Says shrinking seat size and pitch is not a safety issue:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-a ... story.html

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

The consumer is all powerful, but not organised, and prefers price over everything else.
Safety is taken as a given.
Ruscoe

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

That’s an evacuation certification issue. FAA already controls (and cares about) that.

Ruscoe wrote:

The consumer is all powerful, but not organised, and prefers price over everything else.

Eh, irrespective, not all the options on how to approach that choice are in the hands of the consumers - it's up to the airlines with regards to how to respond to it. (Irrespective of if I think seat pitch is becoming a problem or not)

Question: when the FAA certifies the max amount of passengers for a plane, how does it model that? I know that manufacturers have to actually use people to exit the plane in 90 seconds (?) before initial certification. Is that based on max capacity? Just wondering where the numbers come from.

travelsonic wrote:

Ruscoe wrote:

The consumer is all powerful, but not organised, and prefers price over everything else.

Eh, irrespective, not all the options on how to approach that choice are in the hands of the consumers - it's up to the airlines with regards to how to respond to it. (Irrespective of if I think seat pitch is becoming a problem or not)

The airlines respond to directives/laws/regulations and consumers. The consumer of economy class spoke long ago; they care about paying less cash.

Until and unless a governmental agency or Congress sets minimum standards for seat pitch among other issues, the airlines will shrink seat sizes and pitch as they are able.

All we have to do as a society is 1) organize and 2) get rules passed and 3) pay more for econ class seating.

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

That’s an evacuation certification issue. FAA already controls (and cares about) that.

Exactly. Every row of an airplane must be compared to models.

Then again, those models are based on when all people could get through an 18" wide hallway.

I'm serious... It is also worthy to note you cannot make a seat safe for a child and someone over 275lb... Oh well, the crash requirement is definded and all seats are tested to verify complaiance with requirements...

Lightsaber

Frankly imo its not the government's job to regulate seat comfort or products between airlines.

So long as the seats themselves meet certification requirements, and aircraft evacuation limits are met, so be it.

LAXintl wrote:

Frankly imo its not the government's job to regulate seat comfort or products between airlines.

So long as the seats themselves meet certification requirements, and aircraft evacuation limits are met, so be it.

What is the minimum seat pitch and width that meets certification?

deltaffindfw wrote:

Question: when the FAA certifies the max amount of passengers for a plane, how does it model that? I know that manufacturers have to actually use people to exit the plane in 90 seconds (?) before initial certification. Is that based on max capacity? Just wondering where the numbers come from.

As far as I know, the FAA and EASA certifies as follows:

Number of passengers that can exit the aircraft within 90 seconds using half the available exits on the aircraft. (simulated where fire etc. will block half the exits)

Also you can be a maximum of three seats away from an aisle. In other words we will never see a 3-6-3 configuration of an aircraft. A 3-5-3 will be the max allowed.

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

Regardless of what airlines may want to do to increase passenger capacity e.g. remove galleys, lavatories etc. The max numbers allowed depend on the number of exits.

This being said, as discussed earlier in the thread, consumers should use their "power" more to influence seat pitch etc. but in the end. Prices for the ticket will often determine the choice of carrier.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Frankly imo its not the government's job to regulate seat comfort or products between airlines.

So long as the seats themselves meet certification requirements, and aircraft evacuation limits are met, so be it.

What is the minimum seat pitch and width that meets certification?

I don't believe there is one. The seat itself must be certified and passengers must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds with half the exits INOP. that's it.

So technically if people could evacuate with 27" inch pitch seats, it would be fine. So long as the seats are certified.

OSL777FLYER wrote:

deltaffindfw wrote:

Question: when the FAA certifies the max amount of passengers for a plane, how does it model that? I know that manufacturers have to actually use people to exit the plane in 90 seconds (?) before initial certification. Is that based on max capacity? Just wondering where the numbers come from.

As far as I know, the FAA and EASA certifies as follows:

Number of passengers that can exit the aircraft within 90 seconds using half the available exits on the aircraft. (simulated where fire etc. will block half the exits)

Also you can be a maximum of three seats away from an aisle. In other words we will never see a 3-6-3 configuration of an aircraft. A 3-5-3 will be the max allowed.

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

Regardless of what airlines may want to do to increase passenger capacity e.g. remove galleys, lavatories etc. The max numbers allowed depend on the number of exits.

This being said, as discussed earlier in the thread, consumers should use their "power" more to influence seat pitch etc. but in the end. Prices for the ticket will often determine the choice of carrier.

3-6-3 still meets the requirement of being two seats away from the aisle.

OSL777FLYER wrote:

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account....

They should have to exit with their 20 inch rollaboards. That’s what they are doing.

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

I'd argue the greater risk is all the passengers who find it necessary to grab their belongings from underneath the seat and out of the overhead bins before exiting.
I find it hard to fathom anything a passenger could carry onboard with them that can't be replaced. Documents, medications and the like can all be replaced. That's what consulates/embassies and pharmacies are for.

28" pitch or not very few regulations period have prevailed against stupidity. And as other posters have explained, the consumer has all the power. As long as people continue to patronize airlines who provide cheap fares over passenger comfort the trend will not stop until Ryanair installs its saddle-esque style seat. If people truly cared about comfort over cost, the ULCCs wouldn't be seeing the explosive growth and profits they've garnered over the last half-decade. The US3 has expressly stated that they rolled out basic economy, Econ - to compete with the LCC/ULCCs. Basic Economy was created in response to consumer demand.

77H

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

That’s an evacuation certification issue. FAA already controls (and cares about) that.

There IS no evacuation re-certification by the FAA so once the Initial Evacuation tests have been accomplished..
Unless there are problems with an evacuation in an emergency? Nobody would ever know.

Didn’t we have a thread recently about the DOT auditing the FAA over their evacuation certification?

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

That’s an evacuation certification issue. FAA already controls (and cares about) that.

And it's in a controlled environment...

strfyr51 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

That’s an evacuation certification issue. FAA already controls (and cares about) that.

There IS no evacuation re-certification by the FAA so once the Initial Evacuation tests have been accomplished..
Unless there are problems with an evacuation in an emergency? Nobody would ever know.

I’m not aware of any aircraft configuration with tighter seating than the configuration at which it was certified, though I suppose it could happen in coach on a widebody with an expanded J or F footprint. Are you aware of any configurations like that?

OSL777FLYER wrote:

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

Air France 358 (From Wikipedia)

After the aircraft stopped, the crew saw fire outside and began evacuation. When the emergency exits were opened, one of the right middle exit slides (R3) deflated after being punctured by debris from the aircraft, while one of the left slides (L2) failed to deploy at all for unknown reasons. The two rear left exits remained closed due to the fire.[14] A number of passengers were forced to jump from the aircraft to exit. The actions of the flight attendants, who ensured that all of the passengers quickly evacuated, contributed to the safe escape of all passengers.[15] The first officer was the last to leave the plane, which was evacuated within the required 90 second time frame.

Emergency response teams responded to the incident and were on site within 52 seconds of the crash occurring.[16] The TSB official report states that "the first response vehicle arrived at the scene within one minute of the crash alarm sounding".

A big widebody down into a ravine with fire. Emergency response there within 1 minute. Evacuation within 90 seconds. No fatalities. This is a quite good confirmation of those evacuation requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

AWACSooner wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

That’s an evacuation certification issue. FAA already controls (and cares about) that.

And it's in a controlled environment...

Yeah, without passengers bringing along their bags. That is or should be a far bigger concern than pitch (I don’t see how width would affect evacuation).

Ziyulu wrote:

OSL777FLYER wrote:

deltaffindfw wrote:

Question: when the FAA certifies the max amount of passengers for a plane, how does it model that? I know that manufacturers have to actually use people to exit the plane in 90 seconds (?) before initial certification. Is that based on max capacity? Just wondering where the numbers come from.

As far as I know, the FAA and EASA certifies as follows:

Number of passengers that can exit the aircraft within 90 seconds using half the available exits on the aircraft. (simulated where fire etc. will block half the exits)

Also you can be a maximum of three seats away from an aisle. In other words we will never see a 3-6-3 configuration of an aircraft. A 3-5-3 will be the max allowed.

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

Regardless of what airlines may want to do to increase passenger capacity e.g. remove galleys, lavatories etc. The max numbers allowed depend on the number of exits.

This being said, as discussed earlier in the thread, consumers should use their "power" more to influence seat pitch etc. but in the end. Prices for the ticket will often determine the choice of carrier.

3-6-3 still meets the requirement of being two seats away from the aisle.

Technically true. Though I wonder if the 2 seats from the aisle is from either direction for passengers sitting in the center section of the rows? Obviously customers at the windows only have one direction of egress but perhaps why?

JayinKitsap wrote:

OSL777FLYER wrote:

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

Air France 358 (From Wikipedia)

After the aircraft stopped, the crew saw fire outside and began evacuation. When the emergency exits were opened, one of the right middle exit slides (R3) deflated after being punctured by debris from the aircraft, while one of the left slides (L2) failed to deploy at all for unknown reasons. The two rear left exits remained closed due to the fire.[14] A number of passengers were forced to jump from the aircraft to exit. The actions of the flight attendants, who ensured that all of the passengers quickly evacuated, contributed to the safe escape of all passengers.[15] The first officer was the last to leave the plane, which was evacuated within the required 90 second time frame.

Emergency response teams responded to the incident and were on site within 52 seconds of the crash occurring.[16] The TSB official report states that "the first response vehicle arrived at the scene within one minute of the crash alarm sounding".

A big widebody down into a ravine with fire. Emergency response there within 1 minute. Evacuation within 90 seconds. No fatalities. This is a quite good confirmation of those evacuation requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

Air France's A340's in 2005 weren't configured with 27" seats (nor are they today). Let's add that into the equation and see if they can still evacuate in 90 seconds and have no fatalities.

I'm saying that people are stupid and the airlines are taking advantage of their stupidity...and that stupidity/taking advantage is going to get folks killed one day because the gov't won't intervene and bring some common sense back into the equation.

Posters ...

I want to be clear. Are you upset that people are choosing price over comfort? Because it seems to me that letting consumers choose is a good thing. And that our opinion matters less than what consumers actually want.

Consumers complain about comfort, and then choose the cheapest seat possible. Revealed preference is when you can tell what people want not by what the say, but by what they do. And consumer's revealed preference is for cheaper travel.

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

I might be alone here, but I don't see what a decrease in seat pitch would have to do with a drastic increase in evacuation times, other than the increased passenger count.

Most evacuation videos I've seen show people spend the most time in the aisle waiting for their turn to jump. A decrease in seat pitch wouldn't decrease the rate of passengers leaving the aircraft, it only adds approximately 12-18 people in an evacuation which would take an extra 3-5 seconds evacuating through multiple exits.

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

Ppl will get out just fine when they fear for their lives.

We do not need more regulation.

PDX88 wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

I might be alone here, but I don't see what a decrease in seat pitch would have to do with a drastic increase in evacuation times, other than the increased passenger count.

Most evacuation videos I've seen show people spend the most time in the aisle waiting for their turn to jump. A decrease in seat pitch wouldn't decrease the rate of passengers leaving the aircraft, it only adds approximately 12-18 people in an evacuation which would take an extra 3-5 seconds evacuating through multiple exits.

Has to do with how fast you can get out of a seat with only 28" between seat backs. The closer the seats the more time it takes to get out of the row.

32andBelow wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

Ppl will get out just fine when they fear for their lives.

Those lost in AC797 may beg to differ.

LAXintl wrote:

Frankly imo its not the government's job to regulate seat comfort or products between airlines.

So long as the seats themselves meet certification requirements, and aircraft evacuation limits are met, so be it.

I agree fully.

The only thing the government should care (about comfort) is that the airlines do not cheat, i.e. they tell what they sell.

Passengers may then decide - it depends on one's size which seat is cramped and which is not. Those traveling for work may need some rules to protect them, but that may be more a union issue than government regulation.

As for evacuation issues, the bottleneck is the exit doors, not getting to the aisle from the seat, whatever the pitch.
Blood circulation in legs may be other issue, though.

(I haven't finished the thread, so I may delete this if it's covered already)

OSL777FLYER wrote:

Number of passengers that can exit the aircraft within 90 seconds using half the available exits on the aircraft. (simulated where fire etc. will block half the exits)

Also you can be a maximum of three seats away from an aisle. In other words we will never see a 3-6-3 configuration of an aircraft. A 3-5-3 will be the max allowed.

As mentioned by someone else, 3-6-3 is max allowed since it's effectively 3-3|3-3

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

No, no leeway is taken into account because everyone tests to the same standard. The test is not to show that every aircraft in an accident will be able to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds, it's intended to show that *under those fixed test conditions*, everyone will be out in 90 seconds - as for every other aircraft certified to the same standard.

Of course, the better it performs against the standard, the better the chances in an accident, but there's no guaranteed "everyone will definitely be out in 90 seconds" kind of result from being certified.

Regardless of what airlines may want to do to increase passenger capacity e.g. remove galleys, lavatories etc. The max numbers allowed depend on the number of exits.

Well they do use real seats (and pack 'em in!) during the evacuation test, so in effect the seat pitch *does* influence the test result - unfortunately for us I suspect that test seating - being as dense as it is - will not argue in favour of increasing pitch...

YIMBY wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Frankly imo its not the government's job to regulate seat comfort or products between airlines.

So long as the seats themselves meet certification requirements, and aircraft evacuation limits are met, so be it.

I agree fully.

The only thing the government should care (about comfort) is that the airlines do not cheat, i.e. they tell what they sell.

U.S. carriers have had to disclose seat pitch since the first passenger protections movement of ~2000. They need to disclose range of seat widths by cabin and by aircraft, and post them as web pages to meet the child seat fit CFR. (I don't think they need to disclose seat width and pitch on the first flight selection page. Lazy, uninformed people are always going to find an excuse for their lack of knowledge.)

OSL777FLYER wrote:

deltaffindfw wrote:

Question: when the FAA certifies the max amount of passengers for a plane, how does it model that? I know that manufacturers have to actually use people to exit the plane in 90 seconds (?) before initial certification. Is that based on max capacity? Just wondering where the numbers come from.

As far as I know, the FAA and EASA certifies as follows:

Number of passengers that can exit the aircraft within 90 seconds using half the available exits on the aircraft. (simulated where fire etc. will block half the exits)

Also you can be a maximum of three seats away from an aisle. In other words we will never see a 3-6-3 configuration of an aircraft. A 3-5-3 will be the max allowed.

What I am questioning about these certification trials is that, yes, they use real people, BUT these people know that they are in a simulation and will not perish. How about under real conditions? I can only guess that some leeway is taken into account.

Regardless of what airlines may want to do to increase passenger capacity e.g. remove galleys, lavatories etc. The max numbers allowed depend on the number of exits.

This being said, as discussed earlier in the thread, consumers should use their "power" more to influence seat pitch etc. but in the end. Prices for the ticket will often determine the choice of carrier.

The economy class consumer demanded long ago, rock bottom fares. That has set up a system where airlines provide rock bottom fares and then the same consumers gripe because they no longer have the perks.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Until and unless a governmental agency or Congress sets minimum standards for seat pitch among other issues, the airlines will shrink seat sizes and pitch as they are able.

All we have to do as a society is 1) organize and 2) get rules passed and 3) pay more for econ class seating.

The government has no place telling airlines they can't sell cheap seats if consumers want to buy them. And if you are willing to do #3, pay more for better seating, you can do that today. Airlines have never collectively offered consumers as much choice as they do today with everything from ULCC's and basic economy on major carriers to regular economy, premium economy, economy plus, business, first, etc.

This board has a lot of posters who have a sense of entitlement -- they expect to pay for the lowest fare and get premium seating and service. I don't know what it is about airlines that bring this out -- do the same posters go to McDonalds and complain that they don't get filet in their value meal?

The A380 evacuation test. It was the first evacuation test as it larger than any previous planes.
EASA confirmed that the 853 passengers, 18 cabin crew, and two pilots had indeed evacuated in 78s.

I would say 863 passengers on an A380 is certainly cattle class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_8hbsWKoOU

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... in-205793/

The 787 utilized the prior 747 evacuation test, which was also used for the 777.

rbavfan wrote:

PDX88 wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

It will be when folks die because they can't adequately and safely evacuate a fully packed 28" pitch plane...it's coming folks.

I might be alone here, but I don't see what a decrease in seat pitch would have to do with a drastic increase in evacuation times, other than the increased passenger count.

Most evacuation videos I've seen show people spend the most time in the aisle waiting for their turn to jump. A decrease in seat pitch wouldn't decrease the rate of passengers leaving the aircraft, it only adds approximately 12-18 people in an evacuation which would take an extra 3-5 seconds evacuating through multiple exits.

Has to do with how fast you can get out of a seat with only 28" between seat backs. The closer the seats the more time it takes to get out of the row.

But how much longer does it actually take? Half a second? And then you're waiting in the aisle anyways in line to jump, so a 28" pitch doesn't really slow things down at all.

So there's no confusion I'm absolutely against 28" seat pitch, but slower evacuation times isn't a good argument against it.

77H wrote:

I find it hard to fathom anything a passenger could carry onboard with them that can't be replaced. Documents, medications and the like can all be replaced. That's what consulates/embassies and pharmacies are for.

You are at an airport in a foreign land. You have lost all your ID documents and money in the aircraft fire.

How are you going to get out of the airport?
How are you going to get to the consulate?
How do you prove who you are?
What are you going to eat in the next two days?
What are you going to use to buy medicine?
Who is going to pay for the camera and laptop you lost in the fire?

The current trend of grab-it-all is a reaction to the zero-tolerance evacuation policy where passengers are told to leave everything, without any guarantee of post-incident support. Rationally they therefore grab their bags to sustain themselves.

If the policy was 'you will each be given $5000 at the terminal' then things might flow differently.

Antarius wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Frankly imo its not the government's job to regulate seat comfort or products between airlines.

So long as the seats themselves meet certification requirements, and aircraft evacuation limits are met, so be it.

What is the minimum seat pitch and width that meets certification?

I don't believe there is one. The seat itself must be certified and passengers must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds with half the exits INOP. that's it.

So technically if people could evacuate with 27" inch pitch seats, it would be fine. So long as the seats are certified.

If the evacuation process including seats meets certification requirements for emergency egress in the country the aircraft is certified in then yes. Using your logic, certified seats could be mounted on the ceiling. If you have a problem with sardine can flights pay the money for more comfortable accommodations. Seat pitch is set by market demands.

Dont forget they also fill the plane up to max capacity and block off half of the exits on the evacuation tests. Its rare that a plane crashes, its even more rare to have half the exits inop in a crash.

Well how are people going to evacuate from 28" pitch seats if their legs are broken near the knee joint?

ELBOB wrote:

77H wrote:

I find it hard to fathom anything a passenger could carry onboard with them that can't be replaced. Documents, medications and the like can all be replaced. That's what consulates/embassies and pharmacies are for.

You are at an airport in a foreign land. You have lost all your ID documents and money in the aircraft fire.

How are you going to get out of the airport?
How are you going to get to the consulate?
How do you prove who you are?
What are you going to eat in the next two days?
What are you going to use to buy medicine?
Who is going to pay for the camera and laptop you lost in the fire?

The current trend of grab-it-all is a reaction to the zero-tolerance evacuation policy where passengers are told to leave everything, without any guarantee of post-incident support. Rationally they therefore grab their bags to sustain themselves.

If the policy was 'you will each be given $5000 at the terminal' then things might flow differently.

You can't be serious. Pretending a passenger would be lost to fend for themselves in a foreign country after an airline accident is insane. The amount of assistance they would receive from the airline would cover everything you questioned and then some. You think the passengers of Asiana 214 are still stranded at the airport in San Francisco? There is no excuse for bringing any personal items with you.

stratclub wrote:

Antarius wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

What is the minimum seat pitch and width that meets certification?

I don't believe there is one. The seat itself must be certified and passengers must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds with half the exits INOP. that's it.

So technically if people could evacuate with 27" inch pitch seats, it would be fine. So long as the seats are certified.

If the evacuation process including seats meets certification requirements for emergency egress in the country the aircraft is certified in then yes. Using your logic, certified seats could be mounted on the ceiling. If you have a problem with sardine can flights pay the money for more comfortable accommodations. Seat pitch is set by market demands.

I'm not following your post. My point Is that seat pitch is indeed set by market as long as that the setup has the seat certification standard and the evacuation standards are met.

If the seats on the ceiling met the above (which they presently do not) then sure, it would likely be allowed.

I agree that the FAA shouldn't regulate seat width beyond the evacuation limits they already enforce. And for e.g. the A380, no operator is even close to hitting those capacity maxes (>840pax). So airlines still have plenty of leeway before they start hitting safety issues.

But to be fair to the consumer, most ticket sites like kayak don't publish seat pitch and width with their search results. So it's pretty difficult for a consumer to figure out just *what* the seat size will be. A fair marketplace can only exist if everyone has access to the same information. It's not fair that the consumer doesn't have ready access to this information. Even if a consumer were to check seatguru, it's not uncommon that seatguru can't give you the exact seating layout, and can only tell you that flight is one of 3 777-200 variants that this airline runs (for example). Many consumers, for example, don't even know that some operators run 9-abreast seating on a 777 and some run 10-abreast. Is it any wonder that they then choose the cheapest seat?

IMHO, fair is fair. Airlines should be required to publish seat pitch and width for every cabin for every flight. That would make it easy for travel sites to integrate the information so that consumers can easily decide at the time of purchase, whether the extra inch of seat width or pitch is worth the extra price. Until then, you can't put all the blame on the consumer, the vast majority of whom lack access to the information required to make an informed decision.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well how are people going to evacuate from 28" pitch seats if their legs are broken near the knee joint?

I fully agree with you. Has anyone tried to adopt a "Legacy Brace" position on any Y seat today? just have a look at the safety cards from years ago, which showed arms under the knees and chest against the legs, to the current arms in the front seat back.

I truly believe that on a plane crash (and I mean a crash were the plane does not stand for the whole time on the wheels or belly, not a fire while takeoff run or similar evacuation events), most Y passengers will either have one or two legs / knees / ankles broken or will be unconscious after hitting their heads with the front seat back (probably with an LCD IFE display to make it even harder).

So for those still able to walk (probably seated in Y+/J/F) the 90 seconds target will be easy to accomplish, even if they want to take with them two trolleys each.

Sorry for being so sarcastic, but I see no way of not having my legs broken if after a normal 2 hours flight in some Y seats I cannot even feel my knees.

Is the age or fitness of the passengers taken into account while doing evac simulation? An elderly or unfit passenger that needs assistance will slow down the evac for sure.

AitorL wrote:

Has anyone tried to adopt a "Legacy Brace" position on any Y seat today? just have a look at the safety cards from years ago, which showed arms under the knees and chest against the legs, to the current arms in the front seat back.

I recently flew I2 and they have a USB/power port in the leg of the seat. Because of the tight pitch, I wasn't able to bend forward and access it. So to adopt the brace position I would have had to lean forward against the seat in front of me. No possibility to bend at all. And I'm of an average size (1m76/80kg).

muralir wrote:

IMHO, fair is fair. Airlines should be required to publish seat pitch and width for every cabin for every flight. That would make it easy for travel sites to integrate the information so that consumers can easily decide at the time of purchase, whether the extra inch of seat width or pitch is worth the extra price. Until then, you can't put all the blame on the consumer, the vast majority of whom lack access to the information required to make an informed decision.

The trend in France and Europe is to have scales for consumer products. Like for instance how much energy an appliance consumes. Like this one for a TV set.


It's also used for apartments (degree of insulation). They're trying to introduce a similar scale for food with regards to the calories and such.

A similar system could be introduced for seat comfort with D being 26 inches or less for example. Then when purchasing your ticket passengers would be informed appropriately.

The only real danger in an evacuation is peoples own stupidity not seat pitch.

It will be when their is an accident in a 200 seat 737 and their is a stampede of people evacuating. When the lawsuits start coming in, they will care then.