You have to laugh on some of these comments know how CO should run a business. Come on let's give them a little more credit than that, I can guarantee they've run the economic models on E+ and there's a good reason it's not there today.

While E+ may work on some markets, it clearly doesn't on others. CO is not going to have multiple product offerings in their fleet. Way too many issues to deal with in the case of aircraft swaps etc. It is also apparent that E+ on the 757's makes no sense since the cabin is way too narrow to support an enhanced seat. Plus anyone who's flown BA or VS in their E+ knows how easy it is to upgrade from coach to E+. Those fares, while commanding a revenue premium, aren't always sold. So the back of the napkin price comparisons make little sense.

Ah the good old days, when CO Onepass was so flexible and had the most generous benefits. But we all forget that the carrier was also on the brink of a third bankruptcy and was doing anything to drive revenue in the door.

Until the 757's are no longer traversing long haul, I seriously doubt we'll see CO with E+ seats.

Instead of complaining on what you can't have, buy something you can. I've given up on CO long haul because of the impossibility of upgrades, and the deterioration of service standards. So I fly other carriers, including BA in E+ for my next TATL flight in two weeks. Makes for a much better travel experience.

They already have multiple product offerings. They have a sub-fleet of BF aircraft which, of course, primarily service long-haul international but can also be seen flying to Hawaii and occasionally on a number of domestic routes such as EWR-LAX and IAH-EWR.

They have a fleet of domestic mainline a/c which primarily fly domestically, but also internationally to the Caribbean and northern Latin America.

They own and sub-contract a fleet of RJ's and turbo-props that can be seen flying on numerous routes where mainline a/c also fly. RJ's also fly internationally, on short-haul routes.

So the product is hardly uniform.

The problem with E+ isn't the lack of uniformity, it's the added complexity. They just want to keep it as simple as possible. That's fair enough, but while they are certainly gaining in operational flexibility and efficiency, they are losing out on a number of potential revenue sources.

The simplest example of this type is the fact that they routinely fly BF a/c on transcon but don't have a premium transcon service or fare basis differentiated from the transcon serviced by the mainline 737's.

They do this so they can pull a 752 from transcon at the last minute to fill in a gap on the int'l grid. And there is clearly value to that. On the other hand, they have scheduled the 752's on EWR-LAX for months in advance and rarely does a 752 get pulled.

In the meantime they are leaving much potential revenue by the wayside.

While I can understand the virtues of operational flexibility and simplicity I find the fact of consciously underpricing the premium transcon product (in the name of simplicity) very odd indeed, especially for a company run by an accountant who is so narrowly focused on the bottom line.

A modern, enhanced E+ (with all the toys and enhancements) on long haul would be a cash cow.

Again OT, but CO does not want to lose any seats. The UA E+ is not a separate cabin, nor a separate fare code, nor a separate seat type. It is simply an expansion of the so called "exit rows" on CO aircraft. Just the first few rows of coach have more leg room. Eligibility is being UA elite, on full fare, or having paid a fee to access. That just makes your FF number eligible to choose those coach seats.

CO already has a two tier coach seating arrangement - which can be selected based on elite status or full Y fare. Just that these seat have no more leg room except the exit rows. And only for the exit rows on 738 or larger aircraft.

CO already has all the mechanism to offer E+ - no new software is required. Just that CO chooses not to drop a row of seats. Some foreign carriers - have E+ - but that is a different class of service with a difference seat (which is like domestic FC).

Pulling out one row of coach seats - would allow you to add about 3" pitch to the first 10 rows.

I disagree. CO has three products; economy, domestic first, international business. The product that they sell in consistent across the carrier, with the slight exception of Hawaii where they have a scaled down Business First service (still the best US carrier to Hawaii). The fact that they fly 757's to Vegas with BusinessFirst seats doesn't mean that the public expects business class type of service. They sell the product as domestic first, the fact that they happen to have a nicer seat is considered a bonus.

The crux of the problem is they either have to do E+ on every long haul airplane or none. They cycle their planes continually throughout the system in order to maximize utilization. They don't have the option of dedicating a sub fleet to certain markets where E+ works and other planes where they need more economy capacity.

The biggest obstacle is the 757 fleet. The plane is not wide enough to do a 3-2 scenario (a likely cross section for E+). CO flies 777, 767, and 757 interchangeably in many European markets. If the 757 can't support E+ there is no way you could sell a consistent product without having a potential logistics nightmare on your hands.

As for Larry being a bean counter, last I checked CO was a business like any other. He is responsible to his employees and his shareholders. If putting E+ in to make your life easier means taking a hit on profitability then he's not going to do it. Plus you keep saying they're leaving money on the table, but I have yet to see any evidence that actually proves that point. You have no idea with the cost implications are for adding new seats, new catering issues, product differentiation, revenue spill from Business Class passengers, IT issues etc. Looking at published fares on a given day is absolutely meaningless. Like I said earlier, fly BA or VS to Europe instead.

I don't understand the "3-2" scenario here. The seats don't get wider, they simply get more legroom (as has been said about ten times in the thread).

E+ is not J, it is Y class with extra legroom and power ports and possibly AVOD.

A good case study would be UA's E+. They have E+ on 757s for transcon. Now, their model is a little different as they have a three class aircraft but a similar thing could be done by CO for TATL.

I guess we haven't even agreed with what E+ is. TWA seems to think it is a unique seat like BA. You seem to think it is United's approach. I've already stated why I think the BA approach won't currently work.

In regards to the United approach:

"Oh just pull out a row and give the extra space to Elites up front." Great! Now tell me where you going to make up the revenue on the 6-9 seats you've just eliminated?

CO already has different Y seats on the widebodies. The first set of rows have power ports - the rest do not. You get to sit in a row with power ports if you are Elite. Others can choose these seats at checkin.

See the seat map of the 777. Rows 17-23 have power ports. Again - you can only choose those seats if you are Elite. The point is - we would like CO to also add more leg room to those seats.

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US...craft/777.aspx

Well, I think Tilton would have 2 answers to this question:

1. Attracting more (allegedly high spending) elites to the airline, and
2. Charging for at-the-gate upgrades, ranging in price based on this distance.

Exactly. I know that these rows with power ports exist but the power port doesn't do me any good when I can't set my laptop out without it being slammed in my chest by the person in front of me

CO load factors are around 85% - so 15% of the seats are unused. Now on key flights, key times, they go out 100% full. But what is the impact on average. Yes some loss revenue - but what about the competition. Are you losing some business - maybe higher rev business - because of the competition.

It would have to be a different seat all together. The only way you can justify removing seats is by charging a premium for more space. Giving more leg room is a revenue losing scenario; taking out seats with no additional revenue to replace them. Look what happened with MRTC on AA.

The unique seat, i.e., BA, NZ and VS, etc. justifies the revenue loss because of the seat and service offered increases price paid for each square foot of floor space on the plane. However, those other carriers have fleets and routes that can support having an additional cabin whereas CO (in my opinion) does not.

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....9&postcount=97

The premium people pay to sit in the E+ section would more than make up for a row or two lost.

This would be good for E+ some years ago. But it's clearly not cutting it in today's marketplace. For example see this

Not convinced yet? Have a look at the new Japan Air Lines Premium Economy.

Are you saying that a Y seat with 3" extra legroom is a good idea to compete against these products?

It doesn't necessarily compete but I'm not sure it needs to do such a thing. The seat simply needs to be a step up from standard Y for a slight increase in price.

Regular customers are content flying CO back and forth across the Atlantic the way it is now. What I and others are proposing is a slight increase in legroom for those customers who want a slightly better experience without paying BF prices.

JAL's product looks amazing and I'm sure it is due to them wanting to stay as competitive in the market as possible (when competing against SQ, CX, etc.)

I am just looking for a little competitiveness out of CO. If I get more, all the better.