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).

I agree with nerd but the this thread is discussing the pax density in each cabin, not where UA can or can't place seats

Cheers

I definitely do think it increases pax density in E- or E. Whatever you want to call it. I've been on 777 flights where as mentioned, E+ was a third full. When going to the bathroom, you couldn't find an empty seat in E-.

If they chose any other airline, they'd be sitting in waht would be a United E- seat anyways. Yes, you could argue that if the whole coach section was E-, the pax would be more spread out, but rarely do I see flights where the pax density from E- to E+ varies much. I think it may have been more of an anomoly on your particular flight.

Passenger density is doubly increased in E-.....there are more pax/sq ft and the average intellegence is less. :p :D [ducks]

Well E+ works UA hooked me with those seats... I quickly went to 1K... and now 4 more in our office did the same...
It does help that AC's plans are falling apart ;)

That's where you lost me, right there. I haven't flown on a UA plane less than 80% full in three years.

I don't think UA's business model should be built on the 4 or 5 flights a week that might possibly go out at 60% capacity.

I was founding the example on the OPs statements. I rarely fly UA.

I fly on a lot of E170s from IND-ORD and the E- is usually always full and the E+ is about half filled. I have heard some ppl in E- complain to the flight attendants about why they can't move up. Usually some pax get moved up from E- to 1st or E+ because of baggage space or weight and balance.

On a domestic flight it's a rarety to find more than a handful of empty middle seats. But, if there are to be empty middle seats, they should be in E+. I firmly believe that unless you're an elite or pay for E+, you should not get a seat there unless every single seat in E- is filled up, and filled up first.

Yes, it often increases pax density in E-.

Yes, it therefore slightly devalues the E- product.

Yes, it is a good idea.

Unfortunately, the reality is that regular economy cabins of any airlines are expected to be packed like sardines. This is why premium cabins are offered for those willing to pay for a more comfortable experience.

E+ seats are provided as a perk, an added benefit for UA's best and frequent customers.

A lot of this assumes that non-elites don't get to sit in E+. On most flights I'm on, plenty of non-elites sit in E+. They don't get to pre-reserve it but the gate agent moves people around as he/she sees fit.

On SAS this has become an issue without offering more pitch for premium passengers intra-europe where the difference is food and drink. A typical MD-80 will have 4 rows of business and rows 5-14 as Economy Extra. On a recent flight there were 5-6 of us in 9 rows of Eco Extra while regular economy was quite full with only a handful of empty seats. But when regular economy fills up the eco extra cabin gets compressed to only a few rows. The extreme is one single empty row that I observed on BUD-CPH, which is presumably mostly a leisure route.

I suppose it it reasonable that the premium passengers get the extra space. However, on SAS elite status will not get you into the Eco Extra zone. Only a full fare ticket. You can in theory pay $600-$700 for ARN-LHR and still not get into the Eco Extra zone. The practice of denying water and guaranteeing sardine seating for pax who pay decent money is what is infurating.

UA's model is a bit more reasonable even though M fares can be quite expensive in some markets. In the winter season you can get M fares in the $600 range for IAD-LHR, which is not unreasonable.

What you say is correct, that is that "E+ seats are provided as a perk, an added benefit for UA's best and frequent customers." What you neglect to say, however, is that E+ seats are available not just to "UA's best and frequent customers" but also to those who while they may not be want to fork over the substantial premium to sit in first or business are willing to pay the supplement to promote from E- to E+. It's not so much elitism as economics.

True. My focus certainly ignored the latest UA moves in terms of opening up the availability of these seats to wider types of passengers attempting to increase revenues from these seats.

However, elitism, I believe is one of the most important components of UA's economics.

Correct me if I'm wrong someone, but E+ is also available to non-elite pax when E- is oversold, right? That is, non-status pax fill up the back of the bus first, then move into E+, whereas for elites its the opposite (fill E+ first, then shunt the rest into E- or op-up into F/C).

Personally, if I had non status and walked past an empty E+ on the way to seat 89Q, I'd sure want to know how to get me some status... :eek:

This thread is completely absurd. Should UA give away F and C seats to General Members too? You know, so they're not devalued.

Next. :rolleyes:

real E- is 10 across (3-4-3) on a 777....(emirates and maybe others). But they do get a few points back for great IFE. UA 747 non E+ is pretty low on the E scale.

It does irk me that the person who is the least status and the least responsible can walk up to the counter at the last minute and get assigned an E+ seat because E- is full, while other people pay for it in advance or earn it through status. I would hope that UA is assigning E- seats to any non-status passengers in advance, and when E- is full starts raising the fares.

Speaking of absurd, show us where anyone is implying anything of the sort. :)

How?

I wouldn't mind... ;)

heh?

There is nothing absurd in this thread, it only seems to be discussing facts, with some opinion thrown in for fun, of course :)

Cheers

Actually, real E- is 9 across (3-3-3) EK and 1 or 2 other airlines use the 3x4x3 but this is very uncommon. The majority of airlines use a 9 across layout:

AA
UA
BA
KL
PK
SQ

etc etc

I LOVE the word "irk" don't know why :)

This is the same concept as an opup. When Y is full, people are put in C even though they didn't pay for it.

Cheers

Whoa. Thanks for all the replies and discussion (and carry on ;))

Just a clarification though : I am not advocating that E+ be scrapped (wink wink to some defensive elites here ;)). What I am trying to suggest is that the existence of E+increases pax density in the E- section, thus reducing the comfort (and hence value) of the people sitting there.

Now one can argue whether or not that's good economics for United. I for one think it is. But consider a "regular" flyer who sits in E- in United and then sits in regular E in AA (say), and finds that UA E- is always more cramped and packed than AA, would she then decides to fly AA more often since she does not feels "discriminated" against there?