3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWell, that assumes all planes are always 100% utilized, which is probably not the case.
- tacostakohashi 9y agoSure, 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 agoIt 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 agoIt appears 80% and above is the norm. http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/SeatUtilizationByCarrierQuery#SUBMIT http://aviationdb.net/aviationdb/SeatUtilizationByCarrierQue...