Sunday Strategist: Should Airlines Remove Seatback Screens?

(Bloomberg Businessweek) -- If you plan on flying American, United, or Alaska Airlines anytime soon, you better bring an iPad. Or a laptop. Three of the largest airlines in the U.S. are removing individual seatback screens from many of their domestic flights. Instead, they say passengers can use their own devices. 

The controversial move angered many passengers. “So my phone replaces the screen in business class? Nice to know what you consider quality,” one man tweeted at American Airlines. Another filmed himself dejectedly poking at seat fabric, pretending it was a touchscreen. Over the years, airlines have condensed seat space, added checked baggage fees, and separated flyers into an airborne caste system. In the early 2000s, economy seats used to be between 34 and 35 inches apart. Now, the average distance between seats is 30 to 31 inches and some low-cost carriers squish people in at 28 inches. Individual seatback screens were one of the few changes that actually improved the flying experience rather than diminishing it. So is removing them a smart move? Let’s find out: 

Pros:

• It’s cheaper. According to The New York Times, seatback screens can cost up to $10,000 per seat. That works out to more than $1.7 million to equip a typical Boeing 737. Furthermore, screen technology changes quickly; no screens means no costly upgrades, either. 
• Removing screens will reduce a plane’s weight, which will reduce the amount of fuel it uses.
• According to a 2018 survey by the trade association Airlines for America, in-flight entertainment options were the second-to-last thing people considered when buying plane tickets, ahead of only “environmental responsibility.”
• American Airlines says more than 50% of airline passengers in the U.S. travel with at least two devices: their phone, and something else. Airlines claim many of them don’t even use the seatback TVs and won’t notice the change.

Cons:

• The divide in device ownership is largely economic: According to the Pew Research Center, 46% of U.S. households with incomes less than $30,000 don’t have a computer, much less a laptop or tablet they take when they fly. Low-income Americans are less likely to be frequent fliers, but when they do fly, they’re more likely to be in those cramped economy seats, where watching a movie would really help take their minds off the fact that they can’t stretch their legs.
• In-flight wi-fi sometimes costs as much as $30 per flight. Airplane wi-fi is also unreliable (I’m looking at you, Gogo) but even if it works, passengers will now have to pay money to watch their own Netflix accounts. Of course, this can be mitigated by offering free wi-fi, which some airlines are doing.
• Fixing a screen to the back of a seat allows passengers to use their tray table for something else. They won’t be able to do that anymore.

In the end, removing screens largely benefits the airlines but not passengers. If an airline’s top priority is saving money—which might be the case for American and United, given the expensive grounding of the Boeing 737 Max—then maybe it makes sense to ditch the TVs. But if you want happier customers, screens ensure that everyone can enjoy (or at least tolerate) their three- or four- or six-hour flight. 

For that reason, Delta and JetBlue are keeping their screens. In fact, Delta is developing a wireless streaming service that will give passengers even more shows and movies to pick from. Of course, there’s always the option to read a book.

Businessweek and Beyond

• Tesla’s Autopilot will kill some, but may save thousands
• A Tide pod but for Glenlivet scotch
• No, you still can’t bring a gun on a plane
• Netflix goes after a new audience: children

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Silvia Killingsworth at skillingswo2@bloomberg.net

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.