There is a fascinating piece on today's International Herald Tribune on how airlines are trying to get the biggest bang for their buck in an industry where profits are slim and innovation is problematic (no matter what FP says). If you read The Economist --or any other high-end publication -- you might have noticed that it is increasingly filled with seductive advertisements raving about the ultimate comfort of the new lush sanctuaries, havens, demi-cabins, beds, sleep.
In fact, if we were to judge from airline ads, it would seem that flying is getting to be more and more comfy. But when you put down the magazine and board the plane, you realize those ads were not meant for you: while first classes might be getting fancier, the sardines in the back of the plane are getting packed tighter and tighter. To the chagrin of tall people everywhere, the IHT reports that the More Leg Room initiatives for coach class are not efficient enough to survive, since having a couple extra seat rows is much more convenient than the allure of a slightly less painful flight for someone who likely will have to fly no matter what. Even with seats getting thinner and lighter thanks to better technology, we learn that the concept of seating itself might be at risk:
Airbus has been quietly pitching the standing-room-only option to Asian carriers, though none has agreed to it yet. Passengers in the standing section would be propped against a padded backboard, held in place with a harness, according to seating experts who have seen a proposal.
Apparently, it just makes economic sense for airlines to bet on extra privileges for first class customers (who will gladly bill their company $2,200 rather than $2,000) while focusing on price and quantity for coach customers. After all, flying is something most travelers cannot do without, and airlines will continue making it on one end super-comfy and super-expensive, and on the other barely tolerable and cheap. Talk about the middle class squeeze.
Read More
