> So why don’t airlines rip out a row of seats, raise prices by 3% and enjoy the reduced costs for fuel and customer service? The only answer I can see is that people, on average, aren’t actually willing to pay 3% more for 2.5 cm more legroom. We want a worse but cheaper product, and so that’s what we get.

Who is "we"?

When was the public vote where a democratic majority of all airline customers rejected the idea? I must have missed the memo.

How much is that 3% in dollars?

Who came up with the initial seat number in the first place that the airline now "has to compensate" by raising prices?

The airline would reduce both revenue and costs, but somehow the raised prices only factor in the lost revenue and get to ignore the reduced costs. That's not even a question for the author?