Fewer Passengers + social distancing = it is time for larger seats!!

[GoodIdea]

As we continue to shelter in place and practice social distancing, what if Southwest Airlines outfitted some planes with larger (first class) seats to attract more customers? 

An entire plane outfitted with larger seats would introduce distance between passengers (make it safer), improve the flying experience for customers, and likely attract more customers.

Does anyone else think this is a good idea?

[dfwskier]

Thanks for the suggestion.

A seat that is maybe 3-4 inches wider would do nothing to make the experience safer.

Plus, in case you haven't heard, airlines are running out of cash. They're not likely to use the little they have to buy thousands of new seats.

Also, those airlines that use "first class" sized seats aren't filling any more of them than Southwest is standard seats. The publc is afraid to travel, and bigger seas is not going to change that.

[GoodIdea]

If each row has three first class seats, there would be way more space than 3 to 4 inches between passengers and way fewer passengers.  The flying experience would be much better, so much so I bet more people would be willing to fly and they would fly SW.  Passengers would feel safer and they would like the experience.

This can be done in a small trial program with little marketing (maybe one market/route) to see the response.

The cost? Is it sustainable?  Is it profitable?  If we assume it costs an airline $4,000 / hr of flight and 45 first class seats in an airplane, then cost per occupied seat for a 1hr flight is $89.  Add 15% profit and the cost per seat for a 1 hr flight becomes $103.  

Would you rather fly option a or b:

a) OAK-BUR $50-$85 each way, economy seats, with up to 174 other passengers in flight.

b) OAK-BUR $103 (or lets assume $150), first class seat,  with 44 other passengers on board.

I don't know about you  but if I had to fly during the pandemic, I would rather pay a little more, be more comfortable, and have fewer people on my flight.  

I know this is over simplified but the industry needs to start thinking outside the box to survive this pandemic.

Hope you all are staying safe.

[dfwskier]

---

@GoodIdea wrote:

Other airlines have tried the all big seat strategy. All have failed.

Legend Airlines comes to mind.

Besides, if any airlines wanted to limit planes to 45 passengers, they could do so, and have the passengers simply spread out on  existing 143 or 175 (or more) seat planes.

No airline would survive on planes flying 45 passengers/flight.

Edit add: I guess an airline flying 45 passengers/flight  could survive  -- if ticket prices were $1000 or $2000 a ticket. Problem is, no one would buy them

You forgot the cost to run an airline is far more than the cost of operating the planes: airport support, reservations, customer service, maintenance bases, HQ operations, cost of servicing debt all come to mind as adding to the cost of running an airline

[gsking]

If we're really doing 6ft, you're more or less left with 2 people per aisle,  every other aisle empty.   That's a pretty empty plane.  As noted, they'd have to charge a LOT more to make money, not to mention the retrofit cost. 

At the current prices,  I could sit in the middle seat, put both arm rests up, and be pretty comfortable.   Legroom isn't a big issue for me, and I'm over 6'.

I agree that it's not price making people fly or not these days.  Those of us who do fly appreciate the usual SWA pricing and the generous policies.   Those who aren't flying SWA wouldn't decide to just because they tried out first class. 

Don't forget... they have no drink service at all, and won't EVER have food.   I figure that's part of the allure of FC.

Also, I suspect the wry snark of SWA employees would be lost on the typical FC elite.   Might even offend some of them. 

I wouldn't want to subject my SWA friends to that sort of demeaning restriction.  🤣

[ksbrg]

---

@gsking wrote:

Also, I suspect the wry snark of SWA employees would be lost on the typical FC elite.   Might even offend some of them. 

 lol

@GoodIdea - I was talking about this same idea with a friend over the weekend, asking him how much extra he'd pay for a "first-class" seat on a plane of ONLY "first-class" seats.

I think it's a cool thought exercise, although we did end up in the same place of needing to charge very high rates. I'm really not sure if it'd be more affordable for the Passenger than if they bought first-class on an airline with economy seating. I don't know much about airline accounting, but I assume the money is made on economy seating, which allows first class to be more affordable than if it were a plane full of first class.

All that said, if your scenarios were true, I would absolutely choose Option B - flying "first class" (I know we're only talking about room, not the other amenities) for $150 sounds amazing.