Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable
latimes.com
latimes.com
Reclining, though, is a silly feature on coach airline seats. At best, you temporarily get more room at the expense of the person behind you. Until the person in front of you reclines. Reclining seats when the seat pitch is so tight is just dumb.
Oh, and if you get the paywall: http://archive.is/vqTNf
Honestly, I just want to be knocked unconscious, stacked up and strapped down like firewood with others, and then woken up upon arrival. Flights would get so cheap and there wouldn't be any need for any amenities. I think I just hate the fake comfort that airlines try to give us. I'm never really going to enjoy sitting in a little seat inside a metal tube so just cut it with the forced nostalgia of the golden age of air travel and just get me to where I need to be a quickly and cheaply as possible. I'm flying overnight to Europe soon. The plan is to just take a couple anti-histamines and so I don't have to experience any of the flight.
That 45 degree upward incline in both directions is a bitch.
If the price sensitivity tradeoff of customers ultimately dictates that these standing seats do not gain adoption, I would not be surprised.
History has shown that customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort, but complaining all the while.
Really customers have about as much choice in the comfort of a flight as they do in the cost of health care services.
For years it has been "pay 4 times as much as economy or suffer", in the last ten years they've introduced "basic economy" which at least is realistic.
I might rather fly in a widebody on a domestic flight but I don't get the choice. One reason you hate to fly is that you hate to fly in a 737 (or A320) and you never get to fly in anything else so you just don't know it could be better (at a lower cost per seat mile!) in an A220 or E195.
I've flow from NYC to Chicago $90 round trip. It's incredible how inexpensive flying as become.
* not getting groped by the T.S.A.
* not having to book a flight a month in advance to get a good price
* paying less
* being treated like a human being
It bothers me that we tolerate various personal possessions (in this instance privacy) being taken away and then given back, generously (/s), for a small fee. I would rather be groped and spoken down to then hand more information/money over to another poorly-managed organization.
Moreover, the Airline-Security group has always been reactive rather than proactive. I don’t see how TSA pre-check prevents anything in the first place. What’s to stop someone from deciding at some point after the Pre-Check process that they want to create havoc on a flight? Nothing. Then we’ll have Super-Pre-Check, for only $190 and this time you “only have to” give a DNA swab. Sorry for the cynicism, etc, but I doubt I’m alone in calling the whole thing a facade.
Anyway, I forgot my initial point, but there’s my rant.
These flights went through what is now American's hub in Philly.
I thought, gee, I'd like to take my son to Philly but then I found they charged $400 for the flight from ITH to PHL.
When the pricing obviously is disjoint from the cost to provide the service, the airline industry just can't expect us to take anything they say about pricing and service seriously. It's just like it is with these pharmacy benefit managers.
I see options to sort by price, by airline, by number of minutes in the air, or by number of transfers, but I've never seen the option to sort by seat pitch. Half the time, it's nearly impossible to even figure out what kind of aircraft it will be.
I choose by price because it's the most relevant of the limited and mostly useless options that we're given.
Personal space is a competitive advantage. Hotels get this. The website for the nearest hotel to me has a top-level "ROOMS" page, with photographs and square footage of every room. I will pay a little more because I know what I'm getting. With air travel, I have no way of knowing which flight will pack me in like a sardine, so I might as well save the money and spend it on a hot meal at the end to recover.
For instance, Boeing has dumped 737 MAX planes (and duped regulators, endangered passengers, ...) to fight off advanced competitors such as the A220 and Gen2 E195.
Smaller less-capitalized companies have done the right thing and embraced innovation, somehow Boeing decided that international widebody passengers deserve better planes but that narrowbody passengers should suffer and that neoliberals will parrot that "there is no alternative".
Modern airliners can be smaller than the 737 bit have much better passenger comfort and lower seat-mile costs. Boeing has to let up on the anti-competitive behavior for that to happen.
There are always those customers who would be willing to sit in the luggage hold or lay in the overhead bin or hang onto the wing to save $10.
But these new seating choices remind me of my train travel through Poland in the late 70's on my way to the USSR. I bought a first class ticket to Ukraine from Warsaw and when it pulled into the station there were people climbing through windows while folks used the doors to exit. By the time I got to my 1st class cabin there were about 15 people in there (seating for 6 comfortably). I had to stand in the aisle for about 8 hours overnight hanging on. Good Times...Good Times....LOL...
Edited to add: what about people with disabilities? Can elderly people no longer fly? Or even if they have a few sitting seats to comply with disability regulations, what happens if you sprain your ankle at some point between booking your flight and boarding?
If my grandmother needs to fly, do we have to upgrade both her seat and someone else’s in the family to something twice as expensive so someone can help her with the various things she can’t do for herself any more? Or upgrade the whole family if we want to sit together?
Current cattle class seats aren’t comfortable. But they’re accommodating to the elderly and people with disabilities or injuries. If some seat shuffling is required to accommodate a special case it’s usually just shifting people between aisle and non-aisle seats, not downgrading them to standing seats so someone else can sit.
In addition the new Delta legroom of 23" (including the depth of the seat!) will make it impossible for me to sit down. My knee is 25" from the seat (I just measured it). With existing 29" 'seat pitch' cabins, I have to splay my legs or sit sideways.
I guess it'll be the train for me.
...
Subways and other forms of light rail are common in large cities and have a lot of ridership. But these are not typically very plugged into broader rail network. Only a few of the major cities like Chicago or New York have shared stations for local and non-local train service. Taking a train between metropolitan areas us very uncommon outside of the east coast corridor.
For my part, I travel between Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago quite often. I've done it once all by train, just to see what it was like. I can park my car at the Mall of America, take the light rail over to the Amtrak station, then the train down to Union station in Chicago, then a commuter train out to my destination in the suburbs. All told... it ends up taking 12+ hours, and costs about the same as the plane ticket down there. The Megabus is way cheaper, and takes about as long. I could just make the 6 to 8 hour drive, which gives me maximum flexibility. Passenger rail face some stiff competition.
But I'm 5'10 with a healthy BMI. It's interesting that the airlines have effectively made height a disability, and what sort of responsibilities airlines have towards making their flights accessible.
Of course you don't.
Movement rather than standing or sitting still is the way to go.
Add in a tiny crisis or delays and the close space could cause unexpected mob behaviors.
Also, how would you pick up something if you dropped it; or eat?
The free-air to passenger ratio would diminish making body odors could get much more intense. Unexpected delays anyone?
Where is this? In much of the US, there are only two airlines. Some lucky Americans might get to pick from three or four airlines. Airlines in the US are not really competitive in any meaningful way - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/22/a-lack-of-compe...
All American Airlines has to do is announce they're eliminating seats, and Delta and United would probably match them within 3 to 6 months.
Yes, in a free market. Airlines are expensive and heavily regulated. And regulators are subject to capture (ref: FAA and 737-MAX problems). Which means there are major barriers to building a new airline.
I suspect it's actually much more profitable for airlines to follow the profit-seeking lead of a competitor. E.g. if Delta rolled out the standing seats for their current price, I suspect we'd see United and American follow. You don't have to look too far to see that's been the case with other "conveniences" like bag check fees, bag weight limits, seat selection fees, food for sale instead of being included in the price, etc.
No, they’re going to make this the new default setting. The regular crappy seat you enjoy today will become the “economy premium” option and cost more.
> If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it.
Assuming they go where you’re going in the timeframe you’re expecting. And assuming they don’t just move in lock-step with their other competitors and make these new seats the default.
Well then they wouldn't be competitors, would they? That's another problem.
Any single airline could disrupt the system by choosing not to install these and to keep their prices the same. Or choosing to install these and lower their prices. Which are two good things for consumers.
Like I replied above, that's basic economics of competition.
Airlines have, as a whole, found that it's more profitable to sell cheaper crappy seats than it is to sell more expensive nice seats, because nobody will buy the nice seats given the option.
If someone had superior seats, why would they charge the same amount?
What I'm trying to say is that if someone comes out with a crappier seat, they will have to charge less than a normal seat. If they choose not to, they won't be able to get people into those standing seats.
When a company comes out with a crappier car, do they charge the same amount as a standard car? Does the price of that standard car rise, now that there's a crappy car at its price point?
If Delta decides to implement these seats and then charge 2x as much for the current seats, United will choose not to and nobody will fly Delta unless they absolutely have to.
Competition keeps this sort of thing from happening.
That's nonsense. Especially in long haul flights, business class is in fact more comfortable and has more amenities than it did 20-30 years ago with lie-flat seating, on demand entertainment, etc. Traditional domestic business class is about the same as it ever was while economy has mostly seen a decrease in seat pitch. (Economy Plus--which differs by airline--is more like what regular economy used to be.)
It was physically far more comfortable to fly, in a way that’s now a available only in business class. All those characteristics would now be considered business class amenities, and aside from a little more legroom (not even approaching what used to be standard in economy unless you’re on an exit row) are unavailable in premium economy on any flight I’ve taken recently.
You got warmer blankets and larger pillows. They would hand out amenities like headphones and playing cards for free. And you could put about twice as much into the overhead.
Ok, on demand entertainment is new in business class, but that’s about technology rather than cost savings, and it’s available in economy everywhere these days too. And for me at least, not much of an upgrade. I’d far rather watch the specific things I’ve brought on my own electronics, read a book, or do work.
Aforementioned Delta Airlines had $1.3bn in PROFITS last year, so not sure about razor-thin margins.
Meaning all they'll see is "Ultracheap: $50" Vs. "ComfortAir: $80" and pick the $50 option because that's all the information they're given.
You want to sell a nicer class of service, you need to change the entire industry to communicate it.
If you have a bad knee, you might not be able to bend it. If you are old and have a bad back you might not be able to stay in a such a seat for long.
This is going to cause trouble.
If Delta removes that ability, I'll start flying with them exclusively. Have back problems? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
I'd obviously also support regulation for minimum seat space sizes, but that will never happen in America.
Have freakishly long legs? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
I like this game. :)
Real enemy here is the airlines and the lack of regulation.
For long haul economy I often cannot sit normally and usually they put me somewhere better except if it is a very full flight. Then it is absolute suffering. My last 10 hr flight was in a seat that was cramped against some divider screen and because of that the table was much smaller and I could physically not unfold it so it was impossible to eat or drink without spilling and it was too cramped to sleep. The staff absolutely did not care. It is bad news if you have to fly long haul on a budget...
This line of thinking deserves reflection. Too fat/tall/disabled/female†? Pay more for this condition you probably didn't choose and can't easily "remedy." And if you're lucky enough to not need "extras" to achieve baseline dignity and comfort, you'll certainly have family members who do.
†Granted, this is how US healthcare works…
I fly about 3 times a year domestically in the United States and Delta, American, and United all have a "Comfort or Economy Plus" section with extra legroom. It costs between $50-200 per flight extra but also includes boarding right after first class before everyone else.
For me it is totally worth it. I don't need first class treatment but at my height the extra legroom is absolutely worth the price.
You mean to tell me capitalists are trying to extract more money by increasing capacity (and thus increasing misery)? Please say it isn't so!
/news at 11
I value getting from A to B quickly, I don't mind some discomfort for a few hours if it means it's significantly cheaper.
Thanks for playing though.
Whats the alternative here? A nice fat regulation that all airline seats require 4 feet of legroom? Then we can all fly in absolute comfort! What? The cheapest ticket is $4500? &%^$% Capitalist pigs!
Airlines are a prime example of why the so called free-market can be a terrible thing for the consumer.
Edit: Oh, not to mention just how abusive the check-in fees for luggage are and how they wildly increase year after year.
[1] https://todosabordo.blogosfera.uol.com.br/2018/06/01/1-ano-d... (Title roughly translates to "Ticket prices increases by 6% after luggage check-in fees instead of falling like promised...")