167
submitted 2 days ago by cm0002@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

This week, Canadian airline WestJet became one of the first to try to switch the ability to recline into a paid "perk" by announcing that it was reconfiguring 43 of its Boeing 737-8 MAX and 737-800 (BA) planes to have what it classifies as a "refreshed range of seating options."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Anyone remember when Air Canada really was a great airline?

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 15 hours ago

The article is about WestJet.

Flew back from Hawaii on WestJet last year and paid for extended comfort.... I don't regret it purely because it would of been an even shittier experience otherwise.

This is just about greed it's not to make it more affordable. they changed everything last year making it far more expensive for everything. Not to mention their points have gone to shit and their companion vouchers are worthless.

Nationalize the airlines and remove the profit motives.

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 4 points 17 hours ago

Nationalize everything.

[-] Sal@mander.xyz 65 points 2 days ago

I'd rather pay for preventing the front passenger from reclining into me.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago

Then he pays even more to recline even further. Will you match the $15?

[-] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Nah, they'll alternate reclinable and non-recinable rows - just for fun.

I'll pay extra to disable the person in front of me from being able to recline their seat.

As it is, I never use seat recline because there isnt fucking room.

[-] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They cost $42,95 but I kinda think it’s a shitty move when you can upgrade to extra legroom in most flights.

Knee dedenders

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago

I'm 6'3". Why should I have to pay while stubbies don't?

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 days ago

Sure then they should have reduced the cost of non reclining seats and nobody would care. But they are charging more for something they was included before.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago

Pamphlets and brochures are being replaced with more accurate, updated versions.

1000034701

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Oxygen gets you high. In a catastrophic emergency, you're taking giant panicked breaths. Suddenly you become euphoric, docile. You accept your fate. It's all right here. Emergency water landing - 600 miles an hour. Blank faces, calm as Hindu cows

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

You my friend are single serving

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Thanks! 😊

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The hell they are…

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 20 points 2 days ago

So if the seat in front of me reclines into my face, I cannot move without paying?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 days ago

Stop posting clickbait.

Put the proper noun in the goddamn headline.

[-] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago

I'm actually fine with them removing ALL seat reclining options.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 days ago

The tiny angle it goes back is not worth have the idiot ahead of you firback the seat while you are eating

[-] Polkira@piefed.ca 20 points 2 days ago

I wish our government would regulate this shit. Airlines shouldn't be able to nickle and dime like this. Prices just keep going up 😒

[-] rollerbang@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

I agree, something should be done. But I'm not sure about price increase. I've been flying one long haul destination for almost 20 years. The catch? The price has been about there all this time. I always book a long time in advance, but still.

[-] gramie@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Do you have any idea how much more expensive flying used to be? When I was small, in the 1960s, people might take one overseas flight in their lives. Some never did.

A quick search indicates that a round-trip flight between New York and London in 1965 cost about $3,500 in today's dollars. Now it averages $800.

Not that I disagree that airlines are nickel and diming people and keep pushing to see how far they can go before it hurts their bottom line.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours ago

People bitch and moan about airlines, but the only problem I have had with airlines is the passengers.

No one had to fly beside some sweaty fat fuck in flip flops in 1965.

[-] Dionysus@leminal.space 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Like in the 60s, the IBM 3.5mb hard drive went for $35,000 a month. Now the 24,000,000mb drives are $370.

Phill Edwards has a great video talking about the changes in airlines, while focused on the US market, it has a wide impact to the entire industry.

As a matter of fact after looking into this a little more, it's cheaper to fly now for several reasons. Not just economy of scale but also the technology.

(Note: All 1970 figures are adjusted for inflation to 2024 U.S. dollars using a CPI multiplier of approximately 8.04. We assume a 1970 jet fuel price of $0.11/gallon and a 2024 price of $2.50/gallon.)

Cost Analysis: 707 vs. 737 MAX 8 Aircraft & Capacity

  • Purchase Price (Market Value):
    • 707-320B (1970): $8.0 Million
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $64.32 Million
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $55 Million
    • Change (Real Terms): -14.5%
  • Typical Seats (Mixed/Typical):
    • 707-320B (1970): 145
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 145
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 166
    • Change (Real Terms): +14.5%
  • Industry Load Factor (LF):
    • 707-320B (1970): 49.3%
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 49.3%
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 85.0%
    • Change (Real Terms): +35.7 pts
  • Avg. Passengers per Flight:
    • 707-320B (1970): 71.5
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 71.5
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 141.1
    • Change (Real Terms): +97.3% Efficiency Metrics
  • Engines:
    • 707-320B (1970): 4 (Low-bypass)
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 4
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 2 (High-bypass)
    • Change (Real Terms): -50%
  • Cockpit Crew:
    • 707-320B (1970): 3–4
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 3–4
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 2
    • Change (Real Terms): -33% to -50%
  • Fuel Burn (Gallons/Hour):
    • 707-320B (1970): 2,500
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): 2,500
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): 580
    • Change (Real Terms): -76.8% Hourly Operating Costs (Est.)
  • Fuel Cost:
    • 707-320B (1970): $275.00
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $2,211
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $1,450
    • Change (Real Terms): -34.4%
  • Crew Cost:
    • 707-320B (1970): $250.00
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $2,010
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $850
    • Change (Real Terms): -57.7%
  • Maintenance Cost:
    • 707-320B (1970): $150.00
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $1,206
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $750
    • Change (Real Terms): -37.8%
  • Total Hourly Op. Cost:
    • 707-320B (1970): $675.00
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $5,427
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $3,050
    • Change (Real Terms): -43.8% Economics & Pricing
  • Cost per Seat Hour:
    • 707-320B (1970): $4.66
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $37.43
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $18.37
    • Change (Real Terms): -50.9%
  • Cost per Passenger Hour:
    • 707-320B (1970): $9.44
    • 707-320B (in 2024 USD): $75.90
    • 737 MAX 8 (2024): $21.62
    • Change (Real Terms): -71.5%

(Note: Hourly Operating Costs focus on Fuel, Crew, and Maintenance for direct comparison of operational efficiency.)

This direct comparison between two similarly sized narrow-body aircraft reveals a profound improvement in aviation economics over the past 50 years.

  1. Acquisition Costs and Capacity: Remarkably, the 737 MAX 8 is actually cheaper in real terms (-14.5%) than the Boeing 707 was in 1970. The 707 was expensive, state-of-the-art technology for its time. Manufacturing efficiencies and the massive scale of the 737 program have driven down the real acquisition cost of modern narrow-bodies, despite their increased complexity. Furthermore, the 737 MAX 8 carries about 14.5% more seats (166 vs. 145) due to modern, denser seating configurations.

  2. The Fuel Efficiency Chasm: This is the most striking technological difference. The 707 utilized four early-generation, low-bypass engines that were incredibly thirsty, burning about 2,500 gallons per hour. The 737 MAX 8, utilizing two highly advanced, high-bypass CFM LEAP engines, burns only 580 gallons per hour. This represents a 76.8% reduction in fuel burn per hour.

  3. Operating Costs Plummet: When comparing these two aircraft, the total hourly operating cost of the 737 MAX 8 is 43.8% lower in real terms than the 707.

  • Fuel Costs: Despite the massive increase in the price of jet fuel (from $0.11 to $2.50), the efficiency gains are so profound that the real cost of fuel per hour is 34.4% lower today.
  • Crew Costs: Real crew costs are down 57.7%. This is driven by the elimination of the Flight Engineer and Navigator roles required on the 707, standardizing the two-person cockpit.
  • Maintenance Costs: Real maintenance costs are down 37.8%. A major driver here is the shift from four engines on the 707 to two engines on the 737 MAX 8, significantly reducing engine maintenance overhead and benefiting from improved reliability.
  1. The Impact of Utilization: The technological improvements are magnified by changes in airline business practices following deregulation. The shift from planes flying half-empty (49.3% load factor) to nearly full (85.0% load factor) is crucial.

The combined effect of higher seating density and better load factors means the average 737 MAX 8 flight carries 141.1 passengers, nearly double the 71.5 passengers carried on the average 707 flight (+97.3%). Conclusion

When comparing the Boeing 707 directly to the modern 737 MAX 8, the advancements are extraordinary. The modern aircraft is cheaper to buy (in real terms), carries more seats, and costs nearly half as much to operate per hour.

By combining a 43.8% reduction in hourly costs with a 97.3% increase in passengers per flight, the inflation-adjusted cost to the airline to fly one passenger for one hour has decreased by a staggering 71.5% (from $75.90 to $21.62).

[-] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Why should people be able to fly for cheap?

Air travel is the single biggest contributor to CO2 pollution that the average person produces. Environmentally speaking, air travel should more expensive.

And we have overtourism running rampant now precisely because air travel is now so cheap, destroying many local economies in tourism hot spots.

[-] Dionysus@leminal.space 5 points 1 day ago

Totally, only the ultra wealthy should be able to afford flying.

Those plebs crammed into economy are what's really killing the planet. That's why I'm glad I use paper straws so the CEO of Starbucks can fly 1000 miles a day on his private jet to work. RTO baby!

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

They're also a lot more planes today.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

are you in a "paid for oxygen row" or a "hold your breath" row ?

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Don’t give Omar Baba any ideas!

https://youtu.be/YfQmiucLZvQ

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

The airline industry figured out long ago that people will suffer the most miserable flights possible in order to save money but they will absolutely take free comfort upgrades. If they do this it’s to save money and make the flight cheaper because if other airlines offer reclining seats at the same price customers will take those instead as a free upgrade.

[-] Eranziel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Please explain how this saves them money? All I see is finding ways to upcharge customers for what used to be standard options, while maybe cramming in one more row of passengers.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Cramming in one more row of passengers means you get more passengers per flight => each passenger costs less to fly.

I don’t actually know if they’re going to fit in one more row though. Maybe the non-reclining seats are lighter in weight? That would save money on fuel costs.

If the system for optional reclining seats actually adds weight to the plane then they’re taking a gamble that enough passengers will pay extra for the reclining to pay for the additional fuel costs. That could backfire!

In a lot of ways this seems like an experiment that could backfire, even if it doesn’t risk increasing flight costs on some flights. Only time will tell!

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You mean "to increase profits"..

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That’s less specific. You can increase profits by saving money (reducing costs) or you can increase profits by selling more (increasing sales).

This plan to take away reclining seats is unlikely to increase sales!

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Ugh. What a pain. Can't they just make it a subscription instead?

/s

[-] k0e3@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

If charge by the minute if I were them.

[-] jif@piefed.ca 15 points 2 days ago
[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 days ago
[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

The only difference is societal acceptance.

[-] plz1@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Fast forward to the part where they make you pay for your own breathable air...

[-] Hackworth@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
167 points (97.2% liked)

Canada

10525 readers
722 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS