I expect to be able to sit in my seat without having my knees crushed? How about that for a start?
As far as I understand, the reason for this is that foreign airlines are not allowed to fly US domestic routes, and most US people don't fly international which means they don't know that things could be better.
It also seems like people in the US to a greater extent than other countries only cares about ticket price, which means that even if an airline wants to improve their quality they can't use it to compete because customers will simply not see them, since they sort by price on the travel site and pick the first one on the list.
With regards to quality, do airlines in other places generally provide more bang for the buck or are they just generally more expensive than US flights to provide for the higher quality?
That said, flights throughout Asia at distances similar to US domestic flights tend to be reasonably cheap.
I decided to make a comparison:
Fly Singapore Airlines from Singapore to Hong Kong. This will cost you 225 USD in economy.
A domestic US flight of the same distance would be San Francisco to Albuquerque on United Airlines. This flight will cost you 468 USD.
So it seems to me that Singapore Airlines is able to provide better quality at much lower cost. Perhaps the US airlines simply don't have to be better because there is no one that shows it can be done?
A better comparison with about the same distance in the US is New York to Miami, which can be done nonstop for under $200 on Delta, or $135 on whatever "Frontier" is.
EDIT: In fact you can go from New York to Las Vegas for under $200, round-trip, which is considerably farther.
My point was that even though the regular flights are similarly priced in the US and Asia, the quality in the US is so much worse. I now see that my attempt at explaining this discrepancy had some flaws, but what other explanations do you suggest?
The fact seems to be that even the best US Airlines are significantly worse than the ones in other places. When the best rated ones are hovering around average, there is something wrong.
It's probably important to be specific when I say "quality." By that I'm referring to ease of purchase, fair baggage prices, web/app UX, on/off-flight customer service including pilot communication with passengers, and even landings (as a pilot, I am absolutely judging beyond "did we get to the ground safely or not"). Price and seating are secondary for me, although I certainly understand why they are list-toppers for others.
I suspect flying up front on any of the majors is fine. Economy experience is driven by a race to the bottom price-wise, but if you want cheap travel, it’s readily available. If you want comfortable travel, that’s also on offer.
I flew Frontier the first time this Spring - was helping ferry an open cockpit biplane from Colorado to Illinois - and it was a stupid cheap one way fair. I really can't think of a single perk Frontier did not try and up charge a fee for. Boarding, luggage, carry on, seat assignment... I'm sure there were others. Funny enough, the guy I was ferrying with also picked the cheapest seats in the plane, so we ended up next to each other on the flight out. I was fully prepared too wear the kevlar helmet on the flight rather than pay the $60 carry on fee.
What's so awful about United?
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/22/a-lack-of-compe...
Ryan Air, EasyJet, and other discount airlines suggest that Europe cares significantly more about price.
I'm not so sure people do it any different elsewhere. I mostly fly in Europe and have definitely never considered anything else than price and suitable flight times. I consider all airlines to provide the same standardized service. Yes I'd pick BA over Ryanair, but wouldn't pay extra for it.
A lot of people I know and myself choose to pay more for a better experience.
It's not always about the race to the bottom in my opinion.
You wouldn't think being obese would impact knees not having enough space, but my ass shrank in multiple directions and I have about four to five inches of free space now between the seat in front of me and my knees. Unless you're much taller than I am, it's likely that losing weight will not just help with your health, but make flying more comfortable.
If you are taller, well, life sucks for us tall people in many ways and we can't expect airlines to build comfortable seats for people two or three standard deviations beyond the normal height.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
There more certainly is a statistically average height.
> Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions.
This article is comparing 10 dimensions of variability and we're talking about just one here, the one you yourself mentioned, height.
On many leisure routes from Toronto there is very little choice in flights either, so pay more means pay their business class rate which is quite expensive, or well go some very complex non-direct routing.
All of these options are horrible.
What you’re probably thinking of is the US airline specific “comfort/extra/plus” add-on that is priced 10%-20% extra. There is a few more inches legroom but the seats are the same small economy seats.
The former uses larger seats and is typically available on long-hauls. The seat is somewhat similar to old-style business class seats, or modern domestic first class seats. It is not priced at 10% extra, it is usually close to double.
The latter is priced at around 10% extra, but is the same old economy seat just with a couple of inches more legroom.
It would be nice to have to pay only 10% extra to get 10% more space, but the lack of scaling is by design on the airlines part, and textbook market segmentation.
Edit: this article has pictures showing the difference: https://www.cntraveler.com/story/whats-the-difference-betwee...
This is either a triumph of choice, markets, and abundance or grim, barbaric end to flight as uplifting experience.
It's also safer than it's ever been.
We can each decide, I suppose.