Guaranteed empty seat program
 

Just saw a thread about long business trips in coach. A neighbor of mine takes a dozen or more overseas trips each year on business. To Europe, he chooses coach. For Asia, he says he has to have business class. Needless to say, pretty much everyone in the company is flying coach to Europe, as my friend is top management and is choosing coach.

He told me his son also travels to Asia quite a bit, but that his company offers him the option of flying coach with a guaranteed empty seat next to him and pays him a $1,500 bonus if he will choose that over business. He said his son chooses the coach seat and the money.

I'm just curious if the empty seat program is a formal program or if his employer is just buying two seats. I think he flies United, and he made it sound like a special program. Certainly in three-across situations, I would hate to know that I was regularly paying to allow strangers to enjoy an empty seat!

I believe they are paid seats.. A friend of mine booked 6 seats in coach for his family of 4 (now soon to be 5).. and said that the 6 seats was significantly cheaper than 4 seats in first class.

Wow.. if a company pays you $1,500 and another empty seat besides you guaranteed.. I would take the $1,500.

Yeah, I assume the company pays for the seat and puts it on the employee's PNR, much like a COS would do: Lastname/XtraSeat.

I'd be all over the $1500, too, in that situation.

As the person buying an empty seat, I would sure hate to be providing extra space to another person (on the other side) for free!

Given the demand for this, it is surprising that the airlines flying a 3-3-3 configuration, such as the 777, don't offer a guaranteed empty seat for 150 percent of the regular fare. I would think they would sell plenty of these tickets, and it would provide a real competitive advantage. And far better to be paid for not flying someone than for flying someone.

You've said this twice now. Just what reaction are you hoping to provoke?

While no company bonus, I've been doing that for years on self-funded international trips. If you get the right check-in agent you can even fund two separate FF accounts on two separate airlines.

When I flew AirAsia a ton this past summer, using their 1THB sale, I bought two seats whenever available.

As for the bonus to the other passenger - since there is no transactional cost for sharing, I think of it as a cheap way to make someones day (or at least 7-16 hours of it) a little better.

Safe Travels!

ETA: Be careful trying to buy one tix and use an award on the other - CO agents get really ticked off about that, they claim there is a rule against it, but can never provide me a copy of the rule or the book it comes from.

Why is the person on the other side relevant to the purchaser of the seat and the empty seat? I'd say the purchaser gets dibs on the underseat space. Other'n that, both pax will enjoy the fact that the empty seat is there.

I've never heard of this kind of program. I'm surprised that it exists...figure a typical R/T in business class is going to run $5-6k R/T to Europe or Asia after all of the typical corp discounts. (Yes, Orbitz shows $9-10k but the companies that actually buy these tickets don't pay anywhere near that.) Figure a coach trip is going to run $1500 or so...obviously more variance there. So 2 seats plus $1500 round trip...doesn't seem like the company is saving much money.

Sure, I'd do it, but I've flown a lot (including a bunch of international coach) for business and never seen the policy or met anyone else who had it.

Why would not be ? $1500 x 3 = $4500

Typical C or D to Asia is over $5000.

Even if it is not the case, the 2nd seats could be gotten with miles from the father as well, OP didn't specified the details from the "neighbor". Therefore, it is basically $3000. And $3000 for sure is far away from a paid business seat to asia.

I've often wondered why long haul airlines don't install those mechanically wound 3 to 2 seats that some airlines in Europe use to adjust the size of the Club and Economy cabins based on loads.

In response to the OP, I don't think an empty adjacent seat in Economy nearly makes up for having to sit upright or at a minimal recline for say 8 hours, and then having to shower, change and do a half day's work. There really is no comparison between that and doing the trip lying on your back with a nice comfy pillow and soft white blanket.

The likely scenario will be two people from the same company taking the same flight, thus only one extra seat between the two pax.

You're probably right, but YUCK!!

Back in my frequent business travel days, the LAST thing I wanted after a solid week for knocking myself out work-wise was to be stuck next to a co-worker for the long, long flight home.

I suspect it may be an intra-company program. His description was that his son was guaranteed to have an empty seat beside him, not that he was given two seats. Almost just as good. I suppose if the meal was really good or had a good item I might want to insist on a tray for my imaginary friend in the empty seat.

There's a story about the Russian farmer who is told by a genie that he can have anything he wants, but his neighbor will get double. He asks the genie to poke one of his eyes out. I suppose I have a little of that Russian farmer in me. I wouldn't mind paying 50 percent more for a shared empty seat, but I just wouldn't be able to take paying 100 percent of the cost of a seat that was then used in part by another passenger who paid nothing. Just me.

Plain and simple: You paid for it, they don't get to use it. I'd have absolutely no problem saying "I paid for this extra space for my own personal comfort, so it's not going to be possible for you to put your things under that seat" or to put your dirty dishes on the tray table, or take the extra space with your knees, or what have you.

...IF I felt that strongly about it,that is. Chances are, I wouldn't feel that strongly. When I do, though, I have no problem laying it out there firmly but politely.

P.S. In your Russian farmer analogy, I think you've lost sight of the fact that you'd be getting a $1500 bonus for allowing the seat neighbor to encroach on a few inches of "your" paid knee space.

How is that a losing proposition for you personally, especially since it sounds as if you as the passenger aren't the one paying, but rather the company that is sending you? $1500 for not sitting directly next to someone and possibly having to tolerate someone letting 1/3 of a butt cheek or an elbow encroach into the empty seat's airspace. Sounds like a WIN to me.

I didn't say I was rational about it. And if I was the company owner paying for it, it would bother me that something that I was paying for for my employee was being used by someone else for free. Push comes to shove, I would take the $1,500 and live with it.

I still wonder why the airlines don't offer something like this for a 50 percent upcharge. I think the demand is there.

This is exactly my point: there's no huge cost savings in it for any sizable company. Miles likely wouldn't enter the equation, it'd be $4-5k vs. $5-6k. Maybe when coach fares TATL/TPAC were $500-700 R/T on a more regular basis...but all of my business trips, usually bought 2-3 weeks in advance in a medium or high coach bucket are more like $1500-2000 R/T.

But you really aren't paying for 100% of the seat: you're paying for the armrest, some shoulder room, and the underseat storage area. And maybe part of the tray, a place to toss your magazine, etc. The presence of someone on the other side of the seat is moot. (I'd certainly claim that underseat storage though! :))

Seat sold is occupied whether it has a body in it or not.. thus a fare is charged.

The $1500 is the tipping point for me.

I think Air New Zealand sort of does with its sky couches.

Depends, doesn't it? on a) where in Asia and b) how "far away" from $3k you consider the following - I've seen consolidator fares on AC from ORD to HKG recently for around $4,500 return in June, and if you're talking about the west-coast then OZ has LAX-HKG for under $4k and if you're prepared to slum it on MU then you can get it for $3.6.

Why would an airline sell a seat for 50% of the fare when they can also sell it to someone else for 100%?

The suggestion was made that when there was 3-across seating, that seats be offered on each side of an empty seat for a 50 percent premium. Thus the airline would not lose any money, and would actually gain revenue by not having to fool with the extra passenger. perhaps I should have been more plain; Obviously this would only apply in cases of 3-across seating.

That doesn't work.

Or more accurately, that only works in the case where both seats alongside such a seat were sold AND they both paid the premium for the empty seat.

But: why would I pay that premium if the other passenger already paid it, such that the seat will be left empty? You can't occupy half a seat. And if I were flying with a companion, I might pay the premium so we have three seats to ourselves. But then, again: there is no reason to pay the premium twice because I've already paid it once and a seat can't be 50% occupied. And in that case I can be sure of the seat being empty because I know the premium was paid.

The airline can't demand the premium be paid twice (apart form simply selling the seat at 100% of course) because they'd be offering the service to single seats but without the actual guarantee of the other neighbour paying the same premium, in which case the service would not be delivered.

The only thing they could do is block the middle seat and charge premium prices for window/aisle, adjusting the cabin as necessary to account for demand. In other words, a business/economy cabin that flexes based on demand.

Many airlines do this on short-haul: I've flown several different Airbuses (319's and 320's, I think) that did this. But I don't see it on long-haul - that tells me that airlines have indeed run plenty of simulations if not actual live tests and have instead focused on enhancing the real business class with better seats and amenities, not creating more finely differentiated options in coach. Your best bet in coach ends up being the premium economy offerings on a few carriers... The offer to formally pay 100% for the second seat is not always accepted - it's a popular topic on the boards here where the airline has a POS policy. (Specifically, the short skinny guy can't always just throw down cash for the 2nd seat.)

Obviously if the airline were to offer such a program, it would block off a few rows and they would only be bookable by those paying the 50 percent upcharge. So your traveling companion would have to sit on another row.

Of course, the problem with premium economy is that most generally offer only more legroom, and most planes have plenty of legroom for the average person. It's the width and having to touch and constantly jostle a stranger that makes coach seats so awful.

The only airline I can think of that has remotely close to enough legroom for the average person is United Economy Plus. (Among the U.S. majors and the European carriers I've flown...I realize there are probably others who have this kind of product.) Not really a premium economy product but the legroom itself is...passable. Usually 35" or so pitch.

The real problem is that most corporate travel policies don't account for premium economy. Most companies software requires you to buy cheapest economy, period. It's not a standardized enough product for companies to build into their international travel policies either. And you're definitely right on the width - especially on a Boeing, it's the shoulder room that is uncomfortable, even in exit row or UA E+.

Also on an Airbus widebody you don't have to share the spare seat with anyone since the seats are in 2's not 3's

That still leaves the airline with the potential for a whole bunch of unsold and unused seats.

who guarantees the empty seat, the employer or the airline? what happens when the airplane oversells, sees a seat for which no passenger checked in, and puts a standby or NRSA there? what if someone poaches the empty seat?

Actually it's possible to implement such a program so that the airline only risks 1.5 empty seats. At seat selection, ask which seat the first purchaser would like. The next person buying a half-empty seat would only have the option to buy the seat on the same row.

As for Crabbing's questions, if the airline wants to put someone in the seat you have already paid for they should pay a bump fee. Seat poachers would be ejected.

I'm still convinced that airlines have already run simulations/models if not enough live implementations of this to confirm whether or not it works in their markets.

Many European carriers do exactly what we're talking about...that's effectively what the short-haul business class product is. (The middle seat folds down into a small table.)

But they've realized that for long-haul the market audience that would pay a big premium for an empty middle is the same target audience that they want buying their existing business class seats.

They probably look at it as a cannibalization problem: firms that currently permit their employees to travel in premium cabins would be tempted to fly the new product, pitching it internally as "cost effective but not too awful". But few firms that have always required coach travel (e.g., the majority of firms) would add this to their travel policy, thus raising their travel costs by 50% or whatever.

I think airlines are more inclined to find ways to pamper and nurture the few firms left that still fly their employees in C/J, not tempt them to move back into Y.

The company policy from the OP is a rarity.

I agree with most of what you have to say. It's a shame that the airlines sell their luxury product by making their coach product as miserable as possible, but that's essentially what they are doing.

I wish perhaps I had gotten some more information from my former neighbor and his son's empty-seat program. I still see him from time to time, but really can't run up to him and demand more info about this. Perhaps at some point I'll be able to find out more.

All they are doing is booking an extra seat in the PNR. Anybody could do it. The $1,500 makes this worth the lack of pitch, the lousier meal and the lack of arrivals suite and the like. To the person suggesting 150% of fare for 2 seats, why would carrier do that unless it has empty seats to fill? Not many want middle seats, but if it's all there is, they sell just fine.

To add to that: the airlines are doing a pretty good job right now as a group of keeping supply tight and loads high. It's a bit different from previous expansionary periods where they all added planes and chased market share at the expense of yields.

Therefore, they're filling most of those middle seats without too much trouble.

Maybe this kind of product would sell better in a softening economy...but one short of a technical recession where airlines are more likely to ground planes.