Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Judge1310
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:39 am

speedbird52 wrote:
910A wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
Maybe I'm confused here but I'm a 6'2 (188cm), 190lbs (86kg for our metric friends) guy that has no problem using lavs on aircraft lavs larger than a CRJ-200.

What are you all doing in there?!


Have you attempted to use the F lavs on the AA 78M?

Hell, even the F lavs on the newer Alaska 737 NGs are nearly impossible to use



Again..what are you all doing in there. Whether one stands and aims, or sits and does their business, what do you need? To do pirouettes in the lav? Get in, do your business, get out, and go sit down.

Back to the seat issue, if you're getting bigger that's a personal issue, not one for those who fit perfectly fine in seats on aircraft.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19716
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:50 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
My continued comment: airlines (and Orbitz or Travelocity) should advertise what they are selling. Just as I generally prefer a 3 star motel, I would like to know what kind of seat I am buying. I find a typical WN seat to be a 3 star. Flying legacy airlines typically 2 star or less regardless of what I pay for a Y seat.

I've found they only sell Y- as I'm sure many others have too. To be a useful product, there needs to be a star system:

1 star, limited legroom 30 inch pitch, no bag
2 star, 32 inch pitch, cabin bag
3 star, 34 inch pitch checked and cabin bag
4 star, Y+ with above and service
5 star, domestic first, 2 bags

Tell me what the upsell costs are for the next tier. Opaque Service forces everyone to assume the worst.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:51 am

I think there's a halfway house. The EU insists on efficiency labelling for electronic goods. It offers a quick way for consumers to see the characteristics of the device they are buying. I think some standard could be arrived at for displaying the key metrics for airline seats, shoulder room, leg room, circulation space (aisle width?) and toilets facilities (toilets per passenger), perhaps in a RAG format. So in economy, a 9 abreast Thomson 787 with 33 inch pitch and 60 pax per toilet might be Amber/Green/Amber/Red. This would be displayed whenever you purchase a ticket.

I think it's a better way to go - give the consumer information rather than legislate against it. It would be interesting to see what effect that would have on consumer behaviour. If at all.

Here's an example of the labelling for a fridge:
Image
Edit: Rough idea of what I mean:
Image
Last edited by BaconButty on Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
planecane
Posts: 1559
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:52 am

Ttlhe biggest issue to me is making a law authorizing the FAA to set the minimums. If Congress is going to legislate something like this, set the minimums in the law. Don't put it in the hands of bureaucrats.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:04 am

Judge1310 wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
910A wrote:

Have you attempted to use the F lavs on the AA 78M?

Hell, even the F lavs on the newer Alaska 737 NGs are nearly impossible to use



Again..what are you all doing in there. Whether one stands and aims, or sits and does their business, what do you need? To do pirouettes in the lav? Get in, do your business, get out, and go sit down.

Back to the seat issue, if you're getting bigger that's a personal issue, not one for those who fit perfectly fine in seats on aircraft.

I literally don't fit in the lavs. Not my fault I'm 6,3...
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:17 am

If and when seat sizes become bigger I can guarantee that fares will go up. With change comes price.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
MaksFly
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:50 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:22 am

jayunited wrote:
dz09 wrote:
you're making it sound like the passengers are becoming greedy. They're not. All we want is to stop decreasing the pitch and the seat widths. we're not asking for wider seats or more legroom. just leave what has worked for decades the hell alone. I work for myself and try to fly first class whenever i can afford it, but i'm not going to take a second mortgage on my house to fly first or business to Shanghai for example.


Passengers are greedy they want what they haven't paid for. Passengers want to blame everyone but themselves for what has/is taking place in the industry as it pertains to seat width and seat pitch. These low cost carriers didn't just pop up overnight these low cost carriers didn't just decided to reduce seat pitch to 28-29 inches overnight. They have done this over time and as low cost carriers grow in popularity and siphon passengers away from the larger legacy carriers these carriers have to respond to what the market is demanding. As long as people continue to fly airlines like NK airlines like UA, AA and DL will have to respond and the only way to bring down the cost is to spread that cost around but to do that the airlines have to add more seats.
Airlines bare some responsibility but the bulk of what's happening in this industry in terms of passengers space while on board is the passengers own fault people think air travel should be cheap and will buy the cheapest ticket they can find. Why do you think websites like Priceline and bookit have become so popular because people want to compare prices and will in most cases book the cheapest fare.
Many of us may have been asleep at the wheel when these changes started domestically years ago but just look at whats happening internationally as more and more low cost carriers are flying across the Atlantic and Pacific. So far legacy carriers both domestic and international have largely ignored these low cost carriers but as more and more passengers are siphoned away drawn to the low cost no frills carrier at some point the legacies will have to respond. Right now these low cost carriers offer decent room on international flights but as their cost rise and as fuel prices go up they will look at ways to keep prices low which means adding seats and as long as passengers choose with their wallet the lowest cost airlines will continue to respond by cramming in more passengers until you get to the point that you can't fit any more passenger on the plane.



LOL

I am a shareholder of a number of airlines and I PROMISE YOU, it is not that "customer is cheap" it is rather...

"How else can we make MORE money?"

As long as people need to fly, they will "endure" being treated like cattle.... everything has a price.

Given the choice, you can either drive or take the train in "luxury" or for more money take the plane and be treated like trash.... why do you take the plane? Because it is a hell of a lot faster.

Airlines know that and that is what their new experiment is... how much can we squeeze out without people complaining.

Furthermore, prices are going down NOT because people demand it but because there is PLENTY of capacity, relatively fuel efficient jets, and startups to keep domestic rivals fairly honest.

Delta does not charge $800 to fly EWR to MSP because it is their cost... they do it because there is enough people willing to pay that price to get from EWR to MSP in 2 hours and being there quick is more important than comfort for a few hours.

Delta's job is to see how many others they can squeeze in and how to maximize profits.

It has ZERO to do with "people want to pay less" and everything to do with their FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS!

Commuter trains are all about making people comfortable, when they have more riders they add more cars... they do not make seats smaller.
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:25 am

keesje wrote:
burnsie28 wrote:
keesje wrote:
All should be widely published per airline & aircraft type. And not by average, another trick to lie with truths.Aircraft manufacturers & airlines seem to together to hide, distract & generalize passenger reality here. Effectively against millions of individuals.


What airlines advertise average? Go to any of the big US airlines website they give the inches range.


All airlines use average. The seat pitches and widths vary across the aircraft. Last row often have the smallest pitches & no recline.

For 777 seat width 9 to 10 abreast in reality costed the 9 original seat 2 inch each. The extra 20 inch for the extra seat has to be found somewhere,
Narrowed armrests, narrowed aisles where you are pushed into, continuous shoulder rubbing. The passenger surveys scream out.
But the aircraft are full & there's no way back. So Boeing & the airlines hope people get used & it goes away.
But Boeing is spending big dollars in 777x cabin widening by 4 inch for a reason. And 777 operators like BA, DL and SQ stayed 9 abreast on their 777s.



If you look on Delta's website for example, it calls out 16.3-18 for the A321. The child seat fit guide regulations force airlines to put the minimum and maximum width. The 16.3 seats are those with narrowed seats due to aircraft limitations (aft where it gets narrower, near exit rows etc).

The 777 is 10" from 18.1 at 9 abreast to 17.2. You get a narrower armrest to easily get those roughly 10 inches you need.
 
dz09
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:20 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:45 am

jayunited wrote:
dz09 wrote:
you're making it sound like the passengers are becoming greedy. They're not. All we want is to stop decreasing the pitch and the seat widths. we're not asking for wider seats or more legroom. just leave what has worked for decades the hell alone. I work for myself and try to fly first class whenever i can afford it, but i'm not going to take a second mortgage on my house to fly first or business to Shanghai for example.


Passengers are greedy they want what they haven't paid for. Passengers want to blame everyone but themselves for what has/is taking place in the industry as it pertains to seat width and seat pitch. These low cost carriers didn't just pop up overnight these low cost carriers didn't just decided to reduce seat pitch to 28-29 inches overnight. They have done this over time and as low cost carriers grow in popularity and siphon passengers away from the larger legacy carriers these carriers have to respond to what the market is demanding. As long as people continue to fly airlines like NK airlines like UA, AA and DL will have to respond and the only way to bring down the cost is to spread that cost around but to do that the airlines have to add more seats.
Airlines bare some responsibility but the bulk of what's happening in this industry in terms of passengers space while on board is the passengers own fault people think air travel should be cheap and will buy the cheapest ticket they can find. Why do you think websites like Priceline and bookit have become so popular because people want to compare prices and will in most cases book the cheapest fare.
Many of us may have been asleep at the wheel when these changes started domestically years ago but just look at whats happening internationally as more and more low cost carriers are flying across the Atlantic and Pacific. So far legacy carriers both domestic and international have largely ignored these low cost carriers but as more and more passengers are siphoned away drawn to the low cost no frills carrier at some point the legacies will have to respond. Right now these low cost carriers offer decent room on international flights but as their cost rise and as fuel prices go up they will look at ways to keep prices low which means adding seats and as long as passengers choose with their wallet the lowest cost airlines will continue to respond by cramming in more passengers until you get to the point that you can't fit any more passenger on the plane.


I disagree with you completely. read my post carefully and you'll see that I'm not asking for wider seats. All I'm saying is that don't fix what's not broken. take United for instance, why did they go for the 10 abreast on their 777? were they losing money on the 9 abreast? they were not! the bean counters and the wall street MF wanted bigger profits at the expense of the flying public. try flying in a middle seat in those planes for 14 hours and tell me then if the passengers are wanting something they have not paid for? United and any other airline don't give two sheets about the consumers. I am glad the government is getting involved in addressing these problems.

How do you explain the record profits being posted by these airlines? air travel is not longer a luxury. It is a modern necessity and the consumer should be protected against price gouging, and from being forced to use inferior products and services.
 
Sancho99504
Topic Author
Posts: 703
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:04 am

dz09 wrote:
Sancho99504 wrote:
Blerg wrote:
This is a great initiative as airlines have lost their compass when it comes to such things. Yes, people want lower fares but at the same time we are presented with a fare structure where upper flying classes tend to be extremely expensive thus unattainable for many.

Also, if airlines are degrading the quality of flying then they shouldn't overcharge passengers to fly with them. Ok, you want a 30' seat pitch in economy long-haul? Sure, but in that case you can't charge people more than €500 to fly across the Atlantic.


It will surely cost you more than €1,000 to fly across the pond if airlines are forced to remove upwards of 40 seats to comply with pitch/width requirements. That doesn't include any fees, of which there will probably be increases and additional fees attached.


where do you get the 40 seat figure? I do not think the seat pitch is an issue with most US airlines except perhaps with Spirit, frontier and other Ulcc. the seat pitch is definitely a problem with foreign carriers like AF, LH and BA. the problem here in the US is with the seat width, more specifically with the 10 abreast on a 777, 9 abreast on a 787 or an A330.



Lets see, take a 3x4x3 777, let's say they have 24 rows of economy, to meet any possible width requirements, you just lost 24 seats, to get to let's say 32" pitch minimum, you're looking at losing 2-3 rows of seats, which is 18-27 seats, which puts you at losing 42-51 seats. So, it's just a rough guess.
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4094
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:14 am

lightsaber wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
My continued comment: airlines (and Orbitz or Travelocity) should advertise what they are selling. Just as I generally prefer a 3 star motel, I would like to know what kind of seat I am buying. I find a typical WN seat to be a 3 star. Flying legacy airlines typically 2 star or less regardless of what I pay for a Y seat.

I've found they only sell Y- as I'm sure many others have too. To be a useful product, there needs to be a star system:

1 star, limited legroom 30 inch pitch, no bag
2 star, 32 inch pitch, cabin bag
3 star, 34 inch pitch checked and cabin bag
4 star, Y+ with above and service
5 star, domestic first, 2 bags

Tell me what the upsell costs are for the next tier. Opaque Service forces everyone to assume the worst.

Lightsaber


That all sounds about right.
Classic 60s Y would be a 4, even+ or so on your chart. WN hits 3 generally. I have noticed that often Y+ is one seat less abreast on upgraded economy. I have always been OK with seat width 707 onward at 6 abreast, but really miss the legroom, despite not being tall. Particularly knowing upsell costs would provide useful customer information. Also the worst seats on a plane (opposite the toilets) should either be downgraded or perhaps offer extra pitch (and complementary noise silencing headphones for the trip!)
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
jayunited
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:16 am

dz09 wrote:

I disagree with you completely. read my post carefully and you'll see that I'm not asking for wider seats. All I'm saying is that don't fix what's not broken. take United for instance, why did they go for the 10 abreast on their 777? were they losing money on the 9 abreast? they were not! the bean counters and the wall street MF wanted bigger profits at the expense of the flying public. try flying in a middle seat in those planes for 14 hours and tell me then if the passengers are wanting something they have not paid for? United and any other airline don't give two sheets about the consumers. I am glad the government is getting involved in addressing these problems.

How do you explain the record profits being posted by these airlines? air travel is not longer a luxury. It is a modern necessity and the consumer should be protected against price gouging, and from being forced to use inferior products and services.


Food is a necessity as well and last I checked this morning a gallon of milk in Chicago was $3.50 not the $0.39 cents my grandfather use to pay when he was a child.

You want to know why United went to 10 abreast on their 777s, I just did a dummy booking for SFO-LHR and I found a fare in coach where the cheapest ticket was $710.81 roundtrip. The actual fare was $485.00 dollars and the taxes were $225.81. The full fare coach price was $1,558.81 the fare was $1,350.00 dollars and the taxes were $208.81. Tell me which seat the average passengers in coach is going to book the discounted fare or the full fare. Then tell me what do you think it actually cost to fly nonstop from SFO to LHR and back to SFO because $485 dollars roundtrip which is the actual fare not including taxes doesn't even begin to cover the cost of a one way let alone roundtrip. If United went with wider seats the ticket price would be higher because there would be less passengers on board to absorb the cost of operating the flight.
Take for instance EK a favorite airline here on a.netters people love to post how cheap their coach tickets are do you really think EK could offer roundtrip tickets from the US to India for $900 dollars if they didn't have 10 abreast in coach? Think back to the 1980s and 1990's how much did a roundtrip ticket from the US to LHR cost, or how much did a coach ticket cost on United from ORD to SFO and how much does it cost today. There is a reason air travel is so cheap today comparative to decades past and it is because airlines have put more seats on aircraft to spread the cost around over more passengers. This past summer airlines like AA, DL and UA broke LF records during May, June, July and August, for United one of the main reasons we saw record LF's this past summer is because of economy basic. Those cheap tickets attracted a lot of price conscious customers who would have never considered UA if not for basic economy.
I'm for more space on aircraft but the only way it works is if laws are passed that put restrictions in place for ALL airlines including the low cost carriers. If laws were passed mandating seat width and pitch the people who would suffer the most are the ones who can least afford it. Airlines including low cost carriers to make up for lost revenue would have no choice but to raise their prices which would make air travel less affordable. People love to complain about record profits, airlines are not non-profit companies they are in the business to make money just like Apple, Samsung, Walmart, GM, Ford or any other for-profit company. Why are airlines held to a different standard than Apple? Does Apple really need to charge $1,000 dollars for an iPhone? No they don't but they do and as a result they post huge profits every quarter and as a result they are now valued at over a trillion dollars. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction if airlines are forced to increase personal space on aircraft the result will be an increase in ticket prices.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10385
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:17 am

jayunited wrote:
The actual fare was $485.00 dollars and the taxes were $225.81. The full fare coach price was $1,558.81 the fare was $1,350.00 dollars and the taxes were $208.81. Tell me which seat the average passengers in coach is going to book the discounted fare or the full fare. Then tell me what do you think it actually cost to fly nonstop from SFO to LHR and back to SFO because $485 dollars roundtrip which is the actual fare not including taxes doesn't even begin to cover the cost of a one way let alone roundtrip.

Actually you are wrong. While each airline varies slightly Boeing itself rates the airlines cost to be around between $21 and $32 per seat per hour to operate the 777. This is the plane plus all related expenses (obviously a badly managed company could have costs well over that but United is certainly within the cost structure Boeing focuses on).

Boeing states that under regular conditions, the 777-200LR should cost around $9,750.00/hour to operate, with the 777-300ER at a cost of $10,250.00/hour to operate. In a two class configuration this is around $32.39/hour per seat for the -200LR and $27.12/hour per seat for the -300ER. About 60% of that is the cost fuel of fuel alone.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-doe ... he-airline
Also more info here: https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep

If you max it out to 425 seats, all economy as the seat you priced is, that gets $206K which would cover the round trip cost This is all rough of course but to say it doesn't begin to cover costs is simply incorrect

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:40 am

Let the market decide. No more regulations.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13831
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:36 am

seahawk wrote:
Let the market decide. No more regulations.


I think some area's like education, healthcare, defense proved "vunerable" to market dynamics. Basically many big FU's & government had to intervene to clean up the mess & restore fairness. While the guilty had early retirement$. And us auto blaming "big government". Trump is reversing, trying to intervene everywhere under a new flag.

So yes government protecting it's people against take-no-prisoners capitalism is necessary. Just like protecting flight is better left over the highly independent, inflexible FAA & EASA bureaucrats instead letting the market decide.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ewt340
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:51 am

I want the minimum pitch at 26" and the minimum width at 16"
 
User avatar
Loew
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:00 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:09 pm

BaconButty wrote:
I think there's a halfway house. The EU insists on efficiency labelling for electronic goods. It offers a quick way for consumers to see the characteristics of the device they are buying. I think some standard could be arrived at for displaying the key metrics for airline seats, shoulder room, leg room, circulation space (aisle width?) and toilets facilities (toilets per passenger), perhaps in a RAG format. So in economy, a 9 abreast Thomson 787 with 33 inch pitch and 60 pax per toilet might be Amber/Green/Amber/Red. This would be displayed whenever you purchase a ticket.

I think it's a better way to go - give the consumer information rather than legislate against it. It would be interesting to see what effect that would have on consumer behaviour. If at all.

Here's an example of the labelling for a fridge:
Image
Edit: Rough idea of what I mean:
Image


This is actually a very good idea that could catch up. I would definitely suggest seding this to EU transport commissioner, team contacts are here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commiss ... lc/team_en.
 
RvA
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:37 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:33 pm

seahawk wrote:
Let the market decide. No more regulations.


Agreed. I spent the same on a ticket just recently in business class than I spent a few years ago in economy. Positive outcome for the consumer in that case.
Air travel is not a right, it is a luxury. You can go buy a car today that drives like crap, has no interior amenities to speak of or you spend more and get more. Same goes for air travel, you spend more you get more whereas the bottom end keeps sinking further out making the cheaper options more affordable than ever.
Regulating that will mean the entry prices go up (less seats per aircraft but of course similar landing/fuel etc. expenses) and not sure how that is better for the average consumer.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:51 pm

Tugger wrote:
jayunited wrote:
The actual fare was $485.00 dollars and the taxes were $225.81. The full fare coach price was $1,558.81 the fare was $1,350.00 dollars and the taxes were $208.81. Tell me which seat the average passengers in coach is going to book the discounted fare or the full fare. Then tell me what do you think it actually cost to fly nonstop from SFO to LHR and back to SFO because $485 dollars roundtrip which is the actual fare not including taxes doesn't even begin to cover the cost of a one way let alone roundtrip.

Actually you are wrong. While each airline varies slightly Boeing itself rates the airlines cost to be around between $21 and $32 per seat per hour to operate the 777. This is the plane plus all related expenses (obviously a badly managed company could have costs well over that but United is certainly within the cost structure Boeing focuses on).

Boeing states that under regular conditions, the 777-200LR should cost around $9,750.00/hour to operate, with the 777-300ER at a cost of $10,250.00/hour to operate. In a two class configuration this is around $32.39/hour per seat for the -200LR and $27.12/hour per seat for the -300ER. About 60% of that is the cost fuel of fuel alone.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-doe ... he-airline
Also more info here: https://www.planestats.com/bhsw_2014sep

If you max it out to 425 seats, all economy as the seat you priced is, that gets $206K which would cover the round trip cost This is all rough of course but to say it doesn't begin to cover costs is simply incorrect

Tugg


I just read both articles and if we go with what the figures given a one way SFO-LHR cost the airline $271.20 when multiplied by a roundtrip the total cost not including any taxes is $542.40. United is still loosing money on each seat because we are only charging $485 not including taxes, (I know ticket prices vary from hour to hour day to day). But If I had booked the flight last night UA would have lost money on my seat and this is using US DOT data provided in your second link which is dated 2014.

Utilizing that data UA is loosing money even with 10 abreast in coach so if we make it 9 abreast in coach on the entire 777 fleet( over 90 frames) UA's cost per hour go up but at the same time there are even less people on board to absorb the cost which would result in either higher fares or fewer flights. The second article you provided shows why airlines are moving to 10 abreast in coach and why airlines are putting more seats on aircraft and why airlines are charging ancillary fees and it is because in some cases the price customers are paying just for their seat does not cover the entire cost of their travel. I'm all for more space, I'm all for an end to ancillary fees, but that brings me back to my questions what is the real cost of a round trip ticket and why are airlines vilified for being profitable when most other companies are not? There is a reason air travel was so expensive in the 80's and 90's and why so few people could afford it compared to today. The reason the price has come down is because the number of seats have gone up. Personally I hate that UA has 179 seats on our 739ER/Max fleet I think the total seat count should be 159. If congress mandates all 2 class cabin 739ER/Max's can have a maximum of 159 seats, the price for those 159 seats will increase the airlines are not going to absorb the lost revenue. Not to go down a political road but take a look at tariffs who absorbs the cost of tariffs the customers, it would be no different more space on aircraft will result in higher fares making air travel less accessible not more accessible.
Last edited by jayunited on Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
KentB27
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:51 pm

I wonder how many people who are for this type of regulation would change their mind if they knew that this would result in them paying higher fares?
 
dz09
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:20 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:18 pm

KentB27 wrote:
I wonder how many people who are for this type of regulation would change their mind if they knew that this would result in them paying higher fares?




I'm willing to take my chances and I'm not going to take your word for it. for once, I welcome the government intervention. Fares cannot get any higher. If they did, people will stop flying. and please don't tell me that fares are cheaper than what they were a decade or two ago.
 
slider
Posts: 7575
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:20 pm

More government overreach and hyper-regulation.

It's not as if the US isn't trillions of dollars in debt or anything, we should totoally go tilting at this windmill. Wouldn't want to deprive Chucky Schumer another opportunity to grandstand, after all.

Ridiculous.
 
dz09
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:20 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:39 pm

jayunited wrote:
dz09 wrote:

I disagree with you completely. read my post carefully and you'll see that I'm not asking for wider seats. All I'm saying is that don't fix what's not broken. take United for instance, why did they go for the 10 abreast on their 777? were they losing money on the 9 abreast? they were not! the bean counters and the wall street MF wanted bigger profits at the expense of the flying public. try flying in a middle seat in those planes for 14 hours and tell me then if the passengers are wanting something they have not paid for? United and any other airline don't give two sheets about the consumers. I am glad the government is getting involved in addressing these problems.

How do you explain the record profits being posted by these airlines? air travel is not longer a luxury. It is a modern necessity and the consumer should be protected against price gouging, and from being forced to use inferior products and services.


Food is a necessity as well and last I checked this morning a gallon of milk in Chicago was $3.50 not the $0.39 cents my grandfather use to pay when he was a child.

You want to know why United went to 10 abreast on their 777s, I just did a dummy booking for SFO-LHR and I found a fare in coach where the cheapest ticket was $710.81 roundtrip. The actual fare was $485.00 dollars and the taxes were $225.81. The full fare coach price was $1,558.81 the fare was $1,350.00 dollars and the taxes were $208.81. Tell me which seat the average passengers in coach is going to book the discounted fare or the full fare. Then tell me what do you think it actually cost to fly nonstop from SFO to LHR and back to SFO because $485 dollars roundtrip which is the actual fare not including taxes doesn't even begin to cover the cost of a one way let alone roundtrip. If United went with wider seats the ticket price would be higher because there would be less passengers on board to absorb the cost of operating the flight.
Take for instance EK a favorite airline here on a.netters people love to post how cheap their coach tickets are do you really think EK could offer roundtrip tickets from the US to India for $900 dollars if they didn't have 10 abreast in coach? Think back to the 1980s and 1990's how much did a roundtrip ticket from the US to LHR cost, or how much did a coach ticket cost on United from ORD to SFO and how much does it cost today. There is a reason air travel is so cheap today comparative to decades past and it is because airlines have put more seats on aircraft to spread the cost around over more passengers. This past summer airlines like AA, DL and UA broke LF records during May, June, July and August, for United one of the main reasons we saw record LF's this past summer is because of economy basic. Those cheap tickets attracted a lot of price conscious customers who would have never considered UA if not for basic economy.
I'm for more space on aircraft but the only way it works is if laws are passed that put restrictions in place for ALL airlines including the low cost carriers. If laws were passed mandating seat width and pitch the people who would suffer the most are the ones who can least afford it. Airlines including low cost carriers to make up for lost revenue would have no choice but to raise their prices which would make air travel less affordable. People love to complain about record profits, airlines are not non-profit companies they are in the business to make money just like Apple, Samsung, Walmart, GM, Ford or any other for-profit company. Why are airlines held to a different standard than Apple? Does Apple really need to charge $1,000 dollars for an iPhone? No they don't but they do and as a result they post huge profits every quarter and as a result they are now valued at over a trillion dollars. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction if airlines are forced to increase personal space on aircraft the result will be an increase in ticket prices.


your arguments are full of holes. Milk producers or retailers would charge $10/gal if they could, but they can't. Everybody drinks milk and at $10/gal, you'll see a sharp drop in milk consumption. this is not the case for flying. not everybody travel by air, but some do and they're at the mercy of greedy airlines and their wall street owners. today's business is just about maximizing profits at any cost. Of course airlines are in the business of making money, but they should not be making obscene profits at my expense and at the expense of the flying public. Give me healthy competition and more flying options and everything will fall into place. we now have a monopoly between 3 airlines and they're constantly colluding into screwing the public. I fly mainly out of EWR and I basically have to fly United only most of the times. airlines are in the transportation business and therefore should be held to a different standard. I hate your argument of take it or leave it. Finally your argument that fares are a lot cheaper now than they were a decade or two ago is simply not true and I'm going to call that BS.

I'm realizing that this site is a powerful platform where serious subjects are discussed and they are professional people posting to counter any claims against the airlines and to shape public opinion about said airlines. they come in with bogus data ans skewed statistics.
 
ckfred
Posts: 5183
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:52 pm

What becomes confusing is the term seat size and seat width. Everyone agrees that seat pitch (the space between each row of seats) and shrunk. But, the width of a seat on a Boeing narrowbody has not changed, since Boeing introduced the 707 in the late 1950s. The width on the MD-80/MD-90/Boeing 717 is the same as the original DC-9-10. And no one has figured how to get an 8th seat into a row of a Boeing 767.

Airplanes in which an extra seat in a coach row has been squeezed by some or all airlines include the 747, DC-10, L-1011, 777, and 787..

The deception about the average coach seat getting narrower is that far more flights today are flown by RJs, compared to 10 and 20 years ago. The seat on an Embrear 175 is a bit narrower than on a Boeing or Airbus narrowbody. The seats on a CRJ 700 or an Embrear 145 are even narrower. When Embrear and Bombadier came out with RJs, they were envisioned of working routes that were 90 minutes of flying time or less. No one thought they would handle longer mainline routes, such as IAD-LAX or ORD-JAX.
 
kiowa
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:53 pm

congress should work on a bill for Term Limits!
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:27 pm

Look at that, a go-nowhere feel-good bill right before an election.
 
nry
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:34 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
My continued comment: airlines (and Orbitz or Travelocity) should advertise what they are selling. Just as I generally prefer a 3 star motel, I would like to know what kind of seat I am buying. I find a typical WN seat to be a 3 star. Flying legacy airlines typically 2 star or less regardless of what I pay for a Y seat.


I'm of a similar vein - I think mandating seat size is not a good idea. I think mandating transparency of seat size is probably a better thing to do. Let people have the information and let them choose the seat size / price trade-off. Getting government into product decisions is really silly.
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
michman
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:51 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:47 pm

Loew wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
I think there's a halfway house. The EU insists on efficiency labelling for electronic goods. It offers a quick way for consumers to see the characteristics of the device they are buying. I think some standard could be arrived at for displaying the key metrics for airline seats, shoulder room, leg room, circulation space (aisle width?) and toilets facilities (toilets per passenger), perhaps in a RAG format. So in economy, a 9 abreast Thomson 787 with 33 inch pitch and 60 pax per toilet might be Amber/Green/Amber/Red. This would be displayed whenever you purchase a ticket.

I think it's a better way to go - give the consumer information rather than legislate against it. It would be interesting to see what effect that would have on consumer behaviour. If at all.

Here's an example of the labelling for a fridge:
Image
Edit: Rough idea of what I mean:
Image


This is actually a very good idea that could catch up. I would definitely suggest seding this to EU transport commissioner, team contacts are here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commiss ... lc/team_en.



"Leg room" is not the same as seat pitch. Leg room calculations are also going to involve seat back depth, amount of recline, etc. Seat pitch is not a horrible proxy for amount of leg room, but neither does it tell the whole story.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19716
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:27 pm

Loew wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
I think there's a halfway house. The EU insists on efficiency labelling for electronic goods. It offers a quick way for consumers to see the characteristics of the device they are buying. I think some standard could be arrived at for displaying the key metrics for airline seats, shoulder room, leg room, circulation space (aisle width?) and toilets facilities (toilets per passenger), perhaps in a RAG format. So in economy, a 9 abreast Thomson 787 with 33 inch pitch and 60 pax per toilet might be Amber/Green/Amber/Red. This would be displayed whenever you purchase a ticket.

I think it's a better way to go - give the consumer information rather than legislate against it. It would be interesting to see what effect that would have on consumer behaviour. If at all.

Here's an example of the labelling for a fridge:
Image
Edit: Rough idea of what I mean:
Image


This is actually a very good idea that could catch up. I would definitely suggest seding this to EU transport commissioner, team contacts are here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commiss ... lc/team_en.


I like the label approach.

Now put them in the search engines so I may pick!

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19716
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:30 pm

[twoid][/twoid]
nry wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
My continued comment: airlines (and Orbitz or Travelocity) should advertise what they are selling. Just as I generally prefer a 3 star motel, I would like to know what kind of seat I am buying. I find a typical WN seat to be a 3 star. Flying legacy airlines typically 2 star or less regardless of what I pay for a Y seat.


I'm of a similar vein - I think mandating seat size is not a good idea. I think mandating transparency of seat size is probably a better thing to do. Let people have the information and let them choose the seat size / price trade-off. Getting government into product decisions is really silly.

Yes, mandate the transparency!

Getting the government in forces paying more for???

One thought, could we be regulating away service to small cities? :devil:
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4787
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:46 pm

WashtubFields wrote:
I agree it will never get out of committee. But people are fatter, baseball stadiums have made seats wider because of it.

It’s part of a 5 year FAA reauthorization
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4787
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:47 pm

This isn’t a stand alone bill it’s part of a 5 year FAA reauthorization that includes things like finding air traffic control
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1690
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:52 pm

lightsaber wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
nry wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
My continued comment: airlines (and Orbitz or Travelocity) should advertise what they are selling. Just as I generally prefer a 3 star motel, I would like to know what kind of seat I am buying. I find a typical WN seat to be a 3 star. Flying legacy airlines typically 2 star or less regardless of what I pay for a Y seat.


I'm of a similar vein - I think mandating seat size is not a good idea. I think mandating transparency of seat size is probably a better thing to do. Let people have the information and let them choose the seat size / price trade-off. Getting government into product decisions is really silly.

Yes, mandate the transparency!

Getting the government in forces paying more for???

One thought, could we be regulating away service to small cities? :devil:
Of course they can't (have transparency on the seat) because airlines don't guarantee the type of plane or the actual seat on the plane.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
N353SK
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:08 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:37 pm

MaksFly wrote:



LOL

I am a shareholder of a number of airlines and I PROMISE YOU, it is not that "customer is cheap" it is rather...

"How else can we make MORE money?"

As long as people need to fly, they will "endure" being treated like cattle.... everything has a price.

Given the choice, you can either drive or take the train in "luxury" or for more money take the plane and be treated like trash.... why do you take the plane? Because it is a hell of a lot faster.

Airlines know that and that is what their new experiment is... how much can we squeeze out without people complaining.

Furthermore, prices are going down NOT because people demand it but because there is PLENTY of capacity, relatively fuel efficient jets, and startups to keep domestic rivals fairly honest.

Delta does not charge $800 to fly EWR to MSP because it is their cost... they do it because there is enough people willing to pay that price to get from EWR to MSP in 2 hours and being there quick is more important than comfort for a few hours.

Delta's job is to see how many others they can squeeze in and how to maximize profits.

It has ZERO to do with "people want to pay less" and everything to do with their FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS!

Commuter trains are all about making people comfortable, when they have more riders they add more cars... they do not make seats smaller.



None of this explains why on LGA-FLL some passengers choose Delta, some choose JetBlue, and some choose Spirit.
 
9w748capt
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:27 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:25 pm

Meh, honestly I'm fine with an open market as long as there's actual competition. IMO the real problem lies in the lack of any real competition across much of the US.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:54 pm

This is pretty good. Also in there they will mandate minimum 10 hours non-reducible rest for Flight Attendants between duty periods. So they can actually, you know, get rest like a human being.
 
2175301
Posts: 1766
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:21 am

It looks like its a go; has cleared 1st legislative hurdle and bill is likely to be passed as written: Seat Width and Row Spacing to be addressed:

Fair Use extract: "The legislation would extend funding for the FAA for another five years, but also includes provisions that would affect air travelers.

Chief among them: The bill orders the FAA to set standards for the size of airline seats, part of what’s known as the “Seat Egress in Air Travel (SEAT) Act.” The agency would have one year to come up with minimum requirements for seat width and for the space between seats."

“Safety should not take a back seat, especially a shrunken seat, to airline profits,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) said in a statement. “Tightly cramped seating on aircraft is a safety issue, and will now be taken seriously. The SEAT Act will ensure that shrinking seats on airplanes are evaluated in the interest of the safety of the flying public.”


Other Notable Areas of Interest:

It also bars carriers from involuntarily removing passengers who’ve already boarded, a rule that echoes of the passenger dragging incident on United in April 2017. The legislation also instructs airlines to create better communication protocols for informing customers about flight delays.

The Department of Transportation would be instructed to set rules for service and emotional-support animals on planes including "reasonable measures to ensure pets are not claimed as service animals." Live animals would prohibited from being transported in overhead.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 437416002/

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
T18
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:28 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:30 am

CobaltScar wrote:
This is pretty good. Also in there they will mandate minimum 10 hours non-reducible rest for Flight Attendants between duty periods. So they can actually, you know, get rest like a human being.


I wondered if anyone else had noticed the bit that got rid of reduced rest for cabin crew. That was the part I was more interested in anyway as it will have a greater impact on operations in my world than seat pitch.
“Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.” ― Steve McQueen (Le Mans) 1971
 
BobbyPSP
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:29 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:51 am

2175301 wrote:
I personally believe some sort of minimum seat width/pitch standard should be developed. In part to ensure typical passenger safety and evacuation times.

This is not anything close to the pre-1978 regulation days; and will have minimal effect overall. We have minimum door size requirements, and many other minimums (or maximums) that affect aircraft design and utilization.

Have a great day,


Agree. Thank you

Now have a frame that can’t go below the ~ 17” width. Basically maxed out configuration at this seat width so it can’t be increased from say 3/3/3 to 3/4/3 without some fundamental seat design change. Imagine such a great CASM at service launch that the high density carriers can have 3/3/3 and full service 2//3/3 (just and example)
 
HPAEAA
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:24 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:18 am

jayunited wrote:
keesje wrote:
Seat width alone is not enough.

Airlines can take media for a ride by quietly making the arm rest 0.5 inch wide or reduce aisle width to a minimum.
The amount of passenger for a certain cabin width at shoulder height should be defined.
As well a real leg space. "slim" Seats attacked passenger comfort in recent years, while promising extra space.


I don't know if it is the governments job to get involved in the issue of seat width. I'm on the fence over seat pitch simply because I don't know what seat pitch the manufactures are using during the testing and certification process.
As far as seat width for the most part the width hasn't changed (it's between 17-18.5) and the issue is American's are getting fatter and we expect the airlines to accommodate our extra girth by increasing seat width while we as a country do nothing to decrease our overall size. To have the government step in an mandate a seat width is ridiculous because as a country even though many have tried to tackle America's obesity epidemic most have failed. Before you ask the airlines to standardize a seat with you must first ask American's to get our weight under control because as long a our weight continues to rise, seats will continue to feel smaller and smaller. I'm not trying to come off as mean or insensitive, I'm not at my ideal weight of 165 pounds. Right now I'm pushing 198 pounds, but in my mind as long as I'm under 200 pounds I'm good. Any time I hit or exceed 200 pounds I make some temporary changes to my diet to drop below 200 but I'm not giving up my fried chicken, pizza and cheesecake for the rest of my life.

If we look at what US airlines are doing both domestically and internationally they are giving passengers more choice with first class, the introduction of premium economy, economy plus (or the equivalent) and regular economy. Passengers make the choice what seat they want based on a number of things but the most important thing is money. I'm over 6 feet tall and whenever I buy tickets I always pay the extra fee for economy plus and it doesn't matter how long the domestic flight is I'm buying economy plus because I want the extra leg room and depending on the difference in price the and length of the flight I'll even book first class domestically. International first and business class may still cost thousands and thousands of dollars, but domestically especially within the contiguous United States first class has come way down in price. Later on this year my partner and I are going to Miami (12 night cruise) UA was expensive even with the discount and we only have 2 nonstop flights, but AA nonstop was charging $225 each way for main cabin extra but for only $50 dollars more each way we could book first class. Guess what we booked first class on American Airlines round trip for $550 dollars per person including tax. People want to know why is has become so difficult to score a domestic up grade its because airlines are aggressively pricing domestic first class instead of giving away first class for free.

If you want more space, more leg room or a wider seat, on a domestic flight all you have to do is buy it. Buy first class or buy economy plus because air travel domestically especially within the contiguous United States has never been more affordable than what it is today. There is an airline and a seat to mach almost any budget domestically and i think the government should not be involved in this issue becuse all they will do is make air travel more expensive.


Given that we don't have perfect competition here government does have a role to play in the market place, to play devils advocate for a second, why should we be penalized because were're tall? To what height is the seat being optimized for?

Honestly I'm in the same boat, I won't fly basic coach any more unless i'm rerouted due to a cancellation etc. I've paid for F & economy upgrades multiple times in addition to the perk I get as part of my primary carrier's loyalty program. I once flew on Air Asia in Thailand and honestly couldn't sit with my legs forward, luckily it was an empty flight that lasted 40 minutes so I could stretch out over a few seats but I won't pay for that experience ever again.

Jouhou wrote:
The option frequently does not exist, so I don't know what you are saying. It's pay for God awful economy seats or pay 3x as much for business class. Some airlines can upgrade pitch for a price but not width. So that's actually a lie on your part.


3x if you're lucky, I'm looking at some travel to HKG now and it's more like 5x on the low end & 8x on the upper end of the big 3 domestic carriers..

washingtonflyer wrote:
Zoe had an external force working against her...

As to pitch and width, IIRC a standard seat pitch back in the 1980s and into the 1990s ranged from 32 to 34 inches. Average non-premium (i.e, not typically reserved for elite FFs) is 31 inches and is slipping to 30 inches. I've been on Jetstar flights in NZ where the pitch is 29 inches and it felt -tight-.

As to seat width, cabins in virtually all twin engine wing mounted aircraft (737s and 320 family) have been 3x3 for ever. Even the prior generation of 727s and 707s and DC8s were 3x3. I think where the seat width arguments are becoming of concern are in the 777 and 787. There a lot of reports out there on the 777 in a 3-4-3 configuration and the 787 in a 3-3-3 configuration. The 3-4-3 configuration is especially tight. And lets remember, you're not flying 3 hours from DFW to LAX; you're flying 13 hours from DFW to NRT.


Try back as recent as 2010, AA has increased the 738 fleet from 148 to 160 total passengers & with the current round of updates they'll go to 172.
1.4mm and counting...
 
anrec80
Posts: 2759
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:03 am

vanguard737 wrote:
Because you cannot assume that the US is the only country in the world that has a right to dictate a minimum seat pitch. So what if the US mandated no aircraft regardless of airline can land in the US with seat pitch below 30 inches, and then the EU says minimum seat pitch must be 31 inches, and Australia says minimum seat pitch must be 32 inches, and Brazil says minimum seat pitch must be 33 inches. Does it really sound reasonable to expect the worlds airlines to maintain specific subfleets only capable of flying to select countries?


Absolutely reasonable. Or - at least major markets need to agree to some reasonable terms, such as 18 inch economy (no 3-4-3 777 and 3-3-3 787) width and 32 inch pitch. Modern planes are efficient and competitive enough to provide extra comfort and safety, and maybe will have a tiny, if at all noticeable, fare increase. You can even make exceptions for denser configs for short haul, and charter airlines, where you need to carry too many people cheaply, and do not operate scheduled flights.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:09 am

dz09 wrote:
Milk producers or retailers would charge $10/gal if they could, but they can't....


I am not sure who is bringing up the point of milk to argue against regulation -- but for the record, the price of milk is highly regulated in the US. As in "price caps imposed by the government."
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:12 am

MaksFly wrote:
Delta does not charge $800 to fly EWR to MSP because it is their cost... they do it because there is enough people willing to pay that price to get from EWR to MSP in 2 hours and being there quick is more important than comfort for a few hours.


Exactly. This is the "cost-based pricing" fallacy at work.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:24 am

WeatherPilot read my mind. Regulate advertising.
 
User avatar
Qantas94Heavy
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:37 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:35 am

SurlyBonds wrote:
MaksFly wrote:
Delta does not charge $800 to fly EWR to MSP because it is their cost... they do it because there is enough people willing to pay that price to get from EWR to MSP in 2 hours and being there quick is more important than comfort for a few hours.


Exactly. This is the "cost-based pricing" fallacy at work.


And if they have fewer seats to sell then they don't need to cut fares to fill those seats. Tada! Profit based pricing at work here.
 
Etheereal
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:44 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:49 am

Is that another challenge to Doug "If you set min pitch size we'll increase airfares too" Parker ?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7752
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:55 am

Look at the ratio of Y+ to Y seats across UA, DL and AA. Money talks. Cheapsters ride in back.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19716
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:59 am

travaz wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
You are quite right on your points but there's a slight basic detail - Airlines do talk to each other meaning that some of the changes we have nowadays (and I do include the slim line seats), popular or not, are implemented on the assumption that passengers will take them because there's no other option - it is a loose cartel of some sorts.

Here's where that (often repeated but rarely successfully substantiated) assessment falls apart:

Pax can TALK about what they claim to want; but essentially every time a full-service airline dares to be different and give passengers that oh-so-vaunted "other option," passengers SHOW via their spending habits, that they don't value it.



If you need an example, look no further than the spectacular failure that was AA's "More Room Throughout Coach" campaign.

AA ripped two rows of seats out of nearly every mainline aircraft, and greatly increased legroom for all Y passengers, in exchange for an average fare increase of about $5.

Image

They then embarked on a nationwide mega advertising campaign, involving celebrities, athletes, sportscasters, and media personalities of all types (Coach Pat Riley was the central figurehead), to make sure that everyone knew that AA was offering the legroom and the competitors weren't;

Image

And what was the outcome?
They absolutely ....lost ...their ...freakin' ...shirts, as a result.

People took one look at the small fare difference, and booked away from AA onto competitors.

On a conference call, Gordon Bethune called it the "most idiotic move" that he ever saw, and that anyone with half a brain realized that this right here was the death of frills in coach; because pax had proven by no shadow of a doubt, that price ruled above all other considerations for a Y ticket, for the overwhelming majority of the public.

AA tried to hold out, but in the aftermath of 9/11, they made swift on getting those seats stuffed right back in, and then some!


This has to be the most sensible and informed post I have ever seen on this subject. BOOM

Thank You

MRTC was a spectacular wake up that passengers want cheap! How do you save customers from themselves? If I'm flying a short hop, why not be crammed in. For my last few TCONS, I paid for more space.

That post helped close the loop.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1744
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:55 am

The problem is that airlines are very expensive to start. New entrants are tough, consumer choice is limited. There is such little differentiation in the product. You have WN and B6. Frontier Spirit etc are like the back of the bus on the US3. With all the mergers the government allowed, airlines really have not had to innovate. They shed debt with BK laws, and outsource flying where they can to regionals. The free market is only partially at work. Consumers have lots of individual flight options but served by only a few carriers. This is exactly the result of the near monopoly conditions of the airline industry, it is pretty regulated / government intervened. Airlines don't have to worry about other airlines coming in and competing from abroad. Only after years of billions in profits (thanks consolidation, BK and low fuel prices), are they starting to add quality products, stratify they offering, and compete on anything other than price.

Hopefully, Moxy comes in and shakes things up every so slightly!

That being said, I won't be shocked when minimums are put in place. Granted they might be 27 inches, but more government intervention won't be shocking.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1185
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: US Congress working on a bill that would force FAA to mandate minimum seat size

Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:22 am

Is there any reason to suspect the outcome of an FAA safety analysis oriented toward seat pitch will result in any significantly different conclusion than the analyses that already feed into maximum occupancy?

In such case, it seems to me the minimum will end up being around 28".

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