Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Give them an inch and they take $773 million

notes.unwieldy.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#61

Post by glurgh »

patio11 wrote: post #8
verroq wrote: post #2

>implying the flights stayed 80% full after new seats were added >implying decreased customer satisfaction didn't hurt their revenue >implying their systems didn't need to scale because of increased customers >implying their R&D on smaller legroom didn't cost anything >implying upgrading planes didn't cost anything >implying more customers on planes didn't have an impact on maintenance costs >implying revenue means a…

The prevailing theory among air carriers is that demand for flights is totally exogenous to the industry and allocation of flights between carriers in the industry is, for most customers (e.g. not frequent business travelers, who are price insensitive and care about mileage), dependent pretty much solely on price. Accordingly, minor decreases in comfort which add capacity are pretty much an auto-win. Many people disl…

But that's not, strictly speaking, SWA's theory in entirety. SWA's policies and customer service are typically better than those of many of their larger competitors. You might be inclined to take the budget flight you were promised in exchange for not being nickel-and-dimed or treated like a sack of potatoes. Price is a major driving factor but I don't think Southwest continues to be competitive simply on the basis of price - Shuttle by United was aggressively price competitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_by_United) and still ended up failing, for instance.

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#62

Post by rdl »

tiredofcareer wrote: post #21
patio11 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prevailing theory among air carriers is that demand for flights is totally exogenous to the industry and allocation of flights between carriers in the industry is, for most customers (e.g. not frequent business travelers, who are price insensitive and care about mileage), dependent pretty much solely on price. Accordingly, minor decreases in comfort which add capacity are pretty much an auto-win. Many people disl…

For most customers, maybe, but I suspect there's a pretty sizable portion of the population (myself included) that will happily pay more for an airline that treats me extraordinarily well, considers my comfort while on board, and gives me reasons to shout their name down the street. For example, Virgin America is one of those airlines for me, and I will happily pay a premium to fly one of their tragically few routes…

For domain registration at the $100-200/yr range, just become a Tucows/OpenSRS reseller yourself. You get a lot of power to do things, minimal hassle, etc. I own maybe 200 domains (because I tend to get all variations of the ones I use) and it's totally worth it (and still only $7-8/domain/yr)

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#63

Post by lostlogin »

zackzackzack wrote: post #48
mistercow wrote: post #42

I feel like saying "a single inch" like it's a pittance when we're talking about airplane legroom is a bit silly. Sure, it seems small compared to the other 31 inches, but that's not a fair comparison, because most of those 31 inches are non negotiable. Realistically, we're talking about at least a 5% reduction in leg room, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

You obviously are not above average in terms of height. I'm 6'5" and planes are a nightmare of cramps and bruised knees. A single inch can mean the difference between being able to sleep comfortably on a long flight and staying awake while stiffening up for eight hours.

Ditto. I tried the near OD strategy for an Auckland-Rome series of flights. It turns out that you reach the point where they dont work anymore - at least not easily. At 4x the recommended dose I couldn't sleep that last 6 hours. I seem to max out at about 20ish hours of sleep. I almost got a DVT - swollen leg and very painful. I just avoid flights now.

Edit: premature post.

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#64

Post by lostlogin »

switch007 wrote: post #53
kayoone wrote: post #50

UKs Ryan Air was even proposing ideas of having people stand during flights (yep, its really that ridicolous) and letting people pay to use the lavatories... Not that they would get through with that but still, they are searching for every inch to make more money.

Those crackpot schemes are just designed to get their brand in the Daily Mail and in turn, for people to talk about Ryanair. (their headquarters are in Ireland, not the UK)

Is it Ryan air that gets all its air hostesses to paint their faces with orangeish makeup? I have a recollection of a collection of air hostesses in skin-colour-inappropriate makeup from a trip a few years back.

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#65

Post by lostlogin »

sharkweek wrote: post #32
poink wrote: post #10

Being 6'5, my knees hate these numbers.

at 6'4" I'm sort of just below that range of "get this man an exit row, stat!" my buddy who is 6'8" has it given to him virtually every flight

I'm a bit under 6'5" and bit over 6'4". I know this situation well and have only rarely managed to get an exit seat, and yet have often seem people who are almost half my height in them. The only time we managed to get an exit seat was when my pregnant wife was literally crying from her legs being so sore that they gave them to us.

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#66

Post by bazzargh »

shabble wrote: post #60
chaz wrote: post #25

In 2006, JetBlue removed an entire row of seats: JetBlue estimates a net savings of $30 million over five years by removing six seats from the A320 fleet, as a result of reducing the inflight crewmember team to three, and by reducing the weight of the aircraft by approximately 904 pounds, which will lower the fuel burn. That figure includes lost revenue opportunities as a result of selling six fewer seats per A320 fl…

coming next, Responsive Seating! per-flight configurable seat modules, for exactly the number of people on board, and can be quickly loaded/unloaded to minimise excess weight. Installed seats adjust their clearance automatically based on available space and user's ticket price/options.

... that double as waiting rooms, and you board before the plane is even on the ground.

http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/794...

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#67

Post by Shivetya »

tiredofcareer wrote: post #21
patio11 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prevailing theory among air carriers is that demand for flights is totally exogenous to the industry and allocation of flights between carriers in the industry is, for most customers (e.g. not frequent business travelers, who are price insensitive and care about mileage), dependent pretty much solely on price. Accordingly, minor decreases in comfort which add capacity are pretty much an auto-win. Many people disl…

For most customers, maybe, but I suspect there's a pretty sizable portion of the population (myself included) that will happily pay more for an airline that treats me extraordinarily well, considers my comfort while on board, and gives me reasons to shout their name down the street. For example, Virgin America is one of those airlines for me, and I will happily pay a premium to fly one of their tragically few routes…

that is what business and first class are for. You want to be treated well you pay up. Really the rest are just baggage for the most part.

At least airline travel hasn't turned into bus travel lets of atrocity and indignities.

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#68

Post by michaelt »

tiredofcareer wrote: post #21
patio11 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prevailing theory among air carriers is that demand for flights is totally exogenous to the industry and allocation of flights between carriers in the industry is, for most customers (e.g. not frequent business travelers, who are price insensitive and care about mileage), dependent pretty much solely on price. Accordingly, minor decreases in comfort which add capacity are pretty much an auto-win. Many people disl…

For most customers, maybe, but I suspect there's a pretty sizable portion of the population (myself included) that will happily pay more for an airline that treats me extraordinarily well, considers my comfort while on board, and gives me reasons to shout their name down the street. For example, Virgin America is one of those airlines for me, and I will happily pay a premium to fly one of their tragically few routes…

  For most customers, maybe, but I suspect there's a pretty 
  sizable portion of the population (myself included) that 
  will happily pay more for an airline that treats me 
  extraordinarily well, considers my comfort while on board, 
  and gives me reasons to shout their name down the street.
I'm not an air travel expert, but as I understand it many airlines offer seats in classes such as 'economy', 'business class' and 'first class' with differing prices and comfort levels. Isn't there both demand and supply for higher comfort levels at higher prices?

When you fly, do you pay a premium for business class or first class accommodation?

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#69

Post by josefresco »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #47
jdoliner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key question then is why it was that 4.8 more seats were filled on average per flight. If we had data the showed that the distribution of plane occupancy were the same year over year save for a few occasions where last year the plane had been at capacity but this year those extra 6 seats had been put to use then the conclusion could be valid. However with the data I've seen so far it seems spurious to con…

Assume the pricing for seats is as follows: $100 for first 50% of capacity $120 for next 20% $170 for next 20% $300 for next 5% $600 for final 5% What is the revenue impact of expanding capacity? The solution is not obvious, but the author's approximation is more accuare than you suggest. You obviously can't solve this without a stochastic ticket demand model, but 4.8 is much closer to the right answer than 0.

Also if the airline wants to maintain an 80% capacity, having an extra x% of seats means they add to revenue if they can maintain that occupancy percentage. In this case we don't even need to factor in 100% occupancy, which if anything would help the numbers as I'm sure last seats on a fully booked flight aren't cheap.

Re: Give them an inch and they take $773 million

#70

Post by sjmulder »

zackzackzack wrote: post #48
mistercow wrote: post #42

I feel like saying "a single inch" like it's a pittance when we're talking about airplane legroom is a bit silly. Sure, it seems small compared to the other 31 inches, but that's not a fair comparison, because most of those 31 inches are non negotiable. Realistically, we're talking about at least a 5% reduction in leg room, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

You obviously are not above average in terms of height. I'm 6'5" and planes are a nightmare of cramps and bruised knees. A single inch can mean the difference between being able to sleep comfortably on a long flight and staying awake while stiffening up for eight hours.

It’s bad enough on buses and trains already (although newer Dutch Railways trains are great), but with flying I now have to make sure beforehand that I will physically fit. It’s not a matter of comfort for me, and it’s not like one can go to the gym and lose some height.
Post reply on HN