Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:37 am

Turbulence: Why is Airport Travel Such a Nightmare?

7/30/17 Sunday Night with Megan Kelly

Air travel these days seems less like an adventure and more like a battle. Josh Mankiewicz talks with industry experts and executives about the causes of the frustration in the skies.

http://www.nbcnews.com/megyn-kelly/vide ... 3496387874
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
GoSharks
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:07 am

Varsity1 wrote:
GoSharks wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

You're dead wrong. Airbus uses local university students.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-205793/

If you actually read your own link, you would quickly find that you are wrong.

EASA and FAA regulations require that 35% of the participants must be aged over 50, a minimum 40% must be female, and 15% female and over 50.



Where am I wrong. Clearly cites using university students. Some older airbus employees got to participate, probably in great shape themselves.

The people who can afford to fly, and often do fly are older.

You said
These tests are usually conducted by fit college students. Not an accurate cross section of passengers


35% are over 50.

Also, since when does gymnasium=university student?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8611
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:27 am

GoSharks wrote:
Also, since when does gymnasium=university student?


You are just nitpicking, probably he meant to say able body adults.

Rules should be
No aviation sector employees.
Physically challenged -10%
Morbidly obese - 10%
Kids and infants - 5% (1% in Autistic spectrum)
Carry-on luggers - 2%
Wearing high heels - 1% (Let us see how durable are the slides)

Also, I noticed the narrow body exit path/hallways(may not be the right term) are so narrow, they do not permit a crew member to stay next to the door to help passengers.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9864
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:37 am

tjh8402 wrote:
The sense of entitlement some people have is pretty amazing. If you want a bigger seat, those are readily available on the planes, even on spirit. If it's too narrow, buy a second seat. If you can't afford it, oh well. There's a lot of comfort and luxuries I wish I could afford but I don't ask others to subsidize for me. Nothing has actually changed that much since the "golden age" of flying as far as space in comfort go other than cheaper options are now available for those who couldn't previously afford them as well as a whole lot more entertainment amenities being offered to everybody. Seat width on a 787 or 737 is the same as it was on a 707. Seat pitch is about the same in E+, which, amazingly, when adjusted for inflation, is pretty close to what the similarly sized economy seats used to be. Tight seats like we have today didn't exist back then because tickets for the sort of cheap prices we have today didn't exist back then.


There is a limit to how small you can go, before it becomes a safety issue, but this limit is well below what most people would call comfortable. I think around 28" pitch and 15.5-16" width is a limit were safety becomes an issue.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:27 pm

Yeah guys. And can I have free champagne and hot meal too, whilst you are all busy fixing this?
Oh, and don't forget the free hold luggage. And cute stewardesses, thanks.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:41 pm

AirAfreak wrote:
Just look at what has happened since the day airlines such as Valujet, easyJet, Air Asia, and the endless post-9/11 excuses [came] about.


Ironically, I much prefer EasyJet for intra-Europe and similarly found AirAsia to be perfectly acceptable. So as far as I'm concerned you're blaming the wrong people here.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:16 pm

CO953 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
CO953

On point one you really only have a valid issue if flying coach is the only option offered. It isn't. What you are arguing for isn't safety, it's subsidization. People have overwhelmingly come out for the lowest fares possible. You are asking them all to subsidize what some want or need because those people choose not to pay for Moreno expensive but available seating.


Hey, thanks for the response. I'm busy with some work outside so let me just give a quick response to the first part of your response.

It comes down to monopoly. We haven't had any serious monopoly battles in the USA since Ma Bell was broken up in 1984 as basically the sole long-distance telephone long-distance provider?

Is it subsidization that I have only one local home garbage collector in my area, and that the price keeps going up and up, and if I don't pay it they can actually put a lien on my house and finally come and put me in handcuffs and drag me off the land I own?

Is it subsidization that I have only one landline telephone provider in my area, which I choose to continue because during hurricanes in my area the landline can be a critical safety line, because cell-phone towers quickly fail due to traffic overload ... and that the price keeps going up and up, with no alternative?

Is it subsidization that in many states the health-care insurance providers have been pared down to one, and if you don't buy their product you are hit with a fine (not a tax), and the prices soar up and up and up with no relief in sight?

Is it subsidization that unless I have the extra money for a first-class seat I am being crammed into a smaller and smaller space, with no indication that the industry hears one word of complaint, and no relief in sight?

I'm telling you, America is ripe for a return of Teddy-Roosevelt-style monopoly battles, led by angry non-politicians such as the next populist Senator from the state of Michigan, Robert "Kid Rock" Ritchie.

These things go in cycles. Were I running an airline, I would feel more comfortable trying to get ahead of the curve and finding a way to minimize the price of giving enough extra space to alleve some of this, and trumpeting this with an awesome advertising campaign. I see an opening a mile wide right now for an airline that touts its amenities, admits to the customer that it will be a little more expensive, and then makes Job #1 figuring out how to efficiently do so and keep the costs within the reach of the average flyer, who will gladly pay extra to be treated like a human again. That's better than letting a blunderbuss government finally call the shots and end up with a bad solution. I'm just saying, the current state of passenger accommodation cannot continue.

A smart airline industry leads the way forward. A stubborn airline industry keeps on cruising along until the calendar reads 1978 and gets smacked sideways by government intervention.

People are angry in America and growing angrier.

Where the heck is Freddie Laker, but this time selling just enough luxury to cold-cock the competition?


The fact that you have one garbage collector is likely the fault of your local government only allowing one to operate and this creating a monopoly through their regulation. Same deal for phone service in any built up area. Simply see the nonsense Google had to fight to try and wire places for their high speed service. You are arguing my side of things.

Healthcare again would make the opposite argument you intend. It is the opposite of a free market and likely the worst of both worlds. It's highly regulated but not government operated. Prices are insane because people with insurance are almost 100% price insnensitive.

And no, you aren't subsidizing anyone by having a smaller pitch in your seat. Airline prices on an inflation adjusted basis were down something like 30-35% because of deregulation. The market is creating exactly what people want which is lots of cheap fares and a limited number of higher end tickets.

You are screeching for a product that not enough people are willing to consistently pay for. You basically want something that isn't premium economy or first class but is a bit nicer than what most people are willing to pay for. There isn't a market for that. You are basically screaming for a Mercury rather than a Ford or Lincoln.

What you want isn't supported by consumers. And airlines have tried premium service models and better accommodation in the past. It's been a loser every time. It's very arrogant to presume your wishes should be forced on everyone else.
 
travelsonic
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:59 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:31 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
Yeah guys. And can I have free champagne and hot meal too, whilst you are all busy fixing this?
Oh, and don't forget the free hold luggage. And cute stewardesses, thanks.


You don't need to be in favor of regulations to, IMO, see that this is hardly an apt comparison - minimum pitch/with vs free hot meals, free hold luggage, etc.

Being a bit dishonest, are we?
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:52 pm

travelsonic wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
Yeah guys. And can I have free champagne and hot meal too, whilst you are all busy fixing this?
Oh, and don't forget the free hold luggage. And cute stewardesses, thanks.


You don't need to be in favor of regulations to, IMO, see that this is hardly an apt comparison - minimum pitch/with vs free hot meals, free hold luggage, etc.

Being a bit dishonest, are we?


No, I was just being ironic on this topic, which to me is frankly a wee bit silly... asking for government intervention on the free market is simply plain stupid....Are we going back to regulated flying then??
Besides, seat width has largely remained the same in decades, and pitch -yes- this has decreased somewhat (but not dramatically: reality is from 34" at best, to a given approx. average of 31"), but prices have gone down what, 50%, 60%, 70%??... and let's bear in mind that any given aircraft cannot have more than its maximum capacity 'crammed in', which usually is calculated @29", so in reality we are not going beyond the 30"/31" barrier in the vast majority of cases for long-haul.. For short-haul we have indeed a far larger brigade of 28-inchers, but with the slimlines this is not *so* terrible. And even back in the day 28" was always used, particularly for short-haul/charters/leisure airlines.
I can see that this is a particularly hot topic for North-Americans, given how many overweight people they have now, but legroom alone (or a marginally wider seat) would not solve the problem of huge people spilling onto the next seat. Y will simply never be good/spacious enough for these....
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:58 pm

AirAfreak wrote:
Many fellow-Americans (and most other consumers not employed by airline companies) have made this country (and most others) a place of quantity versus quality by voting with their wallets.

Most people everywhere do this. I can think of any number of examples wholly unrelated to aircraft seat size that have ended up in their current states because no one wants to pay for higher quality (but will certainly complain about the low quality that they get).
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
panampreflight
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:12 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:18 pm

WWads wrote:
I think it's time for regulation. It doesn't have to be overly onerous either. Minimum pitch should be 31" and 17" seats on wide-bodies shouldn't be permitted. DL does just fine with 9x 777s. 787s should be 8x instead of 9x. The airlines have received unlimited gravy from the Feds for years now. It's time they gave something back.

I really think there's something to the safety concerns. Particularly with the dense configurations and narrow aisles found on 3x4x3 777s. I would not want to have to evac one of those birds in a critical situation.


Well regulation is always the worst way to go, regulation is NEVER the best way to go in these issues. Why do people think this way?. If customers don't like the seats, then they will fly an alternate carrier. I do it all the time.
 
User avatar
Blimpie
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:48 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:25 pm

Flaps wrote:
There are too many stupid and over reaching regulations and regulatory bodies already. Seats and seat pitch haven't shrunk all that much (although yes the have shrunk a bit) while the size of passengers has continued to increase steadily. People want low fares more than anything else. That is how they vote with their wallets and the airlines simply respond to that by increasing seat count to compensate for the lower fares.. Don't like the seat size? Fork over some cash to buy a bigger one or put down your dinner fork a few bites sooner and lose some weight. For the record I'm 5'11" and 200 lbs. I have no trouble fitting into anyone's seats. If anything ruins the travel experience its the ignorance and pomposity of fellow travelers jammed into full cabins more so than seat size.


I'm gong to play a little Devil's Advocate here.

Well, I'm about the same size as you are and while that's all fine and good that you can easily get in and out of that seat; how old are you? What's your physical health like? I got pretty crappy knees, no amount of diet and exercise is going to fix that, nor is that going to repair that slipped disk in my back from a few years ago. How about someone whose 60+ and and in worse health, or mobility impaired? So, if a person confined to a wheelchair cannot get in to that 28" seat, he should just suck it up and pay more; or just learn to walk since being confined to that wheelchair is an obvious lifestyle choice, and no one REALLY needs to fly.

Where do you want to draw the line?

It's pretty disingenuous to say, if one wants more space, then pay up especially when in five years the standard seat pitch may very likely be 28" in Y, and let's say 29 in Y+. Who knows, if this is working well for Y/Y+, then why not let's keep going with stuffing more people in to F/J as well, because let's face it, F/J yields larger profit margins. I can actually see the day at this rate where if you get 30" or 31" in J, especially on short hauls and transcons. Hell, in F on a short haul or transcon, do you REALLY need that lie-flat? If the peasants in Y can live with 28", then surely the flying elite are pampered spoiled with 31" or 32"

Sounds prosperous? Well, that's what I would say or think ten of 15 years ago if anyone would have 30" seat pitch in Y; or people proposing seat restrictions.

Personally, I'd rather the airlines would just get rid of this entire ala-carte bundling pricing and go back to the way it was twenty years ago, and just list it up front, that $99 OW airfare is really $275, but at least someone can sit in a seat AND use the freaking tray without having the guy in front recline his seat pinning you between the tray and a seat for the length of a flight.

With that said, we all know the seats are getting smaller and smaller because pax want cheaper prices, so lord forbid, the evil airlines are going to stuff more and more people in those metal tubes to max their profit. Just because a people want something doesn't mean they should get it either. Companies can and often do tell customers "no", and the incredible shrinking seats to maximize profits and lowering airfare does not have to be the answer. In my thirty plus years in the media industry, we've had groups like the KKK want to take out two page color ad spreads in USAToday, and we said no. It's not exactly rocket science for a company to say no to a customer.
Now get the hell off of my lawn your dang kids!
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:15 pm

This is a great thread. Haven't seen so much whining in a long time on a.net, congrats all!

Price or comfort, pick one. (Just like every product in America)

"My Honda Civic doesn't have as much legroom as the Mercedes S550. Regulate Honda give me more for free!!!" Sound like a bunch of whiners
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Topic Author
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:17 pm

BlatantEcho wrote:
This is a great thread. Haven't seen so much whining in a long time on a.net, congrats all!

Price or comfort, pick one. (Just like every product in America)

"My Honda Civic doesn't have as much legroom as the Mercedes S550. Regulate Honda give me more for free!!!" Sound like a bunch of whiners


There is a law that forbids Honda from selling Civics with no seat belt, airbag and brakes. Just a matter of security and safety to be able to fit in the seat and jump off it if needed without being held by others.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:25 pm

WWads wrote:
I think it's time for regulation. It doesn't have to be overly onerous either. Minimum pitch should be 31" and 17" seats on wide-bodies shouldn't be permitted. DL does just fine with 9x 777s. 787s should be 8x instead of 9x. The airlines have received unlimited gravy from the Feds for years now. It's time they gave something back.

I really think there's something to the safety concerns. Particularly with the dense configurations and narrow aisles found on 3x4x3 777s. I would not want to have to evac one of those birds in a critical situation.


I'm reluctantly joining in on this. I have a bias against undue government regulation, but everything has its limits.

For me, the airlines crossed that limited when they installed lavatories so tiny that normal humans can't move in them, much less go about their business, all in the name of adding two rows of seats to an A320. This goes beyond a supply-and-demand issue and becomes a health and safety issue. Ditto for the DVT point.

And nothing in regulating seat size means we're going back to the days of the Civil Aeronautics Board allocating domestic route authority.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:29 pm

bigjku wrote:

Anything beyond that is just government babying.


Also known as "something bigjku doesn't like."
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:52 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
bigjku wrote:

Anything beyond that is just government babying.


Also known as "something bigjku doesn't like."


Nonsense.

In my paradigm I am free to buy a 17 inch, 30 inch pitch seat if it's cheaper or to shop for a seat of larger dimensions if I wish.

In your paradigm I can't buy the cheap seat because someone else says it can't be sold because it's uncomfortable.

Your paradigm prohibits, mine does not. You are the despot saying what one cannot do. I am the one allowing the individual to make the choice. Your attempt to ascribe a moral equivalence between the two positions is intellectually dishonest. I don't want to be denied a choice I am fine with because others are not. You are arrogant enough to want to decide for everyone.

If there is a verified and tested safety issue then so be it. We all know there isn't.
 
sircygnus
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:46 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:11 pm

SurlyBonds paradigm says nothing that prohibits airlines from charging anything different for bigger seats than they do now for those with smaller pitch and width. In essence negating what the airlines did with basic economy fares. (Charging me $20 more for the same seat).
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8782
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:34 pm

SurlyBonds wrote:
For me, the airlines crossed that limited when they installed lavatories so tiny that normal humans can't move in them, much less go about their business, all in the name of adding two rows of seats to an A320. This goes beyond a supply-and-demand issue and becomes a health and safety issue. Ditto for the DVT point.


Ever used the toilet in a CRJ200? That aircraft (and its near-predecessors) has been in service for 25 years. Have people been whining about lav size as a safety issue there, too?
 
RobertPhoenix
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:00 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:45 pm

My apologies if this has been covered above, but a quick look through didn't show it.

Every new airplane has to be certified for evacuation and that will be using a particular seating configuration. If manufacturers change the parameters of the seating (usually at the request of airlines) shouldn't they have to re-certify for evacuation ?
 
CO953
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:11 am

BlatantEcho wrote:
This is a great thread. Haven't seen so much whining in a long time on a.net, congrats all!

Price or comfort, pick one. (Just like every product in America)

"My Honda Civic doesn't have as much legroom as the Mercedes S550. Regulate Honda give me more for free!!!" Sound like a bunch of whiners


With due respect to your seniority here, you are being blind and obtuse - and supercilious - to the rising complaints of the customers. Engineer-types (which keep the aviation world flying) are usually the most oblivious people to human factors in any equation.

The choice is - have the money for first class, or have ZERO CHOICE OF SEAT SHOULDER AND RIBCAGE WIDTH, aside from choosing to not be in the middle. You show me where there are more than two options - the rich and the poor, and I'll stop "whining, " sir.

A lot of industry types telling customers to eat the c*** sandwich and like it, is what this thread's been good for. yeah, a Soviet-style binary choice is so great.

Hey, you dish it out to people trying to honestly discuss a problem, then you take it.....

When the regulation clampdown comes, the rigid status-quo defenders will have earned it.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:31 am

CO953 wrote:
BlatantEcho wrote:
This is a great thread. Haven't seen so much whining in a long time on a.net, congrats all!

Price or comfort, pick one. (Just like every product in America)

"My Honda Civic doesn't have as much legroom as the Mercedes S550. Regulate Honda give me more for free!!!" Sound like a bunch of whiners


With due respect to your seniority here, you are being blind and obtuse - and supercilious - to the rising complaints of the customers. Engineer-types (which keep the aviation world flying) are usually the most oblivious people to human factors in any equation.

The choice is - have the money for first class, or have ZERO CHOICE OF SEAT SHOULDER AND RIBCAGE WIDTH, aside from choosing to not be in the middle. You show me where there are more than two options - the rich and the poor, and I'll stop "whining, " sir.

A lot of industry types telling customers to eat the c*** sandwich and like it, is what this thread's been good for. yeah, a Soviet-style binary choice is so great.

Hey, you dish it out to people trying to honestly discuss a problem, then you take it.....

When the regulation clampdown comes, the rigid status-quo defenders will have earned it.

Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.
 
boilerla
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:30 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:47 am

While I'd love more legroom and shoulder room, let's be honest. It's not a safety issue. Recent evacuations on commercial airlines have all had one major problem: people stopping to remove luggage and valuables from overhead bins.

You can make the airlines give you 48" of legroom but if the person in front of you during an evac wants to take time to put on shoes and get their valuables from the overhead compartment, it doesn't matter.

And nothing will change that--I'm aware you're advised against doing that. The point is, the existing regulations are already safe enough, and people still ignore them. A rule that prohibits barefoot passengers would be just as effective in promoting safety.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:38 pm

The 10Y 777 is unpleasant. I find the narrow aisle rather concerning too, I'd hate to have to get out in an emergency (especially if behind "wider" individuals)
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9864
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:11 am

RobertPhoenix wrote:
My apologies if this has been covered above, but a quick look through didn't show it.

Every new airplane has to be certified for evacuation and that will be using a particular seating configuration. If manufacturers change the parameters of the seating (usually at the request of airlines) shouldn't they have to re-certify for evacuation ?


No, you certify for a number of pax. So for example you put the whole frame full of Y seats at 32" pitch and certify 300 pax. Now airlines are free to install Y seats with 27" pitch in addition to Y+ and J seats for a total of 270 pax and are fine.
 
PMUA787
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:20 am

One thought of mine is there has not been a fatal airline accident here in the USA in quite awhile. God forbid there was another accident today with the cabin densification throughout the industry and it was found in the post accident investigation with the NTSB that more people died due to the fact the more cramped cabins prevented more people from getting out in an emergency evacuation the calls for re-regulation would be deafening.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:08 pm

panampreflight wrote:
Well regulation is always the worst way to go, regulation is NEVER the best way to go in these issues.


What a peculiar thing to say!

From a safety point of view you are absolutely incorrect - our entire industry is built around regulation.

You are also wrong when it comes to minimum standards and consumer protection.

Perhaps you would prefer to take chances with shysters selling you seats on unmaintained aircraft that turn out to squeeze more people on board than they were designed for... At least they made a killing taking your money, so the system must have worked!
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:19 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.


Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.

Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Keith2004
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:59 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:26 pm

Is Flight a Privilege or a Right? :scratchchin:

If it is a privilege, then then those of above average size or those who don't want to fly in 10 abreast 777 :crowded: and 9 abreast 787 or 28" pitch 320/737 can pay for E+, J/F, or Not Fly

If it is a right then yes, regulate seats and have prices go up accordingly

I can see airlines adding "seat regulation surge charge" the way they added "Fuel Surge Charges" that mysteriously remain with oil at $40ish a barrel :lol:
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:55 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.


Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.

Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.


They sell the seats at that price because they can fill the seats at that price. Your opinion on if it's justified or not is irrelevant. Is an iPhone worth double the cost of a lower end android phone? It is if people will pay for it.
 
Indy
Posts: 4941
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:27 pm

The requirement should be an 18" seat width and 33" pitch. If this means the airlines can sell 20% less tickets then let them charge 20% more for the seats. If that is what a product costs then the public needs to pay it. If they cannot afford it then they don't fly. Airfare is dirt cheap. Let us not keep lowering the bar. It is time to restore some quality in air travel and people need to pay an appropriate fare for this. Look up some ticket prices from the 1970's and adjust it for inflation and compare that to today. People today can't complain if the adjustments I proposed are made. Tickets would still be cheap by comparison.
IND to RDU to OKC in 18 months. This is what my life has become.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:31 pm

What's all this 1980's rose tinted glasses rubbish?
Boring standard Yseat was and still is17.3"certainly for 737/747/757/767.Hardly fantastic.They tend to call it 17.5 these days with thinner armrests.
Boeing did try to address this with the 777 (18.5" seats) and indeed the 787 (again 17.5" seats).But the airlines went the other way and crammed an extra seat in both (now 17.0" )
Certainly can't blameBoeing.
At least for the 779 they will force 17.5" seats.Not great but ok I suppose.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:41 pm

Indy wrote:
The requirement should be an 18" seat width and 33" pitch. If this means the airlines can sell 20% less tickets then let them charge 20% more for the seats. If that is what a product costs then the public needs to pay it. If they cannot afford it then they don't fly. Airfare is dirt cheap. Let us not keep lowering the bar. It is time to restore some quality in air travel and people need to pay an appropriate fare for this. Look up some ticket prices from the 1970's and adjust it for inflation and compare that to today. People today can't complain if the adjustments I proposed are made. Tickets would still be cheap by comparison.


I would prefer all first class sized seats domestically. Let the unwashed masses take the bus like god intended.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:08 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.


Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.

Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.

Funny how people seem to forget how expensive flying used to be. In any case, international Y hasn't really changed all that much over the past few decades, so still nothing has really been taken away from you in this arena. My comments were more directed toward the US domestic market.

Indy wrote:
The requirement should be an 18" seat width and 33" pitch. If this means the airlines can sell 20% less tickets then let them charge 20% more for the seats. If that is what a product costs then the public needs to pay it. If they cannot afford it then they don't fly. Airfare is dirt cheap. Let us not keep lowering the bar. It is time to restore some quality in air travel and people need to pay an appropriate fare for this. Look up some ticket prices from the 1970's and adjust it for inflation and compare that to today. People today can't complain if the adjustments I proposed are made. Tickets would still be cheap by comparison.

Well at least somebody's finally being honest on this thread- "Meet my arbitrary definition of minimum comfort or screw off, and if you can no long afford to fly screw off. Also, screw any airline that would deign to offer those passengers a product they could willingly choose."

It certainly must be nice to be in a position to be able to pay 20% more for your tickets, and thank you for helping to exclude the poorer riff-raff from flying, it's about time somebody gave that noisy lot the boot back to the bus where they belong.
Last edited by flyguy89 on Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ayoungblood2
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:16 pm

Blimpie wrote:
As much as I am a pro-market Capitalist and all for he airlines to make bank, I will admit as someone a little shy of six feet in he 200# range, I do find getting in and out of an aisle from a window seat to be at bit challenging in Y class. I shutter to think about alighting in an emergency in a hurry.


I'm the same way. I'm tall and thin, but not unusually tall, and it is still difficult for me to slide in to a window or middle seat, regardless of whether or not there are people in the seats in that row that I have to go in front of. And although I believe in capitalism (strongly), UA, DL, and AA essentially have an oligopoly of the air travel market in the US and have great influence on the lawmakers in Washington that let them get away with whatever they want, and bail them out whenever they fail, and travelers are left with few other options, many of which are unlikely to serve the smaller commercial airports used by millions of Americans that feed into hubs like ATL or ORD.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:32 am

bigjku wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.


Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.

Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.


They sell the seats at that price because they can fill the seats at that price. Your opinion on if it's justified or not is irrelevant. Is an iPhone worth double the cost of a lower end android phone? It is if people will pay for it.


You've missed the point.

flyguy89 brought in strawman arguments implying premium economy is not that expensive and that standard economy is somehow merely a cheaper alternative to premium economy.

I stood up to call BS on both counts. For the average traveller standard economy is obviously the baseline and premium economy is vastly overpriced - therefore unrealistic as an alternative.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:46 am

flyguy89 wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.


Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.

Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.

Funny how people seem to forget how expensive flying used to be.


So what? Irrelevant point; hence red herring.

flyguy89 wrote:
In any case, international Y hasn't really changed all that much over the past few decades, so still nothing has really been taken away from you in this arena.


Not much; but this thread is full of people noticing it getting to the point that maybe some limits should be set. Not sure why you argue against that.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1419
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:49 am

I'm trying to understand how a set of consumer advocates think they can overrule the FAA and cabin design subject matter experts by asserting that there is a link between reduced seat pitch and safety? There is zero suggestion in real world crashes that short pitches lengthen passenger egress in emergency situations. You only have to look at an aircraft involved in survivable accidents like Lion Air Flight 904 with average seat pitch of 29-inches in a 189 passenger configuration. I have to admit that the lawyers regarding this appellate court case cleverly married passenger comfort to safety while calling into question decades of data that the commercial aviation industry has used to substantiate aircraft design and safety in probably the safest decades in aviation history.

I have to say that the lot of politicians, lawyers and consumer advocates are probably looking more for an easy, high profile win against the evil, greedy airlines who want to pack people like sardines in dilapidated, filthy airplanes for undeserved profits. We only have to look in the mirror when we see service levels drop and seats getting smaller and closer together... but that just doesn't really sell in today's self-aggrandizing pop culture. It's gotta be someone else's fault.

Every time we chose Spirit over American because it's 80 bucks cheaper at face value, we scrunch those seats closer together and force high operating cost network carriers to provide short pitched, basic economy class service to compete. It's gonna take a lot more deep discount Basic Economy (B) fares to cover loss of mid and full Y fares in the same basic square footage on an airplane. Considering that JetA costs anywhere between $4 and $5 a gallon, that accounts for more money the airline needs to make up for lost revenue understanding there are other expenses such as landing fees, maintenance, crew hourly wages that need to be covered with pittance fares.

I used to be a person that traveled on a budget and hated flying. Now that I travel enough to earn elite status on 2 network carriers, I see that flying gets much more comfortable the more you pay (lounge access, priority boarding, priority luggage delivery, priority security screening, unlimited upgrades). It's the same with any other consumer product, why should airlines be any different? I suppose the $650 round trip on a JFK - LAX transcon does not leave the consumer with a tangible good at the end of the service. $650 is enough to purchase a decent arm chair at West Elm.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9864
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:14 pm

Imho it can not be denied that there is a limit to seat pitch that can be considered save. The wrong idea is that save means comfortable. Save is probably anything above 25-26".
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3248
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:29 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.

Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.

Funny how people seem to forget how expensive flying used to be.


So what? Irrelevant point; hence red herring.

It's not irrelevant. You're belly-aching about how much more expensive premium economy can be on some carriers conveniently ignoring or forgetting how expensive regular economy even used to be to fly international. $1400-2000 in inflation-adjusted terms for a roundtrip international economy ticket was pretty normal in the 60s/70s/early 80s. Only difference is that today people have an even less expensive option to choose from when booking tickets.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
In any case, international Y hasn't really changed all that much over the past few decades, so still nothing has really been taken away from you in this arena.


Not much; but this thread is full of people noticing it getting to the point that maybe some limits should be set. Not sure why you argue against that.

Because it is entirely subjective.
 
redroo
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:25 pm

For me, comfort is not having the metal legs of the tray tables of the seat in front wedged into my knees during the flight. I'm 6ft2.

Second to that is not having to recline my own seat because the one in front has reclined fully and now the seat back is a couple of inches from my face.

I'm not advocating for 34" but instead of taking out galleys and toilets to squeeze another 6 seats in... all i ask is you give me a little more space so the above two conditions are met.
 
KentB27
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:52 pm

bigjku wrote:
The solution to people from other seats encroaching on your space is that the simply be forced to purchase two seats if they can't fit in the standard space.

Anything beyond that is just government babying.


I would agree with you but the only airline I've ever seen enforce the "too fat for one seat rule" is WN.
 
KentB27
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:08 pm

Keith2004 wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
Regarding seat size: not everyone is over 6'(2m) and heavy. If I were smaller and lighter I would take great umbrage in knowing that my fare was higher due to some large folks wanting larger seats. Pony up the money for a larger seat that already exists in the aircraft if it's that important to you.


Exactly

So many people in here saying
I'm 6'5, 6'3....200 lbs....

That is not representative of the average passenger so why should they be subsidizing above average sized passengers??

The backlash AA got when they tried to go to 29" pitch proves there is some limit, if planes got below a certain pitch consumers would vote with their wallets.

For the record I'm 6' and 190


I'm 6'5" and 210 and my height is not the airline's problem or responsibility to accomodate. I'm sick of tall guys wanting everyone to change the world for them. We're not the norm. We ought to suck it up because being a tall guy has a lot of other advantages in life.
 
anrec80
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:22 pm

parapente wrote:
What's all this 1980's rose tinted glasses rubbish?
Boring standard Yseat was and still is17.3"certainly for 737/747/757/767.Hardly fantastic.They tend to call it 17.5 these days with thinner armrests.
Boeing did try to address this with the 777 (18.5" seats) and indeed the 787 (again 17.5" seats).But the airlines went the other way and crammed an extra seat in both (now 17.0" )
Certainly can't blameBoeing.
At least for the 779 they will force 17.5" seats.Not great but ok I suppose.


Not quite accurate - 767s also tend to have 18 inch or more seats, they are quite roomy. So are 747 - they are like 0.5 meter wider than 777, and also in 3-4-3 config. Easily fit 18-18.5 inch seats. 777 was designed for 18-18.5 inch seats in Y as well, but airlines started cramming 10. So was 787 - designed for 2-4-2, but it's wider than 333.

I'd say on long haul you need more space - it's quality of sleep, health, etc. That should be regulated - airlines shouldn't cram people for long haul flights 5 hours or more. They should revert 777 to 9 abreast, and 787 to 8. 737/757 for 3 hr flights - it's secondary really.
 
panampreflight
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:12 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:17 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Turbulence: Why is Airport Travel Such a Nightmare?

7/30/17 Sunday Night with Megan Kelly

Air travel these days seems less like an adventure and more like a battle. Josh Mankiewicz talks with industry experts and executives about the causes of the frustration in the skies.

http://www.nbcnews.com/megyn-kelly/vide ... 3496387874



Josh Mankiewicz and NBC News is a frustration TOO. They need to turn their high powered perception on themselves, can't believe a word they say anymore!!!.
 
panampreflight
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:12 am

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:31 pm

flybyguy wrote:
I'm trying to understand how a set of consumer advocates think they can overrule the FAA and cabin design subject matter experts by asserting that there is a link between reduced seat pitch and safety? There is zero suggestion in real world crashes that short pitches lengthen passenger egress in emergency situations. You only have to look at an aircraft involved in survivable accidents like Lion Air Flight 904 with average seat pitch of 29-inches in a 189 passenger configuration. I have to admit that the lawyers regarding this appellate court case cleverly married passenger comfort to safety while calling into question decades of data that the commercial aviation industry has used to substantiate aircraft design and safety in probably the safest decades in aviation history.

I have to say that the lot of politicians, lawyers and consumer advocates are probably looking more for an easy, high profile win against the evil, greedy airlines who want to pack people like sardines in dilapidated, filthy airplanes for undeserved profits. We only have to look in the mirror when we see service levels drop and seats getting smaller and closer together... but that just doesn't really sell in today's self-aggrandizing pop culture. It's gotta be someone else's fault.

Every time we chose Spirit over American because it's 80 bucks cheaper at face value, we scrunch those seats closer together and force high operating cost network carriers to provide short pitched, basic economy class service to compete. It's gonna take a lot more deep discount Basic Economy (B) fares to cover loss of mid and full Y fares in the same basic square footage on an airplane. Considering that JetA costs anywhere between $4 and $5 a gallon, that accounts for more money the airline needs to make up for lost revenue understanding there are other expenses such as landing fees, maintenance, crew hourly wages that need to be covered with pittance fares.

I used to be a person that traveled on a budget and hated flying. Now that I travel enough to earn elite status on 2 network carriers, I see that flying gets much more comfortable the more you pay (lounge access, priority boarding, priority luggage delivery, priority security screening, unlimited upgrades). It's the same with any other consumer product, why should airlines be any different? I suppose the $650 round trip on a JFK - LAX transcon does not leave the consumer with a tangible good at the end of the service. $650 is enough to purchase a decent arm chair at West Elm.



You are right on most of this, except you can grab a great lazy boy chair or equivalent at Walmart.com starting at about $179, lol.
 
Indy
Posts: 4941
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:57 pm

People fight regulation and claim people have a choice of what kind of seat they buy. Not really. What are the real choices? Cramped or really cramped. Picking between coach and first class isn't really a choice. That is like saying people have choices and give them the option of purchasing a no frills Toyota Yaris or a Toyota Avalon Hybrid. Not really much of a choice. Nothing in the middle. So my choices are cheap junk or luxury? Nothing middle of the road?

The premium economy seats help a little but they still limit you to the same narrow seats found in regular economy. You are crammed in shoulder to shoulder just like every other seat behind you. You just don't have the seat in front of you rammed into your knees. Good luck finding a seat width of 18" and a pitch of 33". It may exist but the odds of it being available on your route are not good. And if all the airlines tomorrow decide to go with a 17" seat and 29" pitch where is your "choice"? There really isn't choice in the industry. The industry is in a race to the bottom and people just accept whatever miserable garbage they are handed because they have no real options. This is why a regulated size is required. People would cut corners and save a few bucks and pick a seat without a seat belt if it would save them a few dollars. Some decisions cannot be left to the consumers because it seems airlines will respond to the cheapest of consumers and that isn't good for anyone.
IND to RDU to OKC in 18 months. This is what my life has become.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9602
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:10 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
This is not about comfort or choices or even personal responsibility.

This is about flight safety. Many Senators and Congressmen think the evacuation certification test process is rigged and doesn't represent a real cabin configuration or a real evacuation.

How do you get out with a limited mobility passenger in the aisle seat?


You do not understand the design of certifiable requirements.

Certification requirements never represent in a 1:1 way real world examples.

Cert requirements represent a synthetic combo of a defined performance in a defined time window
for measurable performance.

Real world examples will invariably differ.

Certs will change if the assumed representativeness of the requirements is proved inadequate
in face of real incidence data.

Though all the screaming is for naught as we don't have any apparent issues with evacuation standards.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:09 am

flyguy89 wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Funny how people seem to forget how expensive flying used to be.


So what? Irrelevant point; hence red herring.

It's not irrelevant. You're belly-aching about how much more expensive premium economy can be on some carriers conveniently ignoring or forgetting how expensive regular economy even used to be to fly international. $1400-2000 in inflation-adjusted terms for a roundtrip international economy ticket was pretty normal in the 60s/70s/early 80s. Only difference is that today people have an even less expensive option to choose from when booking tickets.


The topic is minimum seat pitch, NOT HISTORICAL TICKET PRICE!

Your argument could hardly be more irrelevant...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Seat size regulations in the US

Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:25 pm

And the result will be, should that ever happen, is that airfares would go up and go up a lot. The United 777-300 would lose about 31 economy seats. Assuming an international flight was getting $1,000.00 a flight segment, that is $31,000.00 less revenue that would be made up on the remaining seats

Actually, taking exactly your example, fares would go up by 10%. No small thing, and would surely price some people out, but overall bearable. We have seen worse price increases in other much more essential / unavoidable industries.

I wonder how many of the individuals on here forget that they have a choice when it comes to air travel.

They don't, due to bad market segmentation and lack of proportionality in pricing. You can either pay 25-30% more for Y+, double the price for PY/J-, or many times more for J+. Taking the above example, there is no option to pay 10% more for 8% more width, for instance. PY is out of range for the average citizen, and not everybody offers Y+. Choice is limited, and even more so with the oligopolistic practices of the US3. You take whatever you can...

At the end of the day flying is an choice not an right,

It is neither. In a modern Western society, flying is a necessity, and in many occasions unavoidable (because believe me, whenever people can avoid the ordeal that flying has become, they will!)

Who is online

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