but 34" is a topping that pax won't pay for....

You know, I see that reported everywhere and see it on seatguru and everything but I was on an IAH - LGW flight back in March and I could swear it was 3-4-3 on a 772 in coach. I was in row 36 ABC with a buddy of mine. It was CO metal I'm sure; maybe I'm imagining things...

Easy on your drinks, or whatever you were smoking.

If CO is going to keep the seats narrow as hell, the least they could do is put the audio jack on the end of the armrest. As it is now, I have that darn thing jamming into my leg! Not good for my leg, or the jack.

I never thought of complaining about this, but this is a serious problem (seriously). I'm always afraid of damaging the connector on my headphones.

Not that I plug them into the jacks anyways, as they're designed for high impedance headphones. The volume (not adjustable for announcements) is deafening in my 16 ohm Ety 6i.

This is an oft-repeated statement and it is true for many, even most, passengers. But the fact that some of the leading airlines of the world are now rolling out economy deluxe--or expanding their current deluxe economy product--suggests that there are more than a few people who will pay a bit more (not exponentially more for J) for a better economy class product. Too bad CO is a second-rate airline and shows no sign of meeting this demand. They're leaving money on the table.

The 787 may be good for the airlines' bottom line, but as I have been saying for quite some time, from the passenger's perspective they'd be more comfortable in an A340/330 or 767. Boeing should have built the 787 about 6-9 inches narrower to prevent airlines like CO from cramming in another seat.

I guess you'll call Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Japan Airlines, Singapore Airlines (except for 2 routes), Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, etc all second-rate airlines?

There's no money left on the table. Looking at the fares most airlines are charging for their premium economy products, that class of service is mostly revenue neutral, as those seats take up about 25% more room, and the fares are also about 25% higher. But it adds complexity to the airline.

As for the 787, if airlines can only fit 8-abreast, perhaps the 787 program won't be as successful as it is today.

Wonder why the new improved A350 XWB will also be wider than the old Airbuses? Because the airlines demand them. I think they're designed for 9-abreast now, but I won't be surprised if plenty of airline put 10-abreast on them.

When a fuselage is this wide, it's hard to "prohibit" an airline to put an extra seat in them, no matter the dimension.

---

BTW, if CO offers premium economy, I'd love it, and I will pay the extra for it on longhaul. I'm just saying CO has its reason to not offer it, just like SQ, CX, JL, LH, AF, KL, EK etc...

One clarification, though. All the above carriers have more than 31" seat pitch in Y except KLM. Therefore, the need for premium coach is less glaring for these carriers.

Also, I wonder what your methodology is for stating that E+ fares are revenue neutral when the range of coach fares is so dizzying? If you're saying that E+ is revenue neutral compared to full E+ Y, then, of course.

The fact is, though, that most international premium coach require something approximating a full fare, making it, in essence, J Lite.

Most PE fares do not approach full Y. Much lower than that.

For example, from Houston to Hong Kong. During the spring time when coach is around $1,000 on CO or BR in coach, BR's PE is about $1,300. I know as some of my cousins do fly BR in Evergreen Deluxe/Elite rather than CO, despite the extra stop. Subtracting taxes and fees, money that BR collect is about 20-30% more. But it's 8-abreast on a 747, vs 10-abreast; 37" pitch vs 33". You do the maths.

Or if you look at UA. They let non-Elites to pay $299 to get E+ seats for a whole year, including a companion. If just a couple flying a two roundtrip longhauls, that's less than $100 extra they're getting per person on a longhaul roundtrip.

Granted, there are some airlines that seem to be able to charge more for PE, like BA. Looking at some JFK-LHR fares in the fall, they seem to command about a 50% premium over cheapest coach. Good for them, but the PE price is still less than full Y.

---

Anyways, my point is that PE doesn't bring in more money for the airlines. Or else why do SQ or CX's new 773ERs fleet don't have them? You think those airlines executives do not know how to calculate?

And look at QF. It competes fiercely with BA and VS on the Kangaroo Route and with NZ on trans-Pacific, and only with the A380 do they start offering PE. And how many seats they put on that plane? 32! 32 seats on a 501-seat plane. That's how important PE is.

---

And you guys want to talk pitch. Here are some international "second-rate" airlines that have 31" pitch: AC (763), BA (744 10-abreast too!), ANA (744 10-abreast again!), EK (343), KL (M11 and 744), LH (A346), NW (744), QF (333 and 744 - some of those people fly all the way from OZ to Europe! No wonder so many are dying of DVT!), SAA, USAirways (333)

Boeing initially marketed the 787 (or then 7E7) as 8 abreast.... with a nudge and a wink. 9 abreast configuration contributes to the superior economics of the 787.

IIRC Boeing's initial 787 design was a few inches narrower (internally), but they were able to make it wider internally w/o increasing the fuselage width. Maybe this was the plan all along, but only revealed later as a marketing move against Airbus. Don't quote me on this.

Here's another thing worth considering of how airlines order their seats. If the choice is 9-abreast of 34" or 8-abreast of 31", comfort level may be similar for the passengers, but the airline can put in more seats in the 9x 34" configuration than the 8x 31" one, by just simple maths.

Also, it's much easier to reconfigurate the aircrafts by adjusting pitch. With a 9x 34" plane, if future economics favors fewer seats at higher fare, then just remove some rows and move the seats further apart. Or if economics favor more seats at bottom fare, the squeeze them into 31" by adding rows. Meaning you can do it both ways.

But if you start with 8x 31", and economics require more seats at lower fare, you can't really squeeze the rows closer together. So, you lose flexibility.

The more ff miles you have the more cycnical you get? Is that the point?

Actually, on a CO plane the number of seats in both configurations is 216. The current config is 27 rows of 31" pitch, 9 abreast. Switching to 34" pitch would leave about 24 rows (note that I am not taking into account the issues of lav/exit door locations or curvature at the rear, but it should be close enough). 24*9 = 216. Or keep the 27 rows and go 8 across and you get the same 216.

CO, of course picks the best of both worlds (for them) and puts 235 seats in the plane.

I may be in the minority here, but at 5' 11"/~190lbs I am just fine in CO's Y seat. Sure, I prefer J, but the Y seat doesn't kill me. I've done EWR-DEL and back just fine. Of course, I don't mind the 752 to Europe either, so I must be crazy

At the end of the day, I don't expect that the new lighting, windows or humidity are going to make the seat feel any more spacious, but that doesn't mean the flight will necessarily be uncomfortable.

An important caveat regarding pitch on the above list:

1. Only KL and QF have only 31" seat pitch in their major int'l long-haul coach sections.

All the other airlines either have a variety of pitch configurations, or PE, or a combination of the two.

To be completely fair, so does CO, since their two 767 variants have 32" seat pitch.

But only CO and QF make their transpac coach customers sit in only 31" seat pitch, with no PE option.

Finally, regarding your analysis on the feasibility of PE, since we don't have the respective RASM's per airline for PE and E, it's not easy to make a definitive conclusion.

P.S.:I did not inlcude US in my list because there is little question that it qualifies as a "second rate airline"