Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Varsity1 wrote:GoSharks wrote:Varsity1 wrote:
You're dead wrong. Airbus uses local university students.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-205793/
If you actually read your own link, you would quickly find that you are wrong.EASA and FAA regulations require that 35% of the participants must be aged over 50, a minimum 40% must be female, and 15% female and over 50.
Where am I wrong. Clearly cites using university students. Some older airbus employees got to participate, probably in great shape themselves.
The people who can afford to fly, and often do fly are older.
These tests are usually conducted by fit college students. Not an accurate cross section of passengers
GoSharks wrote:Also, since when does gymnasium=university student?
tjh8402 wrote:The sense of entitlement some people have is pretty amazing. If you want a bigger seat, those are readily available on the planes, even on spirit. If it's too narrow, buy a second seat. If you can't afford it, oh well. There's a lot of comfort and luxuries I wish I could afford but I don't ask others to subsidize for me. Nothing has actually changed that much since the "golden age" of flying as far as space in comfort go other than cheaper options are now available for those who couldn't previously afford them as well as a whole lot more entertainment amenities being offered to everybody. Seat width on a 787 or 737 is the same as it was on a 707. Seat pitch is about the same in E+, which, amazingly, when adjusted for inflation, is pretty close to what the similarly sized economy seats used to be. Tight seats like we have today didn't exist back then because tickets for the sort of cheap prices we have today didn't exist back then.
AirAfreak wrote:Just look at what has happened since the day airlines such as Valujet, easyJet, Air Asia, and the endless post-9/11 excuses [came] about.
CO953 wrote:bigjku wrote:CO953
On point one you really only have a valid issue if flying coach is the only option offered. It isn't. What you are arguing for isn't safety, it's subsidization. People have overwhelmingly come out for the lowest fares possible. You are asking them all to subsidize what some want or need because those people choose not to pay for Moreno expensive but available seating.
Hey, thanks for the response. I'm busy with some work outside so let me just give a quick response to the first part of your response.
It comes down to monopoly. We haven't had any serious monopoly battles in the USA since Ma Bell was broken up in 1984 as basically the sole long-distance telephone long-distance provider?
Is it subsidization that I have only one local home garbage collector in my area, and that the price keeps going up and up, and if I don't pay it they can actually put a lien on my house and finally come and put me in handcuffs and drag me off the land I own?
Is it subsidization that I have only one landline telephone provider in my area, which I choose to continue because during hurricanes in my area the landline can be a critical safety line, because cell-phone towers quickly fail due to traffic overload ... and that the price keeps going up and up, with no alternative?
Is it subsidization that in many states the health-care insurance providers have been pared down to one, and if you don't buy their product you are hit with a fine (not a tax), and the prices soar up and up and up with no relief in sight?
Is it subsidization that unless I have the extra money for a first-class seat I am being crammed into a smaller and smaller space, with no indication that the industry hears one word of complaint, and no relief in sight?
I'm telling you, America is ripe for a return of Teddy-Roosevelt-style monopoly battles, led by angry non-politicians such as the next populist Senator from the state of Michigan, Robert "Kid Rock" Ritchie.
These things go in cycles. Were I running an airline, I would feel more comfortable trying to get ahead of the curve and finding a way to minimize the price of giving enough extra space to alleve some of this, and trumpeting this with an awesome advertising campaign. I see an opening a mile wide right now for an airline that touts its amenities, admits to the customer that it will be a little more expensive, and then makes Job #1 figuring out how to efficiently do so and keep the costs within the reach of the average flyer, who will gladly pay extra to be treated like a human again. That's better than letting a blunderbuss government finally call the shots and end up with a bad solution. I'm just saying, the current state of passenger accommodation cannot continue.
A smart airline industry leads the way forward. A stubborn airline industry keeps on cruising along until the calendar reads 1978 and gets smacked sideways by government intervention.
People are angry in America and growing angrier.
Where the heck is Freddie Laker, but this time selling just enough luxury to cold-cock the competition?
oldannyboy wrote:Yeah guys. And can I have free champagne and hot meal too, whilst you are all busy fixing this?
Oh, and don't forget the free hold luggage. And cute stewardesses, thanks.
travelsonic wrote:oldannyboy wrote:Yeah guys. And can I have free champagne and hot meal too, whilst you are all busy fixing this?
Oh, and don't forget the free hold luggage. And cute stewardesses, thanks.
You don't need to be in favor of regulations to, IMO, see that this is hardly an apt comparison - minimum pitch/with vs free hot meals, free hold luggage, etc.
Being a bit dishonest, are we?
AirAfreak wrote:Many fellow-Americans (and most other consumers not employed by airline companies) have made this country (and most others) a place of quantity versus quality by voting with their wallets.
WWads wrote:I think it's time for regulation. It doesn't have to be overly onerous either. Minimum pitch should be 31" and 17" seats on wide-bodies shouldn't be permitted. DL does just fine with 9x 777s. 787s should be 8x instead of 9x. The airlines have received unlimited gravy from the Feds for years now. It's time they gave something back.
I really think there's something to the safety concerns. Particularly with the dense configurations and narrow aisles found on 3x4x3 777s. I would not want to have to evac one of those birds in a critical situation.
Flaps wrote:There are too many stupid and over reaching regulations and regulatory bodies already. Seats and seat pitch haven't shrunk all that much (although yes the have shrunk a bit) while the size of passengers has continued to increase steadily. People want low fares more than anything else. That is how they vote with their wallets and the airlines simply respond to that by increasing seat count to compensate for the lower fares.. Don't like the seat size? Fork over some cash to buy a bigger one or put down your dinner fork a few bites sooner and lose some weight. For the record I'm 5'11" and 200 lbs. I have no trouble fitting into anyone's seats. If anything ruins the travel experience its the ignorance and pomposity of fellow travelers jammed into full cabins more so than seat size.
BlatantEcho wrote:This is a great thread. Haven't seen so much whining in a long time on a.net, congrats all!
Price or comfort, pick one. (Just like every product in America)
"My Honda Civic doesn't have as much legroom as the Mercedes S550. Regulate Honda give me more for free!!!" Sound like a bunch of whiners
WWads wrote:I think it's time for regulation. It doesn't have to be overly onerous either. Minimum pitch should be 31" and 17" seats on wide-bodies shouldn't be permitted. DL does just fine with 9x 777s. 787s should be 8x instead of 9x. The airlines have received unlimited gravy from the Feds for years now. It's time they gave something back.
I really think there's something to the safety concerns. Particularly with the dense configurations and narrow aisles found on 3x4x3 777s. I would not want to have to evac one of those birds in a critical situation.
bigjku wrote:
Anything beyond that is just government babying.
SurlyBonds wrote:bigjku wrote:
Anything beyond that is just government babying.
Also known as "something bigjku doesn't like."
SurlyBonds wrote:For me, the airlines crossed that limited when they installed lavatories so tiny that normal humans can't move in them, much less go about their business, all in the name of adding two rows of seats to an A320. This goes beyond a supply-and-demand issue and becomes a health and safety issue. Ditto for the DVT point.
BlatantEcho wrote:This is a great thread. Haven't seen so much whining in a long time on a.net, congrats all!
Price or comfort, pick one. (Just like every product in America)
"My Honda Civic doesn't have as much legroom as the Mercedes S550. Regulate Honda give me more for free!!!" Sound like a bunch of whiners
CO953 wrote:BlatantEcho wrote:This is a great thread. Haven't seen so much whining in a long time on a.net, congrats all!
Price or comfort, pick one. (Just like every product in America)
"My Honda Civic doesn't have as much legroom as the Mercedes S550. Regulate Honda give me more for free!!!" Sound like a bunch of whiners
With due respect to your seniority here, you are being blind and obtuse - and supercilious - to the rising complaints of the customers. Engineer-types (which keep the aviation world flying) are usually the most oblivious people to human factors in any equation.
The choice is - have the money for first class, or have ZERO CHOICE OF SEAT SHOULDER AND RIBCAGE WIDTH, aside from choosing to not be in the middle. You show me where there are more than two options - the rich and the poor, and I'll stop "whining, " sir.
A lot of industry types telling customers to eat the c*** sandwich and like it, is what this thread's been good for. yeah, a Soviet-style binary choice is so great.
Hey, you dish it out to people trying to honestly discuss a problem, then you take it.....
When the regulation clampdown comes, the rigid status-quo defenders will have earned it.
RobertPhoenix wrote:My apologies if this has been covered above, but a quick look through didn't show it.
Every new airplane has to be certified for evacuation and that will be using a particular seating configuration. If manufacturers change the parameters of the seating (usually at the request of airlines) shouldn't they have to re-certify for evacuation ?
panampreflight wrote:Well regulation is always the worst way to go, regulation is NEVER the best way to go in these issues.
flyguy89 wrote:Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.
SomebodyInTLS wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.
Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.
Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.
Indy wrote:The requirement should be an 18" seat width and 33" pitch. If this means the airlines can sell 20% less tickets then let them charge 20% more for the seats. If that is what a product costs then the public needs to pay it. If they cannot afford it then they don't fly. Airfare is dirt cheap. Let us not keep lowering the bar. It is time to restore some quality in air travel and people need to pay an appropriate fare for this. Look up some ticket prices from the 1970's and adjust it for inflation and compare that to today. People today can't complain if the adjustments I proposed are made. Tickets would still be cheap by comparison.
SomebodyInTLS wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.
Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.
Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.
Indy wrote:The requirement should be an 18" seat width and 33" pitch. If this means the airlines can sell 20% less tickets then let them charge 20% more for the seats. If that is what a product costs then the public needs to pay it. If they cannot afford it then they don't fly. Airfare is dirt cheap. Let us not keep lowering the bar. It is time to restore some quality in air travel and people need to pay an appropriate fare for this. Look up some ticket prices from the 1970's and adjust it for inflation and compare that to today. People today can't complain if the adjustments I proposed are made. Tickets would still be cheap by comparison.
Blimpie wrote:As much as I am a pro-market Capitalist and all for he airlines to make bank, I will admit as someone a little shy of six feet in he 200# range, I do find getting in and out of an aisle from a window seat to be at bit challenging in Y class. I shutter to think about alighting in an emergency in a hurry.
bigjku wrote:SomebodyInTLS wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.
Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.
Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.
They sell the seats at that price because they can fill the seats at that price. Your opinion on if it's justified or not is irrelevant. Is an iPhone worth double the cost of a lower end android phone? It is if people will pay for it.
flyguy89 wrote:SomebodyInTLS wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Except those aren't the choices you face today. Today's premium economy gets you the same roomy 1980s-style economy class product for about the same price when adjusted for inflation, except now you also have the option of purchasing an even cheaper fare if you're willing to trade off some comfort. You're the one arguing for binary choice and taking away product options here.
Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.
Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.
Funny how people seem to forget how expensive flying used to be.
flyguy89 wrote:In any case, international Y hasn't really changed all that much over the past few decades, so still nothing has really been taken away from you in this arena.
SomebodyInTLS wrote:flyguy89 wrote:SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Not this again... Show me a Europe-Asia flight where premium economy is not *AT LEAST* double the price of standard economy.
Prices have gone down due to all sorts of factors, changing seat size is just a tiny part of that. Premium economy space absolutely does NOT justify the huge mark-up they ask for - and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of travellers would refuse to pay it like I do. It is a complete red-herring in this argument.
Funny how people seem to forget how expensive flying used to be.
So what? Irrelevant point; hence red herring.
SomebodyInTLS wrote:flyguy89 wrote:In any case, international Y hasn't really changed all that much over the past few decades, so still nothing has really been taken away from you in this arena.
Not much; but this thread is full of people noticing it getting to the point that maybe some limits should be set. Not sure why you argue against that.
bigjku wrote:The solution to people from other seats encroaching on your space is that the simply be forced to purchase two seats if they can't fit in the standard space.
Anything beyond that is just government babying.
Keith2004 wrote:Judge1310 wrote:Regarding seat size: not everyone is over 6'(2m) and heavy. If I were smaller and lighter I would take great umbrage in knowing that my fare was higher due to some large folks wanting larger seats. Pony up the money for a larger seat that already exists in the aircraft if it's that important to you.
Exactly
So many people in here saying
I'm 6'5, 6'3....200 lbs....
That is not representative of the average passenger so why should they be subsidizing above average sized passengers??
The backlash AA got when they tried to go to 29" pitch proves there is some limit, if planes got below a certain pitch consumers would vote with their wallets.
For the record I'm 6' and 190
parapente wrote:What's all this 1980's rose tinted glasses rubbish?
Boring standard Yseat was and still is17.3"certainly for 737/747/757/767.Hardly fantastic.They tend to call it 17.5 these days with thinner armrests.
Boeing did try to address this with the 777 (18.5" seats) and indeed the 787 (again 17.5" seats).But the airlines went the other way and crammed an extra seat in both (now 17.0" )
Certainly can't blameBoeing.
At least for the 779 they will force 17.5" seats.Not great but ok I suppose.
DIRECTFLT wrote:Turbulence: Why is Airport Travel Such a Nightmare?
7/30/17 Sunday Night with Megan Kelly
Air travel these days seems less like an adventure and more like a battle. Josh Mankiewicz talks with industry experts and executives about the causes of the frustration in the skies.
http://www.nbcnews.com/megyn-kelly/vide ... 3496387874
flybyguy wrote:I'm trying to understand how a set of consumer advocates think they can overrule the FAA and cabin design subject matter experts by asserting that there is a link between reduced seat pitch and safety? There is zero suggestion in real world crashes that short pitches lengthen passenger egress in emergency situations. You only have to look at an aircraft involved in survivable accidents like Lion Air Flight 904 with average seat pitch of 29-inches in a 189 passenger configuration. I have to admit that the lawyers regarding this appellate court case cleverly married passenger comfort to safety while calling into question decades of data that the commercial aviation industry has used to substantiate aircraft design and safety in probably the safest decades in aviation history.
I have to say that the lot of politicians, lawyers and consumer advocates are probably looking more for an easy, high profile win against the evil, greedy airlines who want to pack people like sardines in dilapidated, filthy airplanes for undeserved profits. We only have to look in the mirror when we see service levels drop and seats getting smaller and closer together... but that just doesn't really sell in today's self-aggrandizing pop culture. It's gotta be someone else's fault.
Every time we chose Spirit over American because it's 80 bucks cheaper at face value, we scrunch those seats closer together and force high operating cost network carriers to provide short pitched, basic economy class service to compete. It's gonna take a lot more deep discount Basic Economy (B) fares to cover loss of mid and full Y fares in the same basic square footage on an airplane. Considering that JetA costs anywhere between $4 and $5 a gallon, that accounts for more money the airline needs to make up for lost revenue understanding there are other expenses such as landing fees, maintenance, crew hourly wages that need to be covered with pittance fares.
I used to be a person that traveled on a budget and hated flying. Now that I travel enough to earn elite status on 2 network carriers, I see that flying gets much more comfortable the more you pay (lounge access, priority boarding, priority luggage delivery, priority security screening, unlimited upgrades). It's the same with any other consumer product, why should airlines be any different? I suppose the $650 round trip on a JFK - LAX transcon does not leave the consumer with a tangible good at the end of the service. $650 is enough to purchase a decent arm chair at West Elm.
dtw2hyd wrote:This is not about comfort or choices or even personal responsibility.
This is about flight safety. Many Senators and Congressmen think the evacuation certification test process is rigged and doesn't represent a real cabin configuration or a real evacuation.
How do you get out with a limited mobility passenger in the aisle seat?
flyguy89 wrote:SomebodyInTLS wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Funny how people seem to forget how expensive flying used to be.
So what? Irrelevant point; hence red herring.
It's not irrelevant. You're belly-aching about how much more expensive premium economy can be on some carriers conveniently ignoring or forgetting how expensive regular economy even used to be to fly international. $1400-2000 in inflation-adjusted terms for a roundtrip international economy ticket was pretty normal in the 60s/70s/early 80s. Only difference is that today people have an even less expensive option to choose from when booking tickets.
And the result will be, should that ever happen, is that airfares would go up and go up a lot. The United 777-300 would lose about 31 economy seats. Assuming an international flight was getting $1,000.00 a flight segment, that is $31,000.00 less revenue that would be made up on the remaining seats
I wonder how many of the individuals on here forget that they have a choice when it comes to air travel.
At the end of the day flying is an choice not an right,