zhuyanfei

I think the frequency of United is a probelm already...

SJPaul

34" pitch exists! Its called E+. Its on every plane in the UA fleet.

char777

But haven't you been following this at all? The point is to fly larger planes with more comfortable seats throughout the entire cabin.

mre5765

Most businesses are disinclined to pony up for a better seat.

SJPaul

Have *you* been following the discussion? More comfortable = more space. More space = less total seats. I think most of the people on this thread have been trying to explain that the economics don't support that kind of model.

mre5765

Why do think that? You remind me of a United agent in COS, about 10 years ago, trying to process my DEN/SFO e500s upgrade, and looking very puzzled as to why his attempt to upgrade me from economy to C did not work. His co-worker explains to him that the 777 is only a two class bird, not the 3 class bird that United has been using on DEN/SFO. He'd never heard of it.

United will do whatever it takes to survive.

mre5765

Cite?

The way corporations work is that a manager has a lot of leeway in approving an expense report of an employee that buys a personal computer. If this were not the case, the IBM PC would never have succeeded. At my employer, there are a couple of corporate standards for a laptop, and neither of them are MACs. But nonetheless, many of my co-workers have MACs. But that same manager has little leeway in approving the expense report of an employee that buys plane tickets. Most corporations have a corporate travel agency and a mandate for employees to use it. And the corporate agency is mandated to pick fares that are with X$ of the least cost fare. In some cases, the mandates $0, which is why AA killed MRTC.

The type of people who set travel policy are the type who work in accounting, and often are in the same department.

And as long as travel policy is in the thrall of bean counters, I think you'll find that the illogical inconsistency will persist.

mre5765

No, because the airlines cannot guarantee a single wide body will be full, whereas if the airline flies two narrow bodies, even two that leave within minutes of each other, at the last minute they can cancel one flight, roll the higher status, higher paying pax to the one that is flying, and give the middle finger to any pax that don't fit.

I dunno, why are there no narrow bodies on UA between MEL and SYD?

SQ is dominant airlines in SIN right?

My guess is that most of SQ's routes are long haul, and as has been pointed out, if an airline can fly the wide bodies full with pax paying non-profit-losing fares, then that is a much more fuel efficient way to move passengers. Given that, SQ does not want the hassle of having to deal with narrow bodies (different skills for mechanics, different parts, different pay scales for pilots, etc.) and is somewhat unique among all airlines in having an all wide body fleet. And by flying wide bodies from KUL, that keeps SQ an attractive option for someone with business in KUL, versus flying an airline from nonstop service to KUL to the visitor's origin. So for now at least, anyone competing on SIN/KUL flies wide bodies to compete. I suspect that few people fly KUL to SIN on non-SQ and SQ on SIN to whatever, and vice versa. Similar to UA's SYD/MEL route.

SIN is a much different situation than most other cities, because SIN is the only city in that country. So truly an apples to oranges comparison.

SQ will eventually feel the competition on its short routes from an Asian South West Airlines.

There is one possible model where an all-wide body US domestic airline would work. It would be one that offers point to point service and way it works that is that it flies as many times as possible between two points, and the plane only leaves until the last seat is filled. Unpredictable for pax of course, but given ATC flow control, MX, WX, labor issues, etc. the current situation isn't predictable either. But such an airline would be able to offer cheaper fares than any of the existing 737-based LCCs.

mre5765

You are linking wide bodies with more comfort throughout the cabin. Except for RJs, the linkage between a plane's width and its comfort does not exist. Try flying a full 747 on UA between SYD and the USA, especially in E-. Try flying a full LH wide body between the USA to FRA in E. I'll grant you that relative to its intra-Europe service, LH econonmy is better. But between FRA and PRG I was thankful that the flight was under one hour, and that I had an entire row to myself. I have not been so cramped since before UA rolled out E+.

The only linkage between wide bodies and comfort is that there is a higher probability of finding an empty seat next to you on a wide body than a narrow body. That's why they seem more comfortable.

cepheid

If I have time, I'll look it up, but in the meantime you can just google "Mac versus Windows productivity" - there have been studies.

Regardless, what I meant was that the product being purchased, whether a Mac or a very expensive PC laptop, has a tangible, measurable productivity benefit, whereas E+ seating does not (at least, not yet).

(BTW, it's Mac, not MAC.)

char777

We already decided long before you came in (page 1, see post #14) that if airlines can sell such crammed seats at low prices that consumers are willing to pay, nothing will change.

cepheid

And we already decided long ago that this is exactly what is happening - airlines can sell crammed seats, and it's a better business model for them to do so.

This whole argument is getting into repetition and entirely unrealistic notions. Airlines aren't trying to reduce their flights while maintaining the same passenger load. They are trying to deliberately reduce capacity (i.e. passenger load) so that (a) overserved routes are no longer overserved, and (b) prices can be raised due to lower supply.

It may be cheaper for the airlines to run one large plane instead of 2 or 3 smaller ones. It's even cheaper to just run one smaller one, though, because the reduction in capacity allows a corresponding increase in prices, making the RASM for that smaller plane higher than for the larger plane. The smaller plane may have a higher CASM, but if prices are raised sufficiently high due to the capacity reduction, the increased RASM can and will exceed the extra expense.

Furthermore, airlines don't have the capital to order larger planes for domestic service, which is usually fairly low-yield. It's not as easy as just selling off the smaller planes - the new planes have to be ordered way in advance. Even if they're leased, there needs to be capital up front. Then there's the problem of getting out of the leases on the smaller aircraft, etc.

Bottom line, it's not a feasible tactic in this economy, both because it can't be implemented and because it's actually less profitable to implement it.

zac

I agree, however what this really means is: Most customers are disinclined to pony up for businesses to pony up for a better seat.

Who is willing to pay more for an end product so the producer’s employees can fly F?

Anyone?

<crickets>

char777

Fair enough. So are we done here?

TechBoy

Not true. My search turned up a bunch of 737 on SQ and MH between SIN-KUL.

I think that part of the problem with your discussion here is that you just plain have your facts wrong. Fares will not support larger seating areas. International carriers may have better service, but do not have better pitch or seat width. Widebodies are not more fuel efficient than narrowbodies. I could go on . . .

We all would like better seats and better service. I would also like $100m. I will get neither.