Nicoeddf wrote:

roadpilot wrote:

Here's the thing, I do put my money where my mouth is when I fly. I only fly premium economy or MINT when I fly because being 6'3, being comfortable is a priority. What I don't like is the fact that it's now a upcharge just for basic comfort when before it was a given that your fare got you a decent seat without having to shell out more cash for the privilege of an exit row so your knees aren't jammed up in the seat in front of you.

And I'm sorry if it makes me sound elitist but since flying has become more like "mass transit" it has become less enjoyable to fly. So much so that I planned my vacation on driving cross country rather than fly, and it ended up being more relaxing overall, I'm actually planning on trying Amtrak this year for my cross country jaunt. There is no more "magic" of flight now that everyone is racing to the bottom to compete with Spirit and Frontier for Walmart shoppers.

Ah, so you don't like change? Well, that's your problem and your solution is paying more or driving. Fair enough!

BooDog wrote:

It's a safety issue. More people are overweight, having to shoehorn themselves into their aisle seat. It makes evacuation more difficult for that passenger, and any other passenger on their row. Legislation is necessary for safety.

So maybe legislation on the amount of sugar and other unhealthy shitty ingredients should be implemented in the land of the obese (and other industrial countries for that matter) rather than regulations on seat size...

Why do you want to legislate on sugar and food ingredients? I don't eat that well and I'm certainly not overweight, as you can see. Maybe the trick is to get people exercising? I generally do fit in most airlibe seats, but the ultra cramped ones are a problem as I have long legs.

horizon360 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

Only the airlines should be encouraged or even obliged to tell clearly what they sell.

+1. Rather than trying to regulate seat dimensions, airlines should be required to clearly state seat sizes, so that at the time of purchase customers can make an informed decision.

The U.S. does (for width) already. Requirements are expansive and specific. And it has to be online - none of this 'Call us for more information' nonsense.

Specifically, affected air carriers must post the width of the narrowest and widest passenger seats in each class of service for each airplane make, model and series operated in passenger-carrying operations.

There's an honest-to-god CFR.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... nes-during

BooDog wrote:

It's a safety issue. More people are overweight, having to shoehorn themselves into their aisle seat. It makes evacuation more difficult for that passenger, and any other passenger on their row. Legislation is necessary for safety.

So update the egress standard to put (your alleged) obese people in aisle seats during the qualification test. I don't want a cert to be meaningless.

B737900ER wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

No, they don't. The 747 can do 17.5" seats with normal aisles and 2" armrests. The dense 777 and 787s are narrower.

Yes they are. On UA the 747 is 17". The dense 777 and 787 are 17.5" As for arm rest and aisles, should we legislate that too?

I don't know where you are getting your numbers but they are wrong. No-one has 17.5" on a dense 777/787, it's not possible. It's obvious, a 747 is wider than a 777, how could the 777 possibly have wider seats at 10 across?

Some have the same seats as a 747 I believe, with less wide aisles. If you want to check, just Google the cabin widths and do some division..

Or see the actual seat widths here https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... /aircraft/

moo wrote:

At some point surely a passenger being overweight enough not to fit into the seat is the *passengers* problem and should be denied boarding without compensation (just a refund)...?

If the seat can accommodate an average passenger for the expected customer base, then it should be legal (subject to marketing laws).

While I believe in the free market and find the posters who feel entitled to more space without having to pay for it absurd, I do agree on the grossly obese passengers. Airlines need to toughen up their rules on weight and girth and force fatties to either buy a J or F seat, or two Y seats. At a minimum this should apply to every passenger who requires a seat belt extender.

IPFreely wrote:

moo wrote:

At some point surely a passenger being overweight enough not to fit into the seat is the *passengers* problem and should be denied boarding without compensation (just a refund)...?

If the seat can accommodate an average passenger for the expected customer base, then it should be legal (subject to marketing laws).

While I believe in the free market and find the posters who feel entitled to more space without having to pay for it absurd, I do agree on the grossly obese passengers. Airlines need to toughen up their rules on weight and girth and force fatties to either buy a J or F seat, or two Y seats. At a minimum this should apply to every passenger who requires a seat belt extender.

Not gonna happen. If you make special rules for people who need seet-belt extensions, you are going to have a desperate impact on pregnant women, who are a protected class in the United States.

roadpilot wrote:

Here's the thing, I do put my money where my mouth is when I fly. I only fly premium economy or MINT when I fly because being 6'3, being comfortable is a priority. What I don't like is the fact that it's now a upcharge just for basic comfort when before it was a given that your fare got you a decent seat without having to shell out more cash for the privilege of an exit row so your knees aren't jammed up in the seat in front of you.

And I'm sorry if it makes me sound elitist but since flying has become more like "mass transit" it has become less enjoyable to fly. So much so that I planned my vacation on driving cross country rather than fly, and it ended up being more relaxing overall, I'm actually planning on trying Amtrak this year for my cross country jaunt. There is no more "magic" of flight now that everyone is racing to the bottom to compete with Spirit and Frontier for Walmart shoppers.

You were flying for the enjoyment of it? Thought the whole idea was to get from point A to B.
Flying has now become a commodity: The business model needs to changed. This rose spectacles view of the industry is a holdover that needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. Get rid of seats, get rid of meals, make it more like riding the subway or greyhound and be done with it.

AEROFAN wrote:

. Get rid of seats, get rid of meals, make it more like riding the subway or greyhound and be done with it.

So Greyhound of Canada was simply ahead of the times...

NameOmitted wrote:

Not gonna happen. If you make special rules for people who need seet-belt extensions, you are going to have a desperate impact on pregnant women, who are a protected class in the United States.

Don't be absurd. The people who need seat belt extenders weigh 300-400 lb. Pregnant women would rarely need seat belt extenders until the final weeks of pregnancy (if then), by which point they should not be flying anyway.

roadpilot wrote:

And I'm sorry if it makes me sound elitist but since flying has become more like "mass transit" it has become less enjoyable to fly. So much so that I planned my vacation on driving cross country rather than fly, and it ended up being more relaxing overall, I'm actually planning on trying Amtrak this year for my cross country jaunt. There is no more "magic" of flight now that everyone is racing to the bottom to compete with Spirit and Frontier for Walmart shoppers.

Flying Y is like mass transit. If you don't like it you can always fly Y+, J, or F. It's your choice.

If you want Y+, J, or F service for the price of Y, tough. You don't get a Cadillac Escalade for the price of a Ford Fiesta, you don't get filet mignon for the price of hot dogs, and you don't get premium airline service for bottom level fares.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

Yeah, sure....and let's also legislate on the lowest fare the airlines can charge....or the only fare they can charge...and, voilà!! We're back to the 70s where IATA set all the fares and only a handful of people could afford to fly...

Is that really the way forward? Want more space? Pay Y+

How about airlines taking into consideration the fact that there are a good amount of people who are too tall - by no fault of their own - to fit into those seats? I'm 6'5" and physically can't sit in the sardine cans that constitute a coach seat for any length of time longer than 30 minutes. The question is: Why should I be forced to pay extra for the same seat a shorter person pays? And, before you say anything about Exit Rows, most airlines now charge for those, as well.

CMHMarc787 wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

Yeah, sure....and let's also legislate on the lowest fare the airlines can charge....or the only fare they can charge...and, voilà!! We're back to the 70s where IATA set all the fares and only a handful of people could afford to fly...

Is that really the way forward? Want more space? Pay Y+

How about airlines taking into consideration the fact that there are a good amount of people who are too tall - by no fault of their own - to fit into those seats? I'm 6'5" and physically can't sit in the sardine cans that constitute a coach seat for any length of time longer than 30 minutes. The question is: Why should I be forced to pay extra for the same seat a shorter person pays? And, before you say anything about Exit Rows, most airlines now charge for those, as well.

Or, seen from another point of view: why should the rest of us be forced to pay more to accomodate the 0.2% or so (don't blame or flame me for that number, it's completely made up....but the point is that it's a small minority) of the population that are 6'5"? It will never be 100% fair, whatever you do...

Wacker1000 wrote:

masseybrown wrote:

The airlines brought it on themselves.

Care to site a source? Last time I checked flyers wanted the cheapest seat. Airlines are simply obliging and giving customers what they want. There are plenty of seats available with more space on virtually every aircraft for those who consider that to be a priority....

No, they are maximising revenue so long as the punters keep paying for it. I don't recall anyone asking to be crammed in like cattle.

Whenever I am about to complain about a Y class seat, I remember this:
I'm flying a metal tube at 550 mph, and I can start watching a move over Canada and finish it over Iceland. Flight is an impressive feat.

Also, please do not act like the US3 airlines are making huge profit margins and ripping off consumers. They aren't. UA is running a profit margin of 4.39%. Compare this to the food industry version of the US3, McDonalds, who runs a profit margin of 20%. This bill would force United to either cut jobs or raise prices.

As to DVT, that is a problem with literally every long haul flight. If you don't wiggle your toes around once in a while (something that is easily done unless you have monster calves) you obviously run the risk of DVT. Evacuation? Tripping on an errant bag strap is likely a far greater hazard.

Bottom line is that this bill ignores fundemental facts within the aviation industry.

Planetalk wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

No, they don't. The 747 can do 17.5" seats with normal aisles and 2" armrests. The dense 777 and 787s are narrower.

Yes they are. On UA the 747 is 17". The dense 777 and 787 are 17.5" As for arm rest and aisles, should we legislate that too?

I don't know where you are getting your numbers but they are wrong. No-one has 17.5" on a dense 777/787, it's not possible. It's obvious, a 747 is wider than a 777, how could the 777 possibly have wider seats at 10 across?

Some have the same seats as a 747 I believe, with less wide aisles. If you want to check, just Google the cabin widths and do some division..

Or see the actual seat widths here https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... /aircraft/

If you go by those number the seat widths are exactly the same. The 787 is 17.3 not 17.5. And the 747 is listed as 16.3-17.3. So my point remains. The seats have been sub 18 inches for over 50 years. Like I said before, maybe it's not the seat that's the issue but the ever increasing size of people.

CMHMarc787 wrote:

I'm 6'5" and physically can't sit in the sardine cans that constitute a coach seat for any length of time longer than 30 minutes.

Spare us the sob story. I flew MDW-LAS and LAS-MDW last week with a colleague who is 6'6". Believe it or not he was able to physically fit in the seat. And he does not make a living as a contortionist.

CMHMarc787 wrote:

I'm 6'5" and physically can't sit in the sardine cans that constitute a coach seat for any length of time longer than 30 minutes.

Another piece here (I'm 6'2" with long legs) is that not all regular coach rows are created equal. For instance, on the new AA 319, on the right hand side of the aircraft, if I am in an odd-numbered row my legs are squished against the seat in front of me quite painfully (I typically end up with the armrest engraved in my kneecap). Even-numbered rows I have a good inch or more between my legs and the seat in front of me. I don't know if the left side of the aircraft holds true as well but I imagine this is a result of the way the seat track is built into the aircraft where the exact 31inch mark isn't somewhere it can be locked into place.

masseybrown wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-airlines-seats-proposed-law-0319-robert-reed-biz-20170317-column.html

The airlines brought it on themselves.

Actually customers has brought it upon themselves.

Economy seats have gotten smaller because many customers shop strictly on price alone. The airlines have given them what they are willing to pay for.

The opposite is true for business class seats. Twenty years ago many J class seats were not flat bed seats. In fact many F class seats were not flat bed seats. Today, customers demand them. The airlines (some grudgingly: LH for example) have invested significantly to compete and provide the customer with what they are willing to pay for.

That's good news. At some time this race to the bottom has to stop, and it is far overdue.

But maybe it was just as good if the airlines had to specify their minimum seat quality in all adverts, web sites etc. Something like efficiency of light bulbs, letters A, B, C, D, E, F, etc. and green color for good seats and various tones of yellow to red color plus way down the alphabet for crappy seats.

If they just specify minimum allowed measurements, then we can be sure that the minimum will also be the maximum. And in addition the midgets among us will keep on complaining that they potentially have to pay five bucks more than what a 25 inch seat might cost.

If we leave to the airlines to tell us beforehand what quality or crap they offer, then some sort of competition could again prevail.

I love it how all these troglodyte trolls come out and say if you want space you gotta pay for it when though they themselves likely don't . It really isn't so simple if you understand airline fare structures. I pay for business, premium economy and economy but I vary it based on what I can find and other factors including when I book. No point paying 6000 when I can pay 2000 and get 3/4 of the product any more than there ia paying 150 and getting nothing included at all. Having a minimum standard now stops airlines from furrher future loss of product. We have gone from 34" in the late 90s to 30-31" now. There is nothing stopping them from 26" in another 15 years.
Quite frankly if AVIs have minimum crate requirements so should humans. Like we added minimum disrupttion requirements and cancellation/delay compensation the same should apply to space available.

aerorobnz wrote:

I love it how all these troglodyte trolls come out and say if you want space you gotta pay for it when though they themselves likely don't . It really isn't so simple if you understand airline fare structures. I pay for business, premium economy and economy but I vary it based on what I can find and other factors including when I book. No point paying 6000 when I can pay 2000 and get 3/4 of the product any more than there ia paying 150 and getting nothing included at all. Having a minimum standard now stops airlines from furrher future loss of product. We have gone from 34" in the late 90s to 30-31" now. There is nothing stopping them from 26" in another 15 years.
Quite frankly if AVIs have minimum crate requirements so should humans. Like we added minimum disrupttion requirements and cancellation/delay compensation the same should apply to space available.

+1

Don't see the ideologues criticizing cancellation/delay compensation policies by saying "don't fly if you can't afford to be 36 hours late to your destination." There are better and worse regulations. But there is nothing inherently flawed with setting a basic standard of human comfort. Our ability to reason is what elevates us above lizards and livestock.

moo wrote:

BooDog wrote:

It's a safety issue. More people are overweight, having to shoehorn themselves into their aisle seat. It makes evacuation more difficult for that passenger, and any other passenger on their row. Legislation is necessary for safety.

At some point surely a passenger being overweight enough not to fit into the seat is the *passengers* problem and should be denied boarding without compensation (just a refund)...?

If the seat can accommodate an average passenger for the expected customer base, then it should be legal (subject to marketing laws).

If the seat only accommodates an "average" passenger, then you're going to be offering a lot of refunds and flying a lot of empty seats - by that definition, 50% of people (anyone bigger than the average) is too fat to fly. I have some sympathy for your position (as a person of normal weight who often involuntarily shares my seat with a neighbor), but take a look at all the fat lumps in Congress and their very fat constituents, and you'll see why that's not going to work.

I wouldn't be surprised that over the next several years, ICAO may enforce an 18 inch (457 mm) seat width and 32 inch (813 mm) legroom for any international flight over three hours. Thanks to new, thinner seat designs from recent years, they could enforce the 813 mm legroom minimum without having to remove seats. I believe that WN has already implement the use of these thinner seats on many of their planes already.

Armodeen wrote:

Wacker1000 wrote:

masseybrown wrote:

The airlines brought it on themselves.

Care to site a source? Last time I checked flyers wanted the cheapest seat. Airlines are simply obliging and giving customers what they want. There are plenty of seats available with more space on virtually every aircraft for those who consider that to be a priority....

No, they are maximising revenue so long as the punters keep paying for it. I don't recall anyone asking to be crammed in like cattle.

I'll keep it simple - it costs X to fly an airplane on a given route with a given amount of stuff (people, baggage, cargo, etc). When everything is added up you need to make more than X for the route to be profitable. If someone is willing to pay 1.1X for a ticket, then they'll have that plane to themselves and the airline makes money on the route. The only people in the general public that can realistically afford this are flying around on business jets anyways. Now you have a cabin with 200 seats and if everyone pays 0.005X then they airline breaks even. If you add 25 more seats then everyone pays 0.0044X which requires a ticket price 8% less for the airline to break even. Now if you took an economics course you'd understand supply and demand - everyone needs to get somewhere so as long as the ticket is cheap enough you're going to fill the seat.

So if you have two airlines with identical operating costs on the same route and the airline with the 200 seat cabin can charge $300 for a one-way ticket and break even while the other airline can theoretically charge $276 and break even. To 90% (and I'm being very generous with this number) of the people out there, a seat is a seat is a seat - its in the same class, its going to the same place, its leaving at virtually the same time. They're buying the $276 ticket every.single.time and twice on Sunday. Its why Spirit and Allegiant fill seats.

Now when the economy turns to crap and it becomes a cut through fight to survive, the company with the ability to sell more cheap seats and stay profitable has a better chance at survival. There will always be a certain number of people that have to fly. As we saw back in 2008, the stuff that typically takes the biggest blow is everything considered more than basic.

Airlines aren't charities either. Stuff costs what it costs and they've finally gotten the business back to the point of being a business (novel idea right?) Your alleged "maximizing revenue" is really operating on a razor's margin for years and finally tipping it in the right direction. Most other businesses would have said forget it at this point - too much effort and capital required to make not enough money. You should start an airline, operate at 35" coach seat pitch, and sell tickets for the same price as everyone else.

When it comes to seat width, I think this does not need to be regulated, seat pitch, though, should. If you are of average height and start hitting your knees on the seat in front of you, it has gone too far. And in Europe some airlines have gone that far.

IPFreely wrote:

CMHMarc787 wrote:

I'm 6'5" and physically can't sit in the sardine cans that constitute a coach seat for any length of time longer than 30 minutes.

Spare us the sob story. I flew MDW-LAS and LAS-MDW last week with a colleague who is 6'6". Believe it or not he was able to physically fit in the seat. And he does not make a living as a contortionist.

There's a difference in being able to fit and being able to fit comfortably. Like he said, anything over 30 mins is unbearable for him, and I believe it. As for your MDW-LAS-MDW trip, I'm assuming you flew WN? I was a huge WN customer until they added a row to fit 143 in. Flew MDW-LAX and it was awful, by the last hour I along with a few other tall folks were standing in the aisle because we couldn't deal with it anymore. Love the airline and their customer friendly policies but if I can't fit in the seat then unfortunately I can't use them.

Personally I would love an airline like the old Midwest Express to come back. An airline that was all Y+ that hit all the major markets would get all of my business and I'm quite sure would get alot of other people's business as well

B737900ER wrote:

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

The 747 cabin width is 6.1M, and the 777 cabin width is 5.87M. Now, which one is more cramped at 10 abreast?

In any case, I highly doubt any legislation would affect 10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s, unless they use a sliding scale. Narrowbody aircraft simply have smaller seats, so any minimum size legislation would still be smaller than current widebody seats. That is unless they use a sliding scale, and aircraft designed for longer flights have an even larger minimum size.

-CXfirst

I think this is something not only the US, but also the EU should standardize. I recommend planes with a seat width of less than 45cm should be prohibited from landing on any EU airport. Same rule for all airlines and airplane types tobe fair. But of course, the airlines will need some time to exchange their fleets, therefore make the law valid from, let's say, 2025 on...

roadpilot wrote:

I was a huge WN customer until they added a row to fit 143 in. Flew MDW-LAX and it was awful, by the last hour I along with a few other tall folks were standing in the aisle because we couldn't deal with it anymore. Love the airline and their customer friendly policies but if I can't fit in the seat then unfortunately I can't use them.

LOL that you "can't fit in the seat". Great drama. My 6'6" colleague and others of similar height on MDW-LAS & LAS-MDW flights managed to "fit" in their seats and did not have to stand for most of the flight. And no, they did not need medical care afterwards.

roadpilot wrote:

Personally I would love an airline like the old Midwest Express to come back.

You don't need an "all Y+" airline. Almost every major airline except WN has Y+. and better seats available. If you can't or won't pay for it that is your problem -- just spare us all the drama about how you're somehow "entitled" to it for free.

I for one certainly hope they legislate for minimum seat size.

I imagine it will be minimum 30" pitch and minimum 16.5" width.
It would be nice if it was minimum 31" pitch and minimum 17" width though.

The thing is that if all airlines have to do it by law then none of them are competitively disadvantaged and in reality isn't going to make much difference to their costs/profits but makes a big difference to passengers.

IPFreely wrote:

roadpilot wrote:

I was a huge WN customer until they added a row to fit 143 in. Flew MDW-LAX and it was awful, by the last hour I along with a few other tall folks were standing in the aisle because we couldn't deal with it anymore. Love the airline and their customer friendly policies but if I can't fit in the seat then unfortunately I can't use them.

LOL that you "can't fit in the seat". Great drama. My 6'6" colleague and others of similar height on MDW-LAS & LAS-MDW flights managed to "fit" in their seats and did not have to stand for most of the flight. And no, they did not need medical care afterwards.

roadpilot wrote:

Personally I would love an airline like the old Midwest Express to come back.

You don't need an "all Y+" airline. Almost every major airline except WN has Y+. and better seats available. If you can't or won't pay for it that is your problem -- just spare us all the drama about how you're somehow "entitled" to it for free.

Actually dude, if you read my earlier post, I pay for Y+ when I need to fly because regardless of how cheap Y is, it's not cheap enough to sacrifice my comfort. My only issue is the fact that something as basic as comfort is a upcharge when it wasn't before. And the airlines get away with charging for it because they know there are people like me who aren't gonna put up with bring packed in like sardines. Maybe your 6'6 friend was willing to be cramped in to save a couple of bucks but more and more people are not, they fact that they had to come up with Y+ is proof. I wish UA,DL,and AA would focus on the core passengers and not chase the F9 and NK bottomfeeders

Personally, I would be fine with requiring the airlines to publish minimum clear zones on their planes-- shoulder space, seat space, knee space, seat height, etc. I would also love for them to publish some kind of back comfort metrics to flag things like the Continental domestic first class seats.

There are a lot of short people in this thread. Speaking as a 6' 10" person who is too cheap to buy better tickets, well... you won't get an airline seat that fits me. I've flown domestic first class, it's better, but it still sucks, and it's not really worth doubling the price if it's still going to suck. Premium economy is the same thing. It's better, but it's still going to suck, so I may as well spend the money on a massage when I get to my destination. I feel really sorry for the flight attendants who see me, and REALLY want to make my life better, but can't because I'm too cheap.

That's on me. I feel sorry for the flight attendants who really want to help but can't. I feel sorry for the people who sit in front of me when I inform them that while they can lean back, they NEED to give me warning before they try, because without my help it physically will not work. My being cheap directly impacts them, and I do feel bad. For me? It's not a big thing. 600 MPH for a few hours beats 60 MPH in a bus. I'm fine. Besides, I tent to travel on other people's money, and I won't tell someone not to hire me because I will cost them more in travel.

Now that I have thoroughly established my credentials as one of the people despised by this thread, let me lay out an argument for why a minimum seat pitch actually makes sense.

In a capitol intense business like an airline, any innovation that allows for a little more return on your $60 million investment is a must. This means that if airline A figures out how to add another row and provide cheaper seats, airline B WII eventually have to follow, because cheap bastards like myself will do it. If, however, there is a point beyond which airline A can not continue, then that becomes the bottom that airline B will have to face. I loose since my ticket price does not drop, but my choices then don't effect other customers (such as the person in front of me who physically can't recline through my knees).

Airlines are barred from agreeing to such minimums, because it is price fixing. So... if it is to be done it would have to be through regulation.

Me, I loose if this happens. However there is still a valid argument to be made for it.

masseybrown wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-airlines-seats-proposed-law-0319-robert-reed-biz-20170317-column.html

The airlines brought it on themselves. Now at least a few in Congress want the government to specify seat size. I can't say that I'm opposed to the idea. You could probably make a decent case that the growing number of "air rage" incidents are because of crowding.

It comes down to the law of unintended consequences. If this law passes, the result will be more room; however, the cost will be much higher airfares. The reason for the squeezing, is the fact that people in the back of the aircraft, are looking for cheap, cheap, cheap. (I am in that group. The problem is that airlines cannot provide what they used to, back in the days of regulation, and make money because, in real dollar terms, fares are much lower now. Every seat counts. Instead of legislating comfort, there are sites, such as seatguru to give you a heads up on what the seat offers, in terms of size, pitch, etc. People should shop around instead of expecting the government to rescue them.

NameOmitted wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

moo wrote:

At some point surely a passenger being overweight enough not to fit into the seat is the *passengers* problem and should be denied boarding without compensation (just a refund)...?

If the seat can accommodate an average passenger for the expected customer base, then it should be legal (subject to marketing laws).

While I believe in the free market and find the posters who feel entitled to more space without having to pay for it absurd, I do agree on the grossly obese passengers. Airlines need to toughen up their rules on weight and girth and force fatties to either buy a J or F seat, or two Y seats. At a minimum this should apply to every passenger who requires a seat belt extender.

Not gonna happen. If you make special rules for people who need seet-belt extensions, you are going to have a desperate impact on pregnant women, who are a protected class in the United States.

I believe SWA has required people to purchase an extra seat.

Bald1983 wrote:

masseybrown wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-airlines-seats-proposed-law-0319-robert-reed-biz-20170317-column.html

The airlines brought it on themselves. Now at least a few in Congress want the government to specify seat size. I can't say that I'm opposed to the idea. You could probably make a decent case that the growing number of "air rage" incidents are because of crowding.

It comes down to the law of unintended consequences. If this law passes, the result will be more room; however, the cost will be much higher airfares. The reason for the squeezing, is the fact that people in the back of the aircraft, are looking for cheap, cheap, cheap. (I am in that group. The problem is that airlines cannot provide what they used to, back in the days of regulation, and make money because, in real dollar terms, fares are much lower now. Every seat counts. Instead of legislating comfort, there are sites, such as seatguru to give you a heads up on what the seat offers, in terms of size, pitch, etc. People should shop around instead of expecting the government to rescue them.

"Much higher airfares"? Evidence?
Yes airfares would likely be higher to cover the cost however on most aircraft it would literally be 1 row at most removed. So you have slightly higher airfares but almost everyone is guaranteed to not be tortured for hours on end.

Bald1983 wrote:

I believe SWA has required people to purchase an extra seat.

I don't know how reliably they enforce it but they do have a rule that fatties buy 2 seats, and I know they've sometimes enforced it. At least it was depicted a few times on the short-lived TV series, "Airline".

B737900ER wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

Sorry but no.

The 747-100 to 400 has 20' 1" cabin width.
The 747-8 has recontoured walls giving 19' 10.8" cabin width.
The 777 has 19' 2" cabin width.
The 777-8/9 has 19' 7.2" cabin width.

So with both at 3-4-3 layout how do you figure the 777 has wider seats?

B737900ER wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

No, they don't. The 747 can do 17.5" seats with normal aisles and 2" armrests. The dense 777 and 787s are narrower.

Yes they are. On UA the 747 is 17". The dense 777 and 787 are 17.5" As for arm rest and aisles, should we legislate that too?

They are now counting seat bottom space under the armrest as seat width & using thinner armrest as well to claim wider seats. Measure the old way and do the math. the old triple seats were 59" width with 2" wide armrest.

Such regulation should make certain that at least 60-75% percent of the travelling public do fit acceptably into the seat. If you are of average built, your knees should not bump into the seat in front of you.

Also the manufacturers & airlines are stretching the accuracy of seat pitch. On an A321 if you take the distances between doors and figure seat pitch the 16/169 layout does not fit with 32"

I'm an automotive engineer and I work with legal seat width and pitches in busses and coaches since decades.

I don't know the situation in US but in Europe there are EU- and UNECE-directives (UNECE-R 107) about the minimum legal seat dimension in busses and coaches for public transport.

Btw. pitch alone says nothing about comfort, because what you feel is the free distance between your backrest and the seat in front of you. So the European regulations don't require a certain pitch, they require a certain free space between the seats. The minimum is 680 mm free space (26.7") on a coach (650 mm on a city bus). And that is the free space, not the pitch.

So where is the problem to have similar laws for Airbuses?

GSPSPOT wrote:

jaybird wrote:

(waiting for everyone to start yelling when airlines raise fares due to less seats in the cabin) ..

They're already sky-high as it is now...

I paid $276 for a Y fare on TP from BOS-LIS. I just bought BOS-PRG-VCE-BOS (BA/EI) for $411. Flew BOS-GRU (AA/JJ) in May for $430.
It has never been cheaper to fly.

rbavfan wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

Sorry but no.

The 747-100 to 400 has 20' 1" cabin width.
The 747-8 has recontoured walls giving 19' 10.8" cabin width.
The 777 has 19' 2" cabin width.
The 777-8/9 has 19' 7.2" cabin width.

So with both at 3-4-3 layout how do you figure the 777 has wider seats?

Narrower aisles and/or narrower armrests? <shrug>

FWIW, SeatGuru.com shows UA 747-400 Y/Y+ seats as 17" wide, and 777-300ER Y/Y+ seats as 17.5" wide.

Interesting, too, that the recontoured 747-8 walls provide narrower cabin width than the previous 747 models. What's up with that?

Zkpilot wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

masseybrown wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-airlines-seats-proposed-law-0319-robert-reed-biz-20170317-column.html

The airlines brought it on themselves. Now at least a few in Congress want the government to specify seat size. I can't say that I'm opposed to the idea. You could probably make a decent case that the growing number of "air rage" incidents are because of crowding.

It comes down to the law of unintended consequences. If this law passes, the result will be more room; however, the cost will be much higher airfares. The reason for the squeezing, is the fact that people in the back of the aircraft, are looking for cheap, cheap, cheap. (I am in that group. The problem is that airlines cannot provide what they used to, back in the days of regulation, and make money because, in real dollar terms, fares are much lower now. Every seat counts. Instead of legislating comfort, there are sites, such as seatguru to give you a heads up on what the seat offers, in terms of size, pitch, etc. People should shop around instead of expecting the government to rescue them.

"Much higher airfares"? Evidence?
Yes airfares would likely be higher to cover the cost however on most aircraft it would literally be 1 row at most removed. So you have slightly higher airfares but almost everyone is guaranteed to not be tortured for hours on end.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ed/273506/ Knowing that fares came down in real dollar terms is like knowing that the Earth is round. Those artificially high fares in the regulation era also meant that airlines could cover their costs with a plane sixty percent full. That is no longer the case. In order to bring back past comfort, would you like the airlines to be required to only sell sixty percent of their seats as well?

Love the Greyhound argument, but it's not the 70''s anymore, Greyhound is not that cheap; they are priced in line with Amtrak these days. Now Bolt & Megabus is your bottom rung LCC of motor-coaches (with Chinatown buses being the uLCC). And, I will note I used Megabus (just cause I love buses and wanted to ride on a double-deck bus once before I die), I had more space in the seat than my last UA flight to NRT; also seat-side power and free wifi on the Megabus. It's sad, that the seven hours on the $14 Megabus ticket was a more pleasant experience than the seven hours on the $1800 UA ticket.

Any case, I'm all for free market capitalism, but at what point do we draw a line in the sand? I can see five years from now having the exact same discussion in this thread about UA/AA/DL's standard 13" seat width and a 25 pitch in Y, and 17.5" width an a 28 pitch in Y+. People keep talking about a race to the bottom; well what/where is the bottom?

You know as for the lower ticket prices, and giving customers what they wants goes, just because companies can do something doesn't always mean those companies should. Watering down your core products to compete with the LCC/uLCC seems self defeating. I understand there may be route complications involved that siphons customers, and that's for the airlines to figure out how to stop that bleeding, but downgrading quality of service to compete seems to just cause more discontent among the customer experience.

While as much as I dislike government regulations, without some framework, Colgate would still be selling toothpaste made with lead, cars would not have seat belts, and military uniforms would be made of velour.

Before I forget, I really do get tired of hear the regulation/deregulation argument. It's been 40 years already. People keep talking about this as if it happened last month or something; get over it and move the crap on.

And lastly get the hell off my damn lawn, you kids.

/old man rant

gatibosgru wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

jaybird wrote:

(waiting for everyone to start yelling when airlines raise fares due to less seats in the cabin) ..

They're already sky-high as it is now...

I paid $276 for a Y fare on TP from BOS-LIS. I just bought BOS-PRG-VCE-BOS (BA/EI) for $411. Flew BOS-GRU (AA/JJ) in May for $430.
It has never been cheaper to fly.

There are people in this world who believe that they have a right to go where they wish by air for next to nothing.

NameOmitted wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

. Get rid of seats, get rid of meals, make it more like riding the subway or greyhound and be done with it.

So Greyhound of Canada was simply ahead of the times...

Yep!

gatibosgru wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

jaybird wrote:

(waiting for everyone to start yelling when airlines raise fares due to less seats in the cabin) ..

They're already sky-high as it is now...

I paid $276 for a Y fare on TP from BOS-LIS. I just bought BOS-PRG-VCE-BOS (BA/EI) for $411. Flew BOS-GRU (AA/JJ) in May for $430.
It has never been cheaper to fly.

I paid $795 for a domestic U.S. roundtrip MKE-PNS-MKE a few wks ago.

Blimpie wrote:

People keep talking about a race to the bottom; well what/where is the bottom?

The bottom is the point people when people decide that other forms of transport or NOT flying is better than sucking it up and flying. The benefit of flying is not that it's particularly comfortable, it's in the fact that I can go from New York to Orlando in 2.5 hours instead of driving for 15 hours and losing as much time...or that I be in London in 7 hours instead of 3-4 days by boat. When that convenience is overridden by discomfort or the cost outweighs the advantages, that is the bottom.

Blimpie wrote:

Watering down your core products to compete with the LCC/uLCC seems self defeating. I understand there may be route complications involved that siphons customers, and that's for the airlines to figure out how to stop that bleeding, but downgrading quality of service to compete seems to just cause more discontent among the customer experience.

It's not self-defeating obviously, and it's not watering down...they're just segmenting their product better. Looking at B6...shouted and advertised from the mountain tops how they had better service and were more comfortable, but customers were not willing to pay enough of a premium for it. AA's experiment with More Room Throughout Coach, huge marketing/PR initiative and an abject failure, customers did not choose AA over the cheaper competition with less leg room. People forget how much economy tickets USED to cost in today's dollars. In the 70s you were looking at over $1,000 for one r/t transcon ticket in coach. Today, you could reasonably even book a business class ticket for that amount or at the very least Y+. There are certainly passengers willing to pay a premium today for better service, and the airlines haven't stopped offering that option. What has changed is that they now offer additional (cheaper) product options.

I'm just laughing here because people are complaining how they'd be fine paying higher prices for more leg room...well, you already can and are doing that.

Blimpie wrote:

While as much as I dislike government regulations, without some framework, Colgate would still be selling toothpaste made with lead, cars would not have seat belts, and military uniforms would be made of velour.

But there is no compelling safety risk here justifying government regulation.