More legroom means one less flight attendnant

[Hopeful]

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybri...News&rpc=44

 

[formeraa]

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybri...News&rpc=44

This was inevitable. An extra FA for 6 seats! You knew that was not going to last long in a LCC environment.

Of course, we old-timers remember 5 FA's serving hot lunch/dinner on a full MD-80.

 

[s80dude]

This was inevitable. An extra FA for 6 seats! You knew that was not going to last long in a LCC environment.

Of course, we old-timers remember 5 FA's serving hot lunch/dinner on a full MD-80.

This is the second time seats have been removed at JB. Their original seating had 162 seats. They pulled two rows a few years ago.

 

[FWAAA]

This is the second time seats have been removed at JB. Their original seating had 162 seats. They pulled two rows a few years ago.

Actually, B6 pulled one row (aft of the overwing exit rows), reducing the seating from 162 to 156. At the time, I (and others) wrote that failure to remove both rows (reducing seating to 150) was incredibly stupid, both from a labor cost perspective (for that extra FA for a mere 6 seats) and because the A320s were range-challenged on winter transcons (which last winter really drove home). Looks like ADD-Dave Neeleman finally agreed. Two straight years of losses must have convinced Neeleman that it's time to reign in the controllable costs.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Maybe they know something we dont <_<