Reducing the passenger density

[angella44]

My husband and I used to buy an extra seat in a row of three. The extra seat was surprisingly cheap sometimes because it had no taxes. Reducing the passenger density may be not as expensive as we might think, especially with the current fuel price.

The airport taxes could go up if we all have to be tested.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

If a plane is say 90% full then gaining some extra cash for some of 10% of empty seats is a good move.

If a plane can as a maximum have only 66% of seats sold then that will mean that fares will go up.

Then as it can be spread within 2 rows you might also have to have every second row empty. That means only 33% of seats sold.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Logically the same distance could be achieved with a 2-1-2 pattern which would be around 50% capacity.
Should just convert economy to business class seating. And turn business into F suites.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If a plane can as a maximum have only 66% of seats sold then that will mean that fares will go up.

Fewer passengers = less weight (seats, bags, catering etc), you can remove additional WCs, don't need as many crew, or hotel rooms at layover points, don't need as many ground staff, and you could load up on more freight. Fares might go up, but if might not be a 1-1 increase.

 

[jb747]

Fewer passengers = less weight (seats, bags, catering etc), you can remove additional WCs, don't need as many crew, or hotel rooms at layover points, don't need as many ground staff, and you could load up on more freight. Fares might go up, but if might not be a 1-1 increase.

Very few flights are weight limited, so you can’t necessarily load up more freight. The weight saving also has a lot less effect than you imagine. 200 passengers is only 20 tonnes. Across the Pacific, on a 380, that might make 8 tonnes difference. But, given the current fuel cost, that isn’t even much beyond small change. Nobody is going to reconfigure toilets, and there is no saving there anyway. Seat rows could be removed, as they are only plug in. Cabin crew numbers are predicated on the number of doors on the aircraft, not the passenger load.

If you stop carrying the discount travellers, and the remaining seats are sold at full cost, then it might work though.

Mind you, the 500 metre queue for boarding would be interesting. Especially when an airport has a number of aircraft boarding at once. The immigration queue might have to go all the way around the perimeter of the airport!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Very few flights are weight limited, so you can’t necessarily load up more freight. The weight saving also has a lot less effect than you imagine. 200 passengers is only 20 tonnes. Across the Pacific, on a 380, that might make 8 tonnes difference. But, given the current fuel cost, that isn’t even much beyond small change. Nobody is going to reconfigure toilets, and there is no saving there anyway. Seat rows could be removed, as they are only plug in. Cabin crew numbers are predicated on the number of doors on the aircraft, not the passenger load.

If you stop carrying the discount travellers, and the remaining seats are sold at full cost, then it might work though.

My understanding is that toilets are also plug in? Maybe little or no weight gain, but you could maybe put in an extra seat or two. As for cabin crew... depends on the airline... EK staff their A380s with 26 crew, including two shower attendants. SQ also has supernumerary crew. You could in theory crew an A380 in the cabin with 14 (down from 24).

 

[milehighclub]

You could in theory crew an A380 in the cabin with 14 (down from 24).

You could not operate an A380 with 14 crew.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You could not operate an A380 with 14 crew.

14 doors = 14 crew? (plus assuming a low density seating arrangement)

 

[milehighclub]

14 doors = 14 crew? (in a low density seating arrangement)

Doors 1 on the upper deck requires 4 crew due to direct view requirements. This means that a certain percentage of the cabin has to be visible by crew and so there are jump seats facing both directions at this pair of doors.

The minimum requirement for crew on the A380 is 18 on the non refurbished aircraft and 17 on the refurbished for QF.

QF has 20 crew for SIN/LHR/SIN and SYD/DFW/SYD and 21 for all other flights. The refurbished aircraft gain a crew member (so either 21 or 22)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Doors 1 on the upper deck requires 4 crew due to direct view requirements. This means that a certain percentage of the cabin has to be visible by crew and so there are jump seats facing both directions at this pair of doors.

The minimum requirement for crew on the A380 is 18 on the non refurbished aircraft and 17 on the refurbished for QF.

Thanks.

I wonder if that could be reduced by placing a new single crew seat at the front of the forward cabin?

 

[milehighclub]

I wonder if that could be reduced by placing a new single crew seat at the front of the forward cabin?

Could you? Yes.
But the cost of an airline changing an aircraft like that would probably be more expensive than any money saved from having less crew. And if loads are that bad, no airline is going to operate an A380 even if they could with 14.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Could you? Yes.
But the cost of an airline changing an aircraft like that would probably be more expensive than any money saved from having less crew. And if loads are that bad, no airline is going to operate an A380 even if they could with 14.

I wasn't necessarily thinking it would be a case of loads being bad, but a way to provide 300 pax with sufficient space (ie low density configuration).

 

[Quickstatus]

can you please explain the extra 1 passenger for the other A380 flights

QF has 20 crew for SIN/LHR/SIN and SYD/DFW/SYD and 21 for all other flights

 

[milehighclub]

can you please explain the extra 1 passenger for the other A380 flights

So when DFW was introduced, a crew member was removed because of the reduced passenger load on the way home. And fair enough, there is always about 100 seats spare.

When QF9/10 was to/from DXB in the evening , because these were both night flights, and the service is a supper, a 20 crew compliment was also introduced. As QF1/2 on the SIN/LHR/SIN sectors are also supper/breakfast flights, they retained this 20 crew compliment.

The other flights have 21 because the first services out of Australia are full lunch/dinner services (flights out of Australia are always busier than flights to Australia), and there are no restrictions on the load for the flight back.

On flights with 20 crew, depending on the load in economy, if it is below a certain number, a crew member moves from economy to work in business.

But with the reconfigured aircraft these numbers have gone back up to 21 and 22 which is great, it's not often an airline gives back crew!

This may have changed since I had heard this but EK did/does have a reduction of 1 crew member and 1 shower attendant on flights to Europe vs ULH flights.

 

[flyingfan]

So when DFW was introduced, a crew member was removed because of the reduced passenger load on the way home. And fair enough, there is always about 100 seats spare.

Is that deliberately kept spare because of fuel? Doesn't sound necessarily profitable to have so many empty, unless cargo is loaded instead?

 

[milehighclub]

Is that deliberately kept spare because of fuel? Doesn't sound necessarily profitable to have so many empty, unless cargo is loaded instead?

DFW-SYD is weight restricted and sometimes in addition to passenger restrictions, there can also be freight restrictions. Clearly the bean counters have decided that even with all these restrictions, the route can make money. It has been operating for over 5 years now on the A380. I expect in it's future though this will become a 787 flight in a post covid world.

 

[Quickstatus]

Is that deliberately kept spare because of fuel?

Yes 100 pax plus luggage avg 10tonnes weight reduction for range purposes for QF8

 

[p--and--t]

Frontier Airlines Will Now Sell You An Empty Middle Seat

Frontier Airlines will now sell passengers empty middle seats, should they want more space. Here's how this works.

onemileatatime.com

 

[p--and--t]

Emirates will have vacant seats in between individual passengers or family groups and won’t allow cabin baggage on flights as the airline seeks to contain the spread of the coronavirus (Bloomberg)

 

[jb747]

Is that deliberately kept spare because of fuel? Doesn't sound necessarily profitable to have so many empty, unless cargo is loaded instead?

The maximum take off weight of an A380 was 569 tonnes when I was flying them. I understand that it's since risen to 572 tonnes, but that was after my time.

In round figures, the empty weight is about 285 tonnes. So, you have 284 tonnes of weight to distribute across passengers, cargo and fuel. So, if you want more fuel, you have to make the weight available somehow. Either less passengers, or cargo, or both.

This only applies on long range, weight limited sectors. Many are nowhere near the take off weight limits, but then others, such as max zero fuel weight, or max landing weight will come into play.