Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Why the disappearance of First Class is down to bad marketing, not lack of demand (Part 1)

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

This is a two-part guest post by Oliver Ranson, who runs the fascinating Airline Revenue Economics blog on Substack (free to subscribe, click ‘Let me read it first’ to skip the sign-up page).

He published this article a few weeks ago and we thought it was worth sharing. You can read Oliver’s previous HfP article, How we built the first business case for the award-winning Qatar Airways Qsuite“, here.

You can sign up to receive Oliver’s future articles by email here. There is no charge. Over to him …..

British AIrways A380 First Class

Back in the 80s and 90s British Airways ads used to joke that it was too expensive for your business to NOT fly First Class. Like many jokes it contained a grain of truth – flying First, arriving refreshed, sealing the deal and leaving a happy customer sounds much better than losing a client because you are tired and not at your best.

But these days business class offers flat beds and plenty of space to sleep, work or relax. At the same time, the number of First Class seats offered and sold has clearly fallen – airlines like Air France and China Southern only use one row.

Even BA, along with Emirates the world’s largest first operator, cut the number of plush seats from 14 (three to five rows) to eight (two rows) when they installed Club Suite, a business product with doors, on their 777s.

Qatar Airways, who advertise excellent service, have all but abandoned First and offer the Qsuite business class (which I helped develop) instead. Singapore Airlines, another carrier renowned for service, experimented with cabin-like seats on their A380s (see my Subtack article here) but also have a more traditional product on their 777s.

Many industry commentators say that business is now so good that passengers no longer want or need the perks of First. I disagree.

Looking under the hood, I think that what is really going on is that airlines have forgotten how to sell First Class and make the classic mistake of promoting features rather than benefits. Read on to find out why .…

Qatnas refurbished A380 first class

Why is the revenue contribution of First Class important?

When airlines design the best possible LOPA (LOPA = Layout of Passenger Area, ie the seat map) they start with maximum possible density and only deviate when there is a strong revenue case to do so. This means the base case is all-economy, as few loos and cabin attendant seats as practical, and small galleys.

When it comes to First Class though, it is easy to forget the part about looking for strong revenue cases because both capex and opex are high.

First Class suites are heavy – they weigh 100kg or more against 9kg for a typical economy seat and 6kg for the lightest. This means that First Class operators suffer high penalties in respect of fuel burn. The extra weight also constrains the aircraft’s payload-range, which determines how far the aircraft can fly with different passenger complements. Some desirable long-range destinations may be out of scope with suites at the front.

Complex maintenance also has tough implications for opex. The seat’s electric actuators, which generate motion on command, can break. Plush trim and finish like leather and chrome might damage easily and need replacing.

Compounding the matter is high capex – one seat can cost $100,000 or more.

Airlines are often so cost-focused that some meetings between planners and their suppliers might need to be carefully managed to even consider the revenue side. In a busy office with many competing projects it is easy to imagine how other less difficult tasks might take priority.

Even if planners do look at revenue there is a risk of underestimating how much First Class can really contribute if the pricing department do not understand or are unsure about how to monetise the willingness of passengers to pay.

What is First Class in today’s market? It is a time machine

Everything you can see in this seat map I have outlined in this handy table, which shows how First Class features are different from those in business and explains how they benefit a passenger.

While business offers a comfortable journey, First offers a luxurious experience where the passenger has a higher degree of control over how they spend time on the flight. When the flight is over, many passengers travelling in First will have enjoyed a few hours extra productivity or leisure activities than they would have done if they had flown in business. In this sense, First Class is a time machine.

The macroeconomic environment for First Class travel is excellent

Billionaires might fly private and people employed by billionaires might fly in comfy business. First Class is a service for millionaires.

Fortunately for First Class operators the number of millionaires is now greater than ever before, with significant increases across each region of the world. Check out the chart from The Economist below, which shows among other things that in China there were hardly any millionaires 20 years ago but now there are more than four million. Due to economic growth, fundamental First Class demand – based on ability to pay – is only likely to increase over time.

We know from other industries that wealthy people spend what they have to when they see value. Luxury hotels and expensive restaurants thrive, shiny Apple gadgets fly off the shelves and neither Gucci shoes nor handbags fail to find customers.

The traditional market for First is not just limited to the wealthy. Companies should also be buyers. The issue is that, in Europe and the Americas, many businesses state that they do not see value in First Class and are concerned that the optics of executives flying in lavish conditions are unfavourable. That does not necessarily mean that they are no longer a market – but it does mean that the airlines are not convincing them to buy.

Meanwhile in Asia and other emerging markets it is still socially acceptable to flaunt status-symbols and First Class travel may be the ultimate example of conspicuous consumption. While university researchers in the west often fly economy due to budget constraints, top Chinese scientists are shuttled around the world in First.

It is no co-incidence that most of the world’s First Class operators are in Asia, which I have shown in the table below along with some airlines who I think would be good candidates for First Class.

We have split this article due to length. Click here to read Part 2. Thank you.

Comments (76)

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

  • Goldflyer40 says:

    Great article, I really enjoyed reading it. I might be wrong here, but isn’t the second picture a Qantas Airways First Class seat and not a Qatar Airways seat?

    • ChrisC says:

      Indeed it is. There is a QANTAS inflight magazine in the rack!

    • Rob says:

      Yea, my fault, not Oliver’s.

    • Oliver Ranson says:

      Thanks Goldflyer – I am glad you enjoyed it – The Qantas A380 is on my wish list, I’d love to have a chance to fly it but we will have to wait and see if the dream comes true

  • Cranzle says:

    Superb

  • Test Pilot says:

    Interesting read. I liked the concept of layout of passenger area (LoPA)! But being contrarian, instead of starting with 100% economy, why don’t they start with 100% business (or first!), assuming this generates most revenue, and deviate only when demand can’t be fulfilled and then put in lower classes…

    • Oliver Ranson says:

      It’s a fair question, especially for airlines with a high premium focus like Lufthansa – clearly Ryanair, Whizz and their friends will start with economy. To be honest I am not sure I have a really compelling answer why not. But I suspect that all-economy comes with a much lower risk profile than all-premium so would be the default for that reason

  • John says:

    The problem with the story is lack of empirical support.

    First class is in decline and has been for well over a decade. You claim is because first class has been done wrong. Given the number of differentiated first products still out there, we are talking about numerous players who must have gone with a poorly designed product (hard product, soft product, ground product wise).

    Again, I find that hard to believe without empirical support.

    • John says:

      Appreciate your insightful reply. While I know my economics and econometrics, I have to fully admit commercial aviation is not my area of expertise and I am unfamiliar with the data sets you mention.

      I hear your argument that capacity changes led changes in the number of F passengers. Be that as it may, it still needs to be explained why airlines chose to reduce the number of F seats.
      We are talking about a time span well over ten years. In recent decades, across sectors, there was a big trend towards listening to customers. Products are becoming ever-more differentiated to better serve different tastes and needs. If there is the F demand you claim out there, why are profit-maximizing airlines not capitalizing on it? If it really is more profitable (per sq inch of cabin space or the like) to put in F seats rather than J or PE seats, why would not airlines go for it?

      • Ronster says:

        Dear Oliver

        Good evening

        These articles are brilliant and they bring up how important F is, when the benefits are correctly highlighted.

        On my last trip HND and back via HKG, all in BA F, I was able to land refreshed and ready for a productive day.

        On each one of the above flights, even the passengers in J looked quite tired and certainly not as ready as I was, for a full business day!

        Kind regards

        Ronster

  • BJ says:

    I’m making a very simplistic amateurish point here but isn’t the harsh reality that passenger wants or needs are, to a point, of little consequence to the airliness when the biggest money spinner for them is premium economy if what I have read elsewhere is true? It seems to me that there has been a squeeze on both F and Y cabins to make way for PE cabins and more J seats. F has saw reductions or been abandoned altogether while in Y airlines have managed to have their cake and eat it by cramming ever more passengers into smaller spaces by fitting 10 slimline seats in a row. This is clearly not what customers need or want at either end of the plane. You could argue that airlines are getting it their own way, not by a failure of marketing strategy but by what has been a very successful one. For example they still pack the sardine cans in Y and all the advertising hype over Qsuite and similar has in my opinion simply peddled a myth. The reality in my experience is that there is little difference between most full service airlines with respect to both the hard products and soft products on all airlines. At least, not enough to want to make me go out of my way or pay a premium to fly them. Despite this, comments on HfP show that a cohort of travellers who I think should know better have been sucked in by the hype. If it’s so easy to fool them, what hope for the average passenger that hardly gives all the issues a second thought?

    …now having said all that, I hope we don’t have to wait too long to hear all about the AY sofa in the sky 🙂

    • Littlefish says:

      I think your point is correct about the airlines’ focus. What I think the author is arguing is the airlines are engaging almost in a self-fulfilling prophecy in taking their mind off the First market as its probably only going to be fourth of the for cabins in profit generation. Whereas, I do feel there is a fair point being made in that luxury cars, restaurants, apartments, hotels, boats and fashion do not seem to be in decline.
      I do tend to agree with the premise as cost focus rather than revenue focus has been what corporate leaders have tended to be best skilled at over the last 25 years or so.
      Anyway, interesting. Maybe First could rebound at some point.

      • Michael says:

        I like your premise.

        I think the main issue is that features now come cheap, but the benefits all rely on staffing. Staffing is the expensive bit, and airlines have reduced this to bare bones, whether it’s on board or on the ground. With the current shortages of suitable staff in nearly every industry, I don’t think this will change soon, even though I believe there is money to be made out there.

        One reason I wouldn’t pay for BA F except on a very special sale deal (even though I could afford it) is that the ground handling is not much different to economy with status. The same goes for most European out-stations.

        Virgin used to just about have it with their Limo and Upper Class wing. The wing is still there as is the Clubhouse (blows BA Flounge and CCR out of the water) but you still have to schelp through T3. At least at JFK their lounge is above the gate and they board Upper Class from the lounge after everyone else has boarded.

  • Marko says:

    Enjoying the article, don’t quite understand the weight issue though.
    Whilst the seat is heavy at 100kg, 185kg ish with a passenger this is less than the 6 economy seats that would be in its place (rough estimate 550kg). This would reduce fuel burn and increase the range of the plane.

    • Talay says:

      Yeah, the maths used in this article is pretty poor.

    • Oliver Ranson says:

      It’s a good point Marko. At the margin though the pax weight issue goes away because the last 27x EY seats will not be sold on most flights while the first 4x FC seats will be sold on most flights.

  • Paul says:

    The reference to Aeroflot as an opportunity didn’t age well!

    • Oliver Ranson says:

      Quite… I made a decision when starting my blog that I would write about aviation as we hope it might be and catch up with reality from there.

  • A says:

    Meh gave up on this article after the author tried to claim first class is a time machine. Yawn.

    • WaynedP says:

      That puzzled me too, but you should have read on.

      Author doesn’t mean time machine in the sense of time travel, but rather a means of giving pax more control (or ability to exercise own choice/preference) over time spent on board, with positive spill-over effect after disembarking.

      It’s an interesting econo-utilitarian hypothesis, nothing to do with science fiction.

      Great article, good call to include it on HfP. I also enjoyed the previous Qatar article, and this has convinced me to sign up to Oliver’s ARE blog.

      I will probably go to my grave without ever flying first class, probably primarily because my personal price elasticity paradigm is constrained by my economically constrained childhood, and by my five (not six) figure annual income.

      But I can recognise that there must be a viable target market of potential first class ticket purchasers, especially as valuable benefits are diminished in cheaper classes of airline travel.

      After all, it is the chase to the bottom alluded to by BJ by legacy airlines forced to compete with low cost carriers that has convinced me to reject economy class whenever possible for a minimum standard of premium economy whenever I fly in future.

    • Oliver Ranson says:

      Sorry you didn’t like it A. Maybe next time. 🙂

      WaynedP – you are bang on and I am delighted that you enjoyed what I had to say. I am sure we can all agree that getting where you want to be is is more important than how you get there. Unless of course the journey is the goal, which as a flight enthusiast I can understand. Happy flying.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.