WN Widens 737 Y Seats for More Comfort - Will UA Follow?
Oct 9, 2015, 6:44 am
#61
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SEA
Programs: UA SP, DL SM MM, AS 75K, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Diamond.
Posts: 2,596
I've flown slimlines for a long time, technically VX has them, and so does LH, BA, LX and many others, I've never found the others as horrible as UA's slimlines, I don't know what they did to make them so awful.
I was glancing at Norwegian recently, the much berated lost cost carrier, and notice even they offer a 31-32" pitch on the 787. For the past 5 years, United has benchmarked the cheapest, least liked airlines, on all but fare.
I was glancing at Norwegian recently, the much berated lost cost carrier, and notice even they offer a 31-32" pitch on the 787. For the past 5 years, United has benchmarked the cheapest, least liked airlines, on all but fare.
Last edited by transportbiz; Oct 9, 2015 at 8:07 am
Oct 9, 2015, 7:28 am
#62
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 94
The cabin is only so wide, so whether it's WN claiming to keep wide seats on the 739 or BA claiming to widen seats on 787, they're just reshuffling deck chairs. The cabins didn't magically become wider.
As for the 31" vs. 32" issue, for any flyer displaying some levels of loyalty, they're entitled to free/early-access to 34-35" Y+, and for flyers displaying very high levels of loyalty, potentially free upgrades to 38" F as well. To me, the 31 vs. 32 debate is just a kettle issue.
All that being said, I agree the 319/320 slimlines are horrendous (hope they have plans to rectify that poor decision), but the E75 / 739 slimlines are quite acceptable. I recently flew on DL 738 using regular padded seats and they were no better than UA 739.
As for the 31" vs. 32" issue, for any flyer displaying some levels of loyalty, they're entitled to free/early-access to 34-35" Y+, and for flyers displaying very high levels of loyalty, potentially free upgrades to 38" F as well. To me, the 31 vs. 32 debate is just a kettle issue.
All that being said, I agree the 319/320 slimlines are horrendous (hope they have plans to rectify that poor decision), but the E75 / 739 slimlines are quite acceptable. I recently flew on DL 738 using regular padded seats and they were no better than UA 739.
Oct 9, 2015, 8:04 am
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
UA has the same issue that all the legacies have, pretty well worldwide, with competing with LCCs. They have a bloated cost structure so the only way they can lower costs is to degrade the customer experience. Eventually it's degraded to such an extent that it's no better than, or even worse than, the LCCs...
On apples-to-applies terms UA domestic Y is clearly worse than VX, B6, and DL, and arguably worse (on a soft-factor metric) than AS and AA. The sole product I absolutely will never book again on the whole domestic landscape is UA's A320 economy slimline seat.
The magic factor normally used to get people to buy a worse flight at a higher fare is typically the FFP / loyalty inducements. But those are much diluted now with predictable dispersal of customers to competitors. Team Smisek did not understand, or did not care to hear, how much a good FFP kept customers sticking around a bad airline.
Oct 9, 2015, 8:09 am
#65
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Let's be honest, we are all here trying to figure out how to get more for ourselves. I don't think anyone honestly cares about the experience in the last row of Y because we are probably never going to sit there. What matters more is how many Y+ seats there are and how that product compares to other carriers.
Oct 9, 2015, 8:13 am
#66
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Oct 9, 2015, 8:19 am
#67
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 94
Let's be honest, we are all here trying to figure out how to get more for ourselves. I don't think anyone honestly cares about the experience in the last row of Y because we are probably never going to sit there. What matters more is how many Y+ seats there are and how that product compares to other carriers.
UA mostly 42/48/54 seats, very few 18 seats (going away soon)
AA 30 or 48 seats
DL 18 seats
The risk of failing to secure DL C+ due to low seat count far more than outweigh potential benefits like snacks and booze.
Oct 9, 2015, 8:40 am
#69
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
As web-sites start to put information on seat with and pitch into the visable information at purchase these will become a bigger issue. For example, the Delta A320 will say '18" wide with 30-31" pitch seat, power and streaming, and United A320 will say ' 17.7" wide with 30" pitch seat, no power, streaming" Or it will just give a comfort index and give the DL plane a 3 and the UA plane a 2.
UA has the same issue that all the legacies have, pretty well worldwide, with competing with LCCs. They have a bloated cost structure so the only way they can lower costs is to degrade the customer experience. Eventually it's degraded to such an extent that it's no better than, or even worse than, the LCCs in pretty well every respect. Which is fair enough as they compete on price. However, customers' expectations are lower for the LCCs so they come away pleasantly surprised. The story they promulgate is that WN is just fine, which slowly changes to WN is good, unlike UA, which slowly changes to WN is better than UA - all achieved under a lower cost structure.
And all that is fine if UA's principal existence is a) to feed its network - but that's an expensive proposition and only works if the LCCs don't compete across its network - and to satisfy its elites with UCs, priority airport screening and extra legroom etc. - but that's an expensive proposition also.
If I look at BA as a comparator, competing with EZ and FR, they have a similar dynamic. Everyone has decided that EZ is just as good as BA and FR is tolerable. The sandwich BA gives you on shorthaul flights is worth not much. So the shorthaul has become either a feeder for the longhaul, or a place where elites can top up their status and enjoy lounge access. The longhaul is profitable but principally because of North America and the (to some extent perceived) weakness of UA, AA and DL. Take that away and BA is in big trouble and its shorthaul network will become untenable.
I see UA (and AA) being in much the same position - their product is expected to be better but it really isn't in any meaningful way and in some cases is worse. Their costs are way too high and they have to ask themselves what is their raison d'etre.
And all that is fine if UA's principal existence is a) to feed its network - but that's an expensive proposition and only works if the LCCs don't compete across its network - and to satisfy its elites with UCs, priority airport screening and extra legroom etc. - but that's an expensive proposition also.
If I look at BA as a comparator, competing with EZ and FR, they have a similar dynamic. Everyone has decided that EZ is just as good as BA and FR is tolerable. The sandwich BA gives you on shorthaul flights is worth not much. So the shorthaul has become either a feeder for the longhaul, or a place where elites can top up their status and enjoy lounge access. The longhaul is profitable but principally because of North America and the (to some extent perceived) weakness of UA, AA and DL. Take that away and BA is in big trouble and its shorthaul network will become untenable.
I see UA (and AA) being in much the same position - their product is expected to be better but it really isn't in any meaningful way and in some cases is worse. Their costs are way too high and they have to ask themselves what is their raison d'etre.
The cabin is only so wide, so whether it's WN claiming to keep wide seats on the 739 or BA claiming to widen seats on 787, they're just reshuffling deck chairs. The cabins didn't magically become wider.
As for the 31" vs. 32" issue, for any flyer displaying some levels of loyalty, they're entitled to free/early-access to 34-35" Y+, and for flyers displaying very high levels of loyalty, potentially free upgrades to 38" F as well. To me, the 31 vs. 32 debate is just a kettle issue.
All that being said, I agree the 319/320 slimlines are horrendous (hope they have plans to rectify that poor decision), but the E75 / 739 slimlines are quite acceptable. I recently flew on DL 738 using regular padded seats and they were no better than UA 739.
As for the 31" vs. 32" issue, for any flyer displaying some levels of loyalty, they're entitled to free/early-access to 34-35" Y+, and for flyers displaying very high levels of loyalty, potentially free upgrades to 38" F as well. To me, the 31 vs. 32 debate is just a kettle issue.
All that being said, I agree the 319/320 slimlines are horrendous (hope they have plans to rectify that poor decision), but the E75 / 739 slimlines are quite acceptable. I recently flew on DL 738 using regular padded seats and they were no better than UA 739.
I do agree there is only so much you can do with a 737 given its cabin width, or in 9 across on the 7-narrow-7. Airbus has worked to actively avoid via design airlines going with more narrow seats, Boeing has welcomed it. At some point customers - as I already do - will see Airbus aircraft as more comfortable, and will look for those planes. When this happens Boeing is in real trouble. They sold their soul to a downward spiral and will pay for it as businesses that do this eventually do.
Oct 9, 2015, 8:53 am
#70
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 94
Airbus has worked to actively avoid via design airlines going with more narrow seats, Boeing has welcomed it. At some point customers - as I already do - will see Airbus aircraft as more comfortable, and will look for those planes. When this happens Boeing is in real trouble. They sold their soul to a downward spiral and will pay for it as businesses that do this eventually do.
The poor sales of 739max compared to 321neo is largely due to the frame's performance and very little due to seat/cabin width.
The Airbus goal, while noble, isn't paying the bills. So far, there's no indication that Boeing is "pay[ing] for it".
Oct 9, 2015, 8:59 am
#71
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: 52,575
To me, legroom trumps everything else, so I do happen to like WN over any legacy where my status doesn't get me an E+ type of seat. If it's .8" wider, I sure haven't noticed it. It's not exactly a *comfortable* seat: it's just comforting to know that it's not a 30" seat!
Oct 9, 2015, 9:06 am
#72
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1k, SPG Plat 100
Posts: 619
I have zero evidence to support this, but I would be inclined to believe:
1) The binding constraint on aisle width is the size of a person and evac time, not cart width.
2) The few tenths of an inch difference in width among narrowbody seats is pretty negligible. I'd take the extra 2 inches of pitch any day.
Most customers have no idea what plane they're on when they're booking, once they've boarded, or once they find their seat uncomfortable. Once they do, they're quite a bit more likely to blame the airline than Boeing. Also, the difference between 737 and 320 width is only 17cm (6.7in, roughly the length of a dollar bill).
1) The binding constraint on aisle width is the size of a person and evac time, not cart width.
2) The few tenths of an inch difference in width among narrowbody seats is pretty negligible. I'd take the extra 2 inches of pitch any day.
Airbus has worked to actively avoid via design airlines going with more narrow seats, Boeing has welcomed it. At some point customers - as I already do - will see Airbus aircraft as more comfortable, and will look for those planes. When this happens Boeing is in real trouble. They sold their soul to a downward spiral and will pay for it as businesses that do this eventually do.
Last edited by Boo_Radley; Oct 9, 2015 at 9:16 am
Oct 9, 2015, 9:39 am
#73
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
As web-sites start to put information on seat with and pitch into the visable information at purchase these will become a bigger issue. For example, the Delta A320 will say '18" wide with 30-31" pitch seat, power and streaming, and United A320 will say ' 17.7" wide with 30" pitch seat, no power, streaming" Or it will just give a comfort index and give the DL plane a 3 and the UA plane a 2.
The main provider of that data today does offer a total score as well as component details such as power, pitch, width, wifi & IFE type. AFAIK none of the OTAs RouteHappy partners with use all of the data available from the company.
Oct 9, 2015, 9:43 am
#74
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
The WN seats are bad, but the new UA seats are the worse. Except for the 757, which still has comfy seats.
I dislike the idea of a slimmer armrest though, all that does is make the person next to me leak into my seat more.. The armrest is a barrier of sorts..
I dislike the idea of a slimmer armrest though, all that does is make the person next to me leak into my seat more.. The armrest is a barrier of sorts..
