(07-30-2010 03:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Amusingly swoosh... if you talk to someone in the travel industry, they'll tell you that 1 in 1000 people worry about the size or configuration of the plane... even looking at the airlines who charge for seats with more legroom, it's not a popular option. Everyone wants an aisle or a bulkhead or the exit row, but few will pay for it. People fly based on price. Not 100%, but I'm confident its more than 80.

As for regional airports, that's fine and well, so long as you aren't going particularly far.

of course. i'm not saying i'd pay extra to choose one option over another. i'm saying if they made these planes and flights started to cost a little more, i'd have no problem paying it as long as they can get me from point A to point B in the time they said it would take.

my whole point is that people aren't going to fly more if planes are more comfortable. they're going to fly when they have to fly

(07-29-2010 01:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  back to the topic...
Airlines maximize revenue by filling their planes. These ideas make sense, but if you are trying to maximize revenue, many of these don't work. The second floor idea may be good if you can work out the aerodynamics... but you're talking about a redesign of all of our planes which will take a long time.

I think all (at least most) of these layouts are meant to be implemented in existing aircraft designs. Also, you're probably not gonna find these on flights from Charlotte to NY, but mainly on hops over water.

(07-30-2010 03:57 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(07-30-2010 03:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  of course. i'm not saying i'd pay extra to choose one option over another. i'm saying if they made these planes and flights started to cost a little more, i'd have no problem paying it as long as they can get me from point A to point B in the time they said it would take.

my whole point is that people aren't going to fly more if planes are more comfortable. they're going to fly when they have to fly

Agreed. Of course, we sort of are where we are because airlines figured out that putting 400 cramped instead of 300 comfortable people with 3 cabin stewards rather than 6 and peanuts and half a coke (mostly ice in a 3 oz glass) rather than a meal and the whole can didn't really change the demand.

(08-01-2010 12:16 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  [quote='Hambone10' pid='5599972' dateline='1280428598']
back to the topic...
Airlines maximize revenue by filling their planes. These ideas make sense, but if you are trying to maximize revenue, many of these don't work. The second floor idea may be good if you can work out the aerodynamics... but you're talking about a redesign of all of our planes which will take a long time.

I think all (at least most) of these layouts are meant to be implemented in existing aircraft designs. Also, you're probably not gonna find these on flights from Charlotte to NY, but mainly on hops over water.

Virgin and Singapore, plus Emirate have similar set-ups to this on international flights, and they DO get clients... but not enough to justify everyone changing. The Concord was a similar idea... but the novelty eventually wore off.

The Emirates first-class layout is pretty spectacular. But even their coach is nice. I've ridden coach IAH-DXB and return, and it was just fine.

A friend says, "Emirates coach is like everybody else's first class." Not quite, but they do a great job. And I like the downward-looking and forward-looking cameras, as well as the 300 movies and who knows how many music choices.

Agree Owl. but Emirates is $1400 from Houston non-stop while KLM is 1100 with a stop. Certainly SOME people, particularly business clients will pay the 20% premium... but many won't.... and honestly, that's probably one they SHOULD be willing to pay a decent premium for