[-] Realistic seat selections

[DanDan]

Ever tried to pamper your passengers by giving them really nice premium or luxury seating? Well... me too!
... and it works quite ok, if you are flying longhaul, you install some nice premium business-class seats, and maybe even the luxury first-class-suite on those select flights!

But ever wanted to have your economy passengers fly a bit better and not feel the knees of the guy behind in ones back? It just ruins all economic considerations!


So lets take a closer look at seats: there is HD, Standard, Prem and Lux.

Taking as an example the Airbus A320:
with HD seating one fits up to 180 passengers. Considering the increments, its 6-abreast seating with 30 rows.
That sounds alright, that translates into regular 30in seat pitch... one can call it "high density", but actually the same what is offered by the european "legacy-carriers" offer, and much more than the regular "low-cost" seat of 28 or 29in (makes another or even two rows of 6 seats on an A320).

Now if we raise that quality to "Standard" Economy, we have a maximum seating of 156 passengers. Translating into 6 abreast / 26 rows.
In regards of seat, that is a rather comfortable 34 inch pitch. Sounds like not much difference, but thats actually more, than some airlines (KLM etc) offer on "premium economy" on european flights.

If we raise it an increment further, we get to "Premium":
The capacity of the A320 goes down to 115 seats, at 5 abreast / 23 rows.
Now, i dont know any airline that offers 5 abreast seating on an A320. but considering the amount of rows, it would translate into a 39in pitch!

Going further to "Luxury Eco Seating":
The capacity is at 48 / 3 abreast. 16 rows, 3 abreast. A pitch of 56 inches is not all that impressive (for first class). But the double seat width compared to HD/Standard seating is more than is offered on most narrowbody first/business offers (usually 4 abreast).

Similar values are found on most planes.
A "Standard"-seat takes 16% more space than a HD seat. A Premium seat already takes 60% more space than the HD, and the Lux takes 3.6 times as much space as an HD-seat.

My request:
Make realistic seats for the travel classes! For example:

For Economy,
a 28in HD,
a 30in Std,
a 32in Premium and
a 35in Luxury seat would be alright.

So instead of 180/156/115/48, on the A320 it would be 186/180/172/150, all in 6 abreast.
For a B763 it could be 8 abreast in HD, and 7 in the other levels. Similarly for the 777/787/330, there could be one extra seat abreast for HD seating per row.

Likewise, for business-class, one could offer similarly
a 32in seat (like in most european service, 6 abreast);
a "Std" similar to the recliners in "first" on american legacy carriers with 36 inch pitch (4 abreats on a 737/A320),
a 170° reclining seat, 58 in pitch, like common in older european business class aircraft (7 abreast in a 777)
a 6'5'' full flat bed (5 or 6 abreast in a 777)

And for first-class, similarly:
the last three of the business class
+ a luxury suite.

The whole idea of this is, that there is actually some selection in seating, since the seats available are oftentimes not justifiable and unrealistic. So in practice, one could just altogether remove the last two seat groups in eco and hardly anyone would even notice it, i think. Changing the seat-types would make for more realistic and more possible selections and options.

Before people start discussing "but there is Premium Economy!":
There is no premium economy. There is economy, there is business, and there is first. Companies didnt let their employees travel first anymore, so business became bigger and better, substituting the first on many airlines (and i am not talking about american "first"). The gap between business and eco grew wider, so the airlines made "premium economy", which is actually the new business class, and business is the new first.

[wilian.souza2]

I agree with that - I'd also like to have these improvements:

- Seat quality have more influence on competition;
- Downgrade demands of a certain passenger class inferior to 10 to the class immediately below it (No more routes with 2 1st class passengers or 3 business passengers) - just like it happens with cargo.

[gazzz0x2z]

- Seat quality have more influence on competition;

and on price tolerance. With a proper CI, you can milk standard seated pax to insane levels(when there is no competition, of course), and with premium, not much more.

- Downgrade demands of a certain passenger class inferior to 10 to the class immediately below it (No more routes with 2 1st class passengers or 3 business passengers) - just like it happens with cargo.

Interesting variant. The usual request is to allow lower class pax to fly in the best seats if those are free.

That being said, 3 business passengers is perfect for a CRJ. Just one row.

[Tha_Ape]

- Downgrade demands of a certain passenger class inferior to 10 to the class immediately below it

That being said, 3 business passengers is perfect for a CRJ. Just one row.

Perfect also for the F100, 737, E-Jets and plenty other birds.
Indeed, from Russia that proposal would force me to give up C seats on 80% of my routes. I don't agree with that idea: things are quite harsh already in such a context (really long routes, the bulk being between 1000 and 2000nm), so taking off that little extra money would be just one more killer.
(already, with the ticket price decrease in countries without much cargo...)

[DanDan]

- Downgrade demands of a certain passenger class inferior to 10 to the class immediately below it (No more routes with 2 1st class passengers or 3 business passengers) - just like it happens with cargo.

the idea of the "downgrade" is following: below that weight, an item is not really heavy cargo anymore (so a piece of heavy cargo is at least X kg, same system for standard cargo). in case of passengers thats not the case: 1 passenger is always a whole thing. so the limit for business and first is 1, since thats the  minimum quantity that can be delivered to count as a passenger. in my opinion its the same logic applied.

[Tha_Ape]

the idea of the "downgrade" is following: below that weight, an item is not really heavy cargo anymore (so a piece of heavy cargo is at least X kg, same system for standard cargo). in case of passengers thats not the case: 1 passenger is always a whole thing. so the limit for business and first is 1, since thats the  minimum quantity that can be delivered to count as a passenger. in my opinion its the same logic applied.

Oh, in your Banana Republic you don't cut people into pieces to take advantage of the whole room offered by newer models?

[DanDan]

Oh, in your Banana Republic you don't cut people into pieces to take advantage of the whole room offered by newer models?

no! thats pure lies! everyone knows we use the cargo area for transporting illegal substances instead!  but as an information to our shareholders: if we could transport 0.3 first class passengers, we certainly would! 

[wilian.souza2]

That being said, 3 business passengers is perfect for a CRJ. Just one row.

Perfect also for the F100, 737, E-Jets and plenty other birds.
Indeed, from Russia that proposal would force me to give up C seats on 80% of my routes.

But when there's too few business and 1st class passengers in most of the routes, there is no point in paying $ 1M + (modern times) in seat config per aircraft just to pick up those 1 - 2 business passengers or 1 1st class that come sporadically. 1 business ticket is worth 2.5 - 3x an economy ticket and 1st class is worth 4x (?) an economy ticket, I know. But the return on investment is so long that it's best to have 2-3 more economy seats available on the aircraft.  If you can constantly fill 2 rows of business seats on a route, that's another story...

[DanDan]

But when there's too few business and 1st class passengers in most of the routes, there is no point in paying $ 1M + (modern times) in seat config per aircraft just to pick up those 1 - 2 business passengers or 1 1st class that come sporadically. 1 business ticket is worth 2.5 - 3x an economy ticket and 1st class is worth 4x (?) an economy ticket, I know. But the return on investment is so long that it's best to have 2-3 more economy seats available on the aircraft.  If you can constantly fill 2 rows of business seats on a route, that's another story...

try to configure the aircraft before delivery to you... makes things A LOT cheaper.

[gazzz0x2z]

Even a reconfig has a far better RoI than it seems. At least if your economy seats are not all sold. In this case, buisness seats are additional sales, not replacement sales. Free money, besides the seats. And, megabonus, you can milk them even more than economy seats. I'm tightly micromanaging all my prices, route by route, especially early in the game, and I did some maths.

In previous GW3, I played in CDG. After 4 months, when opposition began to put pressure on me, I began to convert my 737s with 2 rows of buisness seats. Depending on the route, RoI was 6 to 14 weeks. That is, with full reconfig price. But the better is not there. The better is that opposition did not follow me there. So I could milk those routes at insane excess. In this very strategic timing of the game, the mere overpricing of business seats was 25% of my pretax profit. I don't speak about the overall business seats. Just overpricing them. Was. One quarter. Of. My. f***ing. Profit. For 12 months, from the 6th to the 18th of the game.

Which fueled my growth, and I ended up strangulating all starting opposition, without ever having one single price below standard. Just by existing and covering every possible route. Yeah, a 400k$ reconfig can be repaid quickly. At 30 seats per day, 400$ per seat. Do the maths. It's not as impressive with a single row in a CRJ(10 to 12 seats maximum per day, shorter routes are usually business-deprived), but the cost is lower either.

Overall profit goes downwards as the game advances, overall profit on business seats as well, but it actually makes them even more important. When tough times strike, when the most profitable company at the airport is at 3% margin, each point of margin is important to survive the battle. That's where accurate seating and pricing can be life savers. That's why I don't use 7-7 schedules early in the game, I find micromanaging each route more rewarding than an optimized plane use. Later in the game, with the OOB limit, it's less important, and optimizing plane use becomes more important than sheer profit per pax. Which is why later in the game, I make mostly 7-7 schedules. But not early.

[DanDan]

Even a reconfig has a far better RoI than it seems.

Oh, certainly! If I plan to keep a plane, I reconfigure it to my demands. I just meant to share that it is even cheaper to reconfigure a plane before it is delivered by the manufacturer.