3 Recent Flights Make Unscheduled Landings, After Disputes Over Knee Room 819
The AP reports that American airplane passengers, squeezed by increasingly tight seating aboard planes, are lashing out, actually getting into in-flight fights over knee room: Three U.S. flights have made unscheduled landings in the past eight days after passengers got into fights over the ability to recline their seats. Disputes over a tiny bit of personal space might seem petty, but for passengers whose knees are already banging into tray tables, every bit counts. ... Southwest and United both took away 1 inch from each row on certain jets to make room for six more seats. American is increasing the number of seats on its Boeing 737-800s from 150 to 160. Delta installed new, smaller toilets in its 737-900s, enabling it to squeeze in an extra four seats. And to make room for a first-class cabin with lie-flat beds on transcontinental flights, JetBlue cut the distance between coach seats by one inch.
Anthropometrics (Score:5, Interesting)
Since they have apparently reached the limit of human tolerance, one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights. The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because customers aren't stupid. They smell a price hike from a mile away.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Well that and the details aren't spelled out by the airlines either . When you pick economy the seats may or may not be as advertised. The same airline and the same plane can have different configurations. Dimensions of space aren't listed anywhere when booking a seat.
Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats The airlines are beginning to ignore basic human needs. People need to move around. The tighter and more closed off you make people feel the more likely they are to get into arguments. This is not only true physically, but mentally as well. Arguments lead to fighting.
It is why Cities have always struggled. To many people to close to each other. The wealthy always purchase enough space to make themselves comfortable. However the poor can not and once you get so many people pressed together they fight. That fighting spills outward and you have a riot over a simple issue that is dealt normally dealt fairly.
Re: (Score:3)
> Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats The airlines are
> beginning to ignore basic human needs. People need to move around. The tighter and more closed
> off you make people feel the more likely they are to get into arguments. This is not only true
> physically, but mentally as well. Arguments lead to fighting.
But as long as there are not so many problems as to damage their bottom line, they can just blame the incidents on the passengers
So really, th
Re: (Score:3)
Especially with "failure to obey flight crew" charges as a threat
Maybe if the airlines want to cram so many folks into the space, they should look at preventing the seats from reclining at all. Even with plenty of room (ie, my 3 year old is in hte seat) a reclining seat will do its best to kill a laptop screen. Fortunately, I caught it quick enough to move the laptop, wait for it to be reclined, and reposition laptop so said 3 year old could keep watching Peppa Pig.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Interesting)
Most seats no longer have enough room to open a laptop.
As a frequent flier and 6 ft tall, I can attest that airline seats have gotten to the point of cause widespread pain and suffering, including physical injury. There is not nearly enough competition in the airline industry to lead to improvements driven from capitalism. This is unfortunately the time where government needs to step in for the general well being of society.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Informative)
If you're speaking about european or asian flights then those have overcapacity due to massive government subsidies overbuilding the fleets, not from capitalism.
Who told you that bullshit? EU regulations forbid subsidizing transportation companies.
The reason for european economy flights being comfyer is that we have true competition in Europe, with several dozen companies, as opposed to the US where you have only 3! I choose y flight very carefully based on comfort as well as price!
Oh, and this EU law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
Sorry to bring it to you that way, but your uncontrolled predatory capitalism brought your country into this situation!
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Informative)
But as long as there are not so many problems as to damage their bottom line, they can just blame the incidents on the passengers
Maybe passengers can take the blame for fighting incidents. But probably not other problems that may arise... like medical issues.
It's long been known that flying in cramped conditions leads to a much higher risk of blood clots [nytimes.com] and deep vein thrombosis [wikipedia.org], particularly on longer flights.
The most common recommendation to avoid these problems is to move around more -- both actually getting up and walking around and doing various exercises to move your legs around while you are sitting. Making flights more cramped makes it more difficult to both -- when it's harder for people to maneuver in and out of a cramped seat, they are less likely to do it as often to walk around (particularly for older folks or those with more difficulty moving around, who are more at-risk for these problems). And if you are tall, these new seats may make doing any kind of leg motion in your seat nearly impossible for exercise.
This is not a minor issue. Average treatment costs for a year after a diagnosed case of DVT are $20,000-30,000, not to mention potentially life-threatening complications.
Right now the incidence is significant but still relatively low (maybe 1 in 4500 people who fly). It will be interesting to see if further restricting motion and cramming people in will increase these risks.
And if it does -- then the cost of cramming people into tighter seats is more than just the potential for some disagreements and fights. We may be talking about serious expensive medical problems, potentially resulting from airlines squeezing one more seat in here or there.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless the airline starts putting aircraft registration numbers on the bookings you'd need to also check out something like FlightAware to see which planes usually fly the routes in question.
IIRC the most obvious example of an airline with a large fleet of identical aircraft has non reclining seats
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Funny)
However the poor can not and once you get so many people pressed together they fight.
The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Interesting)
The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)
I know you're joking, but I would absolutely LOVE that. We just don't have the technology for it yet ... but if we ever perfect safe and cheap suspended animation, this would be the perfect solution for everyone. Airlines can cram 4 times as many people on a single flight, airfare costs half as much, and your journey subjectively lasts a fraction of a second. It's a win-win proposition.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Funny)
When you look at how slave ships were packed, and if you compare that to passenger planes today, the main difference is that on slave ships the slaves were required to do some exercise on deck every day to keep them healthy so they would fetch a price.
Sadly, it doesn't matter what condition you arrive in...
Re: (Score:3)
Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats
It's not the airlines quest for more seats, it's the passengers' quest for even cheaper fares.
If airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket.
Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats
It's not the airlines quest for more seats, it's the passengers' quest for even cheaper fares.
If airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket.
Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.
If airlines were required to advertise seat pitch and width, then consumers could make that choice, but when even consumers that care about it have trouble finding out exactly which aircraft serves a route for their date of travel and what the seat configuration is, it's hard to blame consumers for not taking it into account.
Re: (Score:3)
And post ticket prices in currency units per available seating space. They do this at supermarkets, post prices per standardized weight to permit comparison shopping, why not airlines?
Re: (Score:3)
Lol they'll post the spacing in metric and people in the US will be totally lost. 145mm of room, wow thats a lot!!!
I know you're just trying to make a stupid american joke but as long as all airlines use the same units, the actual units don't matter when making comparisons. Whether it's mm, milli-yards or SBW(standard butt width), consumers can easily pick the larger number if that's important to them.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll just come up with some idiotic pseudo-unit (SBW seems to be quite fitting), and every airline will define it differently just to ensure you can't compare them at all.
Cheapest Ticket (Score:5, Interesting)
This can then open the debate about whether it is reasonable for an airline to charge someone extra just for being tall - something they had no control over and which is gender-biased. After all they don't charge more to provide special meals for those with dietary preferences or religious beliefs and, with the exception of medical conditions, that is a voluntary choice. Nor, I hope, do they charge disabled passengers extra for transporting wheelchairs etc.
Re: (Score:3)
"Stand on Zanzibar", anyone?
Much like "The Sheep Look Up", it's one of John Brunner's novels that has stayed fresh and relevant. The guy wrote a lot of "throw-away", thin novels, but his great stuff was prescient and stylish in a way that has not tarnished with time.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on the city. Some cities are very safe, others are not. Manhattan is very safe generally, other parts of NYC (like the Bronx) are less so. St. Louis, Oakland, and Detroit are the most dangerous cities, while Plano, Virginia Beach, and Henderson have very low violent crime rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There's a lot of interesting info in that link. For instance, WTF is going on in Colorado Springs? It's one of the safest cities for murder, however it's one of the most dangerous cities for rape. Same goes for Anchorage, though maybe that has something to do with Alaska's highly skewed male/female ratio. Lincoln NE is also the same.
Anyway, aside from some oddities like that, if you look through the rankings for various crime categories, you'll generally see the same cities topping the charts for crime: St. Louis, Oakland, Detroit, Memphis, Cleveland, Toledo, Newark NJ, Atlanta, etc. The common factor in all these is poverty: these cities have terrible economies, their industries left decades ago, they're just burned-out shells really and all the people who could afford to leave have left. Some of them do have some industry still left (Atlanta is home to CNN, Newark has some financial industry that spilled over from Manhattan and Jersey City in search of cheaper real estate), but not nearly enough to keep the economy in good shape. The cities that are the safest are either bedroom communities (like Henderson NV) for nearby larger cities (Las Vegas in that case) (Jersey City is like this too, a lot of Manhattanites have moved there in search of cheaper rent), tourist destinations (VA Beach), or have strong economies due to strong industries (San Jose, Portland, Seattle, with tech industry). However, many of the safest cities are smaller cities with less than 500k people, like Plano, Lexington KY, Fort Wayne IN, Lincoln NE, and Mobile AL, which would lend support to the idea that higher density creates more crime.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Funny)
Calling the Springs a "tech hub" is like calling Ft. Collins an "educational powerhouse".
There's some tech there, but I wouldn't consider it a hub by any means.
The reason for the high rape listing is simple. As someone pointed out, it is not only where the Air Force Academy is, but there is also Fort Carson, Peterson AFB, and Schriever AFB. You pair this with changes in FBI reporting and it's not surprise the Springs has that many incidents.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is twofold. I travel a huge amount for work, and I am required to select the cheapest available option (within a window). The only thing that saves me from spending 10+ hours a week in huge amounts of discomfort due to the amount of space is my frequent flier status.. Those extra 5" of legroom are luxury when you travel as much as I do.
How would we know? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no choice. There isn't a "little bit better" choice on domestic flights, even international flights on the same continent. When I fly up to Canada to visit my parents I have two options: Coach or First Class. The prices are VASTLY different, first class is over double the price of coach. Now it is much nicer, wide seats, plenty of legroom, and all the booze you'd like if you are the sort of person who likes to drink. But it is really expensive.
There's no mid-range option. I can't pay 1.2x the coach price for something a bit better. If I could, I would.
So how would they know? I've never seen it tried. If they offered the option and those seats always sat empty, or were full of people who had been given upgrades for no money, then ok, remove them. But they aren't available. Your only options are "cheapest possible" or "waaaaaay more expensive."
Re:How would we know? (Score:5, Informative)
There isn't a "little bit better" choice on domestic flights, even international flights on the same continent.
Of course there is. Lots of airlines have a "little bit better choice" option.
Here's one - About $50 - $75 more on a flight to Canada -
http://www.united.com/CMS/en-U... [united.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Economy plus is the same as seats as economy.
Width-wide, yes - But they have wicked-good legroom which for me, and many other people, is really all the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Exit row seating usually offers a bit more leg room with no reclining seats in front of you. It used to be free, now many airlines charge for it. Therer is no shortage of takers.
I am 6 foot 6. I would rather stand for two hours than try to sit in one of those seats. Only problem is that i am not allowed to stand (I have asked) and on many planes I can't stand up straight anyway. I don't need the knee defender. If you are sitting in front of me, you will not be able to recline your seat.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.united.com/web/en-U... [united.com]
Now. Ask about ticket price.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, ultimately, their job is to carry passengers. That means they need to offer enough space for a passenger to sit in. The airline's only choice is to not shrink the seats any more. This may of course mean price increases for all seats.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
At least one of these "knee jerk" incidents took place in a section of a plane where passengers did pay extra for extra leg room (United's Economy Plus section). The problem is that the more people pay for their ticket the more entitled they feel.
Proposal (Score:3)
Two things come out of this:
- IATA needs to regulate this.
- Leg spacing and seat size should be mandatory provided information in any booking.
On one hand you can argue that the passengers are getting what they pay for, but on the other hand you can also argue that customers don't have this information, at time of booking, to make an informed purchase choice.
At the same time if fights break out often enough, requiring forced landings, then I think people will start realising thi
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Interesting)
one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights
At check-in, United Airlines offers economy seats with much better legroom for a modest upcharge. On a transcontinental flight it's usually around $60 - $70.
I travel a lot for business (60 segments so far this year), often in Economy Plus, and there are usually many seats in E+ available, even when sardine class is completely packed.
People simply refuse to shell out the coin for additional comfort. I think if E+ *were* full you'd see United expanded it until eventually their entire aircraft had room leg room at a higher price.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Anthropometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Anthropometrics (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not even that expensive... there's usually plenty of Economy Plus available ranging from $50-$80 on a cross-country flight, down to $30 on a two hour flight (not exact, just my recollection). Life's too short to worry about $50 and get stuck with your knees jammed into an economy seat for 5 hours -- just pay it if you can. Honestly, if you can't afford the $50, then you probably don't fly long distances very regularly anyway.
Also, for business travelers who don't have elite status, you'd be surprised how many companies out there are willing to pay for extra legroom if you just ask.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup (Score:3)
Plenty of planes I get on and just sitting my knee is touching the back of the seat in front of me - usually get some space by dumping the catalogues from the seat pocket - but I'm not a fan of reclining seats.
Because my knee's on the seat, I can't even slouch to get my legs under the seat in-front (and then the stupid tray won't go flat as it rests of my knees.
I am not a fan of flying on some airlines.
Only really takes an extra inch of leg room to allow me to
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Being tall isn't a choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Having adequate leg room isn't a "premium feature", it's what should simply be standard
"Economy plus" or whatever they call the seats wit normal legroom is the old-school standard. Think of is this way: you can buy a "standard seat" ticket for $350, or an "I don't care how you torture me just give me the cheapest price" ticket for $300. 90% of customers choose the torture option over the standard option, cheap bastards, but you don't have to.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you don't like when airlines lose your luggage? Maybe you're travelling for a short time, and all you need is a small carry-on? I rarely retrieve anything from my carry-on, but I still bring it on the flight because I've had luggage lost too many times.
Re:Anthropometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, you complete fucking genius, not everyone is 5' 2'' tall and of medium build. Why, if you are 6' tall, are you penalised with having to buy a more expensive ticket?
Because physics? Limited volume of space, all costs and profits must come from cargo (that's us) carried within that space. If some require significantly more room then logically it costs more to carry them and therefore it isn't completely unreasonable to charge them more. It's the same logic that's been applied to overweight people and which says larger hotel rooms cost more.
cram lots of people in a confined space (Score:5, Insightful)
and this is what happens. Survival 101: you do not violate my personal space. EVER.
Re:cram lots of people in a confined space (Score:5, Funny)
Amateurs. [wikimedia.org]
Re:cram lots of people in a confined space (Score:5, Insightful)
and this is what happens. Survival 101: you do not violate my personal space. EVER.
What's your "personal space" in this context? Having a button to recline your seat conveys permission to use said button. That said, one uses it judiciously and slowly...and you have the right to do the same.
It's when idiots use something like Knee Defender that the system falls apart.
Re:cram lots of people in a confined space (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What infuriates me the most though is that I've heard more and more that obese people get special status and the ability to use two seats while only paying for one, but tall people get nothing. Obesity is not inherent to the person, height is.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you feel about fat people who spill into the seat next to them? They cry discrimination but as far as i'm concerned, they should have to buy two seats.
Re:cram lots of people in a confined space (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:cram lots of people in a confined space (Score:5, Insightful)
Adequate legroom is not a premium feature (Score:3)
Tall people are free to purchase bulkhead and emergency row seats right now.
So are you. Being tall isn't a choice so why should they be discriminated against if we don't force the 300 pound tub of lard next to us to pay for the portion of my seat he oozes into? After all, being fat is at least in theory a choice. There are times to be a capitalist but not when it involves human decency and dignity.
Adequate leg room isn't a premium feature. It's simple human decency to allow taller than average passengers the ability to sit with reasonable comfort without forcing them to pay more
Re: (Score:3)
Utter bullshit analogy. As is all games-based reasoning.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like an excellent reason to not choose to sit in the last row of an airplane. The seats don't recline and you have a bathroom right next to you.
And everyone on the flight can get first class seating too, right?
You need to design us a concert venue seating say 15,000 people with only front row seats.
Re: (Score:3)
I always wondered why they call it business class when no business I have ever been involved with has ever paid for a business class ticket.
It is class for businessmen (owners, board members, C-level executives), not for lowly peons making business trips.
Today's business class is the 70s' economy class (Score:5, Interesting)
Judging by images like these [fotki.com], today's business class is pretty much what economy class used to be in the 70s. Some argue that flying has become too cheap. I beg to disagree: flying in a humane manner has not become cheaper, it's just that you'd have to book business class nowadays.
Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score:4, Interesting)
Well put. Prices have gone down drastically because of a number of factors.
* Less space per pax
* Better aircraft and engine
* Better utilization of aircraft
* Reduced service (drinks+meals moved to paid ancillaries)
Todays "coach" class really is no more than a bus. If you want comfort, upgrade. Else, suffer in silence :-)
Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score:5, Interesting)
Wish I could upgrade. My company will only book the cheapest fare (X or lower), which usually ends up to be about a $500 fare between Detroit and LAX. Because they won't pay for the upgrade, I have to wait for the day of the flight to do an upgrade, and the last time I tried, they offered an upgrade to business class for an additional $600, or first for $1200. I used to be able to use my miles to upgrade, but Delta changed the rules so that I can only use my miles to book flights. I'm always number 200 on the upgrade list because they take care of the families that got their branded credit cards before me (I only have 200,000 miles -- but somehow the people who never flew before have 250,000 on their account).
The other solution people give is to fly another airline. That's fine if you are in New York or California -- but in the midwest, there are only two to choose from -- United and Delta. Both are in a heavy competition to see who can be worse. Every airport within 250 miles of me only offers one of those two to any destination that is not Florida or Mexico.
But that's ok. I guess I deserve it. Every time I fly my knees swell up and look like and apple after a food fight because the 5' 3" housewife ahead of me deserves to lounge in comfort. I have an appointment to have the cartridge behind my knees to be scoped because they are torn up -- and I don't run marathons or do any activities that would produce that outcome (other than flying a few times a month). Being a healthy 6'4" with long legs is not easy if you need to travel in the USA for your job.
Re: (Score:3)
Wish I could upgrade. My company will only book the cheapest fare (X or lower), which ....
This is actually a core part of the problem - as companies switched to this policy of Cheapest-Fare-Only, and only looking at the immediate costs (and not extras, like luggage, meals, oxygen etc), airline companies got into a race to the bottom in costs (services etc per passenger) without any profitable group to help offset their bottom-line; business customers used to be good money for the airline companies when they traveled Business or First class.
So now we have a setup where the immediate ticket price
Re: (Score:3)
I always take an aisle seat which gives me the chance to stretch my legs whenever I want too.
If you travel for work, flights are often booked late so you may not have the chance of choosing your seat.
However, I don't mind for short flights (2 hrs). Transantlantic flights (+8hrs) are hell.
Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are in the US, please let your company know that they're risking a worker's comp suit by refusing to purchase you the legroom that you need. Protecting the health of employees on the job is not optional. They may not have the same obligation if you're overweight (unless squeezing into the seat is also injuring you), but if you are incurring injuries during the execution of your job responsibilities then the company needs to do what it takes to prevent that from happening, up to and including eliminating travel from your job responsibilities.
People also need to be aware of their body type when booking on their own dime. Cattle class is fine for a couple hours if you're less than 5'10" and less than 160 lbs. I'm small enough to fly across the US in standard economy. But if you're too big to fit in a standard seat, you need to do the right thing for *your* health and comfort.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I still fail to grasp the 'necessity' part. If family is that important then don't live half a planet away from them and then whine about it. Change your priorities because the world isn't going to change to suit you.
Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score:4, Insightful)
That was an advertising photo. You don't think it bore any relationship to reality, do you? Look at airline ads these days. Full of happy, smiling passengers. When was the last time you saw anyone smiling on a plane?
Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think that... then I flew through Asia and the Middle East.
Plenty of leg room, free dinner that was actually tasty, free drinks, the flight attendants treated you like royalty.
But most importantly: The tickets were cheaper.
So one has to question whats wrong with airlines here... why can't they make money? My only conclusion is that the frequent bailouts they've received has allowed them to institutionalize failures in their business models. We need to stop "Saving" industries/businesses. Failure is good for the system.
Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow, airlines have managed to cut salaries by 2/3, raised prices by over 3 times, all but eliminated meals, charge for every extra, and with most other factors like fuel costs, being the same, have managed to lose money while doing it. It is an incredible phenomenon, and some enterprising PhD student could probably figure out how to prove 1=0 if they could apply the business model of airlines to mathematics.
Re: (Score:3)
As an example, I recently flew to China. All on Air China. NYC -> Beijing, Beijing -> Xi'an, Xi'an -> Shanghai, Shanghai -> Beijing, and Beijing -> NYC. That entire itinerary cost about the same as a round-trip flight between NYC and Beijing
Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas (Score:4, Insightful)
Hoo boy. Do you have any idea how much more expensive flying was in the 1970s, before deregulation? [wikipedia.org]
In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
"In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268."
Of course that factoid cherry picked the 1974 fare to coincide with the Arab oil embargo. But current oil prices [cloudfront.net] are actually higher in inflation-adjusted dollars, and a cheap ticket between LA and NY is still around $350.
Of course that's exactly what happened. Because back when the LGA-LAX ticket cost $1442, very few people flew. The fundamentals of weight on an airplane and fuel use means the more people you can squeeze on a plane, the cheaper it is (per seat) to operate. So when federal regulation fixed the lowest airline price at $1442 making it inaccessible to the vast majority of people, the planes were emptier and the airlines could get away with fewer seats.
Air travel is in the state it's currently in because passengers prioritized lower fares over seating space, and the airlines found a way to deliver upon passenger desires. If passengers had demanded lush, business-class seating as you suggest, then that's what airlines would have delivered. Most of the seats on airplanes would be business-class sized, and a LGA-LAX ticket would still be around $1442 (actually, probably higher since current real oil prices are higher than in 1974).
i.e. It's not that current seating is "inhumane", it's that your definition of "humane" differs from what the vast majority of people buying airline tickets consider to be acceptable. Many airlines have premium economy seats [united.com] offering an extra 5-6 inches of legroom at a higher price. A few people are willing to pay for those, but not many. If more people were wiling to pay for those bigger seats, the airlines would put more of them in - unless you're a monopoly, you always make more money giving people what they want.
The fundamental problem with air travel is that it's too fast. People look at that tiny seat and figure they can deal with it for a few hours. If air travel were slower and you were stuck in that seat for a day or two, people would demand more room.
The seats get smaller, while the average person (Score:5, Interesting)
gets both larger, (higher BMI, greater average height), and older, (aging population). Something's gotta give.
I know! How about some shareholders agreeing to make slightly less profit on their investments in order to increase comfort and safety for many millions of people? And how about the food industry agreeing to dial it down on the addictive, fattenning foods they make and push?
Nah, silly idea - forget I said it. What was I thinking?
The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ticket prices should be based on a combo of flying weight and space. Flying weight is passenger plus baggage weight. Space is a function of height/weight of the passenger and dimensions of their bags. If you're really tall, and/or really fat, you're going to pay more for a comfortable seat, but you will get a comfortable, safe seat, and those around you will, too.
It shouldn't be too hard to make aircraft seating configurable for passengers of different weights/heights.
It seems likely to me that cramming seats so close together is a safety issue. I wonder what the wreck stats show about leg injuries.
I see two possible scenarios: (Score:5, Insightful)
1) At some point the cost of diverting flights will exceed the profits generated by cramming more seats into the planes and the problem will correct itself.
2) The airline will figure out a way to shift the cost of flight diversion onto the passengers and the problem will just get worse.
My money is on #2
The local paper had this tidbit (Score:4, Interesting)
The gentleman in question had wanted to use his laptop to update his notes after a business trip, if I recall correctly. He put the gizmo called 'knee defender' so that the passenger wouldn't recline as he worked on his computer. He says he should have handled things differently; he was stunned when 1) the passenger actually poured water on him, splashing a bit on his laptop, and 2) that their plane was diverted over the incident. He also switched to an airline that didn't have reclining seats the rest of the trip
Re:The local paper had this tidbit (Score:4, Interesting)
The gentleman in question had wanted to use his laptop to update his notes after a business trip, if I recall correctly. He put the gizmo called 'knee defender' so that the passenger wouldn't recline as he worked on his computer. He says he should have handled things differently; he was stunned when 1) the passenger actually poured water on him, splashing a bit on his laptop, and 2) that their plane was diverted over the incident. He also switched to an airline that didn't have reclining seats the rest of the trip
Well, to put it more accurately, by installing the device, he removed the ability of the woman in front of him to recline her seat without informing her that he had done so. He noticed the complaint from the woman to the flight attendant that her seat was not reclining and/or the flight attendant asked him to remove the devices, at which time he removed the devices. The woman reclined her seat abruptly, which almost damaged his laptop. Then he pushed back hard on the seat and reinstalled the device, at which time the woman threw her drink at him. The woman was moved to another seat, but the man apparently verbally abused the flight attendant, and this resulted in the diversion. It was probably not his choice to book a different airline that did not have reclining seats, it was probably that the airline refused to book him a continuing flight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/03/air-traveler-at-the-center-of-the-great-seat-reclining-debate-im-pretty-ashamed/ [washingtonpost.com]
So, they've reached the limits of human endurance (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't physically cram people any tighter, and fights are breaking out. Good. When they discover they're losing more on bad PR and flight diversions than they're gaining, they'll put back the inch or two - for a while. Now that they've reached bottom, the floor will just bounce from now on; the came couple of inches continually added and subtracted subtracted every 2-3 years, forever.
As far as blaming people for not buying an upgrade, has anyone saying this actually looked at prices? Last couple of times I flew, I looked into it; a little more room doesn't cost you 10% or 20%, it's more like double or triple the ticket price. Actually habitable travel accommodations are only for the wealthy.
Engineering solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like the pivot for the recline is incorrectly placed. I regularly travel by train, and am then offered the opportunity to recline my seat by releasing a latch and moving the seat forwards. It reduces my own knee space, not anyone elses.
This thread basically proves the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the number of people talking about how this isn't a problem, while simultaneously - gleefully - discussing what they'll do if someone tries to take their room, or someone won't let them take their room, pretty much dismisses any counter-argument to the idea that there isn't a problem.
There obviously is.
my solution (Score:3)
I just bring a car jack, and jack the seat in front of me right off it's rails.
Something's gotta give (Score:3)
I'm wondering at what point are the consumers going to rebel against all of this. The whole luggage debacle has to be included in this discussion too. First, the airlines decided to start charging for checked baggage. The customers responded by not just switching to carry-ons but finding the biggest carry-on possible and getting one for each of their kids too. Trouble is that overhead storage can't accommodate one of these for every passenger so now the extras have to get checked at the door and they don't get charged for this either. The result is more pissed off customers and departure delays. The real question is why this had to happen in the first place. Was it the additional cost of fuel? Unlikely because fuel costs are directly related to weight and the planes know how much they weigh. Is it then the higher cost of fuel? Maybe but if domestic production of oil has been increasing over the past ten plus years and is now surpassing imports to the point of producers wanting to export, why are the fuel costs still as high as they were ten years ago? Or is it labor costs which never go down?
Which leads us to the seating arrangements. Adding 10 more seats puts another roughly $5000 revenue per flight assuming that the flight is fully booked. Would you be willing to pay an extra $33.33 for one inch of legroom? If people aren't willing to spend $25 to check a bag, $33.33 must make people apoplectic. What would you be willing to give up to bring those costs down and the comfort level up?
Reclining should be banned in coach. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I don't even blame these people that much. When someone reclines in front of you on a plane, it is HORRIBLE.
If you want to take a nap on a plane, then upgrade to premium economy or first class. Otherwise, keep your damn seat upright. I hate how reclining is still allowed on flights. Reclining your seat on plane is SO INCONSIDERATE to the person behind you. It jams the seat into their legs, it screws up their tray table angle, and it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the person to get any work done in the plane. The only course of action you have is to ALSO recline your seat to try to re-gain some room, even if you didn't want to. Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright. Awesome.
Honestly I don't know why airlines still have reclining seats in coach nowadays. If they would just eliminate the ability then fights like this would not occur.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably reasonable. The problem is the first time you fly with an airline you have no idea how crammed they are versus the competition. Add to that they keep changing the configuration of the planes and you have no idea. I flew recently to Prague on Air Transit. On the way there the most comfortable I've flown yet other than when in an emergency aisle (and in a way better since the seat in front was close enough that I had access to a usb charger). On the way back: cramped as hell with about 20 3 yr olds in the surrounding 5 rows front and back. Same airline and route 1 week apart. You never know what you are getting for your $1000 and that isn't right.
Re: (Score:3)
You can always lookup your flight on one of the seat rating sites ahead of time (try SeatGuru for example). You'll get a map of which seats to avoid, and data on the seat width and pitch for each airliner. You shouldn't have to "not know" what you're getting for your money if you just do 5 minutes of research.
Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have to use a third-party service to find a basic description of the product you are buying, the market has failed.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll forgo my mod pts today to make a comment on this I've been wanting to say.
What they really ought to be mandated to do is provide physical examples of their seating and storage at the terminal. No more of this guesswork as to what's going to fit in the bin, what's going to fit under the seat, whether or not SirEatsAlot can squeeze into a cattle class seat without "spilling over". No questions as to whether or not my knees can clear the seat in front of me. Seats shown with seat in front in reclining position with a "this is what your fellow passenger is allowed to do to you" sign.
This is mainly an issue of not being able to see the product before paying for it and only after your purchase is non-returnable. This ought to already be illegal. You ought to be able to sit down in a demo seat at the terminal, get out your laptop, realize there is NO space to use it, say "screw that!", get a refund, and get up and walk to the terminal across the way and rebook on another airline.
Re:Last night (Score:5, Insightful)
I travel frequently across the north sea, between Scandinavia and Iceland. This is a 3 hour flight I generally do in coach. A while ago i started thinking of the good old days, when the vikings travelled this distance as well. Lets compare
Option 1: Longboat
Duration: Several weeks
Onboard meal service: Dried fish, mead, old water
Comfort level: Cold, freezing, wet, damp, salty and sea sickness.
Entertainment: Rowing!
Restroom: "Overboard"
Risks: Likely to die from sickness, fall overboard, freeze to death or get beaten up by a fellow traveller (everyone is armed!)
On-time arrival: Not applicable
Option 2: 757-200 in Coach
Duration: 3 hours
Onboard meal service: Light snacks and drinks complimentary. Warm dishes for purchase
Comfort level: Leather seats, personal cooling available, good temperature.
Entertainment: Loads of videos
Restroom: Complimentary
Risks: Extremely unlikely to plummet into the ocean. Unlikely to get beaten up by a fellow traveller (noone is armed)
On-time arrival: 90%+. Sporadic 1 day delays due to Eyjafjallajökull
I thought of this for a moment, then sat down and enjoyed my private leather seat and in-flight entertainment in "coach".
Re:Last night (Score:5, Funny)
Sporadic 1 day delays due to Eyjafjallajökull
Ha! Iceland... I had to google that name just to make sure your cat didn't walk on the keyboard...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:my solution is the gym (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:my solution is the gym (Score:5, Insightful)
When a dude tries slamming their sit into my knees I press back. I'm 240lb 6'3" and a muscular frame. I win more times than not and the jackass in front of me gets a sore back for their troubles.
That's the real problem. It's gone from both sides being reasonable to having to "win." Personally, I'd be happy if airlines made seats non-reclinable since the few degrees you get is pretty much useless; until that happens I think you'll see more incidents of air rage. I'm amazed at the number of assholes I see on flights who start arguments over really petty things. If someone can't check their ego and or anger for a few hours while on a plane they really should seek professional help and stop flying' it would make it a lot more pleasant for those of us who just want to get to our destination with no drama or unexpected contact with the ground.
The next area of dispute may well start to be armrests given the small width of seats and the increasing size of the flying public. Having someone take an inch or two of your seat is as bad as losing the knee room.
Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The rich can lay sprawled out in their lay-flat beds while the plebs snarl at one another while standing ankle-deep in their own feces. We're back to the good old days of the Titanic.
Which would be an interesting observation if it wasn't pure nonsense. Flying anywhere, no matter how briefly uncomfortable, is a huge luxury. If you want to fly first class, put the money aside and do it. If you don't want to spend that much money, quit bitching at people who do. If you can buy any sort of airline ticket, you're the wealthy one by any measure that matters.
Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
flying is as much a luxury as is having an auto
Right, exactly. Another thing that most people in the world don't have.
Re: (Score:3)
flying is as much a luxury as is having an auto.
The sense of entitlement is strong in this one
Re:This happened to me (Score:5, Insightful)
And how, exactly, is she supposed to put her knees in any other position? The seats are not very wide. Unless she has an empty seat next to her (and, frankly, that's about the only way I can stand to fly any more), if she tries to bend her legs so that her knees aren't right in front of her, parts of them are going to be spilling over into and annoying the person next to her, or sticking out into the aisle and getting run over by the carts that the flight attendants drive trhough trying to get people to buy stupid duty free stuff.
The problem is not inconsiderate assholes. The problem is that 6'2" people are stuck in plane seats that they simply don't fit in. The problem is that airlines have designed coach seats to work for the bottom 30% of the population in terms of size, and are trying to squeeze the entire population into it. Something somewhere's gotta give. The person in back can blame the person in front for reclining their seat (as we've seen in this thread), or the person in front can blame the person in back for having knees (as we've seen in this thread), but *somebody* is going to be unhappy, because the situation is set up so that somebody has to be.
The problem is coach seating. It's just become too small.
Re: (Score:3)
Last year on a flight from Hawaii to the US I was told by the flight attendant that I was too tall (6'2") to fly coach and that if I was in coach on another of her flight, I would be removed. She said that the woman in front of me had the absolute right to recline all the way and that it was up to me to adjust myself to a position where she could do so.If my legs were too long, that was my problem.
It was rather annoying to be chastised for being too tall (I'm hardly a giant) when I have had to share a qua
Re:Wait a minute, a few years ago I recall and AA (Score:5, Informative)
They ran that ad because they realized that if they could get rid of one row of seats, they could drop one of their stewardess, and save money that way.
Since that time, the FAA changed the rules on the number of people per crew member, so they lost their incentive to drop the extra row.
Inconsiderate (Score:3)
The knee defenders are narcissistic jerks.
So are the people reclining. Both sides are being inconsiderate here and I don't see either as being more wrong than they other.
The airlines should just disable the recline option
That I agree with. Honestly the seats don't recline enough to really matter except for the placebo effect in most cases. Plus then they don't have to make people "return their seats to their full upright and locked position" on every flippin' flight.