GUWonder

The plane seats in the back of the flying bus of various legacy majors is now worse than the seat comfort of the public buses used by local/regional transport companies owned by governments. When governmental public transit buses may be way more comfortable than the seats on some planes used by say American Airlines or British Airways, the race to the bottom has shown that calling out airlines as flying buses is an insult to some buses.

lhrsfo

This is happening, in a manner of speaking. Premium Economy is becoming increasingly prevalent. BA is retrofitting some planes with larger Premium Economy cabins. The big US airlines are introducing it. Even Norwegian offers it. But it still is a product in flux, with different airlines taking different views of just how premium it should be. At its simplest, it's a seat like those from 30 or 40 years ago, and a worse meal. At its best, it's a slight upgrade on North American "first" class offerings. But, as its name suggests, it's more allied to Economy than to Business Class, as are its prices.

The fact that it's growing so much demonstrates that there is demand for such a product, albeit limited demand. The point is that airlines make their money from the front cabins and, apart from periods of peak tourist demand, struggle to fill the back. They must compete on price back there, and so, as already discussed in the thread, they must not offer any more airplane real estate than their competitors. So we have narrower seats closer together. Only UA, with its Economy Plus, has bucked that trend, but it seems to be being dragged inexorably back to the pack - and it does seem that relatively few people will pay the $150 or so for an extra legroom seat. And those who will would probably choose Premium Economy for perhaps $200 more instead.

Rebelyell

I think there is a lot of demand for these types of seats, but the price being charged is so ridiculously high that few are willing to pay.

For example, increasing the number of seats on the 777 from 9- to 10-across increased gross revenue on these seats by 11 percent. Flying people does cost money though, so I would guess the net revenue increase was about five percent or less. Same goes for revenue earned from reducing pitch. So the airlines could break even by offering seats in the 9-across format with a 10 percent increase in pitch for about a 10 percent premium, and people would buy these seats like crazy.

It is possible, through regulation, to require the airlines to offer bigger seats on a revenue-neutral basis, and I think such regulations should be put into effect.

dulciusexasperis

"I think there is a lot of demand for these types of seats, but the price being charged is so ridiculously high that few are willing to pay."

Umm, that is contradictory. If there is 'demand for these types of seats', it includes the price. Wanting a bigger seat but not being willing to pay more for it is an entirely different 'demand'.

Your assumption that if you increased size by 10%, people would pay 10% more is just an assumption. The facts seem to indicate that given the choice of that or a 10% smaller seat for 10% less cost, the people would choose to pay less for less.

Clearly, we have not yet reached the limit at which people will say NO to a cheaper seat. Price is their first, last and only criteria. That's what makes it a 'race to the bottom'.

rbwpi

Exactly.

deniah

airlines offer what the market will bear. market participants such as yourself only bear economy fares, as is established in this thread. where is the bottom? its a minimum level of safety and security maintained by authorities, and so far this minimum is better than it's ever been.

pinniped

Ultimately, I want more competitors in the market. The U.S. government has cozied up to the legacies for a long time, allowing them to merge several times over and form a nice tight group that controls a majority of the capacity. Not quite a full-blown cartel, but it often acts like one.

So I welcome the ULCCs - even though I don't really want to fly them myself. I'd love to see more full-service carriers and greater access to U.S. markets from foreign airlines, but anything is better than nothing. From what I understand about the Canadian market, it could stand some more competition as well.

GetSetJetSet

I refuse to fly on LCC, unfortunately the legacy airlines are dropping their standards to those of LCC but continuing to charge higher prices.

pinniped

The thing I don't understand is the legacy carrier's "basic economy" product.

Here's a semi-common thing I see on MCI-DTW:

Spirit: $32 one-way.
Delta, regular ticket: $207 one-way.
Delta, basic economy: $182 one-way.

I understand the allure of the $32 ticket.
I understand the desire for an upgradeable, mileage-earning ticket with full EQM, baggage, etc.

I cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would buy the $182 ticket. I don't even know why they bother offering it. Maybe if it were $40, I'd buy it because I like Delta's color scheme eight dollars more than I like Spirit's. But 6x as much as Spirit? Why? Makes no sense.

cbn42

Perhaps people who refuse to fly ULCCs on principle (or due to ego) will buy Delta basic economy.

GUWonder

Proudelitist

Count me as one of the few willing to pay. Money is not a huge issue for me, most of my flying is paid by my employer, and the extra I put up personally to buy up to a premium seat is really a tiny price to pay for a bit more comfort, control..and distance away from the Kettles. I like that it's an option. Those that are willing to pay, like me, will pay, and those that are not will not. I can afford a better product so why not buy it? Why should I, in the name of some egalitarian principle or in solidarity with those less fortunate, be denied that? The airlines shouldn't be regulated against developing a revenue stream this way...it's OPTIONAL after all. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to.

And if someone doesn't want to pay, that someone should be fine with not getting what they wouldn't pay for. Why on earth should airlines be regulated into making it available to those not willing to pay for it?

dulciusexasperis

You seem to be confused about what I will 'bear'. What I would actually like to see is the airlines go back to what an economy seat experience used to be like 30 years ago and simply charge me the equivalent price in real money today. In other words provide what today they call Premium Economy, for all economy seats and at the Premium Economy price. Remove the current Economy seats and service entirely. Is that clearer deniah?

So please don't try to suggest that I am one of the 'market participants' who will only 'bear (today's)economy fares'. It's those market participants that I'm annoyed with. They are forcing the airlines to provide a product that I personally don't want. That would be fine if the airlines still offered the alternative of a product I do want, but the whole point of starting the thread was the fact that such alternatives are becoming fewer and fewer. Major airlines like Air Canada are dropping routes on their mainline planes and instead flying them with their inferior LCC lines like Rouge. What does that tell you about where they are heading? A higher level of product and service or a lower level?

EuropeanPete

For short-haul in most places (North America, Europe, Asia) you can comfortably fly Business Class/ "First" Class and for long-haul you can fly Premium Economy for the same price as Economy 30 years ago (https://www.theatlantic.com/business...oticed/273506/). The cost for what you get has been plummeting, and as a significant consumers are mainly price conscious, even cheaper options have been developed. Don't want to fly in a cheap Basic Economy or ULCC flight, then pay for an alternative.

cbn42

Airlines are going to provide what more people want, not what you want. If the airlines are providing a product you don't want, don't buy it. If they aren't offering the product you want, find another airline. If no airline is offering what you want, then there is probably not enough demand for it