11–20 of 112 posts
>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…
Not quite. The extra seats only provide additional revenue when the flights would have otherwise been full. From the article, the average flight is only 80% full, which means those six extra seats aren't providing any additional revenue. To determine the actual revenue increase from those six extra seats, we would have to know how frequently flights have less than 6 empty seats.
I took this into account in my calculation and assumed roughly 4.8 more seats were filled on average per flight, not a full 6.
>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…
Why stop at 1" and not take all 31? Unlimited money.
If flights are at 80% capacity adding 6 extra seats just means an extra 6 empty seats on every flight. The $733 million number is meaningless - what is actually needed is to know how many post-reconfiguration flights had 5 or fewer free seats, since that is the only situation in which the extra capacity is being used.
If flights are at 80% capacity adding 6 extra seats just means an extra 6 empty seats on every flight. The $733 million number is meaningless - what is actually needed is to know how many post-reconfiguration flights had 5 or fewer free seats, since that is the only situation in which the extra capacity is being used.
Although I enjoy my legroom, it was hell trying to get my sister home.
Not quite. The extra seats only provide additional revenue when the flights would have otherwise been full. From the article, the average flight is only 80% full, which means those six extra seats aren't providing any additional revenue. To determine the actual revenue increase from those six extra seats, we would have to know how frequently flights have less than 6 empty seats.
>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…
[deleted]
Airlines occasionally obscure this with regards to their public pricing rationales for extra luggage, but that is almost solely an ops/revenue-maximization problem for the airline rather than being sincerely a proportional response to the additional marginal cost of putting another bag in the air.
If flights are at 80% capacity adding 6 extra seats just means an extra 6 empty seats on every flight. The $733 million number is meaningless - what is actually needed is to know how many post-reconfiguration flights had 5 or fewer free seats, since that is the only situation in which the extra capacity is being used.
You're not taking into account overbooking and cancellations--having n+6 seats to sell makes it easier to get n butts in seats.