I go by this:
using 737 measurements (because that is what concerns me).
There is a 6% difference in seat pitch/size between Ecoplus and Comfort Plus in favor of Ecoplus.
So if we go by what Caithes posted, that 33% rate increase in SH with Ecoplus seats still resulted in 99 ORS, we get:
1.33/1.06 = 1.25 ... this means a 25% increase in base rate with Comfort plus seat should still result in 99 ORS, which is not the case: it results in an average ORS of 90.
So if you run Comfplus you can only charge about 5% more for Comfplus before your ORS suffers. If you compete against somebody who uses Ecoplus + 33% rackup of rate, you are in clear competitive disadvantage, if you want to maintain 99 ORS.
As was stated in other threads, it is becoming a question of profitability vs ORS rating, with the new cabin config and new ratings.
WHICH, at the end may not be a bad thing (in real life airlines make decisions: do we put bigger seats and charge higher price, but there is only so much we can charge in economy), or do we put smaller seats, pack in more pax and charge less? It's the mathematical question, question of demand, desirability, etc.
BUT, and I put the big BUT in here, this is fine ONLY when all players use the new config, so somebody is not disadvantaged against other players NETWORK-WIDE. If somebody runs a tight airline on a server from Beijing where 99.5% of slots are used, what need does that player have to get new seat config, if under current system the old config brings him as high and even higher rating than new cabin config, while having the legal possibility to charge more before being negatively affected for ORS ratings and therefore the booking ratio he gets?
The new cabin config should get OBLIGATORY on older servers. For example, put in Dec 31, 2013 midnight deadline. All planes that have not been changed, will be forced upon a standard default config (we know AS default config exists for all planes already). That way there is no disadvantage. I put an example: I run an older M87 in one of the older servers, as the aircraft nicely fits shorter runway. That AC is running in Economy/Ecoplus combination. My Economy class, with a 4 and 5-star onboard service (depending on distance to destination) gets 98 and 99 rating. What incentive do I have to change cabin config of this plane, I am having 99 rating in and respectably high rating in C, and plane is getting full loads in both Y and C, WITH THE OLD CNFIG. So what incentive do I have to change? NONE WHATSOEVER. So unless its obligatory to change config by certain date, we will have HUGE imbalance on older servers.
If you browse back, you can see I cried loud in B737-600 thread and defended for the aircraft to stay put as it is. But that is a bit different, because the new server (Aspern) was launched with certain specs and everybody had the same chance in the beginning to get that aircraft. In that particular case, I consider adjusting the 736 config unjust. Those who cried against it are people that got more expensive planes such as Airbus and were paying more for the same pax capacity and even paying more for fuel than 736. But in this particular case, we are facing older servers being affected, where new players (and existing ones who are still building up their airlines) are disadvantageously affected by having to compete with new, less profitable configs against older and more profitable configs. In this particular case, players have no option to go back to the old config, while in 736 case anybody can get that plane (still) regardless of its current or anterior config.