User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15276
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:22 pm

AitorL wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Well how are people going to evacuate from 28" pitch seats if their legs are broken near the knee joint?

I fully agree with you. Has anyone tried to adopt a "Legacy Brace" position on any Y seat today? just have a look at the safety cards from years ago, which showed arms under the knees and chest against the legs, to the current arms in the front seat back.

I truly believe that on a plane crash (and I mean a crash were the plane does not stand for the whole time on the wheels or belly, not a fire while takeoff run or similar evacuation events), most Y passengers will either have one or two legs / knees / ankles broken or will be unconscious after hitting their heads with the front seat back (probably with an LCD IFE display to make it even harder).

So for those still able to walk (probably seated in Y+/J/F) the 90 seconds target will be easy to accomplish, even if they want to take with them two trolleys each.

Sorry for being so sarcastic, but I see no way of not having my legs broken if after a normal 2 hours flight in some Y seats I cannot even feel my knees.

What survivable accident are you referring to? Please do some research on the safety features of the seats.

When OZ crashed a 777 an overhead bins ooened, they found out that was because the 9G limit was exceeded. Seats are tested to meet compliance.

If you feel unsafe, buy more pitch. I do.

You do realize your greatest risk of injury flying is getting to and from the airport?

Your fears are like stating you fear serving a car crash at 100kph impact, you won't. If the crash exceeds 9G, you cannot be saved. Only G trained individuals in G suits in very specific directions can.

If a plane flips, it is considered an un-survivable crash. Today's seats are far better than 30 years ago and will help in a belly landing.

There should be consumer cards. But ironically, the most environmental solution is 200 in the 738.

Meh, I've been hearing safety concerns about FR since they started. If you feel unsafe, pay LH or another legacy to fly you.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
stratclub
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:32 pm

Antarius wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Antarius wrote:

I don't believe there is one. The seat itself must be certified and passengers must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds with half the exits INOP. that's it.

So technically if people could evacuate with 27" inch pitch seats, it would be fine. So long as the seats are certified.

If the evacuation process including seats meets certification requirements for emergency egress in the country the aircraft is certified in then yes. Using your logic, certified seats could be mounted on the ceiling. If you have a problem with sardine can flights pay the money for more comfortable accommodations. Seat pitch is set by market demands.


I'm not following your post. My point Is that seat pitch is indeed set by market as long as that the setup has the seat certification standard and the evacuation standards are met.

If the seats on the ceiling met the above (which they presently do not) then sure, it would likely be allowed.

Just having some fun with the wording in your post. It seemed like you implied that the only consideration was that the seats were certified.

People want cheap so seat pitch is only going to get worse. Check these seats out:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/stan ... index.html
Image
 
yonikasz
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:47 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:27 pm

I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but it allows airlines like Spirit and Ryanair to do what they do best, get someone from A to B cheaply. If you want anything more than that you pay more. But having low prices puts downward pressure on the legacies. They have been selling more leg room economy seats for how long now? I don't get why people get upset about this. You get what you pay for.
 
evank516
Posts: 1306
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:36 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
OSL777FLYER wrote:
deltaffindfw wrote:
Question: when the FAA certifies the max amount of passengers for a plane, how does it model that? I know that manufacturers have to actually use people to exit the plane in 90 seconds (?) before initial certification. Is that based on max capacity? Just wondering where the numbers come from.


As far as I know, the FAA and EASA certifies as follows:

Number of passengers that can exit the aircraft within 90 seconds using half the available exits on the aircraft. (simulated where fire etc. will block half the exits)

Also you can be a maximum of three seats away from an aisle. In other words we will never see a 3-6-3 configuration of an aircraft. A 3-5-3 will be the max allowed.

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

Regardless of what airlines may want to do to increase passenger capacity e.g. remove galleys, lavatories etc. The max numbers allowed depend on the number of exits.

This being said, as discussed earlier in the thread, consumers should use their "power" more to influence seat pitch etc. but in the end. Prices for the ticket will often determine the choice of carrier.


3-6-3 still meets the requirement of being two seats away from the aisle.


In a 3-6-3 layout one passenger is more than 3 seats from an aisle. You have to consider the possibility of one of the aisles being blocked off by something. In a widebody, my guess is they want the person in the middle of the middle row to be equidistant from both aisles.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:00 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
AWACSooner wrote:
It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.


That’s an evacuation certification issue. FAA already controls (and cares about) that.

Exactly. Every row of an airplane must be compared to models.

Then again, those models are based on when all people could get through an 18" wide hallway. :duck:

I'm serious... It is also worthy to note you cannot make a seat safe for a child and someone over 275lb... Oh well, the crash requirement is definded and all seats are tested to verify complaiance with requirements...

Lightsaber

Is it a clean air evacuation for certification? Some countries for their accommodation industries, require reduced vision practice (smoke bombs let off) for staff (and guests lucky enough to be there). Something like 1:50 of participants are injured.

My parents were frequent global travellers into their mid-80's. Still are, but only maximum 3-4 hour flights now. My father was (is still) super fit, and small, was diagnosed with DVT. Back in the 00's, his specialist advised airline seating dimensions should be regulated based on flight duration and passenger size (larger passengers in bigger seats, or limited to shorter flights).

Some airlines now regulate indirectly. On long distance EK, BA, SQ and QF he is only permitted to fly in business or first, not economy or premium economy.
 
OB1504
Posts: 3332
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:49 pm

ELBOB wrote:
The current trend of grab-it-all is a reaction to the zero-tolerance evacuation policy where passengers are told to leave everything, without any guarantee of post-incident support. Rationally they therefore grab their bags to sustain themselves.

If the policy was 'you will each be given $5000 at the terminal' then things might flow differently.


The current policy is “Exit now so you don’t die.”

If that’s not enough to motivate people to evacuate quickly, then I don’t know what is.
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1320
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:24 pm

evank516 wrote:

In a 3-6-3 layout one passenger is more than 3 seats from an aisle. You have to consider the possibility of one of the aisles being blocked off by something. In a widebody, my guess is they want the person in the middle of the middle row to be equidistant from both aisles.


With 3-3|3-3 and a blocked aisle you have 6 people who have to climb over more than 2 other seats to get to the open aisle. If you consider a blocked aisle in other configurations well it isn't much better. With a 3-4-3 layout, you have 4 passengers more than 2 seats away from an aisle.. ... draw it out... plug an aisle.. and see how many people travel over two other people to get to the open aisle... And 2-5-2 with a blocked aisle will have 4 passengers more than 2 seats away from an open aisle.. And 2-3-2 with a blocked aisle will have 2 passengers more than 2 seats away from an open aisle. So, regardless.. a blocked aisle creates problems everywhere... What happens with a blocked aisle on a single aisle plane??

Point is... sans blocked aisle... 3-3|3-3 is safe...
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:37 pm

yonikasz wrote:
I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but it allows airlines like Spirit and Ryanair to do what they do best, get someone from A to B cheaply. If you want anything more than that you pay more. But having low prices puts downward pressure on the legacies. They have been selling more leg room economy seats for how long now? I don't get why people get upset about this. You get what you pay for.


No, you don't. These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.

Can't wait for the next economic collapse so some of these airlines go out of business. At least airlines like Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit, Ryanair etc don't lie to you about what you are getting.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:41 am

ODwyerPW wrote:
evank516 wrote:

In a 3-6-3 layout one passenger is more than 3 seats from an aisle. You have to consider the possibility of one of the aisles being blocked off by something. In a widebody, my guess is they want the person in the middle of the middle row to be equidistant from both aisles.


With 3-3|3-3 and a blocked aisle you have 6 people who have to climb over more than 2 other seats to get to the open aisle. If you consider a blocked aisle in other configurations well it isn't much better. With a 3-4-3 layout, you have 4 passengers more than 2 seats away from an aisle.. ... draw it out... plug an aisle.. and see how many people travel over two other people to get to the open aisle... And 2-5-2 with a blocked aisle will have 4 passengers more than 2 seats away from an open aisle.. And 2-3-2 with a blocked aisle will have 2 passengers more than 2 seats away from an open aisle. So, regardless.. a blocked aisle creates problems everywhere... What happens with a blocked aisle on a single aisle plane??

Point is... sans blocked aisle... 3-3|3-3 is safe...


So if you are in a window seat and the aisle is blocked, you are SOL.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:57 am

Super80Fan wrote:
yonikasz wrote:
I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but it allows airlines like Spirit and Ryanair to do what they do best, get someone from A to B cheaply. If you want anything more than that you pay more. But having low prices puts downward pressure on the legacies. They have been selling more leg room economy seats for how long now? I don't get why people get upset about this. You get what you pay for.


No, you don't. These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.

Can't wait for the next economic collapse so some of these airlines go out of business. At least airlines like Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit, Ryanair etc don't lie to you about what you are getting.

We seriously need to get a "like" option on posts...
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1155
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:53 am

ELBOB wrote:
77H wrote:
I find it hard to fathom anything a passenger could carry onboard with them that can't be replaced. Documents, medications and the like can all be replaced. That's what consulates/embassies and pharmacies are for.


You are at an airport in a foreign land. You have lost all your ID documents and money in the aircraft fire.

How are you going to get out of the airport?
How are you going to get to the consulate?
How do you prove who you are?
What are you going to eat in the next two days?
What are you going to use to buy medicine?
Who is going to pay for the camera and laptop you lost in the fire?

The current trend of grab-it-all is a reaction to the zero-tolerance evacuation policy where passengers are told to leave everything, without any guarantee of post-incident support. Rationally they therefore grab their bags to sustain themselves.

If the policy was 'you will each be given $5000 at the terminal' then things might flow differently.


How are you going to get out of the airport? - with an airline liaison.
How are you going to get to the consulate? - you don't have to, the airline will get an official from your consulate to come to the airport.
How do you prove who you are? - the airline has your details. In any case, this is why having even a photograph copy of your ID on your phone which should be in your pocket at all times is key.
What are you going to eat in the next two days? - the airline will provide.
What are you going to use to buy medicine? - the airline will provide.
Who is going to pay for the camera & laptop you lost in the fire? - the airline, obviously.

Remember, the Warsaw & Montreal Convention protects your rights in such instances so the airline can't escape their responsibilities in the event of an incident or accident.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
musman9853
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:54 am

lightsaber wrote:

Your fears are like stating you fear serving a car crash at 100kph impact, you won't. If the crash exceeds 9G, you cannot be saved. Only G trained individuals in G suits in very specific directions can.


Lightsaber


sorry to be a bit nitpicky, but the human body can sustain many times 9gs, as long as it's for a very short time. you're right that high sustained gs will kill you, but a 30g impact for a fraction of a second wont kill.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:17 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:
Point is... sans blocked aisle... 3-3|3-3 is safe...


So if you are in a window seat and the aisle is blocked, you are SOL.


Correct.

You have to set some kind of cut-off point, and the authorities have chosen "two seats from an aisle" as that point.

Of course you can imagine all sorts of ways in which you will be SOL in that case, but then as ODWyerPW points out, you can just as easily by SOL in a 1-1 single aisle when the aisle is blocked between you and the nearest exit.

You can not make anything infinitely safe - that is a fact of life.
"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
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5135
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:13 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:

The only real danger in an evacuation is peoples own stupidity not seat pitch.


So you're willing to die because you're surrounded by stupid people?
Where to next? :cool2:
 
User avatar
snn2003
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 7:52 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:14 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
yonikasz wrote:
I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but it allows airlines like Spirit and Ryanair to do what they do best, get someone from A to B cheaply. If you want anything more than that you pay more. But having low prices puts downward pressure on the legacies. They have been selling more leg room economy seats for how long now? I don't get why people get upset about this. You get what you pay for.


No, you don't. These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.

Can't wait for the next economic collapse so some of these airlines go out of business. At least airlines like Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit, Ryanair etc don't lie to you about what you are getting.



Thats pretty awful. I undterstand that you dont agree with the way they are doing business, but to openly hope for one to fail is terrible. These companies employ tens of thousands of people.
On behalf of your entire Boston based crew, thanks for flying with us today.
 
planecane
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:44 pm

Bjm0517 wrote:
It will be when their is an accident in a 200 seat 737 and their is a stampede of people evacuating. When the lawsuits start coming in, they will care then.


The lawsuits would come if the crash was an all lie flat suite configuration with 50 seats on the same 737. Hell, the lawsuits come when there are no fatalities.

The additional revenue on millions of flights is worth more than a miniscule amount of extra liability on a 1 in 100 million event.
 
highflier92660
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:02 pm

For decades there has been a somewhat unsettling question if the FAA's prime directive was to actually promote airline and aircraft safety or whether the FAA has too close a working relationship with the airlines to provide adequate oversight.

When aircraft evacuation drills were demonstrated, they didn't run out on to the street and find a true demographic cross section of the general public. There wasn't a distracted teenager with earbuds in their ears playing music at over 100 decibels so they couldn't hear the evacuation order or an octogenarian who could scarcely walk much less evacuate an aircraft in 90-seconds. No, they asked for volunteers within the company who were aeronautically knowledgeable, people who were physically fit and could tell the difference between an evacuation plug-type door and a backyard sliding glass door. And none of those volunteers were likely to reach for their Hartmann carry-ons in the overhead during evacuation or become chaotically confused attempting to exit a smoke-filled passenger cabin.


Something to think about when we taller travelers find outselves shoe-horned in a seat with 28-inches of seat pitch.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2380
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:16 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
yonikasz wrote:
I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but it allows airlines like Spirit and Ryanair to do what they do best, get someone from A to B cheaply. If you want anything more than that you pay more. But having low prices puts downward pressure on the legacies. They have been selling more leg room economy seats for how long now? I don't get why people get upset about this. You get what you pay for.


No, you don't. These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.

Can't wait for the next economic collapse so some of these airlines go out of business. At least airlines like Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit, Ryanair etc don't lie to you about what you are getting.

Debatable. But even granting that that's the case, I'll take the additional choice we have nowadays versus the one-size-fits-all situation of before. What if I'm willing to trade off some of the amenities you listed above for a cheaper ticket so I can actually afford to travel? Previously that wasn't an option, but today I have a choice and there's nothing wrong or bad about that.
 
planecane
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:30 pm

Super80Fan wrote:

These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.


I don't think that is true. For the routes that I regularly fly, the regular economy fares don't seem to have gone up much over the past few years. The basic economy fare is cheaper. As far as the pitch reduction, I was just on an AA 738 reconfigured with the 30" pitch. The redesigned seats made it so that I noticed absolutely no difference in knee/leg room vs the 31" pitch. When I saw the seat map at check in had 33 rows, I thought I was in for a nightmare trip based on reading reaction to the MAX 8 in that configuration.

I didn't visit the rest room so those might be truly terrible but the seating was just as comfortable as the old config in a standard economy seat.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:57 pm

The thing is if I see 787 for any carrier, it leads me to want to avoid that route.
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:46 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
yonikasz wrote:
I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but it allows airlines like Spirit and Ryanair to do what they do best, get someone from A to B cheaply. If you want anything more than that you pay more. But having low prices puts downward pressure on the legacies. They have been selling more leg room economy seats for how long now? I don't get why people get upset about this. You get what you pay for.


No, you don't. These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.

Can't wait for the next economic collapse so some of these airlines go out of business. At least airlines like Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit, Ryanair etc don't lie to you about what you are getting.

Debatable. But even granting that that's the case, I'll take the additional choice we have nowadays versus the one-size-fits-all situation of before. What if I'm willing to trade off some of the amenities you listed above for a cheaper ticket so I can actually afford to travel? Previously that wasn't an option, but today I have a choice and there's nothing wrong or bad about that.


That's the great thing about the air carriers I mentioned (Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit, Ryanair, Norwegian, EasyJet, WOW etc) is that you get a cheap base ticket and then add in all the extras you want such as more legroom, carry-on bag, BOB, priority boarding etc.

The "big" air carriers don't give you a choice. They have a high upfront cost and don't allow you to add extras in such as upgrading to an extra legroom seat, bringing on a carry-on etc.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:51 pm

planecane wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:

These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.


I don't think that is true. For the routes that I regularly fly, the regular economy fares don't seem to have gone up much over the past few years. The basic economy fare is cheaper. As far as the pitch reduction, I was just on an AA 738 reconfigured with the 30" pitch. The redesigned seats made it so that I noticed absolutely no difference in knee/leg room vs the 31" pitch. When I saw the seat map at check in had 33 rows, I thought I was in for a nightmare trip based on reading reaction to the MAX 8 in that configuration.

I didn't visit the rest room so those might be truly terrible but the seating was just as comfortable as the old config in a standard economy seat.


Of course it's all dependent on the routes you fly, the timing, and demand but just as an example I used to be able to fly on Delta or American from DAB up to the Northeast for $90-$100 one way, and it was the regular economy fare that included the carry-on, advanced seat selection, and changes/regular boarding. Now on the same routes with basic economy those $90-$100 fares are now the BE fares and the regular economy fares are around $130-$140. That also used to be the price I upgraded regular to Comfort Plus.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
avgeekjohn
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 2:24 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:08 pm

stratclub wrote:
Antarius wrote:
stratclub wrote:
[/color][/b]
If the evacuation process including seats meets certification requirements for emergency egress in the country the aircraft is certified in then yes. Using your logic, certified seats could be mounted on the ceiling. If you have a problem with sardine can flights pay the money for more comfortable accommodations. Seat pitch is set by market demands.


I'm not following your post. My point Is that seat pitch is indeed set by market as long as that the setup has the seat certification standard and the evacuation standards are met.

If the seats on the ceiling met the above (which they presently do not) then sure, it would likely be allowed.

Just having some fun with the wording in your post. It seemed like you implied that the only consideration was that the seats were certified.

People want cheap so seat pitch is only going to get worse. Check these seats out:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/stan ... index.html
Image


It's seats like these that make regulating seat size essential. 28" seats may not be a concern, but if seats like these become commonplace (which, down the road, they very well may), there will start to be problems.
Holding short of life's runway
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1210
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:22 pm

Shame on them. Time for EASA and the EU commission to raise the standards.

yonikasz wrote:
I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but ...


So now seats exist to allow the company to squeeze passenger's pocket threatening with pain instead of to seat. I assume you would see amazing if they start to offer "cargo hold experiences" because, you know, they could even make more money! No seats required!

Image
 
WIederling
Posts: 6521
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:15 pm

AWACSooner wrote:
And it's in a controlled environment...


obviously. how else will you certify?

Usually you design the certification environment based on the broader knowledge
about the much wider spectrum of real incidents and accidents and what
those require to help towards averaging good outcome.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Antarius
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:37 pm

avgeekjohn wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Antarius wrote:

I'm not following your post. My point Is that seat pitch is indeed set by market as long as that the setup has the seat certification standard and the evacuation standards are met.

If the seats on the ceiling met the above (which they presently do not) then sure, it would likely be allowed.

Just having some fun with the wording in your post. It seemed like you implied that the only consideration was that the seats were certified.

People want cheap so seat pitch is only going to get worse. Check these seats out:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/stan ... index.html
Image


It's seats like these that make regulating seat size essential. 28" seats may not be a concern, but if seats like these become commonplace (which, down the road, they very well may), there will start to be problems.


Why?

I'd be perfectly happy to have one of these to fly HNL-OGG. Which is less than 20 minutes in the air.
2018: AUA CLT IAH HOU DFW COS DEN CLL ORD PEK PVG PHX SFO SJC OAK PHL YYC STL DTW HNL OGG JFK LGA EWR GIG GRU IGU CWB SDU MDW BOS IAD DCA PBI FLL MIA
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:06 pm

If passengers consider the minimum practical pitch is 27 inches, then a reduction from 32 to 30 is effectively a 40% reduction, and to 28 inches is an 80% reduction.

If human body upsizing and seat pitch downsizing continues, there will be no point undertaking trial evacuations, as body parts will be trapped and / or broken, so zero mobility.
 
AIR MALTA
Posts: 1756
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:45 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:29 pm

First of all, there is no choice in shorthaul in Europe. All seats execept row 1 and exit rows have betweeb 28 and 29 seat pitch. Booking business class won’t make any difference.

And last time I was flying AF from JNB to CDG, I was in a window seat and the guy sitting next to me was very big to say the least. His thighs were in my space and touching me all the time. The guy couldn’t exit the seat easily. If we were in an emergency with all the chaos in the plane, I am not sure the guy could have made easily out of his seat.
Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
 
travelsonic
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:59 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:40 pm

To shift the discussion slightly, I have to wonder if technology and science would allow us to find a new means of reducing thickness of the seatback without sacrificing comfort OR safety.

My thought process being that if we can eventually reduce the seatback as far as physically possible without sacrificing comfort, then there would be more room - strictly theoretically, of course- to add seats, without making a noticable impact on comfort and knee space.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6064
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:48 pm

FAA can say whatever they want and airlines can clap all they want, but it will be their concern in near future. FAA certification process is questionable at best and under DOT review. Most of the US Congress, NTSB and any person with commonsense know it is a safety issue.

A 300lbs person in aisle seat on a good day need front seat back to get up is going to cause lives in an emergency.

Nice try calling passengers cheap though. As always like all other major issues in this country change is just one tweet away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 2952
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:22 pm

ELBOB wrote:
77H wrote:
I find it hard to fathom anything a passenger could carry onboard with them that can't be replaced. Documents, medications and the like can all be replaced. That's what consulates/embassies and pharmacies are for.


You are at an airport in a foreign land. You have lost all your ID documents and money in the aircraft fire.

How are you going to get out of the airport?
How are you going to get to the consulate?
How do you prove who you are?
What are you going to eat in the next two days?
What are you going to use to buy medicine?
Who is going to pay for the camera and laptop you lost in the fire?

The current trend of grab-it-all is a reaction to the zero-tolerance evacuation policy where passengers are told to leave everything, without any guarantee of post-incident support. Rationally they therefore grab their bags to sustain themselves.

If the policy was 'you will each be given $5000 at the terminal' then things might flow differently.

Then stay in your seat as I exit the plane without my carry on. My life matters more to me than my corporate AMEX.
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
Andre3K
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:44 am

Kind of morbid I know, but am I the only one who thinks the only TRUE way we could get accurate evacuation test resuls is to set the test plane on fire?
 
BerenErchamion
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 12:44 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:20 am

seahawk wrote:
We do not need more regulation.


What a meaningless, 100%-substance-free thing to say.
Last edited by BerenErchamion on Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's OK to be rude to fascists.
 
BerenErchamion
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 12:44 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:22 am

YIMBY wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
Frankly imo its not the government's job to regulate seat comfort or products between airlines.

So long as the seats themselves meet certification requirements, and aircraft evacuation limits are met, so be it.


I agree fully.

The only thing the government should care (about comfort) is that the airlines do not cheat, i.e. they tell what they sell.

Passengers may then decide


That's a myth.

The big lie of capitalism is that consumers have choice and power.

They don't.

The firm exists to make a profit; the product is merely a means to an end. This means consumers are forced to accept a race to the bottom, regardless of what they actually want, or do without altogether--which can have so many consequences (physical, social, emotional, etc.) that as a practical matter it's not really an option at all.
It's OK to be rude to fascists.
 
flyaustralian12
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:54 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:22 am

balair863 wrote:
Says shrinking seat size and pitch is not a safety issue:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-a ... story.html


hold on a second.

I just read an article (now can't find it) about how seat width hasn't changed on narrow bodies (that's boeing 737/757 & mad dogs & airbus 318-321s). The only width changes are on some A330s (mostly LCCs going with 3-3-3 instead of 2-4-2 & some B777/787s going from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3).

Also seems to be major misunderstanding of what seat pitch actually is.

From what I've read, when an airline decides to put new slimline seats in an aircraft with older seats, the seat back thickness can be huge, as much as 4 inches difference, so, with the same seat pitch, you could actually have up to 4 inches more legroom, or they could reduce seat pitch by 3 inches & still have 1 inch more legroom.
 
rentonview
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 2:22 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:54 am

Some of you really need to get off your high horses. When my very capable 81 year-old mother books an airline ticket online (which she does quite well on her own) she has no clue what type of seating the aircraft will have, nor does she have any sense of what 29” pitch or less entails. Yes, she’s looking for the lowest ticket price and most convenient routing, but she travels at most once a year and isn’t up to speed on the airlines’ latest push towards a la carte pricing. Please recognize that such a pricing model (and lower service offerings) is a relatively recent development for air travel here in the US, at least for non-ULCCs. I have no qualms with it, but infrequent flyers are not yet familiar with its realities. It needs to be made crystal clear to consumers what they’re getting themselves into when they buy a “basic economy” ticket and the like. The airlines do a good job indicating what’s not included in the price of such fares, but other than calling it “sardine class,” there’s no effective way to describe horrific legroom without actual visual aids. I suggest some graphics that compare various seat pitches, preferably with tall people jamming their legs into the seats ahead of them, writhing in pain in cattle class, while people ahead of them in premium economy sip champagne and work on their laptops with plenty of room to spare. That ought to get the message across.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:58 am

BerenErchamion wrote:
seahawk wrote:
We do not need more regulation.


What a meaningless, 100%-substance-free thing to say.


Why would you regulate something like comfort levels. I personally think standing seats with less than 23" pitch could be a nice addition and for those one should do away with the one FA every 50 seat rule and change it to 80. Ticket price matters most to the customer.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2380
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:17 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
A 300lbs person in aisle seat on a good day need front seat back to get up is going to cause lives in an emergency.

Yeah except the vast majority of passengers aren't 300lbs. Why are you trying to mandate travel based around a small fraction of the traveling public? Makes no practical sense. Besides, there are already regulations stipulating seat "fit" for larger passengers. While we can argue about how readily airlines enforce it, passengers are supposed to easily be able to fold down both arm rests while seated or else purchase two seats.

Andre3K wrote:
Kind of morbid I know, but am I the only one who thinks the only TRUE way we could get accurate evacuation test resuls is to set the test plane on fire?

I mean we have had several high-profile emergency evacuation scenarios at this point. While it's obviously important for passengers to be able to exit a distressed aircraft quickly, we've largely seen that, in those incidents where everyone was able to evacuate safely, it was largely due to the luck or skill of the pilots in keeping the fuselage intact (Asiana at SFO and Hudson River landing respectively).

rentonview wrote:
It needs to be made crystal clear to consumers what they’re getting themselves into when they buy a “basic economy” ticket and the like. The airlines do a good job indicating what’s not included in the price of such fares, but other than calling it “sardine class,” there’s no effective way to describe horrific legroom without actual visual aids. I suggest some graphics that compare various seat pitches, preferably with tall people jamming their legs into the seats ahead of them, writhing in pain in cattle class, while people ahead of them in premium economy sip champagne and work on their laptops with plenty of room to spare. That ought to get the message across.

I don't really know what more the airlines could do for you here. Airline tickets are already one of the most regulated products on the market and disclose industry-standard measurements of legroom, and that's best you can really do. Photos aren't really that helpful here since people vary in height and a cramped seat to one person is perfectly comfortable to another.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:00 am

lightsaber wrote:
AitorL wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Well how are people going to evacuate from 28" pitch seats if their legs are broken near the knee joint?

I fully agree with you. Has anyone tried to adopt a "Legacy Brace" position on any Y seat today? just have a look at the safety cards from years ago, which showed arms under the knees and chest against the legs, to the current arms in the front seat back.



When OZ crashed a 777 an overhead bins ooened, they found out that was because the 9G limit was exceeded. Seats are tested to meet compliance.

If you feel unsafe, buy more pitch. I do.



I think that the legacy brace position is a very valid issue. I cannot take the official brace position in most short-distance planes. I can lean against the seat in front, so that my head will not hit it uncontrollably, but my head remains above the seatline. Despite this, the safety cards always only guide to take the official brace position.

I have seen bins opening in a normal landing, so free-falling luggage is a true issue.

Whenever brace position is impossible, there should be instructed how to sit in case of expected crash/hard landing, and the weight limits for carry-on luggage on overhead bins should be strictly followed, and airlines punished for not following. And no hard trolleys there.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6064
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:38 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
...
Yeah except the vast majority of passengers aren't 300lbs. Why are you trying to mandate travel based around a small fraction of the traveling public? Makes no practical sense. Besides, there are already regulations stipulating seat "fit" for larger passengers. While we can argue about how readily airlines enforce it, passengers are supposed to easily be able to fold down both arm rests while seated or else purchase two seats. .


Not many businesses block emergency exits with file cabinets in office buildings, yet blocking any emergency fire exit is illegal. With even growing average weight and waistline, I don't think it is a small fraction.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2014
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:57 pm

YIMBY wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
AitorL wrote:
I fully agree with you. Has anyone tried to adopt a "Legacy Brace" position on any Y seat today? just have a look at the safety cards from years ago, which showed arms under the knees and chest against the legs, to the current arms in the front seat back.



When OZ crashed a 777 an overhead bins ooened, they found out that was because the 9G limit was exceeded. Seats are tested to meet compliance.

If you feel unsafe, buy more pitch. I do.



I think that the legacy brace position is a very valid issue. I cannot take the official brace position in most short-distance planes. I can lean against the seat in front, so that my head will not hit it uncontrollably, but my head remains above the seatline. Despite this, the safety cards always only guide to take the official brace position.

I have seen bins opening in a normal landing, so free-falling luggage is a true issue.

Whenever brace position is impossible, there should be instructed how to sit in case of expected crash/hard landing, and the weight limits for carry-on luggage on overhead bins should be strictly followed, and airlines punished for not following. And no hard trolleys there.


I doubt my carry on bag has clever been just 8 Kg. I really think the standard checked bag should be 60 pounds (about 27kg) . A more generous checked baggage allowance would decrease abuse of overhead bins.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2380
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:46 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
...
Yeah except the vast majority of passengers aren't 300lbs. Why are you trying to mandate travel based around a small fraction of the traveling public? Makes no practical sense. Besides, there are already regulations stipulating seat "fit" for larger passengers. While we can argue about how readily airlines enforce it, passengers are supposed to easily be able to fold down both arm rests while seated or else purchase two seats. .


Not many businesses block emergency exits with file cabinets in office buildings, yet blocking any emergency fire exit is illegal. With even growing average weight and waistline, I don't think it is a small fraction.

You’re talking about 1% of the US population that weighs 300 lbs or more.
 
flyaustralian12
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:54 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:58 am

wow, just wow. Many people just don't seem to get it. Reduced seat pitch DOESN'T always mean less leg room. It can mean more.

An aircraft with old thick seat backs that replaces the seats with slimline seats, can increase legroom room, without changing seat pitch.

Conversely, they can reduce seat pitch & still maintain the same legroom. It really is that simply. Seat pitch is not a measure of legroom.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:57 am

flyaustralian12 wrote:
wow, just wow. Many people just don't seem to get it. Reduced seat pitch DOESN'T always mean less leg room. It can mean more.

An aircraft with old thick seat backs that replaces the seats with slimline seats, can increase legroom room, without changing seat pitch.

Conversely, they can reduce seat pitch & still maintain the same legroom. It really is that simply. Seat pitch is not a measure of legroom.

Yes, it can mean the status quo, or even more room, but have any of us in recent times actually encountered more post-pitch reduction?

If leg room is increased with slimmer seats, wouldn't airlines find and publish a new measure, to show effective room has increased?
 
planecane
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:22 am

Planesmart wrote:
If passengers consider the minimum practical pitch is 27 inches, then a reduction from 32 to 30 is effectively a 40% reduction, and to 28 inches is an 80% reduction.

If human body upsizing and seat pitch downsizing continues, there will be no point undertaking trial evacuations, as body parts will be trapped and / or broken, so zero mobility.


What on earth kind of math are you using? First, what does minimum practical pitch have to do with percentage reductions. 2nd, do you know how to calculate percentage reduction?

32-30=2

2/32=.0625

.0625x100=6.25%

Going from 32 to 30 is EXACTLY a 6.25% reduction in pitch, nowhere near a 40% reduction.

Also, even though it doesn't seem logical, the highest increase in body upsizing tends to occur at the lower economic classes which are less likely to fly. I guess it causes more of an issue on Spirit type airlines where people look for rock bottom cost as the less money you have, the more important the lowest fare becomes.

I fly 6-10 times a year mostly on AA or Southwest. It is rare to see a truly enormous person. Even watching boarding for people that I pray aren't sitting next to me, there are typically only a handful of noticeably larger people on a full 737.
 
stratclub
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:33 pm

travelsonic wrote:
To shift the discussion slightly, I have to wonder if technology and science would allow us to find a new means of reducing thickness of the seatback without sacrificing comfort OR safety.


Science should find ways to reduce the thickness of passengers. And really seat back thickness doesn't have much to do with seat pitch. When you are sitting down, the distance between your tailbone and your knee caps does. How far away from the structural member in the back of the seat in front of your knees is really the important measurement. At knee level the seat back thickness is irrelevant.
 
stratclub
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:36 pm

Antarius wrote:
avgeekjohn wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Just having some fun with the wording in your post. It seemed like you implied that the only consideration was that the seats were certified.

People want cheap so seat pitch is only going to get worse. Check these seats out:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/stan ... index.html
Image


It's seats like these that make regulating seat size essential. 28" seats may not be a concern, but if seats like these become commonplace (which, down the road, they very well may), there will start to be problems.


Why?

I'd be perfectly happy to have one of these to fly HNL-OGG. Which is less than 20 minutes in the air.

20 minutes? I can't see a problem with those seats either.
 
Gumffo1
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:45 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:06 pm

TVNWZ wrote:
OSL777FLYER wrote:

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account....


They should have to exit with their 20 inch rollaboards. That’s what they are doing.


BINGO
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:10 pm

planecane wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
If passengers consider the minimum practical pitch is 27 inches, then a reduction from 32 to 30 is effectively a 40% reduction, and to 28 inches is an 80% reduction.

If human body upsizing and seat pitch downsizing continues, there will be no point undertaking trial evacuations, as body parts will be trapped and / or broken, so zero mobility.


What on earth kind of math are you using? First, what does minimum practical pitch have to do with percentage reductions. 2nd, do you know how to calculate percentage reduction?

32-30=2

2/32=.0625

.0625x100=6.25%

Going from 32 to 30 is EXACTLY a 6.25% reduction in pitch, nowhere near a 40% reduction.

Also, even though it doesn't seem logical, the highest increase in body upsizing tends to occur at the lower economic classes which are less likely to fly. I guess it causes more of an issue on Spirit type airlines where people look for rock bottom cost as the less money you have, the more important the lowest fare becomes.

I fly 6-10 times a year mostly on AA or Southwest. It is rare to see a truly enormous person. Even watching boarding for people that I pray aren't sitting next to me, there are typically only a handful of noticeably larger people on a full 737.

Please read and comprehend my post.

'PRACTICAL' pitch I assumed to be a minimum of 28 inches. Perhaps airlines can get it down to 26 inches.

'Practical' assumes a pitch of 1 inch is impossible. You assume 1 inch is practical and possible.

Damned lies and statistics.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: FAA: Seat size not their concern

Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:26 pm

Super80Fan wrote:
yonikasz wrote:
I think that a 28" seat pitch is great. Not to sit in but it allows airlines like Spirit and Ryanair to do what they do best, get someone from A to B cheaply. If you want anything more than that you pay more. But having low prices puts downward pressure on the legacies. They have been selling more leg room economy seats for how long now? I don't get why people get upset about this. You get what you pay for.


No, you don't. These "new" 28 inch seats, no seat assignment, no carry-on bag, no changing your flight tickets replaced the old ones that included all that. The ones that include seat assignments, carry-on bags, changes etc are now more expensive.

Can't wait for the next economic collapse so some of these airlines go out of business. At least airlines like Allegiant, Frontier, Spirit, Ryanair etc don't lie to you about what you are getting.


Such a curmudgeon -- you must be the belle of the ball at dinner parties... :roll:

When airlines go out of business, not only do tens of thousands of people lose their jobs, but prices will go up (basic economics) because trust and believe, those LCCs and ULCCs would up their prices in a New York minute if they could get away with it.

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