The Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-08-17/what-s-stopping-airlines-from-making-your-seat-more-miserable
446 comments
Also, there's the basic fact that most travelers have zero idea how much legroom they'll have (or not have in this case) until they're actually in their seat. It's bait and switch, and varies not just from airline to airline, but from plane to plane. If consumers actually knew they'd have no legroom, and then chose that option, that would be one thing, but they don't know.
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.
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.
So with you. I'm not particularly wide, but I am 6.22 feet tall, with relatively long femurs.
There's nothing I can do about that.
I positively hate flying.
There's nothing I can do about that.
I positively hate flying.
Airline seat pitch never bothers me (5-9 and mostly torso) but in any event it's like $50-100 to upgrade to economy+. What's the grievance?
I'm 6'4" and economy plus is too small for me. The only way I can fit into the seat is in a completely upright position with my knees pressed into the seat in front of me. It gets even worse once the person on front of me reclines his/her seat.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I'm only 6'3" (long legs, though), and even in non-exit-row economy+, my knees are against the seat in front of me if they recline. The seat height is also an inch or two too low tall people, which puts significant stress on your knees-mine are noticeably tender for a few days after a 5+ flight.
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 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 really don't fly that often, and will drive rather than fly Melbourne-Sydney if given the option. On my twice a decade (quinquennial?) Australia-Norway flights I just have to suffer though; I don't have the budget to justify spending extra on seats. Often I'll see people 2/3rd my length on the emergency seats on those flights and wonder about the fairness of life... ;)
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.
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.
That really depends on where you are.
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.
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.
There's no room for my knees, perhaps unless if I sit fully upright with zero slouch, and the person ahead isn't reclining their seat.
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?
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?
And if anyone wants to know how big is the seat space: https://www.seatguru.com/
I'm 6'4 and I flew once to see family back home. It was a nightmare. I don't think I ever was able to settle well enough into my seat since my knees were always getting bumped (no fault of the fellow passengers when they pack us in like sardines). I'll never fly again. They'd have to sedate me to get me to fly. It's just too cramped. I've been on greyhound buses that are roomier.
> I've been on greyhound buses that are roomier
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).
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).
Completely agree with this. I'm 6'5" (196cm) and on most flights my femur is approximately the pitch of the seat. I have no choice but to "manspread" on many flights.
You don't have to be tall. A cousin suffered a knee injury from a seat back jammed against her, and she is maybe 5'6".
First Class seems to have roomier seats but on some planes I don't think there is much improvement to leg room, well at least domestic short flights.
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.
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.
I don't get preferential boarding. You are rushing to get on the plane to sit down first. Everyone boards after, so you are sitting there while everyone goes by. For leaving, yes it's nice. But if I had preferential, I'd rather board after coach has.
In addition to what delecti said (getting room in the overhead bin is crucial), I also personally find it more relaxing to get on earlier, even if the seat isn't that comfortable. I can find my seat, put on my headphones, and zone out for the most part. If I'm waiting at the gate, I have to stay on high alert to listen for boarding announcements (often obscured by announcements from other gates), the area is likely very crowded and chaotic, and the seating is rarely much more comfortable than what is on the plane.
With non-first class there's an advantage to getting on first to ensure there's room for your carry-on in the overhead bins. And with first class the advantage is the seats are much more comfortable than the terminal and the flight attendants start serving you immediately.
Not sure how it is in the US but First class at CDG, LHR, and FRA has a separate security line, preferred boarding, and a greater luggage/carryon allowance. You are served champagne and appetizers, given a hot towel and slippers for the flight. While everyone down the back is rushing to clear security, check-in, get a sit and find space for their carryon you are on the way to a second cocktail.
If you can afford it or get it it's a really great way to fly.
If you can afford it or get it it's a really great way to fly.
I agree with you for economy, but when I fly biz/1st class I'd rather get settled in my nice seat than wait in the gate area.
I'm the same height. I still don't understand how OSHA has authority over my desk and lighting in my office, but nobody has authority over airline seat size.
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.
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.
Google Flights lists legroom if you expand the details, but I've never taken a tape measure to make sure it's accurate.
Also, many travelers don't get to choose at all. I work at a public university in Spain, and we have a regulation that we can only fly economy class. I think all the Spanish public sector does that, and probably many other European countries.
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.).
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.).
We have the same regulation in Germany, fyi. I'm not quite tall enough for it to be a major issue but it can be quite uncomfortable.
> Also, many travelers don't get to choose at all.
> 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.
> 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.
Yes, when I travel for personal reasons, as I said.
But over 95% of my flights are for work and there I have no choice.
But over 95% of my flights are for work and there I have no choice.
Ryanair/easyjet are still growing stupendously fast in the EU, and Norwegian is bringing that model to transatlantic flights. People love it. Ryanair grew at 12% yoy last month and hit a 94% load factor. They've went from 0 to 120m+ pax in about 20 years.
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 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.
Actually, being tall I really like Ryanair for the simple fact that their seats don't recline. Don't have to worry about somebody in front of me smashing my knees.
I flew with Ryanair for the first time in years last week, I was also pleased by this! Although the seats do seem surprisingly thin and wobbly (especially with small kids bouncing around in them).
They use thin-backed seats because it lets them fit in another row or two of seats, AFAIK.
I also like that. And additionally, they don't have the worst seat pitch either. In a recent trip I took flights with Vueling, Iberia and Ryanair. Vueling was excruciating torture (it always is, but it was the only airline serving that route, so unavoidable). Iberia was somewhat milder torture. Ryanair was actually quite OK, at least I could fit in the space without physical pressure from the seat in front if I placed my legs at a particular angle.
I flew 4.5 hours on Jet2 last week and was so pleased when I realised the same. One of the most comfortable flights I've ever had and as far as leg room goes I had more than on a 12 hour flight to Singapore in June - the seat itself on the Singapore flight was more comfortable but having the person infronts head in my nose was not pleasant!
Amazingly I found Norwegians 787 to JFK one of the best (and cheapest) flights I'd taken recently. Also not using Heathrow is a huge plus for me, at least until crossrail opens.
Agreed. Norwegian has a really fairly priced premium fare (not as nice as other intl bi clas, but terrific value).
The 787s that they fly also make a big difference in comfort because of the higher humidity, lower noise, and better air quality.
The 787s that they fly also make a big difference in comfort because of the higher humidity, lower noise, and better air quality.
Oh that's surprising
(yeah I hate people who recline their seats)
(yeah I hate people who recline their seats)
I genuinely think Ryanair are awesome for business. We run a small human rights NGO startup and there is no way we could do nearly as much without Ryanair.
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.
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.
I'd rather say that Ryanair wins because it flies to places where no one else does. I don't fly with them because they are cheap - I fly with them because when I need to go home it's either a 3h ryanair flight or a 3h flight with someone else + 5-6h train journey. There's zero competition unless you only fly between capital cities.
Yes but if they weren't cheap and as operationally efficient as they are there wouldn't be the demand.
I will always prefer trains or bus. Even if they add up to 5 hours to the trip. Air travel stresses me too much. It's constant waiting, discomfort, commutting to and out of the airport, losing your rights at the security gates, etc...
I prefer ground travel as well, it's just completely impractical when traveling coast to coast in the US, as I do frequently.
The statistics disagree. US air travel is at an all-time high: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
That's from cheap oil.
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.
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.
Maybe the IT industry can avoid air time. But not everyone can.
Same problems, same conclusion here - I hate being 'herded' exactly like cattle. Therefore I completely quit flying quite a while back now. I think I flew TWICE over the last 10 years, I don't even go on holidays oversea anymore because the security circus just sours the whole experience.
> Air travel was once something to look forward to.
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 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 think the article's premise is wrong:
> > 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.
> > 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.
> 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.
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.
Those are the same thing.
Not at all.
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.
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.
> But $4000 for business? I might do it for $2000.
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.
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.
I've also noticed this large price difference between Economy and Premium Economy and don't understand it. If I could buy two Economy seats, not next to each other, but one in front of the other, and get rid of the front seat, then I'd be paying twice the price for almost the comfort of First Class. So why is Premium Economy so much more expensive for a fairly minor increase in space?
This pretty much describes it for me. If i had the choice between two tickets, one with a few inches extra space d one $100 less, I would opt for the extra space, and in fact whenever premium economy was in that ballpark I did so. But, most airlines ask big upgrade fees for extra legroom, and there's no way to know the legroom situation until you're boarding. The market is incapable of resolving this since airlines don't give you the information you need to make an informed choice.
A more apt comparison would be premium economy vs economy. From my limited experience - premium economy was always full even when there were places in economy.
That's not been my experience. Even on United (which gives Premium Economy upgrades every time if you have a certain status), there are often empty Premium Economy seats on busy flights.
A lot of frequent flyers with economy tickets can get upgrades to premium for points or by bidding at a fraction of the original difference.
There’s usually openings in premium because of the premium passengers who have upgraded to business on points or by bidding...
There’s usually openings in premium because of the premium passengers who have upgraded to business on points or by bidding...
I stopped flying too, though I didn't even consider it a health issue. For me it was a combination of high-minded idealistic principles (about liberty/fascism, consumerism and so forth) and just basic kneejerk hedonism (i.e. noticing "this process produces displeasure and unhappiness"). So I cut it out of my life. No big whup. I'm sure they miss my little $1,000/year even less than your $170,000[1] but I'm better off for it.
[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.
[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.
High speed rail in China.
But airline stocks have skyrocketed in the past 5 year as have their profits.
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.
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.
Yeah, and like all trickle-down theories, it turned out to be complete BS. Those of us who lived through Reagan aren't surprised. It's really a genius example of doublespeak. How do you sell the public and regulators on a plan that takes wealth or benefit from the 99% and gives it to the 1%? You tell them it does the exact opposite of what it actually does. You tell them "Hey man it's all part of the plan! After all, the rich can't give you tons of money" [your money] "unless they have it first, amirite bro? Just sign here and all the riches will be yours!" Then later when the plan "just happens to" result in an upward rush of wealth & benefit, you say "oops it didn't work." Oh, it worked.
You can't blame TSA on the lack of competition, since it's effectively state mandated anyway. (Strictly speaking, airports aren't required to use TSA staff, but they're required to have the same intrusive security protocols.)
Seats are getting smaller and people (particularly Americans) are getting bigger. Last month I was in a full flight and I had the bad luck of having a 300+ pound man sit next to me. His physique extended beyond the boundary of the seat, taking probably a ~quarter of my space. The situation was ridiculous but all that the flight attendant could do was to be "sorry" because the flight was full. There should be rules against this. Big people out there - buy two seats.
It must be very different in the US... I often got put in places I simply cannot physically sit: I'm tall, have a lot of muscle and am overweight. All three not to the extreme, but i'm taller than most (I'm Dutch, close to 2m), my shoulders are wider than most and my lower body is large enough to fit 'snug' in a seat (but not hanging (over)). The tall part is the biggest issue here. In 'middle seats' on most airlines, I simply cannot fit; I cannot possibly sit there without putting my legs at both my neighbors. The normal response of the attendents usually was to move someone smaller from exit seats to mine. As I cannot sit and next to that I will cause discomfort to both my neighbors.
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.
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.
There's no guarantee anymore that if the person bought two seats, that they would be together. A basic economy ticket won't even let you pick a seat in advance on some carriers anymore.
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 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.
Yep, last Delta domestic flight I booked together with my girlfriend, we checked in a few hours before we got to the airport and got "see attendant" seats. We had to beg at the gate for two seats together. The ones they gave us were both middle seats in different rows. Pretty ridiculous for how expensive these were, and how Delta is now the exclusive non-stop service for the route we were taking.
It seems all airlines are starting to get on this. Emirates this year decides to bite the dust and charge fees for seat selection.
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 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.
Even if you pay for specific seats you are not guaranteed those seats. http://www.farecompare.com/news/airline-seat-assignments-not...
Maybe, but in 30+ years of flying I've never didn't have the seats. Or is this a US specific thing?
I think it's a US thing. I've never not got the seats I'd reserved either.
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).
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).
If it's a code share with Qantas, you can book through them and get free selection. I hope Qantas won't follow with that idea.
They're starting to, by charging for premium seat selection.
Nor is there any guarantee that they won't make someone else sit in your second seat if the flight is overbooked.
The thing is that airlines don't always honour it if a big person buys two seats. They might admit another passenger last-minute, and then you paid for two full-price tickets and still have only one seat. It's not like big people enjoy the experience any more than you do. I'm thin myself, but blaming overweight people for terrible airline policies and other things beyond their control is not cool.
See https://twitter.com/i/moments/887384300081098752 for an account of what it's like.
See https://twitter.com/i/moments/887384300081098752 for an account of what it's like.
heh, brings back memories - I once spent a flight from Houston to Rio like this (~10 hours). There really should be a rule, that if you can't fit into your seat with the arm rests down, you don't get to flight.
I'm almost 6'2" and I basically won't fly coach anymore. It's miserable. I'd rather not go. Now I'm in the rather fortunate position that with some planning I can fly in a premium cabin. Many are not.
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.
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.
If you're wider than the seat, you should be looking for flights operated on Airbus equipment if you're stuck in coach. Their narrowbodies are a little wider than Boeing's, and you end up with about 1" more of width in a coach seat. You're best off looking at E70/75/90 regional jets (also ~18" wide seats, but 2+2 config) and A319/320/321 mainline.
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.
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.
6'3" tall and 44" chest here. I fly almost every week. Anything less than Economy Plus/Premium is pure torture. Even in Economy Plus I still usually bump shoulders with the fellow next to me. If he's big like me we might as well be cuddling.
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.
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.
The sad truth is, airlines won't optimize for the 99th percentile. We tall people just have to grin and bear it. I'm 6'10" and I basically just take the viewpoint that I'm lucky that airplanes exist at all to make it possible to cross such great distances in such short times. But I fly seldom so I'm sure I'd sing a different tune if I had to fly on any kind of regular basis.
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.
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.
> I'm 6'10"
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/
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/
Interesting tool. At 200cm I'm halfway up the 99th percentile for men in the Netherlands (1 in 171 is taller than me), but dial it down to 198cm (6'6") and you hit the 1% boundary. For the Dutch (and many other 'tall' countries this means flying economy is gruelling, bordering on impossible, on long-haul flights for 1 in 100 Dutch men.
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.
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.
I have a friend who's 7'4". Makes my measly 6'5" seem normal.
At what point should something like the ADA protect you from passenger spaces that are /literally/ too small to safely house you physically? I'd think the most effective solution would be just allowing you normal passenger rates but put you in the more expensive seat slots that actually fit.
If fat and tall people start using the ADA, I'd rather fight to end the ADA. I see this as gross abuse.
Being fat is not a disability. Being tall is not a disability. If you need more room, you pay more. This isn't about sensitivity. This is simple economics.
Do you think the ADA is about pity for the disabled, or about forcing businesses to serve 100% of the public, rather than serve the most profitable 98% at the expense of the most inconvenient 2%?
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.
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.
I know it is trendy to "accept" fatness which I'd argue does more harm to fat people than fat people hate but I digress.
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.
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.
It really is a bus in the sky.
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.
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.
Fair point. I've been on many buses more comfortable than coach on a plane.
Commute with bus everyday. Definitely more comfy.
I'd much rather take a bus. More room and no fighting for overhead bins. You don't feel like cattle getting rustled into a aluminum cargo container with hundreds of pounds of junk inches above your head. There's also typically not the dreaded middle seat on a bus (2+2, but not like the awful regional jets where it's really a booster seat).
My local train service runs two types of trains: double-decker (with 2/2 seats) and single-decker (with 3/2 seats). The single-level trains cannot comfortably hold three average-size adults, so they effectively have half the capacity.
I'm taller and the same width. I won't do aisle seats because jag-offs boarding and deplaning will rub my shoulder raw.
You mention a point worth highlighting: status.
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.
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.
People don't really have loyalty to airlines because the requirements for getting any benefits to that loyalty keep going up-up-up, though. If I fly anywhere, I'm paying for it, and the investment is huge before you even start seeing anything for it. And you couple that with the way airlines treat passengers in general, and the idea of loyalty to one is pretty much "...what?".
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.
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.
There are status challenges available to address that issue.
So I fly at least one round-trip a month and I'd never even heard of this. That probably doesn't help with the notion of airline loyalty, yeah?
Most are advertised through large employers or direct marketing emails. So if you're sending everything from United to spam, you won't see it. Some airlines still just hand out free status based on your employer (I have Cathay Pacific status through that sort of program despite having never paid for a CX flight).
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.
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.
Now that I know about their existence, I'm totally seeing it. My point is more that this is a super-niche thing and so I'm not surprised that nobody has any loyalty to an airline (which rank down there with people who yell at kids on their lawn for customer satisfaction).
A few years back I had the unpleasant experience of going from Chairman's Preferred on US Airways, which no longer exists, to Executive Platinum on American, which US Airways merged with.
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.
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.
>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?
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 expect said airlines to work to EARN that loyalty?
After all, it's the people who pay their money to them, not vice versa.
> they often don't have any loyalty to any airline. What do you expect?
Not to be injured because of the flight. Is that too much of an ask?
Not to be injured because of the flight. Is that too much of an ask?
AA's PE is what took the fear out of international long-haul for me. Being of similar stature, the notion of sitting in a 17.2" seat across the Atlantic was a non-starter, but with business class tickets being potentially an order of magnitude better than economy deals, what choice was I left with?
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.
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.
British airways PE is actually not that bad. It's not as good as Cathay Pacific's but the hard product is quite good. Pitch is 38 inch (same as Cathay's) so it's good enough, it's not that wide at 18.5 inch (1 inch less than CX) but better than a coach seat.
BA's long haul PE is called World Traveller Plus and it is only economy plus, not "Business Minus" like PE on CX, Qantas, JAL, etc.
So it is better than coach, but only by a few inches. It is generally priced appropriately, though.
So it is better than coach, but only by a few inches. It is generally priced appropriately, though.
This may sound contrarian, but I'm happy that airlines are shrinking seats, and adding a few rows of "Economy Plus" for people that need/want their space back. Flight prices have been falling for the last decade, in part due to these smaller seats, and I've been able to travel much more than I otherwise would have as a result. I'd love to have a bit more space, but I'll take my $600 round-trip tickets from SF to Europe over a marginal increase in comfort any day.
I'm 6'4" and I can assure you that for me at least it's not a "marginal" increase in comfort. For me, 10 yrs ago, a standard economy seat on a major airline was OK. My knees grazed the seat in front, but whatever. Now, today, on several major airlines, in standard Econo, my knees not only touch but my upper legs cannot, geometrically, sit straight. My legs have to be splayed apart, because the fwd/back distance is literally too little for my femur bone. With my hips jammed into the seat back, my legs cannot fit, sitting straight ahead. This is insane for me.
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.
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.
This IS a genetic tax, but I propose to you that even if you are treated unfairly on airlines, that doesn't make up for all the advantages of height over the course of your lifetime.
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 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.
Advantages? Such as not being able to purchase clothes or shoes anywhere except online? Seriously try to find a pair of 34x36 pants or 16 shoes. You can't anymore. In the 90s a store might have carried a pair of shoes, today they carry none because you can order online. Size Large shirts are too short and XL are too fat. So I need large tall which no one carries in stock. Literally every purchase I make is sight unseen.
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.
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.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/the-fin...
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679675?seq=1#page_scan_t...
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679675?seq=1#page_scan_t...
They don't seem to be taking into account the added expenses that come with height.
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.
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'm much closer to the fat part of the bell curve than you, so you might not be aware that you are likely being denied half sizes in your shoes.
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 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.
>Only if it's a king and you lay diagonally.
Try a California King
I can only imagine what it's like to try and move one of those. Getting a king up a flight of stairs in a standard height hallway with a landing and 90 degree pivot was a nightmare.
This. I love my California King. Wouldn't trade it for anything.
I'm 5' 9" and I notice that, in a group in which I'm the shortest person, I am less likely to be addressed or listened to than in one in which I'm average or the tallest.
I'm 5'8" and I have the same issue, mostly at work. Also I have to have all my shirts altered because I have long arms and broad shoulders, so even extreme slim fitted stuff is a tent below my chest.
Lift weights.
Cuts both ways - I'd much rather be shorter. People may take me more seriously in professional environments but they are intimidated by me in social ones.
On the internet, nobody can see how tall you are!
Except for online dating.
I had a couple of friends try a number of online dating sites/apps over the past few years and whenever they would show me profiles I was pretty surprised to see so many women with a hard cutoff of not dating anyone under six foot. I never really realized how short I am at 5'9" prior to this.
Also largely (heh) an American thing. In Europe I've rarely if ever seen 'must be at least 180cm tall' (I know 6ft is 182, but 180 is similarly rounded). Could be we care less due to Old World tallness.. we are decently tall compared to Americans. See Scandinavia, West Europe, Balkans, etc.
> Also largely (heh) an American thing. In Europe I've rarely if ever seen 'must be at least 180cm tall'
As someone who has actually run the numbers for an online dating service, I can assure you it's not "largely an American thing".
As someone who has actually run the numbers for an online dating service, I can assure you it's not "largely an American thing".
Data, please? Sounds interesting.
I was going to short the stock of big and tall, but felt it was a stretch as the idea didn't suit me.
Grass is greener syndrome?
At 6'6", I like my height - but it took some work. I've learned quite a few tricks for matching eye-lines with the people I'm talking to in social settings.
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.
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.
What are those numerous advantages? Apart from picking apples.
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
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
Shorter people live longer :)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/short-men-live-long...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/short-men-live-long...
Height is positively correlated with career advancement and earnings.
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.
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.
Being tall is attractive to women.
I know it's not polite to ask about downvotes here, but why is this comment being downvoted? I thought it was pretty well established that height plays a role in attractiveness.
I'm 6'2, every now and again I see a really tall person and feel a little small, and then realise, that's what everyone else feels about me.
Honestly, apart from air planes, being tall absolutely and utterly rocks.
Honestly, apart from air planes, being tall absolutely and utterly rocks.
Even if that meant you couldn't afford that travel?
> it's a genetic tax then? If I want to fly I have to pay more?
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?
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?
A big problem here is that there isn't a smooth curve, as is the case with most other things. There'a a clear dividing line where the seat is just too small for you, and to upgrade to the next tier is considerably more expensive. It doesn't really matter where that line is - the net effect is that it's unfair to those who are on it. Although the smaller seats become, the more people are likely to fall onto that line.
The main cost factor for airlines is the price of fuel - which is mostly affected by weight of cargo. How about they charge heavier people more - that's usually not genetics, so seem mor fair.
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.
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.
Sure, cost is a function of weight, but revenue is a function of number of passengers, so giving you extra space means reducing revenue overall.
How about they charge heavier people more - that's usually not genetics
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.
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.
Yes, but not me. Hence the last sentence of my 'suggestion'.
> How about they charge heavier people more - that's usually not genetics, so seem mor fair.
Someone's gender is genetic and men would pay more under your scheme as would taller people.
Someone's gender is genetic and men would pay more under your scheme as would taller people.
Then charge by weight. Just because someone is taller doesn't necessarily mean they weigh more or that I occupy more space. How about making seats narrower instead making me put my knees in the back of seat in front of me?
Size is an issue not just weight. You're carrying the airframe around no matter what, and the fewer seats per flight the more shared weight per passenger.
>Then charge by weight. Just because someone is taller doesn't necessarily mean they weigh more or that I occupy more space.
You may not weigh more than a very muscular or overweight person but by being longer you by definition take up more linear space.
You may not weigh more than a very muscular or overweight person but by being longer you by definition take up more linear space.
Or you could see it the other way. Just because you are genetically luckier, should you pay less?
If I'm paying the same for both seats, I might as well get a larger one, and then taller people can't even choose to pay more, they're just screwed.
Alternatively, the airline could reserve them for tall people, but that risks leaving with them empty, which increases the costs for everyone.
Alternatively, the airline could reserve them for tall people, but that risks leaving with them empty, which increases the costs for everyone.
Only if your planes are fully booked on all trips. Otherwise you may losing revenues because of clients like me who have their own blacklist of airlines they don't want to fly with because of this sort of things. For instance I will not consider going to a destination which forces me to fly Ryanair.
[deleted]
If you're bigger and thus need more food, you have to pay more at grocery stores and restaurants. I don't see how this is any different, nothing wrong with paying for how much you actually use.
But perhaps because you're bigger you get to eat more and then spend less on weight-loss products.
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.
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.
As a 6'8" guy (with long thigh bones) you are making a minor problem out to be a major one. Yes, we have to splay our legs a little bit but I have no problem doing long haul flights in economy.
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.
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.
Either your thigh bones are not long for your height (people have different proportions), or you have lucked out with airlines that still have decent legroom.
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'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).
are you sure you are buying aisle seats? i can't imagine sitting at window being 196cm, but in aisle i can stretch at least one leg (though i got used to being occasionally hit by flight attendants) and the other one must go to space between seats in front of me since i can't sit straight, it's physically impossible
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
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
I'm 6'3" and have many of the same issues. I recognise that things in life are not always going to be fair and that many of these things ultimately even out (we probably save money walking where other take cabs or performing household maintenance shorter people find difficulty).
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.
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.
As someone who is fairly but not very tall and who admittedly travels enough to get Economy Plus anyway most of the time, it's hard for me to be too sympathetic beyond a "Yeah, it sucks" kind of way. Airlines do force people who are too wide to upgrade in some way (like buy an extra seat)--though I've had bad experiences when they haven't.
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.
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.
re: "Genetic tax"-
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.
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.
And in a plane crash, you are almost guaranteed to have your knees broken and be unable to evacuate a burning plane. This is not just discomfort.
This argument is probably your #1 hope if you want to go about changing this. Nearly everything about aircraft design is predicated on airframe safety
I'm 6'2", and I can cope with the legroom issue (though it makes using a laptop pretty much impossible).
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.
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.
Look up the research on how height effects wages. You're still coming out way ahead.
That's really awful logic.
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.
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.
> But what am I supposed to do? Saw my ankles off?
I don't see how that would help your femur-length problem.
I don't see how that would help your femur-length problem.
Do you also feel cheated when you pay more for larger clothing? Being big costs more for them, why should they absorb the cost?
I've formed the impression that I pay more for average sized clothing. I'm average in nearly everything, and when I try to find stuff on sale, my size is always gone.
except height is not really related to airline expenses, since there will be many much shorter people paying same with lot of spare space
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?
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?
Also 6’4” - back in the day (10 years ago) when I was checking in more often than not I’d be offered an exit row seat... no chance of that happening now.
yeah, i always used to ask about it considering i was usually one of the tallest people on board and check-in workers usually understood it, but nowadays emergency seats are paid so no such luck anymore
There are tons of benefits to being 6-4 so why should society subsidize you for the downsides?
You act like this is uncommon for you. Taller people have to pay more for cloths, buy larger cars, and consume more food. You pay more in gas to transport the extra weight. There are probably many more this isn't some weird thing.
I honestly am normal size and I suffer greatly, I have no idea how you cope.
Southwest will let you pre-board if you are 6'3"+. I did that for several years until they banned pre-boards from sitting in the exit rows. It's only usefull now for getting the bulkhead seats.
I'm 6'3" but have not flown since probably 2002. I have no desire since the whole TSA thing. I couldn't imagine the hell a 5 hour flight would be on me, much less longer.
I too am 6'4", but this guy makes a good point. Should shorter people be subsidizing our travel?
The issue is that the cost increase is not proportional.
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...
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...
no, there would be different seats for different people, smaller for shorter people, bigger for taller, capacity would stay same and everyone would have same level of comfort
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
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
6'4" is absolutely exceptional. You're asking for airliners to cater to what, less than 5% of the population?
Do I get special accomomodations in society for being short? Where's my dating rights lawsuit?
Do I get special accomomodations in society for being short? Where's my dating rights lawsuit?
>You're asking for airliners to cater to what, less than 5% of the population?
Yes I do expect them to care about tens of millions of passengers being able to fit.
Yes I do expect them to care about tens of millions of passengers being able to fit.
They do care. They've shown that it is more economical for private companies to not make special allocations for one subset of the population, especially when customers are free to upgrade. This isn't about airlines being evil, its about your entitlement.
Correction, at 6'4" you're in the 98.9th percentile for the U.S. What you're asking for is simply not reasonable or fair to the overwhelming majority.
Exceptional where? Netherlands would probably disagree with you.
Exception on planet Earth, obviously.
In the Netherlands a 6'4" male is in the 94.6 percentile.
https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/
https://tall.life/height-percentile-calculator-age-country/
US: Tall: 98.9 Percentile
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 :)
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 :)
Many people have left interesting replies to your post but consider this:
Perhaps airlines can squeeze more passengers on and reduce fares enough that it covers the cost of having to upgrade your ticket.
Perhaps airlines can squeeze more passengers on and reduce fares enough that it covers the cost of having to upgrade your ticket.
Oh man, this would make an awesome class action suit!
I once complained to a flight attendant and she simply said, you're free to pay more to sit up front where there is more space. And then she looked me right in the eye and said "after all, flying is not some kind of guaranteed human right, is it"
And she was absolutely right.
Operating a discriminatory business is not a human right either.
Discrimination? If you really want to go down that absurd road, I want special accommodations for being short. I want free seat pillows in movie theatres. I demand that bars implement rules that require tall people to crouch or bend their knees while on the primeses. Roller coaster minimum height to ride rules are discriminatory; let's make those illegal too. Because ME ME ME ME. Now let's talk about catering to my extreme and the GP's extreme; oh wait, thats how you get averages, you say? Thats that the market is doing, you say?
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.
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.
We have already had this discussion politically, and businesses must make reasonable accommodations for those people that require them. Furthermore, businesses must serve black customers and white customers as equals. And if they bake cakes for straights, they can't refuse to do so for gays. If you want to discriminate, you have to operate as a private club business, and serve only members. That's our "out" for those kinds of businesses. If you want to do business with anyone who walks in off the street, you have to do business with everyone who walks in off the street.
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.
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.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-to-getting-a-good-ai...
"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 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”?"
I hate to rain on the author's parade, but there's nothing inherent in the design of the newer Embraer jets which makes it so the seats "can't be shrunk".
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.
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.
+1, known as the "scope clause" in pilot union contracts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_clause
Indeed, most airlines around Europe that fly E-jets have less legroom in economy because normal economics are in play (cost sensitive customers, maximise number of customers) as there isn't the same mainline/regional split (where European airlines have regional arms, they're typically fully-owned subsidiaries and essentially differentially by type of aircraft rather than capacity limitations).
However, the fuselage is not wide enough to cram in an extra seat per row, so you still have the widest coach seat in the sky. Width matters more than pitch if you're average height, IMO.
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!
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!
The E70/75 could squeeze in more rows of seats without needing another FA, but like I said they're in that strange sweet spot where they're big enough to accommodate more seats but not big enough to make the flight as a whole profitable with the extra seats + mainline crew.
Yup, which is why I'd ride an E70/75/90 as far as they'll let me! I'm not particularly tall so I can be fine with 30" of pitch, but I appreciate having more than that. And my shoulders appreciate the extra width.
I just wish that, if they're gonna shrink the seats, they would prevent them from reclining. That, I think is a big part of the reason why the smaller sizes are so terrible.
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.
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.
Look mate, I am sorry to break the news for you but the woman in front of you was totally within her rights to push her seat down. This is not something that is granted from the back passenger in a plane. BTW, there are seats with more space near the emergency exits that can be bought for a small fee. If you are big you may want to consider that.
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.
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.
Maybe it shouldn't be within her rights, is all I'm saying. The airlines could fix this easily. If the seats didn't decline, then there wouldn't be an issue. This is only an issue because they were designed in a way that allowed for such reclining.
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.
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.
ANA have a new fixed-back seat that "reclines" by sliding forward, so that it doesn't intrude on the person behind you. All airlines should adopt that seat.
If reclining the seat will crush the knees of the person behind you, the seat shall remain in its upright position. The mechanical ability to do a thing is not a justification.
If you don't fit in the seat with the next seat reclined, you should pay for economy plus.
What if you get on the plane and realise that the seats are so close to each other that you no longer fit in the seat with the next seat reclined? Are you expected to research the pitch values for each aircraft used by each airliner before purchasing a ticket, lest your kneecaps get crushed?
Yea, you know when I buy something, I learn about it. If I don't want to spend time learning about it, I find a brand/model that always has what I want. I don't buy the version that consistently doesn't have the feature I want and then complain about how it should be better.
Where do you go to look up the pitch values for the aircraft used by a given airliner?
That's not always possible on every flight. Every airline has a different system and set of rules. Some airlines don't offer a system for paying for emergency exit seats. Other times the seats might already be booked. Sometimes the cost is prohibitively expensive.
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.
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.
That makes 0 sense, why should the longer person pay tax for their genetics? Also don't recline if it causes physical pain to someone else. Wtf is wrong with you
[deleted]
well you have also right to fart, burp and do other things but we have something called manners, you know, for situations where your can legally annoy other people, usually normal people try to be nice to each other and not be dicks like reclining seat if there is behind me 2m tall person
if you think just because you have right to do something it's ok to do it i feel sorry for people around you
if you think just because you have right to do something it's ok to do it i feel sorry for people around you
[deleted]
This is why I'm always happy to pay extra for United seat 21D.
You can also pay another extra fee if you want a free beating. That one is not listed on the menu though.
Sounds interesting. On which model aircraft is this a prime seat?
I forget the exact models (I always check seatguru), but some if not most of the 737s.
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.
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.
Why is it unfair for the person in front of you to recline her seat? She paid for that seat just like you.
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.
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.
It's an American cultural phenomenon. I've always been intrigued by the origin of it. At some point someone even invented and sold a device to prevent the person in front of you to recline their seat:
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).
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).
I don't know if purely American. Flying domestically in Japan, people will ask if it is OK before reclining their seats.
Same on the Shinkansen, but then that’s not surprisingly given typical Japanese levels of politeness.
Is the person behind the potential recliner realistically able to say "no," or is that too impolite?
You shouldn't be directing your ire at your other passengers. The responsibility for this lies squarely with the airline, which knows full well about mean femur lengths and mean hip widths, and consciously chooses seat configurations guaranteed to be uncomfortable for a large fraction of their passengers, in order to squeeze more profit out of each 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.
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.
If there was ever an argumentum ad absurdum regarding the wisdom of where airline seating has gone over recent decades, it is the existence of that device.
Pretty sure they are saying that no one should get the right to recline their seats when the seats have gotten small enough that someone that's 6'4" (I am) has to sit with knees pushed into the seat in front already before the person in front reclines...
Right, but the fault is still entirely with the airline, not the passenger who reclines their seat.
Most people know how tall they are. If someone who is 6'4" buys a ticket on an aeroplane, knowing that they can't fit in the space guaranteed to them, then it doesn't seem reasonable to put 100% of the blame on the airline.
As United says, "We know you have a choice of airlines when you fly".
As United says, "We know you have a choice of airlines when you fly".
What if they don't know they can't fit in the space guaranteed to them? To know this you need to know the pitch used for that particular aircraft, and how that is affected by a seat reclining in front of you. Do you expect people to look this up before buying a flight ticket?
I'm 6'6" and haven't flown in nearly two decades - I have no idea if I'm going to fit into a seat at the moment, and have no idea how to check. I'm facing my first work flight next month and a honeymoon in January, and don't know what to do to make sure I'll have enough room. I know there's seat length available online, but who knows if I'll measure correctly and end up wedged into a seat I can't possibly sit into.
A reasonably fit 6' - 6'4" person with average proportions will fit comfortably in a "Plus" seat. I'd imagine 6'6" wouldn't be too different.
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.
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.
If I were in the top 1% by height (which 6'4" is), then I'd probably have encountered this issue before, and know ahead of time of the risk.
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 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.
While you can check seat pitch with seatguru, a lot of airlines don't allow you to choose seats at the time of booking, and some don't allow booking of extra-legroom economy seats at all. Others charge prohibitively expensive fees for booking the better seats, and sometimes the good seats just happen to be completely taken.
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!
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!
Yes, it's difficult, and I wish the airlines provided better information and booking tools.
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!).
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!).
"I just wish that, if they're gonna shrink the seats, they would prevent them from reclining."
Which is the root of what the original comment was asking for. The rest was anecdotal of a bad experience.
Which is the root of what the original comment was asking for. The rest was anecdotal of a bad experience.
Then it's not unfair to bump them seat when using the restroom. I paid for a certain amount of space, which includes the ability to get up from the seat.
There's no way I can get up from the seat without the person/people between me and the aisle getting up. Is this what you mean? Also I agree you should get up periodically, it's not healthy to stay in those terrible cramped seats for so long.
I've never had someone sitting next to me, who wasn't asleep, not move for me to exit. I have had people with their seat back not take it up when asked
Yes, my argument breaks down pretty quickly, good point.
Yes, my argument breaks down pretty quickly, good point.
You didn't pay for any space. You paid for the use of a seat for that particular flight.
I'm not sure how you're arguing I don't have the ability to use the restroom. If I did pay for the ability to use the restroom, then I can bump someone prevent me from exiting my seat if they won't free me from restraints.
Also, you do not have a right to recline, if there is a baby carrier behind you, you will be unable to.
Also, you do not have a right to recline, if there is a baby carrier behind you, you will be unable to.
There is a place in hell for people that recline in coach. The 2" of reclining doesn't help anyone's comfort that much. It's the difference between being "mostly miserable" and "pretty miserable", like the difference between lowering the air temperature in a hotel room from 79 to 78 on a summer night.
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.
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's not just the space; reclining can be the difference between being stable or not. Often when sleeping in an upright seat, my CoG is such that I'll lean left/right/forward. Reclining at even a small angle prevent this.
notyourwork(2)
Why, oh why don't reclining seats move the seat forward when they recline? Something like home recliners do. That way people are sacrificing their own leg room.
Some newer airline seats do.
Cathay Pacific did this years ago with economy clamshell seats, i.e slide forward, but apparently aggregate consumer feedback was bad and they were all withdrawn. Shame.
The people that recline their seats complained louder than the people who quietly suffer when seats are reclined onto them celebrated; big surprise there.
I was on a Cathay Pacific flight to China in 2009 where the seats slid forward but the back didn't lean back much at all. It was awful. The flight and everything around it was otherwise one of the best flight experiences I've had. But not being able to recline your seat for 12+ hours lead to very little sleep and back pain for pretty much everyone in my travel group. In fact I think of the four people I traveled with I was the only one who got any sleep at all.
Round trips between Sydney and London via HKG for me. CX is a great airline, but those seats weren't.
The older Cathay seats were a fixed seat shell, but the padding could slide within the shell.
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.
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.
That some kind of misplaced racism here. Not sure how you think these Chinese stereotypes would have affected people's enjoyment of sliding seats?
More likely the sliding seats just weren't very good.
More likely the sliding seats just weren't very good.
Curious. I've read your comment several times and I can't work out where you're seeing racism. Is it the word clamshell? That just means something that opens and shuts in my circles.
I'm not sure if there was a ninja edit or I accidentally replied to the wrong comment but I was responding to someone who was blaming "The type of passengers out of Hong Kong airport (ie Mainlanders)" on the seats not being adopted. It was definitely racist but yeah I look bad now lol.
Boeing sells planes to airlines, not consumers. Our happiness is irrelevant because no one offers the reclining chairs, and no one wants to be the first-to-market because that's a risky investment given airline company's razor thin margins.
US airlines at least no longer have razor thin margins, thanks in part to the railroad-like (the modern US railroad system that is) oligopoly they've managed to acquire.
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.
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.
Indeed, if they've got an oligopoly then customer comfort is not something they're optimising for. In fact, it never was, in that customer comfort was just a means to attract a larger market share. If that's not a concern market dynamics demand a maximisation of profit including maximisation at the expense of, now irrelevant due to lack of choice, customer comfort.
All of these airlines are making billions in profits, that's billions with a b. Even if profit margins we're still thin, which if I recall correctly they no longer are for airlines, can you really argue that consumers have to be continually shafted when you are taking home that much money?
What? Who's arguing in favor of get fucked over?
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.
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.
Does Boeing even do the main cabin interiors? I assumed not, given the large variety of styles I've seen on identical plane models.
Yea, I've never really understood reclining seats, especially on domestic flights. I've certainly never used mine, excluding 18 hr flights or something like that during the times when pretty much everyone is catching some shuteye (it doesn't really matter if the person in front of you is reclined if you are too).
I have low orexin (but fortunately not full-blown narcolepsy, like my sibling). It basically means that I fall asleep in any airline cabin the instant the safety briefing ends, and wake up when the wheels touch pavement. If I don't recline, and wedge my head in place somehow, I always wake up with severe neck pain, because my head lolls into uncomfortable positions.
Airline flying is simply too boring for my brain to be able to stay awake for it.
Airline flying is simply too boring for my brain to be able to stay awake for it.
Aircraft are not assigned to the same routes at the same times every day. They're chopped and changed all the time. It's impossible to have different configurations for different aircraft.
Small planes are not used on long routes though, and similarly, large planes are seldom used for short routes.
So they could disable recling seats on short flights with no problem.
So they could disable recling seats on short flights with no problem.
[deleted]
I completely disagree. I have a neck problem and not being able to recline the seat will completely kill me for any flight longer than an hour.
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.
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.
If you are a tall person, the reclined seat jams into your knees. Talk to me about your lack of reclining being worse when you literally can't move your knees for 4 hours because there's a hard piece of plastic jammed into your kneecaps. I'm 6'2'' which is tall but not unreasonably tall.
Someone doesn’t even have to be taller than average to feel the pain during flights. I’ve had multiple incidents where passengers inconsiderately reclined their seats without looking & asking, one time putting dangerous pressure on my laptop screen, and multiple times trapping my knees/preventing me from unlocking my knees...and I’m only 5’ 9”. One time the woman in front of me did it just so she could get more comfortable for using her laptop!
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 :( .
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 :( .
I've never asked before reclining nor have I ever seen anyone else ask, ever.
As for laptops, I've completely given up on them on planes. It's just not feasible anymore.
As for laptops, I've completely given up on them on planes. It's just not feasible anymore.
Right, I shouldn't have to ask to recline my seat.
A little consideration and warning would be nice. Why is everyone here being so aggressive about their 'right' to recline?
Do I also need to signal when I move it forward in case you are leaning a tablet against it? I mean come on. Instead of looking at this from that point of view you should consider why you feel the need to be pre-warned of a passenger doing something they are allowed to do at any time.
I get it that coach is tight but I shouldn't have to signal to everyone that I plan to recline my seat.
I get it that coach is tight but I shouldn't have to signal to everyone that I plan to recline my seat.
The least you could do is acknowledge to the person behind you that you're about to do it. You're acting as if you're being told to file a permit. On the contrary, it's pretty common courtesy.
I've been flying for the last 15 years regularly and never once witnessed someone forewarning the passenger behind they were clear to recline their chair.
Because you could injure me, or at least cause pain and discomfort when you slam your seat into my knees.
I am reclining my seat a few inches, not swinging a door open. Claiming you could get injured from that is ridiculous unless you blatantly push your knees up against the seat in front of you. Sit upright with your butt all the way in the seat and you won't have this problem when others decide to recline which is within their rights.
I can't reply to your latest comment, presumably to some stupid pander-y HN ethics rule, but I've seen plenty of people who warn/ask the person behind them that they're going to recline. It's simple courtesy. To be honest, the fact that this doesn't even process with you makes you sound awful to deal with in any sort of transaction.
5'9"? How long are your femurs?
Or if you have a laptop on the tray or your knees. It gets jammed and could break.
I didn't have enough space to even hold my phone in front of my face to read it because she had reclined back so far.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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?
Exactly, that's what I'm saying. It goes both ways.
Was your seat reclined?
No, because I was trying to be thoughtful to the person behind me.
Think this might be part of the issue...
Just because I show a level of consideration to the person behind of me that I'm not personally afforded doesn't mean that this is part of the issue. The issue is a design problem created by the airline, and I'd rather be courteous to the person behind me if possible.
That's the hill you want to die on? Inability to look at your gadget?
I'm sorry if I dare used a practical example of the bad situation I was in, rather than describing it in inches.
People reclining the seat in front of me in economy makes the flight basically unbearable for me. That's why I will never fly economy again for flights > 2 hours. From your comment I guess you are not very tall.
Book the exit row. The seat in front of it can't recline to ensure the pathway is open.
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.
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.
I am doing that whenever I can for the < 2 hour flights, but for longer flights economy is just too much of a pain anyway.
Yeah, that was great until the airlines made those $150+ "upgrade" seats.
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.
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.
Few months back I was in coach working away on my laptop and the person in front decided to jam their seat all the way back. I barely managed to move my laptop before the screen got caught in the table lip thingy.
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.
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.
I'm 6'6" with broad shoulders. I can't take the window seat because of the curve of the plan. I usually have to take an aisle seat where I can (and also pay the extra for the legroom). The problem with the aisle seat, on long-haul flights at least, is that my shoulder sticks out a little, and every. single. fucker. walking by strikes it. I can walk down the aisle without hitting anything, but apparently no-one else in the known universe can. Tall, short, fat, thin, all of them. It's like people just slalom off the sides of chairs for fun.
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.
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.
Worse is when boarding and you're in the front row of econ and people will their bags and wheeled luggage smack into your face and knees. Just the other day I was hit in the face pretty good by some guys backpack. Confident people just don't care about anyone else on a flight. That's not even counting the people that can't wait to remove their carry-ons from above and they're way too heavy and fall down.
That's the scenario that scares me on flights. I've rescued my laptop in the nick of time a couple of times. I was pretty sure it was going to break one time.
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.
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.
The airline wont pay, nor should they imo, and the person in front is just exercising his/her right to recline. The dangers of laptop crunch are obvious. If your employer expects you to work without paying business then they should pay, if not working put the laptop away or get a small tablet/netbook. Look at the space between upright and fully reclined as not really yours, just like sticking your leg in the aisle, at some point a trolley is going to accidentally hit you, so be it.
1. There are reasons to use a computer beyond just working.
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.
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.
Working, youtube, giant ebook reader, candy crush desktop, vlc etc.. whatever it's your free choice to use a laptop in an environment that is not setup for such and deliberately in the space where the person in front can rightfully recline their seat at any moment. The airline sells you a seat from A to B, and in economy a very basic one - no one reasonable has any false expectations about this, they did not sell you a co-working hot working desk 38,000ft in the air with accidental damage insurance for your very important laptop.
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 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?
> Few months back I was in coach working away on my laptop and the person in front decided to jam their seat all the way back. I barely managed to move my laptop before the screen got caught in the table lip thingy.
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?
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?
To a certain extent, yeah it'd move a bit. The bottom of the macbook pro screens likes to catch on the edge of the tray table enough to be a problem.
I don't undrstand this. You know the seat can recline. I always position my laptop so the screen would be pushed closed instead of being jammed, in case the seat in front of me suddenly reclines. Maybe there isn't a configuration that allows this; then it's a calculated risk to use the computer anyway.
This. People just slam their seats back all the time. Slowly ease it back, or even turn around and make eye contact before you do it...
I wonder why this seat reclining problem has not been solved yet.
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?
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?
I'd imagine such a mechanism would be a decent bit heavier than standard airline recliners (as mentioned in the article, "Today, an economy seat that tips the scales above 9 kilograms (20 pounds) is, by an airline’s measure, too heavy to fly")
Also, if the seats slide downwards, does that impinge on the small luggage space underneath the seat for the person behind?
Also, if the seats slide downwards, does that impinge on the small luggage space underneath the seat for the person behind?
The seats don't just slide downwards, the seating part slides forward on the frame that is fixed, so in effect the top of the seat gets lower, the angle of the back increases, and the forward edge moves forward. The space under the seat isn't affected.
But yeah, the seats are probably bulkier.
But yeah, the seats are probably bulkier.
this is largely going to be bad seat design, I suggest that you try and put your dollars with a different airline or choose flights on an aircraft with a better setup.
I agree with you on this fact. My last flight swapped carriers and one had significantly better seats than the other. (This also happened on a regional jet, which I think exacerbated the problem.)
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.
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.
I am always pleasantly surprised when people in front don't push back their seats. I make sure I don't to the person behind me but it's a domino effect if the person in front does. It's this weird phenomenon.
There are two things that I use to make economy flight bearable
- 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
- 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
Are you "allowed" to stand in the back? Iirc you're no longer permitted to loiter around the galley area.
Though flight attendants probably don't give a
Though flight attendants probably don't give a
You can't stand in the front, due to security concerns with being near the cockpit. Back is fair game. More common on international flights, though. Plus international flights they have snacks in the back, so you can stand there and munch.
Great to know (knew about the snacks but was never sure if I was allowed to loiter). Thank you!
Remember, if you loiter politely while in flight, the worst anyone official will do to you is ask you to go back to your seat :) very little downside to trying even if it's "not allowed".
[deleted]
If they recline their seat, bump the back of it.
If the person behind you bumps you continually, recline your seat.
If the person behind you bumps you continually, recline your seat.
Passive aggressiveness as a considered plan seems like a bad idea. Maybe just ask the person not to?
Nothing more annoying then someone reclining it seat even during eating time, ignoring mine and steward's requests on a flight from Shanghai to Auckland. I ended up eating in one of the steward seat's accompanied by one of the stewards.
>Faced with a choice between discomfort and higher fares, most travelers choose discomfort
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.
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.
I wouldn't put it that easily. I think I've flown 60/40 with "normal" airlines vs budget - when my times are fixed I can't really choose to vote with my wallet and, more importantly, leg room and service have not been better or worse - no matter the airline, it was simply hit and miss - all.the.time.
Thing is, people who can pick airline, pick the budget ones. Which cause normal ones to die out. Then, guys like you have to pick a budget airline because there is frequently no normal one on the route any longer...
I suspect that part of the problem is that airline seats aren't advertised in a way that allows consumers to effectively comparison shop. Consumers aren't aware of or can't tell the difference between the "economy" seats offered by different airlines, and so there's a race to the bottom.
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.
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.
Google Flights actually does a great job at this, displaying seat width and pitch and calling out when it's above or below average.
Yes! I now exclusively use Google Flight Search because of this (and as a result routinely and happily pay more to fly on airlines that have sane seat pitches)
Seatguru etc. I assure you that frequent travelers are very aware of this sort of thing.
Here's an 800 post thread—with wiki!—on the best seat on United's three-class 772:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1...
Yes, the frequent flyers know this stuff by heart.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1...
Yes, the frequent flyers know this stuff by heart.
This is one of the few cases where I'm happy to be a stumpy little 5'6" guy. Airline seats aren't fun for anybody, but the savings on tickets are worth the cramped conditions for me.
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.
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.
> Most people are just fine for two hours. As the third hour approaches, stiffness increases and comfort declines. At four hours, however, a sort of derièrre detente is achieved, and the levels of discomfort recede.
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.
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.
I suspect the testing is only being done on a planeload of people who've just recently sat down.
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.
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.
Adrenaline is a powerful thing. Are you suggesting that discomfort from sitting in a cramped space will prevent people from saving their own lives?
Does adrenaline override numbness and being unable to tell what position your limbs are in?
Yes; at least, I've found myself walking on a numb leg when it seemed urgent enough. Seems like it carries a risk of injuring one's leg, but sometimes that's less bad than the alternative.
I recently took a 24 hour flight to Asia and chose the cheapest ticket. The seats were very small and very cramped. Economy plus seats had the 35" or 36" of legroom that were standard decades ago, and business class had 40" of legroom and wider seats. It was miserable, but I traveled across the Pacific ocean in less than a day's time. Economy Plus was $300 more expensive, and Business Class was $900 more expensive. I am a young guy, I don't mind packing into an airplane. That is the price I pay.
Cheap flights, big seats. Choose one.
Cheap flights, big seats. Choose one.
What airline was this? All airlines that I usually fly has fully flat beds in business class.
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.
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.
Singapore. I didn't even mention first class, because I forgot about it -- they boarded the plane from a separate walkway/door to be insulated from the peasantry. I think they have individual beds/cabins.
I often fly Singapore airlines, and I've never been on first (which are the cabins you referred to).
In business class their seats fold into a flat bed, except on some older planes.
In business class their seats fold into a flat bed, except on some older planes.
But was your standard ticket decades ago, which had the 35" of legroom, three times as expensive? People who pay for the amenities are getting ripped.
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.
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.
> But was your standard ticket decades ago, which had the 35" of legroom, three times as expensive?
Yes, more than that, at least inflation-adjusted.
Yes, more than that, at least inflation-adjusted.
You act like price gouging is a fundamental truth. There's no reason 10% more legroom needs to cost over 10% more.
A 24 hour flight to cross the Pacific? 14 hours sounds more realistic...
Also, a $900 premium for business class on a Singapore Airlines trans-Pacific flight doesn't sound right either. Plus their business class has (gigantic) lie-flat seats.
He may have been referring to a non-direct flight with an Atlantic route? eg, going Seattle to Chennai will be ~24 hours of travel either via Frankfurt or Dubai.
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.
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.
While suffering on a plane I've often fantasized about taking a common block of nine seats (3x3) and turning them into 3-high bunk beds in the same space instead.
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?
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?
The main issue is safety and evacuation.
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.
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.
> The main issue is safety and evacuation.
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...
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...
My reading of that article is that the FAA hadn't previously tested whether small seat pitches are unsafe for non-emergency reasons, like if they cause more cases of deep vein thrombosis in passengers.
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.
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.
This happend to me multiple times when I was flying on a monthly basis with Swiss. I had the whole row for myself for about 3 hours. Its not so comfortable to lay down because of the seatbelts and the arm-holder on the window seat. I am 170cm tall and my feet were in the aisle and got sometimes hit by people. But it's truly nice to stretch my legs across three seats on the floor while leaning against the window seat. The first tray is for the notebook and the second one for drinks and food. That is truly comfortable.
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.
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.
Fun idea, but safety is going to be a big hurdle. :)
Safer because you're in an additional box. Think Tokyo capsule hotel with seatbelt.
That doesn't help when the plane catches fire on the tarmac and everyone has only 90 seconds to get out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/business/a-lesson-in-air-s...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/business/a-lesson-in-air-s...
It does help if you add that as a design requirement, perhaps a five sided box. It's not like it's particularly easy to get out of a packed window seat today.
As long as my flight is still safer than the drive to the airport I'm not going to automatically reject ideas that could be unsafe in very rare circumstances.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the people will probably disagree with you. Mostly because people don't understand statistics well. They will always be more frightened by a few hundred people burnt alive when a plane catches fire every ten years or less than by the amount of people killed in road accidents every days.
I think that would end up being quite space inefficient, as people tend to be > 3 time taller than they are wider.
Isles are 31 inches apart, but seats are only ~17-18 inches wide. Stacking 3 tall gives you ~17.5 x 3 * 31 square inches. If you give 20 inches for bunk width that's 6'8" for bunk height which works out.
I don't think you could safely stack three of these, but it's going to be more comfortable on long flights.
I don't think you could safely stack three of these, but it's going to be more comfortable on long flights.
> I don't think you could safely stack three of these
They could be attached to each other and the roof as well.
They could be attached to each other and the roof as well.
I am more concerned with people exiting quickly in an emergency. It might work if everyone was a fit 20 something who practiced it. But, many people would have issues even in normal boarding, crawling over people with a carbon filled with smoke would be a real challenge.
It's not substantially different than a current row of packed seats, especially when leaning back.
It might be even easier to stand up with a good design.
It might be even easier to stand up with a good design.
I'm thinking same floor space but extending upward in third dimension.
Airplanes nowadays, at least for the longer routes where poorly fitting seats seems to be the biggest problem, carry so many people that the distribution of heights and weights of the passengers on a given flight should be quite close to the distribution of heights and weights for the flying public as a whole.
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.
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.[deleted]
This, to me, is a discrimination of sorts. I'm 6'5, and I can't help that. I don't physically even fit on some plane seats because of this pinch. And when these companies shrink economy seats, they offer the old economy size seats for extra. So I end up having to pay a lot of money just not to be in pain. If this gets worse, I'm afraid I won't be able to fly at all anymore....
So you're saying a small person should subsidize your comfort?
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.
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.
It's not about comfort, it's about survival. I don't need a luxurious seat...I just want to fit. Would you make the same argument about heavy people? In my case, it's not even about me mostly. I feel sorry also for the person next to me, who has my splayed knee and shoulder in their seat, and the person in front of me, who has my knee in their back. I try to always choose an appropriate seat, but with only a handful on a plane, they're usually gobbled up.
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.
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.
> heavy people
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.
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.
Just a question, I don't have a strong opinion. I will say that you CAN buy double width by buying two economy seats, but cannot do the same for legroom.
I wonder if a new kind of airline would be successful where seats were not sold by ID, but by femur length. That way, they could set the seat pitch according to a continuous distribution matched to the passenger height. Now not only would they be able to accommodate--on average--the tall passengers, but they could squeeze in more passengers overall and thus make more money because the shorter passengers would be packed more tightly. That is, everyone would get exactly the same amount of knee clearance.
I'd be fine if small people didn't subsidize large people's seats if you could actually reserve roomier seats based on size. If you're going to allow any random sized person take the roomier seats then you are not pricing based on of pragmatics concerns like $/cubic volume of airplane. In the US we've already decided that this is not an ok reason to discriminate or businesses would be charging people in wheelchairs extra for ramps
OT: I've always wondered why airplane seats are designed that make sleeping in them so uncomfortable, especially if they are not reclined. Is the seat shape due to a safety requirement?
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.
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.
I suspect it's because of weight savings. Look at your average car seat, it is way thicker than the average aircraft seat.
Forcing me to pay 4x more, because I am taller than 95th percentile is completely unfair. I just don't understand why airlines can't differentiate the seats for smaller and taller (and heavier) people.
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.
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.
Virgin America was such an amazing airline. I loved the avatars (being able to hint to people on the seat selection map that you want to get work done). And the on-demand food was a huge upgrade - it's really hard to get work done on airlines where they dictate the food schedule (is it time to pack up & put your tray table down? No? Is it now? How soon is now?)
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.
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.
I thought I'd seen this in Bloomberg a few weeks ago, but it was a very similar article in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/29/incredible-... .
This article doesn't seem to mention Chuck Schumer's efforts on the issue (at least as of last February; maybe he's forgotten it since): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/28/charles-sch... .
Thanks for the information! The requirement for the FAA to establish a minimum seat size is in the House and Senate Versions of the FAA Reauthorization Bill. The House version is not passed yet, they have until September to do so before the prior one expires.
If the House Bill passes, the reconciled version that will be sent to the President should have this requirement.
If the House Bill passes, the reconciled version that will be sent to the President should have this requirement.
Complain mode off.
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?
[1] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E-ouOe8jIH8/maxresdefault.jpg
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?
[1] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E-ouOe8jIH8/maxresdefault.jpg
Now, everybody has a choice to choose his own seat class. But with your proposal, passengers that are actually OK and would choice current seat sizes for a little discount would have to pay for everybody's else comfort.
One cool approach to a solution would be to use data to save the day. Millions of people fly through the carriers each year. The airlines could analyze the statistical heights of their average airline passenger and design the seats accordingly. Then assign seats on the flight based on passenger height. You could have a percentage of your seats configured for short people, a bigger percentage configured for average height, and several set up for tall outliers. Then everyone will be statistically more likely to get a comfortable experience.
I wish airlines made business class cheaper, and slightly worse:
- 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.
- 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 agree entirely with this.
I'm still wondering if there is a way to build a sleeper 767 that can fit 200 people. All long haul night time flights.
I wish someone would open snooze airlines.
I wish someone would open snooze airlines.
Problem with that is that most airlines like to keep their planes in use as much as possible. With a airplane configured for just sleeping it's only useful for a third of the day.
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.
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.
Yea I have no idea how you'd pack that many people in without making someone have to climb a ladder, which is a non-starter.
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.
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.
Might be related to this, "For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds." [1]
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.803
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.803
This might be an unpopular opinion here, but..
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.
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.
> This might be an unpopular opinion here, but..
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.
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.
I'm 6'5" and have in enough in-country flights in germany enough space to 'exactly fit'. But than i'm unable to put the tray down.
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.
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.
Yes, the seats getting smaller. I just had a flight this week and I am still raving about it. I never been so lucky I had a bunch of flights to get back home: 2h, 2h, 7h and 7h and I got assigned an exit row seat on 3/4 of the flights. Amazing those exit row seats. I am 6"7 so I could use the extra space :D :D :D
Is there a difference between domestic and international flights from a same company? I take trans-pacific flights several times a year, and what I notice is that international flights might have less legroom compared. But this could also caused by uneasiness from sitting too long
A self-driving car will take you up to 400 miles overnight in what will likely be a sleeper seat. That's the sword hanging over the airlines' heads. If they're not ready for it, there will be much pain, and probably much begging for a bailout.
I would ride in a coffin sized box if it was the cheapest option.
Air travel is incredibly harmful wrt global warming, so anything that disincentivises flying & lessens passanger-mile impact is a positive change from an utilitarian POV.
Anyone notice the same about stadium seats?
"Earn $100 for sitting in an airplane seat for eight hours."
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.
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.
Another 6'5"+ here. I damaged my left knee while flying from Europe to New Zealand due to tight seats and people in front of me declining their seats as well. Everything is made for average-to-small people :-(
Except for those really high shelves.
At 6'6" / 250, this is exactly why I stick with a frequent flyer program - so that I can upgrade any flight above 3 hours.
A lot of airlines will let you pay extra for the extra legroom seats - my experience on Malaysian, Singapore Airlines, FinnAir so being an FF or paying for business isn't always necessary if it's just height/legroom. Width wise there's no answer in economy.
What is that disturbing animation at the beginning of the article? Is it a "crash-test dummy" type test, an artificial simulation, a joke …?
The bloomberg website is full of wonderful '90s-esque animations that have a low-budget feel, certainly intentionally. It reminds me of the aesthetics of a Tim and Eric animation.
https://www.bloomberg.com/nonexistantpage
https://www.bloomberg.com/nonexistantpage
That's the most "wat" thing I've seen in a while. Even the arms look like they're made of rubber...
So sort of ragdoll physics apparently. Maybe a Garry's mod production.
[deleted]
maybe seats aren't the best way to fit the most people into an aircraft, what if there lied down across and there were or or 3 levels.
One size fits all, doesn't.
Aircraft seat design is literally a form of murder, though it'll never be prosecuted.
Aircraft seat design is literally a form of murder, though it'll never be prosecuted.
[deleted]
Of course they are shrinking seats.
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.
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.
> That is how the Western world functions
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...
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...
Agree with your point, but a question regarding the graph:
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.
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.
> was [care] taken to adjust for shorter (and hence cheaper) flights?
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_...
[3] https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
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_...
[3] https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Not just American consumers mind you. EasyJet and RyanAir aren't American inventions.
> real price of a ticket has fallen consistently since at least the 1980s
er, it certainly is cheaper than the 80s, but not sure what you mean by consistently there. Look at that graph post 2002.
er, it certainly is cheaper than the 80s, but not sure what you mean by consistently there. Look at that graph post 2002.
I wondered how you could make this point and avoid downvotes.
"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.
"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.
> This point might've come across as "you have no choice." ... that you have choices. You can pay a premium for a better seat, .... 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".
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".
> Their goal is to make ever-increasing profit
Airlines are not a very profitable business, and never have been. Most of the time they are flirting with bankruptcy or in bankruptcy.
Airlines are not a very profitable business, and never have been. Most of the time they are flirting with bankruptcy or in bankruptcy.
> 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.