abies111
Topic Author
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:15 pm

Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:34 pm

Sure, I've never purchased cheaper tickets than lately, but at least for intraeuropean flights, airlines have decided that everybody would prefer to save 10% of the cost of an economy fare (which I translate for the additional capacity of a 737/320 gained when going from rational pitch to 28-29”), at the price of just not being able to fit in the assigned seat, with the knees trapped constantly with the back of the next seat.

As torture pitch for roughly half of the population (slightly taller or taller than the mean) is becoming widespread and progressively standard, for whatever economic reasoning justify that, and the serious perspective that the possibility of choice will ultimately be lost (no, don't tell me that tall people should purchase business fare if don't want to travel with pain), I wonder why regulatory authorities don't step up and set a minimum floor space requirement for humans travelling by air, as already exist for livestock (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97)

See Chapter VII:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 01&from=en

Is quite amusing to see how the floor space of 0.33 square meters provided by brand new planes with sardine can configurations (i.e 18" width x 29" pitch), compares with the animals regulatory minimum space, for example for sheep and goats (0.4 sq meters/unit), or pigs (0.35 to 0.51), for estimated weights of less than 100 kg in both cases.

I don't know (and don't care) if individuals of both species are travelling by air extensively these days, but in my opinion it's a nonsense that two legs animals don't enjoy at least the same level of protection.

Maybe somebody could elaborate about the benefits for customers and airliners gained by not having an humanely levelled game field.
 
User avatar
DolphinAir747
Posts: 1872
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:37 pm

Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:49 pm

DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Nor can most people.
What the...?
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:06 pm

Quoting Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_pig

" "When pigs fly" is an adynaton, a way of saying that something will never happen."

Little did folks know when that term originated.

Oftentimes, human can't choose the conditions under which they fly. There really should be a law governing minimum standards for space on aircraft. Also on buses and trains. Purchasing extra legroom or higher classes of service is not always an option, and shouldn't be necessary.

When the race to the bottom takes airlines below the level of human decency it is time for the public (meaning US through government) to say "enough: stop it!". We are not cattle.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:27 pm

I have to disagree with this.

First of all, the price difference between LCC's and legacy airlines is often far more than 10 percent. Sometimes up to 400 percent on the same route (or parallel route). I'm not paying 40 times as much to get from one place to another if it's available much cheaper.

Second, some legacy airlines are crappy as well and some LCC's are not so crappy. I've heard stories about British Airways being quite crappy (never flown them myself, so correct me if I'm wrong) and I know Ryanair is not crappy at all. Actually I'm rather tall myself and on all my Ryanair flights I've always had more than enough legroom.

I have flown on crappy aircraft a couple of times. Transavia offers less legroom than Ryanair, but so far Wizzair is the one offering the least legroom. Still I'd fly them again any time. It's only for a few hours, so what does it matter? And like I said before, the price difference is significant.

On longer flights legroom does start to matter. The only long-haul flights I've been on so far were with Norwegian, also a LCC. Nothing to complain about the legroom however, it's rather comfortable.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:31 pm

Standing on 4 legs takes more horizontal area than sitting upright. ;)
Still, 29" pitch and often even less should be outlawed immediately, and a minimum of 30" introduced. This is one less row on an A320, or only 3,33%. And how often are those 6 seats sold anyway ?
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:45 pm

lancelot07 wrote:
Standing on 4 legs takes more horizontal area than sitting upright. ;)
Still, 29" pitch and often even less should be outlawed immediately, and a minimum of 30" introduced. This is one less row on an A320, or only 3,33%. And how often are those 6 seats sold anyway ?


For a LCC, those 6 seats do matter. They often got their planes full and every seat they can sell means extra income. Every time I've flown Ryanair the plane was full or nearly full, so those 6 seats are sold nearly every time.

Ryanair has a 30" seatpitch and that's more than sufficient. I'm surprised they also say Wizzair has 30", since the last time I flew them they certainly hadn't. I guess that seat was 28" or even less, so either that plane was configured different from the rest or they've improved since then. Transavia offers 29" and eventhough it's crappy it's allowable on short flights.
 
User avatar
Vasu
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:34 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:22 am

Don't forget: what you actually "feel" regarding seat pitch also depends on the thickness of the seat itself, it's not the measure of open space between the seats.

Going back to the point in hand though - animals haven't chosen to be shipped at all, humans (usually) have.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17358
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 2:45 am

Why do you want it mandated to have pricier tickets?
If someone cannot afford a comfier airline, they couldn't afford what these fares would mandate.
I choose to pay $60 for a few extra inches of pitch for a 4.5 hour flight. On the way back I'm happy to save that $60 (I'll be better rested).

Then again, with TSA delays/gov fees, I now avoid flying if driving is less than 5 hours. So the role these 29" seats plays I avoid. But for those who want a cheap flight for a short hop, why not?

As other posters have noted, the extra seats matter. I have numerous friends and relatives who love flying ULCCs. They travel without luggage. Anyone 30 (maybe 35) and below now seems to keep a few clothes at a friends and they keep clothes for those friends. Why should they have to pay what us old farts want?

This sounds like the anti-Uber/Lyft rants I hear. And then I met a bunch of Uber drivers and eventually employers started to reimburse for Uber (new hires weren't hiring cabs and didn't get why they weren't being reimbursed...). Well, those same new hires fly cheap.

The market is efficient. If the level of service drops below what customers will accept, they'll move on. Spirit is a very successful airline with 28" pitch. If you don't like that, buy a seat on JetBlue. It isn't as if seatguru isn't unknown...

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15268
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:05 am

I can't say whether or not the EU regulations are similar, but many airlines specify only X number of animals carried in baggage based on their size, and that's a direct correlation to not only the floor space taken up, but the amount of air available. There are formulations of how many 100 size kennels (small) can be taken vs, size 500 or even 700 (large/extra large) kennels, and the cubic feet they take up is correlated to the air needed by the occupants.

Or so I've been told by multiple Air Cargo people over the years, anyway. Point being, there are no air consumption constraints on the passenger cabin.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:05 am

abies111 wrote:
I don't know (and don't care) if individuals of both species are travelling by air extensively these days, but in my opinion it's a nonsense that two legs animals don't enjoy at least the same level of protection.


When I flew my two dogs LAX-AKL it was an expensive business. Each was more expensive in cargo than an economy seat in the passenger cabin and the attendant costs (cost of crates, vets, correct paperwork, etc) put that much higher.

Paying that sort of money, I think my dogs should have good legroom - LOL.

If enough people found flying ULCC to be too uncomfortable they wouldn't do it and the airline(s) would go bust. Instead, they are making excellent money, so a lot of people don't see the problem that you have.

Ii's the free market. You don't like 'em, don't fly 'em, but I'm not sure why you would want to legislate what others choose to do.

I've flown ULCC numerous times - first with Ryanair in 1992 - and I've never had a problem. I simply adjust my expectations to the price I'm paying.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
VS11
Posts: 1411
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 4:24 am

The argument about tight seating is no longer applicable as airlines, even Spirit, have more legroom options for marginally higher price.
 
seat64k
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:48 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:38 am

mariner wrote:
If enough people found flying ULCC to be too uncomfortable they wouldn't do it and the airline(s) would go bust. Instead, they are making excellent money, so a lot of people don't see the problem that you have.


This does not follow. They may see the problem but have no alternative. Just about everyone I know who is around 180cm and above who flies regularly complains about legroom. I consider this high to be on the higher end of average - not particularly tall.

And it's not just ULCCs. On almost every "regular" airline I've flown on multiple times, some of their widebodies have tight legroom, and some give me about an inch to work with. A recent flight on an Aegean A320 had my knees stuck solid in the seatback in front of me - sore legs, sore knees, and lower back pain for a day after a flight of less than 3 hours. Mercifully, the return flight, on an A321, had about half an inch between my knees and the seat in front of me.

When companies - not just airlines - have to squeeze their customers this hard in order to make a profit, it usually comes down to either a badly run company or greed. The idea that airlines need the extra 6 seats to turn a profit is pure apologetics.
 
c933103
Posts: 3639
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:23 am

And yet Ryanair said if not for safety regulation then they would have added standing seats

-----

If only travelers are provided with info about seat pitch, width, or leg room then we can say they are given a choice

Nowadays travelers can only judge that from experience and hearsay which is not how an efficient market would work at all

Why there are no flight search engine provide this information to customers alongside price yet?

Because of the ability for airlines to change the aircraft they use on a route without prior notification?
This is a placeholder.
 
c933103
Posts: 3639
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:38 am

seat64k wrote:
mariner wrote:
If enough people found flying ULCC to be too uncomfortable they wouldn't do it and the airline(s) would go bust. Instead, they are making excellent money, so a lot of people don't see the problem that you have.


This does not follow. They may see the problem but have no alternative. Just about everyone I know who is around 180cm and above who flies regularly complains about legroom. I consider this high to be on the higher end of average - not particularly tall.

And it's not just ULCCs. On almost every "regular" airline I've flown on multiple times, some of their widebodies have tight legroom, and some give me about an inch to work with. A recent flight on an Aegean A320 had my knees stuck solid in the seatback in front of me - sore legs, sore knees, and lower back pain for a day after a flight of less than 3 hours. Mercifully, the return flight, on an A321, had about half an inch between my knees and the seat in front of me.

When companies - not just airlines - have to squeeze their customers this hard in order to make a profit, it usually comes down to either a badly run company or greed. The idea that airlines need the extra 6 seats to turn a profit is pure apologetics.

If a company's extra profit is around 1 billion a year at 10% profit margin, then give it 10 year's time and then extra 3% profit would mean extra 0.8 billion profit
This is a placeholder.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8261
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:07 am

I'm ok with them mandating seat dimensions or maximum. configurations by type, and even minimum food/beverage on flights over a certain duration even if it forces the price back up a bit! In Europe even if you pay for business class you don't get more pitch, just food and maybe width. I already pay more to get airlines which offer more.
Air Asia X has fares to asia $900 from AKL, often MH/CX/CZ are usually with 100 and sometimes within 20 bucks, That's not much for the 8 across on an A330 on MH over the 9 across on D7.

At very least the industry should agree on what constitutes seat pitch measurements . 2 airlines can both advertise 32" but one feels tight the other doesn't because each airline measures to suit themselves favourably.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:29 am

The problem with these discussions -as many know on this forum is that seat pitch is a variable.old style seats had perhaps 4+ins of old foam sponge style.On top of that they had a bulky tray mechanism.And for good measure they had the magazine rack just at knee height full of bumph and sick bags etc.All of this lost space goes into 'seat pitch'.(oh and a useless small recline mechanism).
Now look at the latest lightweight carbon fibre fixed back seats with advanced foam materials with the mag rack ( if at all) at the top of the seat.These seats save 2-3 ins overall in 'pitch'.So a 28in pitch with these seats can be the same as 31 'old' seat pitch.If one goes to the Runwaygirl' website you can see video of how such an extreme seat can offer 28" seat pitch to a 6 footer and still have room between knee and the seat in front.
Now that is the extreme.Many are using less efficient seats yet still offer 28".Thats where the big problems start.So there needs to be a new measurement criteria that removes the variable of the seat depth.
The same is true of seat width.How is it ( you may ask) that a 737 can magically suddenly offer an 18" seat ot Airbus can magically add an extra seat on an A380 (X11) and still be 18in.The answer of course is they can't.There is a variable here too which is exploited.Instead of measuring a fixed point (actual seat width) they measure between the armrests.So suddenly you get 'stick like' arm rests that allow them to claim that extra inch! But that's not where your bottom actually is!
So once again a new measurement is required,one where the marketing guys can't cheat.
Personally I would be happy if there was an industry wide standard of uncheatable measurements.Below a certain width/length they would be forced to call it 4th class or similar.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:48 am

seat64k wrote:
This does not follow. They may see the problem but have no alternative. Just about everyone I know who is around 180cm and above who flies regularly complains about legroom. I consider this high to be on the higher end of average - not particularly tall.


I didn't say they wouldn't complain about it - LOL. People seem to complain about an extraordinary number of things these days, yet they continue to fly in conditions they may claim not to like. As you note, your friend still flies regularly. The way to express disapproval is with your wallet.

seat64k wrote:
When companies - not just airlines - have to squeeze their customers this hard in order to make a profit, it usually comes down to either a badly run company or greed. The idea that airlines need the extra 6 seats to turn a profit is pure apologetics.


Not at all. Companies do it because they can, because people continue to fly with them. It will only change if people cease to fly with them.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3614
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:44 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Nor can most people.


People can choose to take the train if they so wish, or not to travel at all.

Personally I don't want to pay higher prices just because tall or fat people are too greedy to pay for extra space. As I'm about 174cm tall for me 29 inch seat pitch is just fine, once flew total of 14 hours with short stop after first 8 on a 757 with such seat pitch.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8306
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 12:32 pm

29 inch is still too much. The idea of standing seats deserves to be looked at again. People have a choice and a ticket can never be too cheap.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 4:40 pm

I agree with most others that as humans can choose there should be no minimum norm, as long as
1) I know at booking what I will get - airliners or booking agents should issue a warning for substandard class ("This seat is not recommended for people taller than 177 cm"), and
2) My employer (or spouse) does not oblige me to travel in sardine class
 
tranceport
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:56 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:03 pm

pvjin wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Nor can most people.


People can choose to take the train if they so wish, or not to travel at all.

Personally I don't want to pay higher prices just because tall or fat people are too greedy to pay for extra space. As I'm about 174cm tall for me 29 inch seat pitch is just fine, once flew total of 14 hours with short stop after first 8 on a 757 with such seat pitch.


How do you feel about people who are shorter than you who pay higher prices to accommodate your greedy need when they could do with even less room for more seats and lower prices on flights?
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3614
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:54 pm

tranceport wrote:
pvjin wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:

Nor can most people.


People can choose to take the train if they so wish, or not to travel at all.

Personally I don't want to pay higher prices just because tall or fat people are too greedy to pay for extra space. As I'm about 174cm tall for me 29 inch seat pitch is just fine, once flew total of 14 hours with short stop after first 8 on a 757 with such seat pitch.


How do you feel about people who are shorter than you who pay higher prices to accommodate your greedy need when they could do with even less room for more seats and lower prices on flights?


I sympathize with them, I think Ryanair's idea of standing "seats" is good, it would likely be even more healthy than sitting.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:22 pm

pvjin wrote:
tranceport wrote:
pvjin wrote:

People can choose to take the train if they so wish, or not to travel at all.

Personally I don't want to pay higher prices just because tall or fat people are too greedy to pay for extra space. As I'm about 174cm tall for me 29 inch seat pitch is just fine, once flew total of 14 hours with short stop after first 8 on a 757 with such seat pitch.


How do you feel about people who are shorter than you who pay higher prices to accommodate your greedy need when they could do with even less room for more seats and lower prices on flights?


I sympathize with them, I think Ryanair's idea of standing "seats" is good, it would likely be even more healthy than sitting.


So exactly what would differentiate this, from a subway styled train, to being with? Moreover, how would it then be able to compete with the trains, who would now offer - better service?

As is - it would certainly not be able to increase seat count/passengers on board;
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... senger.pdf
 
sevenair
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:27 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Nor can most people.


No but they can choose to fly or not.
#NotAllDrones
 
tonystan
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:39 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:14 am

I wish the original poster of this thread understood how to create a debate in the English language as none of that was easy to understand!
My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:23 am

pvjin wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Nor can most people.


People can choose to take the train if they so wish, or not to travel at all.

Personally I don't want to pay higher prices just because tall or fat people are too greedy to pay for extra space. As I'm about 174cm tall for me 29 inch seat pitch is just fine, once flew total of 14 hours with short stop after first 8 on a 757 with such seat pitch.


I am sorry but this is absolute rubbish. I am 6'4 and don't have any space in those seats. Seat pitch in Business and economy are the same nowadays. The only way I'll fly is business and only if row one is available. If not I'll take a different flight. And let me tell you this, taking a train from London to Zurich or Lisbon is not an option. So for me it is a real struggle.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:28 am

aerorobnz wrote:
In Europe even if you pay for business class you don't get more pitch, just food and maybe width.


That's not always true. On KLM within Europe, the first 6 or 7 rows have 2 to 3 inches more seat pitch and the middle seat in 3-abreast sections is left empty in business class. Since all those rows are rarely needed for business class, the additional rows with the extra pitch are sold as "Economy Comfort" at a small surcharge over any Y class fare.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:31 am

lightsaber wrote:
The market is efficient. If the level of service drops below what customers will accept, they'll move on. Spirit is a very successful airline with 28" pitch. If you don't like that, buy a seat on JetBlue. It isn't as if seatguru isn't unknown...


With utmost respect, I must disagree. I doubt that any airline took consumer surveys to see how much "increased efficiency" could be gotten away with by cramming people into less and less space. I presume it was one or more LCCs or ULCCs who made the initial leap away from first-class service and passenger comfort. Others followed like a herd racing to the smell of water on the valley floor. In many cases people cannot "move on." There might not be anything available to move on to.

I looked at T-100 data for July 2016 to compare city pairs for Spirit and JetBlue. Jet Blue flew 164 city pairs while Spirit flew 149 that month. There were only 19 city pairs in common between them. So, if you don't like Spirit you will not get much help from JetBlue.

I did not attempt to look at ALL of the LCCs vs. Spirit. I'm sure that in some number of cases one might have found alternatives with Allegiant or others (especially Southwest which might not really qualify as a LCC).

We need badly to have regulations governing humane standards regarding leg space and seat comfort on aircraft. Set some decent minimums that ALL carriers must abide by. I doubt that it will raise costs so much that they can't be handled by a $10-$15 increase in ticket prices. "The Market" won't do it.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
downdata
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:30 am

DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Nor can any huamn go and purchase 30% more room for 30% price addition because airline decided you either want to be cramped into the space of a parcel via the cheapest (economy) fares or you want to pay 3x for premium economy.
 
c933103
Posts: 3639
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:07 am

Rajahdhani wrote:
pvjin wrote:
tranceport wrote:

How do you feel about people who are shorter than you who pay higher prices to accommodate your greedy need when they could do with even less room for more seats and lower prices on flights?


I sympathize with them, I think Ryanair's idea of standing "seats" is good, it would likely be even more healthy than sitting.


So exactly what would differentiate this, from a subway styled train, to being with? Moreover, how would it then be able to compete with the trains, who would now offer - better service?

As is - it would certainly not be able to increase seat count/passengers on board;
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... senger.pdf

train would take longer time and planes would be faster, and planes can reach remote destinations that have no rail coverage - train are already more comfortable than planes nowadays
And while it can't increase passengers count on current plane, might be it would be possible on next gen prop/RJ with it designed in mind.
This is a placeholder.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:07 am

senatorflyer wrote:
I am sorry but this is absolute rubbish. I am 6'4 and don't have any space in those seats. Seat pitch in Business and economy are the same nowadays. The only way I'll fly is business and only if row one is available. If not I'll take a different flight. And let me tell you this, taking a train from London to Zurich or Lisbon is not an option. So for me it is a real struggle.


That's nonsense! I've looked it up and 6.4 feet is equal to 195 cm. I'm 194 cm myself, so we're about equal in length. Still I always got enough space in those seats. Ryanair offers 30" seat pitch and that's more than sufficient. Transavia offers 29", that's starting to get crappy but it fits. Only 28" is getting really crappy, but there's not a lot of airlines that offer that little leg space.

By the way, the airline in Europe that offers the most leg space is Turkish Airlines, they offer up to 33".
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:08 am

DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Have you not noticed in Europe most business sections are the same 28-30" pitch as coach on the same flights, but the seat next to you is blocked. Yeah that does not help with leg room.
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:30 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
senatorflyer wrote:
I am sorry but this is absolute rubbish. I am 6'4 and don't have any space in those seats. Seat pitch in Business and economy are the same nowadays. The only way I'll fly is business and only if row one is available. If not I'll take a different flight. And let me tell you this, taking a train from London to Zurich or Lisbon is not an option. So for me it is a real struggle.


That's nonsense! I've looked it up and 6.4 feet is equal to 195 cm. I'm 194 cm myself, so we're about equal in length. Still I always got enough space in those seats. Ryanair offers 30" seat pitch and that's more than sufficient. Transavia offers 29", that's starting to get crappy but it fits. Only 28" is getting really crappy, but there's not a lot of airlines that offer that little leg space.

By the way, the airline in Europe that offers the most leg space is Turkish Airlines, they offer up to 33".


You do realise that people have different proportions even if they are the same hight? Then the seat pitch measurement is not an indicator of how much legroom you've got. It all depends on the seat design. Have not flown Ryanair for years so can't say. The Lufthansa group European seats are the worst for me.

TAP is installing new Recaro seats and according to the Buisiness Traveller magazine everyone taller than 175 will struggle with the 29 seat pitch.

Link here: https://www.businesstraveller.com/featu ... ew-routes/
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11426
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:31 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
I have to disagree with this.

First of all, the price difference between LCC's and legacy airlines is often far more than 10 percent. Sometimes up to 400 percent on the same route (or parallel route). I'm not paying 40 times as much to get from one place to another if it's available much cheaper.

Second, some legacy airlines are crappy as well and some LCC's are not so crappy. I've heard stories about British Airways being quite crappy (never flown them myself, so correct me if I'm wrong) and I know Ryanair is not crappy at all. Actually I'm rather tall myself and on all my Ryanair flights I've always had more than enough legroom.

I have flown on crappy aircraft a couple of times. Transavia offers less legroom than Ryanair, but so far Wizzair is the one offering the least legroom. Still I'd fly them again any time. It's only for a few hours, so what does it matter? And like I said before, the price difference is significant.

On longer flights legroom does start to matter. The only long-haul flights I've been on so far were with Norwegian, also a LCC. Nothing to complain about the legroom however, it's rather comfortable.


You didn't state how tall you are. And you actually made the OP's point. If LCCs can be far cheaper than legacies, then the difference doesn't come from the pitch. If there was a pitch standard forcing everyone to remove a few seats, the situation regarding the price difference wouldn't change, and the LCCs would only have to charge a few percent more.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11426
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:44 pm

seahawk wrote:
29 inch is still too much. The idea of standing seats deserves to be looked at again. People have a choice and a ticket can never be too cheap.


While the idea appears outrageous, if you're in relatively good health, it wouldn't be a problem. For a 2-3 hours flights I would rather be in an upright position if it means I'm less squeezed.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:22 pm

c933103 wrote:
Train would take longer time and planes would be faster, and planes can reach remote destinations that have no rail coverage - train are already more comfortable than planes nowadays
And while it can't increase passengers count on current plane, might be it would be possible on next gen prop/RJ with it designed in mind.


Fair points. I imagine that if possible, increasing the amount of (or access to) emergency exits (especially if considered at the design phase) - would work.

I just cannot imagine people standing for long periods of time. Another issue, is of safety. When seated, and with a belt - the passenger is sufficiently 'restrained'. Haha, standing belts? Do we get to strap them to the walls?
 
c933103
Posts: 3639
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:28 pm

Rajahdhani wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Train would take longer time and planes would be faster, and planes can reach remote destinations that have no rail coverage - train are already more comfortable than planes nowadays
And while it can't increase passengers count on current plane, might be it would be possible on next gen prop/RJ with it designed in mind.


Fair points. I imagine that if possible, increasing the amount of (or access to) emergency exits (especially if considered at the design phase) - would work.

I just cannot imagine people standing for long periods of time. Another issue, is of safety. When seated, and with a belt - the passenger is sufficiently 'restrained'. Haha, standing belts? Do we get to strap them to the walls?


A flight on props/ small RJ won't be too long.

Safety, and also regulations concernning safety, are basically the only thing stopping Ryanair from actually implementing the idea. That probably would need some serious creativity and brainstorming to make that work.
This is a placeholder.
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:16 pm

rbavfan wrote:
DolphinAir747 wrote:
Animals don't choose the conditions they fly in. An animal can't go and purchase an extra legroom or business class seat.


Have you not noticed in Europe most business sections are the same 28-30" pitch as coach on the same flights, but the seat next to you is blocked. Yeah that does not help with leg room.



It actually does help...stretch your legs into that empty row or one leg. You'd be surprised how much more comfortable that is. I've been there and do it any time I'm in coach and I'm 6 feet 2 inches tall.
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:28 pm

abies111 wrote:
Sure, I've never purchased cheaper tickets than lately, but at least for intraeuropean flights, airlines have decided that everybody would prefer to save 10% of the cost of an economy fare (which I translate for the additional capacity of a 737/320 gained when going from rational pitch to 28-29”), at the price of just not being able to fit in the assigned seat, with the knees trapped constantly with the back of the next seat.

As torture pitch for roughly half of the population (slightly taller or taller than the mean) is becoming widespread and progressively standard, for whatever economic reasoning justify that, and the serious perspective that the possibility of choice will ultimately be lost (no, don't tell me that tall people should purchase business fare if don't want to travel with pain), I wonder why regulatory authorities don't step up and set a minimum floor space requirement for humans travelling by air, as already exist for livestock (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97)

See Chapter VII:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 01&from=en

Is quite amusing to see how the floor space of 0.33 square meters provided by brand new planes with sardine can configurations (i.e 18" width x 29" pitch), compares with the animals regulatory minimum space, for example for sheep and goats (0.4 sq meters/unit), or pigs (0.35 to 0.51), for estimated weights of less than 100 kg in both cases.

I don't know (and don't care) if individuals of both species are travelling by air extensively these days, but in my opinion it's a nonsense that two legs animals don't enjoy at least the same level of protection.

Maybe somebody could elaborate about the benefits for customers and airliners gained by not having an humanely levelled game field.


This whole post is nonsense.
Like many have stated before, the individual chooses to travel, the animal doesn't. If you can't afford it, then the person is complaining just to complain. People do range in size and weight and while one person will be comfortable, the other one won't be. Why not regulate beds to have a minimum for people over 6 feet tall as well so they don't have to pay more for a Queen or King size mattress? Why not make buildings have a minimum height to accommodate tall people ? (So sick of hitting my head in low ceilings...lol) Why stop at just Airline seats.
If the individual wants to travel by air, they can either pay the cheapest ticket in cramped cattle class or save up for business etc or even economy plus. Seat guru is available as a website to give the traveler advice on seats by airline etc
You want something? It has a price, you don't like the price, that sucks, someone else will pay it.
If a significant amount of people bought tickets on airlines due to seat comfort instead of rushing to the LCCs or for the cheapest ticket then you'd see what you want, a standard raising. Airlines introduced bag fees and people accepted it, seat pitch reduced, people accepted it. Money talks. As a tall person I suck it up if I can't be in business or first and try for alternatives like the bulkheads or exit rows which you can reserve in advance and, with some airlines, pay for at the ticket counter or online
 
c933103
Posts: 3639
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:39 pm

Rookie87 wrote:
abies111 wrote:
Sure, I've never purchased cheaper tickets than lately, but at least for intraeuropean flights, airlines have decided that everybody would prefer to save 10% of the cost of an economy fare (which I translate for the additional capacity of a 737/320 gained when going from rational pitch to 28-29”), at the price of just not being able to fit in the assigned seat, with the knees trapped constantly with the back of the next seat.

As torture pitch for roughly half of the population (slightly taller or taller than the mean) is becoming widespread and progressively standard, for whatever economic reasoning justify that, and the serious perspective that the possibility of choice will ultimately be lost (no, don't tell me that tall people should purchase business fare if don't want to travel with pain), I wonder why regulatory authorities don't step up and set a minimum floor space requirement for humans travelling by air, as already exist for livestock (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97)

See Chapter VII:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 01&from=en

Is quite amusing to see how the floor space of 0.33 square meters provided by brand new planes with sardine can configurations (i.e 18" width x 29" pitch), compares with the animals regulatory minimum space, for example for sheep and goats (0.4 sq meters/unit), or pigs (0.35 to 0.51), for estimated weights of less than 100 kg in both cases.

I don't know (and don't care) if individuals of both species are travelling by air extensively these days, but in my opinion it's a nonsense that two legs animals don't enjoy at least the same level of protection.

Maybe somebody could elaborate about the benefits for customers and airliners gained by not having an humanely levelled game field.


This whole post is nonsense.
Like many have stated before, the individual chooses to travel, the animal doesn't. If you can't afford it, then the person is complaining just to complain. People do range in size and weight and while one person will be comfortable, the other one won't be. Why not regulate beds to have a minimum for people over 6 feet tall as well so they don't have to pay more for a Queen or King size mattress? Why not make buildings have a minimum height to accommodate tall people ? (So sick of hitting my head in low ceilings...lol) Why stop at just Airline seats.
If the individual wants to travel by air, they can either pay the cheapest ticket in cramped cattle class or save up for business etc or even economy plus. Seat guru is available as a website to give the traveler advice on seats by airline etc
You want something? It has a price, you don't like the price, that sucks, someone else will pay it.
If a significant amount of people bought tickets on airlines due to seat comfort instead of rushing to the LCCs or for the cheapest ticket then you'd see what you want, a standard raising. Airlines introduced bag fees and people accepted it, seat pitch reduced, people accepted it. Money talks. As a tall person I suck it up if I can't be in business or first and try for alternatives like the bulkheads or exit rows which you can reserve in advance and, with some airlines, pay for at the ticket counter or online

Is there even 1% of all passengers know what is seatguru? You can only argue that if people are presented with seat spec next to the price. And no, charging extra €40 for exit row on a flight which only cost €50 to board and no one choose the extra leg room available for the exit row is not an evidence that people don't want to pay 10% more for 10% more seat pitch and 20% more leg room.
This is a placeholder.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:48 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
I looked at T-100 data for July 2016 to compare city pairs for Spirit and JetBlue. Jet Blue flew 164 city pairs while Spirit flew 149 that month. There were only 19 city pairs in common between them. So, if you don't like Spirit you will not get much help from JetBlue.


Spirit flies very few monopoly routes, they face a lot of competition and most of the majors - and certainly United - do or plan to offer competitive fares with the ULCC's.

BobPatterson wrote:
We need badly to have regulations governing humane standards regarding leg space and seat comfort on aircraft. Set some decent minimums that ALL carriers must abide by. I doubt that it will raise costs so much that they can't be handled by a $10-$15 increase in ticket prices. "The Market" won't do it.


I don't understand this urge for regulating that which you don't like. The ULCC's offer remarkably cheap fares but that very cheapness comes with certain restrictions - duh! - and among those restrictions is the seat pitch.

If that and that the other restrictions are not acceptable to you, don't fly 'em.

I can get a cheap meal at MacDonalds, but I don't like the taste of Big Mac's (a strange, paraffin taste), so I forgo cheapness in favour of something I prefer. If I find some kitchen utensil I like I can probably get a version it cheaper at Walmart, but I choose not to shop at Walmart.

If I go from London to Paris, I use the train - Eurostar - even if I can get a cheaper fare on Easyjet. I prefer not have the hassle of transfers to and from the airports.

When did anyone dictate that every airline has to be all things to every passenger? No one is forcing anyone to fly in conditions they don't like.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:58 pm

Rookie87 wrote:
abies111 wrote:
Sure, I've never purchased cheaper tickets than lately, but at least for intraeuropean flights, airlines have decided that everybody would prefer to save 10% of the cost of an economy fare (which I translate for the additional capacity of a 737/320 gained when going from rational pitch to 28-29”), at the price of just not being able to fit in the assigned seat, with the knees trapped constantly with the back of the next seat.

As torture pitch for roughly half of the population (slightly taller or taller than the mean) is becoming widespread and progressively standard, for whatever economic reasoning justify that, and the serious perspective that the possibility of choice will ultimately be lost (no, don't tell me that tall people should purchase business fare if don't want to travel with pain), I wonder why regulatory authorities don't step up and set a minimum floor space requirement for humans travelling by air, as already exist for livestock (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97)

See Chapter VII:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 01&from=en

Is quite amusing to see how the floor space of 0.33 square meters provided by brand new planes with sardine can configurations (i.e 18" width x 29" pitch), compares with the animals regulatory minimum space, for example for sheep and goats (0.4 sq meters/unit), or pigs (0.35 to 0.51), for estimated weights of less than 100 kg in both cases.

I don't know (and don't care) if individuals of both species are travelling by air extensively these days, but in my opinion it's a nonsense that two legs animals don't enjoy at least the same level of protection.

Maybe somebody could elaborate about the benefits for customers and airliners gained by not having an humanely levelled game field.


This whole post is nonsense.
Like many have stated before, the individual chooses to travel, the animal doesn't. If you can't afford it, then the person is complaining just to complain. People do range in size and weight and while one person will be comfortable, the other one won't be. Why not regulate beds to have a minimum for people over 6 feet tall as well so they don't have to pay more for a Queen or King size mattress? Why not make buildings have a minimum height to accommodate tall people ? (So sick of hitting my head in low ceilings...lol) Why stop at just Airline seats.
If the individual wants to travel by air, they can either pay the cheapest ticket in cramped cattle class or save up for business etc or even economy plus. Seat guru is available as a website to give the traveler advice on seats by airline etc
You want something? It has a price, you don't like the price, that sucks, someone else will pay it.
If a significant amount of people bought tickets on airlines due to seat comfort instead of rushing to the LCCs or for the cheapest ticket then you'd see what you want, a standard raising. Airlines introduced bag fees and people accepted it, seat pitch reduced, people accepted it. Money talks. As a tall person I suck it up if I can't be in business or first and try for alternatives like the bulkheads or exit rows which you can reserve in advance and, with some airlines, pay for at the ticket counter or online


Not sure where you are from but in Europe there is nothing to choose from. Not even with money. Business and Economy are the same pitch on 95% of airlines. Out of 180 seats on a A320 there are exactly 16-18 seats offering more space. Since everyone is after them it is kind of a big gamble, not even money can solve it. And I am really not sure why people always think others choose to travel. Sometimes you have no choice but you have to because of work. Really sick of this argument. Happy to pay more if I would get more space but there isn't!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11426
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:11 pm

On AF the first few rows in A32S series aircraft actually have a better pitch.

Also I read as usual when the subject comes up that people have a choice, yet I'm sure on this forum many people fly for business purposes. You might have some leeway when booking, personally I'm not doing the booking and I have no choice at all. Next time I will lie and say CDG is more convenient for me (despite being on the other side of Paris from my home) just to be sure to get AF instead of RAM.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
MalevA346
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:42 pm

Many people would love to pay for 26-27 inches if the price was 10% lower, so yes, people's preferences on saving as much as they can has to be regulated.Even safe evacuation seems no issue nowadays.

Come on, is there really a question about this???
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:11 am

c933103 wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:
abies111 wrote:
Sure, I've never purchased cheaper tickets than lately, but at least for intraeuropean flights, airlines have decided that everybody would prefer to save 10% of the cost of an economy fare (which I translate for the additional capacity of a 737/320 gained when going from rational pitch to 28-29”), at the price of just not being able to fit in the assigned seat, with the knees trapped constantly with the back of the next seat.

As torture pitch for roughly half of the population (slightly taller or taller than the mean) is becoming widespread and progressively standard, for whatever economic reasoning justify that, and the serious perspective that the possibility of choice will ultimately be lost (no, don't tell me that tall people should purchase business fare if don't want to travel with pain), I wonder why regulatory authorities don't step up and set a minimum floor space requirement for humans travelling by air, as already exist for livestock (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97)

See Chapter VII:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 01&from=en

Is quite amusing to see how the floor space of 0.33 square meters provided by brand new planes with sardine can configurations (i.e 18" width x 29" pitch), compares with the animals regulatory minimum space, for example for sheep and goats (0.4 sq meters/unit), or pigs (0.35 to 0.51), for estimated weights of less than 100 kg in both cases.

I don't know (and don't care) if individuals of both species are travelling by air extensively these days, but in my opinion it's a nonsense that two legs animals don't enjoy at least the same level of protection.

Maybe somebody could elaborate about the benefits for customers and airliners gained by not having an humanely levelled game field.


This whole post is nonsense.
Like many have stated before, the individual chooses to travel, the animal doesn't. If you can't afford it, then the person is complaining just to complain. People do range in size and weight and while one person will be comfortable, the other one won't be. Why not regulate beds to have a minimum for people over 6 feet tall as well so they don't have to pay more for a Queen or King size mattress? Why not make buildings have a minimum height to accommodate tall people ? (So sick of hitting my head in low ceilings...lol) Why stop at just Airline seats.
If the individual wants to travel by air, they can either pay the cheapest ticket in cramped cattle class or save up for business etc or even economy plus. Seat guru is available as a website to give the traveler advice on seats by airline etc
You want something? It has a price, you don't like the price, that sucks, someone else will pay it.
If a significant amount of people bought tickets on airlines due to seat comfort instead of rushing to the LCCs or for the cheapest ticket then you'd see what you want, a standard raising. Airlines introduced bag fees and people accepted it, seat pitch reduced, people accepted it. Money talks. As a tall person I suck it up if I can't be in business or first and try for alternatives like the bulkheads or exit rows which you can reserve in advance and, with some airlines, pay for at the ticket counter or online

Is there even 1% of all passengers know what is seatguru? You can only argue that if people are presented with seat spec next to the price. And no, charging extra €40 for exit row on a flight which only cost €50 to board and no one choose the extra leg room available for the exit row is not an evidence that people don't want to pay 10% more for 10% more seat pitch and 20% more leg room.



Google is your friend. I repeat...GOOGLE is your friend.
Type in "what is the best economy seat" seatguru and other sites pop up
"Seat comparison" and wouldn't you know it, seat guru pops up. Let's not make excuses for people who don't do any type of research and get surprised by what they get AND start raising hell over something that has been available to them to look up themselves.
If you're flying Airline X and you want the exit row that Airline X has because you are uncomfortable in the other seats but refuse to pay for that seat then don't whine. What's the point of you being upset that Airline X would charge you for "upgrading" to anything after you paid barely for a fare (an only referring to ULCCs and not walk up last minute tickets that are the same or more than legacy carriers that wouldn't charge you for that same exit row or have more pitch available for comfort throughout their cabin)
Do you go to Starbucks and pay for a Tall mocha but get mad that you'd have to pay X amount for the grande or venti? No. same when you go to rent a car, sit at the theater etc. The airline is not a charity but a business. You want something? If they have it, they sure can charge you for it.

As far as the no options thing, seriously you can't stretch your leg under the middle seat that block and sit slanted or diagonally ? You have to sit upright ?
 
User avatar
Rookie87
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:13 am

Aesma wrote:
On AF the first few rows in A32S series aircraft actually have a better pitch.

Also I read as usual when the subject comes up that people have a choice, yet I'm sure on this forum many people fly for business purposes. You might have some leeway when booking, personally I'm not doing the booking and I have no choice at all. Next time I will lie and say CDG is more convenient for me (despite being on the other side of Paris from my home) just to be sure to get AF instead of RAM.



If the seat was that big of a deal to you then I don't see why you wouldn't mind suffering through the Paris traffic for an inch or two more...
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:24 am

Rookie87 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:

This whole post is nonsense.
Like many have stated before, the individual chooses to travel, the animal doesn't. If you can't afford it, then the person is complaining just to complain. People do range in size and weight and while one person will be comfortable, the other one won't be. Why not regulate beds to have a minimum for people over 6 feet tall as well so they don't have to pay more for a Queen or King size mattress? Why not make buildings have a minimum height to accommodate tall people ? (So sick of hitting my head in low ceilings...lol) Why stop at just Airline seats.
If the individual wants to travel by air, they can either pay the cheapest ticket in cramped cattle class or save up for business etc or even economy plus. Seat guru is available as a website to give the traveler advice on seats by airline etc
You want something? It has a price, you don't like the price, that sucks, someone else will pay it.
If a significant amount of people bought tickets on airlines due to seat comfort instead of rushing to the LCCs or for the cheapest ticket then you'd see what you want, a standard raising. Airlines introduced bag fees and people accepted it, seat pitch reduced, people accepted it. Money talks. As a tall person I suck it up if I can't be in business or first and try for alternatives like the bulkheads or exit rows which you can reserve in advance and, with some airlines, pay for at the ticket counter or online

Is there even 1% of all passengers know what is seatguru? You can only argue that if people are presented with seat spec next to the price. And no, charging extra €40 for exit row on a flight which only cost €50 to board and no one choose the extra leg room available for the exit row is not an evidence that people don't want to pay 10% more for 10% more seat pitch and 20% more leg room.



Google is your friend. I repeat...GOOGLE is your friend.
Type in "what is the best economy seat" seatguru and other sites pop up
"Seat comparison" and wouldn't you know it, seat guru pops up. Let's not make excuses for people who don't do any type of research and get surprised by what they get AND start raising hell over something that has been available to them to look up themselves.
If you're flying Airline X and you want the exit row that Airline X has because you are uncomfortable in the other seats but refuse to pay for that seat then don't whine. What's the point of you being upset that Airline X would charge you for "upgrading" to anything after you paid barely for a fare (an only referring to ULCCs and not walk up last minute tickets that are the same or more than legacy carriers that wouldn't charge you for that same exit row or have more pitch available for comfort throughout their cabin)
Do you go to Starbucks and pay for a Tall mocha but get mad that you'd have to pay X amount for the grande or venti? No. same when you go to rent a car, sit at the theater etc. The airline is not a charity but a business. You want something? If they have it, they sure can charge you for it.

As far as the no options thing, seriously you can't stretch your leg under the middle seat that block and sit slanted or diagonally ? You have to sit upright ?[/quote]

How often do you fly if you don't mind me asking?
 
c933103
Posts: 3639
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:40 am

Rookie87 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Rookie87 wrote:

This whole post is nonsense.
Like many have stated before, the individual chooses to travel, the animal doesn't. If you can't afford it, then the person is complaining just to complain. People do range in size and weight and while one person will be comfortable, the other one won't be. Why not regulate beds to have a minimum for people over 6 feet tall as well so they don't have to pay more for a Queen or King size mattress? Why not make buildings have a minimum height to accommodate tall people ? (So sick of hitting my head in low ceilings...lol) Why stop at just Airline seats.
If the individual wants to travel by air, they can either pay the cheapest ticket in cramped cattle class or save up for business etc or even economy plus. Seat guru is available as a website to give the traveler advice on seats by airline etc
You want something? It has a price, you don't like the price, that sucks, someone else will pay it.
If a significant amount of people bought tickets on airlines due to seat comfort instead of rushing to the LCCs or for the cheapest ticket then you'd see what you want, a standard raising. Airlines introduced bag fees and people accepted it, seat pitch reduced, people accepted it. Money talks. As a tall person I suck it up if I can't be in business or first and try for alternatives like the bulkheads or exit rows which you can reserve in advance and, with some airlines, pay for at the ticket counter or online

Is there even 1% of all passengers know what is seatguru? You can only argue that if people are presented with seat spec next to the price. And no, charging extra €40 for exit row on a flight which only cost €50 to board and no one choose the extra leg room available for the exit row is not an evidence that people don't want to pay 10% more for 10% more seat pitch and 20% more leg room.



Google is your friend. I repeat...GOOGLE is your friend.
Type in "what is the best economy seat" seatguru and other sites pop up
"Seat comparison" and wouldn't you know it, seat guru pops up. Let's not make excuses for people who don't do any type of research and get surprised by what they get AND start raising hell over something that has been available to them to look up themselves.
If you're flying Airline X and you want the exit row that Airline X has because you are uncomfortable in the other seats but refuse to pay for that seat then don't whine. What's the point of you being upset that Airline X would charge you for "upgrading" to anything after you paid barely for a fare (an only referring to ULCCs and not walk up last minute tickets that are the same or more than legacy carriers that wouldn't charge you for that same exit row or have more pitch available for comfort throughout their cabin)
Do you go to Starbucks and pay for a Tall mocha but get mad that you'd have to pay X amount for the grande or venti? No. same when you go to rent a car, sit at the theater etc. The airline is not a charity but a business. You want something? If they have it, they sure can charge you for it.

As far as the no options thing, seriously you can't stretch your leg under the middle seat that block and sit slanted or diagonally ? You have to sit upright ?

You are implying people would google that before booking a flight, imply you have tons of airlines to choose from for any destinations, imply 100% more for 10% extra is a fair price, and imply that it is not a suffering if you can't even sit upright.
This is a placeholder.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Why EU air travel minimum space normative for animals and not for humans?

Mon Nov 28, 2016 12:26 pm

VS11 wrote:
The argument about tight seating is no longer applicable as airlines, even Spirit, have more legroom options for marginally higher price.


Kudos to you my friend for coming up with a sensible, relevant, intelligent, to-the-point post in this thread.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos