Indy
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:04 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Indy wrote:
Charge an appropriate fare to provide a safe and comfortable product.

The product is safe, there's zero evidence out there to suggest otherwise. And comfort is completely subjective. To me, and many others, a $79 roundtrip ticket on NK is certainly more comfortable than the drive I would otherwise have to make.


There are health hazards associated with current airline seating. So I would not call that safe. When you endure pain during a trip, you are sustaining injury. That is not safe. Is the plane physically able to fly safe? Yes. Does the seat size and pitch cause injury to passengers? Also, yes.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:40 pm

Indy wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Indy wrote:
Charge an appropriate fare to provide a safe and comfortable product.

The product is safe, there's zero evidence out there to suggest otherwise. And comfort is completely subjective. To me, and many others, a $79 roundtrip ticket on NK is certainly more comfortable than the drive I would otherwise have to make.


There are health hazards associated with current airline seating. So I would not call that safe. When you endure pain during a trip, you are sustaining injury. That is not safe. Is the plane physically able to fly safe? Yes. Does the seat size and pitch cause injury to passengers? Also, yes.

Nowhere has tight seat pitch been proven to be a direct health hazard. What you're probably alluding to is DVT, which is unrelated to seat pitch.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: SEAT Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:20 pm

grbauc wrote:
Is UA E+ 3x or AA MRC REALLY 3x has much. FC can be. On high competitivene routs lax to sfo I've been paying $ 240 -$330 on average. And I can go FC pretty much anywhere in the US FOR $750-$1100 .


No, it isn't, at least on most routes. A poster above noted that DL offered a $59 upgrade from Y to Y+ on an $89 fare from LAX to SEA. Last year I flew UA ORD-BRU & BRU-ORD. Looking at my mileage statement I paid $310 to upgrade from Y to Y+ which was a little over 30% adder to the economy fare. What we're dealing with here is another case of a broke high roller who says he's willing to pay more to get more right up until it's time to pay.
 
User avatar
Blimpie
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:48 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:22 pm

well USAToday's editorial demands change. http://usat.ly/2pgkdGg. Post w/o comment.
Now get the hell off of my lawn your dang kids!
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:31 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Indy wrote:
There are health hazards associated with current airline seating. So I would not call that safe. When you endure pain during a trip, you are sustaining injury. That is not safe. Is the plane physically able to fly safe? Yes. Does the seat size and pitch cause injury to passengers? Also, yes.

Nowhere has tight seat pitch been proven to be a direct health hazard. What you're probably alluding to is DVT, which is unrelated to seat pitch.

I will let my father know, so he can inform the airlines and medical insurance companies that you have more knowledge / insight than they do. He suffers from DVT. Not an issue on shorter flights, but if flying more than 6 hours, airlines (including EK, QF, SQ, BA) and medical insurers make booking business or first class a pre-condition.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:35 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
The product is safe, there's zero evidence out there to suggest otherwise. And comfort is completely subjective. To me, and many others, a $79 roundtrip ticket on NK is certainly more comfortable than the drive I would otherwise have to make.


Exactly. The elitism and insistence on intrusion into other peoples' lives is staggering. I continue to find it remarkable - and offensive - that people feel they have the right to impose their value judgments on others.
 
Indy
Posts: 4843
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:46 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Nowhere has tight seat pitch been proven to be a direct health hazard. What you're probably alluding to is DVT, which is unrelated to seat pitch.


Ever been seated in a cramped seat and your knees started hurting? That is all the proof you need. Please don't attempt to defend the status quo. The system is broken. If everyone on the planet was 5'5"-5'7" tall we wouldn't be having a problem. Then again airlines would likely pack the seats in tighter which would make pitch a problem for people who are 5'8" tall. It is a serious problem when you have the seat in front of you jammed into your knees and you cannot bend your legs and you endure hours of pain.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
jeffrey1970
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 1:41 am

Re: SEAT Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:16 pm

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


I was thinking the same thing.
God bless through Jesus, Jeff
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:22 pm

Planesmart wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Indy wrote:
There are health hazards associated with current airline seating. So I would not call that safe. When you endure pain during a trip, you are sustaining injury. That is not safe. Is the plane physically able to fly safe? Yes. Does the seat size and pitch cause injury to passengers? Also, yes.

Nowhere has tight seat pitch been proven to be a direct health hazard. What you're probably alluding to is DVT, which is unrelated to seat pitch.

I will let my father know, so he can inform the airlines and medical insurance companies that you have more knowledge / insight than they do. He suffers from DVT. Not an issue on shorter flights, but if flying more than 6 hours, airlines (including EK, QF, SQ, BA) and medical insurers make booking business or first class a pre-condition.

You would have a point if DVT had anything to do with seat pitch. DVT is caused by lack of circulation owing to lack of movement. Booking first or business class might make it easier for him to get up and move around...but if he doesn't get up and move around the additional legroom is worthless.

Indy wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Nowhere has tight seat pitch been proven to be a direct health hazard. What you're probably alluding to is DVT, which is unrelated to seat pitch.


Ever been seated in a cramped seat and your knees started hurting? That is all the proof you need. Please don't attempt to defend the status quo. The system is broken. If everyone on the planet was 5'5"-5'7" tall we wouldn't be having a problem. Then again airlines would likely pack the seats in tighter which would make pitch a problem for people who are 5'8" tall. It is a serious problem when you have the seat in front of you jammed into your knees and you cannot bend your legs and you endure hours of pain.

:rotfl: You do know that the average height of humans for males is 5.6 ft. and for females 5.2 ft. right?

Setting that aside, my back starts to hurt from sitting in economy around hour 5 of a TATL flight, so why stop at seat pitch then and just mandate lie-flat seats for everyone!

Sorry, that's not proof at all. Discomfort =/= health hazard. There is no demonstrable evidence that an uncomfortable plane seat that you voluntarily put yourself in is any type of sizable health hazard. Try again.
 
ckfred
Posts: 5147
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:48 pm

From what I've read, the problem that the some industry observers fear is that as seat pitch reduces, it may be harder to evacuate an aircraft in an emergency. If seat pitch in Y is 32", it should be fairly easy to get everyone off a plane in the maximum time set by the FAA.

But, when you get really tight space, like a 28" pitch, the belief is that it will be harder to get people out of the plane, because of the lack of space between seats. Considering that the average American is heavier today than 50 years ago, the concern is not unfounded.

If you have to hunch over to avoid hitting your head on the underside of the overhead bins, and you have to "side step" to get to the aisle, that can make for a slightly slower process in getting to the aisle and then to an over-wing exit or door with a slide.

I have an old AA route map from the 1960s. At that time, the 727-100 was configured for 22F and 66Y, for a total of 88 seats. When the 721 was retired in the 1990s, the total seating was 125. That was an additional 37 seats over the original configuration.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Seat Law coming?

Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:29 pm

ckfred wrote:
From what I've read, the problem that the some industry observers fear is that as seat pitch reduces, it may be harder to evacuate an aircraft in an emergency. If seat pitch in Y is 32", it should be fairly easy to get everyone off a plane in the maximum time set by the FAA.

But, when you get really tight space, like a 28" pitch, the belief is that it will be harder to get people out of the plane, because of the lack of space between seats. Considering that the average American is heavier today than 50 years ago, the concern is not unfounded.

If you have to hunch over to avoid hitting your head on the underside of the overhead bins, and you have to "side step" to get to the aisle, that can make for a slightly slower process in getting to the aisle and then to an over-wing exit or door with a slide.

I have an old AA route map from the 1960s. At that time, the 727-100 was configured for 22F and 66Y, for a total of 88 seats. When the 721 was retired in the 1990s, the total seating was 125. That was an additional 37 seats over the original configuration.


There is a very well-known and well-defined process by which the FAA certifies commercial aircraft to carry passengers, including evaluating emergency egress from the aircraft.

Any aircraft registered and flying with a major airline in the U.S. today must, by definition, be configured to carry no more than the maximum number of passengers approved by the FAA for transport on that particular aircraft type. There are relatively very few aircraft operated by any airline in the U.S. today that have only 28 inches of legroom, but there certainly have been plenty of aircraft around the world - including those operated by European charter carriers - that have flown for years with such dense configurations. If people now want to claim that 28 inches of legroom is not enough to safely evacuate an aircraft in the event of an emergency, there are established channels - legislative and regulatory - for expressing those concerns to the relevant, responsible federal agency.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Seat Law coming?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:23 am

flyguy89 wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
It seems that this topic is full of people that cannot see anything other than cheap tickets=cramped seats/extremely basic service or expensive tickets=all service you can get.
This is stupid.

What's stupid is you referencing an era in which airlines lost money hand over fist and required tax-payer bailouts to survive in order to make your point. You just disproved yourself.
Jomar777 wrote:
A while ago, with de-regulation, fares got cheaper and more people could fly for a kind of decent service.
What happened nowadays is that the collateral effect of de-regulation now implies and rules above all: squeeze the passenger as much as you can for a service as basic and crowded as possible.

Actually, you can still get the decent 90s-era service for a 90s-era price in the form of economy plus. So again, what exactly is it that you're complaining about? Nothing has been taken from you, rather airlines have added a new product in addition to serve a new market.

I love that you say this:
Jomar777 wrote:
We do need some regulation surely.
Not what we used to have before but some sort of minimum to protect the passenger

...and then propose not only exactly what regulation was, but going even farther, because government wasn't involved in dictating seating requirements to airlines even in the 60s:
Jomar777 wrote:
AND we need fares to be controlled to a level where Airlines cannot exploit passengers on the back of these regulations.



Jomar777 wrote:
Some say here that people that cannot/would not be able to cough up should end up in Greyhound. Those are the ones that one day may end up there in future when their so great jobs disappear.
Greyhound is not that bad (though nowhere as good as a Brazilian Sleeper Coach, for example) but should they get more passengers

The point is, who the h$%l are you that you think you can tell people who want a super-cheap fare for lower-frills that they cannot fly and must take Greyhound.Your whole rant smacks both of elitism and wanting the government to give you something for free.

ogre727 wrote:
My problem is that.... yes, I am willing to pay a bit more to meet the standards I remember from the not so distant past.... but those options are slowly going away

Are they though? Using your example, do you know how much it used to cost on average a couple decades ago to fly to Japan? About the cost of an economy plus ticket on any of the number of carriers that can take you to Japan. So it sounds like the result here is that, if in fact an economy plus ticket is out of your price range today, it's not very likely you would have been able to go to Japan at all under the pricing of a couple decades ago.


You are absolute out of order. What an idiot!!!
If the airlines were REALLY making losses as such they would have been out of business.
As for the other points, it is worth wasting my time replying?
Premium Economy = cheap and accessible? Have you ever considered why the airlines that so much advertise them do have only a couple of rows only available? Do you really fly? or just sit on blogs your whole life?
The Greyhound example, if you cared to actually read all blogs, was actually a comment from another blogger; not mine.
Can't waste my time from further replies from someone like you.
 
ogre727
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:43 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:47 am

ogre727 wrote:
My problem is that.... yes, I am willing to pay a bit more to meet the standards I remember from the not so distant past.... but those options are slowly going away

Are they though? Using your example, do you know how much it used to cost on average a couple decades ago to fly to Japan? About the cost of an economy plus ticket on any of the number of carriers that can take you to Japan. So it sounds like the result here is that, if in fact an economy plus ticket is out of your price range today, it's not very likely you would have been able to go to Japan at all under the pricing of a couple decades ago.[/quote]

I do.... I remember flying in the mid 90s from IAD to MAD via AMS on KLM for USD 250 round trip.... plus my point was a different one. I meant that I had the option to fly Cathay this year (and paid more for it but less than economy plus), but beginning next year they will also go 10-abreast. So yes, the options are slowly disappearing. Thats what I meant.
I am between the devil and the deep blue sea
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:59 am

Doubt it will ever happen with too many conflicting interests.I think it would be good all round though.When 'perfect' competition is intense as this all rules get broken whether it be manufacturer or retailer.It would actually make their lives easier in the long term if these minimum variables were taken out of their hands.
In terms of timing Gus one has to be generous.For instance saying from In X years time these standards will come in force for new aircraft and in Y years time (i.e. 10 years or so) all aircraft must comply.
In terms of what that is.Well 17.5" seems a reasonable compromise.All 'new' Boeing a/c can do this with present configurations.Not all 'do' it but they 'could' and have X (10) years so not really an issue.
With pitch they need to move the measurement to the front of the upright seat back rather than the rear at present so the measurement is the same for all types of seats.Then agree a number i.e. 30" or something.
As stated prob' won't ever happen but a good thing if it did.At present it is starting to get physically dangerous.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Seat Law coming?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:01 pm

Cheaper tickets is all that matters. The standing seat FR showed, would be the logical next step.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:58 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
It seems that this topic is full of people that cannot see anything other than cheap tickets=cramped seats/extremely basic service or expensive tickets=all service you can get.
This is stupid.

What's stupid is you referencing an era in which airlines lost money hand over fist and required tax-payer bailouts to survive in order to make your point. You just disproved yourself.
Jomar777 wrote:
A while ago, with de-regulation, fares got cheaper and more people could fly for a kind of decent service.
What happened nowadays is that the collateral effect of de-regulation now implies and rules above all: squeeze the passenger as much as you can for a service as basic and crowded as possible.

Actually, you can still get the decent 90s-era service for a 90s-era price in the form of economy plus. So again, what exactly is it that you're complaining about? Nothing has been taken from you, rather airlines have added a new product in addition to serve a new market.

I love that you say this:
Jomar777 wrote:
We do need some regulation surely.
Not what we used to have before but some sort of minimum to protect the passenger

...and then propose not only exactly what regulation was, but going even farther, because government wasn't involved in dictating seating requirements to airlines even in the 60s:
Jomar777 wrote:
AND we need fares to be controlled to a level where Airlines cannot exploit passengers on the back of these regulations.



Jomar777 wrote:
Some say here that people that cannot/would not be able to cough up should end up in Greyhound. Those are the ones that one day may end up there in future when their so great jobs disappear.
Greyhound is not that bad (though nowhere as good as a Brazilian Sleeper Coach, for example) but should they get more passengers

The point is, who the h$%l are you that you think you can tell people who want a super-cheap fare for lower-frills that they cannot fly and must take Greyhound.Your whole rant smacks both of elitism and wanting the government to give you something for free.

ogre727 wrote:
My problem is that.... yes, I am willing to pay a bit more to meet the standards I remember from the not so distant past.... but those options are slowly going away

Are they though? Using your example, do you know how much it used to cost on average a couple decades ago to fly to Japan? About the cost of an economy plus ticket on any of the number of carriers that can take you to Japan. So it sounds like the result here is that, if in fact an economy plus ticket is out of your price range today, it's not very likely you would have been able to go to Japan at all under the pricing of a couple decades ago.


You are absolute out of order. What an idiot!!!
If the airlines were REALLY making losses as such they would have been out of business.

...which is exactly why they all declared bankruptcy and received tax payer bailouts. There's only one apparent "idiot" here who clearly doesn't know his airline history (hint: not me).

Jomar777 wrote:
As for the other points, it is worth wasting my time replying?

Must be code for, "I don't have an intelligent, cogent response to your points."

Jomar777 wrote:
Premium Economy = cheap and accessible? Have you ever considered why the airlines that so much advertise them do have only a couple of rows only available? Do you really fly? or just sit on blogs your whole life?

I didn't say premium economy was "cheap and accessible," go back and re-read my comments. What I said was that premium economy is available for about the same price as the average ticket price of economy in the 90s.

Jomar777 wrote:
The Greyhound example, if you cared to actually read all blogs, was actually a comment from another blogger; not mine.

...and? Your comment that "who cares if they end up on Greyhound..." deserved calling out. If you're not going to defend comments you make here when called out by others and resort to ad hominem attacks, perhaps it's best you refrain from commenting in the future?

ogre727 wrote:
I do.... I remember flying in the mid 90s from IAD to MAD via AMS on KLM for USD 250 round trip.... plus my point was a different one. I meant that I had the option to fly Cathay this year (and paid more for it but less than economy plus), but beginning next year they will also go 10-abreast. So yes, the options are slowly disappearing. Thats what I meant.

I'm just not seeing that. To Asia, you have JAL, DL, CI, BR, KE and OZ that don't do 10 abreast. And you must have had a REALLY good travel agent for a $250 r/t ticket from the East Coast through Europe. The taxes on that routing alone amount to nearly $250. A median roundtrip ticket to Asia in 90s you'd be looking at $700-$800 easy, equal to about $1100-$1300 today. I'm seeing offerings for nonstop premium economy tickets on DL for ~$1,000 and one-stop on CI for ~$1,500.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Seat Law coming?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:00 pm

seahawk wrote:
Cheaper tickets is all that matters. The standing seat FR showed, would be the logical next step.

Not really. Evacuation requirements cap capacity on aircraft essentially disallowing this.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Seat Law coming?

Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:44 am

flyguy89 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Cheaper tickets is all that matters. The standing seat FR showed, would be the logical next step.

Not really. Evacuation requirements cap capacity on aircraft essentially disallowing this.


Not really, you just need more exits.

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