Live data from Hacker News

Give them an inch and they take $773 million

notes.unwieldy.net

71–80 of 112 posts

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

#71
post #59
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.

Honestly, after sitting at my desk all day/week... I actually wouldn't mind standing on my usual 50 minute Southwest flight. Not that the FAA would ever allow it.

Yeah but id bet some elderly/pregnant/ill people would ;)

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

#72
post #51

In addition to the sketchy mathematical foundation, there's another reason to not draw too many conclusions from this observation: your company, product, and customers are probably quite unlike Southwest Airlines. For starters, airline customers care almost exclusively about price. Joel Spolsky was wise to warn against doing what this article suggests ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/11.html ): In one of…

>> For starters, airline customers care almost exclusively about price.

I wish that wasn't the case. I'd gladly pay an extra £20 on an international flight for decent food, and I regularly do pay an extra £50 or so for more room or an exit row seat. I know there's a market of people like me, for whom business class is way to expensive just to make a few hours a bit more pleasant, but who aren't just counting every penny. The airlines seem to have started to cater for us with things like Delta's "Comfort Economy", but it needs to go further.

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

#73

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.

Not if they maintained the same occupancy rates but with a higher total capacity.

80% of 100 is 80 80% of 106 is 84ish

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

#74
post #72
post #51

In addition to the sketchy mathematical foundation, there's another reason to not draw too many conclusions from this observation: your company, product, and customers are probably quite unlike Southwest Airlines. For starters, airline customers care almost exclusively about price. Joel Spolsky was wise to warn against doing what this article suggests ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/11.html ): In one of…

>> For starters, airline customers care almost exclusively about price. I wish that wasn't the case. I'd gladly pay an extra £20 on an international flight for decent food, and I regularly do pay an extra £50 or so for more room or an exit row seat. I know there's a market of people like me, for whom business class is way to expensive just to make a few hours a bit more pleasant, but who aren't just counting every pe…

Presumably it will go exactly as far as the market will bear. (I'll keep my $100, please...)

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

#76
post #60
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.

I can already see the logistics and engineering nightmare of a flight devoid of seats having to bump an entire group of passengers because the next leg doesn't have enough inventory.

Seats are fixed because bolts are easy. Once you get into the whole latches and levers business you compound your points of failure. Ever look under the last row of foldable seats in an SUV? A lot of engineering goes into securing 100kg bags of meat to an object hurtling along the ground at 80km/h. Now imagine having to do the same for a plane traveling 2-3x that.

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

#77
post #51

In addition to the sketchy mathematical foundation, there's another reason to not draw too many conclusions from this observation: your company, product, and customers are probably quite unlike Southwest Airlines. For starters, airline customers care almost exclusively about price. Joel Spolsky was wise to warn against doing what this article suggests ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/09/11.html ): In one of…

> For starters, airline customers care almost exclusively about price

I fly exclusively on United because they have Economy Plus, which lets me buy an additional 3-5" of legroom at a reasonable additional price. Sure, it's more than Southwest or whatever else, but I'm more than happy to give them my dollars for the extra space.

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

#78
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.

The CEO said it in jest because even bad headlines is good advertisement. I don't think anyone of his engineers would have seriously considered implementing it. And that's not even counting the insurance underwriters and CAA who would have shut it down.

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

#79

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.

People don't like booking the last seat on a jam-packed flight. If given the preference, they'll find a flight with some room (this applies in other cases where people decide whether or not to be in a crowd). So I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that Southwest's 80% capacity remained constant before and after the six additional seats were added.

EDIT: Here's a related article where church seating on pews versus individual chairs is discussed - and airplane seats are even mentioned: http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=2380

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

#80

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.

While these numbers will never be perfect, per se, RITA[1] shows that in 2011, Southwest's loadfactor was 80.8% while in 2012, loadfactor was 80.4%. So, the flights remained around 80% full on average. 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. [1] http://www.transtats.bts.gov/carriers.asp?pn=1

The article states that reducing leg room from 32 to 31 inches allowed for one additional seat row. Which means that there were already no less than 32 rows on those planes. Six seats per row give 192 passengers. RITA numbers clearly show that the load factor have never exceeded 90% since 2010. That means that at least 10% of seats were empty, that is, 19 seats. There is no sense of adding another 6 seats just to have them empty. If there were a demand for six seats, the people demanding them would just have occupied those of 19 free ones. Adding another row only makes sense if the plane is full and there's additional demand for seats. We should have looked at the load factor distribution, not only at it's mean value. Most attentively we should have looked at the standard deviation of the load factor around it's mean, but RITA didn't provide such an information.
Post reply on HN