Slashdot Mirror
Redesigned Seats Let Airlines Squeeze In More Passengers
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "AP reports that U.S. airlines are taking out old, bulky seats in favor of so-called slimline models that take up less space from front to back, allowing for five or six more seats on each plane. This gives airlines two of their favorite things: more paying passengers, and a smaller fuel bill (the seats are slightly lighter). Whether the new seats are really closer together depends on how you measure. By the usual measure, called 'pitch,' the new ones are generally an inch closer together from front to back as measured at the armrest. The seats Southwest has put on nearly its entire fleet are 31 inches apart, about an inch less than before, allowing them to to add an extra row of six seats to each plane. International passengers are feeling crowded, too. As recently as 2010, most airlines buying Boeing's big 777 opted for nine seats across. Now it's 10 across on 70 percent of newly-built 777s, Boeing says. American's newest 777s are set up 10-across in coach, with slightly narrower seats than on its older 777s. Airlines say you won't notice. And the new seats are designed to minimize this problem. Airplane seats from 30 years ago looked like your grandmother's BarcaLounger, says Jami Counter, senior director at SeatGuru.com, which tracks airline seats and amenities. 'All that foam cushion and padding probably didn't add all that much comfort. All that's been taken out,' he said. 'You haven't really lost all that much if the airline does it right.'"
I recently flew on a rather old African owned plane (run by a state airline). It being my first experience with this style of airline (the only other African airline I'd flown was SAA, which is no better or worse than the average European airline), it was interesting. E.g. there was heaps of leg room! It was amazing compared to the other airlines I'd been flying. Economy class was actually comfortable for me, even without pushing the seatback back (which I never like doing if there is someone behind me, I think airlines should remove that option).
On the newer planes though, I always have to get an aisle seat, otherwise I am uncomfortable the entire flight.
Fuck the airlines.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Every plane trip you go on will offer you a life jacket. In the past 60 years, I'm confident that a life jacket hasn't saved a life, but it's cost a fortune in fuel over that time...
As a man who is 6'6" and 255, I have a place in mind where they can stick these new seats.
Would be comfier at this rate.
I'd start by saying that I'm bigger than the average. Still, having sat in the slim seats for several travels, I have to say they are more comfortable than the old ones, even in a 3-4-3 row setting. I actually feel like having more leg space (especially for my knees) even if the seat in front of me is reclined. If they all will be like the slim seats on transatlantic LH flights, then I'd take them anytime over the old style seats.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
I've more or less stopped flying because of all the nuisance fees combined with the delay/hassle of security screening at the airport. If I need to get somewhere REALLY far away, I'll bite the bullet, but for the most part I've switched to trains and driving.
I'm 6'5" (1.96m) and the biggest problem I have is the seat width. Thing is, I'm not fat, not particularly broad built or even unusually tall. It's just really difficult to get in them, especially when the arms are fixed. The seats as it stands are made for people who are 5'8" or smaller.
This isn't progress, it's shameful profiteering.
Jami Counter, senior director at SeatGuru.com, which tracks airline seats and amenities. 'All that foam cushion and padding probably didn't add all that much comfort. All that's been taken out,' he said. 'You haven't really lost all that much if the airline does it right.'"
He shouted from business class.
I wonder if we made a law that said all airline executives had to fly economy whether they would be so keen to make these changes
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
If people just go to their favorite travel website and sort flights by cost this will continue to happen. Consumers are giving the signal they care about nothing other than cost. If it becomes uncomfortable enough that people select airlines based on comfort over price the airlines will respond. They just want the money. If they could get away with charging more for bean bag seats they would respond.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Might be a bit strong, but I agree this should be about efficiency and ergonomics, maybe some other stuff. It's good that they got rid of old foam style seating. But i bet they had no thought to our long term / short term health.
I'm a big guy. Not necessarily that I'm fat; but, I have a large frame and wide shoulders. Knowing this I always try to get a window or aisle seat. I found the seats on my last flight to be so tight and I had to lean to one side to avoid constantly rubbing shoulders and arms with the person sitting next to me. Take out another inch of width away and I'm just not going to fit.
"The seats Southwest has put on nearly its entire fleet are 31 inches apart, about an inch less than before"
" Boeing says. American's newest 777s are set up 10-across in coach"
I'm 6'6" (198cm) and on behalf of tall people everywhere can I express a warm and heartfelt welcome to this policy of even further reducing the amount of room available, if this trend continues soon the we tall people will only be able to fly coach by adopting the Dwi Pada Sirsasana pose which if nothing else should please yoga instructors.
I've wondered for a long time why airline seats are so (seemingly) heavy. It seemed like a no-brainer that they'd be spending money on lighter weight seats. So, I was really surprised upon reading the article that the guy from Recaro said that 5 years ago, their seats weight about 29 lbs. That's surprisingly light for a seat that size and apparent heft when you look at them. Even more incredible is they've managed to save a further 9 lbs off that with their lightest current seat.
At 6'4 I'm pretty protective over my legroom. In my opinion they should improve coach by just not allowing reclining seats. I know that will never "fly", but it really pisses me off when some 5'1 person in front of me reclines their seat all the way back into me once the plane takes off. I just pretend the seat is back in its upright position, and if that means they get bumped every two minutes, they can just move their seatback forward. I guess it's only going to get worse. Or, I have to get a lot richer and start flying in a more expensive class.
www.clarke.ca
Sardines claim conditions cramped in tin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idd32nyf1pc
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
A bunch of tubes (or padded cubes) where the passenger slides in, a hatch is closed behind them and soothing music is piped in to help them sleep (or gas, whichever works best).
[John]
Shit better not happen!
But don't you see? By making them smaller, fat Americans won't be able to fit to fly at all.
Narrower and smaller? As American narrows seats and strips padding, Americans have been redesigning their seats fatter and wider for 30 years.
And adding inch after inch of padding, too.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Rather than do this incremental changes, why don't the airlines simply jump to their end game: drug economy class passengers, slap diapers on them, and put them in cargo?
I am sure that people are working on promoting this as a anti-terrorist measure. (Won't someone think of the children?) Kind of reminds me of slowly boiling a frog in water, except we are the frogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
If only we had decent high-speed rail options in North America. Whenever I fly to Europe, I typically take direct flights to hubs such as Frankfurt which have convenient rail stations, and then take a high speed train to my target city, if the train ride is less than 5 hours. (It is usually the cheaper and more convenient option, that takes the same amount of time, since it takes you straight to the city center, and avoids going through European airport security, waiting for a connecting flight, and taking another train to get from the airport to the city.)
I love it:
'All that foam cushion and padding probably didn't add all that much comfort. All that's been taken out,' he said. 'You haven't really lost all that much if the airline does it right.'
Pure speculation at its finest and spoken by a person who probably doesn't travel much.
So, we all get to stand up like sardines? Fit a few more in the overhead bins....like right out of M.A.D. magazine's "No Frills Airlines" series.
I still remember taking a flight home on Icelandic Air in the late 1980's....it was a tight fit...but, the food was amazing and the manner they treated us went way beyond exemplary. British Airways was the same way when I flew business class and, in one case, flying home sick (really bad sinus infection (non-infectious, btw)). They did everything they could to make my flight as comfortable as possible including giving me drinks so I would be able to sleep.
My first experience with the newer thin seats was on Continental maybe ten years ago. Within fifteen minutes of sitting down, half the muscles in my back were spasming. The only position I could stand was leaning far forward with my elbows on my knees. After that, I refused to fly Continental except for one case where the usual emergency reschedule landed me on one flying from Atlanta to Phoenix. Spent the whole trip "in the position" -- and I noticed that there were several others, incuding the woman next to me. We compared notes, same story.
And if anyone tells you that packing in more passengers side-by-side won't be noticable, you can bet that either they always fly in first class or are damned small people. As is, put three men of even average size next to each other in a row and at least one of them has to lean forward or twist sideways to make room for all of the shoulder width. Never mind sitting next to someone who weighs 400 pounds and insists on putting the seat arms up so she can overflow into your lap.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Narrower but you won't notice? BS! I already have issues with lack of shoulder room between me and the guy next to me at times. I sometimes have a slight lean out into the aisle for the entire flight.
There are some pictures here and here. I have to admit it looks like the saving is in the thickness, not squeezing the passenger. I wonder how it copes with the kid who insists on kicking the seat in front!
No, more of them will need to buy two seats.
It's the Ryanair, low cost airline effect. It's all about the price, squeeze every penny, charge for baggage, (pretend to) charge for toilet usage, just get them from A to B for the minimum advertised price and them make them pay for it in discomfort, inconvenience, or extra charges later.
And there's something to be said for this model. It has brought affordable, regular, international, air travel to the masses -- for the prices mentioned above.
But, look, let me put it this way: I will pay the extra â100 or even â200 euros per flight to fly with Aer Lingus or BA, in some modicum of comfort, without the mental overhead of restrictions, and to be dropped off in an actual city instead of an airport 80km from where I want to go. There are limits to how low people will go for the right price and I think the airline industry has already hit that mark.
May the Maths Be with you!
Every so often I fly on BA from London to Houston. I swear that the seats in economy on BA have less room than the seats on easyJet. Also after about 4 hours, the BA seats feel like slabs of concrete.
I'm not complaining though, the round trip on BA is stupidly cheap, and it includes free booze (which alleviates the concrete seat problem somewhat).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Even with new planes this issue will still exist. Boeing created a recommended seat pitch for passengers on their new Dreamliner. Of course, the US airlines are completely ignoring the recommendation and installing more seats. This, despite the fact that the Dreamliner is much more efficient. They are completely ignoring passenger comfort just to squeeze every last penny.
Whenever possible, I fly JetBlue and pay for the extra room seats. Not because I am big, but because I like to be able to move around in my seat.
I flew on United where they had newer slim seats and while they look really nice, they're not nearly as comfortable since there't not as much padding. I didn't notice a problem with legroom but I did notice that they shrunk down the trays for no apparent reason - they had room to make them wider than they did. I could barely fit my 13 inch laptop on there and had no room to sit my drink like I normally do if I shift the computer. Added padding on the bottom of the seat wouldn't have taken up any depth space. They made this way worse than they had to and if I find an airline that has more of these I'll purposely avoid them.
No, they'll just take up half my seat while the airline expects me to suffer in silence.
The american airlines should just carry things to their logical conclusion, sedate everyone, and then stack them like firewood.
airlines need to be required to have a demo seat for cattle-class to try out at the check-in counter. Set it up with a pokey wall to the left where the passenger division is, so you know you won't be sticking your elbow in the other fellow's lap. And have the front partitioned to show the seat in front of you reclined.
Similar on topic, I'd like to see someone do a volumetric comparison between airline seats, all now, and comparing against previous years. A nice graph to show hard numbers of how seating space has steadily declined over the years.
Bonus points for airports that set up a row of seats in the lobby, so you can compare and decide who NOT to get a ticket from.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
at 6'7", economy on most airlines is beyond tolerable: the seat pitch is less than the length of my knee to butt.
Last night I was on a United flight that theoretically had "economy plus" but was given the lame excuse that it's a brand new airplane and "hasn't been reconfigured yet" -- never have I heard such refined bullsh*t.
Design for Use, not Construction!
Which would lead to more ticket sales per plane. Per person carried the cost of fuel still goes down.
Of course, there's only so far they can push it. FAA does impose regulations on seat arrangement and spacing.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
The armrest can keep the solid parts of them away from you, but you still need to fight off the gooey parts.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"The american airlines should just carry things to their logical conclusion, sedate everyone, and then stack them like firewood."
But with the new, thin beach chairs, you'll be able to feel the knees of the 12year old behind you much better, it will be like a massage.
If they could do that without long (or short) term complications, I'd be all for sedated flying.
I wonder if we made a law that said all airline executives had to fly economy whether they would be so keen to make these changes
Actually, Delta's CEO Richard H. Anderson is known for flying coach.... albeit in an exit row seat, which has extra leg room. Here's a thread about him on Flyertalk, a website for very frequent fliers: Richard H. Anderson rides in coach
And another thread about Southwest's CEO: [Southwest CEO Gary Kelly flys Delta...IN FIRST CLASS
In many cases where you have a flight over two hours you'll have a routing option that includes an "Economy Plus / Premium Economy" option where you can pay more for a seat with more legroom - United, Air Canada, EVA, British Airways - On and on. Even with the surcharge chances are you'll be paying less in today's dollars than your parents would have for that same route in 1975.
As a man who is 6'6" and 255, I have a place in mind where they can stick these new seats.
I'm only 6' 1" and 230, the biggest pain for me is my knees hitting the seat in front of me. Since I have only a 36" inseam, I am seeing 30" between my back and the row in front of me beautiful in theory. In reality, I know my shins are longer than 6", so I am still puzzled on what they are measuring here.
At 6'1" and 230 your Body Mass Index is over 30 - obese.
At 6'6" your BMI is just below 30, overweight but not quite obese.
The airlines suck, but they are not the only problem. You both probably thought you were just " big men" but basically normal.
FWIW, the BMI scale was invented before calculators etc., existed, so it's rather oversimplified. There is an alternative, which better represents BMI of tall and short persons. It gives lower BMI values for tall persons, but higher BMI values for short persons.
Of course, even using this BMI scale, the 6'1" person comes in at around 29 (overweight, but not quite obese). The 6'6" person comes in at just over 27 (somewhat overweight). Neither of them is in the "normal" BMI category, even on the scale which is kinder to tall persons.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
That's the only part of this that makes any sense... My office chair has zero padding on the back (just some webbing) and that part is quite comfortable. The seat has 50mm of foam, and it isn't. Keep in mind that foam is a real problem in a fire. It either burns, gives off toxic fumes, or both. Give me a nice high-tech hammock any day.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
This article has a concept drawing of the seats involved
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
I'm 5'8" and average weight but have broad shoulders. Sitting next to anyone other than my wife makes it uncomfortable as our shoulders are always rubbing.
I read an article years ago talking about seat design, they used hips as the defining measurement for seat width, not shoulders.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
A few years back my wife got us a 2-for-1 compartment deal on Amtrak from NYC Penn Station to New Orleans. We didn't realize that made us effectively first-class passengers until we showed up at Penn Station to check in and they ushered us into the first class lounge to wait. Extremely plush furniture, complimentary drinks, free newspapers, TVs, wifi, etc. Porters took our bags to the compartment for us, and we had a steward serve us throughout the trip. Free sodas, first call to dinner (which was included), power and TVs/DVD players in our compartment, and a bathroom in our compartment. It was wonderful. We left New York in the evening and arrived in New Orleans in city center the next day. Took the streetcar to our hotel. No taxi, no airport shuttle, no AirTrain BS. Fantastic.
I will take that luxury over the misery of flying any day. Any day. Unless they bring back zeppelins and replicate the civilized experience of the train.
I can dream.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
"This gives airlines two of their favorite things: more paying passengers, and a smaller fuel bill (the seats are slightly lighter)."
Exactly, the seats are negligible in weight compared to the passengers themselves. I bet the extra 5-6 passengers easily outweigh the "lighter seats" by 10-30 times. Especially when you add any luggage and/or carryons....
All this will do is piss off more people and turn them off to flying unless absolutely necessary.
That is typically how I fly anyway. I usually stay up late the night before a flight so I can sleep on the plane and wake up at my destination. Flying these days is not an experience that I want to be awake for.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
It might be possible to design a better seat but the airlines are using "better" to mean cheaper and a way to stuff more people on the plane.
I had the unfortunate experience of flying from Denver to Reno two days ago on United on an Airbus A320 with their new seats.
Worst airline seat ever.
They don't have any back support. They force you into an uncomfortable position and there is not escape.
The legroom is much smaller. I am not tall (5' 10") and never have a problem with legroom but these seats were jammed so close together that my knees were constantly banging the seat ahead of me (which was not reclined).
This was only a 1.5 hour flight but it was 90 minutes of pain.
Terrible seats.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Nothing has changed over the years at all. You can get all the old experience back:
1. Large seats with lots of leg room like in the 60s.
2. Great service from friendly staff like in the 60s.
3. Drinks served in actual glasses on actual plates like in the 60s.
4. No stupid restrictions on luggage just like in the 60s.
5. A ticket price that will bankrupt a middle income family... just like in the 60s.
Just fly first class if you want the old experience (and the old price) back. Me I'm happy for every change they've introduced, even the one where you pay extra for luggage. It now means I can fly interstate for less than the cost of a premium case of beer. As for being uncomfortable for 2 hours? You should try commuting on a peak hour train.
...and it includes free booze (which alleviates the concrete seat problem somewhat).
Ok, I'm willing to trade an inch of room for free booze.
Place nail here >+
I *WILL* notice, especially when the person in front of me reclines back at full speed.
I'm more upset with things like the 777 airlines' change from 9 to 10 abreast. I'm short (only 4' 18"), so legroom isn't a problem for me. But I've got wide shoulders and my arms end up hanging into the aisle and over the armrest into the next person's seat. My only solution is to secure an aisle seat and lean out, pissing off the cabin crew and passengers trying to squeeze by.
One of the fixes being made to the new seats is actually a good idea. Reclining the new seats will be done by sliding your butt forward, not tipping the seat back into the next person's space. So overlength passengers will have to make a choice between preserving legroom or sitting upright.
Have gnu, will travel.
The 777 can carry up to 451 passengers. even if they only save 2 lbs per seat you are talking about 900 lbs.
So the extra passengers can weigh more than the weight savings it is only by a few pounds. Not 10 - 30 times the weight.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
15+ hour flights to get to a destination is now a freaking nightmare. No wonder first class on those flights cost 5 figures.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
I actually had the middle seat between a couple's windows and isle seat. They chose those seats because they were both obese. When I went over to sit, both of their rolls of fat rendered the middle seat absolutely useless. Maybe enough room to fit a bag in. I was lucky that there was another seat that I could relocate too. But imagine a full flight where they had to shuffle people around or kicks someone off the flight.
They should have paid for that third seat so no one else could be assigned to it.
Life is not for the lazy.
One of the best is https://www.routehappy.com/ By default it sorts by a score which is a combination of comfort, travel time, airline ratings, and price.
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
All this will do is piss off more people and turn them off to flying unless absolutely necessary.
I doubt if most people will notice. When making flying decisions, most passengers care about three things:
1. cost of the tickets
2. fares
3. ticket prices
Discount airlines that have cut amenities to reduce costs, have thrived.
Speaking for myself, I have a family to support, and renting a comfortable seat for a few hours is not a priority.
If a thinner seat allows the airline to cut $20 off the price, that is fine with me.
I've sat in just about every possible configuration of plane and seat, including these new "ultra-light" seats (which are on a number of United's planes). The seats are slimmer, but the problem is that they are also stiffer, and the material is both harder and less supportive than the standard seat.
I'm usually able to deal with just about any seating situation, but I found myself getting uncomfortable after 30-45 mins in the new seats, particularly my back. I actually had to consistently stretch and turn to mitigate the ache that started to form. The major reason is, I think, the fact that there is less support for your legs in front, leading to a "sliding forward off the seat" kind of situation where you have to put more effort into keeping yourself seated.
Anyway, seats vary, and old seats suck as much as anything else. However, selling the new seats as "better" or "more comfortable" is a load of c$#% that the airline industry no doubt has teams of advertisers selling through stories like this one.
RT
6 passengers at an average 150 lbs = 900 lbs.
More passengers means more safety gear (floatation devices, oxygen masks, bathroom capacity, etc) related costs too
locopuyo: The distance between seats isn't changing
summary at top: The seats Southwest has put on nearly its entire fleet are 31 inches apart, about an inch less than before
Like I said. It can weigh more. But only by a little. You will not be finding another 9,000 to 27,000 lbs of safety gear. You original statement was a bit more than hyperbolic.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
On a flight I had this year out of Detroit on AA, I had one unruly guy behind me start to get into a fight with the guy next to him over elbow room. This is a great idea for the airlines to now squeeze more people in to the seats because now we'll have live fights on the plane that everybody can watch. Of course you can always have the occasional nutjob who can't put up with it and then they go crazy or on a tirade.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
i am 6'2" , my wife is just under 6' . We pay attention to the seat sizes.
I actually nearly refuse to fly at all, but when i do it is because driving isnt an option. This usually means long distance, and $20 will never cover the cost of a week of pain from being wedged in tightly. I will look at the structure of seating for the airlines in general, the structure of the seats for the specific flight ( usually ) and try to figure out how often a different plane configuration is swapped in, as that changes your seat location and everything.
If there are a few options, and one is a bit more expensive but offers the slight edge in comfort, then the choice will go with the better configuration.
fat americans aren't getting any taller so adding more rows was the answer.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Any reasonably smart party of two will book the window and aisle hoping that the flight isn't at capacity and that the middle seat never fills.
When you're a single traveler looking a the last dozen seats available on an airplane, you'll almost always pick an open window or aisle before choosing a middle seat.
If their gamble is successful, they get three seats for the price of two.
If their gamble is unsuccessful, they get what they paid for, and often end up sitting together anyway, because they'll just trade with the grateful soul who got "upgraded" out of the middle to the aisle or window.
Also, some people are fat, yes.
Exactly, the seats are negligible in weight compared to the passengers themselves. I bet the extra 5-6 passengers easily outweigh the "lighter seats" by 10-30 times. Especially when you add any luggage and/or carryons....
Oh SNAP!
If only a smart guy like you worked for the airlines, and he could have figured out the average weight of a passenger with their luggage and figured this out in advance!
If you want Economy seating from the 90s, luggage fees from the 90s and Economy seat pitch from the 90s.... you can pay 90s prices and fly Economy Plus.
People need to remember that Economy isn't Economy anymore, it's like sub-economy. And it's great. If you want the very bare bones cheapest ticket--fly economy. If you want to spend what we used to spend... fly Economy Plus (or even business).
Given that the average body weight in the United States is 164 pounds and we have 6 passengers, we have an added weight of 984 pounds. Less than the 1200 pounds saved. This does not take into account the weight of luggage however.
Now ideally one would have the passengers pay according to their weight at takeoff, but I'm sure many people would find this unacceptable.
There is no such thing as negligible weight on an aircraft.
"If their gamble is unsuccessful, they get what they paid for, and often end up sitting together anyway, because they'll just trade with the grateful soul who got "upgraded" out of the middle to the aisle or window."
Or they can turn out to be jackasses who won't move together and will talk over the top of you for the whole flight.
grill class?
It's not just large-assed people that are the problem. Some body-builder type guy got assigned the middle seat chair in our aisle. The guys arms were so massive they were going over the chair armrests into the space of each person on either side. I end up being squashed into the window, the person on the other side ends up being squashed into the aisle and being jabbed by the food trolleys every time they go by.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Reminds me of accounts of the colonial slave trade. Seriously, why don't they just design standing seats already and make everyone stand up for 8 solid hours? They already prove that they care nothing about human comfort! Could probably squeeze people into containers resembling coffins while they're at it like the Japanese hotels...
I'm 6'7'' so I never buy a ticket unless I can get an emergency aisle seat ( which have a lot more leg room ) or an affordable business class seat.
I know people a lot shorter but who do the same. So the admittedly small market is out there.
Unfortunately, in the US we have AMTRAK, which (while the company is trying hard) suffers from being a bastardized federal 'solution', which was designed almost purposely to fail. Governments tend to be better at some thing than others. One of those things is building and maintaining highways and other infrastructure. Back in the late 1960s when the railroads in the US were all on the ropes and often going bankrupt, the US government bailed several of them out, sometimes by way of merging them with each other. The railroads have hated passengers for decades, and wanted to halt passenger service entirely.
At that time the Feds could have worked a deal to nationalize the infrastructure - the rails, right of ways, etc., buying them from the railroad companies using any of several methods. This would have recapitalized the companies and elminated a large portion of their costs. The rail companies could have kept their switching yards and other non-mainline assets. The purchase could have been in the form of, say, 20 years of free rides on the new Federal Rail System. Then the route maintenance and planning could have been done for the benefit of communities and the overall transportation demands of the nation, while the railroads could be more competitive and more dynamic. Any entrepreneur who wanted to start providing a rail trip from point A to point B could, having met certain safety and stability requirements, could have started offering that trip to paying customers. Cities that wanted to re-route trackage or provide new services could negotiate with the Federal Rail System rather than companies with their own agendas. This would have been an optimal arrangement of public and private concerns.
Instead we got a passenger train system that pays too much to the rail owners, gets last priority behind all freight (except for certain corridors), and has little or no power or influence over track maintenance or the ability to establish new routes or bring in new entrepreneurial initiatives. But the personnel do actually try - this is not a criticism of the folks who actually run the thing.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
If they could do that without long (or short) term complications, I'd be all for sedated flying.
That's a shame. I flew to Washington last monday, a da6y flight, about 8 hours.
I put the seat into bed mode for the first couple of hours for a nap, then broke out the laptop. Managed to get 5 hours solid development done, with no distractions. First time for 4 months.
Last nights flight home was a "sedated" flight. Couple of glasses of Tattinger before boarding, one while on the ground, then a quick glenfiddich for a nightcap before a solid 5 hours.
Flying can be very productive.
they are saving in passenger_miles/gallon. Those six or nine or ten additional passengers are paying that much additional, for the same total fuel cost.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
All this will do is piss off more people and turn them off to flying unless absolutely necessary.
I doubt if most people will notice. When making flying decisions, most passengers care about three things:
1. cost of the tickets
2. fares
3. ticket prices
Discount airlines that have cut amenities to reduce costs, have thrived.
Speaking for myself, I have a family to support, and renting a comfortable seat for a few hours is not a priority.
If a thinner seat allows the airline to cut $20 off the price, that is fine with me.
It's a right shame. I care about
1. schedule
2. comfort
3. price
Although 1 and 2 can swap. Schedule is important when it's a small destination like Amman, with 2 flights a day. For somewhere like London to New York with buses every 40 minutes comfort is more important.
When you spend 5% of your life in a plane (17 days a year), comfort, and minimising the time on the plane, become the priority.
I actually nearly refuse to fly at all, but when i do it is because driving isnt an option. This usually means long distance
I might be asking a silly question here (from the UK), but don't they have trains where you live?
yes, kind of.
The trains either dont get right to where you need to be, or they stop everywhere and take too long.
My long distance issues that require a plane are either 1) cross an ocean , or 2) go 2000 miles by tomorrow.
If I had an option of a decent length travel for vacation, with no schedule to drive me batty, I would love to take a comfortable train ride.
Unfortunately, the current political system is captive of the corporations. I've seen predictions that this will continue to get worse until society collapses. Before then expect a series of coupes, so I don't think we're well into the process.
One can hope that these predictions are wrong, but so far things seem to match pretty well.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Business trips are often booked in the last minute. Especially if you work in IT and have to make an emergency visit that justifies the trip. Anyways yes, flying is a shitty experience. If it's not the screaming kid kicking the seat behind you, it's the fatty taking up all the leg and elbow room.
Fuck it! Just model after the stand-up roller coaster and be done with it.
Life is not for the lazy.
I think they've used all science and stuff to invent flame resistant foams these days.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I might be asking a silly question here (from the UK), but don't they have trains where you live?
Not a silly question at all except if you've been to the US! Amtrak is the only real option here and the passenger rail plays second fiddle to the cargo rail 100% of the time. If you have a 3 mile long cargo train in front of you, you'll be going about the same speed. It also means the rails themselves are beaten to hell and back by the weight of the cargo trains.
I have taken the Amtrak a few times and it's pretty bad. I grew up in the UK and I honestly never thought I'd miss British Rail quite that much...
American airline companies already have the shortest pitch in the world. They must use a model human who is an above the knee double amputee. This is almost endurable for short flights, but if you have to spend more than six hours with your knees crushed against the seat in front it is intolerable. Sleep is impossible. Australians, accustomed to 12 hour flights to Europe or USA, know this and avoid these airlines whenever they can. The idea of reducing this miserly pitch by an inch is plainly absurd. These greedy bastards deserve to lose market share.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
Removing those armrests sounds like a good idea, then you can squeeze in more seats!
Can someone explain to me why they don't just build the airplanes of the correct size to start with?
Or is the weight of the passengers + luggage so negotiable that you want the planes as small as possible?
Bench seats for the win!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
s/spinal injury/spinal defect/
Although I suppose it's not impossible for the text as written to be accurate to some situation, it's not what I meant.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I doubt the average body weight in the US is only 164 pounds. Are you averaging all people, right down to babies?
I think a better metric would be average body weight of a US adult. Or at least pick an age range that represents most flyers.
If a thinner seat allows the airline to cut $20 off the price, that is fine with me.
Well, yeah, but you actually have to be able to fit into the seat...
I am a fairly big guy. I am not so tall but my shoulders are very broad. If I were in a middle seat, my shoulders would pass over the arm rests and into both neighboring seats. I am talking about my bone structure here so suggesting I go on a diet will NOT help. This is why I *always* get a window seat. I can usually lean against the side of the airplane and not take up someones space.
Making the seating area smaller is only going to aggravate this. Not everyone is 175cm and 65 kilos. There are many regions around the world where this is considered small, not average.
(CAPTCHA is contains. Are these things chosen based on the article?)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen