrics shouldn't be mandated. Easy and cheap to achieve.
Puts the consumer into a better position of informed choice.
Whether or not consumers act on that choice or even avail themselves of the information is another matter, but surely to provide better information would be a step forward?
likethis likes this.
littlefish is offline  
Old Feb 8, 2020, 7:31 am
  #83  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 284
The regulation argument is an age old one.

While I can see both sides, Iíd err on the side of mandating 8 seats max (or rather a minimum seat width and pitch).

The fact that market forces (by whatever combination of business and consumer) have produced an outcome that is benefiting businesses asymmetrically says to me we need consumer protection.

In theory, an airline can produce planes with wider economy seats and consumers choose them. But in practice, the airlines as a group benefit from making economy the absolute base it can be.
ermis177 likes this.
likethis is offline  
Old Feb 9, 2020, 4:17 am
  #84  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,643
Originally Posted by likethis
The fact that market forces (by whatever combination of business and consumer) have produced an outcome that is benefiting businesses asymmetrically says to me we need consumer protection.
What evidence is there that there is anything asymmetric in this? This is simply part of a long-term trend that has benefited passengers too, to a huge extent - just not in the comfort department.

It would be different if there is anything unsafe about either current or future layouts. That's what regulation is for - not for mandating how much comfort one must be provided.
Globaliser is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.