Do airlines tarnish aircraft manufacturers' brands?
Jun 7, 2018, 9:34 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: United MileagePlus Silver, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 8,798
Do airlines tarnish aircraft manufacturers' brands?
I was reading a post in a Facebook Air Travel forum where someone was complaining about leg room on the 737-MAX and how they were never flying Boeing's terrible aircraft again.
Interestingly, they blamed Boeing, not the airline - When the seat configuration was obviously the airline's fault. Others chimed in on the thread, also blaming Boeing.
I've seen similar comments RE a discount carrier that operates Airbus aircraft with 29" pitch - How they "hate" the Airbus planes operated by the carrier.
Does anyone think the likes of Boeing and Airbus care that a large percentage of the flying public blames *them* for uncomfortable planes? Or in the end the airlines are their customers, so they don't really care...
Interestingly, they blamed Boeing, not the airline - When the seat configuration was obviously the airline's fault. Others chimed in on the thread, also blaming Boeing.
I've seen similar comments RE a discount carrier that operates Airbus aircraft with 29" pitch - How they "hate" the Airbus planes operated by the carrier.
Does anyone think the likes of Boeing and Airbus care that a large percentage of the flying public blames *them* for uncomfortable planes? Or in the end the airlines are their customers, so they don't really care...
Jun 7, 2018, 9:52 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: south of WAS DC
Posts: 10,131
awe have had the misfortune of flying BWI-LHR a number of times in a 767 in C. what a crummy set of seats. this is all BA, have not seen similar seats on other 767"\'s
on ua we flew in F on a domestic first ord to sf(i think], and all 4 of seats were broken. do not blame boeing, or the seat maker.
on ua we flew in F on a domestic first ord to sf(i think], and all 4 of seats were broken. do not blame boeing, or the seat maker.
Jun 7, 2018, 7:10 pm
#3
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: GIG - YYC - SVO
Programs: Lost it all and don't care
Posts: 945
There are plenty of articles about the fact that airlines configure their own cabins. Perhaps even some are placed by or paid for by said airlines.
Kettles will be Kettles.........
Kettles will be Kettles.........
Jun 8, 2018, 1:39 am
#4
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 969
I was reading a post in a Facebook Air Travel forum where someone was complaining about leg room on the 737-MAX and how they were never flying Boeing's terrible aircraft again.
Interestingly, they blamed Boeing, not the airline - When the seat configuration was obviously the airline's fault. Others chimed in on the thread, also blaming Boeing.
I've seen similar comments RE a discount carrier that operates Airbus aircraft with 29" pitch - How they "hate" the Airbus planes operated by the carrier.
Does anyone think the likes of Boeing and Airbus care that a large percentage of the flying public blames *them* for uncomfortable planes? Or in the end the airlines are their customers, so they don't really care...
Interestingly, they blamed Boeing, not the airline - When the seat configuration was obviously the airline's fault. Others chimed in on the thread, also blaming Boeing.
I've seen similar comments RE a discount carrier that operates Airbus aircraft with 29" pitch - How they "hate" the Airbus planes operated by the carrier.
Does anyone think the likes of Boeing and Airbus care that a large percentage of the flying public blames *them* for uncomfortable planes? Or in the end the airlines are their customers, so they don't really care...
Far easier to drop an airline than an aeroplane manufacturer. But what can you do...?
Jun 8, 2018, 4:48 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,507
I wonder how much of this is due to certain airlines being associated with certain models of aircraft. For instance, the ME3 (especially EK) own a large number of nicely-outfitted A380s, so people might associate Airbus with luxury as a result--never mind that most Airbus operators will never install showers on their aircraft 
Jun 8, 2018, 6:51 am
#7
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,546
People complain, but at the end of the day, when Airline X, who flies a Boeing on a given route, is a dollar cheaper than Airline Y, who files an Airbus on the same route, and thus, shows at the top of the Expedia search results, they're going to choose Airline X.
If everyone who ever said "I'm never flying ____ airline again!" actually never flew ____ airline ever again, then every single airline in the world would be out of business and people would be taking boats across oceans. And complaining about those too.
If everyone who ever said "I'm never flying ____ airline again!" actually never flew ____ airline ever again, then every single airline in the world would be out of business and people would be taking boats across oceans. And complaining about those too.
Jun 10, 2018, 7:05 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Programs: Frontier Gold, DL estranged 1MMer, Spirit VIP, CO/NW/UA/AA once gold/plat/comped gold now dust.
Posts: 38,151
I blame both the manufacturer AND the airline, especially at this late date. Airlines obviously are getting more Spirit-like in trying to cram in passengers, to the point where we may need government-mandated minimums because some airlines will just totally ignore common sense if it's more profitable in the short term to not follow it. Heck, some would do straphangers and standing room if the FAA allowed it. And anytime you reward the bad actors it creates competitive pressure on the others to follow suit whether they have reservations about that or not.
The reason I also blame the manufacturers like Boeing is that by now they should KNOW BETTER. Remember the 747 original design with the "lounge" upstairs some 45 years ago? Ever get to see or use one? That should have been a clue. Unless it's an airline from an oil-rich middle-eastern country or otherwise has a funding source like that, it's highly unlikely the airlines are going to go along with Boeing's schematics about what a great flying experience it'll be.
Boeing should have learned that long ago, so I blame them for not LEARNING and just repeating the same mistake and then thinking they can avoid damage to their own brand by pointing out that it's the airline's decision.
That's not a complete excuse in my book. You DO NOT do something like build a fuselage that can have 9 semi-comfortable seats across or 10 really uncomfortable ones and then give the airline a choice. And then act surprised when 70-75% of airlines do the uncomfortable configuration and charge more if they have seats in the 9-across.
Just build the fuselage not as 9.5-across but either 9 or 10 and take away the choice. Keep it simple, stupid. Learn from your past bad predictions or I'm putting some of the blame on you. Pax will definitely say bad things about your plane if you make the seats narrower.
And I realize that the manufacturers see the airlines as the customer and the pax only as the "end user," and we're down to 3 legacy airlines in the U.S. (and WN) and two major manufacturers (plus the ones for the jungle jets). Lack of competition is at the root of a lot of this. OTOH, the US3 may have a hard time getting its pax behind campaigns against the ME3 because the pax aren't crazy about how the US3 just keep charging more for a flying experience that gets worse.
The reason I also blame the manufacturers like Boeing is that by now they should KNOW BETTER. Remember the 747 original design with the "lounge" upstairs some 45 years ago? Ever get to see or use one? That should have been a clue. Unless it's an airline from an oil-rich middle-eastern country or otherwise has a funding source like that, it's highly unlikely the airlines are going to go along with Boeing's schematics about what a great flying experience it'll be.
Boeing should have learned that long ago, so I blame them for not LEARNING and just repeating the same mistake and then thinking they can avoid damage to their own brand by pointing out that it's the airline's decision.
That's not a complete excuse in my book. You DO NOT do something like build a fuselage that can have 9 semi-comfortable seats across or 10 really uncomfortable ones and then give the airline a choice. And then act surprised when 70-75% of airlines do the uncomfortable configuration and charge more if they have seats in the 9-across.
Just build the fuselage not as 9.5-across but either 9 or 10 and take away the choice. Keep it simple, stupid. Learn from your past bad predictions or I'm putting some of the blame on you. Pax will definitely say bad things about your plane if you make the seats narrower.
And I realize that the manufacturers see the airlines as the customer and the pax only as the "end user," and we're down to 3 legacy airlines in the U.S. (and WN) and two major manufacturers (plus the ones for the jungle jets). Lack of competition is at the root of a lot of this. OTOH, the US3 may have a hard time getting its pax behind campaigns against the ME3 because the pax aren't crazy about how the US3 just keep charging more for a flying experience that gets worse.
Jun 10, 2018, 8:41 pm
#9
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,565
The manufacturers are just responding to what their customers ask for. Airlines, in turn, are responding to what *we* ask for.
We, the flying public, want them to stretch the capabilities of medium-haul narrowbodies as far as possible. We demand this far greater than we demand a viable, scalable supersonic product or even superjumbos like the A380. There's a decent market for ultra-long-haul in a 787/777 sized widebody, and there's massive demand for ETOPS 737s and A321s. We want long-ish $99 flights more than giant planes or fast planes.
We, the flying public, want them to stretch the capabilities of medium-haul narrowbodies as far as possible. We demand this far greater than we demand a viable, scalable supersonic product or even superjumbos like the A380. There's a decent market for ultra-long-haul in a 787/777 sized widebody, and there's massive demand for ETOPS 737s and A321s. We want long-ish $99 flights more than giant planes or fast planes.
Jun 11, 2018, 3:58 am
#10
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,338
I blame both the manufacturer AND the airline, especially at this late date. Airlines obviously are getting more Spirit-like in trying to cram in passengers, to the point where we may need government-mandated minimums because some airlines will just totally ignore common sense if it's more profitable in the short term to not follow it. Heck, some would do straphangers and standing room if the FAA allowed it. And anytime you reward the bad actors it creates competitive pressure on the others to follow suit whether they have reservations about that or not.
The reason I also blame the manufacturers like Boeing is that by now they should KNOW BETTER. Remember the 747 original design with the "lounge" upstairs some 45 years ago? Ever get to see or use one? That should have been a clue. Unless it's an airline from an oil-rich middle-eastern country or otherwise has a funding source like that, it's highly unlikely the airlines are going to go along with Boeing's schematics about what a great flying experience it'll be.
Boeing should have learned that long ago, so I blame them for not LEARNING and just repeating the same mistake and then thinking they can avoid damage to their own brand by pointing out that it's the airline's decision.
That's not a complete excuse in my book. You DO NOT do something like build a fuselage that can have 9 semi-comfortable seats across or 10 really uncomfortable ones and then give the airline a choice. And then act surprised when 70-75% of airlines do the uncomfortable configuration and charge more if they have seats in the 9-across.
Just build the fuselage not as 9.5-across but either 9 or 10 and take away the choice. Keep it simple, stupid. Learn from your past bad predictions or I'm putting some of the blame on you. Pax will definitely say bad things about your plane if you make the seats narrower.
And I realize that the manufacturers see the airlines as the customer and the pax only as the "end user," and we're down to 3 legacy airlines in the U.S. (and WN) and two major manufacturers (plus the ones for the jungle jets). Lack of competition is at the root of a lot of this. OTOH, the US3 may have a hard time getting its pax behind campaigns against the ME3 because the pax aren't crazy about how the US3 just keep charging more for a flying experience that gets worse.
The reason I also blame the manufacturers like Boeing is that by now they should KNOW BETTER. Remember the 747 original design with the "lounge" upstairs some 45 years ago? Ever get to see or use one? That should have been a clue. Unless it's an airline from an oil-rich middle-eastern country or otherwise has a funding source like that, it's highly unlikely the airlines are going to go along with Boeing's schematics about what a great flying experience it'll be.
Boeing should have learned that long ago, so I blame them for not LEARNING and just repeating the same mistake and then thinking they can avoid damage to their own brand by pointing out that it's the airline's decision.
That's not a complete excuse in my book. You DO NOT do something like build a fuselage that can have 9 semi-comfortable seats across or 10 really uncomfortable ones and then give the airline a choice. And then act surprised when 70-75% of airlines do the uncomfortable configuration and charge more if they have seats in the 9-across.
Just build the fuselage not as 9.5-across but either 9 or 10 and take away the choice. Keep it simple, stupid. Learn from your past bad predictions or I'm putting some of the blame on you. Pax will definitely say bad things about your plane if you make the seats narrower.
And I realize that the manufacturers see the airlines as the customer and the pax only as the "end user," and we're down to 3 legacy airlines in the U.S. (and WN) and two major manufacturers (plus the ones for the jungle jets). Lack of competition is at the root of a lot of this. OTOH, the US3 may have a hard time getting its pax behind campaigns against the ME3 because the pax aren't crazy about how the US3 just keep charging more for a flying experience that gets worse.
P.S. If you are prepared to pay todays $ equivalent of 1973 fares...you will travel in great comfort.... because fares are..by any objective measure..very much cheaper now than then in real terms....
Jun 11, 2018, 5:59 am
#11
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Yeah I don't imagine the airframe manufacturers are losing much sleep over what a few passengers might think of their brand. While I don't doubt some passengers blame the manufacturer, at least in my anecdotal experience, most who have a bad experience blame the airline. And also generalize one bad flight across every make and model the airline flies.
Jun 11, 2018, 9:01 am
#12
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,565
I don't know how you build a fuselage that would force an airline into a set number of seats across.
No matter what circumference you choose, some seat manufacturer will come up with a just-skinny-enough seat for a "tight" configuration and a slightly-wider one for a "less awful" configuration.
Besides, I doubt this is how aerospace engineers begin designing new products.
Over time I expect a mature technology to continue getting better and cheaper. The airline industry goes through fits and starts because it isn't just about the tech - there's also a huge energy cost component - but after having flown a few 787 segments I can honestly say I do enjoy some of the new innovations coming from Boeing and, to some extent, the companies that outfit the interior. Having flown on an A350 yet, but I assume that will be similar.
Now I just hope they eventually solve the challenges with flying supersonic over land. If they do that, then supersonic may become scalable to enough routes to make it economically viable.
No matter what circumference you choose, some seat manufacturer will come up with a just-skinny-enough seat for a "tight" configuration and a slightly-wider one for a "less awful" configuration.
Besides, I doubt this is how aerospace engineers begin designing new products.
Over time I expect a mature technology to continue getting better and cheaper. The airline industry goes through fits and starts because it isn't just about the tech - there's also a huge energy cost component - but after having flown a few 787 segments I can honestly say I do enjoy some of the new innovations coming from Boeing and, to some extent, the companies that outfit the interior. Having flown on an A350 yet, but I assume that will be similar.
Now I just hope they eventually solve the challenges with flying supersonic over land. If they do that, then supersonic may become scalable to enough routes to make it economically viable.
Jun 12, 2018, 7:18 am
#13
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Peoria
Programs: Southwest, Best Western Gold, La Quinta, Dollar
Posts: 819
I was reading a post in a Facebook Air Travel forum where someone was complaining about leg room on the 737-MAX and how they were never flying Boeing's terrible aircraft again.
Does anyone think the likes of Boeing and Airbus care that a large percentage of the flying public blames *them* for uncomfortable planes?
Does anyone think the likes of Boeing and Airbus care that a large percentage of the flying public blames *them* for uncomfortable planes?
Jun 14, 2018, 3:17 pm
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,565
Ultimately, if I'm in a 30" seat, somebody at the airline had to agree to 30" seats.
If I'm in a 28" seat, I blame no one but myself, because I'm the one who decided the $16 Spirit ticket was a good idea to begin with.
Jun 14, 2018, 4:47 pm
#15
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
The folks designing commercial aircraft are not doing it in a vacuum. They know exactly what the commercial spec's are from potential major customers and design to meet those. That typically means some number of seats at a particular range and payload capacity and other performance metrics.