It's more likely they won't, but from all upcoming 787 operators they are the most likely. They are quite invested in their Economy Class comfort, quite apparent from the fact they kept 9-abreast in their 777's after the retrofit. I really doubt it, but it would be great, and would also give them an edge over the competition (ME3 etc.)

They can always intruduce 8-abreast Premium Economy.

No real chance. It will be leaving too much revenue in the table. Why offer something that no-one will pay for and which your competitors already get away with not offering anyway? It would be super awesome but it's highly, highly unlikely...

KarelXWB wrote:

They can always intruduce 8-abreast Premium Economy.

Perhaps as Economy + rather as a full Premium Economy. TK's experiment in 7 abreast Premium Economy on the 777 wasn't successful.

TK has an excellent Y product. The food is really pretty amazing...better than J on some carriers! The service, coupled with the generally good legroom they provide, will go a long way to make the not-so-terrible 9-abreast 787 seem very good! So, no, I don't see it happening - no need to really.

If Singapore aren't going 8 Y on the 787, there's still chance TK will do the same.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

TK's experiment in 7 abreast Premium Economy on the 777 wasn't successful.

Actually, it was *TOO* successful, in a sense.



At 19.5" wide and 48" pitch, they had one of the most generous Premium Economies ever offered....... and what I understand, it was causing their J to suffer as customers booked down, but still wouldn't pay a revenue premium over other W offerings.

The space devoted to W couldn't be justified in the face of lower revenue to the J cabin.

Of course that's conjecture, as the airline's never admitted (or denied) it, but it's a quite common one.

8 abreast Y+ in 789 is not competitive. They will go 7 abreast for sure if they do Y+ at all.

8 abreast in Y is an interesting idea. But I don't see it, sorry. Unless they go one cabin 8 abreast and one cabin light economy at 9.

MoKa777 wrote:

No real chance. It will be leaving too much revenue in the table. Why offer something that no-one will pay for and which your competitors already get away with not offering anyway? It would be super awesome but it's highly, highly unlikely...

I accept that there are plenty of people who want a cheap as possible economy and shop accordingly. That will drive a race to the bottom for regular economy.

I refuse to accept that there is insufficent demand for premium economy. Why? Because I want it and often it's sold out when I try to buy it. Those seats don't go empty. The real reason airlines don't want a nice premium economy: Too many companies would stop paying for business class if premium economy was too nice.

NZ321 wrote:

8 abreast Y+ in 789 is not competitive. They will go 7 abreast for sure if they do Y+ at all.

8 abreast in Y is an interesting idea. But I don't see it, sorry. Unless they go one cabin 8 abreast and one cabin light economy at 9.

Maybe we are talking about different things, but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive. Then go 7 abreast for a PY.

Really don't see it happening to be honest, people are so used to 9-abreast 787's, and aside from the likes of us on a.net I don't think people really notice it and/or care. Even then I'll take a 9-abreast 787 over an 18inch A330, 767, A340 etc anyday - there's too many standout features like the huge windows, cabin height & pressure and overhead bins that genuinely make such a huge difference for me to favor the 787...

JamesCousins wrote:

Really don't see it happening to be honest, people are so used to 9-abreast 787's, and aside from the likes of us on a.net I don't think people really notice it and/or care. Even then I'll take a 9-abreast 787 over an 18inch A330, 767, A340 etc anyday - there's too many standout features like the huge windows, cabin height & pressure and overhead bins that genuinely make such a huge difference for me to favor the 787...

Passengers outside of a.net do notice it, my wife for example was on a EY 789 back in September and first thing she complained about was the seating compared to a previous A332 flight onboard the same airline

But will your wife refuse to fly 9 abreast 787s? No. Because like most people, she is not willing to justify higher ticket prices for higher comfort. Sadly I see flying becoming more and more miserable because of our refusal to spend money. But this is not necessarily a bad thing as it opens up flying to a larger segment of the population. What REALLY bothers me are the people who whine and bitch (Not referring to your wife here just so you know. Also what is the tolerance on swearing here?) non stop about how expensive flying is only to bitch more about how uncomfortable it is. Flying is unpleasant because WE want lower prices. Not because airlines are penny pinching. If most people paid extra money for extra comfort flying would be totally different.

I need to fly to Cyprus in June, and I can't seem to find any 1-stop flight for less than 1700 USD ex-MEX. The worst part is, some of the flights are on 9-abreast 787s with non-refundable fares, no free seat selection and so on. I still remember when you could get from MEX to CDG on L'Espace Affaires for 300-400 USD more (and I still thought it was expensive). There is of course some good penny pinching from the side of the airlines, because most people choose whatever is available at the lowest price, and sometimes the lowest price is not on the worst of the products. Aeromexico consistently charges more than their competition on their packed 9-abreast dreamliners.

I doubt it. The A340s had narrower seats than the rest of the fleet, and some seats on the A330s are 17" wide, while most are 18". I see between 17.3" and 17.5" seat width and 9 abreast (remember, KLM is 10 abreast with 17.5" seat width on its 777s, but that means a very narrow aisle). However, this may where it's time to introduce a J/W/Y+/Y concept that could spread to some of the B77Ws as well (keeping the B77Ws at 9-abreast). The question is: where would TK deploy its B789s...to destinations like LAX and SFO, where the B77W serves only because nothing else has the range?

airzona11 wrote:

but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.

With what, exactly?

qf789 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

Really don't see it happening to be honest, people are so used to 9-abreast 787's, and aside from the likes of us on a.net I don't think people really notice it and/or care. Even then I'll take a 9-abreast 787 over an 18inch A330, 767, A340 etc anyday - there's too many standout features like the huge windows, cabin height & pressure and overhead bins that genuinely make such a huge difference for me to favor the 787...

Passengers outside of a.net do notice it, my wife for example was on a EY 789 back in September and first thing she complained about was the seating compared to a previous A332 flight onboard the same airline

Really? I'm honestly really surprised by that. I recently took a trip on a connecting flight from an A320 to 787, then 737 and 747 a week later and none of my family noticed any difference in terms of seating. Legroom on the 787 was the only noticed thing (VS have removed seat supports below seats giving more legroom etc)

LAX772LR wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.

With what, exactly?

Every other airline that has a 9 abreast Y/Y+? Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against. I am not saying their PY product should be 8. Generally, Y+ is only more leg room, if you got a wider seat (Anet says that is the holy grail) too, seems like a great product.

If people really cared that much, they would pay for 8-across. The space isn't free. Adding 1/8th more passengers adds quite a bit of revenue. If the yield drops less than 10%, advantage to the airline with 9-across. If anything, it will help sell Y+.

Here on a.net we make a HUGE deal of 8 vs. 9 across. But what matters is who pays for the space.

9-across allows undercutting prices on A359s. TK must decide for themselves, but the chance of plain Y being 8-across is epsilon.

airzona11 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.

With what, exactly?

Every other airline that has a 9 abreast Y/Y+? Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against. I am not saying their PY product should be 8. Generally, Y+ is only more leg room, if you got a wider seat (Anet says that is the holy grail) too, seems like a great product.

Plain Y passengers will not pay for the space of 8 across. It seems wise to offer 8 across Y+ (not PY, Y+). Say with 38" pitch. I don't understand premium economy, either sell a discounted J (narrower lie flat such as US airlines), shink the J cabin, but revenue manage to profit.

Lightsaber

airzona11 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

but an 8 abreast Y+ would be very competitive.

With what, exactly?

Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against.

Then lemme help you:
1) Cost
2) Total revenue

As for cost - if you're pulling out seats from a typical config, you're going to raise your CASM. Why would they do that?

As for revenue - again, you're pulling out seats, so you're going to have to demand a market premium in order to make up for the lost revenue of one seat per row; TK was not able to do that with their 777s, and there's nothing magical about a 787 that's going to change that. They'd be setting themselves up for needing a market premium just to break even with other carriers. Why would they do that?

LAX772LR wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

With what, exactly?

Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against.

Then lemme help you:
1) Cost
2) Total revenue

As for cost - if you're pulling out seats from a typical config, you're going to raise your CASM. Why would they do that?

As for revenue - again, you're pulling out seats, so you're going to have to demand a market premium in order to make up for the lost revenue of one seat per row; TK was not able to do that with their 777s, and there's nothing magical about a 787 that's going to change that. They'd be setting themselves up for needing a market premium just to break even with other carriers. Why would they do that?

My post was in reply to someone that said 8 abreast Y+ would not be competitive with other carriers, the poster said they would need 7 abreast. I was showing that 8 abreast Y+ would be market leading from a comfort perspective. You are arguing something that I wasn't. It was about comfort, it would be a better Y+ then what is out there.

I agree with everything you are saying about the financials, how if they offered a differentiated product, they would have to charge a premium.

airzona11 wrote:

would be market leading from a comfort perspective.

Which, when pitted against financials, loses every time.

airzona11 wrote:

I agree with everything you are saying about the financials, how if they offered a differentiated product, they would have to charge a premium.

They can charge a premium all day long. The challenge is getting pax to pay one... which didn't happen.

airzona11 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Struggling to think of what it would be uncompetitive against.

Then lemme help you:
1) Cost
2) Total revenue

As for cost - if you're pulling out seats from a typical config, you're going to raise your CASM. Why would they do that?

As for revenue - again, you're pulling out seats, so you're going to have to demand a market premium in order to make up for the lost revenue of one seat per row; TK was not able to do that with their 777s, and there's nothing magical about a 787 that's going to change that. They'd be setting themselves up for needing a market premium just to break even with other carriers. Why would they do that?

My post was in reply to someone that said 8 abreast Y+ would not be competitive with other carriers, the poster said they would need 7 abreast. I was showing that 8 abreast Y+ would be market leading from a comfort perspective. You are arguing something that I wasn't. It was about comfort, it would be a better Y+ then what is out there.

I agree with everything you are saying about the financials, how if they offered a differentiated product, they would have to charge a premium.

I was differentiating Y+ from full premium economy. The old 7 abreast premium economy product was good enough to undermine the J sales. An 8 abreast Y+ is unlikely to undermine the J product but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y. I think the 9 abreast seating configuration should have given at least 17.5" seat width rather than 17.0".

flyingclrs727 wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Then lemme help you:
1) Cost
2) Total revenue

As for cost - if you're pulling out seats from a typical config, you're going to raise your CASM. Why would they do that?

As for revenue - again, you're pulling out seats, so you're going to have to demand a market premium in order to make up for the lost revenue of one seat per row; TK was not able to do that with their 777s, and there's nothing magical about a 787 that's going to change that. They'd be setting themselves up for needing a market premium just to break even with other carriers. Why would they do that?

My post was in reply to someone that said 8 abreast Y+ would not be competitive with other carriers, the poster said they would need 7 abreast. I was showing that 8 abreast Y+ would be market leading from a comfort perspective. You are arguing something that I wasn't. It was about comfort, it would be a better Y+ then what is out there.

I agree with everything you are saying about the financials, how if they offered a differentiated product, they would have to charge a premium.

I was differentiating Y+ from full premium economy. The old 7 abreast premium economy product was good enough to undermine the J sales. An 8 abreast Y+ is unlikely to undermine the J product but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y. I think the 9 abreast seating configuration should have given at least 17.5" seat width rather than 17.0".

I agree. And they don't have to make the cabin that large. Y+/PY cabins are expanding worldwide. They are becoming the norm on long-haul fleets. Again this is all just idea spit-balling. Not that it will happen, but could. If TK wants to keep building into a massive transfer hub, they need to differentiate. Airlines are differentiating their product, the stark differences between J and Y are starting to have options between. Doesn't have to fail.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.

While still leaving revenue on the table compared to competitors.... and when airlines have to choose between more revenue and Economy pax's comfort, guess which one wins?

LAX772LR wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.

While still leaving revenue on the table compared to competitors.... and when airlines have to choose between more revenue and Economy pax's comfort, guess which one wins?

A 9 abreast 787 has 17.0" seats. That's narrower than the seats on a 737 but for a plane that flies much longer flights. TK still flies its 777's with 9 abreast Y with 18" wide seats while many of its competitors fly theirs 10 abreast in Y. Tbe 9 abreast 787 has a lot less sear width than TK still allocates on their 777's.

Their flights to North America are quite long, around 11 to 12.5 hours on the IST-IAH route. I can imagine quite a number of people would be willing to pay a little more for more space on such long flights.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.

While still leaving revenue on the table compared to competitors.... and when airlines have to choose between more revenue and Economy pax's comfort, guess which one wins?

A 9 abreast 787 has 17.0" seats. That's narrower than the seats on a 737 but for a plane that flies much longer flights. TK still flies its 777's with 9 abreast Y with 18" wide seats while many of its competitors fly theirs 10 abreast in Y. Tbe 9 abreast 787 has a lot less sear width than TK still allocates on their 777's.

Their flights to North America are quite long, around 11 to 12.5 hours on the IST-IAH route. I can imagine quite a number of people would be willing to pay a little more for more space on such long flights.

Come April this year, QF will be busy flying their brand spanking new 9-abreast 789 from PER-LHR, if there's any route that can justify 8-abreast Y, because they'd be likely blocking seats anyways, that'd be it, and yet...

JustSomeDood wrote:

Come April this year, QF will be busy flying their brand spanking new 9-abreast 789 from PER-LHR

Which we'll note also offers 7 abreast for Y pax who are willing to do the simplest most straightforward thing--- pay for it.

JustSomeDood wrote:

if there's any route that can justify 8-abreast Y, because they'd be likely blocking seats anyways

Which makes zilch sense as a practical application, seeing as there will be no dedicated subfleet; thus those aircraft will be used on other routes, 99% of which wouldn't be blocking seats.

If QF are going to be blocking seats why didn't they go for 8 abreast? It's extra weight. As for TK I would think they will want to retain their point of difference if they can. So when it comes to PY I would expect 7 abreast akin to several other airlines that don't compete at the same service level and some others who do. If they're going to put 9 in economy they will put 7 in PY is my bet.

lightsaber wrote:

Plain Y passengers will not pay for the space of 8 across. It seems wise to offer 8 across Y+ (not PY, Y+). Say with 38" pitch. I don't understand premium economy, either sell a discounted J (narrower lie flat such as US airlines), shink the J cabin, but revenue manage to profit.

Lightsaber

I just bought a W ticket the other day for a personal trip to France. (Ok, I'm getting partially reimbursed, but my wife is coming along at our expense.)
It was a $300 premium over Y, for 50% more elite qualifying miles and a nicer seat. It may not be the best possible use of the money, but it was attractive enough for me to spend it.

On the other hand, if my company was sending me on a trip that distance, I'd want a real J experience. I've heard of places flying you in Y and giving you an extra hotel night and personal day at arrival to recover, which sounds logical (my time isn't work $2k per day) but there's a lot more revenue to be made by flying me in J and airlines should continue to push that as long as they can. Limited size W cabins so that it isn't available for shorter notice business travel is a good way to do that.

NZ321 wrote:

8 abreast Y+ in 789 is not competitive. They will go 7 abreast for sure if they do Y+ at all.

8 abreast in Y is an interesting idea. But I don't see it, sorry. Unless they go one cabin 8 abreast and one cabin light economy at 9.

I agree with NZ321. If TK (and that is a VERY BIG if) chooses to install Premium Economy, it would be 7-abreast (2-3-2) but definitely not 8-abreast (2-4-2). In any case, Y will be 9-abreast (3-3-3) just like everyone else except JL.

If anything, TK could think about a Y "comfort" with slightly more recline and legroom but the same 9-abreast seats... like UA and KL do. This might not be a bad idea if TK chooses to not install a proper Premium Economy cabin.

KLAM wrote:

I need to fly to Cyprus in June, and I can't seem to find any 1-stop flight for less than 1700 USD ex-MEX. The worst part is, some of the flights are on 9-abreast 787s with non-refundable fares, no free seat selection and so on. I still remember when you could get from MEX to CDG on L'Espace Affaires for 300-400 USD more (and I still thought it was expensive). There is of course some good penny pinching from the side of the airlines, because most people choose whatever is available at the lowest price, and sometimes the lowest price is not on the worst of the products. Aeromexico consistently charges more than their competition on their packed 9-abreast dreamliners.

AF's A380s have too many premium seats. I flew MEX-CDG-PRG in April of 2017 and MEX-CDG-DEL in November of 2017 and I saw lots of cheap upgrades available. On the April flight, upgrading from Premium Economy to L'Espace Affairs was 195 EUR one way. On the November flight, upgrading from L'Espace Affaires to La Première was 900 EUR one way. I think AF is having a hard time filling F and J solely with paying customers.

The 8-abreast 787s are a bit like 9-abreast 777s: they are increasingly uncommon. It's all about aping what your competitors are getting away with, so you mostly get 9-abreast 787s and 10-abreast 777s.

Incidentally, I haven't seen anything worse than the 10-abreast DC-10s of AML and AOM.

KD5MDK wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Plain Y passengers will not pay for the space of 8 across. It seems wise to offer 8 across Y+ (not PY, Y+). Say with 38" pitch. I don't understand premium economy, either sell a discounted J (narrower lie flat such as US airlines), shink the J cabin, but revenue manage to profit.

Lightsaber

I just bought a W ticket the other day for a personal trip to France. (Ok, I'm getting partially reimbursed, but my wife is coming along at our expense.)
It was a $300 premium over Y, for 50% more elite qualifying miles and a nicer seat. It may not be the best possible use of the money, but it was attractive enough for me to spend it.

On the other hand, if my company was sending me on a trip that distance, I'd want a real J experience. I've heard of places flying you in Y and giving you an extra hotel night and personal day at arrival to recover, which sounds logical (my time isn't work $2k per day) but there's a lot more revenue to be made by flying me in J and airlines should continue to push that as long as they can. Limited size W cabins so that it isn't available for shorter notice business travel is a good way to do that.

There is a reason I'm not in yield management. If there is enough of a market and it improves the yield for the whole set of flights... (for it is the fleet that is reconfigured).

But either way, either pay for a bigger seat or get by with what you paid for.

Lightsaber

flyingclrs727 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

but allow for an upgrade in comfort over Y.

While still leaving revenue on the table compared to competitors.... and when airlines have to choose between more revenue and Economy pax's comfort, guess which one wins?

A 9 abreast 787 has 17.0" seats. That's narrower than the seats on a 737 but for a plane that flies much longer flights. TK still flies its 777's with 9 abreast Y with 18" wide seats while many of its competitors fly theirs 10 abreast in Y. Tbe 9 abreast 787 has a lot less sear width than TK still allocates on their 777's.

Their flights to North America are quite long, around 11 to 12.5 hours on the IST-IAH route. I can imagine quite a number of people would be willing to pay a little more for more space on such long flights.

Many airlines do 17.3" seats and a handful opt for a narrow aisle with a 17'5" seat (the maximum under FAA regulations would be 17.3"); the latter is KLM, which has ultra-narrow aisles (it also flies 10 abreast 777s with seats that are 17.5" wide). In terms of seat width, this is where the A350 has both the 777 and 787 beat...it basically forces 9 abreast, although one can do 10 abreast with a seat narrower than 17"...Air Caraibes is 10-abreast and Evelop will also be 10-abreast in an all-economy configuration.

NZ321 wrote:

If QF are going to be blocking seats why didn't they go for 8 abreast? It's extra weight. As for TK I would think they will want to retain their point of difference if they can. So when it comes to PY I would expect 7 abreast akin to several other airlines that don't compete at the same service level and some others who do. If they're going to put 9 in economy they will put 7 in PY is my bet.

As LAX772LR said QF won’t have a subfleet just for PER-LHR, most/all of the other routes won’t be blocking seats.

EddieDude wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

8 abreast Y+ in 789 is not competitive. They will go 7 abreast for sure if they do Y+ at all.

8 abreast in Y is an interesting idea. But I don't see it, sorry. Unless they go one cabin 8 abreast and one cabin light economy at 9.

I agree with NZ321. If TK (and that is a VERY BIG if) chooses to install Premium Economy, it would be 7-abreast (2-3-2) but definitely not 8-abreast (2-4-2). In any case, Y will be 9-abreast (3-3-3) just like everyone else except JL.

If anything, TK could think about a Y "comfort" with slightly more recline and legroom but the same 9-abreast seats... like UA and KL do. This might not be a bad idea if TK chooses to not install a proper Premium Economy cabin.

KLAM wrote:

I need to fly to Cyprus in June, and I can't seem to find any 1-stop flight for less than 1700 USD ex-MEX. The worst part is, some of the flights are on 9-abreast 787s with non-refundable fares, no free seat selection and so on. I still remember when you could get from MEX to CDG on L'Espace Affaires for 300-400 USD more (and I still thought it was expensive). There is of course some good penny pinching from the side of the airlines, because most people choose whatever is available at the lowest price, and sometimes the lowest price is not on the worst of the products. Aeromexico consistently charges more than their competition on their packed 9-abreast dreamliners.

AF's A380s have too many premium seats. I flew MEX-CDG-PRG in April of 2017 and MEX-CDG-DEL in November of 2017 and I saw lots of cheap upgrades available. On the April flight, upgrading from Premium Economy to L'Espace Affairs was 195 EUR one way. On the November flight, upgrading from L'Espace Affaires to La Première was 900 EUR one way. I think AF is having a hard time filling F and J solely with paying customers.

That is good to know. At least to buy the cheap upgrade. I am getting to LCA vía CDG and TLV on AF, go figure... It will be a kick in the back of the neck, but it was 70% the cost of flying one-stop vía MUC or vía LHR. I will stay in TLV for a week or so. The thing is, after paying still quite a hefty amount, you still have to sit on cramped seats, pay for seat selection, pay for luggage... So I really really fail to see where the "lower prices" are. It is more like airlines are trying to sell a crappier, cheaper product that yields more money at the same price. People do notice, but feel like cabin comfort is a pretty random issue where they have no control whatsoever. Now if you want to sermon me and tell me to pay more if I want more (not you, Eddie, but other users who take this issue as if they were insulting their mothers), offer me some good Y+ like the one on KL, AA or UA, where for a reasonable surcharge, you can get the same seat you used to get some 15 years ago. Problem with that is that it is either sometimes 100% full by the time you want to pay for it, offered as W class, which is the same as C class 15 years ago, and the surcharges are around 2-3x, or not offered at all.

KLAM wrote:

offer me some good Y+ like the one on KL, AA or UA, where for a reasonable surcharge, you can get the same seat you used to get some 15 years ago.

Yes, good point. I think KL is an interesting alternative for long-haul when you know you want to stick to Economy but get a slightly better seat in terms of legroom and recline. Those Economy Comfort seats (or whatever they are called) should be available at the time of booking. DL at least prompts you to consider upgrading to them (and shows the extra cost) before you proceed to paying your regular Y ticket.

On the other hand, if you are willing to pay for AF's Premium Economy seat, chances are you will be offered one-way upgrades to Affaires when checking-in online for a very low amount.

Unless you know you can get 100% load factor at any price you choose, CASM is not the only issue. If you can fill all your seats while others have significantly lower load factor you can be more profitable with a higher CASM even if your fares are the same or lower. Roughly speaking an 8 abreast plane with a 90% load factor is more profitable than a 9 abreast plane with a 75% load factor at the same ticket cost.

There is a reason why Southwest can continue to show profits even when their prices are higher that others on the same route, and it is no longer about lower costs.

Persuading people to choose your airline over another, when prices are the same, is a marketing job, made much easier when you have tangible benefits to offer.