Oh yes, the joys of a cramped 737 with the added benefit of in-flight nose dives. The post-9/11 trend of every domestic flight being a 737 (or Airbus equivalent) is generally just as bad as TSA.
Boeing needs to come out with a redesigned medium-range narrow-body airliner that doesn't hug the ground, has ample leg room and overhead bin space, and sell it domestic carriers as the future of air-travel instead of releasing the airplane equivalent of Windows XP Service Pack 8.
Another option is to high-mount the wing.
You do know that the seat spacing isn't fixed by Boeing, it's adjustable by the airline. Boeing can introduce a plane with 60" seat pitch and the airlines will just turn it into 30" and pack in twice as many passengers.
Same with seat width. The 787 was originally designed for eight-abreast, and many airlines turned it into nine-abreast.
It's an airline industry problem, not a Boeing or Airbus problem. Most seats are purchased primarily on price.
I can't afford first class, so my response is less travel. A lot less travel.
And we have a race to the bottom because there's no standardization, so the prices can be gamed like this.
An airline ticket needs to be defined to provide a minimum, standard set of amenities; and at a minimum airfare search sites need to highlight tickets that don't meet that standard as nonconforming.
I won't avoid the plane forever -- but I will certainly give it a few years before I fly in one. Better safe than sorry.
Many regulators around the world were willing to accept the FAA's approvals rather than do their own certifications. Many of those will no longer do so. The EU has already signaled this: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/europ...
> But he said such a new review was necessary because there were parts of the original MAX design that EASA “had not completely certified ourselves, because we had delegated some of the tasks to the FAA.”
Additionally, I expect Boeing's self-certification privileges (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-the-faa-al...) to be dramatically curtailed.
> In practice, one Boeing engineer would conduct a test of a particular system on the Max 8, while another Boeing engineer would act as the FAA’s representative, signing on behalf of the U.S. government that the technology complied with federal safety regulations, people familiar with the process said.
Yes, and that's great for those other nations. I live in the US, though.
The second point - that Boeing's ability to have their own engineers act as the FAA's representatives is likely to go away or curtailed - protects you, too.
Nonetheless, I'll avoid flying on that plane for a few years regardless, just for my own peace of mind.