Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable
https://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-airline-seats-from-hell-20190426-story.html
119 comments
WRT reclining, I disagree. The seats need to be upright enough so that emergency egress is easy, but that runs contrary to what is comfortable for many people. I don't need much recline, but allowing the seat to move back an inch or two (as measured at the top) makes a huge difference in posture.
Then I would argue for leaving them permanently reclined. An inch or two of recline isn't really "recline" given the initial bolt upright setup. I don't see the tiny amount of recline affecting emergency egress...it might even improve it.
Delta's seats still do. They've just reduced the recline, not eliminated it.
I'd like to see reclining seats keep the top stationary, but move the bottom forward. That way when you recline you are only taking away your own space.
That would probably require a larger seat pitch. No argument from me.
Not having the top of the seat angled forward to push your head into a weird position would go a long way towards fixing that without reclining.
If you ever do a long haul flight in economy (which I assume you haven't) you will realize the obvious purpose of reclining coach seats: to allow people a fighting chance of remaining asleep instead of being constantly awakened by their falling heads.
The reclining seats also allow you to be shaken awake every 15 minutes as someone uses the headrests as handholds while walking up the aisle in the dark.
That 45 degree upward incline in both directions is a bitch.
That 45 degree upward incline in both directions is a bitch.
My head just barely remains upright whenever I don't use the reclining function. I always feel bad invading the space of the person behind me, especially when it's a tall person who is already at the limit for room. Although I'll lean back all day long when it's a child behind me.
Being such a tall person, your concern is appreciated.
In economy class my knees touch the back of the seat in front even before it reclines.
I'm tall as well so it's more of just a courtesy that if I don't recline, the person behind me will pay it forward and not recline unless needed. On a red eye, it's always appropriate to recline though.
Honestly, I just want to be knocked unconscious, stacked up and strapped down like firewood with others, and then woken up upon arrival. Flights would get so cheap and there wouldn't be any need for any amenities. I think I just hate the fake comfort that airlines try to give us. I'm never really going to enjoy sitting in a little seat inside a metal tube so just cut it with the forced nostalgia of the golden age of air travel and just get me to where I need to be a quickly and cheaply as possible. I'm flying overnight to Europe soon. The plan is to just take a couple anti-histamines and so I don't have to experience any of the flight.
Honestly, I just want to be knocked unconscious, stacked up and strapped down like firewood with others, and then woken up upon arrival. Flights would get so cheap and there wouldn't be any need for any amenities. I think I just hate the fake comfort that airlines try to give us. I'm never really going to enjoy sitting in a little seat inside a metal tube so just cut it with the forced nostalgia of the golden age of air travel and just get me to where I need to be a quickly and cheaply as possible. I'm flying overnight to Europe soon. The plan is to just take a couple anti-histamines and so I don't have to experience any of the flight.
Ditto. If the person reclines I'm literally pinned between their seat-back and my seat-front. I take painkillers for flying because I cannot wave my magic wand and spend 6x as much for higher class.
Actually I do a lot of flying. the fact that the upright position isn't designed well doesn't really negate my point. A well-designed non reclining seat would work better with tight pitches.
For short flights, I do not mind the development of "standing seats." Airline margins will remain razor thin and the savings will be passed to the subset of customers who choose to be more cramped. There WILL continue to be "premium economy" or similar for those who choose it, that is undoubtable.
If the price sensitivity tradeoff of customers ultimately dictates that these standing seats do not gain adoption, I would not be surprised.
History has shown that customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort, but complaining all the while.
If the price sensitivity tradeoff of customers ultimately dictates that these standing seats do not gain adoption, I would not be surprised.
History has shown that customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort, but complaining all the while.
I don't believe that "customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort".
Really customers have about as much choice in the comfort of a flight as they do in the cost of health care services.
For years it has been "pay 4 times as much as economy or suffer", in the last ten years they've introduced "basic economy" which at least is realistic.
I might rather fly in a widebody on a domestic flight but I don't get the choice. One reason you hate to fly is that you hate to fly in a 737 (or A320) and you never get to fly in anything else so you just don't know it could be better (at a lower cost per seat mile!) in an A220 or E195.
Really customers have about as much choice in the comfort of a flight as they do in the cost of health care services.
For years it has been "pay 4 times as much as economy or suffer", in the last ten years they've introduced "basic economy" which at least is realistic.
I might rather fly in a widebody on a domestic flight but I don't get the choice. One reason you hate to fly is that you hate to fly in a 737 (or A320) and you never get to fly in anything else so you just don't know it could be better (at a lower cost per seat mile!) in an A220 or E195.
People vote with their dollars, many legs have multiple options and multiple seat options. Almost everyone goes with the cheapest option.
I've flow from NYC to Chicago $90 round trip. It's incredible how inexpensive flying as become.
I've flow from NYC to Chicago $90 round trip. It's incredible how inexpensive flying as become.
Tell me by what means I can "vote with my dollars". Is there a travel site where I can sort flights by seat pitch?
I see options to sort by price, by airline, by number of minutes in the air, or by number of transfers, but I've never seen the option to sort by seat pitch. Half the time, it's nearly impossible to even figure out what kind of aircraft it will be.
I choose by price because it's the most relevant of the limited and mostly useless options that we're given.
Personal space is a competitive advantage. Hotels get this. The website for the nearest hotel to me has a top-level "ROOMS" page, with photographs and square footage of every room. I will pay a little more because I know what I'm getting. With air travel, I have no way of knowing which flight will pack me in like a sardine, so I might as well save the money and spend it on a hot meal at the end to recover.
I see options to sort by price, by airline, by number of minutes in the air, or by number of transfers, but I've never seen the option to sort by seat pitch. Half the time, it's nearly impossible to even figure out what kind of aircraft it will be.
I choose by price because it's the most relevant of the limited and mostly useless options that we're given.
Personal space is a competitive advantage. Hotels get this. The website for the nearest hotel to me has a top-level "ROOMS" page, with photographs and square footage of every room. I will pay a little more because I know what I'm getting. With air travel, I have no way of knowing which flight will pack me in like a sardine, so I might as well save the money and spend it on a hot meal at the end to recover.
I've been trying to vote with my dollars for a long time. The problem is that what used to be economy is now premium and it costs twice what the current economy seats cost. There is no gradient, it's cattle class or $$$$$
Yes but economy today is half the price of what it was 30 years ago!
And since 2005 they've been rising.
This is a naive comment. The airline industry is hardly competitive. You do realize the issue is the limits on gates. Please visit Canada and our shitty airline and telecom monopoly/oligopoly to understand how airlines can lower service, make money and pass almost nothing back to customers.
What I can say is that if you to any other country, developed or not, the flying experience seems to be better than the US. For instance:
* not getting groped by the T.S.A.
* not having to book a flight a month in advance to get a good price
* paying less
* being treated like a human being
* not getting groped by the T.S.A.
* not having to book a flight a month in advance to get a good price
* paying less
* being treated like a human being
TSA precheck solves the first one
Yeah, but it “solves” it at a monetary and privacy cost (albeit relatively small for the former).
It bothers me that we tolerate various personal possessions (in this instance privacy) being taken away and then given back, generously (/s), for a small fee. I would rather be groped and spoken down to then hand more information/money over to another poorly-managed organization.
Moreover, the Airline-Security group has always been reactive rather than proactive. I don’t see how TSA pre-check prevents anything in the first place. What’s to stop someone from deciding at some point after the Pre-Check process that they want to create havoc on a flight? Nothing. Then we’ll have Super-Pre-Check, for only $190 and this time you “only have to” give a DNA swab. Sorry for the cynicism, etc, but I doubt I’m alone in calling the whole thing a facade.
Anyway, I forgot my initial point, but there’s my rant.
It bothers me that we tolerate various personal possessions (in this instance privacy) being taken away and then given back, generously (/s), for a small fee. I would rather be groped and spoken down to then hand more information/money over to another poorly-managed organization.
Moreover, the Airline-Security group has always been reactive rather than proactive. I don’t see how TSA pre-check prevents anything in the first place. What’s to stop someone from deciding at some point after the Pre-Check process that they want to create havoc on a flight? Nothing. Then we’ll have Super-Pre-Check, for only $190 and this time you “only have to” give a DNA swab. Sorry for the cynicism, etc, but I doubt I’m alone in calling the whole thing a facade.
Anyway, I forgot my initial point, but there’s my rant.
No it doesn't. If the precheck lanes are closed you get to go through the regular line first. That's it. Add to that, there is no evidence to show that our intrusive security is any better than the former metal detectors that existed prior. Flying is needlessly impacted. It's theater as it's trivially easy to bypass most security measures in place and get weapons on board all you want. The best security measure that was implemented was locking the cockpit during flight. It's the only one that made any real improvement in security and it cost nothing.
Not living in and avoiding visits to a surveillance dystopia also solves this problem.
I'm fine with paying a bit extra for more comfort and better service on a flight, but anything short of double the cost of the cheapest coach-class ticket never seems to get me that.
Soon after the 2008 financial crisis I flew from Ithaca NY to Washington DC multiple times for about $100.
These flights went through what is now American's hub in Philly.
I thought, gee, I'd like to take my son to Philly but then I found they charged $400 for the flight from ITH to PHL.
When the pricing obviously is disjoint from the cost to provide the service, the airline industry just can't expect us to take anything they say about pricing and service seriously. It's just like it is with these pharmacy benefit managers.
These flights went through what is now American's hub in Philly.
I thought, gee, I'd like to take my son to Philly but then I found they charged $400 for the flight from ITH to PHL.
When the pricing obviously is disjoint from the cost to provide the service, the airline industry just can't expect us to take anything they say about pricing and service seriously. It's just like it is with these pharmacy benefit managers.
Given the option, I will rarely go with a more expensive option if I know I can stand the cheapest. Standing to get 50%? hell yeah.
>For short flights, I do not mind the development of "standing seats."
There are always those customers who would be willing to sit in the luggage hold or lay in the overhead bin or hang onto the wing to save $10.
But these new seating choices remind me of my train travel through Poland in the late 70's on my way to the USSR. I bought a first class ticket to Ukraine from Warsaw and when it pulled into the station there were people climbing through windows while folks used the doors to exit. By the time I got to my 1st class cabin there were about 15 people in there (seating for 6 comfortably). I had to stand in the aisle for about 8 hours overnight hanging on. Good Times...Good Times....LOL...
There are always those customers who would be willing to sit in the luggage hold or lay in the overhead bin or hang onto the wing to save $10.
But these new seating choices remind me of my train travel through Poland in the late 70's on my way to the USSR. I bought a first class ticket to Ukraine from Warsaw and when it pulled into the station there were people climbing through windows while folks used the doors to exit. By the time I got to my 1st class cabin there were about 15 people in there (seating for 6 comfortably). I had to stand in the aisle for about 8 hours overnight hanging on. Good Times...Good Times....LOL...
We need hyperloop to work and national high speed rail to offer alternatives and competition. I do a 2 hour flight, about 1000 miles for work once or twice a quarter, I’d seriously consider a 4-6 hour train ride if the experience was better. Rather than paying extra to carry my bag on, I wouldn’t mind paying extra for a proper meal and some comfortable work space. And if they streamlined the security process the time difference would be that much smaller.
Do you have TSA Pre? Security normally takes me about 5-10 minutes. I do prefer the experience taking the train but there's only about one destination a few hundred miles away where it makes sense.
So the solution to you is that citizens should pay for the privilege of giving up their right to privacy so that the government can pretend it's doing something more than it was before. What does pre check do that they didn't already know? It's frankly mind boggling that people aren't up in arms over how plainly silly the idea that the TSA makes you safer than it was too fly before. It's the same people with more toys, less training, and more stress. The solution is to make the security meet the actual risk. Current airport security is more about making money than it is about security.
Delta's NET income for 2018 was $3.95 billion dollars
Apparently they have over 180 million passengers a year[0]. That means that, at most, they're making $7 per passenger. It's not like they're gouging their customers.
[0]https://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts
[0]https://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts
It doesn't mean that aren't stuck in vicious circles.
For instance, Boeing has dumped 737 MAX planes (and duped regulators, endangered passengers, ...) to fight off advanced competitors such as the A220 and Gen2 E195.
Smaller less-capitalized companies have done the right thing and embraced innovation, somehow Boeing decided that international widebody passengers deserve better planes but that narrowbody passengers should suffer and that neoliberals will parrot that "there is no alternative".
Modern airliners can be smaller than the 737 bit have much better passenger comfort and lower seat-mile costs. Boeing has to let up on the anti-competitive behavior for that to happen.
For instance, Boeing has dumped 737 MAX planes (and duped regulators, endangered passengers, ...) to fight off advanced competitors such as the A220 and Gen2 E195.
Smaller less-capitalized companies have done the right thing and embraced innovation, somehow Boeing decided that international widebody passengers deserve better planes but that narrowbody passengers should suffer and that neoliberals will parrot that "there is no alternative".
Modern airliners can be smaller than the 737 bit have much better passenger comfort and lower seat-mile costs. Boeing has to let up on the anti-competitive behavior for that to happen.
with revenue in the same year of $44b, this is pretty much the average profit margin for an american business. I'm not sure which direction you're trying to argue here.
That’ll be fun when you spend 3 hours on the tarmac before your “short haul” flight due to airport congestion or weather conditions.
Edited to add: what about people with disabilities? Can elderly people no longer fly? Or even if they have a few sitting seats to comply with disability regulations, what happens if you sprain your ankle at some point between booking your flight and boarding?
Edited to add: what about people with disabilities? Can elderly people no longer fly? Or even if they have a few sitting seats to comply with disability regulations, what happens if you sprain your ankle at some point between booking your flight and boarding?
Having been recently "traped" insinde a plane at the gate for nearly 3 hours, that is my main concern. Personaly i would have no problem with such a standing seat for short 30-60min flights if boarding and deboarding plane-to-gate process is <15min.
I don't think anyone suggested that all seats are going to be replaced by these.
Sure, but if you have to pay a premium for regular seats just because you have a disability, that seems like a problem. And the injury scenario could also be extremely problematic. What if there are no sitting seats left, or you could afford the cattle class seat but not the business class seat?
If my grandmother needs to fly, do we have to upgrade both her seat and someone else’s in the family to something twice as expensive so someone can help her with the various things she can’t do for herself any more? Or upgrade the whole family if we want to sit together?
Current cattle class seats aren’t comfortable. But they’re accommodating to the elderly and people with disabilities or injuries. If some seat shuffling is required to accommodate a special case it’s usually just shifting people between aisle and non-aisle seats, not downgrading them to standing seats so someone else can sit.
If my grandmother needs to fly, do we have to upgrade both her seat and someone else’s in the family to something twice as expensive so someone can help her with the various things she can’t do for herself any more? Or upgrade the whole family if we want to sit together?
Current cattle class seats aren’t comfortable. But they’re accommodating to the elderly and people with disabilities or injuries. If some seat shuffling is required to accommodate a special case it’s usually just shifting people between aisle and non-aisle seats, not downgrading them to standing seats so someone else can sit.
Rubbish. This type of "news" is cheap brand name advertising by low cost airlines. The 5-pound toilet from European Ryanair was a similar campaign.
Though news coverage may appear negative, it is aligned with the impression of the brand as "low cost" and therefore strengthens the brand.
That’s interesting. I never thought about that. Any idea on the effectiveness of doing this? It just seems dicey to me with quite a lot of risk with minimal benefit. I’d rather pet a rabid raccoon than be the PR manager that pulls this stunt. But I do see your point and if done well... yea, just say you found better ways of being lower cost and everyone forgets this ever happened.
Ryanair also did the standing seat stunt a few years ago :)
Some of us barely fit into a jet cabin at all now! Anything over maybe 5'10" and you have to duck. I'm 6'4". Imagine standing for an hour with your neck torqued because the headroom is too little.
In addition the new Delta legroom of 23" (including the depth of the seat!) will make it impossible for me to sit down. My knee is 25" from the seat (I just measured it). With existing 29" 'seat pitch' cabins, I have to splay my legs or sit sideways.
I guess it'll be the train for me.
In addition the new Delta legroom of 23" (including the depth of the seat!) will make it impossible for me to sit down. My knee is 25" from the seat (I just measured it). With existing 29" 'seat pitch' cabins, I have to splay my legs or sit sideways.
I guess it'll be the train for me.
Yeah, I always argue that planes are just buses with wings for me and I don't understand the whole 'seat size thing'.
But I'm 5'10 with a healthy BMI. It's interesting that the airlines have effectively made height a disability, and what sort of responsibilities airlines have towards making their flights accessible.
But I'm 5'10 with a healthy BMI. It's interesting that the airlines have effectively made height a disability, and what sort of responsibilities airlines have towards making their flights accessible.
Do you even have a functioning passenger train network? I've heard terrible things.
The US has an extensive rail network, but it's main purpose is for freight transport. There is a lot of freight train traffic in the US, and so many Americans live and work near train tracks, cross them during commutes, are used to interacting with trains. Just not riding on them.
Subways and other forms of light rail are common in large cities and have a lot of ridership. But these are not typically very plugged into broader rail network. Only a few of the major cities like Chicago or New York have shared stations for local and non-local train service. Taking a train between metropolitan areas us very uncommon outside of the east coast corridor.
For my part, I travel between Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago quite often. I've done it once all by train, just to see what it was like. I can park my car at the Mall of America, take the light rail over to the Amtrak station, then the train down to Union station in Chicago, then a commuter train out to my destination in the suburbs. All told... it ends up taking 12+ hours, and costs about the same as the plane ticket down there. The Megabus is way cheaper, and takes about as long. I could just make the 6 to 8 hour drive, which gives me maximum flexibility. Passenger rail face some stiff competition.
Subways and other forms of light rail are common in large cities and have a lot of ridership. But these are not typically very plugged into broader rail network. Only a few of the major cities like Chicago or New York have shared stations for local and non-local train service. Taking a train between metropolitan areas us very uncommon outside of the east coast corridor.
For my part, I travel between Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago quite often. I've done it once all by train, just to see what it was like. I can park my car at the Mall of America, take the light rail over to the Amtrak station, then the train down to Union station in Chicago, then a commuter train out to my destination in the suburbs. All told... it ends up taking 12+ hours, and costs about the same as the plane ticket down there. The Megabus is way cheaper, and takes about as long. I could just make the 6 to 8 hour drive, which gives me maximum flexibility. Passenger rail face some stiff competition.
I can get to maybe two destinations from Iowa on Amtrak. Takes a couple of days to get to either coast. And no cheaper than by air.
the train network is great! if you live in DC, NYC, or Boston, you can easily get to any other of those three cities!
...
...
Except it's more expensive than flying. I'd love to take the train from Boston to DC but buses are significantly cheaper and generally get you there at a similar time when you take into account how often they leave.
I would want to try sitting in one sometime. Airlines might have a better time trying to push the idea if they can get mockups built that can be installed in terminals at major airlines. If it's actually not that bad, let people test it out. It looks terrible but so is sitting in a cramped airline chair with your knees jammed into the seatback. If the vertical seat at least gave the illusion of more room in the sense that you aren't physically pressed up against anything, it might feel more comfortable. Another issue with the vertical seats is that everyone is a different height and therefore a different inseam length, how do you accommodate shorter people and children while also fitting tall people in? Having the saddle/seat being able to move up and down like an office chair would help.
You are talking about the "hidden comfort" of such a system. Ask yourself this, where else do you see such a configuration where there isn't a profit motive? Do people eat dinner in such a configuration? Do their living rooms have vertical seats? What about movie theaters, stadiums and classrooms?
Of course you don't.
Of course you don't.
Business opportunity: A university where tuition is way cheaper because the lecture halls have those standing seats to cram in twice as many students. /s
Airlines are having near-record profits now. I have a hard time believing there isn't some implicit or explicit collusion going on with US carriers. Not only are seats ever-more cramped and the fees ever greater, but pilot benefits have been massively slashed at many airlines as well. The series of mergers we have had have made things worse, I think.
This is my suspicion, as well. I don't buy the complaints about thin margins driving these decisions. The main innovation of airlines appears to be exactly how much misery people will put up with and still buy a ticket.
Razor thin margins and R&D expense is how folks handwave away being gouged by price or having service that would be deemed illegal for cattle.
Am I the only one who thinks standing for shorter flights of < 3 hours would be healthier and more comfortable? I work regularly at a standing desk, sitting for too long makes me feel lethargic and often causes headaches for me (it's much easier to have good posture, neck and back alignment when standing). For longer flights, people need a seat, but for shorter flights I would gladly pay the same price to be able to stand instead.
For folks with vascular issues, standing while flying can be more dangerous (increased vascular load).
Movement rather than standing or sitting still is the way to go.
Movement rather than standing or sitting still is the way to go.
When I fly I spend much of my time asleep. I make (the same) sub-2 hour flights annually and I would hate to have to stay awake for them.
My achilles tendon is starting to ache a little just thinking about being forced to stand for a flight.
I have seen people panic due to in-flight turbulence. It would not be fun to see seat mates experience an attack of claustrophobia.
Add in a tiny crisis or delays and the close space could cause unexpected mob behaviors.
Also, how would you pick up something if you dropped it; or eat?
The free-air to passenger ratio would diminish making body odors could get much more intense. Unexpected delays anyone?
Add in a tiny crisis or delays and the close space could cause unexpected mob behaviors.
Also, how would you pick up something if you dropped it; or eat?
The free-air to passenger ratio would diminish making body odors could get much more intense. Unexpected delays anyone?
This concept has been doing the rounds for a long time. I can't believe that any airline would be seriously considering it. Ryanair will occasionally drop a hint that they're looking into it when they're desperate for some free publicity, but that's about it.
Old as hell news
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_seat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_seat
This makes no sense to me. Airlines are adding another option that is cheaper. How is that a bad thing? If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it. What is there to be upset about here?
> Airlines are adding another option that is cheaper. How is that a bad thing?
No, they’re going to make this the new default setting. The regular crappy seat you enjoy today will become the “economy premium” option and cost more.
> If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it.
Assuming they go where you’re going in the timeframe you’re expecting. And assuming they don’t just move in lock-step with their other competitors and make these new seats the default.
No, they’re going to make this the new default setting. The regular crappy seat you enjoy today will become the “economy premium” option and cost more.
> If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it.
Assuming they go where you’re going in the timeframe you’re expecting. And assuming they don’t just move in lock-step with their other competitors and make these new seats the default.
>And assuming they don’t just move in lock-step with their other competitors and make these new seats the default
Well then they wouldn't be competitors, would they? That's another problem.
Any single airline could disrupt the system by choosing not to install these and to keep their prices the same. Or choosing to install these and lower their prices. Which are two good things for consumers.
Like I replied above, that's basic economics of competition.
Well then they wouldn't be competitors, would they? That's another problem.
Any single airline could disrupt the system by choosing not to install these and to keep their prices the same. Or choosing to install these and lower their prices. Which are two good things for consumers.
Like I replied above, that's basic economics of competition.
Show me the airline today that has superior seats to all the others that charges the same amount. It’s not a coincidence that seating has gotten crappier across the board.
And it's also not a coincidence that flights have gotten cheaper across the board.
Airlines have, as a whole, found that it's more profitable to sell cheaper crappy seats than it is to sell more expensive nice seats, because nobody will buy the nice seats given the option.
If someone had superior seats, why would they charge the same amount?
What I'm trying to say is that if someone comes out with a crappier seat, they will have to charge less than a normal seat. If they choose not to, they won't be able to get people into those standing seats.
When a company comes out with a crappier car, do they charge the same amount as a standard car? Does the price of that standard car rise, now that there's a crappy car at its price point?
Airlines have, as a whole, found that it's more profitable to sell cheaper crappy seats than it is to sell more expensive nice seats, because nobody will buy the nice seats given the option.
If someone had superior seats, why would they charge the same amount?
What I'm trying to say is that if someone comes out with a crappier seat, they will have to charge less than a normal seat. If they choose not to, they won't be able to get people into those standing seats.
When a company comes out with a crappier car, do they charge the same amount as a standard car? Does the price of that standard car rise, now that there's a crappy car at its price point?
You sound like an optimist. My take is that airlines are adding a worse option for the price they currently charge, which lets them charge more for the current options.
But in order for that to work, every single airline would have to do that together, holding hands. Because there are multiple airlines, a single airline could choose not to install them and keep their current prices for seats and outcompete those who do install these. I mean, that's basic economics of competition.
> Because there are multiple airlines
Where is this? In much of the US, there are only two airlines. Some lucky Americans might get to pick from three or four airlines. Airlines in the US are not really competitive in any meaningful way - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/22/a-lack-of-compe...
All American Airlines has to do is announce they're eliminating seats, and Delta and United would probably match them within 3 to 6 months.
Where is this? In much of the US, there are only two airlines. Some lucky Americans might get to pick from three or four airlines. Airlines in the US are not really competitive in any meaningful way - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/22/a-lack-of-compe...
All American Airlines has to do is announce they're eliminating seats, and Delta and United would probably match them within 3 to 6 months.
> I mean, that's basic economics of competition.
Yes, in a free market. Airlines are expensive and heavily regulated. And regulators are subject to capture (ref: FAA and 737-MAX problems). Which means there are major barriers to building a new airline.
I suspect it's actually much more profitable for airlines to follow the profit-seeking lead of a competitor. E.g. if Delta rolled out the standing seats for their current price, I suspect we'd see United and American follow. You don't have to look too far to see that's been the case with other "conveniences" like bag check fees, bag weight limits, seat selection fees, food for sale instead of being included in the price, etc.
Yes, in a free market. Airlines are expensive and heavily regulated. And regulators are subject to capture (ref: FAA and 737-MAX problems). Which means there are major barriers to building a new airline.
I suspect it's actually much more profitable for airlines to follow the profit-seeking lead of a competitor. E.g. if Delta rolled out the standing seats for their current price, I suspect we'd see United and American follow. You don't have to look too far to see that's been the case with other "conveniences" like bag check fees, bag weight limits, seat selection fees, food for sale instead of being included in the price, etc.
The basic laws of economics are premised based on an optimal market, with rational actors. None of these matter in a natural oligopoly. When there are few enough actors you can functionally cooperate without ever communicating directly which acts as a defacto cartel.
The problem is that what will actually happen is this new option will become default, and the old cattle class will now be an upgrade, and it won't cost what it does now, it will be 2x as much. There must be some MBA that figured out that someone who will pay a little extra for comfort will probably pay 2-3x as much if you push.
That isn't what has happened historically, in this market or in others. I don't know why so many people seem to expect this to happen now.
If Delta decides to implement these seats and then charge 2x as much for the current seats, United will choose not to and nobody will fly Delta unless they absolutely have to.
Competition keeps this sort of thing from happening.
If Delta decides to implement these seats and then charge 2x as much for the current seats, United will choose not to and nobody will fly Delta unless they absolutely have to.
Competition keeps this sort of thing from happening.
Except that's exactly what's been happening over the years. It might be so abrupt in this case that it would fail just because the marketing would be too easy. But airlines have been incrementally decreasing seat pitch for a long time and then charging a significant amount for what used to be normal.
No it hasn't. Airline prices have trended downwards over time.
Prices for “economy” and “business class” have been trending downwards, yes. But what you now get in “business class” is what you used to get in “economy” 20-30 years ago and “business class” now is not less expensive than “economy” was 20-30 years ago.
>But what you now get in “business class” is what you used to get in “economy” 20-30 years ago
That's nonsense. Especially in long haul flights, business class is in fact more comfortable and has more amenities than it did 20-30 years ago with lie-flat seating, on demand entertainment, etc. Traditional domestic business class is about the same as it ever was while economy has mostly seen a decrease in seat pitch. (Economy Plus--which differs by airline--is more like what regular economy used to be.)
That's nonsense. Especially in long haul flights, business class is in fact more comfortable and has more amenities than it did 20-30 years ago with lie-flat seating, on demand entertainment, etc. Traditional domestic business class is about the same as it ever was while economy has mostly seen a decrease in seat pitch. (Economy Plus--which differs by airline--is more like what regular economy used to be.)
When I flew economy 25-35 years ago, seat pitch was at least 50% greater than it is now, and the actual seats of the seats were both deeper and better cushioned. You could recline to 45 degrees or deeper. Seats were 50% wider.
It was physically far more comfortable to fly, in a way that’s now a available only in business class. All those characteristics would now be considered business class amenities, and aside from a little more legroom (not even approaching what used to be standard in economy unless you’re on an exit row) are unavailable in premium economy on any flight I’ve taken recently.
You got warmer blankets and larger pillows. They would hand out amenities like headphones and playing cards for free. And you could put about twice as much into the overhead.
Ok, on demand entertainment is new in business class, but that’s about technology rather than cost savings, and it’s available in economy everywhere these days too. And for me at least, not much of an upgrade. I’d far rather watch the specific things I’ve brought on my own electronics, read a book, or do work.
It was physically far more comfortable to fly, in a way that’s now a available only in business class. All those characteristics would now be considered business class amenities, and aside from a little more legroom (not even approaching what used to be standard in economy unless you’re on an exit row) are unavailable in premium economy on any flight I’ve taken recently.
You got warmer blankets and larger pillows. They would hand out amenities like headphones and playing cards for free. And you could put about twice as much into the overhead.
Ok, on demand entertainment is new in business class, but that’s about technology rather than cost savings, and it’s available in economy everywhere these days too. And for me at least, not much of an upgrade. I’d far rather watch the specific things I’ve brought on my own electronics, read a book, or do work.
This already happened in aircraft seating. "Premium Economy" is what Economy used to be, they took away space (seat pitch/width) and then sold it back to you as a premium service at a premium price.
So is there, then, a market for an airline that offers substantially more legroom and larger seats (biz-class-size for the entire plane?) for a slight increase in price?
Aforementioned Delta Airlines had $1.3bn in PROFITS last year, so not sure about razor-thin margins.
Aforementioned Delta Airlines had $1.3bn in PROFITS last year, so not sure about razor-thin margins.
I don't believe they have actually flown a single flight yet but supposedly https://www.zedaerospace.com/ will be flying it's first routes sometime this year. They're claiming first class seating for all passengers on all flights. Prices look not unreasonably low if they actually deliver what they're claiming but they're also selling $100/month subscriptions that get you cheaper flights and...I'm not sure what else.
Flight comparison sites don't show any information about comfort, so passengers cannot pick it.
Meaning all they'll see is "Ultracheap: $50" Vs. "ComfortAir: $80" and pick the $50 option because that's all the information they're given.
You want to sell a nicer class of service, you need to change the entire industry to communicate it.
Meaning all they'll see is "Ultracheap: $50" Vs. "ComfortAir: $80" and pick the $50 option because that's all the information they're given.
You want to sell a nicer class of service, you need to change the entire industry to communicate it.
Nevermind comfort, bag fees, hidden fees, different amenities, etc. None of that is covered in most travel sites, just the fare. If there were a fare site that also had a comfort gauge for price it would spur competition. Moreso for something with a "Truecost" calculator that took into account bags, overhead space, seat pitch, food, terminal niceties, etc. This would be the ultimate air travel site.
It's been tried. Doesn't seem to work. Too many people pick flights on the basis of cost. British Air does have business class only between JFK and London City airport but that's obviously not a very representative pair of cities and is, I assume, standard business class pricing (i.e. multiples of coach).
I've never seen it, but I've long thought it would be interesting to see an airline campaign on such a feature. The problem now is that cattle class is cheap, and the next step up is a small increment in comfort but twice the cost.
There will, inevitably, be people who simply can't use these seats.
If you have a bad knee, you might not be able to bend it. If you are old and have a bad back you might not be able to stay in a such a seat for long.
This is going to cause trouble.
If you have a bad knee, you might not be able to bend it. If you are old and have a bad back you might not be able to stay in a such a seat for long.
This is going to cause trouble.
I'm sure there's going to be some sort of language at ticket purchase that you will be liable for any problems because you chose to stand the whole time. Or, if the flight maybe they offer you the option to purchase an upgrade to one of the unbooked chairs.
If anything, the advent of low cost airlines shows we haven't yet hit the cost/comfort sweetspot and that air travel is still too expensive and comfortable (at least at the <4 hours category).
Currently flights effectively have no room left anymore -- I have absolutely no idea why the seats on short-haul flights have the ability to recline. It's impossible to use a 15 inch laptop if the person in front of you moves their seat back.
If Delta removes that ability, I'll start flying with them exclusively. Have back problems? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
I'd obviously also support regulation for minimum seat space sizes, but that will never happen in America.
If Delta removes that ability, I'll start flying with them exclusively. Have back problems? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
I'd obviously also support regulation for minimum seat space sizes, but that will never happen in America.
In most planes people cannot move their chair back when I sit behind them; my legs block them from doing so and that makes them angry often. So agreed; prevent the recline on short flights.
For long haul economy I often cannot sit normally and usually they put me somewhere better except if it is a very full flight. Then it is absolute suffering. My last 10 hr flight was in a seat that was cramped against some divider screen and because of that the table was much smaller and I could physically not unfold it so it was impossible to eat or drink without spilling and it was too cramped to sleep. The staff absolutely did not care. It is bad news if you have to fly long haul on a budget...
For long haul economy I often cannot sit normally and usually they put me somewhere better except if it is a very full flight. Then it is absolute suffering. My last 10 hr flight was in a seat that was cramped against some divider screen and because of that the table was much smaller and I could physically not unfold it so it was impossible to eat or drink without spilling and it was too cramped to sleep. The staff absolutely did not care. It is bad news if you have to fly long haul on a budget...
>Have back problems? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
This line of thinking deserves reflection. Too fat/tall/disabled/female†? Pay more for this condition you probably didn't choose and can't easily "remedy." And if you're lucky enough to not need "extras" to achieve baseline dignity and comfort, you'll certainly have family members who do.
†Granted, this is how US healthcare works…
This line of thinking deserves reflection. Too fat/tall/disabled/female†? Pay more for this condition you probably didn't choose and can't easily "remedy." And if you're lucky enough to not need "extras" to achieve baseline dignity and comfort, you'll certainly have family members who do.
†Granted, this is how US healthcare works…
> Have back problems? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
Have freakishly long legs? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
I like this game. :)
Have freakishly long legs? Feel free to pay more to sit in first/economy plus/whatever.
I like this game. :)
I’d fit that case under my “minimum seat space regulation clause”, but yeah, not gonna happen. I feel for the tall guys on flights, but not enough to want them to jam their seat into my chest.
Real enemy here is the airlines and the lack of regulation.
Real enemy here is the airlines and the lack of regulation.
This would have to be coupled with a reduction in carry on luggage size. Overhead compartments are already frequently full with the current number of passengers in economy cabins.
People want cheap flights. Some people want more comfortable flights and are willing to pay.
I fly about 3 times a year domestically in the United States and Delta, American, and United all have a "Comfort or Economy Plus" section with extra legroom. It costs between $50-200 per flight extra but also includes boarding right after first class before everyone else.
For me it is totally worth it. I don't need first class treatment but at my height the extra legroom is absolutely worth the price.
I fly about 3 times a year domestically in the United States and Delta, American, and United all have a "Comfort or Economy Plus" section with extra legroom. It costs between $50-200 per flight extra but also includes boarding right after first class before everyone else.
For me it is totally worth it. I don't need first class treatment but at my height the extra legroom is absolutely worth the price.
I have to fly for university work. They can only purchase economy seats. Either I pay personally out of pocket or suffer (I'm 6'4"). I don't quite fly enough, and to diverse international destinations on partner airlines, that status upgrades are rare.
Status upgrades are pretty rare until you get to about 100K miles or so per year--and, even then, far from universal and free.
I'm not sure how that's going to work a single person not of the average height, are they saying tall people have to just stand without support and short people get ass-stabbed by the seat?
The quest to cut costs is worse than seats, it extends to safety and pilot training as seen by the Ethiopian airlines co-pilot who had less than 100 flight hours before being put into a 737.
TIL there's an exposition for everything.
https://www.aircraftinteriorsexpo.com/
https://www.aircraftinteriorsexpo.com/
Seats should automatically recline after take-off, and automatically raise during meals and landing. No manual recline control.
The funny thing is, this headline could have been published any time in the last couple of decades, and it would still be true.
Good, in the meantime I will be staying home and enjoying my time around my city/state more. Or instead of having multiple flights for vacations, I'll have a longer vacation in just 1 place.
Airlines are giving people what they want: cheaper tickets. The only way to do that at this point is pack more people on a plane.
Gee golly!
You mean to tell me capitalists are trying to extract more money by increasing capacity (and thus increasing misery)? Please say it isn't so!
/news at 11
You mean to tell me capitalists are trying to extract more money by increasing capacity (and thus increasing misery)? Please say it isn't so!
/news at 11
Not sure why you're being downvoted. In Brazil, we used to be able to dispatch one luggage volume without cost until the law changed and the airlines were allowed to charge extra fees for the right to check in luggage. The decision was supposed to give us cheaper tickets and what not, but, guess what, ticket prices never dropped even for the cheapest options where you have no rights to any luggage besides a small carry-on baggage, but instead, those prices only increased in the last few years! [1]
Airlines are a prime example of why the so called free-market can be a terrible thing for the consumer.
Edit: Oh, not to mention just how abusive the check-in fees for luggage are and how they wildly increase year after year.
[1] https://todosabordo.blogosfera.uol.com.br/2018/06/01/1-ano-d... (Title roughly translates to "Ticket prices increases by 6% after luggage check-in fees instead of falling like promised...")
Airlines are a prime example of why the so called free-market can be a terrible thing for the consumer.
Edit: Oh, not to mention just how abusive the check-in fees for luggage are and how they wildly increase year after year.
[1] https://todosabordo.blogosfera.uol.com.br/2018/06/01/1-ano-d... (Title roughly translates to "Ticket prices increases by 6% after luggage check-in fees instead of falling like promised...")
Or providing a valuable service of allowing more people to fly for less money at the expense of comfort.
I value getting from A to B quickly, I don't mind some discomfort for a few hours if it means it's significantly cheaper.
I value getting from A to B quickly, I don't mind some discomfort for a few hours if it means it's significantly cheaper.
Good news. You are also a capitalist. Don't buy the ticket.
No, I'm not a capitalist. Just because I was born in this system doesn't make me a willing participant.
Thanks for playing though.
Thanks for playing though.
Participant nonetheless. Again, don't buy the ticket.
Whats the alternative here? A nice fat regulation that all airline seats require 4 feet of legroom? Then we can all fly in absolute comfort! What? The cheapest ticket is $4500? &%^$% Capitalist pigs!
Whats the alternative here? A nice fat regulation that all airline seats require 4 feet of legroom? Then we can all fly in absolute comfort! What? The cheapest ticket is $4500? &%^$% Capitalist pigs!
Reclining, though, is a silly feature on coach airline seats. At best, you temporarily get more room at the expense of the person behind you. Until the person in front of you reclines. Reclining seats when the seat pitch is so tight is just dumb.
Oh, and if you get the paywall: http://archive.is/vqTNf