http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... olumn.html

The airlines brought it on themselves. Now at least a few in Congress want the government to specify seat size. I can't say that I'm opposed to the idea. You could probably make a decent case that the growing number of "air rage" incidents are because of crowding.

I wonder if this could force all 777s to 9 abreast

masseybrown wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-airlines-seats-proposed-law-0319-robert-reed-biz-20170317-column.html

The airlines brought it on themselves. Now at least a few in Congress want the government to specify seat size. I can't say that I'm opposed to the idea. You could probably make a decent case that the growing number of "air rage" incidents are because of crowding.

Thought it was about a certain Spanish car brand.

Anyway...that's BS. Aircraft seats are no more cramped than most long distance bus seats. And nobody speaks about bus rage.

(waiting for everyone to start yelling when airlines raise fares due to less seats in the cabin) ..

MalevTU134 wrote:

Anyway...that's BS. Aircraft seats are no more cramped than most long distance bus seats. And nobody speaks about bus rage.

Actually economy seats are more cramped. Greyhound has even gone to the step of removing a row of seats to give a better riding experience.

I agree 100% and I work for for a major US airline.

It has become worse and worse over time. The airlines aren't going to stop if they can get away with it. I may be an employee, but I am still a human being for Christ sake.

The act require:
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue such regulations as are necessary to establish minimum dimensions (including width, length, and seat pitch) for passenger seats on aircraft operated by any air carrier in the provision of interstate air transportation or intrastate air transportation; and for the safety and health of passengers.

1. I bet the minimum would be something like 15" width and 26" seat pitch
2. What would be the purpose of minimum seat length?
3. Using seat pitch as metric would be an oversight over the trend of thinner and thinner seat

Guys, this is not about seat width. This is seat pitch. If you look at who is lobbying for it, it is United American and Southwest. That means this is probably in their best interest and a was to legislate against airlines that are ultra low cost and might pack extra seats in like Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant. Personally I laugh at how savvy of a move if they succeed at legislating their competitor to to take out seats.

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

roadpilot wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Anyway...that's BS. Aircraft seats are no more cramped than most long distance bus seats. And nobody speaks about bus rage.

Actually economy seats are more cramped. Greyhound has even gone to the step of removing a row of seats to give a better riding experience.

Well, then...your choice should be easy: Go Greyhound!! Or pay Business Class. And let people who wish to fly on the cheap do so.

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

Yeah, sure....and let's also legislate on the lowest fare the airlines can charge....or the only fare they can charge...and, voilà!! We're back to the 70s where IATA set all the fares and only a handful of people could afford to fly...

Is that really the way forward? Want more space? Pay Y+

I haven't read the proposed legislation. I think there is too much government regulation, but I would love to see a minimum set in law. Perhaps 31" or more. They could also address seat width. As long as I am being the dictator, I would also like to see at least one free piece of checked luggage. I don't know if there are regulations for bathrooms, but they could address that too.

masseybrown wrote:

The airlines brought it on themselves.

Care to site a source? Last time I checked flyers wanted the cheapest seat. Airlines are simply obliging and giving customers what they want. There are plenty of seats available with more space on virtually every aircraft for those who consider that to be a priority....

jaybird wrote:

(waiting for everyone to start yelling when airlines raise fares due to less seats in the cabin) ..

They're already sky-high as it is now...

Newbiepilot wrote:

Guys, this is not about seat width. This is seat pitch. If you look at who is lobbying for it, it is United American and Southwest. That means this is probably in their best interest and a was to legislate against airlines that are ultra low cost and might pack extra seats in like Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant. Personally I laugh at how savvy of a move if they succeed at legislating their competitor to to take out seats.

You may want to read that again. The lobbying firm is AGAINST the bill.

A powerful Washington, D.C.-based airline lobbying group whose roster includes the Chicago area's largest carriers — United, American and Southwest — is against this legislation, arguing it's unnecessary, interferes with consumer choice and limits competition.

The bill, as introduced in the last Congress, included width as well as pitch. Boeing 737s aren't stretch-fit, and carriers aren't going to rip a seat out of every coach row...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... /4490/text

MalevTU134 wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

Yeah, sure....and let's also legislate on the lowest fare the airlines can charge....or the only fare they can charge...and, voilà!! We're back to the 70s where IATA set all the fares and only a handful of people could afford to fly...

Is that really the way forward? Want more space? Pay Y+

Heck why provide a seat at all.

I say remove all seats and just have standing room or sit on the floor if you can find a space there. If you can stand in a subway/metro train or bus holding on to rails or other passengers - planes should be no different.

AEROFAN wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

Yeah, sure....and let's also legislate on the lowest fare the airlines can charge....or the only fare they can charge...and, voilà!! We're back to the 70s where IATA set all the fares and only a handful of people could afford to fly...

Is that really the way forward? Want more space? Pay Y+

Heck why provide a seat at all.

I say remove all seats and just have standing room or sit on the floor if you can find a space there. If you can stand in a subway/metro train or bus holding on to rails or other passengers - planes should be no different.

MOL at FR said exactly that about 7 years ago. If it was doable from a safety standpoint, it would have been done, no doubt. Heck, we've had airlines where people fly naked, others with sharia regulations, so why not one where you stand up?

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

Spirit is in trouble.......

TheGeordielad wrote:

I wonder if this could force all 777s to 9 abreast

I wish, but I think even if they could pass a law, the best they could do is say nothing smaller that is flying currently. And since that technically includes 9 across A330's, 8 across 767's and 28" on F9, NK and Allegiant, there would still be plenty of misery that could be put on us.

It will be 17" wide and a minimum pitch of 31" including a minimum knee room of some kind. Aircraft with 17 or fewer seats will be exempt.

There will be some rule also that allows 5% of seats to be out of compliance in some way. This allows the front row to be narrower because they have to have trays in the armrest, or the last row to be out of wack because of aircraft curvature.

B737900ER wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

No, they don't. The 747 can do 17.5" seats with normal aisles and 2" armrests. The dense 777 and 787s are narrower.

." I love it when someone gets up on their balcony and screams, "I will never fly XXX again." Really? No one put a gun to your head and made you buy that ticket. You did it because it was cheap and you were trying to save a few bucks. Then you can go to work on Monday and tell the world what a great 'bargain hunter' you are. Face it dude, take some responsibility. If you want more room, get out your wallet and be prepared to fork over some of that cash. And quit complaining, its getting old.

727200 wrote:

." I love it when someone gets up on their balcony and screams, "I will never fly XXX again." Really? No one put a gun to your head and made you buy that ticket. You did it because it was cheap and you were trying to save a few bucks. Then you can go to work on Monday and tell the world what a great 'bargain hunter' you are. Face it dude, take some responsibility. If you want more room, get out your wallet and be prepared to fork over some of that cash. And quit complaining, its getting old.

Well said, Sir. Thank you!

727200 wrote:

Face it dude, take some responsibility. If you want more room, get out your wallet and be prepared to fork over some of that cash. And quit complaining, its getting old.

Amen. This board is inundated with posters who complain about seat width, seat pitch, that they want better food on flights, and they're willing to pay more to get more. And every time someone points out that they can get what they want in F, J, or Y+, these broke high rollers respond that it costs too much, it's a rip off, and they can't afford it. Never before have airline passengers had such a choice of minimal space & service to luxury at different price points. People who can't or won't pay for more than the minimum need to quit complaining that they're somehow entitled to more than the minimum.

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

The rest of the world wouldn't care so won't follow. The proposed law seems for US domestic flights only. Not going to matter too much elsewhere...

The government has its hands too deep in too many things already. Legislating seat size and pitch is absurd. When customers stop flocking to LCC's/ULCC's then maybe you will see a change. As long as millions continue to fly with the ULCC's then there is obviously no problem with seat size or pitch. Seats will be too small and the pitch too tight when people stop buying them.

Sideways facing seats on both the sides of the fuselage. Alternating forward and backwards facing seats through the middle, staggered with a tight pitch so that passengers can form meshed legroom with the passenger sitting opposite facing them. Oh and webbed seats.

MalevTU134 wrote:

roadpilot wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Anyway...that's BS. Aircraft seats are no more cramped than most long distance bus seats. And nobody speaks about bus rage.

Actually economy seats are more cramped. Greyhound has even gone to the step of removing a row of seats to give a better riding experience.

Well, then...your choice should be easy: Go Greyhound!! Or pay Business Class. And let people who wish to fly on the cheap do so.

Actually when I fly I spring for PE/Y+ or Mint if I'm going transcon. Being 6'3/230lbs kinda means I have no choice if I want any kind of comfort at all.

My point was if Greyhound realized that packing in people like sardines isn't customer friendly than I'm sure AA,DL and UA should realize that as well. But the current thinking is for them to make Y so unbearable that they can upcharge Y+ $50-100 and people like me will pay it because they have no choice.

I am (sadly) waiting for the day when passengers die trying to egress an aircraft because they couldn't safely evacuate due to their 26" seat pitch...because that's ultimately where we're headed with this.

ikramerica wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Actually if there was a reasonable minimum estaliblished in the US it would benefit everybody. Most countries would comply and no airlines would be at disadvantage to each other.
Ideally the minimums would be enough to get to a bit more room than the most cramped configurations in 777s and 787s today.

10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s have more seat width than 747s, which have been flying for more than 50 years. Maybe it's not the seat but the size of the passenger that's changed.

No, they don't. The 747 can do 17.5" seats with normal aisles and 2" armrests. The dense 777 and 787s are narrower.

Yes they are. On UA the 747 is 17". The dense 777 and 787 are 17.5" As for arm rest and aisles, should we legislate that too?

AWACSooner wrote:

I am (sadly) waiting for the day when passengers die trying to egress an aircraft because they couldn't safely evacuate due to their 26" seat pitch...because that's ultimately where we're headed with this.

It's more likely passengers will die in an evacuation because of a malfunctioning slide caused by poor workmanship at third party vendors. But who cares about who's maintaining my aircraft when my seat is uncomfortable

Yeah let's do it! Let's get those ticket prices back up...screw those who actually prefer to give on space for extremely cheap airfare, and screw those who will be priced out of the market and no longer able to afford to fly from the higher fares! I want my minimum 31" seat pitch! While were at it...there's research out there to suggest if it's bad for your health if you don't eat anything for more than 4 hours, so for safety's sake--and to help with "food rage" aka "hangriness"--let's have the DOT regulate 3-course meals on flights of at least 4 hours. Yay, free food again! Who cares about higher fares? *I* can afford it!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the people cheering on this type of regulation are either naive to actually think this isn't a form of price-fixing and won't result in higher fares...or are closeted elitists who don't care that fares will go up since *they* won't mind paying the extra money so *they* can have their requisite seat comfort.

There is absolutely no compelling safety interest beyond evacuation requirements (which already exist and are enforced) for the government to get involved here in what is a market-based preference.

Bottom line: If seat pitch is such an issue for you, you have options (premium economy, exit rows, first class, or sticking it out in a cramped economy seat), none of which will financially prevent you from flying. You might be a bit uncomfortable while you experience the miracle of flight zooming through the air at hundreds of miles an hour thousands of feet up, but you'll still get to benefit from the incredible convenience that is mass market air travel. But for someone who can't afford to spend more than $29 for a ticket...your desire for more comfortable seat pitch is the difference between whether or not they get to fly (and perhaps experience the luxury of a 10-15 hour bus ride).

AWACSooner wrote:

I am (sadly) waiting for the day when passengers die trying to egress an aircraft because they couldn't safely evacuate due to their 26" seat pitch...because that's ultimately where we're headed with this.

There are already regulations dictating how many passengers can safely be carried on an aircraft to allow for a safe evacuation.

Wacker1000 wrote:

masseybrown wrote:

The airlines brought it on themselves.

Care to site a source? Last time I checked flyers wanted the cheapest seat. Airlines are simply obliging and giving customers what they want. There are plenty of seats available with more space on virtually every aircraft for those who consider that to be a priority....

Yep and it evident every time I fly UA and can see past all the E+ seat to the full e- seats. Some just think you can get something for nothing. Free government money and free space on airlines. lol

cosyr wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

I wonder if this could force all 777s to 9 abreast

I wish, but I think even if they could pass a law, the best they could do is say nothing smaller that is flying currently. And since that technically includes 9 across A330's, 8 across 767's and 28" on F9, NK and Allegiant, there would still be plenty of misery that could be put on us.

Ok thanks

Adipocere wrote:

Sideways facing seats on both the sides of the fuselage. Alternating forward and backwards facing seats through the middle, staggered with a tight pitch so that passengers can form meshed legroom with the passenger sitting opposite facing them. Oh and webbed seats.

That airline already exists...it's called "Air Mobility Command."

Newbiepilot wrote:

Guys, this is not about seat width. This is seat pitch. If you look at who is lobbying for it, it is United American and Southwest. That means this is probably in their best interest and a was to legislate against airlines that are ultra low cost and might pack extra seats in like Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant. Personally I laugh at how savvy of a move if they succeed at legislating their competitor to to take out seats.

can't you look at the act itself before telling people what this is or this is not? For instance the part that I have reposted above.

flyguy89 wrote:

Yeah let's do it! Let's get those ticket prices back up...screw those who actually prefer to give on space for extremely cheap airfare, and screw those who will be priced out of the market and no longer able to afford to fly from the higher fares! I want my minimum 31" seat pitch! While were at it...there's research out there to suggest if it's bad for your health if you don't eat anything for more than 4 hours, so for safety's sake--and to help with "food rage" aka "hangriness"--let's have the DOT regulate 3-course meals on flights of at least 4 hours. Yay, free food again! Who cares about higher fares? *I* can afford it!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the people cheering on this type of regulation are either naive to actually think this isn't a form of price-fixing and won't result in higher fares...or are closeted elitists who don't care that fares will go up since *they* won't mind paying the extra money so *they* can have their requisite seat comfort.

There is absolutely no compelling safety interest beyond evacuation requirements (which already exist and are enforced) for the government to get involved here in what is a market-based preference.

Bottom line: If seat pitch is such an issue for you, you have options (premium economy, exit rows, first class, or sticking it out in a cramped economy seat), none of which will financially prevent you from flying. You might be a bit uncomfortable while you experience the miracle of flight zooming through the air at hundreds of miles an hour thousands of feet up, but you'll still get to benefit from the incredible convenience that is mass market air travel. But for someone who can't afford to spend more than $29 for a ticket...your desire for more comfortable seat pitch is the difference between whether or not they get to fly (and perhaps experience the luxury of a 10-15 hour bus ride).

AWACSooner wrote:

I am (sadly) waiting for the day when passengers die trying to egress an aircraft because they couldn't safely evacuate due to their 26" seat pitch...because that's ultimately where we're headed with this.

There are already regulations dictating how many passengers can safely be carried on an aircraft to allow for a safe evacuation.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Those people who can only afford those $29 dollar fares should be riding Greyhound. This game of chasing the lowest common denominator is what has made flying such misery in the last 5 years. There was a time you paid a faie amount, got on ths plane with two bags, got thrown soda and some peanuts and had a comfortable seat..... that was the norm. Now if you want that you are nickeled and dimed to death to subsidize these cheap fares. It's ridiculous, just like you want to villify people for wanting a comfortable flight, there's no mandate that says flying is supposed to be cheap. Maybe if fares went back up to reasonable levels across the board we could bring some class back the air rather than it being a flying trailer park

Other than safety, there should be no government regulations for comfort. Only the airlines should be encouraged or even obliged to tell clearly what they sell. Trade unions may negotiate the minimum standard for those obliged to travel for their work.

That being said, cramped cabin is a safety issue, when you cannot take any brace position.

roadpilot wrote:

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Those people who can only afford those $29 dollar fares should be riding Greyhound. This game of chasing the lowest common denominator is what has made flying such misery in the last 5 years. There was a time you paid a faie amount, got on ths plane with two bags, got thrown soda and some peanuts and had a comfortable seat..... that was the norm. Now if you want that you are nickeled and dimed to death to subsidize these cheap fares. It's ridiculous, just like you want to villify people for wanting a comfortable flight, there's no mandate that says flying is supposed to be cheap. Maybe if fares went back up to reasonable levels across the board we could bring some class back the air rather than it being a flying trailer park

Elitist BS. So now YOU decide who gets to fly? What should be the lowest price for flying?

The chasing of the lowest common denominator is called business. It has shaved off the fat of the old companies with state carrier legacy or with regulated airfares legacy. The times you describe were times of excluding great parts of the population from the mobility advantage flying brings - but hey, why care if apparently you always had enough money to fly anyway...

roadpilot wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Yeah let's do it! Let's get those ticket prices back up...screw those who actually prefer to give on space for extremely cheap airfare, and screw those who will be priced out of the market and no longer able to afford to fly from the higher fares! I want my minimum 31" seat pitch! While were at it...there's research out there to suggest if it's bad for your health if you don't eat anything for more than 4 hours, so for safety's sake--and to help with "food rage" aka "hangriness"--let's have the DOT regulate 3-course meals on flights of at least 4 hours. Yay, free food again! Who cares about higher fares? *I* can afford it!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the people cheering on this type of regulation are either naive to actually think this isn't a form of price-fixing and won't result in higher fares...or are closeted elitists who don't care that fares will go up since *they* won't mind paying the extra money so *they* can have their requisite seat comfort.

There is absolutely no compelling safety interest beyond evacuation requirements (which already exist and are enforced) for the government to get involved here in what is a market-based preference.

Bottom line: If seat pitch is such an issue for you, you have options (premium economy, exit rows, first class, or sticking it out in a cramped economy seat), none of which will financially prevent you from flying. You might be a bit uncomfortable while you experience the miracle of flight zooming through the air at hundreds of miles an hour thousands of feet up, but you'll still get to benefit from the incredible convenience that is mass market air travel. But for someone who can't afford to spend more than $29 for a ticket...your desire for more comfortable seat pitch is the difference between whether or not they get to fly (and perhaps experience the luxury of a 10-15 hour bus ride).

AWACSooner wrote:

I am (sadly) waiting for the day when passengers die trying to egress an aircraft because they couldn't safely evacuate due to their 26" seat pitch...because that's ultimately where we're headed with this.

There are already regulations dictating how many passengers can safely be carried on an aircraft to allow for a safe evacuation.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Those people who can only afford those $29 dollar fares should be riding Greyhound.

Why? Why should they have to ride Greyhound when they *can* fly? And by what right can you take that choice away from them? Why are you allowed to fly but they're not?

roadpilot wrote:

This game of chasing the lowest common denominator is what has made flying such misery in the last 5 years.

In other words, letting the riff-raff onto planes is affecting your objective perception of what flying should be like. Flying is an incredible time-saving convenience and is not an abject misery by any stretch, none-the-least because it can transport you great distances very quickly. Misery is having to drive or take a bus for days...if it weren't, then you'd be driving or taking the bus across the country or to Florida instead of flying.

roadpilot wrote:

There was a time you paid a faie amount, got on ths plane with two bags, got thrown soda and some peanuts and had a comfortable seat..... that was the norm.

The amounts were nowhere near "fair." Flying was historically multitudes more expensive...so much so that only a small percentage of the country had or could afford to ever fly.

roadpilot wrote:

Now if you want that you are nickeled and dimed to death to subsidize these cheap fares.

You're not subsidizing anyone. Nowadays you can upgrade to exit rows, premium economy or first class for pretty much what tickets used to cost 30-40 years ago or less.
Consider that the average round-trip fare in the US was $349 in 2016. In 1995, the average inflation-adjust round-trip fare was $459...if seat pitch is that important, take the $110 you're saving and upgrade to premium economy or an exit row.

roadpilot wrote:

It's ridiculous, just like you want to villify people for wanting a comfortable flight.

I'm not vilifying people who want a more comfortable flight. I'm vilifying people who want a more comfortable flight and want to use the boot of government to force their perceptions of air travel comfort and convenience on everyone.

roadpilot wrote:

there's no mandate that says flying is supposed to be cheap.

You're right there's not, but I'm not the one advocating to have the government step in and mandate that.

YIMBY wrote:

Only the airlines should be encouraged or even obliged to tell clearly what they sell.

+1. Rather than trying to regulate seat dimensions, airlines should be required to clearly state seat sizes, so that at the time of purchase customers can make an informed decision.

horizon360 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

Only the airlines should be encouraged or even obliged to tell clearly what they sell.

+1. W Rather than trying to regulate seat dimensions, airlines should be required to clearly state seat sizes, so that at the time of purchase customers can make an informed decision.

+2. Saying you can't have a certain size seat is ridiculous but mandating that the size is clearly stated so consumers can make informed decisions is right in my opinion. Something along the lines of seat pitch and width should be stated in font the same size style and colour as the fare.

I'm not from the state's but I still have an opinion.

Fred

Here's the thing, I do put my money where my mouth is when I fly. I only fly premium economy or MINT when I fly because being 6'3, being comfortable is a priority. What I don't like is the fact that it's now a upcharge just for basic comfort when before it was a given that your fare got you a decent seat without having to shell out more cash for the privilege of an exit row so your knees aren't jammed up in the seat in front of you.

And I'm sorry if it makes me sound elitist but since flying has become more like "mass transit" it has become less enjoyable to fly. So much so that I planned my vacation on driving cross country rather than fly, and it ended up being more relaxing overall, I'm actually planning on trying Amtrak this year for my cross country jaunt. There is no more "magic" of flight now that everyone is racing to the bottom to compete with Spirit and Frontier for Walmart shoppers.

It's a safety issue. More people are overweight, having to shoehorn themselves into their aisle seat. It makes evacuation more difficult for that passenger, and any other passenger on their row. Legislation is necessary for safety.

While they're at it, can they make laws preventing morons from boarding a plane that try to bring an extremely oversized carry on on board and then act surprised when it doesn't fit?

roadpilot wrote:

Here's the thing, I do put my money where my mouth is when I fly. I only fly premium economy or MINT when I fly because being 6'3, being comfortable is a priority. What I don't like is the fact that it's now a upcharge just for basic comfort when before it was a given that your fare got you a decent seat without having to shell out more cash for the privilege of an exit row so your knees aren't jammed up in the seat in front of you.

And I'm sorry if it makes me sound elitist but since flying has become more like "mass transit" it has become less enjoyable to fly. So much so that I planned my vacation on driving cross country rather than fly, and it ended up being more relaxing overall, I'm actually planning on trying Amtrak this year for my cross country jaunt. There is no more "magic" of flight now that everyone is racing to the bottom to compete with Spirit and Frontier for Walmart shoppers.

Ah, so you don't like change? Well, that's your problem and your solution is paying more or driving. Fair enough!

BooDog wrote:

It's a safety issue. More people are overweight, having to shoehorn themselves into their aisle seat. It makes evacuation more difficult for that passenger, and any other passenger on their row. Legislation is necessary for safety.

So maybe legislation on the amount of sugar and other unhealthy shitty ingredients should be implemented in the land of the obese (and other industrial countries for that matter) rather than regulations on seat size...

BooDog wrote:

It's a safety issue. More people are overweight, having to shoehorn themselves into their aisle seat. It makes evacuation more difficult for that passenger, and any other passenger on their row. Legislation is necessary for safety.

At some point surely a passenger being overweight enough not to fit into the seat is the *passengers* problem and should be denied boarding without compensation (just a refund)...?

If the seat can accommodate an average passenger for the expected customer base, then it should be legal (subject to marketing laws).

Nicoeddf wrote:

roadpilot wrote:

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Those people who can only afford those $29 dollar fares should be riding Greyhound. This game of chasing the lowest common denominator is what has made flying such misery in the last 5 years. There was a time you paid a faie amount, got on ths plane with two bags, got thrown soda and some peanuts and had a comfortable seat..... that was the norm. Now if you want that you are nickeled and dimed to death to subsidize these cheap fares. It's ridiculous, just like you want to villify people for wanting a comfortable flight, there's no mandate that says flying is supposed to be cheap. Maybe if fares went back up to reasonable levels across the board we could bring some class back the air rather than it being a flying trailer park

Elitist BS. So now YOU decide who gets to fly? What should be the lowest price for flying?

The chasing of the lowest common denominator is called business. It has shaved off the fat of the old companies with state carrier legacy or with regulated airfares legacy. The times you describe were times of excluding great parts of the population from the mobility advantage flying brings - but hey, why care if apparently you always had enough money to fly anyway...

Would you rather re-institute the civil Aeronautics Board to mandate fares and who flies where?? Give this a break!! Some Congressman got a burr under his saddle and wants wider seats and more legroom?
Then everybody that want's it can PAY for it. I sit Economy and Economy plus all the time. Other than more leg room? The seats are the SAME The older seats were maybe 1/2" wider. While they're at it?
Why not mandate cabin width to the manufacturers?? How's that work for ya? Interfering in the Marketplace could have DIRE consequences. You already Have the power to mandate seats. With your WALLET!!

moo wrote:

BooDog wrote:

It's a safety issue. More people are overweight, having to shoehorn themselves into their aisle seat. It makes evacuation more difficult for that passenger, and any other passenger on their row. Legislation is necessary for safety.

At some point surely a passenger being overweight enough not to fit into the seat is the *passengers* problem and should be denied boarding without compensation (just a refund)...?

If the seat can accommodate an average passenger for the expected customer base, then it should be legal (subject to marketing laws).

But at what point is this line in the sand drawn? I'm 6'2" with an average build, and sitting in an economy seat with less than 30" pitch (and 18" width) for more than 2 or 3 hours is unbearable. I can't imagine bracing during an emergency, and I almost always walk off the plane after long flights feeling physically miserable. Add a large person next to me as a seat mate, and I'll need a trip to the chiropractor after the flight. So, whenever possible, I pay more for extra space -- no small change in many cases. (I recently paid $300 for the "privilege" of flying AA's 773's in 9 abreast economy over 10 abreast -- same seat, but more shoulder room). But really -- how fair is that? I'm no more than a standard deviation above normal build, and I can clearly recognize the health and safety issues with the current trend.

Governments regulate markets on a health and safety business all the time. I encourage such a rationale for the imposition of basic standards, against the ideological economic arguments proposed here. Enough is enough.