char777

SQ doesn't have any 737's. And I'm tired of answering questions. This thread went five pages too long.

TechBoy

Try SQ5601, -02, etc. Perhaps they are codeshares (the SQ site is worse than united.bomb today so I'm using a third party site) but they are definitely flying the route. Lots of narrowbodies. And I wonder what the pitch is in coach?

char777

Those are codeshares. It is well known that SQ flies only 777s, 747s, A340s, and the A380.

As for their pitch, it ranges anywhere from from 32" pitch and 18" width on their older 747s to 34" and 18" pitch on their newer 777s, and 38" pitch and 20" width in Exec Economy on the A340.

ksandness

I think part of the problem is that 15 or so years of steady downgrades in service have taught customers that flying Y is going to be a wretched experience no matter what. Therefore, they are not going to pay a dollar more than they have to for the indignity.

Yet, some are willing to pay for E+, and if I'm flying west from MSP, my inclination will be to fly with Frontier, which requires a stop in DEN (as does UA) but has comfortable seating and seatback TVs (as doesn't UA).

I wonder why no U.S. legacy carrier has true Premium Economy on international flights. UA gives you no choices but E- (pure misery), E+ (misery with extra leg room), C (mediocre by international standards but 7 times as much as the typical E-/E+ fare), and F (almost twice as expensive as C).

I've been pricing flights to Europe for next summer, and I find that in the * Alliance, SAS and BMI have a true Premium Economy for about the price of full Y, as do NH and Air New Zealand across the Pacific, and a couple of non-* Alliance carriers.

A non-moneymaker? The concept appears to be spreading instead of declining internationally. The problem with AA's MRTC was twofold: 1) AA isn't convenient for a lot of travelers. I wanted to support them, but they didn't have convenient routes to my destinations at the time, and 2) Except for the leg room, they were, by all accounts, just another lousy U.S. legacy carrier.

Anyway, I'm seriously looking at taking BMI or SAS to Europe next summer, not UA.

mre5765

No because most customers are inclined to pony up for businesses that by their employees a better computer.

Char777 keeps asking about an intermediate, affordable option between enconomy and C or F.

Let's look at a CO B737, since there's been so much admiration expressed for CO on this forum.
http://www.continental.com/web/en-US...craft/733.aspx

It has 22 * 6 - 2 = 130 coach seats. 31" pitch.

If you take out two rows from E, and row wise, eliminate one seat (i.e. go from 3-3 to 3-2 astride), then you have 97 (5 * 20 - 3 for exit, which would go from 2 - 2 astride to 1 - 1 astride) seats, with 3" more pitch, and 3.44" more width. Comparable to some domestic first class products.

So to get the same amount of revenue (leaving aside wins from less weight), the seat has to sell for 34% more. Similar to the premium of a Mac over a PC.

In a company, the people who get to pick Mac over PC aren't the same ones who get to pick premium economy over economy and that is the problem.

On a TATL/TPAC,/tcon even if my employer would not pay 34% more for that kind of seat, I would pay the premium. I'd book it directly with the airline if I had to, and expense it less the 34% premium. But unfortunately, outside of FT, there aren't many who would do the same. And some corporate travel agencies are inflexible and might refuse to pay out the expense report.

yogi

SIN-KUL has been special treaty based regulated route. SQ and MH shared the route (with JL getting one RT a day) at a set price, in the range of $120 to $160 USD one way for 184 mile flight, so the revenue per passenger mile is pretty good. SQ uses the smallest plane they have (777-200) and MH flys the 737s. Some flights do get sold out at the edges (first/last Mon/Fri), but at least on SQ there are often a lot of empty seats.

Some of that is unwinding now with Air Asia flight 2 RT a day from the LCC terminals at KUL and SIN, and the prices will be allowed to float. For SQ it will still be a good feeder into the rest of their system.

Premium economy at full Y is double or triple the price of low Y fares, and closer to discount business fares. This allows a mid level choice for those who would pay, or those with company travel policies that allow anything that isn't Business or First class tickets. For a transcon that would be in the neighborhood of $1200 RT. Think 25-30 cents per seat mile compared to the 5 cents PSM we used to pay and the 10 cents PSM now for the cheapest fare.

The existing airlines are stuck with the hand they are currently dealt as far fleet makeup, so that indirectly drives the freqency. They are also stuck with the current shopping environment where price is what bubbles you up to the first page on Orbitz and the like. Because those search engines don't allow you to search by level of comfort, it does not pay for the carriers to put money into those areas because they are not able to sell those benefits at the point of sale for those who might make that choice. Also many corporations demand the use of the lowest cost flight, so that also drives business to the carrier with prices $1 lower.

Ever wonder why WN, B6 and YX have "independent" booking sites? It's not just the GDS fees. They get to control the shopping experience and sell fares that are higher than the competition.

mkleiderman

To go back to one of the original ideas - I do suspect that there's greater opportunity for savings in replacing RJs with mainline narrowbodies than in replacing mainline narrowbodies with widebodies. RJs have the highest CASM in the passenger fleet. If you take a city pair with 4-5RT/day with an RJ, and replace it with 2RT/day with a 737/A319 you reduce the number of seats, but allow for the morning and evening flight pairs that most business travelers look for.

Obviously it would require a lot of capital to replace RJs with narrowbodies, so it's not likely to happen soon.

Also, I think the legacies contracts with the regional operators shield them somewhat from the higher CASM of the RJs, but as contracts get renegotiated, or regional operators go bankrupt, those contracts will change.