Why 156 Seats?

[mweiss]

I was noticing that B6 removed a row from the rear half of the A320s, bringing the total number of seats to 156. If another row, plus one more seat, were removed, the total number of seats would be 149, permitting one fewer FA.

Is the average revenue generated by the additional 7 seats in excess of the cost of the additional FA? Especially when one considers how much the extra couple of inches of legroom would benefit the pax in the front half of the plane (the way it does for those in the rear).

Just a thought...

 

[JS]

150 seats is the maximum that requires three flight attendants, not 149. That would make it even more convenient to achieve -- remove exactly one row.

Why don't they? Probably need the extra six seats. JetBlue does have a high systemwide load factor and no $1,000 fares.

 

[AAmech]

I think this came up before and the reason I remember was the need for a closet to store wheelchairs.

 

[Blue Dude]

It was decided that operating with 150 (not 149) seats would reduce service to an unacceptable level, since the remaining three FA's would be utterly maxed out. JetBlue essentially operates with two two-FA teams, each with clearly defined responsibilities, and gutting half of one team would require a complete rehaul of cabin service. However, it would permit 35 to 36 inches of pitch in the forward third of the plane. Unless JetBlue intended to charge more for those seats, in effect adding a second class of service, the numbers wouldn't work out. Removing row 27 last year made a bit more sense considering that row 27 was markedly less desireable than any other row. Now there are no "bad rows" in the plane, but you pay for that with a higher CASM. After running the numbers, they decided it was worth it.

It will be very interesting to see how JetBlue intends to operate the E190, with 100 seats, with only two FA's. With shorter flights, requiring only one full service (instead of two for A320 transcons), workload should be at an acceptable level while still providing a high level of service, but no doubt the details are still being worked on.

 

[Blue Dude]

Wheelchairs are a red herring. The one permissable stored chair is still strapped to the last row of seats. There is no closet. The DOT fine was imposed on JetBlue (and a number of other airlines) because some personnel weren't aware of the requirement to store a chair in the cabin, not that the storage method itself was unacceptable. Retraining and reemphasis solved the problem, not reconfiguring the aircraft.

 

[FWAAA]

150 seats is the maximum that requires three flight attendants, not 149. That would make it even more convenient to achieve -- remove exactly one row.

Why don't they? Probably need the extra six seats. JetBlue does have a high systemwide load factor and no $1,000 fares.

I agree, although January's load factor slipped to 78%.

For 2003, B6 had a load factor of 84.5%, compared to 83% for 2002. So far, with B6 has tried to fill each and every seat, no mean feat considering their refusal to overbook.

B6 removed the seats because nobody was ever happy sitting in the last row. It didn't recline, and legroom sucked.

Still, I can't believe B6 didn't remove another row to cut one FA and make everyone happy with lotsa legroom. That would have really jammed one down AA's throat. B)

 

[audio-nut]

Wheelchairs are a red herring. The one permissable stored chair is still strapped to the last row of seats. There is no closet. The DOT fine was imposed on JetBlue (and a number of other airlines) because some personnel weren't aware of the requirement to store a chair in the cabin, not that the storage method itself was unacceptable. Retraining and reemphasis solved the problem, not reconfiguring the aircraft.

I thought there was a "drink cart" that could store a wheelchair located in the aft left position in the foward galley.

 

[Diesel8]

I think the wheel chair in front is part of the emergency equipment. But yes, there is one there. The ADA required a person to be able to carryon/stow their own wheelchair onboard. Now, why that is required is beyond me, but I am sure there is a good reason.

The fact that the person having a w/c onboard cannot use it, due to it not fitting down the aisle and the fact that most w/c bound people gets accomodated in the front row, with the chair in the back, has nor relevance I suppose.

I fully support the right of disabled people, but in this case, I cannot see how it benefitted them.

 

[FWAAA]

I think the wheel chair in front is part of the emergency equipment. But yes, there is one there. The ADA required a person to be able to carryon/stow their own wheelchair onboard. Now, why that is required is beyond me, but I am sure there is a good reason.

The fact that the person having a w/c onboard cannot use it, due to it not fitting down the aisle and the fact that most w/c bound people gets accomodated in the front row, with the chair in the back, has nor relevance I suppose.

I fully support the right of disabled people, but in this case, I cannot see how it benefitted them.

I agree with you but I think the reason the feds cracked down on B6 is that most other airlines allowed wheelchair stowage in the cabin. Why that's important rather than careful gate checking (like a stroller) is beyond me, but I'm sure some advocate for the differently-abled (handicapped is no longer PC, is it?) could fill us in.

 

[Blue Dude]

JetBlue has always allowed one chair to be stored in the cabin. Problem was, some customer service folks didn't know about it when the DOT conducted its "sting". So the DOT investigators were told, incorrectly, that there was no cabin stowage and JetBlue was fined. Again, retraining solved the problem.

The actual usefulness of having a chair in the cabin rather than gatechecked like a stroller is beyond me. Since passengers requiring wheelchairs almost always sit in the first row or two, and the chair is stored in the back, it will actually take significantly longer for them to deplane than if the chair had been stored below. But I guess for every "right" there are some people who insist on exercising it whether it makes sense or not.

 

[Busdrvr]

D8,
I thought it had more to do with weight. How close are you typically to MTOG on a JFK-LA leg? Would the rumored increase in FAA standard pax weight have put you over MTOG at 162 pax? Is it a coincidence that UAL went with 156, or is it also a weight issue. As to "differant classes", don't the rear seats (aft of the emergency exit) have more leg room? As far as "service" from 3 F/A's for 150 vs 2 F/A's for 100, seems to me the "longer" legs also afford the F/A's more time to do two services. Seems 2 services in 5 hours would be easier than one in 2 hours.

 

[Diesel8]

Prior to removal of the seats we were flying transcons, but I cannot tell you whether the move was spawned by the new weights. Internally, even prior to it happening, we always heard, that they were thinking about removing that row, since it does not recline.

Yes, there is more room rows 11 going aft, of course both emergency exits are still the same size, already had more room.

As far as UAL-Ted going with 156, well, it could be coincidence. But from what I understand, Ted will have E+ right? In which case, your guess would be as god as mine.

 

[Busdrvr]

The A320 will hold at least 172 pax. UAL econ plus will be at the front of the jet. I think Jblu chose the rear since it left all seat pitch closer (ie more equivilent, not as pronounced a diff as with Econ + at UAL). FWIW, I've benn at MTOG numerous times with less than 138, even with les than full tanks.

 

[Diesel8]

Actually, I believe some airlines are doing 178pax, but seat pitch probably leaves a bit to be desired.

Yes, when the jetsstream is really howling, there has been times your scenario has happened.

 

[smfav8r]

Ryan operates the Bus with 174 seats...very tight...but the majority of our flying is down south to the Vacation destinations....4 to 5 hour segments...but with international pax weights. (Diff of 15lbs per person)

With domestic winter weights, 4 to 5 hour segments are extremely tight with a full boat! Close to impossible!