Re: Betale mer for midtgang?
Reference is made to sRay7's story
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...r-a320-aisle-seats-for-larger-passengers.html which highlights the arbitration of "newsworthiness" c/o Bloomberg Newsroom :
Comment : The idea exposed in Susanna Ray's story is spurred by an attempt from Airbus in Toulouse - in response to criticism (specially from TwinAisleFeeders) for Airbus' regrettable and persistent passivity in this field - to become active themselves - specifically in a Y-class context - in the operator yield bonus discussion, whereof "ancillary revenues" are being hotly debated these days.
This however is a terrain for expert airline retail psychologists, not for Aeronautical Engineers.
As is being proven with Airbus' naïve offer for wider aisle seats in the [3+3] configuration, their cabin interior designers are getting mixed up between product "Differentiation" and "Discrimination". With their weird proposal, all Airbus will achieve is to make even worse the onboard experience for 2/3rds of the Y-class passengers, those (in seats A, B, E or F) that already are feeling oppressed, claustrophobic, promiscuous, agoraphobic and unsafely impeached from quick egress to the aisle ... Bravo Airbus, well done ! Yet, to the appraisal of Bloomberg Newsroom, the Airbus proposal is "newsworthy" ?
__________________________
TwinAisleFeeders have repeatedly informed Bloomberg Newsroom of our proposal to rip out the (3+3) cabin interior, to replace it with (1+3+1). We prove this proposal to be sustainable economically for the Operators, be it Legacy or Low Cost.
For reference, see
http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j...xf22Dg&usg=AFQjCNGDc5qHiTCcMlT2i_94GVEPkxK8Aw
However, Bloomberg Newsroom has labelled TwinAisleFeeders' alternative "not newsworthy"...
The (3+3) proposal as a service product dates back to the '50-ies, some 60 years ago, and is now deeply anchored in travellers' mentality. If (for whatever reason) you propose to change something with this classic offer, to achieve eg product differentiation whereby boost ticket yields collecting additional ancillary revenue, it can only be done as a "win - win" proposal. Meaning this : if you decide to give additional quality of service to parts of the Y-class cabin travellers restocking the cards in the classic layout to deal out the seats in a new arrangement, you cannot do this in a way that will be perceived discriminatory to the neighbouring passengers, ie by increasing their misery vs whatever service quality they had before the change and will expect as the "rightfully minimum".
The revolutionary new TwinAisleFeeders proposal for (1+3+1) in Y-class [plus (1+2+1) in Premium class, if relevant ?] offers additional advantages (direct or easier aisle access, better shoulder space, improved cabin service ergonomics, 59 % more carry-on volume per seat, easy come/easy go ...) to 100 % of the travellers, wherefore this proposal is the correct avenue for Operators who are eyeing Product Differentiation as a means to increase their ancillary revenues in Y-class on SMR (short-to-medium range) feeder services.
Cordially
Frequent Traveller
http://www.wix.com/twinaislefeeders/quickrotation
