One would think, but considering that purchase of miles by all these affinity companies is adding stacks of cash to CO's bottom line, perhaps the volume discounts have held constant. Would not all airlines have to raise their mileage sale rates for a price-rise by CO to be sustainable/competitive?

They lose a few rows, but the aircraft gets a little more range with less weight, plus the E+ revenue could make up the loss of seats.

NW has 144 in coach on the 757

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Nor..._757-200_D.php
CO has 159 in coach on the 757

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Con..._757-200_I.php

A couple of observations:

1. This discussion got started when someone lamented how far CO had fallen as the great innovator (e.g. with BF) to a robotic also-ran. I suggested CO could create a new category of PE, which would be to Y what its BF was to J.
It is worth the trouble? Only if CO can make money, of course. Especially on transpac, with J and F fares approaching as much as $25k and with the extreme discomfort of flying these ultra-longhaul flights in 31" seat pitch, the opportunity is clear.

2. Installing PE in the BF fleet would also apply to the TATL routes where, as you have pointed out, the demand for PE is already well established.

3. Finally, regarding your point of the inconsistency of supply for PE on the transpac routes, let's not forget that, with the possible exception of the flights ex-HNL, all of CO's Asian product is ultra-longhaul, and is likely to remain so given that its hubs are EWR and IAH. Finally, the fact that the market is not already saturated with PE constitutes, if nothing else, a golden opportunity to corner the market.

Yes, and there are savings in one fewer f/as required per flight, lower infrastructure cost (fewer seats to install), lower maintenance costs, less wear and tear, lower catering costs, and less pressure on ticket agents, g/a's and f/a's since they would be dealing with a lower total passenger volume.

What sort of role does having extra weight capacity for cargo play into this picture of E+? This is something I didn�t quite get from LK at his presentation at the last DO: they are not willing to put in fancy new BF seats that lie horizontally flat if they mean giving up the total number of seats, but that would mean extra weight capacity for freight and the like, no? Fewer seats, fewer bodies, fewer passenger baggage=more weight capacity for cargo. Same would go for E+.

I also like that E- usage for coach.

On the E+ issue - CO sort of already has a mechancism for E+, which is called Premium coach setting (which really is not premium, except that it is in the forward part of the cabin).

UA E+ is still in the coach cabin - just the extra leg room. CO allows Elites and full Y passengers to select seats in the premium section of coach. CO could simply add more leg room to those seats and then have premium economy. I believe that is the way UA does it.

I know CO does not want to lose any seats, but overtime they could be losing business to higher fare Y passengers and Elites who mostly travel internationally.

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.

The "Premium Seating" in Y is somewhat of a joke, I think we all agree. The fact that Golds and Plats can get exit row seats is a plus but those are really the only "great" rows in Y on the 752s.

To me, CO should jump at the opportunity to increase seat price while reducing most of the costs. It is completely out of my price range (and my company's) for me to fly BF on a 752 to CPH but if I could fly E+ for $500 more, they would pay.

You are increasing the profit per seat when you add an E+ section (even if it's only a few rows) and creating another business friendly product, especially for smaller businesses.

rkkwan is right, using the E+ configuration on the EWR-Florida routes may be bad but then again, a few of the other threads have pointed out that domestic travel may lose the 752s altogether because of pressure on the route schedules for next year.

I think the point is that it's not premium at all. It's even less premium than those ridiculous European business class sections, where one is still sitting in coach, but the middle seat folds down to create less density, etc.

CO not only needs to create an E+, they should turn it into the mother of all E+'s, to recapture the mantel of leadership they acquired with the brilliant innovation of BF.

It's time to turn E+ into a real premium experience, with real internet service, universal power ports, AVOD, a real work space with enough space for a laptop, storage, etc.

Of course, all of this would have to be introduced along with improvements in both BF or domestic FC, otherwise these products would suffer by comparison.

The reason CO ought to introduce E+ is not to make its most loyal customers happy (although there is nothing wrong with that) but simply because it's good business.

I can't tell you how many industry analysts scoffed at CO and predicted its demise at the introduction of BF ("they're giving it away!") Fifteen years later, it is the most established category in the industry.

CO needs to show a similar degree of leadership and forward thinking now, otherwise they run the risk of fielding the most outdated product in the sky in a very short order.

Wow, we've taken this thread OT. I think we should stop talking about PE in this thread. Interesting that if I remember correctly, PE is the very first "Q&A" topic LK and SM discussed at DO III.

Do you recall what LK and SM said regarding this topic? I'm just curious since I was not able to attend.

http://flyertalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=741212

Thx.

One thing you have to say for the man, he's a true believer who will never deviate one iota from his game plan, even if it's not in his best interest to stay the course.

Pity. After all, this marketplace is far too complex for an old-school one-size-fits-all approach.

I think TWA Fan hits the nail on the head: old-school thinking. Recent years have a seen a burgeoning number of mid-tier products (travel and otherwise) marketed to upscale-but-not-filthy-rich consumers. This has come in response to macroeconomic changes that have created a new class of consumers who are willing and able to "trade up." This new bourgeoisie spends more on routine things (like, say, coffee and beer) than their parents. Indeed, there are now whole chains of hotels (W, for instance) and cruise lines (Celebrity) that have developed in response to this marketplace shift. Alas, CO is your father's airline, the Oldsmobile of the air. Their inability to see the appeal of E+ is the result of old-school thinking.

As for complexity: seems to me that CO could offer an E+ cabin on 777's and 787's (which will be CO's long haul workhorses) without adding huge amounts of complexity.

Smile, you've just been enhanced!