Look, even if a company does something for cost reasons, but is able to market it as a product improvement, they still at least tell someone, their investors, clients (airlines), the real reason they are doing it. I think we can safely say that all evidence points to Boeing making their plane wider for the reasons they stated. The various other improvements people mention, such as larger windows, could have been done on a narrower frame. If you can't source something, just drop it.
I'll talk about what I choose, thanks. If you elect to be THAT much of a sucker for marketing on the most basic
level, that's your prerogative.
A third party website, that people have to search for using techincal information does not pass any definition of transparency and full information in the market.
I'm going to introduce you to a number, it's very round: "0"
That constitutes the aggregate sum of airlines, OEMs, and regulator bodies who give a flying f#ck as to what the likes of you believes constitutes "the definition of transparency."
The FACT, whether you choose to accept it or not, remains that the information is freely and readily available to anyone who's 1) concerned enough to 2) look for it.
But passengers would be able to compare two numbers provided with the other information. Honestly, why is it even controversial?
It's not, I'm just wondering how you can continue repeating the lie that it's someone unavailable for those who (actually) want it.
without having to know technical information
Which one doesn't. Contrary to your example, they don't need to be familiar with the word "pitch" to search seat spacing.
The market isn't functioning efficiently, it isn't an issue because passengers are denied the opportunity to express any preference around comfort. You've been told that enough times. I'd suggest going and doing some reading on assymetric information then come back.
And, as you've been responded to enough times, that's a fallacy that only exists in your imagination.
In any case, the market has identified it as an issue no? that's why boeing is making it's seats wider.
When did Boeing start making seats? (See how ridiculous it sounds when someone takes something out of its OBVIOUS context? Learn from it.)
Perhaps we finally hit the turning point. After years of everyone saying 'the market would do something if it mattered', now the market does something and people come up with all sorts of excuses for why it doesn't count.
Easy: because it's no example of a market correction.
Passengers radically shifting their travel patterns to airlines with 9abreast (and yes, they can figure it out). THAT would be an example.
Airlines radically shifting their buying patterns to aircraft that don't realistically offer a configuration option (yeah, right). THAt would be an example.
A modification, that serves multiple purposes, in an aircraft that's not going to even debut for another half-decade? Hardly.
So are we witnessing a product downgrade without a discount to compensate? Well, yeah.
You say that as if pax somehow have a right to such compensation. They don't.
The right that basic Y pax have is to a right to a seat + aisle that meets evacuation standards. That's it.
They don't owe you anything if parameters are changed, but still meet those criteria.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil