Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
IFlyVeryLittle wrote:ILS28ORD wrote:I think they should mandate wider seats and seat pitch. Its a hazard in an incident / accident if you can't easily get out of your seat / row, and while I know their are certified max pax capacity on all aircraft that are authorized by the FAA / manufacturers, common sense says its currently allowed to be too densely packed, with not enough room to easily get up and get out in the event of a emergency. There should be a limit as to how many seats can be comfortably / safely fitted into each aircraft type. For example, just because a 757-300 is certified for 305 pax, doesn't mean it should realistically configured this way.
How are you going to mandate wider seats? Five abreast instead of six in a narrowbody?
IFlyOff wrote:Obesity and being fat is an epidemic in the United States. I wish as much attention would be paid to the sugar and fat filled diet of Americans as was given to COVID. Don't blame the airlines. Fat people should pay for their sin and pay for larger seats. Airlines should stop serving soda and other unhealthy drinks, snacks and meals. Eat more vegetables, no processed foods and read your ingredient labels when you shop. Get a physically active life and stop using food for comfort and entertainment.
Rant over.
IFlyVeryLittle wrote:I get pitch, but how do airlines max profits by narrowing seats? Are you telling me you can shave enough width from 10 seats (and maybe from the aisles?) on a 3-4-3 widebody to make 11 abreast seating? And how does this even help with a narrowbody? Did 707s ever offer 2-3 or 2-2 seating in coach?
scbriml wrote:Etheereal wrote:You're looking at it the opposite way: Go from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3, as some 777s are.
Is it really "some", or is it "most"?
Phosphorus wrote:IFlyVeryLittle wrote:ILS28ORD wrote:I think they should mandate wider seats and seat pitch. Its a hazard in an incident / accident if you can't easily get out of your seat / row, and while I know their are certified max pax capacity on all aircraft that are authorized by the FAA / manufacturers, common sense says its currently allowed to be too densely packed, with not enough room to easily get up and get out in the event of a emergency. There should be a limit as to how many seats can be comfortably / safely fitted into each aircraft type. For example, just because a 757-300 is certified for 305 pax, doesn't mean it should realistically configured this way.
How are you going to mandate wider seats? Five abreast instead of six in a narrowbody?
Should studies (hypothetically) find a safe evacuation is not possible with six abreast, at a current average passenger size, then what are your suggestions? Suck it up, and officially declare that despite it being unsafe, six abreast it is, because otherwise airlines find it uneconomical?
DenverBrian wrote:I'm wondering if a dual standard would work - Standards for current aircraft models (which conveniently for the airlines are likely to be very close to what they're doing today)...and standards for any new aircraft models that might be something like 18" width, 32" pitch, or some such.
lightsaber wrote:
I notice the comfort difference between Y and Y+ on a multi hour flight. Pay for what you need.
lightsaber wrote:atcsundevil wrote:Jomar777 wrote:Overall it is a quite valid point and post but I would look into a big picture here. When was the last time we've had an active FAA investigation into this since the de-regulation? Also, to add fuel to the fire, the Brazilian Congress has just passed a law where free check-in luggage was to be obligatory although their President has vetoed.
This and the FAA investigation might fall in the same category - where we see a certain amount of questioning in regards to the airlines run to the bottom service offering but it seems to me to be the start.
You might be right - like the Brazilian debacle (mind you, there's General Elections there this year so this Law might come back in a different shape or form next year) and this FAA investigation might come to nothing but I think more will come.
I feel that airline deregulation was good for the business overall but it went to far.
I agree, especially with your last point. I don't necessarily even advocate for changes to be forced on airlines, I just think there needs to be a definition of "where is the breaking point"...how small is too small for safe operation. It may very well be dimensions that are smaller than currently exist, and if that's the case, then that's fair. I'd just like to see some sort of answer with a scientific foundation.
Not just to that point, but I agree that deregulation has gone too far to the detriment of passengers, industry employees, and the system as a whole. Airports like EWR are utilized far beyond the infrastructure can manage because of years of dithering when it comes to slot control, airlines aren't strictly accountable to their customers when they change someone's ticket or take delays/cancelations within their control, they generate billions in untaxable fees that rob the system of the necessary funds to expand infrastructure to keep pace with growth, among many other things. I think that people who support blanket deregulation don't see the firsthand effects of these problems, because if you do, you'd know that the industry needs to be reigned in...maybe not on seat dimensions, but on a host of other issues. Brazil has, by most measures, gone too far and focused on the wrong issue. My problem isn't with unbundling, my problem is with airlines unbundling as a tax dodge. Talking about seat dimensions is small potatoes compared to the rest — it's almost a dog whistle topic to distract from the real issues that need to be scrutinized.flyguy89 wrote:The public commenting is hilarious— of course everyone wants all the legroom at a bargain basement fare. And if the FAA does indeed intervene as such, you can bet these same people will be the first to also complain about fares being so expensive.
Yeah, I don't really understand the point except that the agency can point to it as a way of saying, "See! Look what we did about it." This will be made as a political decision, and some poor intern at headquarters is going to have to sift through about 200,000 ranting comments. It's a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't scenario. I don't personally care if changes are made, because I don't fly in seats that small for my own well-being, but I do think the agency should act on its regulatory mandate and provide a definition for safe aircraft occupancy. If they can point to actual numbers and how they reached those determinations, then I'd say it's probably enough for most people. The rest probably already hated the federal government anyway
I do think a minimum will be set, but do not expect it to be generous.
I notice the comfort difference between Y and Y+ on a multi hour flight. Pay for what you need.
Chemist wrote:lightsaber wrote:
I notice the comfort difference between Y and Y+ on a multi hour flight. Pay for what you need.
I would not have a problem with this except that the incremental price increase is astronomical for a minor update in some cases. Often "premium economy" which is barely any better than coach of a few years ago, say 34" pitch, is like 3x the cost. If the cost increase were proportional then it should only be 10-20% more, which I would gladly pay. I look at the price for premium economy and the minor improvement in comfort and I immediately discard the idea. I have on a couple of occasions paid for business when it was say 2-2.5x the economy cost. But that's a huge increase in comfort in most cases.
BuildingMyBento wrote:strfyr51 wrote:A BMI fare system? a Law Suit waiting to happen and un-winable. Bettter Airlines shoud have a minimum width seat and stop the crowding, though? the LCC's have their bread and butter in this fashion.
Pretty sure bread and butter are part of the reason why some complain the seats are too tight. Makes one wonder what Wal-Mart Air would look like.
penguins wrote:Chemist wrote:lightsaber wrote:
I notice the comfort difference between Y and Y+ on a multi hour flight. Pay for what you need.
I would not have a problem with this except that the incremental price increase is astronomical for a minor update in some cases. Often "premium economy" which is barely any better than coach of a few years ago, say 34" pitch, is like 3x the cost. If the cost increase were proportional then it should only be 10-20% more, which I would gladly pay. I look at the price for premium economy and the minor improvement in comfort and I immediately discard the idea. I have on a couple of occasions paid for business when it was say 2-2.5x the economy cost. But that's a huge increase in comfort in most cases.
I agree with you. Not sure why so many on this board are shills for an airline industry which doesn't give a ***'* *** about them: the consumer and potential spotter/TR writer.
WA707atMSP wrote:One thing people who compare today's seat densities to the seat densities before deregulation, or even in the early days of deregulation, lose sight of: Fares in coach in the 1970s and early 1980s, are, in today's dollars, about as much as premium economy fares are now..
IFlyVeryLittle wrote:ILS28ORD wrote:I think they should mandate wider seats and seat pitch. Its a hazard in an incident / accident if you can't easily get out of your seat / row, and while I know their are certified max pax capacity on all aircraft that are authorized by the FAA / manufacturers, common sense says its currently allowed to be too densely packed, with not enough room to easily get up and get out in the event of a emergency. There should be a limit as to how many seats can be comfortably / safely fitted into each aircraft type. For example, just because a 757-300 is certified for 305 pax, doesn't mean it should realistically configured this way.
How are you going to mandate wider seats? Five abreast instead of six in a narrowbody?
airbazar wrote:On narrowbody aircraft, yes. On widebody aircraft, not necessarily true. AA went from 2-5-2 on its 777s to 3-4-3. The seats definitely got narrower. From 18.0 to 18.5 inches in width depending on cabin location to 17 inches.As much as I would like this I don't think there's much of a case here. Airline seats today are as wide as they were when the first jet rolled out of the assembly line. Seat pitch is a different story. But hey, if we can expand runways in the name of safety why not seats? The argument is exactly the same, if the runway is too short to operate safely the airlines should fly smaller planes but that's never the argument. More often than not the runway gets extended.
Chemist wrote:lightsaber wrote:
I notice the comfort difference between Y and Y+ on a multi hour flight. Pay for what you need.
I would not have a problem with this except that the incremental price increase is astronomical for a minor update in some cases. Often "premium economy" which is barely any better than coach of a few years ago, say 34" pitch, is like 3x the cost. If the cost increase were proportional then it should only be 10-20% more, which I would gladly pay. I look at the price for premium economy and the minor improvement in comfort and I immediately discard the idea. I have on a couple of occasions paid for business when it was say 2-2.5x the economy cost. But that's a huge increase in comfort in most cases.
washingtonflyer wrote:WA707atMSP wrote:One thing people who compare today's seat densities to the seat densities before deregulation, or even in the early days of deregulation, lose sight of: Fares in coach in the 1970s and early 1980s, are, in today's dollars, about as much as premium economy fares are now..
Fares are lower (or....they -were- lower), but you really can't say that today. You cite to a 1984 fare on AA (DTW-DFW-ONT). If I priced that same fare out today on AA for travel at least three weeks from now (allowing for 21 day advanced fares), the lowest fare is $716 round trip.
But the base fare is masked by non-fare surcharges - of which there are many.
For the big three carriers:
Checked bag - $60 round trip for one bag
Checked bag 2 - $80 round trip for one bag
Seat that is not in the last 8 rows of coach - $101 in seat fees
That's $241 in non-ticket fees. Plus I don't get a meal (like you would have in 1984).
So, right now, I'm not sure the low fare hypothesis is true....
WA707atMSP wrote:Not everybody pays $241 in fees, though.
WA707atMSP wrote:I always bring just carry on bags, so I don't pay the checked bag fees.
WA707atMSP wrote:As long as I can get a window seat, I don't pay the seat fees.
frmrCapCadet wrote:Chemist wrote:lightsaber wrote:
I notice the comfort difference between Y and Y+ on a multi hour flight. Pay for what you need.
I would not have a problem with this except that the incremental price increase is astronomical for a minor update in some cases. Often "premium economy" which is barely any better than coach of a few years ago, say 34" pitch, is like 3x the cost. If the cost increase were proportional then it should only be 10-20% more, which I would gladly pay. I look at the price for premium economy and the minor improvement in comfort and I immediately discard the idea. I have on a couple of occasions paid for business when it was say 2-2.5x the economy cost. But that's a huge increase in comfort in most cases.
I also suspect that airlines are aware that charging only 20% more for 10% more space doesn't maximize profits, so make those basic economy/economy seats uncomfortable enough and enough people will pay 100-200% more for 15% more space. Because there is no comfort rating at point of sale the dynamics float in the background and companies can get away with it. Consumers should demand a comfort rating system, Seat Guru/Orbitz, or the airlines themselves could do the rating. I think this should be mandated. Tell me what I am buying and I can choose what I want to pay for. What I am suggesting is in fact a free market solution to this problem. Airlines benefit by the fog and inability of customers to really know what they are buying.
ILNFlyer wrote:Bigger seats, less seats on the plane. Less seats = high fares. Just be ready for it.
ILNFlyer wrote:Bigger seats, less seats on the plane. Less seats = high fares. Just be ready for it.
garpd wrote:My worries are not the seat pitch or width, but the width of aisles.
As airlines cram in the thinner seats, aisle width is reducing at the same time.
I have noticed this first hand on 777s. On a BA 777 with 9 abreast (back in 2017) I was able to walk up and down the aisle normally. On a subsequent AA 777 with 10 abreast I was bumping off other passenger's shoulders.
The British Airtours 737 engine fire incident demonstrated how making escape routes too narrow can turn deadly, fast. The addition of just 1 or 2 inches to the width between two bulkheads proved to be crucial. The same has to be true for aisle width.
airlineworker wrote:Americans are too fat. On one flight a huge obese sat next to me and asked if he could put the armrest up, I said no knowing in a short time he would ooze over on my side.
LaunchDetected wrote:American passengers too big.
Airlines should set up a BMI-based fare system to compensate this (reasonable) FAA ruling.
DenverTed wrote:I would suggest 20" center to center of armrest for future designs, and 30" pitch as a minimum, for all current aircraft.
superjeff wrote:IFlyVeryLittle wrote:I get pitch, but how do airlines max profits by narrowing seats? Are you telling me you can shave enough width from 10 seats (and maybe from the aisles?) on a 3-4-3 widebody to make 11 abreast seating? And how does this even help with a narrowbody? Did 707s ever offer 2-3 or 2-2 seating in coach?
Actually YES to the latter. Continental had 2-3 seating in their 3 class 707's (First, Coach, Economy) when they first introduced the jets. Piedmont had 2-3 seating in coach throughout their 737-200's. So it is possible. And the initial 747-100's were 2-4-3 in Coach (or 3-4-2, depending on the airline). DC10's and L1011's were 2-4-2. So in all of these cases, the airlines added one extra seat per row.
rbavfan wrote:superjeff wrote:IFlyVeryLittle wrote:I get pitch, but how do airlines max profits by narrowing seats? Are you telling me you can shave enough width from 10 seats (and maybe from the aisles?) on a 3-4-3 widebody to make 11 abreast seating? And how does this even help with a narrowbody? Did 707s ever offer 2-3 or 2-2 seating in coach?
Actually YES to the latter. Continental had 2-3 seating in their 3 class 707's (First, Coach, Economy) when they first introduced the jets. Piedmont had 2-3 seating in coach throughout their 737-200's. So it is possible. And the initial 747-100's were 2-4-3 in Coach (or 3-4-2, depending on the airline). DC10's and L1011's were 2-4-2. So in all of these cases, the airlines added one extra seat per row.
True but when they were developed airlines did that. But they quickly changed to 3x3 & 2-4-2 due to cost. That happened even before the airlines were deregulated. From the mid 70's on I never was on one of those frames that had fewer seats per row. The switch to 1 more seat per row allowed deregulation to go through and allow better fares & more people traveling. But they kept the 34" couch seat for years & they went to 32 (31-33" in DC-9's) comming into the 80's. Then some decided to go to 28-30". Thats when they went too far.
I will say though 30" on a 737 with narrower seat vs 30" on an A320 with 1" wider seats is noticeably different if you try gig from 1 to the other the same day. The wider seat allows knees to be father apart, compensating for the reduced pitch.
lightsaber wrote:DenverBrian wrote:I'm wondering if a dual standard would work - Standards for current aircraft models (which conveniently for the airlines are likely to be very close to what they're doing today)...and standards for any new aircraft models that might be something like 18" width, 32" pitch, or some such.
They need standards for passengers to buy 2 seats or 1st class. I have a dear friend who can solve any problem managing teams; he only flies in domestic 1st. If the company won't pay, he won't fly. This is because he cannot fit in a normal seat.
Why should I pay more to fly my thin kids? I fit into the smallest ULCC despite wide shoulders and height. There needs to be a safety derived minimum. If that grows because people have, that is a tax on smaller people. Aircraft have the most expensive real estate in the world. How much rent does everyone want to pay?
When space is low priced, I fly 1st. When expensive, I fly Y- and hope my status upgrades me. Company standard Y, but company sponsored and status based upgrades happen.
There needs to be a minimum, I do not think 28" breaks a mathematically calculated evacuation time.
I see more a discount on door capacity. e.g., pitch below 30" means each door handles say 90% of the rated capacity. Pitch below 28", 75% and so on. (Obviously, I am making up numbers as examples.)
Lightsaber
stewartg wrote:airlineworker wrote:Americans are too fat. On one flight a huge obese sat next to me and asked if he could put the armrest up, I said no knowing in a short time he would ooze over on my side.
Its a medical fact. But you have to be careful how you word that here. Many cases are beyond a persons control. I just had a conversation with a nutritionist due to my sugar levels (not fat). Its also expensive to be thin and healthy! Fresh meat and produce is a lot more expensive than preserved and sugary food.
But the point is the same: Fed Transportation Agency, together with Europe (basically we are talking Boeing and Airbus) need to come to a unified agreement. Many narrow bodies flying international and long haul routes, like COPA. So while Boeing may screw in the seats at 30in pitch, it is the airline that decides the final configuration, is it not?
Francoflier wrote:If there is a real safety risk, then maybe a seat dimension regulation is in order.
Barring that, why not simply legislate to have airlines prominently publish the seat dimension, pitch, recline (if any) of the product they are selling and allow them, on the basis of full disclosure of what is offered, to refuse boarding to passengers who do not safely fit in the seat they bought (with full knowledge of its size)?
Regulations should be there to ensure safety, not comfort. Let the market regulate the rest.
Increasing seat dimensions will necessarily cause a general increase of fares which is unfair to those who do not have a junk food addiction and would prefer to keep their cheap and tiny seats.
An alternative could be to force airlines to offer larger economy seats for those + sized individuals, at the passenger's cost.
flyguy89 wrote:The public commenting is hilarious— of course everyone wants all the legroom at a bargain basement fare. And if the FAA does indeed intervene as such, you can bet these same people will be the first to also complain about fares being so expensive.
chonetsao wrote:On many of the flight I took in Europe, with one of the legacy airlines that has 29-30 inches seats pitch, I often witness taller people who can not keep their upper leg straight because the legroom is too small. Many taller people tends to book aisle seats so they can put their knees towards the aisle. And I often see people with shoe size bigger than US size 10 can not possibly put their feet down from the gap between the seat and front row (it is not whether they need or not, but imagine in a emergency evacuation situation that someone needs to get their feet out from the window or middle seats). Most people shuffle their feet or walk sideways in order to get out the seats from the middle of window.
I really think seat pitch especially the gap between the rows needs to be regulated. When accident happen and people got trapped, it would be too late. We need safety regulation be ahead of the time to prevent unfortunate event.
airlineworker wrote:stewartg wrote:airlineworker wrote:Americans are too fat. On one flight a huge obese sat next to me and asked if he could put the armrest up, I said no knowing in a short time he would ooze over on my side.
Its a medical fact. But you have to be careful how you word that here. Many cases are beyond a persons control. I just had a conversation with a nutritionist due to my sugar levels (not fat). Its also expensive to be thin and healthy! Fresh meat and produce is a lot more expensive than preserved and sugary food.
But the point is the same: Fed Transportation Agency, together with Europe (basically we are talking Boeing and Airbus) need to come to a unified agreement. Many narrow bodies flying international and long haul routes, like COPA. So while Boeing may screw in the seats at 30in pitch, it is the airline that decides the final configuration, is it not?
Over the years I have seen obese people eat 2-3 servings then go watch TV. It is not expensive to eat healthy, drop the meat, the most expensive part of food chain and one of the unhealthiest. Many also go to fast food chains and eat low grade dog food. I have inlaws who are huge and it's not an overactive thyroid, but an overactive fork. Some died young due to obesity and poor food choices.
Phosphorus wrote:airlineworker wrote:stewartg wrote:
All those, who suggest people who want more legroom to buy a more expensive ticket -- this is exactly the problem. The person DOESN'T buy that more expensive ticket, and sits in an uncomfortable seat. Inconveniencing themselves and others. Developing health problems. And ad extremis, becoming a safety hazard -- either
WA707atMSP wrote:Phosphorus wrote:airlineworker wrote:
And THIS is where the issue of "fairness" kicks in.
I'm 6'4", but I exercise nearly every day and eat as healthy as I can, so I can fit into coach seats without making those around me uncomfortable.
For environmental reasons, I buy as few clothes as possible, which means I can fit my belongings into a carry on bag, and never have to check luggage.
If airlines are required to make their seats larger, they'll have to increase fares to reflect having fewer seats on their aircraft. Keeping healthy is hard work, and I feel VERY strongly that I should not have to pay higher airfares to subsidize people who are lazy and abuse their bodies, just as I feel airlines that don't charge for checked luggage are giving a subsidy to people that harm the environment through excessive clothing purchases.
Another issue regarding seating densities that hasn't been brought up is the environment. Higher seating densities mean the per seat carbon emissions of a flight decrease. If airlines decrease their seating densities because too many people abuse their bodies through excessive food consumption and lack of exercise, this will increase the per seat carbon emissions of each flight, which will further inflame the environmental lobby's (largely unjustified) attacks on air travel.
IFlyOff wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:Toinou wrote:Most people here are probably right to think that such a change would face strong backlash. The main cause would probably being industry lobbying rather than political pressure.
But I guess that FAA might have a point if they change the rule on security ground. It would be much more complicated to fight such a change as it would be a potential PR disaster.
You are right.
That being said, it might be a bit more complicated. In many evacuation situation, it was found more efficient to allow people to take something rather than having to explain them to leave everything. I know it's not really an option on a plane where space is scarce and time to evacuate is really short but I wonder if someone could find a rule that is safe and at the same time understanding of human nature.
Roll aboard bags should be banned during evacuation. Perhaps a small personal item bag that can be carried with a strap around a shoulder leaving both hands free could be acceptable.
Roll aboards are already banned during an evacuation. Most, obvsiously don't listen to the flight attendant safety briefing.
JDub wrote:And they don't care about pitch either. Nothing is changing, not happening.
travaz wrote:If setting seat size is all about safety (and I don't disagree with the concept) What do we do with passengers that a mobility limited. Yesterday I flew AA LAX PHX and there were 4 people that needed heavy assistance to thier seat and mobility devices as soon as the got to the cabin door. Do we bar them from flying as a safety factor? BTW I am 6' 240 and sat in basic economy just fine without crowding the other passengers in my row.