Dear Scott [seating suggestions]
 

Has someone looked into the possibility of reconfig the 737-300/700 with 10FC and 118YC..The 300 had allways been with this config before the 700 came along..and Im just thinking that with Oil prices reaching an all time high..this might make CO a little extra money while at the same time creating a more cozy First Class? I would think with the oil prices margins might be razor thin and adding these 4 extra seats might bring in a little extra revenue..alot of the time (not allways) 1-2 passengers are upgraded so your not really selling that seat anyway..so since the 300 use to be that config it would be easy to reconfig back to 10 FC and 118YC on 737-300/700..Just an idea to help you guys make some money..also..why does USAir 757-200 & 767-200 have so many more coach seats than CO..maybe you can add some more seats here too..And I notice that US 737-300/400 have an extra seat on each side in the exit row..maybe adding a seat there would increase revenue?..:D

I think it would be easier to just have them install seats on the wings.

Removing only two F seats on the 737-300/700 would not create enough room to add an additional row of coach seats, since the configuration is presently three rows of four seats abreast. The mod to the 737-500 was accomplished by removing the large closet and combining the 1R galley with a new, smaller closet unit. This gave enough room to add 1E/F (which previously did not exist) to offset the loss of row 3A-F. Pitch in F was reduced, and the bulkhead was removed to allow for two additional Y rows to be installed.

The problem with doing this to the 737-300/700 is that there really isn't that much wasted space in the configuration to begin with. Adding more coach seats at the expense of First probably wouldn't create enough additional revenue to justify the cost of the mod. The 737-500 reconfiguration turned dead space into revenue-earning seats, this would not necessarily be the case with a 737-300/700 mod.

Furthermore, these aircraft, especially the 737-700 (SNA anyone?) operate in a number of markets where CO enjoys a significant revenue premium driven by the sale of F tickets, so removing these seats with a higher yield potential does not seem to be a prudent move.

Don't forget that CO is also flattening its domestic ASM growth for '08 and beyond, and with a number of high-capacity 737-800/900ER ships on the way, much of this will be offset by 737-300/500 dispositions. Doesn't really make sense to invest a whole lot of money into an airplane that's on its way out of the fleet anyway, does it? (bear in mind winglet mods, at least on the -500s, are being financed by lessors, if I'm not mistaken)

The 737-300s at USAir either have 8 or 12 F seats, depending on whether your airplane is an original US or HP bird.

And to answer your question re: the 757/767 at US

-the US 757-200s have a higher seating capacity because US has Y seating between the 1 and 2 doors, where on CO ships, this area is exclusively BusinessFirst (16 seats). Even their new international 757s (the ex-TZ birds) have 3 rows of Envoy (12 seats), followed by 11 Y seats in a space that is occupied by only 4 BF seats at CO. As anyone who has flown on a CO 752 can attest, the Economy cabin is pretty densely configured, so I don't think this is an issue at CO. In fact, I'm sure CO would love to have another row or two of BF seats on the 752 for some of the premium transatlantic markets they serve out of EWR, but do not want to sacrifice 18-24 Y seats to do this.

-the US 767-200ER has only three rows of Envoy seats at six abreast, where CO has five rows of BF seats at five abreast. The space on the US 767 that would be part of the BF cabin on CO is filled with coach seats at seven abreast. CO does not want to undermine the integrity of its BF product by dramatically reducing width to accommodate 2-2-2 on the 767, so the result is a less dense configuration that preserves the width of the BF seat and allows for a sufficiently large premium cabin to meet international demand.

:td::td: To eliminating FC seats. Upgrades are already hard enough---this sure would not help.

Agreed, don't give them any ideas.

I was on a 767-200 yesterday in row 16 (just behind BF). reminded me of the the mini cabin on the 757-300 that CO recently changed back to FC seats. Did CO ever have BF seats in that section of the aircraft? Looks like if you removed the small closet and bulkhead, you could add 2 or 3 rows of BF seats.

Yes it would CODC10 :)..CO 737-300 had allways had 10FC and 118 YC prior to the 737-700 starting operation..Im just suggesting that the airline look into going back to the same config they used for so many years and worked so well..Its just a thought to genenrate some extra money..maybe some of thier best ideas have come from passengers? @:-)

Ahhh, the beginning of elite deplaning @:-). :p

For long haul flights, I would like to see all seats eliminated in favor of "shelves". These shelves would run the entire length of the plane, stacked 4 or 5 shelves high, similar to bunk beds but with just enough space for a passenger to turn their body over. Anesthesia would be administered to each passenger and everyone would be awaked on arrival. This would make these 11+ hour journeys much more bearable for me.

I'd say its a terrible idea.

Besides, CO is getting rid of most of their 733's in the next couple of years.
They have 48 733's that will go bye bye soon(actually, on sat SJC-IAH I was one of the -3TOs that was 20 years old and in not great shape).
They only have 32 73Gs.

Totally unrelated and tangential (surprising from me, eh?)...but, I suggest that whenever an FTer gets into a huff and tells CO to stick it (The "I'm switching airlines/alliances thread"), we call it a "Dear Scott Letter"

I have full confidence that CO management has thought of every possible way to maximize revenue with regards to the number of F seats in their planes...just as they have done the same with regards to the 'meals at mealtimes'. The product as we see it now is where they believe revenue and shareholder value is maximized.

Since the "meals at mealtime" have been so vastly reduced since this slogan was coined, I'm suggesting a rewording to be more accurate: "Limited Foodstuffs at Certain Intervals"