Please sign in to post.

Flying is a nightmare. But it could be fixed.

"The U.S. airline industry, Sitaraman points out, got more than $50 billion in government bailouts during the pandemic because it provides an essential service. But it is not being required by policymakers to deliver adequate service to the American public. At the core of its dysfunction, he argues, is that we treat flying like a luxury instead of what it is: basic, critical infrastructure for a big country in a fast-moving age.

Airline industry leaders often defend the status quo by arguing that a free market creates the best conditions and lowest fares for passengers. But a truly competitive marketplace for air travel has not emerged since deregulation, given the high barriers to starting an airline and to achieving economies of scale. Instead, we’ve seen decades of bankruptcies and consolidation, as well as ever-shrinking options for reaching smaller U.S. cities.

The FAA or Congress could set a minimum size for legroom in economy-class travel, which has shrunk over time. Although the FAA held a public comment period on the topic in 2022, it has failed to regulate seat size or pitch (the distance between the back of one seat and the one behind it).

Riding fast, far-reaching, on-time trains in Europe and Japan — admittedly, over smaller geographic terrains than in this country — leaves me wondering whether we can still muster the political will to have good things in America.

Indeed. The question is whether Americans will bring our anger at high altitude down to the ground — to demand more of airlines and our political leaders. Consider this, for a start, my official complaint."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/08/airlines-flying-misery-solution/

Posted by
11942 posts

Regulatory agencies dictate how quickly an airplane must empty in an emergency. This is a defacto limit on how tight the seat space can be. If you want more space, it is available; you just have to pay for it. The Declaration of Independence has the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. It does not guarantee Utopia or a business class seat for 'basic economy' fare.

PS -- couldn't access the article

Posted by
3135 posts

I have to admit I agree with you fine fellas. ECON101.

Any reduction in the number of seats = more money. It's not complicated.

Posted by
6809 posts

Airline travel is the way it is because the public has consistently and repeatedly told the airlines that this is exactly what they want: the absolute lowest possible prices, to the exclusion of any other consideration. Until that changes, expect more of the same.

Edited to add: There is one more reason flying is the way that it is: the general behavior of us travelers. A LOT of what makes commercial airline travel a nightmare is the direct or indirect result of the way people behave and act (and misbehave/act up). All one needs to do is change how people behave and things will be like back in the golden age of pleasant travel - good luck with that.

Posted by
9018 posts

What Dave said. The only possible change that could occur is if data is developed, through real life or more realistic testing, that shows safety is compromised. It's possible that eventually, as Americans get larger, for that to happen.

Are there not similar concerns and complaints in the EU, which seems to be more willing to put people first?

Posted by
1218 posts

RE: safety/evacuation standards.

The recent evacuation of JAL flight 516 lends credence to the current evacuation standards working...IF passengers follow directions.

Posted by
8121 posts

For what seems to be (at least in the media and general public) a consensus that the airlines are horrible, I have to say I travel with little problem, even back in my business days flying a couple times a week. Delays? Yeah, but mostly due to weather and it's ripple effect, problems once in a while, but when I read peoples complaints, they usually fall into the arena of unrealistic expectations to "doing it to yourself" because they are cheap.

I enjoy flying, look forward to it, fly main cabin nearly always (or at least do not pay to upgrade). I do fly mostly Delta, but do not hesitate to fly RyanAir within Europe.

Other than safety and security reasons, no, the government does not need to regulate seat pitch and width, whether or not your served a snack, regulate carry on bags, etc. Let the free market work and the consumer vote with their cash.

Posted by
8322 posts

Mr. E nailed it. Airfare is relative cheap compared to the days when prices were regulated.

I considered flying to Spain in 1971 and the cost was $450 pp. In modern day dollars one 1971 dollar would be worth $7.57 today.

Multiply $450 x 7.57 and that cost would be about $3400, which is about three times what a ticket would cost today.

Keep regulation to safety measures.

Posted by
9018 posts

No Mr E. My assumption was that EU countries could be more inclined to regulate. Based on examples like prohibiting GMO foods and stricter standards for power tool safety. It's an impression that they are more responsive (rightly or wrongly) to the complaints of citizenry. I am just curious as to how that discussion goes (or if at all) in EU countries, not implying anything.

Posted by
11942 posts

I considered flying to Spain in 1971 and the cost was $450 pp. In modern day dollars one 1971 dollar would be worth $7.57 today.
Multiply $450 x 7.57 and that cost would be about $3400, which is about three times what a ticket would cost today.

The the 'coach' experience back then is about what Premium coach ( or biz class on some carriers) is now.

So prices, adjusted for inflation and level of service/comfort, have changed little. The planes are more efficient to help offset the out sized increase in fuel prices due to OPEC.

Posted by
1218 posts

Thats simply not true. More Forum Disinformation

The article linked is discussing airline seating in the 1980's vs today. Joe was commenting on comparisons to 1971. The US deregulated the airline industry in 1978. Since one is pre- and the other post-deregulation, not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

If anyone has authoritative seat pitch figures for pre-1978, I'd really enjoy seeing them!

Posted by
21217 posts

What I get a kick out of is those canned flight safety videos they show. "If instructed by flight attendants on landing, cross your arms and lean forward in the brace position." Then they show some one bending all the way at the waist until their head is just above their knees. Hah! Try to bend at the waist more than 6 inches before you bang your head on the seat in front of you.

Posted by
1218 posts

Eric, so Joe32F's statement is unsupported and without evidence?

No, it's people's memories. I remember pre-1978 flights on 707's, 727's, and 737's, as well as a DC-8. And, my memory is telling me that they all had more room in coach than most airlines today. But, I'm well aware of the vagaries of memory, and was hoping someone could pull up some old seat maps. I did a quick search, and came up empty. And, no, I don't consider smokeongo.co authoritative :-). Give me something like Aerolopa, please, or directly from an airline/aircraft manufacturer.

And, good job by you to deflect from the point about the dates in your article :-).

ETA; Found this, United Airlines DC8. Seat pitch, in coach, 38". Joe is correct...

https://frequentlyflying.boardingarea.com/vintage-airline-seat-map-united-airlines-dc-8-52/

Posted by
1218 posts

I think we need Joe to come back and let us know what he meant with "the coach experience" . Seat size? Soft product? All the cigarette smoke in the air back then? :-)

He certainly nailed seat size, which in today's premium economy cabins is 38", or less. I hear what you're saying about 747's, but, again, would love to have an actual seat map with the pitches shown. Call me pedantic (it wouldn't be the first time!) On the soft product, I think we'll just be left with our memories of the relative quality of airline food across the ages. And, depending on time of year, $3400 would be normal to high for a PE ticket to Europe from the US today.

Posted by
1218 posts

On fuel efficiency, one important point is that nowadays you're usually only feeding 2 engines, instead of 4. That's a 50% savings right off the top.

Posted by
1218 posts

On fuel efficiency, one important point is that nowadays you're usually only feeding 2 engines, instead of 4. That's a 50% savings right off the top.

And, at least according to Boeing, the 737 saw an 11-12% reduction in fuel burn when compared to the generation it followed (the NG's). Just one example (and one reason Boeing went so hard to have those engines mounted on such an old frame.)

http://www.b737.org.uk/737maxdiffs.htm#:~:text=Powerplant,the%20CFM56%2D7BE%20on%20737NG.

Posted by
1218 posts

Oh, I completely agree with you that the reduced prices have allowed more people to fly, not just here in the US but around the world, And, that's great! I also agree with others that if you want more space, it's there. You just have to pay for it. And, I agree with you that we (the flying public in general) have nobody but ourselves to "blame" for this situation. As noted by David above (and in many previous posts by him on this very topic) our dollars have shaped the airline industry we have today. It's on us.

But, at least in my lifetime, there was undeniably more space pre-deregulation in coach than now, and this extra space does make one--or, at least, me--feel more comfortable. Flying in general--and, here I go again, working off my own hazy and ever-aging memories--was a more luxurious experience back then, even in coach. In general, better food, and better service than in coach today.

And, with that, good night my fellow forum member!

ETA: Smacking my head about the 2/4 engine thing. That was silly of me...of course it's not 50%, but it's also not unsubstantial. 747 burns about 3600 gallons an hour, a 777 2500.

https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-pilot/how-much-fuel-does-a-jumbo-jet-burn/#:~:text=The%20four%20engines%20of%20the,of%20about%207%2C790%20nautical%20miles.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/what-is-jet-fuel/

(Sorry to link to the points guy, but I was in a hurry :-)

Posted by
3135 posts

The forces affecting an airplane are force, thrust, drag, and lift. That hasn't changed since the Wright Brothers (white supremacy).

It was a sense of dignity along with suits, ties, and dresses compared to sweat pants and pajamas. Not everything was bad about the good old days.

Posted by
3135 posts

Mr. E, I remember when the pilots looked like Don Draper. I'd suggest that in the spirit of the times that we diversify with the entire spectrum of humanity, with DEI being the priority.

Posted by
1218 posts

Eric, read my posts.

I have read many of your posts (not all, of course, as there are so many :-) over the years and am aware of your style. I believe, for instance, that many years ago, we had a discussion of high-speed rail in California. This was back when you were operating under a different nom de plume. And, I, too, enjoy a good discussion, and take the debate as an entertaining pass time.

Posted by
1894 posts

I think we are missing a part of this discussion and that is the profit an airline wants to make for its shareholders. It costs X amount of dollars to operate a flight from point A to point B. Airlines need X+ to stay in business. Doesn't matter how many seats are on a plane, just matters how much income is derived on that flight.

However, there is such "price undercutting competition" that airlines have resorted to smaller seats and a slew of fees to make X+. Customers get what they demanded, lower airfare period. Now we have to put up with a lot of the inconveniences on flights with seats, fees, etc. that accomplish the airlines goal of making X+ on flights.

The shopping discount mentality has made everything "cheaper" and less reliable. Refrigerators use to last 20 years. Not today because the components are inferior to what was used decades ago so the prices can be less. On the outside they look great on the inside they wear out much faster.

We as consumers got and get what we demand. Cheaper prices!

Posted by
3135 posts

Hard to argue against the logic that we've been given what we asked for.

Maw-Maw had a refrigerator that lasted 40 years. Hot water heater over 30 years.

Our furnace, installed in 1938, works just fine to this day.

Posted by
645 posts

BigMike, I am 100% in agreement with you. I used to not mind flying, but as seat pitch has decreased and the cattle nature of it all has increased, I have become more cynical. I pay for economy plus more often now. I will suffer on short haul to a point, but I am finding I would rather pay a bit more and have comfort. Now, I get that this part is free market. But we DEFINITELY need regulation.

The seat pitch of JAL 516 was 31 inches in economy. This is greater than the more common 29 or 30 inches and the 28 inches found on airlines like Spirit. Furthermore, this was JAL--and majority of the passengers were Japanese, who are a good deal smaller on average than Americans or Europeans (also, it should be noted that none of the passengers took their hand luggage with them, which isn't always the case). So their successful evacuation is NOT indicative of it happening successfully in the US. Greater seat pitch increases the ability of people to evacuate safely. That there are no minimums in the US completely negates any real world or test scenario when it comes to safety--if the aircraft is certified with a seat pitch of 30 and no luggage or headphone cords or whatnot, that doesn't mean it is safe with a seat pitch of 28.

Airline insiders have long pushed for greater regulation in both seat pitch and width. One report claimed that seats should have a width of 19.6" (American has the narrowest seats, as low as 16" on some flights). It dates from just before 9/11, when airline safety focused in a different direction.
https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/report/Anthropometric_study_to_update_minimum_aircraft_seating_standards/9353039

It is also notable that it often takes fatal incidents to effect changes, but often the recommendations existed among industry insiders BEFORE the fatal incidents. When insiders--and when it comes to seat pitch and similar cabin setups, the people most in-the-know are the flight attendants--recommend regulation, we should listen. The fact that it is more comfortable is an added bonus.

Posted by
645 posts

I get that you are against regulation, and yes, the exit requirements (a regulation!) are being met, but that doesn't mean those requirements are sufficient. As I said, it takes fatal accidents to effect changes, and most of those changes are ones already suggested within the industry. The insiders say this needs to change to be truly safe--the fact that we have gotten lucky isn't enough. But the reality is that it isn't luck. It's regulation that makes flying as safe as it is today.

Having a minimum seat pitch of, say, 30 or 31 is not a crazy number. Having minimum seat and aisle widths is not insane, either. You can still pay for premium economy or business/first class and get the 34 or 38. As I said, the free market can drive prices, and airlines can figure out where to charge or cut all they want--except when it comes to safety. And experts say that we need some more regulations if we really want to be safe. If those lead to more comfort, that's a bonus!

Posted by
6809 posts

JAL516 demonstrated a worst-case scenario, and nearly 400 got off a burning A350 without loss of life…

Primarily Japanese passengers.

Not a valid example for other nationalities. Try that in Orlando and see how it goes.

Posted by
11942 posts

The problem is exiting a plane before it hits the ground. For real safety all seats should be escape pods with parachutes.

https://martin-baker.com/ejection-seats/

Yup, that's the solution.

You think 1st class seats are expensive, wait til you see the pricing for having this feature installed in passenger planes.

Posted by
645 posts

Ah, but it isn't just the Japanese behaviour. It is passenger size (Japanese are far smaller on average than American or European passengers) AND seat pitch (again, 31 to American/United/Delta's 30 or Frontier/Spirit's 28). Smaller passengers with extra inches per person makes it much easier to evacuate. Even so the evacuation took longer than the 90 seconds for certification. Some reports say it took up to 10 minutes from the opening of the doors. Another example is Delta 1086, which skidded off the runway at LGA about 9 years ago. It took 17 minutes to evacuate, though I don't know how long it took to initiate evacuation. The Miracle on the Hudson plane took over three minutes, and they were well prepared at the exits with 6 of 8 usable.

And yes, experts DO think we should make changes. Not just for evacuation safety, either. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are part of the risk. Just because the FAA doesn't have regulations doesn't mean experts don't think so. Remember, airlines have a pretty powerful lobby.

Here are a few expert opinions on the issue.

https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11122faaminimumseatsizerulemakingcommentletter.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169814117305607
https://www.cntraveler.com/story/airline-seat-sizes-safety-risks-op-ed

Posted by
1218 posts

OK. First off, HowlinMad is incorrect that the US 'big 3' airlines have 30" pitch on their long-haul aircraft (we are talking about comparing A350's, correct?). All 3 are 31 or more.

Second, HowlinMad didn't say 'shorter', he said 'smaller'. Perhaps a nice way of saying Americans are fatter. Regardless, either is empirically true. Whether this affects evacuation time. Who knows? We just don't have the data. Thankfully, we have a really small n for these instances, which doesn't give us much mathematical confidence or predictive ability for the future.

https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php

And, I don't care if the experts are well-paid or common guys. I just want to know who has good data. Giving more weight to either group's arguments just because of how much they earn or pay for a plane ticket is biased.

Lastly, Sundays on the Forum can be occasionally entertaining :-)

Posted by
20452 posts

because of how much they earn or pay for a plane ticket is biased.

Comes back to how safe is safe. It does eventually come down to economics or every seat would be an ejection seat because that would save a 100 lives every year. Or it comes down to its fair to make a ticket cost $6000 if it saves one life every 30 years.

I can not find one report of someone dying cause they didn't get off the plane fast enough in the last 30 years ... except one instance in Russia and who knows what their standards are.

This is just people looking for justification to have something that they are in the minority wanting.

Posted by
3135 posts

A sizeable (no pun intended) of passengers aren't going very far in 90 seconds, if anywhere. It takes some of them that long to stand up.

Posted by
407 posts

Fascinating discussion.
A couple of purely anecdotal points.

About 5 years ago, I had to fly, at short notice, from London to South Africa. British Airways had had issues with it's 787 fleet, and were still waiting for some to be returned - so I ended up on an old 747. The flight was full, and as it was short notice, I was stuck in a middle seat - so I dreaded the 11 hour flight - but it was actually very comfortable with the 34inch seat pitch. Maybe we have just been conditioned to accept the 30inch norm.

With regard evacuation, there may be a lot of truth in stereotypes. I have flown Ryanair from Germany where the boarding was absolutely seamless and we were ready to take off 15 minutes early. Similarly the same airline from Italy where , because passengers refused to obey instructions, spent minutes arguing about how much and luggage they wanted to take onboard, and then all wanted to sit with friends rather than their allocated seats, was delayed by more than 2 hours as we missed out take off slot.
There was some footage from an evacuation in ? Miami in 2022 where passengers refused to get out without taking their luggage - no matter how it may have delayed getting out. Maybe the Japanese are just more disciplined?

Posted by
20452 posts

I think a lot is also dependent on the flight attendents and the situation. I havent flown SouthWest in years, but they use to run a boarding like a machine. WizzAir still does.

If I am going to get into a conversation like this I at least spend 30 minutes doing a little backgrond reading. If those that disagree with me had done the same they could have made this a very difficult conversation for me. I've been keeping a secret to see if anyone bothered to do a little research before they talked.

Still, from what I could discern there hasnt been any instance of someone dying because the seats were so tight that they couldnt get off the plane in time. No one has died exiting a damaged plane in 30 years, best I can tell. There was the fairly recent JAL flight and about 8 years ago there was an Air Emirates flight where 300 got off a buring plane with no loss of life. How tall is your average Arab? How disaplined? For the next most recent you have to go to 1983 and that was interesting becuse the deaths had nothing to do with exiting the plane. Apparently had to do with a flash fire when the emergency exits were opened. Oh, and you apparently found one in South Africa 5 years ago. One where unruly passengers got off in time? And I suspect South Africans are larger than Japense LOL.

Then the thrombosis argument comes up. Hey, thats a little more real. But you can probably decrease the odds to next to nothing if you get up and walk a bit. Not sure that 31" vs 33" are going to amount to a hill of beans on that count. Still the odds are 1 in 2 million by one study.

There is, in my mind, no health or life-safety issue with the current seats. Doesnt mean there are not "experts" out there tryin to sell a problem that doesnt exist. Geee, thats never happend before. But yes tight seats do suck. But yes, I can afford them and its 9 hours out of my life.

Posted by
645 posts

First of all, I didn't say long haul. JAL 516 was a domestic flight--a short haul, comparable to, say, JFK-ATL or other domestic flights where 30 or less is normal.

Secondly, I was absolutely referring to both height and width. I have not ever heard of the notion "that their knees are 6% higher up the leg than a typical Westeren person" and have no idea where you got that. Sources would be helpful if you are going to make that claim. That said, higher knees would mean a longer tibia and fibula and a shorter femur, which would actually mean LESS of a cramped position (and yes, I was also still talking about width, which is key when evacuating, and not about knees comfortably in the leg room). So assuming you are correct about the knees--and again, I have never heard that--it is a moot point in terms of safety and comfort.

Furthermore, I gave a sampling of sources. You were quick to dismiss them as high earners (as if that somehow makes their conclusions less valid), but the reality is that industry insiders like the flight attendants' union (and FAs don't make big bucks) are also calling for regulation. https://www.afacwa.org/realistic-seat-pitch-and-evacuation-certification And let's not forget that FAs are the ones with the most direct insider knowledge, having trained evacuations and flown with a range of passengers of differing abilities, sizes, and ages. So if we are using anecdotal evidence such as flight 516, we should also give their recommendations a lot of weight. There are calls from all sides about regulation.

Again, regulation often only comes about after fatalities. Meanwhile these fatalities could have been avoided if people had listened sooner (United 811 is a classic example of where a problem was known and the FAA and the aircraft manufacturers and airlines did not address it).

Finally, comfort may or may not be related to thrombosis, but it certainly is related to air rage. Just another factor to consider.

Oh, and I didn't need to resort to hyperbole to make my case. ;)

Posted by
407 posts

" Oh, and you apparently found one in South Africa 5 years ago."
Do you do your "research" with the same lack of comprehension that you seemed to show to my reply?

I merely mentioned (and marked it anecdotal) that I was far more comfortable on an old 747 than on a modern airline and this was because of the longer seat pitch, Nothing about an evacuation in South Africa,

Posted by
1218 posts

HowlinMad. Of course, you're right about the flight JAL516 was making. I should have said "planes typically used for long-haul flights" or just wide-bodies. Meaning, we're not comparing A350's to B737's. The point, however, still stands...if you're comparing to the plane flying JAL516 to United/Delta/American's, none of the American airlines have 30" seat pitch in coach in their widebodies, as you asserted. In fact, some of them are at 32". Or, were you making the comparison of a an A350 to a narrow body?

Posted by
645 posts

Mr. E
There is also research regarding your average Saudi, btw.

https://www.ieomsociety.org/singapore2021/papers/601.pdf

You seem so proud that you do "research" and have some secret, yet you completely fail in rhetoric. You resorted to hyperbole, made numerous unsubstantiated claims, and read improperly. You claim to want to talk things out, yet you brag about withholding information. That seems to be more about trickery. Same with the quip about Japanese knees. That isn't an indication of keeping it light. Frankly, this is a topic that should NOT be kept light, and your desire to do so indicates that you are not interested in a serious discussion, but in trolling. One of the things I love at this forum is the lack of trolling.

You also left out the Manchester disaster (1985), which led to better regulations regarding seat pitch and row placement at exit rows, who can sit in exit rows, better bulkhead and aisle width regulations, and better exit door design. As always, it took fatalities for change to occur.

If you are genuinely interested in discussion, please share your "secret" information so that we can all form informed opinions.

Posted by
645 posts

Eric, you are correct re: wide bodies. One interesting thing about Japan is that it uses wide bodies for shorter domestic flights simply because the demand is so high. JAL123 was a short hop with a 747 and over 500 fatalities for Tokyo-Osaka. Their long-haul flights are also among the most generous at more like 34. But if we are simply comparing wide body to wide body, you are correct that 31 is the minimum.

However, my point was that the evacuation was made with a seat pitch of 31, not 28 or 29. I actually think that seat pitches of 28 are not fun, but might be doable re: evacuation because the plane isn't that big and fewer people need to get out. But there is no regulation preventing seats from getting smaller still, meaning tighter spaces, more people, and thus increased risk.

And I was not comparing types of planes at all, but saying that JAL was not a good example of a successful evacuation always being possible. It was in this case and most often is, which is good. But my point was that you cannot use an example of smaller Japanese people on a plane with greater seat pitch as the benchmark.

Posted by
1218 posts

HowlinMad. OK, I understand. Perhaps I was being too focused on the minutiae. It wouldn't be the first time :-)

I've never flown Spirit or their ilk, but can only imagine how tight they are.

I do still wonder--and I don't have the time to look now--have we had any recent events
(ie, since current evacuation standards went into effect) where the cabin layout contributed to delays in evacuations/more injuries or deaths? I understand the thought that if such an event occurred it would lead to change. I also understand that it "makes sense" that tighter cabins constrain movement. But, has it been demonstrated? If HowlinMad (or anyone else) has this information, I'd be very interested in reading it.

Posted by
21217 posts

I would like to point out the nexus of the recent door plug falling out of a Boeing 737-9max, is because they had to add a provision for an extra exit door for a big customer, Ryanair. Ryanair has a a tighter seat pitch and the added number of passengers required it. For US customers like United and Alaska Airlines with a bigger seat pitch, it was not required, so they installed a plug instead. Then someone forgot to put the bolts in!

Posted by
9018 posts

I just heard a discussion in a related area: the Finnair plan to weigh passengers and their baggage. The purpose being to gather data at this point, although people are jumping to the conclusion that weight limits are imminent, As a commenter suggested, if airlines are having problems with planes being too heavy, they could stop trying to cram more people on there and reduce the number of rows.

Last summer, I had two domestic flights that were delayed to bump some passengers off due to excess weight and the impact of high temperatures on the ability to take-off.

Posted by
7050 posts

ETA: Smacking my head about the 2/4 engine thing. That was silly of
me...of course it's not 50%, but it's also not unsubstantial. 747
burns about 3600 gallons an hour, a 777 2500.

There is a difference, but you're still exaggerating it. The 747 is an older, bigger and heavier plane so it's not surprising that is uses more fuel.

Fortunately, Airbus built the A330 and A340 which is the same plane, but with different number of engines. So we can make a comparison. And the answer is that the A330-300's fuel consumotion is 5700 kg/h. And the A340-300 uses 6500 kg/h, or about 14% more.

Posted by
1218 posts

Badger. Understand, but I was referring back to Mr. E's comments specifically about the fuel consumption difference across different eras.

Posted by
6809 posts

If this thread isn't evidence of the need for an "ignore" button, I don't know what is.

Hasn't this thread long ago ceased any useful purpose by any stretch of the imagination?

Posted by
645 posts

Leaving the obvious troll aside, there are interesting things being discussed here.

I hadn't heard that flights were delayed by being too heavy. There was a small commuter plane that crashed back in the early 2000s because the passenger average weight used was too low and the flight was unbalanced enough to crash upon takeoff. Since then, the average weight used was increased significantly; the FAA totals were 20lb per passenger off, as was the estimated weight of the baggage (including hand luggage), with the averages from 1936 still in use. There were other contributing factors to the crash, but this was the major factor. The industry standards were changed. Finnair and others weighing passengers is part of an ongoing effort to better calculate takeoff weight. The data collected may help with future averages. But I can't see this as being a great factor in changing seat pitch on larger planes--after all, the configuration of a larger plane is incredibly variable re: first, business, premium, and regular economy. Airlines have complicated formulas for what configuration is most profitable, and adding or subtracting a row or two of premium economy could impact seat pitch across the plane.

It's also an interesting point about the fuel consumption; the two engines give less leeway if there is an issue with an engine mid-flight, but of course fuel efficiency is a hugely important factor in cost and environmental impact. Both factors have implications for cost and for airplane design. But neither will likely impact seat pitch.

Again, until there are fatalities, we are unlikely to see regulation, especially in the US. That means the market (and not just surveys, but actual consumer behaviour) will determine what is sustainable. Free market is great until it isn't, which is why safety standards are needed--and these need to be determined BEFORE people die. I don't know what the minimum safe seat pitch and width is, both in terms of evacuations and in terms of health (thrombosis, etc.), but hopefully we can convince airlines that greater seat pitch and is a factor in our purchasing.

I am all for signing petitions, filling out surveys, and whatnot to get regulations in place.

Interesting thread in spite of the troll.

Posted by
20452 posts

The government requires that each plane configuration demonstrate compliance to a timed exit scenario. The new seat pitch is passing, or the planes would not be in the air. One of the first things pointed out in most articles on the JAL flight evacuation is that it took 18 minutes. But maybe the delta between test and truth is built into the standard. That would be reasonable given a true scenario can never be tested. Don’t know. Do know that in the last 25 years no one has died getting of a wrecked or disable Boeing or Airbus plane.

Then in the thread the subject of planes becoming too heavy on hot days comes up; at least one having crashed because of this. Again, it is implied that this is about seat pitch. Is it about too many passengers on a plane, or people not being honest about carry-on weight, or a plane otherwise overloaded or reckless ground crew or ???? All of the above I suspect. And it should never happen, and companies should be made to demonstrate how they are preventing it. And I suspect that they are. If they want a narrow seat pitch the weight of luggage may have to be reduced, or people bumped on hot days?

And we had the environmental concern of using too much fuel. Again, I am no expert so could be wrong here, but on the surface I suspect that 3 planes carrying 333 passengers each uses less fuel than four 4 planes carrying 250 passengers each. Cramming more on a plane may be a better solution for the environment?

Then the thrombosis issue was raised. The article tied a “possible” increase due to the tighter seats. “Possible” doesn’t mean yes. The only study I have read that dealt with air travel did not measure seat pitch. The result of that study was that the odds of thrombosis were less than dying while driving. Getting up and walking once or twice is what the airlines recommend, and it would not surprise me if it was 1000x more effective at preventing thrombosis then adding 3” of seat pitch. I believe it was Turkish Air that put it in their safety video; that and stretching exercises. Maybe it would be helpful if all airlines did.

The death rate attributed to flying is 1 in 800 million flights, so someone is doing their job at keeping it safe and it might be nice to give them the recognition for that. “An economist at Northwestern University, Ian Savage, calculated the fatality rate per miles traveled on various modes of transportation. His research covers data from 2000 to 2009, but it remains important because it provides an average over nine years based on miles traveled. Savage found that flying was the safest mode of travel, followed by bus, subway and railroad.” https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/should-be-jittery-about-train-travel.htm

Are the small seats uncomfortable? I can survive and the trade off is I can afford to fly more often. Getting the masses in the air should be a goal. Gone should be the days that only the wealthy could fly. And truth be known, if the wealthy don’t like the smaller seats they can afford the upgrade.

Posted by
645 posts

I didn't say the seat pitch was related to the cause of the crash. It was not. It was a small commuter jet, and the weight calcuations for takeoff AND the weight distribution were off, causing the angle of attack to be too steep. The attempts to prevent a stall were stymied by improper maintenance. As in most airplane crashes, there are multiple contributing factors, and had any one factor been okay, the situation could have been saved. This is why the NTSB and other agencies investigate incidents without fatalities--to make recommendations and improvements. Had the pilots avoided the stall because the plane gave them the power they needed, the investigation STILL would have pointed to weight. But NO, I never related it to seat pitch (the aircraft could handle more weight, but the calculations need to be adjusted and the distribution considered). Again, your reading skills have failed you.

Your environmental argument is also disingenuous. Certainly three planes with more passengers is more fuel efficient than four planes not fully loaded, but if that were a concern, first class, etc. wouldn't exist. One could also argue that the demand doesn't exist--after all, how many big planes are configured for 800 passengers? How have loads changed in the last 20 years (one need only look at how lightly loaded the planes were on 9/11 to know that things have changed in that regard across the industry)? Is the hub and spoke model the most environmentally efficient? There are myriad discussions one could have about balancing the supply, demand, and logistics with environmental impact. But I thought you were all about economics? Since you aren't, I am going with the notion that you are simply a troll, arguing to argue.

And nobody argued that thrombosis should be used as an argument for increasing pitch; the point was merely mentioned as a possible area of further study and potential benefit.

I am not arguing that flying isn't safe; nobody is. But that safety comes as a RESULT of regulation, something airlines generally resist aggressively because it cuts into their bottom line. Regulation is not the evil you make it out to be. It is a necessary check on corporations for the good of all involved. These regulations include the placement and width of exit row seats, the materials used in planes, the training of crews, and so many other things. Every industry is regulated, and until a regulation exists, exploitation in the name of the almighty dollar will always be the default. Funnily enough, flying has become more and more regulated, yet prices continue to fall. Flying is cheaper than ever even though everything now costs more--the materials used in planes, the time and resources involved in crew training, and anything else under the sun. This won't break the industry or forever keep flying for the rich, no matter how you try to troll it.

I am for regulating seat pitch and width and using as much science as possible to determine the ideal numbers.

Posted by
4627 posts

You should know by now that Congress has no interest in doing anything except fighting among themselves and getting themselves reelected. However, considering how many of them fly commercial, you would think that self-interest would motivate them on this issue. I also think the airlines should be required to seat young children next to a parent-planning ahead to make this happen doesn't work when the type of plane is changed.