Are E+ seats devaluing E- customers' value?
 

So, I was traveling on UA, JFK-NRT-SIN, last month. The outgoing flight was a bit empty (since it was smacked on the Lunar new year, so presumably most East Asians usually present on these routes were at home instead of flying). As an elite, I was seated in the E+ section of the 777, and it was less than quarter filled. Indeed, I got the entire 5 seater in the middle to myself (which was all the better since at that time I was nursing a bad cold and needed to lie down). However, I noted that the E- section was pretty jam packed like sardines.

On the return flight, the E+ section was about 3 quarters filled, but again the E- section was packed with almost no free seats left.

So I was thinking that since having E+ actually reduces the number of "regular" E- seats, this increase the pax density in the non-elite section, and thus "devaluing" (ok, UA didn't promise you low density seating) their seats. I mean, if there is no E+ and just regular E all the way, the pax distribution will be more evenly spreaded out.

What do you all think? Are the regular GM getting shafted?

No. There is no E-. There is Economy and Economy Plus. UA's economy has comparable seat pitch to other carriers. Just because others get something extra doesn't mean they are not valued-- it just means that loyal passengers are valued more.

You could make the same argument for F & C classes too. It is just that UA made a decision to offer a premium E+ section to loyal and/or high paying customers. They obviously believe that it increases revenue overall, and I would tend to agree with that.

At the end of the day, do you want to cater to the repeat/high value customer, or the one that flies you because you are cheapest?

Also no. UA would just put in more rows. Remember, they removed rows when putting in E+; they didn't just scruntch all the other rows.

Scruntch? Is that a technical term? :D

You might think of it the other way around - a way to squeeze an additional 26-45 bucks out of an "E-" customer.

Yes-- didn't you get the memo?

Incorrect. ;)

The non-elites are not evenly distributed about the cabin, but scruntched into E- (which is what it's commonly known as here).

So, depending on the percentage of non-elites on the flight, you can certainly have a more uneven pax distribution with E+.

Ok-- I totally missed the key point of the OP's post. :rolleyes: to me for being dense.

Yes, density would follow boyle's (or whoever's) law.

No problem. We can refer to this special case of <whoever's> law as Ari's law if that helps you remember.

(kidding). :D

No.

There is a class of travellers who want the absolute lowest price possible. They don't care about the seat, the food or lack thereof, or anything else if it adds to the ticket price. UA is catering to these travellers with its standard Y product, which is more or less the same as everyone else's Y.

There is another class of traveller who will pay extra - either in the form of a higher fare and/or in continued patronage. UA is giving these travellers a perk in the form of more leg room in hopes of getting them to come back.

So, no, standard Y is not a devaulation. UA is serving their needs while at the same time, trying to entice a slightly different group of travellers who will pay a little bit more for more space.

It's market segmentation, not devaluation.

The only way I would call it devaluing was if the seat pitch in E was smaller than what other airlines offer.

I kind of agree with the OP. Suppose you were flying route AAA-BBB and both AA and UA fly the route. UA has 10 rows of E+ and 10 rows of E-. AA has 22 rows of E. Both flights are about 60% full.

On the AA flight, most people will get a free seat next to them (which makes the flight 10 times more comfortable - especially on longer flights)

On the UA flight, the Y- cabin will be packed but the Y+ cabin will be empty almost (assuming fewer Elites than non elites - kind of like the OP described.)

So because of the existance of Y+, Y- passengers are getting slightly less comfort. However as previously stated - UA wouldn't do this if it wasn't revenue generating... so more power to them ^

Cheers

Sorry, but everyone is wrong. :p

The #1 reason why UA cannot take the extra space of E+ and spread it across the entire cabin is because of the fixed location of the overwing exits.

AA's now defunct MRTC was essentially an E+ in front of the exit row and another E+ behind the exit row. UA is E+ only in front of the exit row and not behind the exit row.

You can't remove half a row in front of the exit row and another half a row behind it. Rows are integral. ;)

I don't remember if the large planes such as a 747 had more than one row removed for E+, but this is certainly the case with the narrowbody planes.

You're certainly correct, JS, but I don't understand how your point is relevant to the original question: whether the existence of E+ can increase the pax density in E- (which, in some situations, it can).