4 ms·

I would really like to see a study of the economics of the smaller legroom. My napkin math tells me if you remove two rows of seats from an all-economy 737, ev

by laydn 9y ago

I would really like to see a study of the economics of the smaller legroom. My napkin math tells me if you remove two rows of seats from an all-economy 737, every remaining seat would get an extra 2.5-3 inches of legroom, which is significant. I wonder how much revenue would this change cost to a major airline.

tacostakohashi 9y ago
Seems easy enough to work out with further napkin maths - such planes usually have 24 rows or so, so 2 rows is almost 10% of the capacity / revenue lost (or, at least, you'd need to be getting 10% more for your remaining seats to break even). Or, in absolute terms - 2 rows = 12 seats, so if you imagine $100 fares, with a few flights per day, you could easily be looking at 5 or 10 thousand dollars a plane per day.
- laydn 9y ago
  Well, that assumes all planes are always 100% utilized, which is probably not the case.
  - tacostakohashi 9y ago
    Sure, but it's the main case worth thinking about, because from the airline's perspective, when the plane is 100% utilized the fares are highest so that's when the extra 2 rows make the biggest difference. From the customer's perspective, nobody cares about small seats if the seat next to you is empty anyway.
    - ebalit 9y ago
      It might be possible to adapt the layout based on utilization. Fold the first rows and move every rows forward a bit. Doing this while minimizing the weight and complying with regulations is seems challenging though.
  - pgrote 9y ago
    It appears 80% and above is the norm. http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/SeatUtilizationByCarrierQuery#SUBMIT http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/SeatUtilizationByCarrierQue...
chiefalchemist 9y ago
2 rows is how many seats? What are the ~total number of seats? If the price were X, how much would the price have to increase if 2 rows we're removed? p.s. less passengers also means less fuel, less employees (to some extent), etc. That said, the number of flights, especially on certain routes, has to be limited. At that point the only way up and out is to maximize bodies on the plane. Ya can't add more flights.

by laydn 9y ago

tacostakohashi 9y ago

Seems easy enough to work out with further napkin maths - such planes usually have 24 rows or so, so 2 rows is almost 10% of the capacity / revenue lost (or, at least, you'd need to be getting 10% more for your remaining seats to break even). Or, in absolute terms - 2 rows = 12 seats, so if you imagine $100 fares, with a few flights per day, you could easily be looking at 5 or 10 thousand dollars a plane per day.

laydn 9y ago
Well, that assumes all planes are always 100% utilized, which is probably not the case.
- tacostakohashi 9y ago
  Sure, but it's the main case worth thinking about, because from the airline's perspective, when the plane is 100% utilized the fares are highest so that's when the extra 2 rows make the biggest difference. From the customer's perspective, nobody cares about small seats if the seat next to you is empty anyway.
  - ebalit 9y ago
    It might be possible to adapt the layout based on utilization. Fold the first rows and move every rows forward a bit. Doing this while minimizing the weight and complying with regulations is seems challenging though.
- pgrote 9y ago
  It appears 80% and above is the norm. http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/SeatUtilizationByCarrierQuery#SUBMIT http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/SeatUtilizationByCarrierQue...

chiefalchemist 9y ago

2 rows is how many seats? What are the ~total number of seats? If the price were X, how much would the price have to increase if 2 rows we're removed? p.s. less passengers also means less fuel, less employees (to some extent), etc. That said, the number of flights, especially on certain routes, has to be limited. At that point the only way up and out is to maximize bodies on the plane. Ya can't add more flights.