The Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
> Faced with a choice between discomfort and higher fares, most travelers choose discomfort
Airlines are still in business so the execs think that things are running smoothly. At my peak, I was spending roughly $70k/year on my own flights and probably another $100k for my partner and employees. Now I spend $0. Not a big hit to the airline, but I'm not the only one. Long before airline scandals I ran into the fact that the airlines that I was loyal to made decision after decision that clearly told me they didn't care about my business. So I left. It wasn't an easy decision. But they pushed hard enough that it became a health decision for me and not a business decision. The little stress points that they added to my life compounded enough to the point where they became big. So I stopped.
All around the country companies are finding ways to avoid flying altogether. Web conferencing and video conferencing solutions are better than they were 15 years ago, but not significantly. The acceptance of remote work isn't just a budget decision, it's a productivity one. The decision to fly now involves up to 4 hours a week on top of flight times and time to and from the airport. Internet access is terrible at most airports and on most flights.
Air travel was once something to look forward to. Now, for the most part, it's simply not. TSA has played a big part, making the experience miserable in a way that only a government agency can. But most of the trouble with flying is really due to airline executive decisions.
> > Faced with a choice between discomfort and higher fares, most travelers choose discomfort"
If that's the article's premise, then it's correct. Even though there are many more economy seats on each plane than their are business or first, the economy sections are still full. What does this tell us? That most people choose to pay less for an economy seat, rather than pay more for a comfy seat.
No, it tells us that the cost is not wortg the extras for most people. Important distinction.
On transatlantic flights the difference between economy and business can be as much as 4x. That's a lot.
Let's say coach is $1600, premium economy is $1800, and business is $4000. I'm definitely going to buy premium economy, totally worth $200 because on transatlantic flights it's a lot better than coach. (I've done this before)
But $4000 for business? I might do it for $2000.
Law of diminishing returns and all that. I'll pay 20% more for something that's 50% better, but I won't pay 200% for something that's 60% better.
Now let's look at some real prices. Say you wanted to fly from SFO to CDG in September on a nonstop flight. Economy: $710. Premium Economy: $2222. Business: $8600. First: $9427.
I promise you Premium is not 3x better than normal economy. I've tried it, it's 1.5x better at most. And business for 12x the price? Yeah, fuck that.
PS: The calculation changes when you work for a Fortune 500 and they mandate/allow business tickets for flights longer than 6 hours. I imagine this is the real market for those tickets because those customers aren't paying with their own money and don't care.
Interesting point. I've noticed that when I fly Qantas economy, before I fly they give me the option to bid for a Business class seat. Their economy seating & service has deteriorated so badly that I was tempted to just buy two economy seats, so I could have enough elbow room to use my laptop & get some work done... and sure enough, the minimum bid for Business is just a bit higher than buying a second economy seat.
I'm sure the business class seats sell for higher than that, but they definitely aren't filling the seats at rack rate if they're sending out seat auctions.
There’s usually openings in premium because of the premium passengers who have upgraded to business on points or by bidding...
I love flying! Best way to sit down and chill for a fee hours with a good book. The internet is too crappy to be useful, the seats too cramped to do real work, so I chill and I read. It's honestly very relaxing and I enjoy it.
Yes I could do it without flying, but I find it hard to relax when I both have work to do and the ability to do it.
Plus I'm short enough that I can fully extend my legs under the seat in front of me even in coach. That helps a lot.
I'm 6'3", with long upper legs, so this is a serious issue for me. It's torturous to fly... literally. Either I don't fly, or pay extortionate sums to upgrade.
Airlines should be forced to put the legroom space on the ticket and required to honor it. I bet things would be much different if consumers knew how badly they were getting fucked over in clear detail.
There's nothing I can do about that.
I positively hate flying.
Air travel is already expensive enough. I'm not in the US. Why should I need to pay extra for something I have no control over?
For me, exit row/prefered seating is a worthwhile upgrade at ~$100/per 12 hr leg, but there are only a few of those seats on each flight, and they're often unavailable. Premium is double the cost of economy, and business is double the cost of premium. Neither myself nor my employers have that kind of travel budget.
I am happy to pay for business personally, but corporate policy limits to coach for domestic flights, and the odds of getting an upgrade on the routes I fly (BOS-SFO most often) are slim unless you're in the higher status tiers.
I got a free upgrade to emergency exit on a domestic Virgin flight a couple of years ago, by a check-in person who looked me over and figured that'd be a nice thing to ask if I'd like. Perhaps a small gesture to them, but I won't forget that for a while.
Fwiw, my femur length is a blocker for my catching trains in Melbourne as the seats are typically designed to face each other in pairs, and my knees are well past the half way mark even with my bum firmly against the back seat with zero slouch.
It's physically painful for me to stay in that position for more than 1-2 hours so I'd only do a business class for long haul flights. And of course business class is very prohibitively priced for me personally so I avoid flying long distances at all.
If the company wants me to fly somewhere further than 2 hours away, I will demand a business class seat. Otherwise I will tell them I'm not going for health reasons and they should send somebody smaller who can fit into the tiny seat more comfortably.
I honestly think that being too tall finally fits the legal definition of a disability: "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102
Air travel definitely meets the criteria for being a major life activity.
which brings up another point, unless you are taking those one off sale seats always check the prices of first class. a small fee could land you at the front of the plane with preferential boarding.
If you can afford it or get it it's a really great way to fly.
You say this like it was a freak occurrence. I've not been on a Greyhound bus or Amtrak train that was less comfortable than every single flight I've ever flown (with the exception of a single delightful first class flight).
Frankly in a crash landing (even a hard landing), anyone as tall as we are is going to have at least a broken nose.
Not sure what it takes to rectify this situation.
I'm 1.97 tall and standard economy class seats are a torture to me. When I travel for personal reasons, I avoid planes whenever possible and otherwise, at any flight longer than one hour I buy at least an upgrade to a so-called "premium economy" seat or an emergency exit seat (which used to be free, but now they charge extra for them too). I could also do that for work flights out of my own pocket, but I find the concept of paying for work flights quite outrageous, apart from the fact that in some flights I would need to pay half my monthly salary for the upgrade.
I'm hoping for regulation to impose a minimum seat pitch, it's the only thing that can save me from torturous flights in the short term (the other would be a local regulation that people over a certain dimensions can be paid a better ticket in public sector travel, but I think hell will freeze over before that, because austerity, etc.).
> When I travel for personal reasons, I avoid planes whenever possible and otherwise, at any flight longer than one hour I buy at least an upgrade to a so-called "premium economy" seat or an emergency exit seat (which used to be free, but now they charge extra for them too).
This looks to me like you're actually making a choice.
But over 95% of my flights are for work and there I have no choice.
Revenue, was higher in 2014 than 2015 or 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/197680/total-operating-r...
So, yes all things equal people fly more when flights costs significantly less. That does not the industry makes more profit from smaller seats.
The thing is basically people are incredibly price conscious on booking flights. It's commoditized with the way people search for flights. Arguably this is because the industries IT systems are so old school that data such as seat pitch can't be easily syndicated so 3rd parties can show it, but I'm not sure if people would care enough.
The 787s that they fly also make a big difference in comfort because of the higher humidity, lower noise, and better air quality.
(yeah I hate people who recline their seats)
Compared to most rubbish US carriers like United...They are cheap (you don't care if you miss a flight too much for a meeting), they take off and (more importantly) land pretty much on time. The airplanes seats are decent, the website and app have gotten much better and they have calmed down some of the more annoying crap like jingles and stuff.
After the mergers of airlines, they realized that they have a captive market and don't have to care about service since there is only a limited number of choices for a large customer base. It's far more profitable to treat the customers are cattle who have no other option.
Oil prices are down, but the fares are still high. The seats are small, service is terrible, airports are congested, TSA is intrusive and the experience is horrible, but what can we do?
It's like internet service. When you have one or two large monopolies controlling an area, there is no incentive to treat customers well. Get mistreated by verizon go to comcast for more mistreatment.
It's funny looking back when airlines were merging that the CEOs were saying how cost savings and synergies of merged airlines will trickle down to the customers in the form of lower airfare and better service.
It was supposed to be a win-win for the companies and the customers.
[1] ...which BTW they probably don't miss either, since it was probably replaced by 170 other willing consumers with $1,000 each, who haven't yet learned how unnecessary & shitty air travel is, or haven't yet acted on it.
I really dislike flying and I avoid it since it's a miserable experience. And I'm not willing to pay 5-8x the economy rates for what I'd consider a tolerable experience in first class.
I really hope someone makes a website that reflects the true cost of using an airline. So many hidden fees and gotchas. It's a race to the bottom.
I've only done two domestic flights inside the US, one from JFK to Miami, and one from Minneapolis to Seattle, and both of them were utterly awful when compared to intra-europe flights I've done (so similar distances).
That said, now I just book exit seats or comfort seats, but when those are full this still happens. Some airlines, like Vueling, I just don't fly with anymore as they made the seats so small that most seats are too small to fit tall people in at all. But they also moved me to exit seats when that was the only flight I could take.
When there are obese people, they are routinely moved to business class (on inter europe flights; never saw it on an international flight) or exit seats; I saw this on Easyjet, Ryanair and BA. I haven't seen your situation occur here; I would refuse to fly to be honest. Just get the pilot out and ask his opinion; they have the last say. If you cannot sit (and if a quarter of your space is filled with someone else, for me that means I cannot sit), the pilot will agree it's not a safe situation for you.
See https://twitter.com/i/moments/887384300081098752 for an account of what it's like.
For me legroom is one issue but a bigger one is width. I am wider than a standard domestic coach seat such that if fly in one I'm competing for armrests or I'm hanging out into the aisle or I'm sitting in an uncomfortable position of squeezing my arms in. It's incredibly unpleasant.
The biggest problem for most airlines (from my perspective) is that coach continues to shrink and the jump to business can be massive like from $300 to $2000. That's where Premium Economy and things like JetBlue's Even More Legroom are good.
But I will optimize to have a longer trip with a layover than fly direct to avoid this problem. For example, I'll fly on American's older 737s and 767s in "First" transcon via DFW or ORD for ~$1000 return rather than $500 in coach direct or $2000+ in business direct (both of the last two on the newer A321Ts).
Premium Economy is a mixed bag though. Cathay Pacific's is quite good (with some caveats). British Airways I hear is PE in name only (well, name and cost for some reason).
Still, lie flat business class, particularly on international long haul is hard to beat.
I'm flying Seattle to Boston on Monday. I had to buy first class, there's no fucking way I'm doing that trip in anything less. Did I mention I have back problems (like many Americans).
Thank God I have the means and airline status to travel better. It really is a bus in the sky.
Might as well have standing room too.
This is why I fly pretty much exclusively American. Not because American is the best airlines (it is not, but hey it's not United either). But because if I optimized solely for cost I wouldn't have any status on any airline. I'd be the first one bumped. I'd have worse seats and I'd be upgraded less.
People like to bitch about how airlines treat them like crap but at the same time they often don't have any loyalty to any airline. What do you expect?
Just this last flight from NYC to SFO I got upgraded to (lie-flat) business class for "free" (it cost I think 6 500-mile stickers but I have like 100 of those so who cares?). My AA status also multiplies all the miles I earn on AA and oneworld flights. That's worth something.
I just wish AA had PE. Main Cabin "Plus" is not the same thing.
My business partner, who's been at this longer than me, has JetBlue's Mosaic, but the perks for that are pretty lame given how much money we put through JetBlue.
American auto-enrolled me in one earlier this year. Gave me free platinum status for three months and 20 500-mile upgrade certs. The certs were mine and I had those three months to fly 5000 miles to extend status for a year.
I gave it a little over a year to see if they could solve the problems. Aside from just the teething issues of a major-airline merger, AA's approach to customer service was horrid, their reliability was in the toilet (ask me how many times I had connections in AA hubs on time versus how many times I spent the night involuntarily!), etc.
So I jumped ship. I will never set foot in a United aircraft of my own free will, so I looked at Delta, which had and still has excellent reliability and satisfaction ratings from their frequent flyers. And it was relatively simple to set up a status match with them. I provided a photograph of my then-current AA Executive Platinum credentials, and they enrolled me. I had 90 days to meet a mileage/segments target, and if I did I'd be Delta Platinum for the following year.
The target was, IIRC, just under 19,000 miles, and I hit it with about a month to spare.
The only catch to a status match is generally you can only do it once. If you later lose status, or switch to another airline, they will not let you match back.
Some airlines will also let you trial your way into status with no pre-existing credentials. When and whether and how they offer those varies a lot from airline to airline.
Not to be injured because of the flight. Is that too much of an ask?
As soon as AA introduce PE in the 789's from DFW to Madrid, Paris, and Seoul, I booked. Its not lie-flat business class, but it affords a little personal dignity in being to reorient my body periodically.
I expect said airlines to work to EARN that loyalty?
After all, it's the people who pay their money to them, not vice versa.
I'd say it's worse. The buses I've been on have been far more comfortable than a plane, and I'm not even wide or tall.
In economy it is basically not possible for the person in front of me to recline. And boy do they try! Some especially inconsiderate ones even keep trying after they realize what they are doing. But I bring kneepads these days so it is not especially bothersome.
Oh God. It's quite the understatement to say you're 99th percentile. According to [1], only 1 in 127,929 people are taller than you.
[1] https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/
Naturally, I avoid flying as much as possible. Within Europe I'd rather spend hours trying to figure out the best dates and routes for cheap train tickets and utilize the few sleeper trains left — I really wish these didn't go out of style — rather than wait for hours at the airport and be physically tormented in flight.
Humans come in different sizes. If you are genetically predisposed to be in the 99th percentile for height, or in the 1st percentile for height, do you think businesses should be allowed to charge you 200% or more of the price they charge someone at the 50th percentile?
Simple demographic statistics would dictate that aircraft be configured with some seats suitable for a person over 200 cm (6'6"), and some for children or for adults with dwarfism.
Neither atypical height nor atypical weight are necessarily disabilities, but you have to serve the customer as they are, or you are not serving the customer. Clearly, airlines would prefer to serve sardine-shaped customers, with low standard deviations for all measurements.
No, I never said ADA is about pity. However, my opinion is that the ADA was not for accepting people as they are. Just pay the extra money and fly first class if you're big and tall.
It is funny how everyone hates all this bureaucratic red tape until the red tape is good for them.
There is no right answer. We as a society have to decide if we are willing to foot the bill. Things will change as more people are getting taller and fatter though.
I agree that airlines should serve atypical sizes but I hesitate to require airlines to not charge a premium. As much as I hate airlines, common sense must prevail.
That's probably the biggest reason why JetBlue is an all around more comfortable experience. They fly exclusively A320/321 and E90 aircraft. Yeah they're configured with more legroom than the legacies, but every seat in the fleet is as wide as you'll find in a coach seat.
So it is better than coach, but only by a few inches. It is generally priced appropriately, though.
Yes I can pay more for one of the Econo-plus seats ... but I should not have to. 6'4" is not average, yes, I realize, but so what---it's a genetic tax then? If I want to fly I have to pay more? If I were too "wide" you might say (though you shouldn't), my fault, I should lose weight. But what am I supposed to do? Saw my ankles off?
If I were the worlds tallest person, sure, you could claim exceptional circumstances. But 6'4" is not that exceptional, I submit to you.
PS I'm not criticizing you of course... only making the point that for many of us, this has become an exceptionally frustrating (and costly) experience.
Operating a "discriminatory business" is absolutely a human right, because I dont owe you any more than what I agreed to before payment. All businesses are by nature in some was discriminatory, because of the laws of physics at the very least.
And yes, amusement park rides are discriminatory, but sometimes no reasonable accommodations are possible. The design constraints mean the passenger dimensions have to fall within a certain range, or the physics math doesn't work out. It would certainly be possible to have multiple types of passenger vehicles and restraints, but it also complicates the operations, because you then have to sort passengers by size before seating them. The scope of reasonableness is subjective.
In the case of airline seating, the reasonable accommodation for ranges in height would be to reserve some seats with more legroom for tall people, and some seats with less legroom and lower seat height for short people. Height is normally distributed, so the tradeoff would tend to work out on average. But that would interfere with airlines' fare categories and gratuitous seat upgrade fees.
they should really have cabin with different layouts and assign seats according height, taller person would get more space, shorter less, but both would have same level of comfort and there would be same capacity of seats, current layout with all seats and gaps between them same is very archaic.
they should really charge people per kg, there can be short and heavy person while tall and skinny, and as i pointed above you can have same level of comfort for passengers without losing capacity assigning seats depending on size, your can do nothing about weight, this will cost airline always more so heavier people should pay more because it's directly related to fuel expenses. we already do it with baggage so why not with bodies?
I mean, maybe? The simple truth is that if you want to fly someone needs to pay more, because you weigh more and occupy more space in the vehicle. Is air travel something that should be subsidized in some way or not? I'm not sure that I see a clear answer here.
Alternatively: There are many financial inequalities that stem from genetics or circumstance. Is this the one we want to be fighting for?
Alternatively, the airline could reserve them for tall people, but that risks leaving with them empty, which increases the costs for everyone.
Life has tradeoffs, you can't start correcting to make everything "fair". It's an impossible task, and not really worth anything in the end.
Oh, and I'm not suggesting this because I'm 6' 5" but fit and weigh less than most chunky medium height people I know... not at all.
How so? Taller people are also often heavier, simply due to the fact that they're bigger. And if the past they tended to be slimmer relative to their height, that's no longer true for male Americans: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/2/445.full
So taller people would still pay more than shorter, on average.
Someone's gender is genetic and men would pay more under your scheme as would taller people.
You may not weigh more than a very muscular or overweight person but by being longer you by definition take up more linear space.
As I said though, mostly useless now due to non-exit rows.
Those are averages, you have no clue what the poster's salary is.
When you're broke and have to decide whether to shell out an extra 100 bucks for a cross-country flight for a funeral, or sit in pain, I don't think statistics will make you feel better.
As someone who is 5 foot 5 inches tall, I receive many benefits, like being able to buy my suits from children's clothing section. But if I was given the opportunity to trade my height for yours, I would pay more for my air travel every day.
As someone who has actually run the numbers for an online dating service, I can assure you it's not "largely an American thing".
This generally includes leaning slightly at a bar, or sitting in / leaning on a stool while people are standing, or spreading my legs a bit while standing, or standing further back. I also still end up with a bit of a slouch on rare occasion - something that was hard to shake from my teenage years.
These things are all pretty habitual for me now, where I don't even realize I'm doing them.
Probably not hitting low doors/beams.
Probably not breaking one's back each time one does the dishes or anything like that (or cleaning or picking low garden stuff), and the result of that after years and decades.
Probably not having one's knees already fucked at 40 (or before).
Probably not falling from higher.
Probably not being embarrassed with where to put one's long members. Probably not being uncomfortable in most means of transport. (Probably not offering a larger wind surface when cycling either.)
And probably not being nicked by the cops each time they have no idea whom to chose amongst 20 people, but they don't want to return empty handed :-D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/short-men-live-long...
The average height of US presidents is 5'11". The shortest president, James Madison, was 5'4' and that was in the early 19th century. Since the beginning of the 20th century average height is 6' even. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_pr...
In short, tall = rich and powerful.
Honestly, apart from air planes, being tall absolutely and utterly rocks.
Then there's the not really fitting in half the cars out there. Or amusement park rides. Or bowling shoes. Or safety equipment. Or saddles for horses.
You might complain that you can't reach things on the top shelf, try having to bend over for everything. Even to use countertops or bathrooms.
How about furniture always being short and forcing your knees to be elevated above your hips when you sit all of the time.
And beds... always too short. Want to stretch out? Only if it's a king and you lay diagonally.
Being tall is perpetual discomfort because this world is made for people of average height.
(J. K., I've never actually done that...)
Clothing options are limited and much more expensive, particularly if you're of above average height and weight. More often then not my clothing purchases are at full retail price because otherwise you have no choice. Sales are for stock items and, because of the limited supply, most big and tall items rarely last long enough to go on sale.
Height doesn't come for free, it requires additional mass and volume. That equates to higher stresses. Shoes and clothes wear out faster. I have to purchase a couple pairs of jeans a year because the knees are constantly tearing out when I kneel or squat which I have to do a lot because I'm tall and our world wasn't designed for tall people.
Medically speaking our bodies are under higher stress which results in more injuries and joint problems. We require higher dosages of medicine. Any special medical prosthesis will cost more. Anesthesia is charged by amount used. Etc...
Lets talk about cars. Immediately discount any econo class car because they don't fit. So regardless of what I want to spend or can afford, my minimum price is set higher.
I'm not sure an extra $800 a year covers all that.
I used to call myself a size 13, but after I started running, either my feet shrank or I became more aware of the fit of my shoes, and I happened to find a size 12.5, which fit so much better.
Then I discovered that most shoes don't come in a 12.5 - they usually only do half sizes up to 12. And when a shoe is made in a 12.5, most stores don't carry it. So now I get to spend a lot of time trying to decide between a 12 that sometimes pinches (whee numb toes) or a 13 that sometimes is too loose (whee blisters) or looking for shoes that run big or small that might not be the style I want/need.
And most stores at least have size 12 and 13 I can try on; I can imagine the hell of finding not just size 16 but size 16 that fit right.
I don't see how that would help your femur-length problem.
But I have a problem with the 18" and smaller widths, and not due to abdominal or hip fat. My shoulders are just too wide -- on some planes, an aisle seat is the only thing that's comfortable unless the person next to me is small or someone I can occasionally take some space from without seeming like a jerk.
Now that I'm in my late-30s and often have occasional stiff shoulders or neck for other reasons, I've started to pay this "genetic tax" of premium seats more and more often.
Perhaps airlines can squeeze more passengers on and reduce fares enough that it covers the cost of having to upgrade your ticket.
Do I get special accomomodations in society for being short? Where's my dating rights lawsuit?
Netherlands: Kinda Tall: 94.6 Percentile
Kinda Tall is probably not something you'd call necessarily rare.
And if you check 6' 2'' (which is my height),
US: Kinda Tall: 94.6 Percentile
Netherlands: Above Average: 82.2 Percentile
So i think my point stands :)
Yes I do expect them to care about tens of millions of passengers being able to fit.
My bigger concern is the issue for traveling for work, which I do quite frequently. It does seem unfair that in order to not be in miserable pain for hours, taller people must shell out of pocket for doing something that is just part of their job. In fact, I wish airlines actually forced taller people to upgrade. That would make it so that my employer and people inviting me to give talks would be forced to pay for the upgrade to economy plus or business class.
But people want cheaper tickets and companies have their rules. I'm not sure there are good solutions other than negotiate something with your company or shell out the extra cash.
Yes, it is a genetic penalty in the sense that tons of things in life are genetic penalties / rewards. Happy with your IQ? Sad about your attractiveness? Have to spend money on acne cream? Have to buy feminine hygiene products? Not seen as attractive by the opposite gender? Sad about your lack of ability to be a professional baseball pitcher?
It's life, get over it.
Not to mention, I'm going to guess that you wouldn't trade your position with someone who's 5'4", even though you'd save a few bucks on flights.
If you go from an Economy Basic seat to a Economy Plus seat I'll pay 125% more. Meaning a $39 seat now costs $90. Does it cost over 100% more to fly an over six foot person than a five foot eight person? No...
currently i pay same price as my 36cm shorter wife, so she has luxurious leg space and i suffer. it could be easily resolved if her seat would moved closer to seat in front of her and they could seat someone tall behind her. now i would be fine paying more becausei am heavier than she and there is nothing we can do about it but that would be at least rational, pay for each kg same as with luggage, but current system giving short people lot of space while they pay same as me and i suffer is not fair and i am subsidizing them with my leg space, while they get extra inches they don't need because airlines are not flexible
What exactly is causing you this great discomfort? Personally the act of sitting down for so long is far more painful than anything my height causes.
I'm 1.97 (I think 6'6" according to some random website) and long-haul flights are torturous to me, I always end up with knee and leg pain, and definitely don't feel identified with "the act of sitting down for so long is far more painful than anything my height causes". It's more comfortable for me to sit on a train (good legroom) for 4X hours than on a plane for X hours (whether I can afford the extra time is another story).
i would propose except paying for seat apparently paying for weight, your already have to pay for heavier baggage anyway, why not pay more for weight, you can at least influence that unlike height
"Modern" regular airline seats are a nightmare for people over 6' tall.
"The Embraer offers one of the best antidotes to the shrinking seat in Jet Blue’s “Even More Space” rows. The pitch between rows – that’s the measurement between one seatback and the next – is 39 inches, plus one of the widest seats at 18.5 inches. The regular coach seat is the same width but the pitch is reduced to 32 inches, in itself not that bad.
... Delta has also annoyed Boeing by placing a huge order for what is a rare phenomenon: an airplane designed from the start to give coach passengers a big break in comforts, the Canadian Bombardier CS300 ... There are three seats on one side of the aisle and two on the other. Aware of the stigma attached to the middle seat Bombardier made it a tad wider, at 19 inches. The other seats are still a generous 18.5 inches wide. Can you imagine, somebody thought the middle seat should, in George’s words, be made “more tolerable”?"
The reason why the E-jets are so nice is that the big carriers buy them to use on their regional affiliate flights, and the typical pilots' contract puts the dividing line of regional and mainline at 76 seats. So as long as they put exactly 76 seats (or fewer, but that's less common) in the plane, they can farm it out to a much cheaper regional operation and crew. If they put a 77th seat in there, they also have to put a more expensive mainline crew on the plane.
Thus, the E-jets tend to have almost unheard-of amounts of space even in economy, because the airlines have worked out they would lose more money from squeezing seats in and having to pay a mainline crew than they'd make from the extra seats.
You did hit on a good point though. The nice part about the E90 as well is that airlines won't cram in any more seats because they'd have to add a flight attendant as well once they hit 101 seats!
A few months back, I had a pretty terrible experience on a flight when the woman directly in front of me, who was maybe 5'2 and 120 pounds, decided to recline her seat all the way back. It made what was already a cramped flight for me (I'm definitely not 5'2 nor 120 pounds) pure torture. I did all I could to try to convince her to push it up, but she wouldn't.
The flight attendant—this was Delta, by the way, so screw them-sided with the person in front, saying it was "their right" to recline their seat in a way that makes people uncomfortable.
This was on top of a bad flight situation where I was dropped off to a different city than my luggage because my connecting flight was delayed.
The flight attendant tried to appease me with beer. She would have better appeased me had she ignored her airline's policy in what clearly was an unfair situation.
That's the problem with flying these days. They constantly force passengers to choose between one undesirable choice and another, and nobody is happy as a result.
Also, how exactly does the seat in front reclining affect your comfort? Not being able to recline my own seat affects my comfort far, far more than the seat in front of me being reclined.
You have to remember that there are a lot of people on the plane of different shapes and sizes, so what might not bother you might be a huge problem for someone else.
Exactly, that's what I'm saying. It goes both ways.
Was your seat reclined?
There is almost no excuse for not asking before reclining unless it is a very long flight (i.e. 10+ hours) or if the person is that shitty. Sometimes I wish people with that little regard for others would be barred from the privilege of flying :( .
As for laptops, I've completely given up on them on planes. It's just not feasible anymore.
I get it that coach is tight but I shouldn't have to signal to everyone that I plan to recline my seat.
Bonus tip: if there are two exit rows back to back, pick the one in the back. It will be able to recline but can't be reclined in front of.
It's not as if tickets have been getting cheaper, to compensate, either. It's gotten to the point that I simply refuse to fly domestic unless I am forced.
But I think part of it is also location. Some airports are only served by one or two airlines, effectively limiting choice. So the result is that if I wanna get home, I'm stuck riding with the bad airline.
I generally prefer the train when the distance is reasonable enough.
So they could disable recling seats on short flights with no problem.
Airline flying is simply too boring for my brain to be able to stay awake for it.
Personally, I'd be fine with less leg space (despite being 6') if it meant wider seats. I really don't enjoy being shoulder to shoulder or being smacked whenever they roll the cart by.
It's not like I'm taking up a third of the aisle with my shoulder, it's only a couple of inches, but my opinion of the general public is notably worse after a long-haul flight.
The worst part is would they pay for it? The airline obviously wouldn't. Would the passenger? If they refused would the airline give me their info to file a claim? I assume not.
So I'd be stuck buying a new computer - and probably without a computer for part of the trip - while I did nothing wrong.
2. If you damage someone else's property - whether on purpose or by accident - the decent thing to do is try to make it right. Are you required to in many situations? Probably not.. which is the cause of my original comment.
If you put your laptop in the middle of the road and my car runs over it then I wouldn't be making it right, not the best analogy but its a similar shade of grey. Your position that this is either the airline or the guy/gal in front fault, and you've done nothing wrong, is laughable - it's your choice, your fault, was it a shock that the seat in front can recline and the person hasnt got eyes in the back of his head? how is a non-aisle dude even meant to know your using your very important laptop? I can barely move my feet nevermind my neck 180o and 50cm over the headrest..
Now, out of manners, if I noticed you had a laptop when I boarded or after going toilet, I'd probably try to give you a heads up presuming you werent on your noise cancelling headphones too, a brief 'hey dude, Im going recline in 30 seconds' but that's just me being polite, it's not mandated and I definitely don't expect it of the guy/gal in front of me when travelling economy.
Go business, or get company to underwrite the laptop use in economy, or just put it away... I don't think anyone in the seat in front would make you whole for your own careless mistake, anyone?
If it was really pressing down on the top of the laptop's screen with significant force, wouldn't it push the tray table to extend toward you, relieving the pressure? Or are you not opening your laptop beyond 90 degrees?
Now I'm not saying she shouldn't have brought it back up when you asked. I know I would have. But there's no fairness doctrine here.
It'd be unfair if you are the sole arbiter of who gets to recline their seat.
Also, you do not have a right to recline, if there is a baby carrier behind you, you will be unable to.
Yes, my argument breaks down pretty quickly, good point.
As United says, "We know you have a choice of airlines when you fly".
Make sure it's a "Plus" seat though. I guarantee a regular seat will be an exercise in pure misery for the duration of the flight.
It would be silly for someone in this situation not to look.this up before buying a flight (using seatguru or similar). Just like checking the length of the sleeves is a good idea when buying a shirt online.
It's also worth noting that there's just not a lot of variety in seat pitch. It's not like I can book a flight with Long and Tall airlines!
But my point still stands: if someone _knows_ they are too big for most economy seats, and still buys a ticket which doesn't guarantee a suitable seat (because they don't want to pay the price, or because they don't want to change their schedule to a day when such a seat is available, or because they choose an airline which doesn't let them book seats at all) then it's not fair to put 100% of the blame on the airline.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like there to be a wider variety of seat sizes in economy (maybe smaller folks like me could get a cheaper ticket for a smaller seat!).
Which is the root of what the original comment was asking for. The rest was anecdotal of a bad experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knee_Defender
I guess at some point someone popularized the notion that people reclining in front of you is a form of disrespect and it stuck in people's minds. I'm over 6ft tall and I hate coach seats as much as anyone (and living in South America, flying is usually an endeavor taking over 8 hours a pop) but I have never felt that the person reclining in front of me was wronging me in any way.
It might have to do with the usual brevity of domestic flights within the US (also leading to the colorful concept of a "redeye" flight).
If people make a fuss, and demand laws or government regulation for minimum dimensions of passenger spaces, that will establish a minimum floor on flight prices, but it will also ensure that everyone can be accommodated equally. If it's a race to the bottom anyway, it might be a good idea to build a floor at a reasonable height above rock bottom. Short and narrow people can then resent taller, fatter people for raising their fares instead of tall people getting angry about reclining seats.
Delta has an 11% net income margin, a reasonable and normal profit level. $8.9 billion in net income on $80.3 billion in sales the last two fiscal years combined.
Southwest has a similarly solid profit margin. American Airlines would be similar, were it not for their debt load and some non-recurring hits (as it is, their net income margin is closer to 7% to 8%).
Keeping in mind these are net income margins, meaning after taxes. American Airline's operating income margin is closer to 13%. Delta's operating income margin was quite nice given the space, at 17.5%.
The comedy is, the same oligopoly that enables them to now be able to afford to significantly improve the customer experience, is what is likely to ensure they have no interest or need to do so. Perhaps there is still enough competition between the majors to drive that, given they're all relatively flush with cash and profits.
I'm arguing that the lack of competition is shafting consumers because the free market can't express buyer preference when our preference isn't on the market - and that the status quo encourages airlines to not to compete by introducing a new variable.
More likely the sliding seats just weren't very good.
Essentially the seat did slide forward and the back moved down with it, but the problem was that the belt was fixed in place in the seat shell. For me that had the effect of driving the belt into my kidneys if I moved the seat more than a few degrees off fully upright.
If the person behind you bumps you continually, recline your seat.
Actually reminds me of a crazy bitch that insisted that I don't push my seat down, while at he same time had her seat pushed down (guess it is called "maximizing space"). But this was nothing that could not get fixed with a short yelling at her.
It's the rear most exit row aisle seat (I've developed some kind of flight anxiety/claustrophobia and medically need the sightline space of the aisle) which can recline, but the ones in front cannot.
When that happens you're stuck with the situation of having your knees caps smashed, just so someone can tilt their seat back a few degrees.
It's a very strange situation to agree that someone should have a small privilege to the discomfort or even pain of someone else.
It's a bad design choice with such limited space to add functionality that complicates an already tenuous situation.
This forum is one that frequently discusses issues of inefficiency and good design. How is it that these seats, specifically their unnecessary ability to decline, aren't seen as an example of bad design? Very few seating options need reclining capabilities, especially on short flights.
if you think just because you have right to do something it's ok to do it i feel sorry for people around you
- Stand for 30 min, then sit for 30 min or so. You will be surprised by how much better you feel by the end of the flight. I just grab Kindle and read it standing in the isle on domestic or walk to the back of the plane on widebody international flights (usually there is space there).
- Use inflatable pillow like this one https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06WVR48SW. You will get much better sleep with it
Though flight attendants probably don't give a
I never recline (6'1) if I have to fly coach. It's disruptive to the person behind me, either their legs or if they are trying to work on a computer. Saying "it's their right!" is just a proxy for doing the reasonable and personable thing.
It doesn't seem that complicated, actually at least French trains have solved this by making reclining seats slide down their frame (and forward) instead of actually recline backwards into the rear passenger's space. It works really well, and the result is that reclining uses the reclining person's space and cannot bother anyone else.
However, these trains have more leg space and sturdier seats than regular planes, so maybe it's more difficult to achieve on a plane?
Also, if the seats slide downwards, does that impinge on the small luggage space underneath the seat for the person behind?
But yeah, the seats are probably bulkier.
That's really bad. Down here in Europe, most good airlines have gone bankrupt, with people preferring budget carries with their shitty service. And even there, i usually pay as little as $25 or so to get emergency exit row with great (~36") pitch as opposed to standard 29"! Seats - just 12 per plane - are nearly always available! People absolutely vote with their money for the service as shitty as it gets. And that's not because they don't have money - they travel more and more, airlines are booming - they are just that scrappy and don't respect themselves. Bad.
I may sound like a commie but at times i feel that the government must step in and mandate some decent minimum standard of service, like minimum seat width not being narrower than standard on 737 (to prevent airlines from squeezing 8 in a row on 767 or 10 in a row on 777), and minimum 32" pitch. It would be impossible for any particular airline but will be easy for them as a whole. With tickets being so ultra cheap as they are now, nobody will even mention the extra 10 euros per leg or so.
Imagine if regulation required describing the seat with a couple of factors such as the "pitch", the width of the seat, and/or the total volume of space dedicated to the passenger. When shopping for tickets, instead of displaying purely the cabin class, the tickets would be characterized by their space and comfort (measured objectively).
Consumers might think twice before selecting the ticket that's cheaper by $25 if they can see up front that it has 3 inches less legroom.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1...
Yes, the frequent flyers know this stuff by heart.
I just wish the airports had better chairs for napping during long layovers. The airplane has a fixed amount of space, but what the hell is the terminal's excuse? Even the VIP lounge is still upright chairs. Rent me a freaking hammock.
After three? four? hours, my legs have fallen asleep, and I'll need to deal with the inevitable discomfort of waking them up again. Sleep is impossible: the seats offer no neck support, the bulkhead is hard and not built for sleeping on; trying to lie on the tray table causes my intestines to tie themselves into gas filled knots.
> In emergencies, the Federal Aviation Administration requires fully loaded planes be emptied in 90 seconds or less.
Well, the FAA is being ignored then. I just can't see that happening.
Keep them in their seats for 3 hours, knees jammed into the backs of seats, passengers with laptops and blankets and slippers, some of them asleep - and then see if you can evacuate a plane in 90 seconds.
Cheap flights, big seats. Choose one.
I'm wondering if this it's mostly the US airlines that are becoming worse in this respect. Even the European ones (excluding budget airlines like Ryanair) have not been gotten worse as far as I have observed.
In business class their seats fold into a flat bed, except on some older planes.
Thinking of the magic of flight in broad strokes, I can see how you'd call that going across the Pacific, just not quite literally.
It used to be that everyone paid a little more, but it was mostly a tolerable experience to fly. Now, <5% of the plane pays anywhere from 3-10x the economy fare to be comfortable and everyone else is packed like sardines.
This is like income inequality, but with planes.
Yes, more than that, at least inflation-adjusted.
That leaves meal delivery and baggage as two problems to solve. I think the first could be solved with a sliding panel near the head. I think baggage could be put on top of the row or two closest to the aisle.
May be more kinks to iron out (getting in/out) but the thought of laying flat on a long flight sounds so heavenly I'd be willing to suffer other issues. Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/business/a-lesson-in-air-s...
I don't think you could safely stack three of these, but it's going to be more comfortable on long flights.
They could be attached to each other and the roof as well.
It might be even easier to stand up with a good design.
I'd be happy lying in a large coffin in the luggage compartment for 7-8 hours. Would actually be far more comfortable than economy class.
Considering the FAA refused to test if current seat pitch was safe during evacuation, until a judge forced them, safety has been ignored on this issue for a long time[0].
[0] http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/29/news/companies/faa-airline-s...
The article ends saying, "The agency so far has allowed airlines to determine how to size and space their seats, but any arrangement of an airline cabin must allow all the passengers and crew to evacuate within 90 seconds." It's long been my understanding that every potential airline seat configuration must pass an FAA evacuation test before it's allowed in service.
I increased the likelyhood of this happening to me by buying the cheapest tickets possible for a range of multiple weeks (not enough customers) and for always choosing a window seat in the last few rows. Often the seats where crowded in the beginning of the airplane but at least one middle seat was empty in the back.
So maybe on the large planes they should have a wide range of seat sizes designed to match that distribution, and then sort passengers into their seats based on the passenger heights and weights.
>> sort passengers into their seats based on the passenger heights and weights.
Pair of businessmen say that asking passengers to step on the scales at the check-in desk is discriminatory.Don't get me wrong. We often decide it's right for healthy people to pay for the unhealthy. I just want to make sure you agree that's the issue.
If I had my way, I'd pay double to have half the seats removed. But something like that doesn't exist. You either sit with the common folk, or pay 5-10x to sit in first class with catered service.
I don't want to be catered to specifically, I just expect services to cater to a range and not the smallest possible. I've never found a bus seat I physically can't sit in, so I'll use that as an example.
Yes. I remember some Pacific island airline making the news when it briefly considered charging tickets by passenger weight. It makes sense other me, but I guess some folks think that's rude.
The back of the seat curves forward, with the headrest being forward of the lower back. My neck gets sore just sitting upright sometimes, much less sleeping. Also, there is nothing keeping your head upright; some seats allow you to fold in the sides of the headrest, but the folded part is so far to the side that it really doesn't support my head.
Compare airplane seats to automobile seats, which are much more comfortable for sleeping.
Similarly, more airlines should adopt "avatar" selection feature like Virgin airlines - choose to travel among singles, party people, professionals, old or people with kids. Shoving everyone into single monolithic space is pointless.
Finally, adding vending machines would save some costs and stop that demeaning politeness and hospitality theatre.
I don't travel to the US now so I don't get to fly Virgin anymore, but I was really sad when I heard Alaska bought them.
If the House Bill passes, the reconciled version that will be sent to the President should have this requirement.
Solution mode on.
How difficult would it be to get a law passed that effectively deals with this? E.g., by requiring that each passenger should have at least 1 inch of space between their knees and the next seat, or else their money back plus compensation.
How to approach this? A petition? Letters to MOCs/MPs?
PS: budget airlines have these "bag testers" (e.g. [1]), where you have to measure your bag before you can take it on board. Wouldn't it be great if passengers had a "seat tester", which could be a 1 inch wide measurement stick that should fit between your knees and the seat in front?
Not really. Right now if you need 5% more leg-space, you need to upgrade to business class, and pay 300% more for your ticket. That's not what I would call "a choice".
- Reduce the seat pitch a bit, say by 10%.
- Make the seat narrower by an inch or two.
- Get rid of the perks, like priority check-in and priority boarding. And the occasional promotions, like a Mercedes to pick you up at home.
- Give me the same meal and baggage allowance as premium economy.
- Have one fewer flight attendant.
More of us will be able to afford such a business class.
There's currently too huge a gap between (premium) economy and business. It's almost as if you can travel by a bullock cart or a BMW, with no options in between.
I wish someone would open snooze airlines.
There are also problems with getting the FAA to approve the layouts and safety features for sleeping passengers.
I found this great Quora thread on the same question, with some interesting history and thoughts https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-any-sleeping-seats-mul...
Apparently FAA regulations requires people to be sitting up for takeoff and landings so that adds a bit of a wrinkle too.
Apparently FAA regulations requires people to be sitting up for takeoff and landings so that adds a bit of a wrinkle too.
That was my assumption too but I have yet to find any documentation of that anywhere. I've flown since I was 18 and a good portion of my family are Captains or F/As and they haven't run across that either. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
I think a niche airline might be able to make it work, but since running an airline is basically a no margin business, it's not worth taking the risk.
It doesn't bother me too much. I would rather pay 10% less than have a 10% bigger seat.
This way the businessmen who care and want to pay for business class can fund the airline, so that I can pay the bare minimum. Airlines are expensive enough, let's not force them to increase seat sizes so they have to raise their prices.
I do feel bad for tall people though.
Why?
I agree, I'm above average in height (but not super top 5% tall)
Also most airlines I use allow to pay extra for more leg room but I don't, prefer to save a buck.
It sucks if you're tall in this case, but there are benefits to being tall, like higher wages, higher IQ, larger dating pool.
All thanks too my legs.
I accept thow that my flights are just not that cheap and i have to get the emergency exit or the premium eco.
No f'ing way for $100, or even $1k. I'm 6'5", 250 LB. I'm dreading a 5 hour flight next week.
Southwest has the best legroom; my knees are only slightly jammed into the seat. Those CRJ-700 regional jets; I cannot physically sit down. Fortunately those usually have economy +. I told my work if they give me any trouble for booking that seat, I'll file an OSHA report.
Aircraft seat design is literally a form of murder, though it'll never be prosecuted.
Their goal is to make ever-increasing profit, and they will get more and more efficient at it.
Whenever an article like this comes up I am shocked that it is "news". I thought everyone knew by now things are not what they used to be because everyone is trying to make more money. That is how the Western world functions. The sooner you get used to it, the better.
American consumers routinely choose lower-priced tickets over those on more-comfortable airlines. And when ticket prices go down, Americans fly more.
The real price of a ticket has fallen consistently since at least the 1980s [1]. Full-fare (i.e. first-class refundable) ticket prices today remain around where any ticket price was a few decades ago.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/1...
I guess care was taken to adjust for shorter (and hence cheaper) flights? If short flight started to become more common, I would expect the average price to fall, even if the ”actual" price stayed constant.
I guess they did, but not completely clear from the graph.
The graph shows per-mile costs of flying [1].
If we measure same-route costs, we find "in the 50s, a flight from Chicago to Phoenix could cost $138 round-trip — that’s $1,168 when adjusted for" 2014 prices [2]. A quick Kayak search shows that route now flies for as little at $65 on Frontier or about $120 on e.g. United. That's a 95% price reduction at the lowest tier.
(A P-class full-fare ticket on Delta is about $500. Given $138 in 1955 bought as much as $1,265 today [3], that's still a 60% real price reduction.)
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-air...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/15/air-travel-1950s_n_...
er, it certainly is cheaper than the 80s, but not sure what you mean by consistently there. Look at that graph post 2002.
Airlines are not a very profitable business, and never have been. Most of the time they are flirting with bankruptcy or in bankruptcy.
"I thought everyone knew by now things are not what they used to be because everyone is trying to make more money."
People have always been trying to make more money. It's more that each corporation has more staff dedicated to wringing every last drip from the wet rag. e.g., the biggest supermarkets are most optimised and packed with marketing, loyalty incentives and more. Airlines pack in more seats, have in-flight shopping, etc.
"The sooner you get used to it, the better."
This point might've come across as "you have no choice." Probably more a matter of understanding the realities of finely-tuned capitalism and realising that you have choices. You can pay a premium for a better seat, for example. You can fly a cheaper airline and forgo checked baggage or in-flight meals/snacks.
Oh for sure. I didn't mean "you have no choice", I meant "everything in your life is optimized to make more money, so don't be surprised when they change to move towards that goal.
Packages of food are getting smaller, you check yourself out at the supermarket, you don't get plastic bags for free... the list is endless. It's the way the world works, so don't be surprised, and certainly it's not "news".