Slashdot Mirror


3 Recent Flights Make Unscheduled Landings, After Disputes Over Knee Room

The AP reports that American airplane passengers, squeezed by increasingly tight seating aboard planes, are lashing out, actually getting into in-flight fights over knee room: Three U.S. flights have made unscheduled landings in the past eight days after passengers got into fights over the ability to recline their seats. Disputes over a tiny bit of personal space might seem petty, but for passengers whose knees are already banging into tray tables, every bit counts. ... Southwest and United both took away 1 inch from each row on certain jets to make room for six more seats. American is increasing the number of seats on its Boeing 737-800s from 150 to 160. Delta installed new, smaller toilets in its 737-900s, enabling it to squeeze in an extra four seats. And to make room for a first-class cabin with lie-flat beds on transcontinental flights, JetBlue cut the distance between coach seats by one inch.

819 comments

  1. Anthropometrics by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since they have apparently reached the limit of human tolerance, one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights. The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"

    1. Re:Anthropometrics by Bengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You silly person, that's not how customers think. They will choose the cheapest offer, and complain about the quality. Your only hope is to not offer such cheap options.

    2. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean pay more to get back what you had before? Aka extortion.

      Ah, you didn't wanted to get a stroke due to thrombosis? Bad luck. You should have bought our premium seats for just an extra 300 dollars. Would have gotten you 2 inches more leg room and an extra can of coke. Fabulous offer, isn't it?

      *implied annoyed Tommy Lee Jones look*

    3. Re:Anthropometrics by gatkinso · · Score: 2

      http://www.united.com/web/en-U...

      Now. Ask about ticket price.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    4. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economy plus already exists in many places. There are lots of companies which have a policy of buying the cheapest available tickets no matter what. With airlines having stopped allowing upgrades many passengers will have no choice. Not to mention those who can't afford the upgrade..

    5. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because customers aren't stupid. They smell a price hike from a mile away.

    6. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure where you live. But over here the air fare have steadily dropped. Ten years ago the prices were roughly double on the routes I travel. Considering inflation, the difference is even bigger.

    7. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooosh

    8. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get thrombosis from having less leg room. You get thrombosis from sitting for a long time without moving or stretching your legs. Even on a plane you can extend your legs under the seat in front of you, walk up and down the aisle and do isometric exercises.

    9. Re:Anthropometrics by anarcobra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      KLM has this. I almost always pay for the extra leg room. It gets more and more expensive every time I fly though but on a 9 hour flight it makes a big difference for me.

    10. Re:Anthropometrics by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Well that and the details aren't spelled out by the airlines either . When you pick economy the seats may or may not be as advertised. The same airline and the same plane can have different configurations. Dimensions of space aren't listed anywhere when booking a seat.

      Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats The airlines are beginning to ignore basic human needs. People need to move around. The tighter and more closed off you make people feel the more likely they are to get into arguments. This is not only true physically, but mentally as well. Arguments lead to fighting.

      It is why Cities have always struggled. To many people to close to each other. The wealthy always purchase enough space to make themselves comfortable. However the poor can not and once you get so many people pressed together they fight. That fighting spills outward and you have a riot over a simple issue that is dealt normally dealt fairly.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      Many airlines, including United, already offer more legroom in certain seats as well as some seats where the seat in front of you doesn't recline. Wider seats aren't the problem in this story but you are always welcome to pay for First/Business class if you want more width to your seat

    12. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. Yes you do get thrombosis from ever more cramped space. That is the space you no longer have to move your legs who are instead squeezed between your seat and the one in front if you. Walking the aisles??? Hahahaha. You are very funny. Try to get out in the first place. Then there is the problem that for 250-300 passengers there isn't enough space even in the aisles. Isometric exercise is nice, but it doesn't replace leg room to actually move your limbs.

      Tl;dr. You are utterly wrong.

    13. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      New United Economy Plus® seats featuring more legroom than before Complimentary seatback on-demand entertainment in all seats Standard power outlets and USB ports throughout the aircraft Latest version of Gogo® Wi-Fi service with improved connectivity I asked about the ticket price for those features and they said it was the same exact price as before.

    14. Re: Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      United offers Economy Plus seating on their entire jet fleet. They continue to offer their most frequent fliers space available Economy Plus at no additional charge. As with most things in life, not everyone will choose to pay extra for something better.

    15. Re:Anthropometrics by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Maybe there would be a way do store passengers even more economically.

      From a space usage standpoint it would require less space to store passengers lying down rather than sitting. Combine that with a flexible layout where you can pay for "cubic foot of space" for your and your carry-on. Might be an interesting alternative.

    16. Re:Anthropometrics by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats The airlines are
      > beginning to ignore basic human needs. People need to move around. The tighter and more closed
      > off you make people feel the more likely they are to get into arguments. This is not only true
      > physically, but mentally as well. Arguments lead to fighting.

      But as long as there are not so many problems as to damage their bottom line, they can just blame the incidents on the passengers

      So really, the best solution for passengers is to not hold back and start swinging until it really stands out that only one airline is having these problems.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    17. Re:Anthropometrics by epiphani · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is twofold. I travel a huge amount for work, and I am required to select the cheapest available option (within a window). The only thing that saves me from spending 10+ hours a week in huge amounts of discomfort due to the amount of space is my frequent flier status.. Those extra 5" of legroom are luxury when you travel as much as I do.

      --
      .
    18. Re: Anthropometrics by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you live. But over here the air fare have steadily dropped. Ten years ago the prices were roughly double on the routes I travel. Considering inflation, the difference is even bigger.

      Definitely not dropping where I live. The very cheapest fare is 3 times what it was 10 years ago, and the normal fare is 8 times what it was 10 years ago. And inflation shouldn't count unless wages go up with it, which they don't. I make less than half what I did 10 years ago. Of course, one data point is not a statistics, but in general, everybody seems to make about the same as 10 years ago. And one thing the government average wage statistics don't bother to take into consideration is the amount that unemployed people get paid, which is nothing.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are websites that specialize in giving you the seating configuration for a particular flight. One is SeatGuru While they can change aircraft between when you book a flight and when the flight takes off it is pretty accurate. If comfort is important to you then you should be rechecking the seat map several times before the day of your flight and adjust your seat based on any changes. Often better seats will open up several days before a flight as people are upgraded to 1st class. You have to spend a bit of time if you want the best seating you can get. 2nd exit row, aisle or window seat are two of the best seats in economy. Book early and snag those seats.

    20. Re: Anthropometrics by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      You can't stretch your legs on an airplane unless you are maybe under 5'6". I am unable to move my legs at all when I am in the seat, and getting up is not really an option on the regional jets, which is what I seem to end up flying on most of the time.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    21. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1, Funny

      I agree, the more angry people that get in fights on planes the more angry people that get blacklisted from flying and the more pleasant flights will be for the rest of us who don't have a problem getting along with our fellow passengers.

    22. Re:Anthropometrics by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      No, ultimately, their job is to carry passengers. That means they need to offer enough space for a passenger to sit in. The airline's only choice is to not shrink the seats any more. This may of course mean price increases for all seats.

    23. Re:Anthropometrics by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Funny

      However the poor can not and once you get so many people pressed together they fight.

      The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)

    24. Re:Anthropometrics by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      OMG.

      I have flown over a million miles on United... and this is appalling. A Premium Service flight *used* to be an aircraft with all Economy Plus seats with increased recline pitch, a section of United domestic First where E+ would be on a conventional aircraft, and lie flat seats in First. Better food and entertainment. The fare price was roughly double.

      Having stopped flying in 2010 I now see that as of 2012 a PS flight is simply a normal flight with a few Global first seats up front and wifi.

      Well, I guess the decision to stop travelling for work was a good one.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    25. Re: Anthropometrics by dukeblue219 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not even that expensive... there's usually plenty of Economy Plus available ranging from $50-$80 on a cross-country flight, down to $30 on a two hour flight (not exact, just my recollection). Life's too short to worry about $50 and get stuck with your knees jammed into an economy seat for 5 hours -- just pay it if you can. Honestly, if you can't afford the $50, then you probably don't fly long distances very regularly anyway.

      Also, for business travelers who don't have elite status, you'd be surprised how many companies out there are willing to pay for extra legroom if you just ask.

      --
      -Ted http://www.freemathhelp.com/
    26. Re:Anthropometrics by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      The problem is that it is almost involuntary. A perfectly normal person can end up freaking out because of claustrophobia. Your idea of giving people who pay more just enough room to avoid freaking is right up there with the idea of charging people for Oxygen......

      "Ladies and gentlemen, if the plane decompresses for any reason, the oxygen masks will deploy. After that you swipe your major credit card for 100 US dollars for 5 minutes of oxygen. By the way, the credit card scanner doesn't accept American Express."

      Unless there is an ocean in the way, my car has lots of leg room.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    27. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      City's often have lower crime levels per person they just have more people.

    28. Re:Anthropometrics by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yes! Just like in The Fifth Element. Especially if you get to share the space with Mila Jovovich.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    29. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Your statement is only true until YOU lose your rag at some [redacted] idiot on a flight.
      By all means sit there all smug but don't ever think that you will never have an argument over what you think is 'your space'.

    30. Re:Anthropometrics by mrsquid0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least one of these "knee jerk" incidents took place in a section of a plane where passengers did pay extra for extra leg room (United's Economy Plus section). The problem is that the more people pay for their ticket the more entitled they feel.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    31. Re: Anthropometrics by smash · · Score: 1

      US has had BS cheap airfares for decades.

      Here in Australia you're talking $300-400 to cross the country. And that's a cheap flight.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    32. Re:Anthropometrics by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see more options: pay a bit extra for some extra legroom, or pay 1.5x the ticket price for 1.5x the space, both leg room and width. (I don't care that much for extra legroom but it's nice not to have to fight your neighbour for the armrest).

      The problem is: it is hard to anticipate which tickets will sell on any given flight, and impossible to modify the arrangement on short notice. If the premium seats go unsold, they'll have to offer them at cattle class prices, without the ability to make it up on volume.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    33. Re:Anthropometrics by GNious · · Score: 1

      Some reports I read on this topic was for people flying "Economy Plus", which tends to be advertised as having more leg-room...

      soo...

    34. Re:Anthropometrics by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      Especially with "failure to obey flight crew" charges as a threat

      Maybe if the airlines want to cram so many folks into the space, they should look at preventing the seats from reclining at all. Even with plenty of room (ie, my 3 year old is in hte seat) a reclining seat will do its best to kill a laptop screen. Fortunately, I caught it quick enough to move the laptop, wait for it to be reclined, and reposition laptop so said 3 year old could keep watching Peppa Pig.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    35. Re:Anthropometrics by qbast · · Score: 1

      Why would you need carry-on if you are knocked out for duration of a flight?

    36. Re:Anthropometrics by Kagato · · Score: 1

      That's great, and I use these sites all the time. BUT, the majority of flyers are casual leisure passengers. They are unlikely to figure out which of the dozen 757 configurations Delta offers they are flying on. They just don't fly often enough. I think the model would be turned on it's head if minimum seat pitch was a required to be shown when presenting prices.

    37. Re:Anthropometrics by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats

      It's not the airlines quest for more seats, it's the passengers' quest for even cheaper fares.

      If airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket.

      Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.

    38. Re:Anthropometrics by scarboni888 · · Score: 0

      "It is why Cities have always struggled." [citation needed. Especially with regard to 'always'.]

      Violent crime rates are down across the board so wft ARE you talking about?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    39. Re:Anthropometrics by DexterIsADog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, the AC beat me to it with an excellent reply. I'll just add that while I would never say that *you* are the *sole* justification airline execs use in making these awful decisions, you're definitely part of it. Keep saying it's the people's fault, and they'll keep squeezing until they find your particular threshold.

    40. Re:Anthropometrics by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Since they have apparently reached the limit of human tolerance, one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights. The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"

      They already do. For example, Delta offers "economy comfort" for an added fee unless you are a high enough status flyer in which case it is free. They've brought back the old 3 tier first, business, economy model under a different name.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    41. Re:Anthropometrics by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      This is a ridiculous comparison. You HAVE to have oxygen or you will die. You do NOT have to fly across the ocean: plenty of people get along just fine without it, so you know.

    42. Re:Anthropometrics by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 0

      Because, you complete fucking genius, not everyone is 5' 2'' tall and of medium build. Why, if you are 6' tall, are you penalised with having to buy a more expensive ticket?

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    43. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, she has a kid and another on the way. Moms don't do it for me.

    44. Re:Anthropometrics by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights

      At check-in, United Airlines offers economy seats with much better legroom for a modest upcharge. On a transcontinental flight it's usually around $60 - $70.

      I travel a lot for business (60 segments so far this year), often in Economy Plus, and there are usually many seats in E+ available, even when sardine class is completely packed.

      People simply refuse to shell out the coin for additional comfort. I think if E+ *were* full you'd see United expanded it until eventually their entire aircraft had room leg room at a higher price.

    45. Re:Anthropometrics by Gibgezr · · Score: 2

      "Stand on Zanzibar", anyone?

      Much like "The Sheep Look Up", it's one of John Brunner's novels that has stayed fresh and relevant. The guy wrote a lot of "throw-away", thin novels, but his great stuff was prescient and stylish in a way that has not tarnished with time.

    46. Re:Anthropometrics by rnswebx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps you don't like when airlines lose your luggage? Maybe you're travelling for a short time, and all you need is a small carry-on? I rarely retrieve anything from my carry-on, but I still bring it on the flight because I've had luggage lost too many times.

    47. Re:Anthropometrics by brianwski · · Score: 1

      > dimensions of space aren't listed

      Always available now at http://www.seatguru.com/

      But personally (as a tall wide guy) I think a few "size bumps" for extra fees would be very welcome. For example, an extra $10 for an extra inch of legroom, and another $10 for an additional inch of width. The fact is space is money, and small children and petite woman fit JUST FINE in the smallest seats and should get a price break for it.

    48. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 5'11'' and I can stretch my legs on nearly all coach flights I take, iff there is nothing under my seat. My knees don't even come close to the back of the seat, unless I slouch considerably.

    49. Re:Anthropometrics by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see an airline offer planes without reclining seats. Actually now that I type that out no I wouldn't, because then they'd realize they could squeeze 'em in even tighter.

    50. Re:Anthropometrics by Ichijo · · Score: 0

      It is why Cities have always struggled. To many people to close to each other. The wealthy always purchase enough space to make themselves comfortable. However the poor can not and once you get so many people pressed together they fight.

      I think the fighting is because downtown areas heavily subsidize the suburbs (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4) and so the inner city poor are getting fed up because their money is leaving their neighborhoods and is spent on subsidizing the middle and upper class lifestyles. And because the middle class prevents economic mobility by keeping the poor out of middle class neighborhoods.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    51. Re:Anthropometrics by knightghost · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most seats no longer have enough room to open a laptop.

      As a frequent flier and 6 ft tall, I can attest that airline seats have gotten to the point of cause widespread pain and suffering, including physical injury. There is not nearly enough competition in the airline industry to lead to improvements driven from capitalism. This is unfortunately the time where government needs to step in for the general well being of society.

    52. Re:Anthropometrics by mpe · · Score: 2

      That's great, and I use these sites all the time. BUT, the majority of flyers are casual leisure passengers. They are unlikely to figure out which of the dozen 757 configurations Delta offers they are flying on.

      Unless the airline starts putting aircraft registration numbers on the bookings you'd need to also check out something like FlightAware to see which planes usually fly the routes in question.
      IIRC the most obvious example of an airline with a large fleet of identical aircraft has non reclining seats anyway.

    53. Re:Anthropometrics by Megol · · Score: 1

      Hmm? That doesn't have anything to do with the parents point - that higher concentrations of people lead to more cases of violence and other crimes. Which is true and have always been true. Do compare the current amount of crime in the city compared to rural areas close by.

    54. Re:Anthropometrics by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats

      It's not the airlines quest for more seats, it's the passengers' quest for even cheaper fares.

      If airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket.

      Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.

      If airlines were required to advertise seat pitch and width, then consumers could make that choice, but when even consumers that care about it have trouble finding out exactly which aircraft serves a route for their date of travel and what the seat configuration is, it's hard to blame consumers for not taking it into account.

    55. Re:Anthropometrics by timothy · · Score: 2

      "I travel a huge amount for work, and I am required to select the cheapest available option (within a window)."

      OK -- that might be the cheapest available option, but not every plane has windows of the right kind, and besides that's no fun for the guy in the actual window *seat.*

      This sounds like a case for OSHA indeed.

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    56. Re:Anthropometrics by Kalium70 · · Score: 1

      Some of the people who have problems with people's reclining in front of them have bought seats with the extra legroom, but it isn't enough.

    57. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the country, I guess. In my experience, Americans certainly will buy the cheapest anything, complain about the quality, and eventually go back to the store to buy another cheapest whatever. I was amazed at the shoddiness of dollar-store items in America when I visited last year. We have a few dollar store equivalents (Euro stores?) in France, they're not popular at all. People in Europe don't mind paying a bit more, or waiting a bit more, so that they'll get something that is not obviously crap. And if they buy crap for some reason, they expect it will be crap and don't complain their Chinese no-name $79.99 tablet is not equivalent to an iPad.

    58. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Oatmeal said it best: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/airplane_layout

    59. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sorry for the wall of text. Slashdot eats my whitespace on my mobile.

    60. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technically, adding one row of seats is increasing the price of the seat by reducing the volume you're paying for

    61. Re:Anthropometrics by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's a lot more than $10, but you're right.

      I only fly first class for this reason. Interestingly, my experience has been that people in first class almost never recline their seats at all, and when they do so, they only go back a little.

    62. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You certainly have a point, but you're point seems to only be valid in the West. In the East, we sit together quite closely, and do not forget that we're all in this together.

    63. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You dupe, who do you think keeps down the competition in the airline industry in the first place (at great cost to the airlines)?

      Sure, government is great at coming in and coercing an industry to fix a problem it caused, but it's the customers that will suffer.

    64. Re:Anthropometrics by atriusofbricia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because, you complete fucking genius, not everyone is 5' 2'' tall and of medium build. Why, if you are 6' tall, are you penalised with having to buy a more expensive ticket?

      Because physics? Limited volume of space, all costs and profits must come from cargo (that's us) carried within that space. If some require significantly more room then logically it costs more to carry them and therefore it isn't completely unreasonable to charge them more. It's the same logic that's been applied to overweight people and which says larger hotel rooms cost more.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    65. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize, America is a really big country right?

      We might have a lot of dollar stores, but we also have a lot of Whole Foods, Apple Stores, etc.

    66. Re: Anthropometrics by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

      US has had BS cheap airfares for decades.

      Here in Australia you're talking $300-400 to cross the country. And that's a cheap flight.

      Thats what it is in the US as well. Cheapest I see for a flight from NYC to LA in mid october time frame is 350, tack on your baggage fees and your at 400. They have been going up over the past couple years as well. I used to be able to find a denver->las vegas flight for 100$ roundtrip pretty easily, these days the cheapest you'll find is 200$ for the same time period

    67. Re:Anthropometrics by qbast · · Score: 1

      Either you are extremely unlucky or I am lucky. I have been flying twice a month on average for past 4 years (mostly short trips in EU, several longer to South-east Asia and Canada), but my baggage has never been lost.

    68. Re:Anthropometrics by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      The 'amount' of crime will necessarily be more because there are more people. That isn't necessarily because there are more people in a smaller space but simply because there are 'more' people. Which is just what it has to do with the parents point, btw.

    69. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timothy, did you whoosh? A window of prices. Not a window on a plane. They don't stick him between two panels of plastic.

    70. Re:Anthropometrics by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      But as long as there are not so many problems as to damage their bottom line, they can just blame the incidents on the passengers

      Maybe passengers can take the blame for fighting incidents. But probably not other problems that may arise... like medical issues.

      It's long been known that flying in cramped conditions leads to a much higher risk of blood clots and deep vein thrombosis, particularly on longer flights.

      The most common recommendation to avoid these problems is to move around more -- both actually getting up and walking around and doing various exercises to move your legs around while you are sitting. Making flights more cramped makes it more difficult to both -- when it's harder for people to maneuver in and out of a cramped seat, they are less likely to do it as often to walk around (particularly for older folks or those with more difficulty moving around, who are more at-risk for these problems). And if you are tall, these new seats may make doing any kind of leg motion in your seat nearly impossible for exercise.

      This is not a minor issue. Average treatment costs for a year after a diagnosed case of DVT are $20,000-30,000, not to mention potentially life-threatening complications.

      Right now the incidence is significant but still relatively low (maybe 1 in 4500 people who fly). It will be interesting to see if further restricting motion and cramming people in will increase these risks.

      And if it does -- then the cost of cramming people into tighter seats is more than just the potential for some disagreements and fights. We may be talking about serious expensive medical problems, potentially resulting from airlines squeezing one more seat in here or there.

    71. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell I would take that on long flights just to avoid the headaches from screaming kids.

    72. Re:Anthropometrics by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry let me address the 'point' more specifically so that you don't give some BS retort: By the parent's 'point' that violence and other crimes increases with increased population density crime in urban areas should be continually increasing as the population density does. But it's not. In fact as mentioned it is DECREASING. So the point is invalid. Get it?

    73. Re:Anthropometrics by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Lol they'll post the spacing in metric and people in the US will be totally lost. 145mm of room, wow thats a lot!!!

      I know you're just trying to make a stupid american joke but as long as all airlines use the same units, the actual units don't matter when making comparisons. Whether it's mm, milli-yards or SBW(standard butt width), consumers can easily pick the larger number if that's important to them.

    74. Re:Anthropometrics by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      How often have you flown on an "unscheduled substitute equipment" flight?

      I'm usually happy to have any aircraft to take me to my destination, if the option is spending an unexpected extra night away from home.

    75. Re:Anthropometrics by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the airlines want to cram so many folks into the space, they should look at preventing the seats from reclining at all.

      I assume that you never fly on long-haul flights (especially overnight)?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    76. Re:Anthropometrics by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Cities (especially big ones like NYC and Miami) have a tendency to under-report crime. Accurately keeping crime statistics only makes them look bad, why would they willingly do that?

    77. Re:Anthropometrics by jbssm · · Score: 2

      Or to just do the obvious and install seats that don't recline like you already have in many low costs European carriers.

    78. Re:Anthropometrics by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Reality TV needs new material. Comedy gold here. It's like Black Friday at Walmart.

      Merry Christmas, Everybody!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    79. Re: Anthropometrics by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      It's not even that expensive... there's usually plenty of Economy Plus available ranging from $50-$80 on a cross-country flight, down to $30 on a two hour flight (not exact, just my recollection)

      I qualified for lifetime Gold in American's frequent flyer program some years ago and now I always get my pick of the economy plus type seats, but without having to pay extra for them.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    80. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Unless you fly a lot, how exactly are you supposed to know whether you'll fit comfortably into a seat or not? It's not like they have some seats set up in the airport that you can try sitting in to see if your knees will fit or not; you just have to wait until you get on and are stuck there before you find out you don't physically fit when the asshole in front of you decides to recline.

    81. Re:Anthropometrics by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      And the airline could charge extra for the "really good" sedatives - profit center!

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    82. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's long been known that flying in cramped conditions leads to a much higher risk of blood clots [nytimes.com] and deep vein thrombosis [wikipedia.org], particularly on longer flights.

      Wearing tights helps to prevent DVT.

    83. Re:Anthropometrics by TarPitt · · Score: 2

      And post ticket prices in currency units per available seating space. They do this at supermarkets, post prices per standardized weight to permit comparison shopping, why not airlines?

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    84. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quality should meet at least health standards, so that your blood circulation is allowed and you do not get muscle strains. A person of 190cm height should be able to sit with legs straight (not bend to left/right) and do not touch the net seat with their knees. That would be enough for people not to complain a single time.
      Why not switch to cargo planes for people to cut costs/earn more? They would fit like 2 times more passengers there!

    85. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Nobody tells you about quality when you choose an offer and buy your ticket.

    86. Re:Anthropometrics by Cederic · · Score: 0

      On my flight from London to California at the end of the month, the person in front is not reclining their seat.

      I can and will use physical means to prevent them. Fully legally too.

    87. Re:Anthropometrics by dkf · · Score: 1

      The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)

      A seemingly good idea that will fall apart as soon as someone overdoses on sedatives and their next-of-kin sue. Good luck with persuading a judge that some getout clause in a 3pt font prevents any liability attaching...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    88. Re:Anthropometrics by Kagato · · Score: 1

      American, Delta and United are the top three airlines in the US. Seat maps and seat assignments can change several times between time of purchase and flight. That's because routing can change every time there are Irregular Operations (IROPS) and the fleet movement changes to deal with it. I.e. Weather, Mechanical issues, etc.

      None of the top three airlines have homogenous configurations. American is a mix of US Airways and American, United is a mix of Continental and United and Delta is a Mix of Northwest, TWA, and a slew of secondary market planes from Airtran, various Red Chinese carriers and European carriers and Delta.

      Southwest only has 737s and coach class, but they have 5 different versions of that plane with drastically different capacities.

    89. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Depends on the city. Some cities are very safe, others are not. Manhattan is very safe generally, other parts of NYC (like the Bronx) are less so. St. Louis, Oakland, and Detroit are the most dangerous cities, while Plano, Virginia Beach, and Henderson have very low violent crime rates.

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

      There's a lot of interesting info in that link. For instance, WTF is going on in Colorado Springs? It's one of the safest cities for murder, however it's one of the most dangerous cities for rape. Same goes for Anchorage, though maybe that has something to do with Alaska's highly skewed male/female ratio. Lincoln NE is also the same.

      Anyway, aside from some oddities like that, if you look through the rankings for various crime categories, you'll generally see the same cities topping the charts for crime: St. Louis, Oakland, Detroit, Memphis, Cleveland, Toledo, Newark NJ, Atlanta, etc. The common factor in all these is poverty: these cities have terrible economies, their industries left decades ago, they're just burned-out shells really and all the people who could afford to leave have left. Some of them do have some industry still left (Atlanta is home to CNN, Newark has some financial industry that spilled over from Manhattan and Jersey City in search of cheaper real estate), but not nearly enough to keep the economy in good shape. The cities that are the safest are either bedroom communities (like Henderson NV) for nearby larger cities (Las Vegas in that case) (Jersey City is like this too, a lot of Manhattanites have moved there in search of cheaper rent), tourist destinations (VA Beach), or have strong economies due to strong industries (San Jose, Portland, Seattle, with tech industry). However, many of the safest cities are smaller cities with less than 500k people, like Plano, Lexington KY, Fort Wayne IN, Lincoln NE, and Mobile AL, which would lend support to the idea that higher density creates more crime.

    90. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just request a bulkhead seat. You get an 6-12" of legroom and the seats in front of you cannot recline. Downside is you get a flimsy tray table, a bad view, and you need to be able to lift 60 lbs in case of an emergency.

    91. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Violent crime is down on average, yes, but that doesn't mean that it's down everywhere. Detroit and St. Louis are still extremely dangerous cities to visit, and probably even more dangerous than they were 30-50 years ago. Yes, other places are a lot safer (like Manhattan; it was a pit in the 80s, but now is extremely safe), but there's still plenty of extremely dangerous cities, especially in the Rust Belt.

    92. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, it's not decreasing. Ask anyone in Detroit or St. Louis.

      Yes, nationwide, on average, it is decreasing. Not everywhere. Cities with strong economies do enjoy reducing crime rates, such as NYC. Detroit is not like NYC.

      The real problem is poverty and a ruined economy, coupled with high density. Rural areas with poverty don't have the crime levels that Detroit does.

    93. Re:Anthropometrics by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      The best thing about "The Sheep Look Up" is the happy ending.

    94. Re:Anthropometrics by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Wearing tights helps to prevent DVT.

      While this is true, most doctors mention that one needs to be careful about using stockings that squeeze too tight (which can make the problem worse) -- too loose, and blood pools in the legs, too tight and they can prevent circulation. Ideally, compression stockings should have them properly fitted or run them by your doctor for the best results.

    95. Re:Anthropometrics by drmerope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trouble is, it socially unacceptable to recline your seat on the airline unless the person behind you is reclining. And when you do recline, you should so slowly, preferably checking if there is a laptop in use before you do. The vast majority of people recognize this, respect it and don't recline except on night flights. The people who don't recognize it, tend to get very belligerent about their "right to recline" and airlines defuse this usually by siding with them.

      What's starting to happen is that the silent majority is realizing that if they don't resist, the airlines are going to keep siding with the more belligerent "reclining is my right" crowd.

      Kind of telling that you summarized this issue as a "knee jerk" incident. Tall passengers are people too.

    96. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tall people make more than short people. Use some of your extra money to pay for more leg room, asshole.

    97. Re:Anthropometrics by pem · · Score: 0

      Maybe. If I'm in front and want to lean back a little, and feel some resistance, I'll just say "excuse me", pull forward as far as I can, and then jam it back hard and fast enough to fuck up your kneecap.

    98. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha you idiot. Yes the lack of real competition in the airline industry is all the big bad gubmint's fault. It has nothing to do with the significant barriers to entry in this field.

    99. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then you'd have a nice assault charge waiting for you upon your arrival.

    100. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're the one that just whooshed.

    101. Re: Anthropometrics by forand · · Score: 1

      As stated by others many frequent flyers are not flying by choice but buy direction from work. That work also REQUIRES many of us to purchase the cheapest fare. I cannot upgrade my seat and get reimbursed for my ticket. Furthermore you are technically correct about United, however, unless you are flying major city to major city you are going to be one of United's local carriers which do not have Economy Plus. Spend a couple hours on one of the smaller "local" carrier planes which has neither leg nor headroom for ANYONE on the flight and it becomes quickly clear that United doesn't care about anything other then their immediate bottom line.

    102. Re:Anthropometrics by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket.
      Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.

      Except that most would rather save the $50. I have a family to support, and much more important things to spend $50 on than renting a few inches of leg space for a couple hours. If they knock off another $50, they can squeeze me some more. Give me $100 off, and I am willing to stuff my kids in the luggage compartment.

    103. Re:Anthropometrics by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      However the poor can not and once you get so many people pressed together they fight.

      The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)

      And naked - to avoid the "need" for TSA body scanners and pat downs.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    104. Re:Anthropometrics by geogob · · Score: 1

      Shhhhhh. You're giving that Rayair guy new passenger mnagement idees!

    105. Re:Anthropometrics by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the airlines want to cram so many folks into the space, they should look at preventing the seats from reclining at all.

      The stable equilibrium will be for the airlines to stack everyone in with about 20 inches per person, like spoons in a drawer, and to make this bearable by sedating everyone on a amnesiac tranquilizer like Versed/Midazolam, perhaps with a catheter to remove the need for a lavatory. Do not eat 24 hours before flying!

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    106. Re:Anthropometrics by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      They'd have to Foley cath everyone on a flight longer than 2 or 3 hours.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    107. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)

      That's not quite that funny, once you realise that it is pretty close to how slaves were transported.

      Earlier today I was watching on the TV a trolley stacked full of trays each full of 3 day old chicks (I think it was 500 per tray) heavily dosed with antibiotics, being loaded for transport to the buyer. It is not far removed from how capitalism would treat you, me and everyone of its 'customers' if it can find a way of getting away with it.

    108. Re:Anthropometrics by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      "Medical tights" or the type that are used by bypass patients after they remove an artery from your leg are the best option. My doctor gave me a prescription for it--it's not covered unless you've had surgery for it, but in other cases you can be referred to a specialist who can properly point you in the right direction. Seriously, this is stuff you should talk with your doctor over, as it's one of those things that can do you more harm than good.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    109. Re:Anthropometrics by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Air New Zealand tells you how much leg room the seats have when you book online and choose your seat.

    110. Re:Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Please do. I enjoy fucking up idiots' lives who don't know how to keep their primitive urges in check.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    111. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one of the safest cities for murder, however it's one of the most dangerous cities for rape.

      That's where the US Air Force Academy is, which is more or less a Christian madrassa these days. Religious privilege often leads to sex crimes that go unpunished even if they don't go unreported.

    112. Re:Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dude, if I wanted to have to wear special gear to survive a fight, I could've stayed in the Air Force...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    113. Re:Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Or maybe we could just pump the kids full of sedatives.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    114. Re:Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      When you look at how slave ships were packed, and if you compare that to passenger planes today, the main difference is that on slave ships the slaves were required to do some exercise on deck every day to keep them healthy so they would fetch a price.

      Sadly, it doesn't matter what condition you arrive in...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    115. Re:Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They'll just come up with some idiotic pseudo-unit (SBW seems to be quite fitting), and every airline will define it differently just to ensure you can't compare them at all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    116. Re: Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Vote how? Do you really think if I didn't HAVE TO fly because it is an unfortunate necessity for my job I would even go NEAR an airport? Do you think I consider it a great pastime to be the star in my personal pervert peep show for some TNA mouthbreather? Or that the butt-groping of that greasy single-digit IQ expert turns me on? Getting your kneecaps shoved into your thighs is just the icing on the turd cake.

      Yes, that would be a knee-jerk reaction... if there was enough room for a knee to jerk, dammit!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    117. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Biological constants are getting in the way of our arbitrary economics. Let's conjure up more crazy economics to deal with it rather than improve how we handle the biological constants.

    118. Re:Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd on the other hand gladly pay not 100 but 200 bucks extra to be able to stand up on my own legs after 12 hours of flight time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    119. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most seats no longer have enough room to open a laptop.

      As a frequent flier and 6 ft tall, I can attest that airline seats have gotten to the point of cause widespread pain and suffering, including physical injury. There is not nearly enough competition in the airline industry to lead to improvements driven from capitalism. This is unfortunately the time where government needs to step in for the general well being of society.

      I'd rather spend a couple days driving than fly these days. Between getting treated like a criminal before you even board (I'm waiting for full cavity searches to become standard), and then getting crammed into seats like cattle, it's just too much for me - last time I flew across the country I felt like a cripple getting out of my seat after 4+hrs of flying... and I'm not a 'tall' guy (5'10"), and actually have kinda short (30") legs, and I barely fit in the seat space, much less when the person in front of me decided to recline (my knees were in their seat back).

      Nothing about flying has any appeal to me anymore.

    120. Re:Anthropometrics by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      I agree with offering XXL seats for fat people for a price, but whatever you do don't punish normal-weight people for being normal weight. Seat girth is already fine if you're of normal human weight. What we need is more spacing between rows. I'm a relatively short guy and even I have trouble on flights; I shudder to think what tall people have to go through.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    121. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fly every few weeks for business and I've had my luggage lost 3 times in the US in the past 5 years. These days I only travel with carry ons because I just don't trust the airlines anymore.

    122. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This idea has actually been pitched before, but the cost of each flight needing a medical professional to look over everyone's medical records and then prescribe them short duration sedatives and then deal with any emergencies that arise because of them....that would cost a lot more than they'd save by taking out a row or two of seats and giving people some fucking room.

      That and the war against drugs industry would go apeshit knowing there was a tried-and-true method available for people to go get fucked up.

    123. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Interesting. But isn't CO Springs also a tech hub? (Not saying that tech hubs are rape-fests; San Jose, Seattle, Portland, Austin, and SanFran are much farther down in the rape rankings.) And what about Lincoln NE?

      Also interesting is that Newark NJ (which I happen to live not far from) is near the top of the murder stats, but it's near the bottom of the rape stats, right next to Plano and Seattle. Same goes for New Orleans; it's #2 in murders, but it's only in the middle for rapes (and if you look at the numbers, only a little over 1/3 as many rapes per capita as the rape capitals Minneapolis and Anchorage). I guess poor black people just aren't that interested in rape compared to poor white people.

    124. Re:Anthropometrics by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Why, if you are 6' tall, are you penalised with having to buy a more expensive ticket?"

      Why should I, of normal build, have to put up with the morbidly obese woman sitting next to me overflowing into my space?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    125. Re:Anthropometrics by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Somewhere back in the 1990s, Miami popped up as a "high crime" city - above the New York metro area, which was pretty laughable to the large number of essentially dual-residents, people who lived both places off and on through the year. The explanation was in the reporting, NYC cops weren't filing nearly as much paperwork as Miami's "professional law enforcement" were. A decision was made, Miami adopted a more NYC like crime reporting structure, and et-voila' the very next year Miami's crime stats were way down the list.

      I lived in the city of Miami during those years, after the switch we had a car stolen from the street infront of the house, had to present ourselves at the police substation (5 miles away, in a bad neighborhood) to report the stolen car. What part of "they just stole our car" didn't they hear? Anyway, got there and had to wait in line 20 minutes before getting the opportunity to report the theft.

      But, the associated improvement in crime stats was beneficial for tourism...

       

    126. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Newark is majority black; I was just there for something and I stuck out like a sore thumb downtown. I wouldn't feel comfortable there at night. But the part that kinda disproves you is the rape stats: Newark is near the top for murders, but it's near the bottom for rapes. The top 6 cities for rapes (per capita of course) are Minneapolis, Anchorage, Cleveland, CO Springs, Tulsa, and Lincoln NE. I'm pretty sure 5 of those 6 have very few black people: Lincoln is 86% white and only 3.8% black. Tulsa has more blacks at 15.6%, but still nowhere near a majority. Cleveland is majority black at 53.3% (and 37.3% white), but it's the exception here. Anchorage is 5.6% black (actually higher than I expected), Minneapolis 18.6%, and CO Springs 6.3% (78.8% white). So it appears from this list that cities with lots of white people are the ones where you're more likely to get raped, though perhaps you're less likely to be murdered.

      BTW, Newark is 52.4% black, and only 11.6% non-Hispanic white (and 33.8% Hispanic of any race). What'd be really interesting is to see who actually commits the most of each type of crime, in every metro area, since it isn't necessarily the majority group that commits the majority of any particular crime. But still, it does appear that there is no correlation between black concentration in a city and its standing in the rape rankings, which I find quite interesting. (And before you think of it, it doesn't correlate to how many Hispanics there are either; the cities with tons of Hispanics like Miami, San Diego, LA, and El Paso are pretty low in the rape rankings.)

    127. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Within a window would be amazingly liberating! Try not even the cheapest, but the pre-negotiated carrier between whatever two cities you are flying between, making it difficult at best to rack up status with any individual carrier.

    128. Re:Anthropometrics by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You need a bit of history. The death rate among slaves being transported in the triangle trade (1700's) was over 1/4. In some times and places slaves were more valuable, or shipping less expensive, or travel times less, and so conditions were better...but not in all times and places.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    129. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I would have a lot more sympathy if budget airlines didn't keep pulling so many obviously shady moves to try to look cheap yet acceptable quality while actually charging more that customers expected and not always offering the experience people thought they were buying. This has become so bad that we literally have new consumer protection laws taking effect in Europe around now precisely to make a bunch of the tricks that some of these airlines pull explicitly illegal.

      It should have been a reasonable and simple solution to offer transparent pricing and mid-range options, but I think that ship sailed^W^Wplane departed already. Now the industry, particularly on the budget end, needs to clean up its act or face increasing levels of customer dissatisfaction at a time when people are already looking to alternatives where viable ones exist.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    130. Re:Anthropometrics by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This is a ridiculous comparison. You HAVE to have oxygen or you will die. You do NOT have to fly across the ocean: plenty of people get along just fine without it, so you know.

      Can you come up with a valid reason why the airline shouldn't charge for Oxygen? They had to purchase it, it had to be installed. They have to make money, and you need Oxygen. Sounds like a good provider/consumer arrangement.

      Sigh - I'm arguing with one of the "Takers"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    131. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we need a community-owned website (like Wikipedia) that tracks crime stats and allows people to enter their own incident reports, to see if certain municipalities are under-reporting their crimes.

    132. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Keep saying it's the people's fault, and they'll keep squeezing until they find your particular threshold.

      Which is an argument ethically akin to car companies knowing they have a potentially fatal defect but weighing up the cost of actually fixing it and saving lives vs. the expected cost of compensation lawsuits and not fixing it if the latter is lower.

      The solution, of course, is to structure the law and/or regulate the industry so that the cost of screwing people unreasonably is always substantially greater than the cost of behaving more appropriately. Passenger suffered unreasonable discomfort on any flight? Automatic 100% refund, with a presumption in favour of the passenger if your provision is significantly below the industry average (or minimum regulated standards if the industry colludes to reduce the average).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    133. Re:Anthropometrics by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's more complex than that. There are optimal densities, but they differ depending on things like speed of transportation and communication. Still, the safest cities will usually be smaller cities, and possibly villages. Rural isn't particularly safe, because of poor enforcement (for fairly obvious reasons). Similarly dense cities are poor because of ease of get-away (among other things).

      As for degree of violence (i.e. emotionality) it tends to be higher among those who grow up not being exposed to "foreign ideas". They tend to form a ridgid mind-set that's especially favorable to us-vs-them thinking, and to not caring about what happens to "them". And note that "them" can be based on any believably identifiable characteristic, and people can believe some pretty strange things. For this reason cities tend to be less violent than smaller places given otherwise similar environmental features. People who grow up in cities tend to be exposed to people living and believing in lots of different ways. They may not like it, but they're used to it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    134. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a complete prick, don't be surprised if someone wants to beat the shit out of you.

    135. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      As for degree of violence (i.e. emotionality) it tends to be higher among those who grow up not being exposed to "foreign ideas". They tend to form a ridgid mind-set that's especially favorable to us-vs-them thinking, and to not caring about what happens to "them". .... People who grow up in cities tend to be exposed to people living and believing in lots of different ways. They may not like it, but they're used to it.

      One problem I have with this assertion is that, in the rural areas, there really aren't any "thems". In the small rural communties, everyone knows everyone else, and there usually aren't many outsiders. It's not like most of the crime in rural areas is directed at outsiders who just moved in.

      Rural isn't particularly safe, because of poor enforcement (for fairly obvious reasons).

      Yes, but on the other hand, people in rural areas tend to be well-armed, unlike city-dwellers. Break into some random trailer home in the country and you're very likely to get shot. Rural people rely less on law enforcement and tend exercise self-defense more. (This gun culture might also contribute more to accidental shootings and the like, but that's beside the point, we're talking about crime rates here.)

      The highest-crime areas seem to be cities where there's a lot of poverty, and especially a drug problem (just like violent crime was a big problem in the 20s with Prohibition). Stick a bunch of people into a small area, give them no opportunity, no hope, no jobs, a poor education, all adding up to no future, give them one avenue for employment which is extremely profitable (unlike anything else they can do) but also illegal and overly enforced (compared to every other crime), and it all adds up to a recipe for violence, and then make it so these people all rely on money to survive and it's even worse. At least in rural areas, the cost of living is dirt cheap and you can grow your own food if you want, and you can even buy your own home on poverty-level wages.

    136. Re:Anthropometrics by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The solution is simple, make the recline shift the reclining passenger's seat forward so the recline stays within their volume of space.

      Or, eliminate the recline altogether.

    137. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most seats no longer have enough room to open a laptop.

      As a frequent flier and 6 ft tall, I can attest that airline seats have gotten to the point of cause widespread pain and suffering, including physical injury. There is not nearly enough competition in the airline industry to lead to improvements driven from capitalism. This is unfortunately the time where government needs to step in for the general well being of society.

      There is TOO MUCH competition already in the airline industry globally, and overcapacity is a huge problem for a lot of carriers. The competition means the airlines are in a race to the bottom to offer the lowest fare, and the way to do that is more people stuffed in less aircraft. Whilst people choose their carrier based on lowest cost, air travel will become increasingly unpleasant.

    138. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I'd do it differently. The problem is that our primary metric, and the only one that's both convenient and easy to get, is the cost per seat. So of course the average person optimizes for that, it appears to be in your self-interest. Everyone loves a good deal!

      What we ought to do instead is to publish a cost per inch of legroom. Although now that I think of it, that doesn't solve the problem. You could still get a super good deal per inch and yet not have enough seat room. Someone help me out. There has to be a way of capturing, in a simple way, whether your seat space is large enough to be comfortable while operating within a total costing system.

      Maybe this will always require 2 numbers?

    139. Re:Anthropometrics by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Your boarding pass is not a license to be a jackass despite the fact that you clearly view this to be the case.

      People like you are why we need cops and governments and laws. You will use a tense sitaution as an excuse to try and screw over the rest of us.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    140. Re:Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You may rest assured, the only reason people don't die regularly during flights is that they're not the airline's property and someone would sue. Else, nobody would arrive alive since you can't sell these people.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    141. Re:Anthropometrics by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"

      Because their boss/other person bought the ticket, and they aren't paying extra for luxury booking.

    142. Re:Anthropometrics by pspahn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Calling the Springs a "tech hub" is like calling Ft. Collins an "educational powerhouse".

      There's some tech there, but I wouldn't consider it a hub by any means.

      The reason for the high rape listing is simple. As someone pointed out, it is not only where the Air Force Academy is, but there is also Fort Carson, Peterson AFB, and Schriever AFB. You pair this with changes in FBI reporting and it's not surprise the Springs has that many incidents.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    143. Re:Anthropometrics by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      And then on top of that, if it's a codeshare flight, you're at the mercy of the actual carrier for any equipment changes, not the airline that sold you passage. In that situation, who knows what aircraft configuration you'll find yourself with.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    144. Re:Anthropometrics by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      A lot of airlines are now charging extra for bulkhead and exit row seating. This started with Northwest back in 2005 AFAIK.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    145. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regular opaque department-store tights aren't very tight (but still a lot better than nothing), and cost very little, so they're cheap insurance.

    146. Re:Anthropometrics by knightghost · · Score: 0

      Internationally? Whenever I travel international from the USA, I typically only see 1 airline offering the flight. But I digress... I'm speaking directly about USA national flights. I've made around 300 round trips in the last 15 years and watched business flights go from very nice to dismal.

      If you're speaking about european or asian flights then those have overcapacity due to massive government subsidies overbuilding the fleets, not from capitalism.

    147. Re:Anthropometrics by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      This made me think of Steve Martin in "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels":

      Passenger: "Miss, may I go to the bathroom now?"
      Flight Attendant: "Of course, sir."
      Passenger: [pause, then contented facial expression] "Thank you."

      (yeah, yeah, I know that's not how catheters work...)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    148. Re:Anthropometrics by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      RMS seat space

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    149. Re:Anthropometrics by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Just because the crime rate in cities is decreasing doesn't go against the point that packing people closer together may increase violence. There are many factors that contribute to crime, population density may only be one.

      This article http://science.time.com/2013/0... says cities are safer to live but if you read further its basically because you are far more likely to die from accidental death. murder per person is still higher in cities.

      I personally don't know if it true that packing people in, increases violence I think at some point it probably does, but it is not a valid counter argument to look at decrease in city crime rates.

    150. Re:Anthropometrics by mysidia · · Score: 1

      But as long as there are not so many problems as to damage their bottom line, they can just blame the incidents on the passengers

      They just need to work out the extra cost of diverting the flight and bill the passengers responsible. Problem should fix itself.

    151. Re:Anthropometrics by russotto · · Score: 1

      Lol they'll post the spacing in metric and people in the US will be totally lost. 145mm of room, wow thats a lot!!!

      "I'm sorry sir, you can't fly in this seat without a Confined Space Certification from OSHA"

    152. Re:Anthropometrics by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      At check-in, United Airlines offers economy seats with much better legroom for a modest upcharge. On a transcontinental flight it's usually around $60 - $70.

      But that's per flight, right? So a round trip itinerary with only 1 stop would be $60 x 4 = $240? That's not so modest for many people. Even if it were $60-$70 each way and not each flight, $120 - $140 round trip is not trivial.

    153. Re:Anthropometrics by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

      Please explain your last sentence.

    154. Re:Anthropometrics by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and don't forget that if you're not flying by yourself you have to multiply that cost by the number of people in your family.

    155. Re:Anthropometrics by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

      one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights

      At check-in, United Airlines offers economy seats with much better legroom for a modest upcharge. On a transcontinental flight it's usually around $60 - $70. I travel a lot for business (60 segments so far this year), often in Economy Plus, and there are usually many seats in E+ available, even when sardine class is completely packed. People simply refuse to shell out the coin for additional comfort. I think if E+ *were* full you'd see United expanded it until eventually their entire aircraft had room leg room at a higher price.

      $60-70? I wish. On a United transcon (IAD-SFO) 3 weeks ago, they charged $89. That's out of the "modest" range, IMHO.

    156. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, tall people are generally more successful and wealthier then their shorter cohorts. And we all know that in today's world we need to punish success.

    157. Re:Anthropometrics by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      I'm 5'11" and there is plenty of room in Economy plus. If you're a frequent flyer you can get Economy Plus for free when you book a ticket on United, I assume Delta is the same for their frequent flyers.

      Over the last 5 years United Airlines has had an average profit of 0.2% Delta : 7.3%. Southwest: 3.2% American: -5.3% (loss). JetBlue 2.9%. Those are very low profit margins. I'm one of the first people to call for government intervention when warranted but the airlines don't need to be bailed out or subsidized just because people aren't willing to pay the cost of an airline's seat. If people want lots of leg room or they're slightly taller they can pay for the extra space they want. If they want a super cheap, basement discount seat in exchange for a little less comfort then I don't see a problem with that either. Should we outlaw small cars too because they don't have large trunks?

      Either one of two statements is true:
      1) Access to air travel is essential to people of all economic means.
      2) Air travel is a luxury.

      If #1 is true then we shouldn't be forcing airlines to increase their prices. We shouldn't force airlines to increase their seat spacing since it would price many people out an already expensive product.

      If #2 is true then we shouldn't do force airlines to increase their seat spacing because it's simply a luxury good and if people want a slightly nicer luxury they can pay for additional expense if it's truly valuable to them. And if someone really wants to know exactly what kind of seat they're in for when booking... they can enter it into SeatGuru and check.

    158. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm in front and want to lean back a little, and feel some resistance, I'll just say "excuse me", pull forward as far as I can, and then jam it back hard and fast enough to fuck up your kneecap.

      And let me guess: you'd come out swinging if they called you a cunt?

    159. Re: Anthropometrics by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Vote how? Do you really think if I didn't HAVE TO fly because it is an unfortunate necessity for my job I would even go NEAR an airport? Do you think I consider it a great pastime to be the star in my personal pervert peep show for some TNA mouthbreather? Or that the butt-groping of that greasy single-digit IQ expert turns me on? Getting your kneecaps shoved into your thighs is just the icing on the turd cake.

      Yes, that would be a knee-jerk reaction... if there was enough room for a knee to jerk, dammit!

      Nicely put.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    160. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      higher concentrations of people lead to more cases of violence and other crimes. Which is true and have always been true.

      Cities are growing and crime rates are falling. So the premise already fails. If it were true, continued urbanisation would be increasing crime rates.

      Do compare the current amount of crime in the city compared to rural areas close by.

      And do compare the crime rate, per person.

    161. Re:Anthropometrics by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      SeatGuru just asks for the day and flight number of your flight. You don't have to tell them what configuration is in use since it looks up the aircraft automatically.

    162. Re:Anthropometrics by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      But there's no guarantee that paying an extra $50 will get me that extra space.

      If seats were being sold "per inch", as you've priced them, you'd be right. They aren't, so you're not. Hell, they don't even tell you the model of aircraft you're going to be on.

      [Unless I pay to bump up a class. But even then, I still can't compare that class between airlines.]

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    163. Re: Anthropometrics by gnoshi · · Score: 2

      I'm looking forward to the next change when speakers start piping in the wailing of the dying into the economy section, and if you don't want to listen to the wailing then you should be paying for the 'economy plus', which has mysteriously increased to include half the seats from the old 'economy' section. Maybe just remove the cushions and have 'economy' sitting on planks of wood, with a full inch of open-cell foam in the 'economy plus' section and perhaps an extra $5 for each additional inch of foam.

    164. Re:Anthropometrics by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      but when even consumers that care about it have trouble finding out exactly which aircraft serves a route for their date of travel and what the seat configuration is, it's hard to blame consumers for not taking it into account.

      Go to SeatGuru.com enter in the flight number and date. Tada! But even that is a misrepresentation of how hard it is. Almost every single seat on every single flight is the same. A normal economy seat is about 30" and a normal premium economy is about 34 or 35". Almost nobody buys premium economy even though it usually costs about $20 - $100 more. The airlines try very hard to advertise these seats but people just aren't willing to pay. Clearly people have decided that they prefer cramped seats to spacious economy seats even though the whine and moan. "Oh man economy is so terrible these days!" "Are you willing to spend $20 on an economy plus?" "No!"

    165. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      I'm 6' tall, I've flown 500,000 miles in the past 10 years and have never experienced pain, suffering or physical injury. There is plenty of competition, you can chose wider seats up from for a fee, you can choose seats with more legroom for a fee, you can purchase an exit row seat with more room. If you simply choose to take the cheapest option instead of paying more to get more than you have evaluated the competitive choices and made yours. You don't want to pay for more comfort and I respect your choice. I don't respect your whining about your choice.

    166. Re:Anthropometrics by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Most seats no longer have enough room to open a laptop.

      Do people still use laptops on planes? I can't remember the last time I did. I bought a tablet 4 years ago and I'm pretty sure my laptop has been relegated to the cargo hold since then. I rarely see people with laptops on planes any more.

      This is unfortunately the time where government needs to step in for the general well being of society.

      That's one way to raise money for the military. I'm not sure you'd enjoy flying in the back of a C-130, though.

    167. Re:Anthropometrics by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      When you look at how slave ships were packed, and if you compare that to passenger planes today, the main difference is that on slave ships the slaves were required to do some exercise on deck every day to keep them healthy so they would fetch a price.

      If your flight spends more than 24 hours in the air, you're probably the victim of some elaborate hoax.

    168. Re:Anthropometrics by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)

      I know you're joking, but I would absolutely LOVE that. We just don't have the technology for it yet ... but if we ever perfect safe and cheap suspended animation, this would be the perfect solution for everyone. Airlines can cram 4 times as many people on a single flight, airfare costs half as much, and your journey subjectively lasts a fraction of a second. It's a win-win proposition.

    169. Re:Anthropometrics by j35ter · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're speaking about european or asian flights then those have overcapacity due to massive government subsidies overbuilding the fleets, not from capitalism.

      Who told you that bullshit? EU regulations forbid subsidizing transportation companies.

      The reason for european economy flights being comfyer is that we have true competition in Europe, with several dozen companies, as opposed to the US where you have only 3! I choose y flight very carefully based on comfort as well as price!
        Oh, and this EU law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
      Sorry to bring it to you that way, but your uncontrolled predatory capitalism brought your country into this situation!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    170. Re: Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Vote with your wallet, pull it out and pay the modest sum required for a seat with more legroom. If you prefer not to pay 10% more for more legroom, I'm fine with you making that choice as well. A serious question, why are you not willing to pay more to get more? Do you object to an iPhone 5s costing more than a 5c?

    171. Re:Anthropometrics by j35ter · · Score: 1

      As always, a look into other countries could help!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      As for the seating, if an airline is not able to provide the minimum necessary space for 95% of the populace (Sorry for your 5/11!), then it should not compete in such a market.

      And your argument about the passengers choosing the cheapest flights is invalid. How abot the airlines increase their price and let true competition from outside the US show them how it is done?

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    172. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      You can know what plane you'll be on and you can compare classes between airlines Seatguru.com has information on both. Plug in your flight information and it will tell you what model aircraft you'll be on. Ever seatmap used during booking tells you exactly what seat you will be getting (bulkhead, exit row, economy plus ...). There is a guarantee that if you pay extra for economy plus you'll get exactly that.

    173. Re:Anthropometrics by j35ter · · Score: 2

      Dude, if I wanted to have to wear special gear to survive a fight, I could've stayed in the Air Force...

      What gear, your government issued dishwasher gloves?

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    174. Re:Anthropometrics by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2

      I've had 4 such flights this year, 2 of which were 11 hours long. I don't see enough benefit in reclining my seat 15 degrees to inconvenience the person behind me.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    175. Re:Anthropometrics by j35ter · · Score: 1

      And babies and their parents have prioritiy for those seats.

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    176. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      There is nothing belligerent about reclining. The upright position of coach seats is designed to meet FAA requirements for exiting the plane while keeping seat pitch reduced. The seat angle is not designed for comfort. The preferred seat back angle for comfort is about 15 degrees. Most coach seats can't recline to even that angle, most can only recline 1-2", a very modest amount. Almost everyone would be better served if they reclined. I not only disagree that nobody should recline, I'd suggest that everyone recline and enjoy their flight more. Tall people are indeed people to and I suggest that tall people don't buy cars with insufficient head/legroom and I'd suggest that tall passengers purchase airline seats with more legroom as well. As much as you might like the price of a Renault Twingo or a base economy airline seat, a tall person would be happier buying a bigger car and a seat with greater pitch.

    177. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      I *need* a better cell phone, why should I be penalized by having to buy an iPhone 5s instead of the cheaper 5c? If you want more, pay more. I also don't have a problem with companies charging more for 3XL clothes, shoes > size 14 or bigger cars.

    178. Re:Anthropometrics by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Airlines can cram 4 times as many people on a single flight, airfare costs half as much

      Airlines' net profits increase twenty-fold (FTFY). :p

    179. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to sit behind someone who might recline their seat then purchase an economy seat that doesn't have a seat that reclines in front of it. There are typically 12 on every flight (737+ class aircraft).

    180. Re:Anthropometrics by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I'm 5'8", legroom is not my problem. Seat width is my problem. I have broad shoulders. If I have to sit next to an adult, our shoulders will likely be rubbing unless one of us gives up the armrests and leans forward slightly.

      Seat designers screwed up by using hip width and not shoulder width.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    181. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      The solution is even more simple than that, there is no reason to replace every seat on every aircraft. If you want a seat with more room, buy one. If you want a seat that doesn't have someone in front of you who can recline, buy one.

    182. Re:Anthropometrics by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Airlines' net profits increase twenty-fold (FTFY). :p

      That's why I said airfare costs half as much :p Obviously I don't expect the entire savings to be passed on to the customer, but we would see a significant drop in prices. Even without any drop in price, though, it would be a huge improvement. No more uncomfortable seats. No more awkward conversations with complete strangers. No more screaming babies. No more crappy airline food. Fuck, I'd be willing to pay them EXTRA for it!

      There are other potential benefits too ... imagine being able to get a shuttle that picks you up at your door, with the pod on it. You lay down, go to sleep, and wake up on the other side of the world. You don't have to worry about parking. You don't have to spend 2 hours wandering around the airport prior to boarding. You don't have to strip down and be scrutinized by TSA agents. All the downsides, completely avoided.

      Why the hell aren't we working on this?

    183. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it to the extreme... i dont weigh much & i can tuck myself into a pretty tight spot... im still young enough that i could probably pull off a flight without much discomfort.

      I'll take an overhead compartment for $20 please.

    184. Re:Anthropometrics by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      You can know what plane you'll be on and you can compare classes between airlines Seatguru.com has information on both.

      Yes, you have to use a third party site to determine basic information like product size. That's a bad thing.

      Imagine buying other products like that. Neither the manufacturer and the store tell you the basic size of your TV, won't show you a demo model, instead you have to get that information off of a third party site, and they can arbitrarily change the model they sell you, even after you've paid.

      There is a guarantee that if you pay extra for economy plus you'll get exactly that.

      But no guarantee what that means. There's a local airline whose "Premium economy" class has seats which vary by several inches in pitch and an inch in width, depending on what aircraft they assign to a route. And what aircraft they assign can change between booking and flying. Oh, and unless you are paying full fare (which is over three times their typical "discount" fares), you can't swap flights. There's no "guarantee" that I'll get what I thought I paid for. Nothing on my ticket that says the minimum size seat I'm guaranteed, even if I paid extra specifically for that size.

      That's within one airline. Good luck trying to comparison shop on price and seat-size between airlines.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    185. Re:Anthropometrics by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You lay down, go to sleep, and wake up on the other side of the world.

      A month later. In Shenzhen. Missing a kidney. And your asshole's sore...

    186. Re:Anthropometrics by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      A month later. In Shenzhen. Missing a kidney. And your asshole's sore...

      Meh. No different than today.

    187. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The airline industry as a whole is hardly making any money, which is not normally what you'd see in a situation with not enough competition. The problem is that providing flights is very expensive, leading to high prices, so people are severely price sensitive, leading to a race of who can provide the cheapest flights. A side effect of that is stories such as this. The problem, if anything, would appear from this story to be that airlines are TOO responsive to people's preference for low prices.

    188. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the city. Some cities are very safe, others are not. Manhattan is very safe generally, other parts of NYC (like the Bronx) are less so. St. Louis, Oakland, and Detroit are the most dangerous cities

      You've just listed as "safe" one bit of a large metropolitan area, while admitting others are not (Manhattan vs the Bronx), but then blithely condemned three other cities as unsafe, while igoring that they're parts of larger metropolitan areas.

      St. Louis City (which is even a separate county, "St. Louis City County", from the bulk of the area which is "St. Louis County") is precisely part of a metropolitan area that has suffered urban decay and is more dangerous than its surroundings. Similarly Detroit is very starkly divided into the more dangerous city proper and the far safer extended area (divided by the famous "8 mile" road). And Oakland is just a small part of the overall Bay Area; it isn't even necessarily the most dangerous part of the Bay Area (East Palo Alto, the Tenderloin district of San Francisco, and parts of San Jose compete for that "prize"), while the Bay Area includes such portions as Fremont, Palo Alto, and Woodside (city motto: we have really bored cops).

    189. Re:Anthropometrics by drmerope · · Score: 1

      Don't think we quite communicated. It is belligerent to cite a "right to recline". It is rude to recline. Two different actions, two different determinations. I'm guessing you are part of that minority that doesn't know that it is rude to recline and makes the person behind them miserable and uncomfortable. Being on the flying bus means doing your best to be polite.

      Don't recline. Just don't.

    190. Re:Anthropometrics by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      IIf airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket. Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.

      There are any number of reasons why I might not choose the cheapest flight. The arrival or departure time may be inconvenient. The layovers may be excessive. I might want to avoid a particular airport. Or perhaps the airline breaks guitars.

      But there is not even reliable information, let alone a promise, of how large the seat is going to be; and there is no reason for the airline to live up to an agreement that they never made. In your example, I see only a $500 ticket or a $550 ticket, and no seat size is listed. The actual choice is between $500 for a 30 inch seat and $550 for...a 30 inch seat. If I'm lucky.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    191. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, when you start talking about metro areas, it does get really fuzzy. NYC is a bit of a special area because it annexed many of its outlying cities back in the 1800s, and calls them "boroughs" now (previously, Manhattan was "NYC"), so all the crime city-wide is part of that one city's statistics. Most cities don't do that. But even there, NYC has a larger metro area beyond its boroughs. Newark, one city I mentioned several times, is really just part of NYC's metro area; in fact, most of northern NJ is part of the NYC metro area, plus a large chunk of Long Island (beyond Queens and Brooklyn). There's trains running to Summit and Morristown NJ and beyond, with people commuting back and forth to NYC every day, so those cities are part of the metro area, but should they be lumped in with NYC's crime stats? Honestly, I don't know, it's really debateable. Same goes for LA: if you look at that crime stat list, a bunch of cities there are really just parts of LA. Should they all be lumped together? You could argue it either way. On one hand, they're kinda part of the same "city", even though the "city" is divided into separate municipalities. On the other hand, Morristown NJ and Bronx NY are really different places with totally different demographics, and it really takes a long time to commute between the two (Manhattan is kinda central to them, so people commute from both to Manhattan, plus the transit links are set up to make that more efficient whereas going between the outlying areas is a real PITA sometimes), so it's not like crime in the Bronx is going to affect you in Morristown.

      But you do have a good point here: if you're looking at which city is safe to live in, you have to consider where in that area you would likely be living, and if that's included in the crime stats or not.

      However, my other analysis of demographs in each city (in response to another poster trying to blame it all on black people) is still correct, because my demographic information was from those cities proper, not their metro areas.

    192. Re:Anthropometrics by billstewart · · Score: 1

      It should be pretty obvious. Reclining seats is more comfortable, and that matters more on long flights or flights where you want to sleep.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    193. Re:Anthropometrics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Hi there. You don't know me, but Alaska Airlines and Cathay Pacific certainly do. I've maintained MVP Gold (and, since 2011 when the new tier started, MVP Gold 75K - 75,000+ miles per year) on Alaska, and Diamond (120,000+ miles per year) on Cathay Pacific for the last 9 years. About 2 million miles in less than a decade. I fly a bit... In fact, I just got back from Hong Kong, on CX882 that arrived this afternoon in Los Angeles.

      I am curious about your claim of only 1 airline offering your flight. What city do you arrive in, Internationally? Short of North Korea, Turkmenistan (Tashkent Air really isn't that bad), or a handful of other fascist dictatorships, I can't think of an International city that would be served by just 1 airline.

      As far as US travel goes, I can't remember the last time I bought a business/first class seat - exclusive buyer of economy here. And I cannot remember the last time I was NOT bumped up to business class (that's what comes with massive standing with the airlines). That means that, up to 2 days prior to my domestic departure, there were still business-class seats unsold - and they give them to high-mileage travelers like me, for free. If you want extra legroom, I suggest you consider buying extra legroom - it seems to be plentiful, at least on Alaska Air and Delta (Delta recognizes my status with Alaska) - my two choices for domestic flights.

      As far as Asian flights, you must not mean any going into, out from, or within China. For example, China Southern flies A380s for some of its domestic flights, it has so many fliers. China Eastern, Xiamen Air, Shanghai Air, all pack out all the time. It does pay to buy business class in China - but it's relatively affordable.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    194. Re:Anthropometrics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I take it you will choose not to recline your own seat as well?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    195. Re:Anthropometrics by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Go to SeatGuru.com enter in the flight number and date. Tada!

      That only works if your aircraft doesn't change, and it often does.

      And an economy plus upgrade usually costs more than $20. At that price I'd take it without thinking, even though I wouldn't get reimbursed for it on business travel. When you have to pay $100 for an extra inch or two, that is quite a premium.

    196. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine this:
      On landing you return your seat to the upright position because it's not intended to be the default seating position,

      Some jackass using excel to manage relational data is keeping you from using the seat as intended.

      Your 15 degree recline isn't an inconvenience to them, not reclining is a gift.

    197. Re:Anthropometrics by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Yes, and flying costs more than the Greyhound bus, especially when you multiply that by the number of people in your family.

      That's why there are very cheap seats, with lousy legroom. If you want a little more, you pay a little more. If it's too much, stay in the cheaper seats, take the Greyhound, or don't go.

    198. Re:Anthropometrics by turp182 · · Score: 1

      This has been the most well thought-out and reasoned rape and murder discussion I have ever been a witness to.

      Well done everyone.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    199. Re:Anthropometrics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And most first-class seats are "zero clearance" style, like modern recliners. You can tilt back, but the seat also moves forward when you do, so the net effect is no change to the space behind the seat.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    200. Re:Anthropometrics by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      > But there's no guarantee that paying an extra $50 will get me that extra space.

      It sure will on United or Delta. If you pay the upcharge for a seat with more legroom, then you'll get a seat with more legroom.

    201. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Where do they enforce that penalty? I'm 6' tall and nobody from the airline has ever told me that I'm going to be penalized and forced to buy a more expensive ticket. I usually sit in Economy Plus, thanks to my frequent travel on a single airline but I've traveled in regular coach seats for 5 hr flights and while certainly not as roomy I didn't feel like I'd suffered. I put on my headphones, reclined my seat and went to sleep. I'd recommend you do the same on your next flight instead of stewing the entire flight about some perceived injustice the airline was imposing on you.

    202. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Since all airplanes already have seats that don't recline wouldn't it be easier for people to simply pick a seat behind one of those seats if it is important enough to them?

    203. Re:Anthropometrics by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Since they have apparently reached the limit of human tolerance, one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights. The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"

      I know United does - it's called Economy Plus.

    204. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Here's a tip, if you aren't in first class and are larger than 5' 9" and are anything more than average in weight you will not fit "comfortably" in your seat. You will be touching the person next to you and you won't characterize your seat as comfortable or the experience of flying as "fun". It is a means of transportation that is pretty fast and relatively inexpensive. It isn't an adventure, fun or comfortable. It won't at all be like sitting on your couch or being in your recliner. You'll be glad when the flight is over and won't say "Damn, I wish I could just stay in this seat another 5 hours" If that is too much to bear then pay the premium for a premium seat pitch seat. Get on the plane early and sit in a regular seat with the seat in front of you full reclined, then sit in your premium seat and compare the difference and price premium. Then make your choice.

    205. Re:Anthropometrics by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      You misunderstand. I'm not saying you won't get "economy plus" if you pay for "economy plus", or "business" if you pay for "business". I'm saying that there's no guarantee what that means. Show me on your ticket where it says "minimum 34 inch seat-pitch guaranteed".

      I'm saying if you look at the price of two airline tickets for the same class on the same route, one is $500, one is $550, which one has the most legroom? The $550? Not necessarily. There's no information given by the airlines on what sized seat you are buying which allows you to compare. Your original comment said, paraphrasing, blamed the consumers for buying the cheapest option, but the airlines don't give the information I need to chose between them. How do consumers influence the quality of a product if they can't differentiate between products before buying?

      In reality, most casual fliers actually over-pay for their tickets because it's so difficult to untangle pricing information, even without getting into differences in seats sizes between different airlines, different aircraft within an airline, different seats within an aircraft. I'm a book-keeper and finding the best value ticket for a given trip is harder than filing my employer's monthly payroll taxes and employee superannuation. Airlines have made an art of obfuscation.

      [It is possible to work it out using third party sites, but trying to use them to compare, say, three airlines on a particular route based on price-versus-seat-pitch is extremely difficult. There's no easy comparison system to say "I want to go from A to B, over this approx period, what is the price/seat-size comparison across all airlines?"

      There are local airlines where the pitch of "Premium economy" (economy plus) seating is the same as another airline's more expensive "Business" class seats, if they fly the right model aircraft on that route, on that day. If they fly a slightly different model, their "Premium economy" seats are shorter than the "Basic economy" seats on the first airline. Four inch variation between aircraft.]]

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    206. Re:Anthropometrics by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between not being lounge-chair comfortable, and simply not fitting in there at all (or having to have you legs pushed up against the seatback). I'm 6'1" (but thin) and I generally don't have much trouble, but then again I haven't flown in a couple of years, and it sounds like the airlines have reduced the space between rows since then. No one's expecting coach class to be spacious, but they are expecting to be able to fit in there without physical pain. I don't think that's too much to ask.

    207. Re:Anthropometrics by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Where? I fly domestic first class, the same issue prevails. It is bad design, period. Either lock out recline or do the slider seat reclines. Only other option is to remove tray tables.

    208. Re: Anthropometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I would love to! Hell, 20% more if need be! But please tell me, which airline is it that offers me said service?

      I want my legroom, I want my complimentary soda, I want my headphones, I want enough room to put my notebook down sensibly. Tell me the airline that offers it and whatever price they ask is probably acceptable. The problem is that it ain't offered (or at least, it ain't advertised).

      I can't believe I'd be the only person willing to pay up for being treated like a human being rather than cattle, but it seems the airlines don't agree with me in that point.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    209. Re:Anthropometrics by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      I'm 5'11" and there is plenty of room in Economy plus. If you're a frequent flyer you can get Economy Plus for free when you book a ticket on United, I assume Delta is the same for their frequent flyers.

      I'm 1.95m (6'5" for Americans) and once had to fly Austrian Airlines transatlantic. They have 31 or even 30" seat spacing, the seats were so cramped I had to sit with my legs angled out sideways, and to shift them from the right to the left had to lift them up, move across, and drop them down again (bit hard to explain in text form). For eight hours.

      Result: I've asked our travel people to never, ever book me on an Austrian flight again. Well, that and Hello Kitty Airways.

      So they may have saved a few dollars by squashing in some extra seats, but they've permanently lost a passenger who does quite a bit of flying to Austria. I don't know how many others they've lost this way...

    210. Re:Anthropometrics by ruir · · Score: 1

      Yep, I have noticed it too...last time I wanted to open for a while my laptop, it had to be in my legs, and just for a short while. You certainly wont be able to open a laptop even in your legs it the passenger on front reclines. And I remember full well when I had flights a decade ago where I used my laptop for hours.

    211. Re:Anthropometrics by ruir · · Score: 1

      Talking about moving around...when I did Dubai->Manila via Emirates, they kept our food trays for hours, so much that I refused coffee, and the crew snapped at the passengers who take care of their own trays to pee. Besides that and the shitty food, Emirates for me no more.

    212. Re: Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell do you stretch your legs UNDER the seat in front of you? What are you? 4'2"?

      I'm 6'4" with relatively long legs for my height, flying for more than an hour is plain painful for me (unless I pay for a business class ticket which is often several times the price of a regular ticket).

    213. Re:Anthropometrics by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      There is not nearly enough competition in the airline industry to lead to improvements driven from capitalism.

      I thought it was the other way round... tough competition being the driver for cramming as many people as they can into as few flights as possible to make ends meet.

      This is unfortunately the time where government needs to step in for the general well being of society.

      Yeah, it does seem so. Not holding my breath for it happening though. Given that airlines operate across countries they'll be able to make such decisions very difficut to get through.

    214. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SBW seems to be quite fitting

      I see what you did there. ;)

    215. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Scott Adams of Dilbert has a word for this: confusopoly.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    216. Re:Anthropometrics by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Japan Airlines (JAL) makes a big deal of their 10cm extra leg room and charge a little more for it. They seem to be doing okay with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    217. Re:Anthropometrics by strikethree · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of interesting info in that link. For instance, WTF is going on in Colorado Springs? It's one of the safest cities for murder, however it's one of the most dangerous cities for rape.

      Well, there are something like 7 military bases there plus the Air Force Academy. Most cities that have them will have only one, possibly two. Reporting rape to the military is easier and more likely to have action taken. Is this the only reason for the higher rape numbers? I have no idea. I am just offering a potential explanation. Research and verify for yourself if you want to be certain of cause and effect.

      I live there and the general population seems to be more or less normal. The military bases are the one oddity. Hm. There are a few extra colleges there too. I could see it more as a bunch of young dumb folks outside of their normal environment acting out on impulses.

      Hm. Anyways, good luck on figuring it out. My daughter had zero problems growing up there.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    218. Re: Anthropometrics by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They should just replace the cabin air with helium. The reduced fuel consumption can pay for bigger seats.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    219. Re:Anthropometrics by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I used to use a small laptop with a 12 inch screen. On a transatlantic flight the teenage girl in the seat in front reclined the seat so violently it was pure luck the screen didn't get trapped and broken. The recline mechanism really needs a damper in it to limit the speed at which it can recline (and on transatlantic flights, reclining is pretty necessary).

      For domestic flights, easyJet has the best idea - their seats don't recline at all.

    220. Re:Anthropometrics by mythix · · Score: 1

      Why would I have to pay extra because I'm tall? I already have to pay extra for heavy luggage, while a fatty who's short has all the room and takes multiples of my weight on board, while harassing their neighbors with the fat rolls lunging over the arm rest...

      Why are the flight prices always getting cheaper while the comfort gets worse, it makes no sense to me, airline comfort was already low.
      I can fly from Holland to Greece for 5 euros, but I cant get some legroom if I want to pay 50? I'm not sure these people know maths...

    221. Re:Anthropometrics by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That depends entirely on whether there's an empty seat behind me.

      What I've done before is wander to a mostly empty part of the aircraft and lie down across five seats, but it's all down to circumstances.

    222. Re:Anthropometrics by Alarash · · Score: 1

      Air France now bills extra (10-100€) for "good" seats, like near the exits.

    223. Re:Anthropometrics by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      Not even remotely true. 80% of the violent crime is found in cities 200K and larger in the US which hold something like 50% of the population.

    224. Re:Anthropometrics by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      I would love to fly like that. Think of the movie "The Fifth Element". Stuff me into a cumfy bed/tube, (with Millia Jojovich wouldn't hurt either), knock me out and let me wake up well restest 18 hours later on the other side of the planet.

    225. Re: Anthropometrics by drummerboybac · · Score: 1

      Except that for a lot of people, their company policy mandates that they buy the cheapest available seat. So you can't upgrade

    226. Re:Anthropometrics by flyneye · · Score: 2

      No, no, the answer is TO ADAPT. Excercise human flexibility by solving the problem. Don't rely on some consortium to come up with some soft answer that doesn't promote Darwinian progress!
      Simply do this; pull a clean handkerchief and that bottle marked skin cleanser from your in-flight luggage. Pour the chloroform you secreted inside the bottle on the kerchief and apply it to the breathing intake of the offending recliner, who has put himself in an ergonomic position for the procedure. Then, when the sedation sets in, merely shove his chair forward to create a luxuriant amount of knee room. This eliminates any messy arguments, complaining or inconvenience. Blessed are the peacemakers....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    227. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm 6 foot tall, and I'll bet I'm a hell of a lot lighter than a lot of the lard arses I see at check in. How about charging by volume, mass or weight in a vacuum if 'physics' is the reason?

      Actually, my dad played this exact card a few years back. He was travelling home from a couple of years of trekking. He was thin as a rake, but had a couple of kilos of extra baggage. The check in clerk wanted to charge for the excess, so he pointed at some fat bloke in the queue and said quite loudly "okay, how about you weigh me and all my luggage, and then weight him and all his?". The clerk backed down, and he got checked in without paying the excess.

    228. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KLM has a host of other ways to demoralize you.... Behaving Dutch being one of them.

    229. Re:Anthropometrics by ai4px · · Score: 1

      We could give them all a drug called, oh I dunno.... the Spice? From what I hear it makes travel over great distances tolerable.

    230. Re:Anthropometrics by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Screw the aircraft. Take the train. Well, if you live on the eastern seaboard that is. The inside of business class reminds me of what aircraft USED to be like. Wide seating, plenty of leg room even when seats are reclined. Kudos to Amtrak for realizing people want to be comfortable.

      I take the Acela occasionally, from South Station in Boston to Providence, RI. Price ranges from $37 to $53 for business class depending on WHEN you buy the ticket. And it reduces a 70 minute commuter rail journey down to 40 minutes. Zoom!

    231. Re:Anthropometrics by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Hmm - that is interesting. I figure you could get a likely four tier bunk in perhaps three or four rows. I wouldn't mind being flat and sleeping while I fly.

    232. Re:Anthropometrics by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      For myself I don't bother, but I'm sure hte rest of the passengers appreciated the fact my 3 year old could watch her Peppa Pig episodes vs. getting loud, annoying, etc. Not that my little snowflakes would do that - each of our children have traveled quite young, and the flight crew has always been amazed at their behavior (and in a good way too).

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    233. Re:Anthropometrics by countach74 · · Score: 1

      Airlines are hardly an uncontrolled market in the United States. To make the comparison between the EU (where you even point out that certain market interferences are forbidden) to US as an example of regulated vs unregulated is mind numbing.

    234. Re:Anthropometrics by leptechie · · Score: 1

      A mildly useless suggestion. It's like standing at a stadium - you may get an initial benefit but if everyone does it, nobody benefits (and everyone's legs get tired). So there are a few seats that are superior at no extra cost, it does nothing for the overall level of misery.

    235. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flying passenger doesn't always get a say in the matter. Most companies expect their business travelers to fly coach for short- and medium-haul flights, and a growing number are expecting it for long-haul as well. Comfort and health of the employee are not primary concerns for the bean counters.

    236. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, since they've reached and now discovered the tolerance level, time to dial things back and give back 1/2" or 3/4" and see how that works. Of course the greedy airlines won't want that, so really the only real solution here is to permanently ban every single person from ever flying again who has a problem with the person in front of them reclining their seat. That will fix this 3 year old problem, I don't mean the problem is 3 years old, I'm referring to the behavior and competency levels of the "adults" making a fuss to have their diapers changed.

    237. Re:Anthropometrics by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Either one of two statements is true: 1) Access to air travel is essential to people of all economic means. 2) Air travel is a luxury. neither of those statements need be true, stating that one is true isn't true Access to air travel is not essential to people of all economic means AND air travel is not a luxury

    238. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but the original comment is silly because you can already say "Then why didn't you "choose" first-class?" Because of the price hike asshole.

    239. Re:Anthropometrics by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Opportunities for violent crime are much much more in cities than in rural areas. Say e.g. one person lives completely alone - who would he commit a violent crime against? In a city of n people, opportunity of crime is nC2 i.e. n*(n-1)/2. But actual crime is much less than proportionate when compared to rural areas. Some crimes take more than 2 people, say m, - for them it should be nCm.

      In that interpretation, it is true that cities have lower crime but just more people. Remember to divide crimes by nC2, not n.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    240. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they are wrong sometimes. Air China pulled a fast one and took the legroom out of the "premium" seats near the bulkhead where they put people with kids. Fortunately, I got a normal crappy seat. Also, only 747 I'd ever been on that you didn't get a light or that little whisp of air, where you can stick your nose up and sniff something that doesn't smell like the person next to you.

      I'm a pretty big dude, and I "fit fine" in all of these seats, but my knees touch the front of the next seat if I don't sit perfectly squarely.

      As for some who say "pay more" -- A ticket to Asia is $1000; business class is $4000+ and first is $7000+ last I checked.

    241. Re:Anthropometrics by torroid · · Score: 1

      It's called entitlement.

    242. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now everyone does this. This means the overhead bins are full by the time 50% of the passengers have boarded and it takes twice as long to board because every idiot has a suitcase they have to wheel down the narrow isle and are too weak to put into the overhead bin without assistance. Thanks.

    243. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes customers are stupit to expect first class comfort for almost nothing.

    244. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if your thrombosis spits out a a clot into your blood stream on the flight your simply DEAD-I recently survivied double pulmonary embolism-med speak for blood clot in the lung which is a common home for clot thrown off from a leg clot-my doc who is in his 60s said to me SOn you are lucky to survive one PE you had two and I ve been truly lucky since I lived thru 3 of em.

      I suggest any one suffering a deep vein or other clot after flying simply find a class action law firm and let the hound of sue-age loose and after paying out the ass the will stop the seat cramming to protect their bottom lines.

    245. Re:Anthropometrics by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Better yet, install them in a fixed reclining position to begin with. When might I want to sit up straight? If I'm eating a meal, and I can't remember the last time I had that on a plane (obviously I don't fly transcontinentally).

    246. Re:Anthropometrics by DriveDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Competition in Europe isn't just between airlines. Serious passenger rail service in the US would do a world of good.

    247. Re:Anthropometrics by enos · · Score: 1

      Rail is only competitive on a few shorter in-country routes. People fly medium-long distances, just like in the US.

      --
      boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
    248. Re:Anthropometrics by enos · · Score: 1

      Which 3 would that be?

      You have United, Delta, American, Southwest, Virgin, JetBlue, Spirit, Frontier, plus many smaller ones.

      --
      boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
    249. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is simple: load them up with tranquilizers/sedatives and stack 'em in like cordwood. ;)

      I know you're joking, but I would absolutely LOVE that. We just don't have the technology for it yet ... but if we ever perfect safe and cheap suspended animation, this would be the perfect solution for everyone. Airlines can cram 4 times as many people on a single flight, airfare costs half as much, and your journey subjectively lasts a fraction of a second. It's a win-win proposition.

      We have the tech already. It's called bunk beds or will be slang called coffins.

      Add a third aisle down the middle so you have 1 stack on each window and 2 double stacks in the middle, 4 berths high. So for every 4 rows of 6 seats (24), you get 6 stacks of 4 beds (24). Is your gut more than 18" thick? Buy a double or stick to conventional seating. The entire plane doesn't need to switch over, they should be able to do it in 24 bed pods. Hell, they can premium price it at first too. I'll drop an extra $50 for the ability to sleep without someone kicking my seat, reclining into my knee, playing elbow wars over the armrest or getting up for the third time on a flight just after I manage to fall asleep.

      Tweak the sizing so you have to put your carry on in your own coffin and that will speed boarding as well. I like my bag with me, so I'll use it as a pillow/foot rest. If you want to bring your bag and your guitar.... Well, keep it with you. Or give someone $20-$200 to share their berth with it.

    250. Re:Anthropometrics by speardane · · Score: 1
      so it would be reasonable to charge people with longer legs more, but unreasonable to charge those that are very wide or heavy?

      I think it is same fares for all or you permit discrimination on a range of size criteria...

      --
      if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
    251. Re:Anthropometrics by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're wrong. In rural areas anyone new is foreign. I went to 5th grade in a rural area...and we weren't even actual outsiders, my mother had lived there as a young adult. Her father lived there much of the time.

      It was the most miserable year of my life. I was regularly chased around the school yard by gangs, and "hid out" at the top of the jungle gyn until recess was over. My "crime" was that I hadn't gone to school with the the previous four years.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    252. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How apropos! I just rewatched American History X last night. Bravo, you s/poverty/niggers/ fellow!

    253. Re:Anthropometrics by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I guess poor black people just aren't that interested in rape compared to poor white people.

      Or that once you go black, you never go back. Consensually or not.

      A racist rape joke? Mods: come at me bro.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    254. Re:Anthropometrics by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I understand your reasoning, but statistics seem to show that rural areas experience as much violent crime as large cities. (My memory actually says more, but I can't believe that, and can't remember the original source to check.)

      FWIW, I do remember specifically that violence that results in injuries is higher among the Kalahari bushmen than among the slums of Detroit. Of course, that was a couple of decades ago.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    255. Re:Anthropometrics by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      I think you have one erroneous assumption here: Not all flyers will have access to a frequent flyer program so long as the functional word is "frequent." I fly about once every other year. I don't qualify for any kind of FF benefits. I solve this by specifically requesting the rear-most exit row. This guarantees me the legroom I need, and if the airline allows reclining seats I'll get one. It's the only way to survive... because at 5'11" the regular economy seats can almost be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    256. Re:Anthropometrics by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Since they have apparently reached the limit of human tolerance, one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights. The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"

      Get ready for: "I chose the wider seat. It wasn't wide enough" or "there were no more available because everybody wanted one."

    257. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but reducing service is equivalent to a price hike. If I fly once for $X, and then fly a second time for $X, but they've reduced my leg space, they have raised the price without letting me know. This is equivalent to shrinking candy bars but keeping the price constant - no it isn't, you could read the size of a candy bar on the package. That's actually more honest than what airlines do.

    258. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm working for the airline. Just like self check-out at supermarkets. They save money by firing people, so lines are longer, unless I decide to volunteer as basically an unpaid intern.

    259. Re:Anthropometrics by mishehu · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what planet you're from, but I've been flying on planes since I was barely even walking and talking. There is *nothing* rude about reclining, neither explicit nor implied. It is, however, nice and courteous to the person behind you to recline slowly and gently if at all possible. You do not have a right to not have the seat in front of you recline. You *do* have a right to control whether your own seat reclines.

    260. Re:Anthropometrics by redlemming · · Score: 1

      The reason for european economy flights being comfyer is that we have true competition in Europe, with several dozen companies, as opposed to the US where you have only 3!

      The USA badly needs laws limiting the size of corporations that do business in the USA. No corporation should be larger than the medium sized town, implying a limit of 10k or perhaps at most 20k employees! All the major US airlines are way over either limit.

      Further, no business should ever be allowed to buy, or merge with, a competitor.

      Allowing corporations to become overly large creates huge bureaucracies (which, in itself, results in all kinds of negative consequences for the employees and the larger society), and inevitably results in executives that are badly out of touch with the workers (causing all kinds of problems for the workers, and - indirectly - causing more problems for society). Further, this is just simple sanity from the perspective of legal and governmental ethics: large corporations simply have too much ability to buy the legal profession and the government.

      Given that the right to legal and governmental ethics is certainly a right "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, the current policies of allowing effectively unlimited business size should even be considered illegal.

      While there is some merit to the concept that economies of scale matter, this needs to be balanced against the overall good of society. Even Adam Smith was well aware of the dangers of unregulated capitalism.

    261. Re: Anthropometrics by Starport · · Score: 1

      Assault charge, for reclining your seat with a function you paid for? Get real... If you feel that bad about the guy in front reclining the seat, and go into a full-blown, YOU are the ahole, and the one that should be paying for your seat space, ie.... go business class.., I've flown my decent amount of airmiles and longhaul, and I'm a big guy, and never, have I come across people who would not accommodate you after a pleasant polite request for upping the chair during meals etc, then saying please recline, as I will recline, recovering the space. Politeness and good manners goes a long way. Not so much self-entitlement and you can't do what I want to do. That's just taking the piss for selfish purposes. Air travel in cattle class these days is exactly what you pay for. Live with it. If you don't want to have the restrictions imposed, you simply have to pay more. Don't expect 5* treatment at 1* prices, cus if you do, you are the one out of luck Air travel is expensive anyway you look at it, but it gets you from a to b in a very (relatively) short time, and if you think you need more space, you will simply have to pay for it. End of. Contrary to seemingly common belief, business or first class space doesn't come at the prices of economy. There's a reason for the apt naming. Simply stop whining about it, or pay more for the space you actually want to occupy.

    262. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they have apparently reached the limit of human tolerance, one answer is to offer wider seat spacing for a little extra price on some flights. The remaining "dense pack" passengers then have no reason to complain: "If you needed more space, why didn't you choose our XL flight?"

      That means that when you purchase your next car, the manufacturer should make the driver seat fixed, and charge you extra if you need that extra inch, and again, another amount, if you need the lumbar support and the height changed.

    263. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [airfare costs half as much]

      phhhahahaha.

      Hold on while I clean up my coffee.

    264. Re: Anthropometrics by MickeydotFinn · · Score: 1

      Plus if you're flying on a corporate dollar, the corp wants you to take the cheapest flights

    265. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greyhound is not always cheaper.

      Out of curiosity, I priced Greyhound, Amtrak and airlines for a hypothetical trip.

      I picked departure for Tuesday a week ahead of time and returning a week later.

      Cheapest airfare was $112, but there were 2 other flights under $200 as well.

      Amtrak and Greyhound were both over $500 with Greyhound taking a full 24 hours to arrive, but at least they did have a bus terminal in my town whereas I'd have to go 60 miles to get to an airport or train station.

    266. Re:Anthropometrics by Floydius · · Score: 1

      Quite right. On top of that, we have the TSA burden increasing prices with a corresponding decrease in service and convenience.

    267. Re:Anthropometrics by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Internationally, this is true. Unless they've replaced the whole domestic fleet's seating in the past year, though, not the case there.

    268. Re:Anthropometrics by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      I'm 6'3 and you'd whine once I got my steel-toed butt up your ass and left it there for an hour which would about equal the discomfort I encounter even before the jackass in front of me reclines his seat into my knees. I get it. We can't support every possible body type or it would get expensive but dude, I'm 6'3, not Andre the Giant. Flights were actually quite comfortable for me for a few years there but very recently they have been ridiculous. Now I try to find Airbuses, exit rows, or I don't fly at all. It's been a while but I've never been uncomfortable on an Airbus. Perhaps French design doesn't accommodate American abuse in regards to minimum seat-spacing.

    269. Re:Anthropometrics by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      Some of us are technical here. We still use laptops yes.

    270. Re:Anthropometrics by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      Keep saying it's the people's fault, and they'll keep squeezing until they find your particular threshold.

      Which is an argument ethically akin to car companies knowing they have a potentially fatal defect but weighing up the cost of actually fixing it and saving lives vs. the expected cost of compensation lawsuits and not fixing it if the latter is lower.

      The solution, of course, is to structure the law and/or regulate the industry so that the cost of screwing people unreasonably is always substantially greater than the cost of behaving more appropriately.

      I didn't say that, and don't agree. Regulation and fines are appropriate for safety issues, but this article was about the size of the seats. None of the arguments were about the squeezing of seats into planes causing a hazard that rises to the need for government safety oversight.

      Most of the discussion, and my post specifically, are about how customers either will or won't acquiesce to this treatment. The gp was inclined to simply accept what the airlines are doing, mine was not - customers should vote with their dollars, with public campaigns, with boycotts, until they are treated reasonably. I don't agree the government is the solution here.

    271. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      I would agree with you, except that a free and competitive market can only work this way if it's also an informed market.

      If you can lawfully sell someone a ticket for a flight, which they purchase with reasonable expectations in terms of promptness, comfort or whatever else, and you can then fail to meet the customer's reasonable expectations when they bought their ticket without their having any recourse, then you aren't really in a competitive market at all. The customer has no way to know when, or how, to vote with their wallet.

      You can certainly make a reasonable argument that this is more about transparency and advertising standards than it is about needing heavyweight industry regulation, but either way the current market dynamics evidently are not sufficient to protect the customer alone.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    272. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget. It also has the Olympics Training Center there too!

    273. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will only get worse....
      http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/10/travel/standing-cabin-plane-study/
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291103/Ryanair-sell-standing-room-tickets-4--funded-charging-passengers-use-toilet.html

      hahaha. The Slashdot Captcha code for this message was "injure"

    274. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American Butt or Japanese Butt?

    275. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh.
      I usually pay 2x the normal ticket rate because I often get last minute travel requests for work.
      And for the most part I end up in middle seats. I'm oozing of entitlement, but that ooze doesn't translate into much comfort.

    276. Re:Anthropometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious passenger rail service in the US doesn't make any sense, and it likely never will. Based on our lower population density and relative distance between major cities in the US it doesn't make any sense. There are structural differences between the two continents, and what you are wishing for will never happen over significant portions of the country.

  2. cram lots of people in a confined space by ihtoit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and this is what happens. Survival 101: you do not violate my personal space. EVER.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    2. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and this is what happens. Survival 101: you do not violate my personal space. EVER.

      What's your "personal space" in this context? Having a button to recline your seat conveys permission to use said button. That said, one uses it judiciously and slowly...and you have the right to do the same.
      It's when idiots use something like Knee Defender that the system falls apart.

    3. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People in the last row do not have such a button. They can't recline.

    4. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your personal space ends at the seat in front of you, in whatever position that may be. If you restrict the backrest of the seat in front of you, you're violating the personal space of the passenger in front of you. You knew how airplane seats work before you bought that ticket, so if you start a fight over that don't complain when they kicked you out of the plane.

    5. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just lots of people, lots of Americans.

      Since I don't fly often, it's been a source of amusemnt the last 40 years to see ever smaller seats given to an ever growing (larger around the middle) population.

      If I did have to fly, I'd probably riot. A decade ago, I flew last (not that I ever flew much), and it already amazed me that the guy in fron could recline as much as he did, I practically had to sniff the top of his head throughout the flight, Shit chaned a lot since I was a teenager.

    6. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your "personal space" in this context? Having a button to recline your seat conveys permission to use said button.

      And choosing to use the button when there is someone -- anyone -- behind you conveys them the permission to correctly infer that you are a fucking asshole.

    7. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that's what the people in the milgram experiments said too.

    8. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an excellent reason to not choose to sit in the last row of an airplane. The seats don't recline and you have a bathroom right next to you. Life is full of choices, whether it be concert ticket seating or airplane seating. Some people plan ahead, some people don't or can't.

    9. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Can't being the operative word in this case. In some cases, you don't get to choose which seat you are in. Some planes don't have assigned seating. The ones that do are overbooked and sometimes they will not let you sit in the seat that you had a written agreement backed by a large amount of money to sit in. Many times travel is arrange by a corporate travel department that cares nothing for your needs and only cares about the bottom line. I always wondered why they call it business class when no business I have ever been involved with has ever paid for a business class ticket.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tall people are free to purchase bulkhead and emergency row seats right now. If you are super-sized you need to plan ahead to make sure you can find seating that fits you, business/first class is also an option but it also fills up. First come, first served. The last thing the airlines need is gate agents with a tape measure to make sure you "qualify" for certain seats. You also have the option of approaching me in my 2nd exit row, aisle seat, and offering to pay me to move to your less comfortable seat. Similar to how you can buy a better concert ticket and sell your inferior one. Free market at work, you can almost always get what you want it just becomes a matter of price.

    11. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by dukeblue219 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I never cease to be amazed at the number of my coworkers who either don't realize they can, or don't care to, choose their seats ahead of time. We'll get to the airport and they say "I hope they didn't give me a middle seat in the back again!". It only takes a few minutes to logon, add your confirmation number to your frequent flier account, and then pick whatever seat you want. There won't always be a ton of options for free, but don't just resign yourself to sitting in whatever is left at checkin!

      --
      -Ted http://www.freemathhelp.com/
    12. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      I'd say that 90% of the people in front of me on a flight > 2 hrs recline there seat and I've never considered any of them to be a fucking asshole. I would make the general observation that people who run around thinking lots of other people are fucking assholes usually are the ones who are fucking assholes. You see them on the road at times, swearing at every other driver around them as they weave in and out of lanes. Sometimes the end up on a plane too. Sometimes they end up getting escorted off the plane in handcuffs.

    13. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this is what happens. Survival 101: you do not violate my personal space. EVER.

      Reclining my seat isn't violating your personal space. If that space was yours my seat wouldn't be able to recline into it. Or put another way, the airlines have made it so that I'm entitled to recline my seat, but you are not entitled to tell me not to.

      So quit bitching to me about the lack of space, I'm not the one who put the seats too close together.

    14. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wondered why they call it business class when no business I have ever been involved with has ever paid for a business class ticket.

      The company I work for now, and the company I worked for previously, both had written policies that allowed you to book Business Class for travel over 8 hours. We can also book 1st Class train tickets for train travel over 3 hours.

    15. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a hassle to check in online ahead of time. When I travel I have a dozen things to keep track of prior to getting on the plane, so I don't want to add to my stress. Personally I think online checkin is a pain in the ass and we should all go back to airport checkin.

    16. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What's your "personal space" in this context? Having a button to recline your seat conveys permission to use said button. That said, one uses it judiciously and slowly...and you have the right to do the same. It's when idiots use something like Knee Defender that the system falls apart.

      Because "Personal Space" is a personal thing, and has very little to do with seat buttons. It varies between people. I have a larger personal space fro strangers than I do for people I know. I'm certain most of us do. But once someone is inside my personal space, the fight or flight syndrome starts kicking in. Coupled with the inability to move your legs, it is not at all surprising that some people go nuts on an airline flight. This should be considered basic psychology.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Sounds like an excellent reason to not choose to sit in the last row of an airplane. The seats don't recline and you have a bathroom right next to you.

      And everyone on the flight can get first class seating too, right?

      You need to design us a concert venue seating say 15,000 people with only front row seats.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by qbast · · Score: 1

      TL;DR
      Stop complaining and buy business class if economy is too hard on your delicate knees.

    19. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I'll bite: my personal space in this context is in a state of violation when $dickhead's head is in my lap. This is why I don't fly commercial. Hell, I don't roll coach if I can help it, they've got even less room - 39 people squashed into a forty one foot tube. I think that's about 30 inches between seat backs, taking off the space at the front, the drivers pod and the shithouse. When I travel, I have leg room to sprawl, head room to stretch without pissing anyone else off, or I don't travel. On a train, that's a table seat in first or standard class, or a cabin on an overnight. Comfort first, there's no fucking excuse for sacrificing ergonomics to shave a few bucks, if you can afford to travel you can afford to do it safely.

      It's doable, and it doesn't break the bank doing it.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    20. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by qbast · · Score: 2

      I always wondered why they call it business class when no business I have ever been involved with has ever paid for a business class ticket.

      It is class for businessmen (owners, board members, C-level executives), not for lowly peons making business trips.

    21. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Nemyst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. Why should I pay more for being taller? This isn't a choice, is it? What the airlines are doing is essentially discrimination.

      What infuriates me the most though is that I've heard more and more that obese people get special status and the ability to use two seats while only paying for one, but tall people get nothing. Obesity is not inherent to the person, height is.

    22. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Well, that is either BS, or you just stunk bad due to lack of showering.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    23. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by dugancent · · Score: 2

      How do you feel about fat people who spill into the seat next to them? They cry discrimination but as far as i'm concerned, they should have to buy two seats.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    24. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      This is an announcement from Genetic Control:
      "It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid height."

      [Extract from conversation of Joe Ordinary in Local Puborama]

      "I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the
      properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold.
      It's said now that people will be shorter in height,
      they can fit twice as many in the same building site.
      (they say it's alright),
      Beginning with the tenants of the town of Harlow,
      in the interest of humanity, they've been told they must go,
      told they must go-go-go-go."

    25. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Woah, there...we've got an Internet tough guy. Lighten up, Francis.

      --

      -Turkey

    26. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should everyone else pay more so that all other seats are larger to accomodate your height? I fit in the seats alright. Others do, too. Obesity isn't always the fault of an obese person, and I dont hear you suggesting that all seats accomodate them (in fact, they have to pay for two seats). Should small cars for small people be banned just because you don't fit in them? How about mandating that all clothing manufacturers make clothes that fit small people (at your expense) so that short people don't have to pay more for clothes that fit. I'm not trying to be mean about this, but what you wrote sounded ridiculously self-entitled. You are not entitled to special accomodations just because you're tall. You already get them. Tall people tend to make significantly more money than short people. Use that money to buy bigger seats rather than asking the rest of the world to pay more for their seats to accomodate your needs.

      --

      -Turkey

    27. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      Having a trigger to fire your weapon conveys permission to use said button.

      Utter bullshit analogy. As is all games-based reasoning.

    28. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you consume more space and fuel.

    29. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, when you fly in first class, almost nobody reclines their seat.

    30. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Woah, there...we've got an Internet tough guy.

      Wow, you really missed the whole point of that, didn't you? I mentioned being a gun owner not because it makes you a tough guy (you're not allowed to bring your gun on the plane, you know) but because of the parallel. You don't just get to do things because you want to do them, and having the ability to do a thing is not justification to do the thing. There's no reason I should not defend myself if attacked, and people who think there is are part of the problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Because you take up more space, and you cost more. There should be a height limit and weight limit, this addresses both your problem. This is not discrimination, this is for your own good in fact. Cramming you in smaller seats will be a problem for you, and people in front of you. These seats are obviously designed for a certain heights, making it explicit is a good thing for everyone involved.

      What next, complaining that the local store doesnt care tall sized clothes and tall clothes are expensive?

    32. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that attitude as the guy reclines his seat. The seat that he paid for.

    33. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You CAN'T buy an exit row seat ahead of time, as the airlines have no way of knowing you are capable of performing those functions. Those seats are sold, but not assigned. You have to ask for one when you get to the counter. I'm 6'5" so I learned a few tricks. Southwest used to allow me to pre board since I am over 6'3", but now pre boards can not sit in exit rows, thanks to other idiots.

    34. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Cito · · Score: 1

      This design has already been made since 1500s

      William Shakespeare invented the globe theater, all seating was front row style

    35. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "Tall people are free to purchase bulkhead and emergency row seats right now. If you are super-sized you need to plan ahead to make sure you can find seating that fits you, business/first class is also an option but it also fills up."

      WE charge passengers based on them being HUMAN, not their size or weight. Passengers are HUMANS, not cargo that has to conform to certain standards. If the airliner fails to accommodate for human variation, THEY ARE AT FAULT, not the human.

      --
      Good-bye
    36. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Or the airline should be forced to accept the fact that people come in many shapes and sizes and plan accordingly.

      --
      Good-bye
    37. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Cederic · · Score: 0

      When my knees get hurt by your reclining seat I don't give a fuck what entitlement you think the airline gave you, you're in my personal space. Now fucking move, arsehole.

    38. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Why should I pay more for being taller? This isn't a choice, is it? What the airlines are doing is essentially discrimination.

      Why should short people subsidise tall people? That's an alternate way of looking at it. If you move all the seats further apart, prices go up and short people are effectively paying for leg room they don't need.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    39. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by David_W · · Score: 1

      Please, like any one of those persons would lower themselves to use anything less than first class.

    40. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Ah: "the market fixes all problems" argument.

    41. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, "Get them out by Friday".

      A bit OT, but I was surprised to learn that "Attack of the Giant Hogweed" was mostly based on fact.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    42. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some folks cannot check in online beforehand. This is one of the reasons I stopped flying (precheckin not permitted, orange dot on my ticket, rectal examination before boarding, and then I get the shittiest possible seat even after showing up 3+ hours early in the hope I could checkin at the desk early enough to not get screwed). It might take three days to get across the country by train, but at least I have leg room and don't have a TSA agent fondling me.

      Eventually I stopped being permitted to even purchase plane tickets. Probably because someone with the same last name had been flagged as a terrreeerist.

    43. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      So there was one flight where an obese couple (fat people come in pairs) purchased three seats. The middle one was the "spill over" seat where their ass-fat-rolls would combined take 2/3rds the seat. And yes, the arms were raised to make room. Epic!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    44. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, the very LAST time I ever flew I was in the last row with the non-reclining seats. When the person in front of me went to full recline their seat back was literally an inch from my nose. Back then, leg room was better but still, I have NEVER flown since. I'll take a train or just not go.

    45. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace the word "tall" in what you said with "black" and suddenly what you said becomes incredibly offensive, and possibly illegal. I can't help how tall I am.

    46. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's when idiots push back against bullshit conditions that my understanding of the world falls into complete disarray."

      Seems you're bit of a simpleton, yeah. The comfort issue with airlines could almost literally be fixed over night, or at least a week or so. The planes are already designed to handle various seating layouts, add more planes, add more seats.

      OH BUT WAIT: These publicly subsidized business need to find even greater profits, no matter the human cost. And of course the economics then are ironclad. Folks should just ignore their biological constants and comply. Resistance then is futile.

    47. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Not all problems, it just causes fewer problems than any alternative.

    48. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by mysidia · · Score: 0

      It's when idiots use something like Knee Defender that the system falls apart.

      The existence of a button does not a convey the right to use it. The president likely has a "Nuke Russia" button, but felt no reason to push it in response to the Ukraine issue. Why do you think that is?

      The knee defender is also a product designed to solve a certain problem, that people with that problem have the right to buy and use.

      Namely: the tyranny of people on an airplane randomly smashing your knees or equipment by pushing their recline button spontaneously with no warning.

      And it does fine addressing the symptoms of the problem, But not the root cause...... greedy airlines do not provide passengers a reasonable amount of space.

      And they constantly force passengers into a situation where one person's comfort, health, and freedom of movement will be invaded upon, in favor of another passenger's increased comfort.

    49. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by mysidia · · Score: 0

      Your personal space ends at the seat in front of you, in whatever position that may be.

      In other words: you are part of the problem, because you've already taken the side of whoever's messing with the position of their seat, without regard to the well-being of whoever's being smashed by the seat just in front of them.

      If you restrict the backrest of the seat in front of you, you're violating the personal space of the passenger in front of you.

      You could equally say; your personal space ends at the chair at your but. If your backrest won't move b/c it is somehow restricted, and you are trying to force your backrest to join with the body of the person sitting behind you, then you are definitely violationg the personal space of the passenger behind you.

    50. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If that space was yours my seat wouldn't be able to recline into it.

      No... your seat has the mere technical ability to recline. There is no piece of paper you get when you get on the plane that tells you that you have a right or entitlement to recline it.

      The airlines simply have a standard seat, which has that capability to in some cases recline. They maintain the standard seat, even when they move them around.

      It may very well be that the seats have features that can no longer safely and appropriately be used anymore, due to the removal of space behind them, OR that can only be safely and appropriately used when a short or small passenger is sitting behind you.

    51. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by sconeu · · Score: 1

      When I worked for Litton all those years ago, the rules were:

      * Domestic -- you fly coach.
      * International -- you get Business class.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    52. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are not entitled to special accomodations just because you're tall.

      I don't want special accomodations. I want the same consideration that I have to show other people. For example, when I turn around, I have to check my blind spots (you know, down and behind) to make sure I don't elbow a short person in the head if they sneak right up my ass like they're trying to pickpocket me, like people often do in lines for no apparent reason. I also want the same consideration shown to me that is shown to other people. For example, I've been elbowed in the head by flight attendants who weren't looking behind them. They expect to not elbow short people in the head, but they don't expect to not elbow me in the head.

      Tall people tend to make significantly more money than short people. Use that money to buy bigger seats rather than asking the rest of the world to pay more for their seats to accomodate your needs.

      Well, I'm not making spectacular amounts of money, perhaps because I'm not lording my height over others. Indeed, it is an inconvenience more than it is anything else. It costs me money rather than making it for me. Manufacturers literally leave money on the table every year by making insufficient stock of clothing in my size, forcing me to either have clothing tailored (can't afford it without resorting to sending my measurements to asian sweatshops which pay poverty wages) or wear old clothes. If I were making more money than shorter people, I'd need that money to pay for the simple cost of being tall — having to choose between fuel economy and back pain, for example.

      It's a fact that American males are getting taller on average and it's also a fact that the airline seats are getting shorter. These two facts, when assembled, amount to nothing defensible. The idea that something isn't a real problem because it's not bothering you is also utterly indefensible. It's no different from racism. And indeed, because height is largely tied to genetic background, it may as well be racism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why should short people subsidise tall people?

      Why should we get stuff down off of high shelves for you? Or do any of the dangerous jobs that are typically foisted off onto tall people? Probably it's because if we don't kiss your collective asses you'll drag us down to your level and make us slouch. Better unloved than scoliosis. Motherfuckers get drunk and talk shit about "I could take you though, you know that right" but when people are actually about to get in a fight they look at me to break it up as if I knew thing one about fistfights except that they can hurt even when you do well. If you didn't feel so bad about yourself for being short, you could look behind you, and not recline the seat if there's no room — instead of taking out your infantile, jealous aggressions on someone who probably has already had to deal with a lot of shit from a lot of other syndrome-laden short guys by the time they get to you.

      Don't worry, though. I won't fly anytime I don't have to as long as this TSA testicle-groping security theater of sexual abuse is going on. So you're unlikely to have to fail your morality check on my account, anyway. Like I said, I bought a German touring car so that I don't have to fly. Then I bought a newer one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should dwarves subsidise short people? Height isn't a choice, dumbass.

    55. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a retarded post, turkey indeed.

    56. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, modded troll. Entitled-to-be-average Americans are hilarious.

    57. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... one day they'll all be billionaires.

    58. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by stinkyj · · Score: 1

      I am 6'3. I don't fly enough to justify ordering it, but if I did fly more, I would certainly buy the knee defender. I end up having to prop both my knees up into the chair and provide constant pressure to stop people from dropping their seat into my legs. If I know someone is behind me, I never recline my seat. I don't blame the passengers, I blame the airlines for making it so tight. I used to be able to get into the emergency exit row without a fuss. Now they want me to pay extra for the extra leg room?

    59. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Zynder · · Score: 1

      I was completely unaware about Knee Defender. THANK YOU, Ms. Streisand! I just bought 4 pairs!

    60. Re: cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      I pick my seat when booked, I check my seat after I book. I don't find the 5 minutes it takes to check-in online to be a bother at all. It reduces my stress as I then have my boarding pass, I've doubled checked my flight, my seat, my times. But the beautiful thing is online check-in is a choice. You are absolutely free to reduce your stress level by waiting until you get to the airport to check in and I'm free to continue to stress my life out by already being checked in before I arrive at the airport.

    61. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      I don't know any airlines that charge taller people more.

    62. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Every flight should have a super jumbo sized seat in case an 850lb man wants to buy a seat? Seriously? But they do have seating that fits 99.9% of the public. First/Business, economy plus and economy. Likewise if you don't fit in a Renault Twingo you are free to purchase a larger, more expensive Renault.

    63. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      You can't help how tall you are but that doesn't mean a car manufacturer needs to make sure that all their cars can be comfortably driven by someone who is 7' 10" tall. You can purchase a larger car if your height requires it, expect to pay more for it. Likewise, just because you are a really big guy with a really big appetite is no reason to demand that really big guys are entitled to a quadruple patty Big Mac for the price of a regular Big Mac. But you are free to buy two Big Macs and a premium airline seat at a premium price.

    64. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      We charge passengers for a seat. Seat 1A costs more than Seat 10A Seat 10A costs more than Seat 22B The 10oz bag of Doritos costs more than the 4oz. Even if you are big and need more food you'll still pay more for the 10oz bag of Doritos. Pick your seat, pay the posted price, same as everyone else.

    65. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Except obese people don't have to pay for two seats, as ruled by a Canadian court. The rest of your post is a series of non sequiturs, because there is choice in the same price range. I can buy shirts that fit me for the same price as a smaller person. The materials might be a bit cheaper, or the cut might not be as great, or it might not have a brand attached to it, but it'll fit me. I can do the same for cars, and for anything that's property. An airline ticket is a service, and there is NO choice. I can't decide to trade that second carry-on weighting 20 pounds that every person brings but that I don't. I can't decide to downgrade the seat's materials, or not to have food included, or to have to pay extra for every inch more that I want. I don't have an alternative.

      Also, your money comment is absurd. Tall people tend, on average, to make more money than shorter people, but that in no way means that I have a few thousands magically floating in my pockets. I generally have less money instead, because between the clothing, food, doctor visits (for back problems, neck problems, knee problems, you name it) and whatever else, my student money isn't going very far. But don't let that get in the way of a nice juicy overgeneralization.

    66. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      That sort of attitude will get your 30" seat pitch replaced by the relative spaciousness of a 5' x 10' jail cell. You have no personal space in an airline seat, you will be sitting shoulder to shoulder with someone, literally touching in most cases. If that bothers you, find another way to travel or move up to 1st class.

    67. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      If it can't be safely used the airline would be forced to disable it. They do so for seats in front of an exit row. For all other seats the recline function can be safely used. If you don't want someone reclining in front of you then choose on of the 12 economy seats on almost every 737+ class aircraft that doesn't have a reclining seat in front of it.

    68. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Having a trigger to fire your weapon conveys permission to use said button.

      Utter bullshit analogy. As is all games-based reasoning.

      Actually it's a good analogy.

      Having something does not grant explicit permission to do anything.

      My car can easily go over 200 KPH, that ability does not grant me permission to do so when and where I like.

      The whole excuse of "because I can" is utter bullshit used by inconsiderate people to justify their crappy behaviour.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    69. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty concerned that I got through half the comments before I read one that mentions a train.

    70. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why should I pay more for being taller?

      For the same reason a crippled person has to pay for a wheelchair, a genetic diabetic has to pay for insulin, someone missing a limb has to pay for prosthetic, and someone missing an eye has to pay for a glass eye.

      Either you pay for it, or you have to pass the cost on to everyone so everyone pays for it. One of those two happens depending on where you live, and there's no other options apart from hoping that a random benefactor will directly pay for it.

      Everyone has to pay for everything and that's pretty much how it's been since forever. TANSTAAFL and all that.

      Sorry that it sucks for you. As a shorter person, I hate paying to renovate a tall person's house. But I'm smart enough not to bitch about it in public and look like a total fool because I chose to move into one. If I were 3 feet tall, I'd have to renovate just about every single house in the world. Again, I'd look like a complete moron if I expected all houses to be modified to suit me at some magical $0 cost.

    71. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the problem, and the fact that you're getting the mod points you are frightens me.

      First, why, for example, should a 6'1" 170 lb person pay more than a 5'7" 200 lb person? Who's consuming more space and fuel? How much of a sliding are you proposing?

      Second, if you are going to strictly go by the space and fuel argument, then we're getting to the core of what I consider the problem. Airlines see us as cargo, not people. It costs $X per unit to transport these "humans" from A to B. Whip out the old sliding scale, find the lowest common denominator, and suddenly you have the algorithm for how airlines figure out the seating arrangements they're getting away with. Blood flow, comfort, general demeanor of all passengers on board be damned.

      Honestly, as someone over 6' I don't even mind the cramped leg room. It's annoying, but I deal with it. I only purchase E+ tickets just to make sure I don't miss my connecting flights. The extra $40 or whatever is worth the peace of mind.

      The point is, don't trot out the space and fuel argument just because someone's tall. It's a lazy and asinine comment at best.

    72. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by ralphius · · Score: 1

      I'm sure conditions on those ships were horrific, however first thing I notice on that diagram is how everyone is lying down with enough space that their knees do not need to be bent. Second thing I notice is the bunk-bed type arrangement allowing better use of the limited space.

      Perhaps airlines should take hints from overnight sleeper trains and turn most of the cabin into racks and racks of bunk beds? I'd be quite happy lying down if I had a TV\entertainment system in the bottom of the bunk above?

    73. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If it can't be safely used the airline would be forced to disable it. They do so for seats in front of an exit row.

      That's not true. They prevent it on seats where the airline KNOWs in advance it would be an issue or that they need to prevent it due to regulatory requirements.

      If you could recline at an exit row, then you are creating a safety hazard for everyone on the aircraft, not just a person behind you.

      For other seats; whether there is a safety issue or not, depends on the length of the legs of the passenger behind you.

      In most cases it would be safe and fine, and in some rarer cases it would not be safe at all.

      The airline has no way of knowing this in advance, so they are allowing the feature and leaving it up to the judgement of the passengers.

      If the passengers aren't mature enough to respect each other's health and ability to not have their knees busted, then perhaps they do actually need to stop assuming passengers have good judgement and just disable across the board.

    74. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Do you also bitch about being paid more because you are tall? Or is it just when it starts costing you?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    75. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, my kid flies half price. You win.

    76. Re:cram lots of people in a confined space by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it does kinda fit the discussion profile though, doesn't it? Take a commuter train for an extreme example: on the London Underground, you're fighting not to inhale other people's elbows, particularly at rush hour where the mere event of a door opening causes bodies to pile up on the platform. It's like that the entire length of the platform, back up the service escalators, out into the street. That's one reason I refuse to use the London Underground.

      The other reason is: 31 minutes delay and I would have been in the middle of the King's Cross fire of 1987.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  3. Today's business class is the 70s' economy class by ControlFreal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Judging by images like these, today's business class is pretty much what economy class used to be in the 70s. Some argue that flying has become too cheap. I beg to disagree: flying in a humane manner has not become cheaper, it's just that you'd have to book business class nowadays.

    --
    Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
  4. 5th Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in 5th Element they had the right idea. Drugs to knock you out and stored you in a coffin sized cabin.

    1. Re: 5th Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5th element cabins are more comfortable than today's cattle class.

  5. Last night by zakeria · · Score: 1

    was on a 737-800 for 4 hours, I'm only 5'10 and my knees had to be raised with feet off the floor just to fit in.. was the worst 4 hours of my life.

    1. Re:Last night by boaworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I travel frequently across the north sea, between Scandinavia and Iceland. This is a 3 hour flight I generally do in coach. A while ago i started thinking of the good old days, when the vikings travelled this distance as well. Lets compare

      Option 1: Longboat
      Duration: Several weeks
      Onboard meal service: Dried fish, mead, old water
      Comfort level: Cold, freezing, wet, damp, salty and sea sickness.
      Entertainment: Rowing!
      Restroom: "Overboard"
      Risks: Likely to die from sickness, fall overboard, freeze to death or get beaten up by a fellow traveller (everyone is armed!)
      On-time arrival: Not applicable

      Option 2: 757-200 in Coach
      Duration: 3 hours
      Onboard meal service: Light snacks and drinks complimentary. Warm dishes for purchase
      Comfort level: Leather seats, personal cooling available, good temperature.
      Entertainment: Loads of videos
      Restroom: Complimentary
      Risks: Extremely unlikely to plummet into the ocean. Unlikely to get beaten up by a fellow traveller (noone is armed)
      On-time arrival: 90%+. Sporadic 1 day delays due to Eyjafjallajökull

      I thought of this for a moment, then sat down and enjoyed my private leather seat and in-flight entertainment in "coach".

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    2. Re:Last night by CaseCrash · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sporadic 1 day delays due to Eyjafjallajökull

      Ha! Iceland... I had to google that name just to make sure your cat didn't walk on the keyboard...

      --
      No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
    3. Re:Last night by Tyr07 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're using the it used to be worse arguments?

      Okay. Once upon a time there used to be entire empires that used slaves.
      You couldn't own anything, had no money, you were a slave.

      You are no longer allowed to complain about who is in power, your taxes, your living conditions, your wages, cost of living,
      traffic, or anything else you can think of.

      Today people still starve and die from thirst / hunger. So if you have food and water, you no longer need any other rights as it's better than what it could be.

      No? Maybe people have a right to complain about seating, and receive better options.

    4. Re:Last night by qbast · · Score: 1

      I bet they choose names like this just to troll foreigners.

    5. Re:Last night by GNious · · Score: 1

      I think there's a ferry you could take... More service, luxury etc compared to the flights, shorter travel-time than the longboatds.

    6. Re:Last night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Risks: Extremely unlikely to plummet into the ocean. Unlikely to get beaten up by a fellow traveller (noone SHOULD BE is armed)

    7. Re:Last night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you've made your point. Now I'm making mine.

      First, doesn't it make sense that we might have improved travel circumstances in the intervening time? It has literally been a millenia since the days of the Vikings. No one travels that way anymore. Not the Finns, not the Swedes, not the Norwegians, nor anyone else. You have to be a privileged adventurer with time and resources to even contemplate such travel.

      These days even slow, old, out of fashion trans-Atlantic shipboard travel has you in a warm bunk, 3 square meals daily, clean sheets and fresh air. The big hazards are seasickness and a bout of flu on board.

    8. Re:Last night by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The volcano's name is "Jack," and that's what everyone there refers to it as. But any foreigners are told Eyjafjallajökull. Usually while the Icelander is trying not to burst out laughing.

  6. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    we mandate, by law, that for X amount of linear space, no more than Y amount of seats are allowed? I'm thinking 36 inches per chair, or rather, no more than 12 seats for every 36 feet of linear space, with seats equally spaced apart. The same goes for chair width.

    Sure, it'd cost more, but this would provide a level playing field among the airlines.

    1. Re:How about... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably reasonable. The problem is the first time you fly with an airline you have no idea how crammed they are versus the competition. Add to that they keep changing the configuration of the planes and you have no idea. I flew recently to Prague on Air Transit. On the way there the most comfortable I've flown yet other than when in an emergency aisle (and in a way better since the seat in front was close enough that I had access to a usb charger). On the way back: cramped as hell with about 20 3 yr olds in the surrounding 5 rows front and back. Same airline and route 1 week apart. You never know what you are getting for your $1000 and that isn't right.

    2. Re: How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody commie!!! /sarcasm.

    3. Re:How about... by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      You already have the choice of seats with more space on most airlines. Almost all the majors offer seats with more legroom for a price in economy. It then becomes your choice to either save money or stretch out more. I'm not sure why you demand a "level playing field", the playing field offers choices. You can choose which airline to fly based on many factors, including seat comfort.

    4. Re:How about... by dukeblue219 · · Score: 2

      You can always lookup your flight on one of the seat rating sites ahead of time (try SeatGuru for example). You'll get a map of which seats to avoid, and data on the seat width and pitch for each airliner. You shouldn't have to "not know" what you're getting for your money if you just do 5 minutes of research.

      --
      -Ted http://www.freemathhelp.com/
    5. Re:How about... by v1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll forgo my mod pts today to make a comment on this I've been wanting to say.

      The problem is the first time you fly with an airline you have no idea how crammed they are versus the competition.

      What they really ought to be mandated to do is provide physical examples of their seating and storage at the terminal. No more of this guesswork as to what's going to fit in the bin, what's going to fit under the seat, whether or not SirEatsAlot can squeeze into a cattle class seat without "spilling over". No questions as to whether or not my knees can clear the seat in front of me. Seats shown with seat in front in reclining position with a "this is what your fellow passenger is allowed to do to you" sign.

      This is mainly an issue of not being able to see the product before paying for it and only after your purchase is non-returnable. This ought to already be illegal. You ought to be able to sit down in a demo seat at the terminal, get out your laptop, realize there is NO space to use it, say "screw that!", get a refund, and get up and walk to the terminal across the way and rebook on another airline.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    6. Re:How about... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you have to use a third-party service to find a basic description of the product you are buying, the market has failed.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    7. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already have the choice of seats with more space on most airlines.

      That's within an airline. You still can't compare between airlines without using special third-party sites which were set up precisely because you can't compare between airlines without it.

      And even within an airline, they don't tell you what kind of seat you are really getting when you upgrade. A local airline has as much as four inches difference in seat pitch (and an inch in width) between seats of the same class, depending which model aircraft they are flying on a route. Worse, even if you use a third party site to check your seat, and purchase on that basis, you have to keep watching that third party site to make sure the airline doesn't swap aircraft on different routes, because what you've paid for doesn't guarantee a minimum. (And, as others have said, as little as a single inch difference in seat pitch can radically change the comfort levels of a trip.)

    8. Re:How about... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You can always lookup your flight on one of the seat rating sites ahead of time (try SeatGuru for example). You'll get a map of which seats to avoid, and data on the seat width and pitch for each airliner. You shouldn't have to "not know" what you're getting for your money if you just do 5 minutes of research.

      SeatGuru cant tell me whether a gaggle of 6 yr olds will be placed around me.

      You can only pick up so much from seat plans and online reviews. Years of flying experience has taught me a few things (I.E. avoid bulkhead seats, that's where kids go) but even that isn't perfect and I still get horror flights.

      The biggest tip I can offer for non-frequent fliers is not to be a cunt. Everyone is in the same situation, so if the person behind asks nicely for you not to recline maybe it would be a good thing if you didn't. If you feel civil enough, you might even be able to negotiate with the person behind you and meet half way. I'm continually surprised by people who go into full retard mode the minute they get near an aeroplane and start "enforcing their rights" whatever they think they are, on everyone else.

      The last thing you want to do on an aircraft is piss off the person behind you because it brings out the worst passive aggressive behaviour (and a lot of ordinarily rational people will go into "I lose, you lose" mode when pushed) and they've got the entire flight to make your life miserable.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just an easy way to do it. aa.com has on one page the specs for all their aircraft, including pitch which is the distance between seats.

    10. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USB charger? I don't fly a lot (once or twice a year for the last 15 years, all in the U.S.), but I've never seen any sort of electricity available to passengers on a plane.

    11. Re:How about... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Yep right next the in seat TV there was a USB port. I've seen it on about half the flights I've been on over the last couple years. Though I'm usually flying transatlantic so perhaps it is only bigger planes or longer flights that they bother to provide it. Pretty sweet when they have them tough: you arrive at your destination and your gadgets are all still fully charged. No: I need to go to the hotel for a couple hours to get my phone/tablet charged again.

    12. Re:How about... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No more of this guesswork as to what's going to fit in the bin, what's going to fit under the seat

      Every time I've flown in the last several years they've had, at the check-in line, steel-grate boxes that you can put carry-ons in to see if your carry-on is of allowable (fits) size.

  7. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by boaworm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well put. Prices have gone down drastically because of a number of factors.
    * Less space per pax
    * Better aircraft and engine
    * Better utilization of aircraft
    * Reduced service (drinks+meals moved to paid ancillaries)

    Todays "coach" class really is no more than a bus. If you want comfort, upgrade. Else, suffer in silence :-)

    --
    Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
    Aristotele
  8. cram lots of people in a confined space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personal space sounds very Americanæ was back in the US last week and someone apologized for walking within a meter of me. I didn't understand.

  9. Everybody at fault, easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're an asshole if you must "recline" on an economy ticket, knowing full well that you take away even more space from the person behind. You're a passive aggressive bitch if you buy an economy ticket and bring a special device to prevent the person in front of you from reclining. You're a penny-pinching capitalist pig if you squeeze in one more row of passengers without making sure that everybody is still getting an acceptable ride, for example by using seats that don't recline.

  10. Fly Less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They forget that as they do this, people enjoy the experience of flying less, and then slowly but surely AVOID flying unless absolutely necessary. Radiation fixes and molestation by airport security caused me to STOP flying in my heading south for the winter. I drive instead, it taks 36 hours of driving vs 4 hrs of driving and 6 in a plane, and costs me nearly twice as much, but it's still worth it(to me).

    To bad theres no 'group think' a little mass avoidance of flying and you watch every seat turn into first class pretty quick(and security go back to 1960's levels).

  11. The seats get smaller, while the average person by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    gets both larger, (higher BMI, greater average height), and older, (aging population). Something's gotta give.

    I know! How about some shareholders agreeing to make slightly less profit on their investments in order to increase comfort and safety for many millions of people? And how about the food industry agreeing to dial it down on the addictive, fattenning foods they make and push?

    Nah, silly idea - forget I said it. What was I thinking?

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      How about some shareholders agreeing to make slightly less profit on their investments

      Airlines are already notoriously bad investments.

    2. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      How about some shareholders agreeing to make slightly less profit on their investments

      Airlines are already notoriously bad investments.

      Delta's stock price has increased 400% since 2009. That's 5 years. Still sure about "notoriously bad investment"?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Why don't you simply choose a seat that offers more legroom if that is important to YOU? Others prefer to save some money. Given that airlines regularly go bankrupt it doesn't seem that their shareholders have a tradition of being over compensated for their investment.

    4. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Why is it we charge people for extra leg room but we don't charge people for the right to recline? Reclining is more of a pain to the person behind you then not reclining is to the person in front. And simply many airline seats are just really too small to allow people to recline, so why not reverse it that if you need an extra 5 degrees declination (I certainly don't) then you have to pay for it?

      Plus, the extra seat room isn't just a few extra bucks, but it can be + 50% or more of your ticket price. Which doesn't make sense because these seats don't take up an extra 50% profile. I'm taking up max +20% more space, and I don't bring on more weight (e.g. baggage) so the extra cost does not make sense.

    5. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 1

      So has (roughly) the rest of the stockmarket (from march 2009 til now)

    6. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      If only stockholders and directors were forced to eat their own dog food (and not first class either), you'd see changes happen overnight.

    7. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the (roughly) entire stock market has been nothing but "notoriously bad investment"?

    8. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      gets both larger, (higher BMI, greater average height), and older, (aging population). Something's gotta give.

      Maybe ?

    9. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by rnswebx · · Score: 1

      The market has not increased 400% since 2009. Yes, the market has performed remarkably well since March 2009, but it's only increased a bit more than 200%. (dow jones 3/27/2009 - 7776, 9/7/2014 - 17137)

      Investing in DAL (Delta Airlines) five years ago would net you about a 430% return. In case you're wondering, UAL (United Airlines) is more than 700% and LUV (Southwest) is about 280%.

    10. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      If there was a business model for charging people for the ability to recline I'm certain the airlines would do so. Economy Plus/Choice/Whatever seating makes business sense. You confuse the airline pricing model with having some correlation of price to pitch. The price for a seat can vary widely even in the same cabin class. The person next to you could have paid 1/2 what you paid or twice as much. Most Economy Plus seats are used as an incentive to keep an airline's most frequent travelers loyal to that airline. If you don't want to pay for the extra legroom than simply don't pay and recognize that you don't think the extra legroom isn't worth the price but others do.

    11. Re:The seats get smaller, while the average person by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Other than prisoners being transported and perhaps children I'm not aware of anyone who is forced to travel by air or sit in a standard pitch economy seat. If you don't like eating dog food, you can pay up better food.

  12. Make a day out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a website and do an organized day out of freaking out over leg room.

    The only way to make companies price items according to their actual value, is to make it clear that they will lose *a lot* more money from mispricing than they will from undercutting each other at the expense of the customer.

  13. This happened to me by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

    I was on a transoceanic flight, and the lady behind me kept knocking her knees into my chair. I looked behind me, and she's not only like 6'2", but she has her knees directly in front of her so as to present the greatest obstacle possible. No, can't put your knees in any other position, that would be too easy. We have to recline our seat while preventing the person in front of us from doing the same with his. I repeat: this lady had her knees out in front of her in the most obstructive possible position when she could have chosen to put them any other way. She knew damn well she was hitting the back of my chair.

    It's people problem. Inconsiderate assholes who can't put themselves in other peoples' shoes - and get really self-righteous about it.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:This happened to me by rknop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And how, exactly, is she supposed to put her knees in any other position? The seats are not very wide. Unless she has an empty seat next to her (and, frankly, that's about the only way I can stand to fly any more), if she tries to bend her legs so that her knees aren't right in front of her, parts of them are going to be spilling over into and annoying the person next to her, or sticking out into the aisle and getting run over by the carts that the flight attendants drive trhough trying to get people to buy stupid duty free stuff.

      The problem is not inconsiderate assholes. The problem is that 6'2" people are stuck in plane seats that they simply don't fit in. The problem is that airlines have designed coach seats to work for the bottom 30% of the population in terms of size, and are trying to squeeze the entire population into it. Something somewhere's gotta give. The person in back can blame the person in front for reclining their seat (as we've seen in this thread), or the person in front can blame the person in back for having knees (as we've seen in this thread), but *somebody* is going to be unhappy, because the situation is set up so that somebody has to be.

      The problem is coach seating. It's just become too small.

    2. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gall! Wanting her legs to be in front her while sitting! What have people come to!

    3. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. Pull knees up to chest. Problem solved.

    4. Re:This happened to me by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You don't stick them out in front of you so they hit the seat in front of you. You extend your legs so they're as long as possible and tuck them under the seat. Works like a charm, I do it all the time - because I don't want to piss other people off.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol shut the fuck up, bitch

    6. Re:This happened to me by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      If I have to pull my knees up to my chest (which hurts on a long haul flight) maybe we can bind your knees to your chest as well?

    7. Re:This happened to me by kevmeister · · Score: 2

      Last year on a flight from Hawaii to the US I was told by the flight attendant that I was too tall (6'2") to fly coach and that if I was in coach on another of her flight, I would be removed. She said that the woman in front of me had the absolute right to recline all the way and that it was up to me to adjust myself to a position where she could do so.If my legs were too long, that was my problem.

      It was rather annoying to be chastised for being too tall (I'm hardly a giant) when I have had to share a quarter of my rather narrow seat with an obese person (where I was chastised for not understanding that passengers of size must be accommodated. Guess people over 6' tall need to start a group to get recognized as protected group so we get priority over the lean-back crew.

      Oh, and after she could not lean back all the way, even with my legs twisted over to the side in very uncomfortable position, the attendant took pity on me and moved the lady in front of me to first class, but then reminded me that she had better not see me in coach again. (She won't. I'll never fly United again.)

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    8. Re:This happened to me by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wait, that's physically possible?

      If I lift my arse off the seat to create an optimal angle I can sometimes manage it but seat in front leaves large dents in my shins.

      So yes, my knees will be like that woman's - sticking straight out in front, when I can put one leg into the aisle.

    9. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 30% figure seemed rather low to me. I haven't found a good source of data on this, but we can make some projections if we're willing to stipulate that one must fall under simple height & weight thresholds to fit comfortably in an airline seat. (Height affects your need for legroom; weight [BMI] affects your need for seat-width.)

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hxj532K3BvCaMFcNZ-frDcgbbQlhtxKzAKEo3erKjCo/edit?usp=sharing

      The 30% figure seems to hold if you assume that weight (BMI) is the key driver -- and that only people in the "=normal/healthy" weight-class can fit comfortably in an airline seat. I'm skeptical of that assumption -- "overweight" (but not obese) is a big range, and it accounts for a huge swath of the US population, and anecdotally (when I was at the high-end of "overweight") I was "snug" but not really uncomfortable in an airline seat. (Now-a-days I have 1-2in wiggleroom in each direction. It's hard to sleep or work on a laptop but OK for sitting.)

      If we make assumptions that are favorable to the airlines, the best I can imagine is that 60% fit in their seats comfortably. That's still not good enough for a service that's sold to the general public without transparency or negotiability or refundability.

    10. Re:This happened to me by jittles · · Score: 1

      And how, exactly, is she supposed to put her knees in any other position? The seats are not very wide. Unless she has an empty seat next to her (and, frankly, that's about the only way I can stand to fly any more), if she tries to bend her legs so that her knees aren't right in front of her, parts of them are going to be spilling over into and annoying the person next to her, or sticking out into the aisle and getting run over by the carts that the flight attendants drive trhough trying to get people to buy stupid duty free stuff.

      The problem is not inconsiderate assholes. The problem is that 6'2" people are stuck in plane seats that they simply don't fit in. The problem is that airlines have designed coach seats to work for the bottom 30% of the population in terms of size, and are trying to squeeze the entire population into it. Something somewhere's gotta give. The person in back can blame the person in front for reclining their seat (as we've seen in this thread), or the person in front can blame the person in back for having knees (as we've seen in this thread), but *somebody* is going to be unhappy, because the situation is set up so that somebody has to be.

      The problem is coach seating. It's just become too small.

      I may be tall, but I've decided to just roll with people sitting on my lap during flights. I now offer in flight massage services to the person in the seat in front of me, when they recline back on top of me. They get a happy ending, I get a huge tip, and everyone wins!

    11. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inconsiderate assholes who can't put themselves in other peoples' shoes - and get really self-righteous about it.

      Oh irony.

    12. Re:This happened to me by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

      If someone does that to me, they are going to feel my knees moving the whole flight.

      I'm not sure why you even listened to that flight attendant. Next time I would just ask for her name, write it down, then put in my headphones while she blathered on and record what happened on my cell phone for what would surely be a hilarious youtube video.

    13. Re:This happened to me by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      The flight attendant was absolutely right. Do tall and wide people pay extra to buy clothes at the Big and Tall shop? Yep. Do fat people pay extra for more food? Yep. Cough up the $$$ next time you fly. But I do agree, you never should have had to share your seat with a fat person. Put the armrest down and tell her to pick up her rolls.

    14. Re:This happened to me by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      It's not realistic to expect someone to maintain that singular position for the entire trip.

    15. Re:This happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, your definition of "you're too tall, you need to pay more" is six feet tall? Less than two inches over the average US male height, and all of a sudden the seats on airliners aren't *supposed* to fit you? You have a warped view of entitlement. Or maybe you're just short and think everyone else should be, too.

      The Big and Tall shop is not a fair comparison. It's for people significantly taller, and a much smaller percentage of the population, than just 6'0".

  14. Re:my solution is the gym by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love how you put this into a "win/loss" context instead of finding a solution that everyone can live with. I especially like the part where you take great delight in causing pain to another human being. You're the problem here.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  15. Re: by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

    I don't say this often, but we need some regulation here. All airplane seats should have enough legroom to accomondate an 185 cm person, with the front seat reclined. This would prevent airliners from putting seats that recline too much (what kind of stupid engineers design economy class seats that recline so much anyway?) PS: So many thanks for tiping me on Knee Defender! I am only 177 cm, but have trouble when inconsiderate people in front of me recline the seat all the way.

  16. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're the jackass, your knees aren't into the seat in front of you becaue your 6'3'', they're into the seat because your're sitting on your back instead of sitting on your ass. Enjoy your back pain for not sitting correctly.

  17. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you enjoy riding the bus, because you're going to on the no fly list after you get into a fight with someone that got a sore back from you for trying to gain 1% more comfort by reclining.

  18. Re:my solution is the gym by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When a dude tries slamming their sit into my knees I press back. I'm 240lb 6'3" and a muscular frame. I win more times than not and the jackass in front of me gets a sore back for their troubles.

    That's the real problem. It's gone from both sides being reasonable to having to "win." Personally, I'd be happy if airlines made seats non-reclinable since the few degrees you get is pretty much useless; until that happens I think you'll see more incidents of air rage. I'm amazed at the number of assholes I see on flights who start arguments over really petty things. If someone can't check their ego and or anger for a few hours while on a plane they really should seek professional help and stop flying' it would make it a lot more pleasant for those of us who just want to get to our destination with no drama or unexpected contact with the ground.

    The next area of dispute may well start to be armrests given the small width of seats and the increasing size of the flying public. Having someone take an inch or two of your seat is as bad as losing the knee room.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  19. Lets use Anthropo-sedatives instead .. by golodh · · Score: 1
    I'm just waiting for a response to your suggestion from one of the more cost-cutting carries along the following lines: "Dear Daniel Ravennest, having studied you proposal with the utmost attention, we failed to note any innovative elements in it.

    We would like to point out that your suggestion has already been implemented in the form of business class or first class travel.

    Rather than complicating matters by offering a more heterogeneous product palette, we are currently researching a range of options which we consider to be both more realistic and more closely aligned with our mission and our strategic objectives.

    One such programme, which we propose to field-test within the next three months, consists of administering sedatives and muscle relaxants (provided free of charge during the initial testing phase) to all economy passengers around 30 minutes before boarding. This courtesy relaxant will be individually dosed to wear off within hours of touchdown.

    We believe that this will both eliminate disorderly conduct, increase security, reduce catering demands, and prevent injuries on the flight."

    1. Re:Lets use Anthropo-sedatives instead .. by X0563511 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Honestly, the idea of passing out and waking up at the destination would be appealing (to me anyway).

      The idea of "trained" airline staff administering custom dosages of sedatives powerful enough to put someone out is, however, not.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Lets use Anthropo-sedatives instead .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just reduce the cabin pressure so everyone passes out. Problem solved.

    3. Re:Lets use Anthropo-sedatives instead .. by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "Honestly, the idea of passing out and waking up at the destination would be appealing (to me anyway)."

      I am sure its possible, but you'll have to pay extra for the drinks

      Of course there is the risk that if the plane does have an emergency you are less likely to be one of the survivors.

    4. Re:Lets use Anthropo-sedatives instead .. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      If the plane has an emergency in any place that's not "on the ground and stationary" your chances of being a survivor are pretty much zero anyway.

      But if we went with the Fifth Element approach, you could design planes which could eject their passengers in parachuting buoyant pods or something.

  20. Wait a minute, a few years ago I recall and AA by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    ad campaign in which they bragged about refitting their planes with more leg room because "they care about their passengers" implying that the other airlines didn't. At that time I was wondering why, if they care about passengers so much, did they put the seats so close together in the first place. Now they're taking the room out again, demonstrating once again exactly how much they care about their passengers.

    This is a great example of how the free-market solves problems. Now that people are complaining, some small airline is going to start providing more leg room and the other will have to follow suit. Once they've all provided reasonable space, they'll start taking it away again. It is a repeating cycle and I believe we are near the bottom of this one.

    What is really needed is for the feds to regulate the minimum space allowed per passenger so the airlines can't cram us in like the hold of a slave ship.

    1. Re:Wait a minute, a few years ago I recall and AA by quetwo · · Score: 5, Informative

      They ran that ad because they realized that if they could get rid of one row of seats, they could drop one of their stewardess, and save money that way.

      Since that time, the FAA changed the rules on the number of people per crew member, so they lost their incentive to drop the extra row.

    2. Re:Wait a minute, a few years ago I recall and AA by rockmuelle · · Score: 1

      And that is how our current implementation of the free market actually works. No business action is made for the customer's benefit. It's always about making one more dollar off a captive customer base and pretending you're doing them a favor. America needs to return to stakeholder capitalism rather than the current shareholder model (yes, there actually are different models for market-based economies).

    3. Re:Wait a minute, a few years ago I recall and AA by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      cram us in like the hold of a slave ship

      I was waiting for one of the theme parks to have a ride like this one. Guess this will have to do!

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    4. Re:Wait a minute, a few years ago I recall and AA by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      When the FAA regulates seat pitch then airline prices go up. What is really needed is for you to recognize that the free market already provides you with the choice of a seat with greater seat pitch. If you want more leg room, pay for it. If you are satisfied with the legroom of a standard seat, you don't have to pay the higher price.

    5. Re:Wait a minute, a few years ago I recall and AA by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      So I should pay 3-5X for a ticket so I can get a few more inches of leg room?
      So the majority of seats on a plane are intended for children and dwarves? Ah! I see!

      Yes, the free market solves ALL problems!

  21. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That was an advertising photo. You don't think it bore any relationship to reality, do you? Look at airline ads these days. Full of happy, smiling passengers. When was the last time you saw anyone smiling on a plane?

  22. Enough with the reclining already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reclining in modern airplane seats does not give you much more comfort. It just gives proportionally more discomfort to the person behind. Assuming the person behind is not too tall to have limited knee space, or is eating, or reading or is in the last row that does not recline, THEN he could sort of balance that discomfort by reclining his own seat, transferring the "problem" to the person behind him.
    You see where I am going, for a marginal (I would say mostly imaginary") benefit that reclining offers to some passengers there will ALWAYS be at least a few other people made disproportionally uncomfortable. And this is only worsened by the fact that you can't count on people following basic etiquette - there are idiots who recline even when you are eating.
    The only solution is to remove the reclining mechanism. It's a placebo anyway, I mean when you recline you don't say "aahh now I'm so comfortable", while when the person in front of you reclines you say "oh, shit" or "ouch my knees". So get rid of it, it only causes passengers to get angry with each other. Tall passengers won't fit in your economy knee space but at least with no reclining you can tell them there is X space available in economy, instead of X* space (*depending on the mood of the person in front of you), and they can figure out if they should go business etc.

    1. Re:Enough with the reclining already. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Fully upright seats are designed with evacuation in mind, not comfort. That's why you are asked to raise them during take off and landing (the two riskiest times for aircraft.) It's the reason airlines haven't just bitten the bullet and installed horizontally stacked bunks.

      The semi-reclined position is intended for the bulk of the flight. "Fully" reclined for the bulk of the flight during night flights. Basically, we're all supposed to recline our seats back as soon as the "fasten seatbelt" sign is turned off.

      So it seems to me that all seats should raise automatically during take-off/landing/turbulence/emergencies, then lower automatically to a fixed recline during flight. All at the same time, all at the same angle. It wouldn't solve all the problems caused by shrinking seat spacing, but it would at least solve the recline-vs-non-recline disputes. But this would require more hardware per seat, hence more mass, hence won't happen.

      Alternatively, accept the added risk and make all seats at 10 or 15 degrees further reclined than the current "full upright". Then lock the seats. By removing the variable recline, you should be able to make seats as a single shell, which should allow you to save mass.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  23. so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at what point does the FAA need to step in and regulate seat spacing?
    i'm thinking right about now would be good.

  24. Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

    And to make room for a first-class cabin with lie-flat beds on transcontinental flights, JetBlue cut the distance between coach seats by one inch.

    Has actual real-world consequences? Tsk, tsk.. The rich can lay sprawled out in their lay-flat beds while the plebs snarl at one another while standing ankle-deep in their own feces. We're back to the good old days of the Titanic.

    1. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The rich can lay sprawled out in their lay-flat beds while the plebs snarl at one another while standing ankle-deep in their own feces. We're back to the good old days of the Titanic.

      Which would be an interesting observation if it wasn't pure nonsense. Flying anywhere, no matter how briefly uncomfortable, is a huge luxury. If you want to fly first class, put the money aside and do it. If you don't want to spend that much money, quit bitching at people who do. If you can buy any sort of airline ticket, you're the wealthy one by any measure that matters.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

      Pfft, ok, got it. Be unable to afford a $200 ticket or accept that you "live in luxury." In today's world where, even as a welder, you may well have to move states to find work, flying is as much a luxury as is having an auto.

    3. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not rich but I always fly at least business class or first when I fly longhaul. How? Easy - take advantage of Clubcard points here in the UK and you too can fly first for the price of economy!

    4. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can get airline tickets in Europe for under $100. That's often equal to or less than a bus or a train, and yet European flights are generally a bit better than American flights despite the latter costing more for similar distances. You're oversimplifying the matter.

    5. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      flying is as much a luxury as is having an auto

      Right, exactly. Another thing that most people in the world don't have.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by PPH · · Score: 1

      take advantage of Clubcard points

      On a business flight? When you fly on a companies dime, quite often they take the points. And our IRS has backed them up on this. A company I used to work for used their own travel agency to arrange flights and hotel rooms. You could have the bank account of Bill gates and offer to upgrade yourself out of your own pocket. But that was against company policy.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by GNious · · Score: 1

      Well, if the comfort for the luxury-class up front comes at an increase in flights being diverted or returning to the departure airport .... I'm thinking the people up front would be willing to yield a few inches to ensure the flight gets to its destination.

    8. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is anecdotal and unlikely to help the conversation at all, but it was an interesting moment for me, so I'll share. I'm a student, so flying, as you say, is a luxury for me. I was able to snag scholarships for a study abroad, so I was able to fly over to Rome for a while, flying coach because, hey, luxury. On the way back, due to what could only be divine intervention, I was upgraded to business class on a 9 hour flight. This was because my transfer was delayed due to airport traffic, and they had given away my seat. There were no more seats in economy, and there were a ton of open seats in business. Maybe about 10 of us for 40 seats. So I settled in, watched the inflight movies offered. After finishing Elysium, a movie about class warfare and the wealth gap, I get up to use the restroom, which is behind me, in coach. I step through that curtain, and I see nothing but blank faces, packed uncomfortably together, staring at glowing screens about 12 inches away. My mind did make the connection there.

      So what is my point here? I don't quite have one fleshed out, but let me talk it out and see if one comes. Yes, if you can fly, it is a luxury. Yes, you can pay for better accommodations, no one's stopping you. But that's an asshole approach. Just because you can treat people like cattle doesn't mean you should. Yes, we buy the cheapest option when we can, so there is a race for a bottom line, but there's rarely the option to upgrade for human comfort levels at a reasonable price. I also, personally, don't like the idea that just because I can pay someone for literally nothing more than livable space, that I should be able to buy my way out of discomfort of the people behind me. they aren't any less human, and I wouldn't want to be there. I wish I had the option to fly on airlines that had slightly higher ticket prices across the board, and human centered design. Right now, it's becoming more and more like cattle, shoved into cars. The fact that I would gladly be tranquilized and put into a coffin like box that is stacked for the flight over sitting in those seats is a bad sign.

    9. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      flying is as much a luxury as is having an auto.

      The sense of entitlement is strong in this one

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would be an interesting observation if it wasn't pure nonsense. Flying anywhere, no matter how briefly uncomfortable, is a huge luxury. If you want to fly first class, put the money aside and do it. If you don't want to spend that much money, quit bitching at people who do. If you can buy any sort of airline ticket, you're the wealthy one by any measure that matters.

      Guess what was a huge luxury in 1912? Travelling by passenger liner.

    11. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      flying is as much a luxury as is having an auto

      Right, exactly. Another thing that most people in the world don't have.

      Damn straight.

      I drive a manual and they can take my clutch from under my cold, dead foot.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      When have the rich, or to be more accurate the more affluent, NOT been able to purchase a premium product whether it be on an airplane, a boat or a train? Why does that dismay you so much?

    13. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      How many tickets must be sold to satisfy the CEO's paycheck alone? Much less the other executives...

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    14. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How many tickets must be sold to satisfy the CEO's paycheck alone? Much less the other executives...

      You're right! There should be no CEO. The company doesn't need a chief executive. In fact, all airlines should be run by the government so that the company no longer needs to figure out how to attract investment, make marketing deals, strategize about how to pay for fuel a year from now, or negotiate over routes and hub services. There's no reason that any of that can't be done by a typical bureaucrat who has no personal vested interest in making such decisions as financially efficient as possible. Also, people who've spent money to buy shares in airlines should have to give that up, and taxpayers should be stuck with all of that as the decisions made by a randomly chosen mid-level federal employee begin to immediately lose billions more dollars. It's OK, we'll just borrow it from our grandchildren!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Are you comparing flights with 2 or 3 weeks advance notice? Are you also comparing state owned airlines with privately owned ones?

    16. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You're right! There should be no CEO. The company doesn't need a chief executive. ,,,

      Over the years, I have read many of your comments and assumed that you were an intelligent and relatively emotionally balanced person. Your reply is leaving me in doubt about that now.

      Why would you assume my question meant that there should be no CEO at all? Such hyperbole should be beneath you. My original question to you asked you how many tickets needed to be sold to pay executive salary. The question was meant to engender thought about how much exactly a CEO is being paid. In this example:

      http://news.yahoo.com/united-a...

      So he was paid about 7 million in cash and stands to earn another 7 million if he meets targets. Assuming $500 a ticket, that is 14,000 tickets that must be sold in order to pay the cash he has already received.

      Let's look at it in comparison to average employee salary. Let's assume the median wage is $50k a year for all non-executive employees. I know that is high, but it makes it easier to analyze take home pay. That comes out to 140 employees yearly pay before taxes that he has received.

      That seems high but compared to say a star basketball or football player, it is not so bad; however, that comparison can not truly be useful.

      I guess the real question should be: Why is an enterprise that is losing 440 million dollars every 3 months paying the top person 7 million dollars compensation? It appears to be unsustainable. There is SEVERE downward pressure on all salaries for the line employees so why is there so much upward pressure for the executives? I do not see the value that they are adding.

      Surely, the job of CEO of United is hard and very few people can do it, but it still seems like he is being compensated more than he is worth.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    17. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C-level execs aren't compensated as a reward for the work they've done, but rather as insurance against the damage they could do.

    18. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Why would you assume my question meant that there should be no CEO at all?

      Because when someone trots out any eye-rolling reference to how many burgers, or airline seats, or theater tickets have to be sold to pay the chief executive a company's board of directors deliberately hired to do a specific job, it usually means that someone disapproves of the kind of money that changed hands to make that happen. That complaint is usually made in the context of a larger, rambling complaint about any or all of for-profit entities in the first place, or a company's liberty to hire who they want at whatever price they see fit to pay for executives, or the very existence of incorporated businesses, etc.

      Complaining about how many widget sales are required to pay for a CEO or CTO or CFO has become shorthand for complaining that they exist at all, and how it would be better if the company was managed by somebody that's a peer of the entry-level employees, or maybe their immediate management. That fantasy and variations on it is pure nonsense.

      The minute that someone cites the CEO's pay when complaining about the nature or price of a delivered retail product or service is the moment that you can be sure they don't know what's involved in keeping a gigantic company funded and running. That complaint needs its own equivalent of Godwin's law, because it's always apparent where the sentiment originates - and it's usually based on the premise that people who own companies (whether privately held or publicly traded and thus owned by investors) shouldn't be allowed to decide what they are willing to pay for the things they need to buy as they run their business. They pay vendors for products and supplies, they pay contractors to maintain facilities, they pay workers at every level to do a whole spectrum of things, and they seek out and hire officer-level people to deal with big-issue stuff. They choose those people from a limited range of choices, and stake enormous parts of the company's future on how those choices will turn out. And they throw money at the problem to open up more options and, with much of that pay being tied to performance, to make sure the executives have a vested interest in meeting the owners goals.

      Dismissing what that costs as being too much misses the larger picture.

      Why is an enterprise that is losing 440 million dollars every 3 months paying the top person 7 million dollars compensation? It appears to be unsustainable.

      They pay that money to retain the services of someone that they judge will help make sure that those losses aren't ever bigger, and that they'll be reversed, at least in part due to that person's efforts - whether it's in overseeing M&A or more investment, or branding exercises, or housecleaning that can impact the long term viability of the business. It can take years to make that work. If the company's owners want to gamble the current $7m against a future they expect will turn around in the hundreds of millions, why isn't that their decision to make?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re:Oh dear, the widening wealth gap.. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Hm. All valid points. Something is wrong since I can fly in other countries and have more service from airlines making more profit all while charging me less and harassing me less at the airport. WTF? I do not know. A 7 million dollar a year salary can not be helping the situation but it surely is not the main problem.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  25. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how you put this into a "win/loss" context instead of finding a solution that everyone can live with. I especially like the part where you take great delight in causing pain to another human being. You're the problem here.

    I think he may be onto something. I fully expect my best friend to stand over my dead body or ashes one day and proclaim he won. I'd do the same. Got nothing better to do for the flight duration, might as well make it a competition.

  26. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to think that... then I flew through Asia and the Middle East.
    Plenty of leg room, free dinner that was actually tasty, free drinks, the flight attendants treated you like royalty.
    But most importantly: The tickets were cheaper.

    So one has to question whats wrong with airlines here... why can't they make money? My only conclusion is that the frequent bailouts they've received has allowed them to institutionalize failures in their business models. We need to stop "Saving" industries/businesses. Failure is good for the system.

  27. The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ticket prices should be based on a combo of flying weight and space. Flying weight is passenger plus baggage weight. Space is a function of height/weight of the passenger and dimensions of their bags. If you're really tall, and/or really fat, you're going to pay more for a comfortable seat, but you will get a comfortable, safe seat, and those around you will, too.

    It shouldn't be too hard to make aircraft seating configurable for passengers of different weights/heights.

    It seems likely to me that cramming seats so close together is a safety issue. I wonder what the wreck stats show about leg injuries.

    1. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not your legs that will get hurt in case of a brutal brake while landing, it's your head that will smash the seat in front of you. Fortunately the hostesses and the pilots have security belts that cover their shoulders to prevent exactly that. The cattle doesn't but who cares.

    2. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It shouldn't be too hard to make aircraft seating configurable for passengers of different weights/heights.

      It is. A fixed seat can be locked securely in place. A seat you can adjust? Adds complexity and even risk. Can you imagine a seat that isn't properly secured in an accident? Major hazard.

    3. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that seems fair in a sense of distributing costs, on the other hand you're punishing people for characteristics they have no control over. Height isn't exactly something somebody chooses, and certainly many taller people would literally die if they tried to weight the same as shorter people.
       
      Then again, it would be kind of amusing to watch the fallout if flying became significantly biased in favor of women.

    4. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      An adjustable seat also adds weight, which increases fuel costs.

    5. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by PPH · · Score: 1

      You've never heard "Assume the crash position"?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It could be argued it's also racism.

      Passengers should have the option of paying $10 more or so for 3 inches or so of knee space or width. Right now you have to pay gobs more for more space. There is no incremental option.

      If you do this, then large people will typically end up paying the extra $10 for slightly larger seats, and all will be happy.

    7. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't be too hard to make aircraft seating configurable for passengers of different weights/heights.

      I had that thought too. It shouldn't be hard to put entire columns of seats on rails (adjustable for each flight according to the seat-pitches ordered by customers), without adding significant mass.

      However, the seats would then be out of alignment laterally across the aisle, making evacuation much more difficult. That wouldn't be allowed. [Hell, even getting up to piss would be harder, it the seats next to you are out of line with yours.]

      I still think bunks are the solution. But evacuation is still an issue. During an emergency evac, everyone is falling over each other as they get out of the top bunks. Plus getting in and out of bunks, particularly for fatties and infirm, would be difficult. But there could be solutions with clever design. And bunks would be a lot more comfortable, IMO.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    8. Re:The whole industry needs to rethink pricing. by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Ticket prices should be based on a combo of flying weight and space.

      How much real difference do you think that would make?

      First, there is a large, fixed component to the fuel cost - a fully equipped and staffed 747 with no passengers will still use a shedload of fuel. Then there are all the other fixed costs of operating an aeroplane and running the business.

      Then, if you've ever bought air tickets you should have noticed that the price for the same seat on the same plane can vary by an order of magnitude depending on how or when you book it. The retail price of tickets is dominated by "supply and demand" factors. On international flights, for instance, the price of a return ticket skyrockets if you're not staying over a Saturday night. The fat guy in front of you may already have paid twice the price you paid just because he's flying back a day earlier or booked a day later.

      You're just too naive - probably thinking that the airline will provide enough "big & tall" seats to meet demand, so it can make honest money from people paying a reasonable surcharge for them. Fat chance, when by deliberately not providing enough B&T seats (once their gold-card wielding frequent fliers* have had their share) they can create an artificial scarcity and charge people 3x over the odds for them.

      (* the only ones who fly regularly enough for the airlines to give a fig about repeat business).

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  28. Re:my solution is the gym by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    That few degrees makes a big difference to me. I have back problems and am tall, and unfortunately the part of the seat that most people rest their head against pushes out on my shoulders, making even a 1 hour flight a pain session. A slight recline makes a huge difference. I am amazed that the poor ergonomic range of airline seats.

    --
    Hint for you long legged ones; Taking the magazines out of the seat pocket can gain you 3/4 inch in knee room on some planes.

  29. Re:my solution is the gym by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    I win more times than not and the jackass in front of me gets a sore back for their troubles.

    I'll be the jackass complaining to the flight attendant in the sweetest manner possible that the passenger behind me is intentionally burying his knees into the seatback.

    With your attitude, you'll be the jackass having a conversation with the air marshalls after backtalking the flight attendant while desperately trying to explain why your knees absolutely must be placed right there.

    Winning...

  30. Yup by goldcd · · Score: 2

    I'm tall 6'3", which isn't ridiculously tall
    Plenty of planes I get on and just sitting my knee is touching the back of the seat in front of me - usually get some space by dumping the catalogues from the seat pocket - but I'm not a fan of reclining seats.
    Because my knee's on the seat, I can't even slouch to get my legs under the seat in-front (and then the stupid tray won't go flat as it rests of my knees.
    I am not a fan of flying on some airlines.
    Only really takes an extra inch of leg room to allow me to move a bit, and make all the above go away.
    On the plus side, now these same scummy airlines seem to be charging for emergency exit rows, I do at least stand a chance of being able to get some legroom for a vaguely affordable price.

    1. Re:Yup by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it scummy for airlines to charge extra for better seating? Isn't that what every concert and sporting event do? Even some movie theaters have premium seats for a premium price. Being tall has advantages and disadvantages, you might not fit well in a cheaper small car and have to pay more for a bigger car with more legroom. That doesn't make the auto makers scummy for charging more for a premium product.

    2. Re: Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being seated next an emergency exit comes with duties during an emergency. In the past, the crew would select the passengers deemed most fit to accomplish the emergency tasks for those seats. It's not only a privilege but also a responsibility. And that shouldn't cost extra. It must not.

    3. Re: Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was on a flight recently in which the steward was explaining the normal safety regulations as they do every flight. They came to the exit row and asked the jerk sitting there --he'd already been loud and obnoxious for the 30 minutes we'd been sitting on the tarmac -- whether he would be able to perform the duty of opening the door and helping people out of the plane in the event of an emergency.

      His response, *I kid you not*, was "Fuck no. If this thing goes down, I'm not helping anybody but me."

      They asked him to switch seats. I thought he was going to then cause a problem ("Hey, I paid extra for this shit! I'm not going anywhere!") but thankfully there was a very intimidating-looking air marshal on the flight for once.

    4. Re:Yup by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I'm 6'5" and I am pretty much restricted to emergency exit rows. In rare cases, I'll strike an old plane that wasn't modified (Air Canada Rouge is AC's cheap brand and they use ancient planes without even TVs) and then I'll have plenty of legroom, but anything recent or "upgraded" means I need the emergency row AND I also need to be extremely wary of the person in front of me trying to recline. I generally manage to block it so solidly that they think it's broken or already at maximum recline, but that really is not enjoyable, and some people fight it for a long time (especially fucking children). I can't afford the 2-5x increase to go first class, that's basically corporate area anyway.

    5. Re: Yup by NemoinSpace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Airlines were actually one of the first to get paying customers to do their work for them. Closely followed by gas stations. Computer OEMs perfected it by actually selling you an additional warranty with the provision that you spend a minimum of 3 hours on the phone learning a foreign language and disovering how not to force sodimms in backwards.
      I've flown twice since Bush gave arresting powers to 19 y/o waitresses. Putting up with this stuff on your way to a funeral is really too much. But it gives you a lot of perspective.

    6. Re:Yup by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Being tall has advantages and disadvantages, you might not fit well in a cheaper small car and have to pay more for a bigger car with more legroom.

      Wrong. This used to be true back in the 80s, when many cars really were pretty small, but these days even economy cars are generally well-designed for legroom and can fit taller passengers/drivers. There might be a few crappily-designed cars still out there, but you don't need to go to a bigger car for more legroom, just a better car. I'm over 6' with long legs, and I've tried out various lower-end cars in recent years with no issues at all. Back in the 80s and 90s, however, I had a lot of problems with various cars, including a giant Caprice Classic I had to ride in once in the front passenger seat, as well as the C4 Corvette where I couldn't fit in the driver's seat comfortably. My experience (back then) was generally that American cars were terrible for legroom. But all the rental cars (American & Japanese) I've driven in the last 5 years have been just fine.

    7. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the "non-premium" seats are below a minimum standard for basic comfort, which is apparently what's happening. If that's the case, then you might as well say they are charging you extra just so that you don't have to suffer. "Will that be torture or non-torture?"

    8. Re:Yup by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Why is it scummy for airlines to charge extra for better seating?

      What's scummy is that they have reduced the "standard" to be so intolerable that it forces people to purchase the premium. If the "standard" was tolerable, but then they charged you extra for something more luxurious, then it wouldn't be scummy. There is a huge difference.

    9. Re:Yup by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm 6'5" and don't agree. The typical 4-door, cab-forward, American rental car is a pice of shit with no leg room. The best leg room I have had recently is the VW Bug, yes the VW bug. Put the seat all the way back and I have great leg room, and the far view mirror is at eye level, not nose level. German cards tend to me much more accommodating of tall drivers.

    10. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6'3" is ridiculously tall, Sasquatch!

    11. Re: Yup by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Premium seats cost extra, your choice whether you want to take on the responsibility of being able to open the emergency door. If you don't, don't sit there. I prefer to sit there and am quite delighted to take on the responsibility of getting my ass off the plane first in the event of an emergency.

    12. Re:Yup by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      It apparently is tolerable enough as it absolutely doesn't force most passengers to purchase the premium seating as most passengers do not purchase the premium product. People choose the lower price ticket overwhelmingly. Simply stated, you can have higher ticket prices for everyone, burn more fuel per passenger mile and give everyone 35" seat pitch or you can give people a choice, more money for more room or less money for less room. Choice is good.

    13. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT's only scummy if they don't offer normal seating in the first place.
      Normal seating is where you don't have any physical pain when you normally sit.
      Having your knees sitting against the front seat is one thing, having it like that for then 5 minutes is painful.
      I have been in seats where the space is so crammed it was not possible to have my legs closed.

    14. Re:Yup by fincher69 · · Score: 1

      Except those are false comparisons. This is more similar to if car makers started making cars tinier and more cramped, then called the original sized cars "spacious" and started charging a premium. They aren't providing more for the extra cost, they are reducing the standard while maintaing the price and then raising the price for those seats they can't reduce (i.e. emergency exit rows)

    15. Re:Yup by phorm · · Score: 1

      Well, there's "paying for better" and "paying for less terrible."
      In many cases, a company will actually make a situation worse and then charge a premium for what used to be normal. That's evil.

      For airline level of evil, I'd almost expect it to come as "well, you didn't pay $15 for the seats-without-embedded-tacks option, did you? It's not our fault you're cheap!"

    16. Re:Yup by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      That's fine. They charge a premium for the extra legroom. But how much of a discount do you get for agreeing to throw open the side exits in case of an emergency?

      Or, conversely, why is it not scummy for airlines to demand uncompensated emergency services from passengers?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    17. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what is perceived as "scummy" - charging for something that they didn't used to charge for. Each transaction doesn't happen de novo - it is in a context of expectations created by previous transactions. Slashdotters may believe in homo economicus, the utterly rational consumer (who doesn't respond to deceptive advertising, who has no memory, who has no emotions...), but it's just a delightful fantasy.

    18. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make the auto makers scummy for charging more for a premium product.

      It's only premium for you because you are not tall.

  31. I see two possible scenarios: by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) At some point the cost of diverting flights will exceed the profits generated by cramming more seats into the planes and the problem will correct itself.

    2) The airline will figure out a way to shift the cost of flight diversion onto the passengers and the problem will just get worse.

    My money is on #2

    1. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by jimicus · · Score: 1

      My money is on #2

      "Sorry, Sir, but our terms and conditions are quite clear. If your flight is diverted due to reasons beyond our control, your ticket becomes void and getting onto your destination is your problem."

    2. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...

      3) People learn that flying is going to cost you some personal space, people in that mindset get along with other's in the same mindset better, and enjoy their cramped flight as much as possible.

    3. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That is already the case though. My coworker's flight was delayed and caused her to miss the last leg of the flight, they were supposed to arrange 'alternative transportation' from there on but since there weren't enough passengers at that point to fill a bus, they simply left them all with a meal voucher. She had to purchase a 2 hour cab ride to get to her destination.

      She asked the airline for compensation, they claimed the ticket to her last leg of the flight was void because the initial flight got delayed (even though it was the same company). They offered her a voucher for the cost of the last leg of the flight, then after a lot of complaining, they kept giving her more vouchers.

      She sued in small claims and got her transportation back + 4x the full cost of the ticket per FAA guidelines although their attorney (which they had to fly from TX to NY) claimed the FAA guidelines only applied to the last leg of the flight and didn't apply at that point because the initial flight was delayed. But who wants to go through the hassle of small claims? How many of the other passengers simply left with a worthless voucher?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Complainers will mysteriously end up on the no-fly list is my bet.

    5. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      No. At some point the airlines will start charging the idiots for the cost of diverting the flight (I'd guess it's at least $100,000 by the time you include the costs of moving other passengers to other flights after they're delayed), and then the idiots will stop being idiots.

    6. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by chihowa · · Score: 1

      All the while, the airlines will deliberately cramp people as much as possible for increased profit. The problem with (3), is that it will keep costing you more and more personal space, even while you pay more and more, until people push back. At the extremes this isn't a natural problem, it's manufactured by the airlines to maximize their profit. If you just shut up and enjoy your cramped flight as much as possible, they'll cramp you more next time.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    7. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if the issue is egregious enough, new complainers will be created at a faster rate than the old ones can get banned. And banned passengers don't buy tickets either, so that is hardly good for revenue.

      Locking up people who complain is about as likely to stop complaints as locking up drug users is likely to stop drug use.

    8. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      No. At some point the airlines will start charging the idiots for the cost of diverting the flight (I'd guess it's at least $100,000 by the time you include the costs of moving other passengers to other flights after they're delayed), and then the idiots will stop being idiots.

      The idiots just won't pay the bill, and will declare bankruptcy if necessary. I suspect many of them lack significant assets. That is a losing battle for the airlines, and suing your customers isn't all that great for business either. Even if they win they won't get much of it back after costs.

    9. Re:I see two possible scenarios: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they'll stop diverting flights because some idiot back in coach won't shut up.

  32. The local paper had this tidbit by Provocateur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The gentleman in question had wanted to use his laptop to update his notes after a business trip, if I recall correctly. He put the gizmo called 'knee defender' so that the passenger wouldn't recline as he worked on his computer. He says he should have handled things differently; he was stunned when 1) the passenger actually poured water on him, splashing a bit on his laptop, and 2) that their plane was diverted over the incident. He also switched to an airline that didn't have reclining seats the rest of the trip

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:The local paper had this tidbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The gentleman in question had wanted to use his laptop to update his notes after a business trip, if I recall correctly. He put the gizmo called 'knee defender' so that the passenger wouldn't recline as he worked on his computer. He says he should have handled things differently; he was stunned when 1) the passenger actually poured water on him, splashing a bit on his laptop, and 2) that their plane was diverted over the incident. He also switched to an airline that didn't have reclining seats the rest of the trip

      Well, to put it more accurately, by installing the device, he removed the ability of the woman in front of him to recline her seat without informing her that he had done so. He noticed the complaint from the woman to the flight attendant that her seat was not reclining and/or the flight attendant asked him to remove the devices, at which time he removed the devices. The woman reclined her seat abruptly, which almost damaged his laptop. Then he pushed back hard on the seat and reinstalled the device, at which time the woman threw her drink at him. The woman was moved to another seat, but the man apparently verbally abused the flight attendant, and this resulted in the diversion. It was probably not his choice to book a different airline that did not have reclining seats, it was probably that the airline refused to book him a continuing flight.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/03/air-traveler-at-the-center-of-the-great-seat-reclining-debate-im-pretty-ashamed/

    2. Re:The local paper had this tidbit by david.given · · Score: 1

      That's happened to me. I have a Macbook Air; it's kinda sharp on the front. The person in the seat in front dropped their seat back really abruptly, with the result that I ended up getting guillotined in the gut by the edge of the laptop. It was painful.

      I forget which airline it was --- possibly Swiss; I doubt it was Easyjet, as their seats don't recline.

    3. Re:The local paper had this tidbit by antdude · · Score: 1

      I heard this on a local Los Angeles talk radio a couple weeks ago. The lawyer inventor was debating with the talk radio guys. http://www.poughkeepsiejournal... has the article and video about it. I couldn't find the audio recording (don't think they have any?) except http://www.kfiam640.com/onair/... ...

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  33. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jackasses like you are common - and I found a great way to screw guys like you.

    I call the flight attendant and tell her my seat does not recline at all - and they force it down .. and I keep it locked like that for the rest of the flight.

    Oh - the sore back - don't worry.. gym plus the pleasure of keeping you in a fucked up position makes up :) for any inconvenience.

  34. Solution, nonadjustable seats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the battle is over, lock 'em down and tough shit for everyone.

  35. Re: by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    We don't need regulation, we need people to simply make the choice that is best for them. If you want more legroom then purchase a seat that offers more legroom. Some seats in economy offer so much legroom you don't even need to move to let someone in the window seat get out to the aisle. Not everyone is 6' 1" and not every seat should be designed to accommodate someone who is 6' 1".

  36. This is just one reason why we don't fly any more. by the_rajah · · Score: 1

    Our last flight was on 9-10-2001 out of LaGuardia. We looked out our window and saw the trade towers the last full day that they stood. It's not that we think the technology of flying is dangerous, it's just the hassle and being treated like cattle that flying involves. My wife and I are both large people, genetically. Flying for us usually involved paying extra for first class or buying the middle seat.

    Would I fly in an emergency? Yes, but for now we've decided that if we can't drive there, we don't need to go. I know others who have arrived at the same decision for the same reason.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  37. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's the real problem. It's gone from both sides being reasonable to having to "win." Personally, I'd be happy if airlines made seats non-reclinable since the few degrees you get is pretty much useless; until that happens I think you'll see more incidents of air rage. I'm amazed at the number of assholes I see on flights who start arguments over really petty things. If someone can't check their ego and or anger for a few hours while on a plane they really should seek professional help and stop flying' it would make it a lot more pleasant for those of us who just want to get to our destination with no drama or unexpected contact with the ground.

    The next area of dispute may well start to be armrests given the small width of seats and the increasing size of the flying public. Having someone take an inch or two of your seat is as bad as losing the knee room.

    Everything about flying has become a zero-sum game. I have to get on the plane before you hog the overhead space. If you control the window shade, then I can't see my laptop from the glare. If you talk, I can't enjoy my movie. If your kids scream, I can't sleep. If you are a person of size, you are encroaching from the side. If you recline, you are encroaching from the front. If you try to lean into the aisle, everyone bumps your shoulder. If you have the armrest, then I don't.

    Every week on my flight commute to wherever my client is located, I have to put on my battle armor and prepare myself for the worst in human behavior (including my own). Depending on my work schedule, I can go from passive, to passive-aggressive, to aggressive depending on what the people around me are doing. I am in the don't recline camp unless you are on a flight over 3 hours. If you do so on a flight less than that and I am trying to get some work done, I will fight for that space. My newspaper will fall over at the top on your head. My air vent will find the find your bald spot at full blast. And if you are a 13 year old with no height or girth, I will hip-check your seat on the way to the lavatory. The same goes with arm rests. If I am in the middle, those are mine. If I am in the aisle or window, those are yours. If you break those unwritten agreements, we will have an issue.

    I know some people say, well if that space is that important to you pay for the business class ticket. I fly almost every week, and my company policy does not let me do so. I have many more things to do with the money than pay for the space. I have a high level of status with the airline, but everyone else does too on the routes/times I fly.

    Is there an answer - none that I can see in the foreseeable future. Until then, every week is a battle, and the headlines will continue.

  38. So, they've reached the limits of human endurance by scotts13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't physically cram people any tighter, and fights are breaking out. Good. When they discover they're losing more on bad PR and flight diversions than they're gaining, they'll put back the inch or two - for a while. Now that they've reached bottom, the floor will just bounce from now on; the came couple of inches continually added and subtracted subtracted every 2-3 years, forever.

    As far as blaming people for not buying an upgrade, has anyone saying this actually looked at prices? Last couple of times I flew, I looked into it; a little more room doesn't cost you 10% or 20%, it's more like double or triple the ticket price. Actually habitable travel accommodations are only for the wealthy.

  39. Engineering solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like the pivot for the recline is incorrectly placed. I regularly travel by train, and am then offered the opportunity to recline my seat by releasing a latch and moving the seat forwards. It reduces my own knee space, not anyone elses.

    1. Re:Engineering solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newer fitouts in Qantas domestic flights use seats like this. It's the perfect solution.

  40. Re:my solution is the gym by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    Hmm, you're that big internet guy I've argued with in every forum ever.

  41. a big of etiquette by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

    I don't mind people reclining. It's the idiots who slam the seat back at full speed thus sending my laptop and my drink flying. Self awareness is non existent these days.

  42. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by quetwo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wish I could upgrade. My company will only book the cheapest fare (X or lower), which usually ends up to be about a $500 fare between Detroit and LAX. Because they won't pay for the upgrade, I have to wait for the day of the flight to do an upgrade, and the last time I tried, they offered an upgrade to business class for an additional $600, or first for $1200. I used to be able to use my miles to upgrade, but Delta changed the rules so that I can only use my miles to book flights. I'm always number 200 on the upgrade list because they take care of the families that got their branded credit cards before me (I only have 200,000 miles -- but somehow the people who never flew before have 250,000 on their account).

    The other solution people give is to fly another airline. That's fine if you are in New York or California -- but in the midwest, there are only two to choose from -- United and Delta. Both are in a heavy competition to see who can be worse. Every airport within 250 miles of me only offers one of those two to any destination that is not Florida or Mexico.

    But that's ok. I guess I deserve it. Every time I fly my knees swell up and look like and apple after a food fight because the 5' 3" housewife ahead of me deserves to lounge in comfort. I have an appointment to have the cartridge behind my knees to be scoped because they are torn up -- and I don't run marathons or do any activities that would produce that outcome (other than flying a few times a month). Being a healthy 6'4" with long legs is not easy if you need to travel in the USA for your job.

  43. Re:my solution is the gym by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

    It's important to be nice about the issue.

    I'm also 6'3" and no one can recline. Literally on some planes there just isn't space.

    But instead of being a jack ass, I politely explain my legs don't allow enough room to recline. Then I (helpfully) ask if maybe they'd like to switch seats. Which allows them to put the seat I'm in back, and I can recline onto them.

    Sure I could just be the world's biggest dick. But what does that get me? I have to sit by these people for the entire flight. And if I get someone who's really feisty, apparently they can turn the plane around.

  44. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    All true, except that prices have gone up. I used to fly back and forth to Chicago, it was $100 round trip. Now it is $350 at best and $800 for standard fare. I went 10 Paris 10 years ago. it was $400 round trip. Now it is $1300.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  45. How would we know? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's no choice. There isn't a "little bit better" choice on domestic flights, even international flights on the same continent. When I fly up to Canada to visit my parents I have two options: Coach or First Class. The prices are VASTLY different, first class is over double the price of coach. Now it is much nicer, wide seats, plenty of legroom, and all the booze you'd like if you are the sort of person who likes to drink. But it is really expensive.

    There's no mid-range option. I can't pay 1.2x the coach price for something a bit better. If I could, I would.

    So how would they know? I've never seen it tried. If they offered the option and those seats always sat empty, or were full of people who had been given upgrades for no money, then ok, remove them. But they aren't available. Your only options are "cheapest possible" or "waaaaaay more expensive."

    1. Re:How would we know? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Informative

      There isn't a "little bit better" choice on domestic flights, even international flights on the same continent.

      Of course there is. Lots of airlines have a "little bit better choice" option.

      Here's one - About $50 - $75 more on a flight to Canada -

      http://www.united.com/CMS/en-U...

    2. Re:How would we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economy plus is the same as seats as economy.

    3. Re:How would we know? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Economy plus is the same as seats as economy.

      Width-wide, yes - But they have wicked-good legroom which for me, and many other people, is really all the difference.

    4. Re:How would we know? by cnaumann · · Score: 2

      Exit row seating usually offers a bit more leg room with no reclining seats in front of you. It used to be free, now many airlines charge for it. Therer is no shortage of takers.

      I am 6 foot 6. I would rather stand for two hours than try to sit in one of those seats. Only problem is that i am not allowed to stand (I have asked) and on many planes I can't stand up straight anyway. I don't need the knee defender. If you are sitting in front of me, you will not be able to recline your seat.

    5. Re:How would we know? by Sun · · Score: 1

      El Al are trying it. They have a few coach type called "economy plus". What the link doesn't say is that you can buy the regular seat, and then participate in an auction to upgrade that might prove cheaper than buying it straight out.

      I took a flight to France a month ago. Flight there was almost completely empty, and they let us move there at no cost. I can't say for sure whether there is more leg room, but it is the exact experiment you were talking about either way.

      Then again, I'm fairly heavy set, and the flight back (regular coach) went fine without this upgrade. Maybe they just haven't completely jumped on to the "no leg room" band wagon yet.

      Shachar

    6. Re:How would we know? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      There used to be "Business Class" which was more or less the physical space of First, but without the Champagne and Lobster.

      For some reason, the three tier aircraft seem to have phased out in favor of two levels of service. In the late 1990s, I flew MIA-SFO several times, and those 767s were still equipped with 3 tier seating, but sold with 2 tier pricing, so if you booked your seats early, you could get business class seats (with economy service) for economy prices - that was quite a good deal, and a major bummer when you missed out booking your seats in time to get the good ones.

    7. Re:How would we know? by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Exit row seating usually offers a bit more leg room with no reclining seats in front of you. It used to be free, now many airlines charge for it. Therer is no shortage of takers.

      Unfortunately it's also often off-limits for minors - my 16 year old son is not allowed to book exit row seats, and he's a hell of a lot bigger than me.

    8. Re:How would we know? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      There is premium economy available on all top tier carriers, including Air Canada.

    9. Re:How would we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people say "big and tall" they usually mean "big or tall". The combination of both traits is rare enough that it is more or less ignored in society, and I am just one of those rare beasts, nearly 6 and a half feet tall and showing abdominal muscle definition if I get my weight down to around 300 lbs. That said, flying is absolutely miserable. Seat pitch is not only too close for me on a virtually universal basis, but seats are too narrow, too. I am urged to take exit row seats for leg room but their solid arm rests make them literally impossible to sit in. Once I'm seated and belted in, there is no way to shift myself if I get uncomfortable. People in front me ALWAYS recline their seats into my knees, most multiple times, some even after seeing that is human flesh and bone preventing their seat from leaning back. Most seats have metal bars through the tops of the magazine pouches that are guaranteed to leave bruises on my knees. My best hope is to be fortunate enough to fall asleep so as to not be cognizant of the misery I'm being inflicted. The only time I fly is for work, and they don't like to pay for anything more than the least expensive seats on the most dehumanizing airlines. I've only had two good experiences flying in my life. The first was with United when I was in college, where they took special care of a large and fragile piece of luggage that damaged by American Airlines who required it to be checked on the return trip. Other trips on United have been less positive, as they've required multiple stops and hops on horribly cramped regional jets. The only airlines that has ever gotten me anywhere unbruised and physically unharmed is JetBlue. Their flight attends seem slightly less bitter than most, too. BUT their fares are higher and their service not as widespread as their larger competitors. They are to the airline industry what Amex is to credit cards. So, unless it's necessary for work, I don't travel farther than I'd be willing to drive.

    10. Re:How would we know? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      But they have wicked-good legroom ...

      Not being from the East Coast, I never use the term "wicked" for anything other than to describe a witch or an ex-girlfriend. I now realize it's proper use.

      "Wicked good", as in, "not really that good, but better than terrible".

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    11. Re:How would we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarcasm aside, it means "really good, like, totally awesome dude". Translation provided for those other coastal folks.

    12. Re:How would we know? by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      I don't need the knee defender. If you are sitting in front of me, you will not be able to recline your seat.

      Amen to that. I try to be nice to the other passengers, but I start with the premise that I don't owe them a reclining seat.

      --
      227-3517
    13. Re:How would we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, introducing a 'mid-class' also screws up the airline's incentives.

      If you did that, they'd actively try to make their "bottom-tier" passengers as uncomfortable as possible, to get more of them to pay the 50% premium (20%? you're dreaming, there's more variance than that between two people sitting in identical seats on the same plane purely because of when they bought their tickets) for "premium economy", or whatever they call it. You'd be incentivising them to torture their passengers.

      And they'd do it, too.

    14. Re:How would we know? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      The FAA rule, which USmairlines adhere to, is you have to be 15 or older to occupy an exit row seat. They aren't off-limits for minors. Not at United, not at American, not at Delta.

    15. Re:How would we know? by anarcobra · · Score: 1

      If you ask the stewardess they might let you sit on their seats during most of the flight. They don't recline at all, but they have plenty of legroom.

    16. Re:How would we know? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of airlines in general with a mid-range option. For example British Airways has "World Traveller Plus" on its transatlantic routes. Basically, it's an economy seat with A LOT more legroom, plus a plug in for your laptop, plus things like real metal cutlery instead of plastic. The price varies but last time I flew it was about 25% more expensive than plain economy.

    17. Re:How would we know? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      My proposal is that airlines add a new seating class to be known as Midget Class (colloquially "Sardine Class"). MC will be available only to passengers under 160cm (5ft 3 in for Americans) and 50kg(110lb). It will be priced the same as Economy and Economy will be redesignated as DeLuxe and priced at 1.4 times MC. MC seats will be smaller and stacked vertically and horizontally using a sophisticated packing algorithm. The legroom in Deluxe will be reduced by 2.5cm (one inch) from the current Economy.

      BTW, between the steadily shrinking seats, nutty security theater, inability to maintain published schedules and third world chaos of airport operations, I quit flying a decade ago. I realize that not everyone has that option. But I would ask those that do, why they pay money to be subjected to modern airtravel? Buses, trains (even US trains), cars, and ships are far less aggravation. I'm far from sure that Hitchhiking isn't about as comfortable and reliable.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    18. Re:How would we know? by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of airlines in general with a mid-range option. For example British Airways has "World Traveller Plus" on its transatlantic routes.... The price varies but last time I flew it was about 25% more expensive than plain economy.

      ...and Virgin Atlantic have a similar 'Premium Economy' option (I think BA basically copied it) - I've used both and they're in a different class to 'economy plus' on US carriers, but if you got either of them for 25% over plain economy you were lucky... or maybe booked really early. In my experience 50% - 100% mark up is more typical and if you're not early enough they quickly shoot up to stupid money.

      The problem with the whole "choice" theory is that it assumes that you also have complete flexibility in where and when you want to travel, and how much you can pay. I've had to include extra stops and/or fly a day earlier to get premium economy at a rate my employers will tolerate (i.e. < 2x the economy price) - this depends 100 mile trip from home to London Heathrow - even if you can get where you want to go from a closer airport it usually means Hobson's choice of airlines. If you have no choice over when you travel. when you book or where you fly from/to you often have little or no choice of airlines.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    19. Re:How would we know? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Replying from an airport as I wait for colleagues to arrive from another city....

      I haven't flown for "pleasure" more than once in the last 15 years. The last pleasure trip before that was Miami to Alaska, and there aren't a lot of good options to get to Ketchikan....

      Reflecting this morning, airports have actually gotten nicer in the last 20 years, security theater is more amusing than painful, when the lines aren't stupid long.

      However, the sardine packing of the trip itself borders on intolerable... I used to be 6'2" - shrinking past 6'1" these days, but unfortunately getting wider in the seat as that happens, and most of the height compresses from the spine, so my legroom problems aren't improving.

      I, personally, would take up air travel for fun again if the 3+3 configurations were switched to 3+2 and a decent legroom pitch were maintained, but none of that seems likely to happen, and it's a shame. If they needed to charge extra for these seats, fine, I'd probably do a 30% premium without blinking, just for the extra space - I don't need a hot towel and a microwaved meal, thanks.

      I've got 4 Southwest "free drink" coupons in my wallet right now, but just don't feel like using them on flights that leave at 6am... and the afternoon and evening flights are delayed so often that I'm glad not to be on them, though I will compliment Southwest's mostly "hubless" routing system that provides direct flights between smaller airports, even if it's only once a day, it's nice to have the option.

      Now, off to convince my bosses that telecommuting is really more efficient than travel.... seems pretty obvious from this chair.

  46. Re:my solution is the gym by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    Airline seats are designed to be in their upright position to make it easier to evacuate the plane, they aren't intended for comfort at that angle. That's why almost all the seats offer the ability to recline the seat several degrees to an angle that is meant for sitting in for several hours. Other than the last row of a plane and the first exit row, every seat reclines. If everyone reclines everyone is more comfortable. If you are in the 1st exit row you aren't impacted because you have extra space. If you are in the last row in the plane, you suck at planning ahead in your travels and got the worst, smelliest seating position in the plane. Sorry about that and hope you do better next time.

  47. I'm 6'5" by Coditor · · Score: 1

    I either have to get the exit row or pay extra for better leg room. I physically cannot sit in most airlines seats. I don't mind it since I don't fly often. I wish they offered wide people some options as I am pretty narrow and don't like it much when people intrude on my seat area. But airlines really could care less whether anyone fits in the seats or not as long as they pay. I predict the seat pitch will get smaller and smaller until until double legs amputees can sit.

  48. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cruise lines also treat people like royalty, even more so than the Asian airlines. Also, the cruise lines are cheaper and include foo, lodging and entertainment. And the make money.
    Somehow, airlines have managed to cut salaries by 2/3, raised prices by over 3 times, all but eliminated meals, charge for every extra, and with most other factors like fuel costs, being the same, have managed to lose money while doing it. It is an incredible phenomenon, and some enterprising PhD student could probably figure out how to prove 1=0 if they could apply the business model of airlines to mathematics.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  49. Re: That doesn't match the evidence and observatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you - proper solution would be to demobilize the offenders and 3 strikes you are out rule with mandatory minimum sentence say life w/o parole or 2h long execution after 20y in death row etc as this worked before and as we are on the sure way to serfdom in other areas of policing that is only logical. In unlikely case this did not help : straight execution -no jury etc should fix it for sure.

  50. Re:So, they've reached the limits of human enduran by itsenrique · · Score: 0

    Replying to undo accidental mod. Completely agree.

  51. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And if salaries had kept pace with productivity, instead of giving the gains to the 1%, everyone would have no trouble affording business class prices.

  52. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by u38cg · · Score: 1

    A lot of the labour cost of running an airline is pretty invisible (ground crew, engineering and so forth). I suspect that would be a large part of your answer. State ownership/subsidy, I suspect, also plays a part.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  53. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the gap between economy and business class is *huge*, both in terms of comfort and price. If there was an intermediate class at 1.5x or even 2x the economy fare, I'd use it on any long distance flight. I suspect that the problem is that many business travellers will decide to use the intermediate class as well, and leave the highly profitable business class section en masse. Else the airlines would already be offering this.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  54. You're the asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was on a transoceanic flight, and the lady behind me kept knocking her knees into my chair. I looked behind me, and she's not only like 6'2", but she has her knees directly in front of her so as to present the greatest obstacle possible. No, can't put your knees in any other position, that would be too easy. We have to recline our seat while preventing the person in front of us from doing the same with his. I repeat: this lady had her knees out in front of her in the most obstructive possible position when she could have chosen to put them any other way. She knew damn well she was hitting the back of my chair.

    It's people problem. Inconsiderate assholes who can't put themselves in other peoples' shoes - and get really self-righteous about it.

    Airlines make seats not fit for humans to sit in and you blame the person behind you for sitting like a human being. You're part of the problem, buddy. You and the airline should both go to hell.

  55. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So one has to question whats wrong with airlines here... why can't they make money? My only conclusion is that the frequent bailouts they've received has allowed them to institutionalize failures in their business models. We need to stop "Saving" industries/businesses. Failure is good for the system.

    A lot of Asian and middle eastern airlines are state-owned or were state sponsored to get started. Many received government help or went into state receivership during bad times like the Asian economic crisis in the 90's before returning to private control.

  56. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by guacamole · · Score: 1

    The explanation is simple. Today we have a lot more competition than 40 years ago. Some of it was in part caused by de-regulation. Other part was caused by the innovative "low-cost" carriers that put real pressure on traditional airlines. Finally, the internet increased the completion even more. Today finding the lowest priced fare is a click away. As a result, all airlines compete strictly on price while saddling the customers with hidden fees, overbooked flights, flight delays, and less comfortable cabins.

    And despite all the whining, this formula works for consumers too. No one wants to pay $700 of 1999 dollars for a flight that costs $400 today, even if it means putting up with small legroom, nickel and dimming, no in flight food, and TSA harassment.

  57. I just flew AA from Hong Kong to USA by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    And couldn't freaking recline.

    It was a 15 HOUR FLIGHT.

    So yeah sucks ass, but forcing the plane to land because I'm pissed off (land where anyways?), that's just some grade A entitled bullshit.

    Also I bet they were all 1-6 hour domestics.

    amateurs.

  58. Re:my solution is the gym by wasteofspace77 · · Score: 2

    You must be short. Any discussion with said Air Marshall would quickly and visually indicate that there is no room between your seatback and my knee in any position. Short legged people just don't understand that.

  59. This thread basically proves the point... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, the number of people talking about how this isn't a problem, while simultaneously - gleefully - discussing what they'll do if someone tries to take their room, or someone won't let them take their room, pretty much dismisses any counter-argument to the idea that there isn't a problem.

    There obviously is.

  60. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is called inflation + greed!

  61. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by qbast · · Score: 2

    Because you can't afford anything better. Now you see?

  62. Seat size is well defined by ugen · · Score: 1

    On most airlines size and pitch of seats is well defined and listed when you purchase tickets. I mostly fly United (not that I like them, they just go where I need to go) and seat size is clearly listed.
    You can pay extra and get an "Economy Plus" seat that is promised to have extra leg room and may otherwise be more convenient.
    Seats that do not recline are also clearly marked.

      That is to say - you pay airline for a very specific set of conditions, and it is airlines job to provide those (as limited as they might be).

    People that need more knee space/seat space etc are able *now* to buy seats that fit to their specific size. What they cannot do is buy a cheapest ticket and then attempt to make up for lack of space by taking some of the space *I* paid for.

    1. Re:Seat size is well defined by PPH · · Score: 1

      On most airlines size and pitch of seats is well defined and listed when you purchase tickets.

      Nope. They don't even guarantee what model aircraft they'll fly you on. I've even had flights cancelled (on a 737 for example) that was too empty and been given a seat on a competitor's airline (a little turboprob job).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  63. Re:my solution is the gym by Mr.123 · · Score: 1

    Up until a few years ago, Cathay Pacific had clamshell non-reclining economy seats. You slide your entire chair forward to get some recline. I absolutely loved it, but apparently everyone else hated it. They took it all out a few years ago and replaced it with the traditional reclining seat. I doubt it'll make a come back anytime soon anywhere.

  64. Re:my solution is the gym by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    They absolutely must be placed there because they are attached to my leg. I can't raise my feet off the floor and to my chest for a 10hr flight without touching the seat in front sorry not going to happen. Why I do this is more times than not people start to move the seat back and feel some resistence. They look back see that there is a 6'3" person behind them and that it is my knees they are hitting and then they push to try to still get there seat back. Sorry jackness if we are in a pushing match I win. I'm not getting bruises on my knees so you can recline your sit 10 degrees.

  65. I never recline anyway BUT by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

    It would be my right to do so. The knee defenders are narcissistic jerks. The airlines should just disable the recline option to save the narcissists from their necessity to demonstrate their self absorption.

    --
    The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    1. Re:I never recline anyway BUT by gnupun · · Score: 1

      The knee defenders are narcissistic jerks.

      The recliners are uncaring assholes. "Who cares if someone's knees are injured as long as I'm comfortable in my seat using a feature I paid for?"

      It's also the fault of the airlines/plane manufacturers for not preventing over-reclining. The airlines should make the seats programmable: if no one is in the back seat, make this seat fully reclinable. Otherwise, limit reclining angle to 1 or 2 degrees (locked vertically).

    2. Re:I never recline anyway BUT by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      All seats are limited in their reclining. Now you want a "programmable" seat? One more thing to go wrong that requires power. Bad idea. If you want a seat that doesn't have someone reclining in front of you then select that seat. There are at least 18 on every 737+ size jet. If you have extra long legs you can also purchase a premium seat that gives you more room.

    3. Re:I never recline anyway BUT by gnupun · · Score: 1

      All seats are limited in their reclining.

      They are so reclinable you can see the top of their heads, and sometimes the top of their noses too.

      Now you want a "programmable" seat? One more thing to go wrong that requires power. Bad idea.

      Why not? It's not the 1950s anymore... electronics is cheap. There could be some manual override controllable by airlines crew if there is some power problem.

      There are at least 18 on every 737+ size jet. If you have extra long legs you can also purchase a premium seat that gives you more room.

      That's ridiculous. The space above my knees is my personal space and the passenger one row ahead has no right to intrude on that space with his head and torso. Why doesn't the over reclining passenger purchase those expensive tickets instead? He/she's the one that wants luxury while paying economy class fares.

  66. I can tell you by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Middle east : many of those airline have a source of cheap oil. Emirate ? Qatar airline ? They get their fuel at discount. What you have to know is that one of the biggest airline cost is oil (if I recall correctly second is maintenance, third is flying personal then come ground personal). Other airline do not have that source. All that money sparred can then go into offering a better legroom or compartment place than similar airline which have to cram 1 or 2 more places.

    As for far east airline, situation varies.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  67. Biased much??? by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    The article comment 'Disputes over a tiny bit of personal space might seem petty, but for passengers whose knees are already banging into tray tables, every bit counts.' shows what the problem really is ... people who think they have the right to tell the person in front of them whether or not they can recline their chair.

    They can recline it .. get over it. It's their seat. If you don't like it, fly first class. If you can't afford it, don't fly or shut the fuck up you inconsiderate, selfish loser.

    It's one thing to ask nicely, it's another to expect someone to give up something they have every right and expectation to be able to do. I'm a pretty big guy, and never recline my seat out of consideration for the people behind me. But I've also never admonished the person in front of me for choosing to do so.

    It's like the mothers who expect other children to share. It's their ball, they got it first, they don't have to share. I'm so sick and tired of all these people who expect other people to adjust their lives to suit them, how selfish is that. They only have the right to politely ask and walk away muttering to themselves if things don't go their way.

    But of course, one only has to look at politics to see the problem echoed back. Anti-abortion activists (no .. you are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion. Get over it) want to force other people to not have something they don't want to have anyway. Anti-gun groups (yes ... you are anti-gun if you want to take guns away, your pretty words don't change that) want to force people to give up things they have never used in a crime so they feel safe. (Not are safer .. just feel safer). Anti-gay marriage groups (yes .. that is what you are, there is no sanctity of marriage outside of your head and maybe your church) want to tell gay people they can't live together. They can't do that, so instead they want to tell them that they can't have the same government benefits that others have.

    The one thing all of these anti-something people have in common?? They want someone else to give up something so they can have what they want.

    And they are all selfish and self-centered if they expect other people to do it.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:Biased much??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you recline in front of me I'm going to reach around the seat and stab your eye out with my pen.
      enjoy being a smug reclining bitch with one eye.

    2. Re:Biased much??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you wouldn't you little pussy.

      The most you would ever do is write an angry post about it on the other internet. And sit there stewing in your own anger.

    3. Re:Biased much??? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      You have the right to recline your chair. I have the right to move my legs, even if it constantly bumps your reclined chair. I have the right to drum my fingernails against the tray on your chair. I can always find an agreement with the person in front of me to restrict our use of our rights to increase our mutual comfort level.

      Just because you have a right doesn't mean you must use it and damn anyone who is inconvenienced.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Biased much??? by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      The article comment 'Disputes over a tiny bit of personal space might seem petty, but for passengers whose knees are already banging into tray tables, every bit counts.' shows what the problem really is ... people who think they have the right to tell the person in front of them whether or not they can recline their chair.

      They can recline it .. get over it. It's their seat. If you don't like it, fly first class. If you can't afford it, don't fly or shut the fuck up you inconsiderate, selfish loser.

      It's one thing to ask nicely, it's another to expect someone to give up something they have every right and expectation to be able to do. I'm a pretty big guy, and never recline my seat out of consideration for the people behind me. But I've also never admonished the person in front of me for choosing to do so.

      It's like the mothers who expect other children to share. It's their ball, they got it first, they don't have to share. I'm so sick and tired of all these people who expect other people to adjust their lives to suit them, how selfish is that. They only have the right to politely ask and walk away muttering to themselves if things don't go their way.

      But of course, one only has to look at politics to see the problem echoed back. Anti-abortion activists (no .. you are not pro-life, you are anti-abortion. Get over it) want to force other people to not have something they don't want to have anyway. Anti-gun groups (yes ... you are anti-gun if you want to take guns away, your pretty words don't change that) want to force people to give up things they have never used in a crime so they feel safe. (Not are safer .. just feel safer). Anti-gay marriage groups (yes .. that is what you are, there is no sanctity of marriage outside of your head and maybe your church) want to tell gay people they can't live together. They can't do that, so instead they want to tell them that they can't have the same government benefits that others have.

      The one thing all of these anti-something people have in common?? They want someone else to give up something so they can have what they want.

      And they are all selfish and self-centered if they expect other people to do it.

      Well said. I would only add:

      The correct way to punctuate a sentence that starts: "Of course it is none of my business, but --" is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

      --Robert A. Heinlein

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    5. Re:Biased much??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one thing to ask nicely, it's another to expect someone to give up something they have every right and expectation to be able to do.

      Like use a laptop on the tray table without having it broken? Or even just eat their meal? Which is what the tray table is for.

      The one thing all of these anti-something people have in common?? They want someone else to give up something so they can have what they want.

      Indeed.

    6. Re:Biased much??? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      They can try and recline, but my knees are already there. But most of the time I'll just pay for exit row, if I have the choice.

  68. Re: That doesn't match the evidence and observati by Cyberax · · Score: 0

    A great idea! I've heard that Obama is going to sign it into law tomorrow. And this law also has a nice provision that all racist Anonymous Cowards are going to be fed to endangered species. Alive.

  69. Aren't all the airlines complaining about usage? by X!0mbarg · · Score: 1

    I was of the impression that most of the airlines were all bemoaning the low traffic, driving up the costs of flying because "nobody is flying anymore". If that is the case, why are they not making flight a more appealing option to draw more passengers? Cramming more passengers into an already uncomfortable situation will be the last thing to draw more customers.
    Besides, are planes really over-booked per flight? Aren't most flights running at less that capacity, or don't they leave the ground if they aren't full?

    Want to get a bit of better rates? Have the airlines offer a discount to "light travelers" who have a minimum of luggage or even body mass. Not trying to poke at the physically larger folks, but isn't it more expensive per pound to transport such a passenger? Can the airlines not charge by weight, and let people have more room if they're at weight capacity, but volume of the cabin is underutilized? Children should be really inexpensive to transport, as they're lighter AND take up less room.

    Is the trend to simply drive people to scrap over limited seats on larger planes to drive up prices while they optimize their profits by over-packing people into such limited space?

    It's bad enough that they've convinced the masses that full body searches, cramped space and intolerant travel-mates are the expected norm for anyone less than affluent enough to travel first class. Perhaps an all-seats-equal type business model might make a better travel experience. Do away with the whole first class section in a design, spread out the space and work out the price-per person based on such a level paying field and see what the profitability would look like. Consequently, have certain units set aside as "First Class Only" flights, with all seats to match. They only get used when there's enough people to utilize them, and they'd likely be smaller craft, anyway. More efficient that way...

    If the FAA gets involved, would that be the "perfect reason" the airlines would use to hike the rates again, because of "lost revenue" due to the reduced seating capacity?

    Bottom line: If you want to fly, be prepared for the experience! If you can't fly first class, you'd best expect a cramped flight with grumpy neighbors, poor food, and no room to use your precious laptop as boredom repellant.

    Book your flight based on things like creature comforts. If the airline doesn't offer what you consider a bare minimum, DON'T Use them! Vote with your Money! If enough people did that, the airlines would Have to accommodate, or go broke in a hurry! Be willing to pay for what you want, or Not pay for a bad experience!

    After all, they are providing a service. If you don't like, or are unwilling to suffer through what they offer, find another provider that offers better. If the providers slim down, you can always choose alternate methods of travel.

    Ever tried a Bus over the holidays? Might not be as bad as you think...

  70. business travel rules need to change by anthony_greer · · Score: 1

    every company I work for demands that you take the cheapest fare option. I am 6FT tall and can barely fit in a normal airline row legroom wise. I always upgrade to Econ Comfort on Delta or the equivalent on any other airline but the company wont pay the extra $30 to do it. Employers should pay for the extra legroom option for the same reasons they pay for hardhats and safety goggles for tradesmen. If I cant even sit down in the chair without my knees pushing against the chari in front of me, that can produce a lot of health issues since I cant move my legs for hours.

    1. Re:business travel rules need to change by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you a) should find a company more to your liking, b) pay the difference yourself, or c) find a different line of work.

      It's self-centered jerks like you that are the problem .. always expecting others to change. It's one thing to discuss it with your company and express your desire. It's another to hold it against them when YOU are the one that can make so many choices but refuse to do so.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  71. Re:That doesn't match the evidence and observation by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    This is the finest troll I've seen in at least a month.

    Kudos, Anonymous Coward!

  72. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be honest. I believe the new American way of customer service is to mess with your customers, until they pay for an upgraded service: Classic examples are: Airlines, ISPs, cellphone, finance ( dealerships), and so on. Some use the "luxury" tag to make feel the customers they can buy a place with wealthier folks.

    So the trend is to f*ck with your customers to force them pay more.

  73. Re:my solution is the gym by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Wrong. 36" between seats. Just measured it I'm 30" from ass to knee sitting with my ass right against a wooden seat. The other 6" is the thickness or close enough not to matter of the chair. It isn't 36" leg room it is 36" from one seat to the same spot on the seat in front so the thickness of the chair is a factor too. I can just barely not touch the seat in front if when I seat down I sit perfectly straight and press with my legs back to flatten my back padding as much as possible. Anything short of that and I'm touching the seat in front.

  74. Something's gotta give by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    I'm wondering at what point are the consumers going to rebel against all of this. The whole luggage debacle has to be included in this discussion too. First, the airlines decided to start charging for checked baggage. The customers responded by not just switching to carry-ons but finding the biggest carry-on possible and getting one for each of their kids too. Trouble is that overhead storage can't accommodate one of these for every passenger so now the extras have to get checked at the door and they don't get charged for this either. The result is more pissed off customers and departure delays. The real question is why this had to happen in the first place. Was it the additional cost of fuel? Unlikely because fuel costs are directly related to weight and the planes know how much they weigh. Is it then the higher cost of fuel? Maybe but if domestic production of oil has been increasing over the past ten plus years and is now surpassing imports to the point of producers wanting to export, why are the fuel costs still as high as they were ten years ago? Or is it labor costs which never go down?

    Which leads us to the seating arrangements. Adding 10 more seats puts another roughly $5000 revenue per flight assuming that the flight is fully booked. Would you be willing to pay an extra $33.33 for one inch of legroom? If people aren't willing to spend $25 to check a bag, $33.33 must make people apoplectic. What would you be willing to give up to bring those costs down and the comfort level up?

    1. Re:Something's gotta give by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      They will never rebel because the alternatives all suck in the US. Cross-country train travel is as expensive as flying and takes days, buses are cheaper and just as slow trains, but their depots are often in the bad parts of towns so any layover also sucks. Driving yourself takes less time than flying or a bus, but unless you want to sleep in your car their is the added cost of a motel. For one person, driving is almost as expensive as flying.

      I don't fly very often, but I don't see what the big deal is. The cost of the flight is the cost of the flight, either I can afford it or not. If I can't .. I don't go. I always check a bag, so I just plan on paying for it. It usually makes travel so much easier, I'd rather drop my bag off and pick it up at the baggage check than deal with having to find space for it and pulling it down afterward.

      Overall, in my 35 years of adult flying, I've rarely had a bad flight. But I do this thing called 'planning'. I try and plan layovers at airports that I like. For instance, terminal F in Atlanta is a great place for a 2-3 hour layover. I always keep layovers to at least an hour to allow for baggage transfers and a leisurely walk to the gate. I always know what the next available flight out of an airport is so I can book it right away if there are issues.

      And I never, *EVER* take a carry on. I have a courier bag that is big enough for a couple of magazines, a change of clothes (in case my bag doesn't make it), and food and water (that I buy after I go through security) so I don't have to depend on the flight attendants.

      It's amazing how when one stops depending on other people to do things for you, plan more for what is offered instead of what one would like, and take more responsibility that airplane travel can be a lot less painful.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    2. Re:Something's gotta give by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Yup. People are putting up with all that security theater, too. Even first class on some airlines has less to offer beyond a big seat. IIRC, USAir had no inflight entertainment on a Phoenix to JFK trip.

    3. Re:Something's gotta give by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering at what point are the consumers going to rebel against all of this.

      I already have. I refuse to fly with any major airlines. I'd rather take a small plane or drive.

  75. Proposal by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    Two things come out of this:
        - IATA needs to regulate this.
        - Leg spacing and seat size should be mandatory provided information in any booking.

    On one hand you can argue that the passengers are getting what they pay for, but on the other hand you can also argue that customers don't have this information, at time of booking, to make an informed purchase choice.

    At the same time if fights break out often enough, requiring forced landings, then I think people will start realising this cost saving is actually getting expensive (extra cost due to unplanned landings, time and reputation).

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IATA is not the right regulator. In most countries, for example, in Asia, people are much smaller and slimmer than americans, and also have much smaller budgets for travel. So less legroom in such countries should be allowed. If IATA went in to regulate that it would mean millions of passengers could no longer afford to travel from A to B with an airplane, and instead would have to travel for a week on ferries, buses and trains.

  76. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I'd be happy if airlines made seats non-reclinable since [snip]

    You're mistaking the scenario. The guy in back does recline his seat, then tells the woman in front not to recline her seat because she's smaller.

  77. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    Then don't fly. I'm not sure where your sense of entitlement comes from but you'd do well to lose it asap.

  78. 3 strikes you are out did not work to well in CA by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    also if we have a 3 strikes you are out then pot needs to be 100% legal.

    California has a big prison overcrowding issue

  79. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by GNious · · Score: 2

    Wish I could upgrade. My company will only book the cheapest fare (X or lower), which ....

    This is actually a core part of the problem - as companies switched to this policy of Cheapest-Fare-Only, and only looking at the immediate costs (and not extras, like luggage, meals, oxygen etc), airline companies got into a race to the bottom in costs (services etc per passenger) without any profitable group to help offset their bottom-line; business customers used to be good money for the airline companies when they traveled Business or First class.

    So now we have a setup where the immediate ticket price is the only thing that matters (try getting approval for a route that costs 20USD more while taking 30 minutes less); Service, well-being, flight-time/route and other things that the traveler might be interested in have gone away, and if you're scheduled to meet a customer it is your own fault for looking like shite after 5-6 hours squeezed into a painful, static sitting "position".

    The airline companies are giving their largest customers (i.e. companies) exactly what they want: a seemingly cheap flight for some employee.

  80. Cheapest Ticket by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only way this would work is to place height restrictions on the different classes of seat. I'm an academic and when travelling for work I have to purchase the cheapest ticket. Without a height restriction I would then be forced to purchase a ticket for a seat I physically could not sit down it (I already have to pull out the magazines on US carriers to allow blood flow to my feet).

    This can then open the debate about whether it is reasonable for an airline to charge someone extra just for being tall - something they had no control over and which is gender-biased. After all they don't charge more to provide special meals for those with dietary preferences or religious beliefs and, with the exception of medical conditions, that is a voluntary choice. Nor, I hope, do they charge disabled passengers extra for transporting wheelchairs etc.

    1. Re: Cheapest Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obese have to buy an extra seat on many airlines, so I think there is precedent for charging extra to the tall.

    2. Re:Cheapest Ticket by hawguy · · Score: 1

      The only way this would work is to place height restrictions on the different classes of seat. I'm an academic and when travelling for work I have to purchase the cheapest ticket. Without a height restriction I would then be forced to purchase a ticket for a seat I physically could not sit down it (I already have to pull out the magazines on US carriers to allow blood flow to my feet).

      This can then open the debate about whether it is reasonable for an airline to charge someone extra just for being tall - something they had no control over and which is gender-biased. After all they don't charge more to provide special meals for those with dietary preferences or religious beliefs and, with the exception of medical conditions, that is a voluntary choice. Nor, I hope, do they charge disabled passengers extra for transporting wheelchairs etc.

      It's not just height, it's really just the length of the legs as opposed to the torso, or more specifically, the length of the thighbone. Weight is also a factor. Would the airlines have measuring centers where consumers would need to be measured before they can buy a ticket?

      If airlines started putting size restrictions on seats, would that mean that smaller people would be forced into buying seats with a less room to save the larger seats for bigger people? Or would the restriction only prevent larger people from buying a smaller seat? When the large seats are sold out, would you be ok with not taking that flight? Sounds like you already manage to fly in ill-fitting seats today, are you willing to give up the ability to fly on some flights in order to get a seat that fits you better?

    3. Re: Cheapest Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      something they had no control over

      The obese have to buy an extra seat

      You are not one of the few people for whom obesity is well and truly an unavoidable medical condition. Put down the cheetos and mountain dew, you fat fuck, and go outside.

    4. Re:Cheapest Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an academic and when travelling for work I have to purchase the cheapest ticket. Without a height restriction I would then be forced to purchase a ticket for a seat I physically could not sit down it

      Possible ways of addressing the problem:

      1. Explain the situation to your academic institution and work with others there to correct their policy of sticking you with an unusable seat.

      2. Use the government to create new regulation for the airlines.

    5. Re: Cheapest Ticket by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      You are not one of the few people for whom obesity is well and truly an unavoidable medical condition. Put down the cheetos and mountain dew, you fat fuck, and go outside.

      Neither is being tall... it's well-known that malnutrition will stunt your growth, as would certain hormone treatments. For what it's worth, a change in human nature did not result in the current wave of obesity, human nature doesn't change that quickly. Don't get me wrong, it can still be solved by strength of will, but human nature says few will choose that path.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    6. Re:Cheapest Ticket by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Tall people can afford premium economy.

      A 2004 study by psychologist Timothy A. Judge, Ph.D., of the University of Florida, and researcher Daniel M. Cable, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina, found that every inch of height amounts to a salary increase of about $789 per year (the study controlled for gender, weight and age).

      http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Car...

    7. Re: Cheapest Ticket by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      The two aren't equivalent. An overweight person in most circumstances has some recourse in terms of diet and physical activity, where a tall person has no recourse except dismemberment. (And none of this was said in any kind of judgment, I am both overweight and tall.)

      That said, there is already precedent for charging extra to the tall: charging extra for more leg room. They already do it.

    8. Re:Cheapest Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >After all they don't charge more to provide special meals for those with dietary preferences or religious beliefs and, with the exception of medical conditions, that is a voluntary choice.

      Overweight is considered both a medical condition, and is often "by voluntary choice", but can also be due to medical problems, or even bad luck in the genetics pool. Those customers are charged significantly extra for their disability. I expect your decision not to have femur shortening surgery will be looked on as a voluntary choice, as well.

    9. Re: Cheapest Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caloric needs are also higher, as are clothing expenses, thus the economic advantage is negated.

    10. Re:Cheapest Ticket by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If they go down that route they wouldn't be able to charge people with medical conditions that make them obese more either. I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged already, although I note that European carriers tend not to and perhaps that is why. They can't charge extra for things like wheel chairs either.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Cheapest Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can then open the debate about whether it is reasonable for an airline to charge someone extra just for being tall - something they had no control over and which is gender-biased. After all they don't charge more to provide special meals for those with dietary preferences or religious beliefs and, with the exception of medical conditions, that is a voluntary choice. Nor, I hope, do they charge disabled passengers extra for transporting wheelchairs etc.

      Us short arses already have to spend a lot of money buying headroom and legroom we don't need (think how much extra it costs to build a house with 7ft ceilings vs 6ft). So you already get a lot of subsidy for your height disability, how much more do you need?

      I'd be happy to have free legroom for tall people if clothing manufacturers were forced to supply short leg lengths.

    12. Re:Cheapest Ticket by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      By this logic, couldn't we charge 45+ white males the most, women considerably less, minorities almost nothing and young people the least?

    13. Re:Cheapest Ticket by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      I've been on flights so uncomfortable, I'd rather they just tell me I don't want to be on that plane by telling me they can't accommodate me. Because then we're having an honest conversation about my money and whether they want it and I don't have to go through 4-12 hour torture to figure out that they just wanted it once.

    14. Re:Cheapest Ticket by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Tall people can afford premium economy.

      I am not the one buying the ticket - the government research grant is. I have to follow their rules.

  81. FAA needs to step up by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The fact is that the seats pitch is too little in terms of emergency operations. In a bad crash, far more ppl will be hurt due to inability to get out of the row. Finally, the airlines are hurting their reputation and profits with these antics.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  82. TIme for high speed rail and lower rail prices by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    TIme for high speed rail and lower rail prices and if we had that then less people will be flying also maybe more time off from work as well like in the EU.

    1. Re:TIme for high speed rail and lower rail prices by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      I can't see both as being compatible. High Speed Rail will require large amounts of capital investment and in order to be successful will need to be 1) more convenient/reliable than air travel 2) Competitive in terms of routes and time schedules with airlines 3) have the political backing to accomplish this. Telecommuting is probably the easiest answer and is even mandated for federal employees but I don't see the old ways changing.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:TIme for high speed rail and lower rail prices by lgw · · Score: 1

      If you want a toy train set, just go and buy one. Passenger trains solve no problem that the US has (you'd need that extra 4 weeks off work just for one trip!).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  83. Kink-Air by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Tho perhaps a limited market base ( unless its japan... ), just tie people to hanging 'meat' hooks from the ceiling. Charge extra even...

    Pack them in like sardines. If they have to rub against each other to fit, all the better.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  84. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by dugancent · · Score: 1

    I fly between Dullas and LAX 2-3 times a year. The price has been static, more or less, since I started that route in 2008.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  85. RJs are becoming standard now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that, at least on all the routes that I've seen lately, United is farming out the business to United Express, which runs regional jet planes. There's no option for Economy Plus seats on those planes. So, yes, while United may upgrade their own fleet, even flights from Houston to Mexico City or to Minneapolis are being done with RJs now.

  86. Re: That doesn't match the evidence and observatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fergurnson was not about brown. He was just the last straw. Why demonize the people there? The situation was caused by the police annoying people due to there skin color. And the people act as if the law is there enemy.
    But what does this have to do with airlines increasing there profit by 160/150. The the American peoples love of the lowest price at any cost.

  87. Re: by yacc143 · · Score: 1

    As it has been pointed out, does not work this way.

    Many people do need to follow corporate rules, which includes going for the cheapest fare.

    Furthermore almost all people are under the pressure to travel as fast as possible.

    So in many cases when travelling A to B you end up with a very short (kind of len=1) list of possible flights/fares.

    Add to this that companies are starting to other different options to customers. (E.g. reserved contingent of places for people with frequent traveller status)

    Basically, "seat design" is an important consideration, but only one of many considerations. E.g. not loosing your job, getting to visit you family at all (e.g. taking the "nicer" connection would mean that you loose to much time), or not going bankrupt (e.g. you could get the nicer seat, but it would negate hugely the initial idea why you are commuting to the better paid contract in the first place), ....

    Then you've got the last-minute substitution of planes, ... or planes that are officially

    So you think the "Market" will work, when it's hard to get the information (that's a very known failure point of free markets, these presume full information so every participant so he can decide what's best for him), and the customers are not completely free to decide (company rules, time constraints).

  88. The real solution by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    The real solution is to start a fare comparison site that displays and sorts on more than just price/time, (leg room, width, amenities, etc) possibly with a user-rating component built-in.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:The real solution by ramriot · · Score: 1
  89. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by tommeke100 · · Score: 2

    6'4" buddy here.
    I always take an aisle seat which gives me the chance to stretch my legs whenever I want too.
    If you travel for work, flights are often booked late so you may not have the chance of choosing your seat.
    However, I don't mind for short flights (2 hrs). Transantlantic flights (+8hrs) are hell.

  90. Tonya by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    Tonya Harding got three years probation for bopping Nancy on the knee, and so should anyone who lowers their seat onto my knee.

    (And any flight attendant who allows it is an accomplice, and any airline executive who allows it is negligent.)

    1. Re:Tonya by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      she didn't bop Nancy on the knee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Harding's ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly, and her bodyguard Shawn Eckhardt,[6] hired Shane Stant to break Kerrigan's right leg so that she would be unable to skate. After failing to find Kerrigan at her training rink in Massachusetts, Stant followed her to Detroit. When she stepped off the ice after practice at Cobo Arena and walked behind a nearby curtain into a corridor, Stant struck her on the thigh a few inches above the knee with an ASP telescopic baton.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  91. Reclining should be banned in coach. by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I don't even blame these people that much. When someone reclines in front of you on a plane, it is HORRIBLE.

    If you want to take a nap on a plane, then upgrade to premium economy or first class. Otherwise, keep your damn seat upright. I hate how reclining is still allowed on flights. Reclining your seat on plane is SO INCONSIDERATE to the person behind you. It jams the seat into their legs, it screws up their tray table angle, and it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the person to get any work done in the plane. The only course of action you have is to ALSO recline your seat to try to re-gain some room, even if you didn't want to. Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright. Awesome.

    Honestly I don't know why airlines still have reclining seats in coach nowadays. If they would just eliminate the ability then fights like this would not occur.

    1. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by NotSanguine · · Score: 0

      Look, I don't even blame these people that much. When someone reclines in front of you on a plane, it is HORRIBLE.

      If you want to take a nap on a plane, then upgrade to premium economy or first class. Otherwise, keep your damn seat upright. I hate how reclining is still allowed on flights. Reclining your seat on plane is SO INCONSIDERATE to the person behind you. It jams the seat into their legs, it screws up their tray table angle, and it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the person to get any work done in the plane. The only course of action you have is to ALSO recline your seat to try to re-gain some room, even if you didn't want to. Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright. Awesome.

      Honestly I don't know why airlines still have reclining seats in coach nowadays. If they would just eliminate the ability then fights like this would not occur.

      Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. There was a time when, regardless of height, your forward neighbor could recline their seat without causing the slightest inconvenience. When I am assigned a seat, I get that seat along with all its accoutrements. That includes reclining. By your logic, if someone makes use of the equipment they've paid for and been assigned, that makes them an insensitive jerk. Not so much. The insensitive jerks are the ones who are nickel and diming you by putting the seats too close together. But since all the airlines do this, you find it easier to blame your fellow passengers. Talk about inappropriate redirection of anger! Geez.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    2. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      Oh go BZZZT yourself.

      Look, you can pontificate on and on about the glory days of yesteryear where you had enough legroom to roast a pig until you're blue in the face, but the simple FACT is that TODAY there is not enough legroom in coach to offer reclining. This is due mainly to the downward price pressures of a fiercely competitive airline industry with razor-thin margins.

      If you want room to recline, then feel free to purchase a premium economy seat (which by the way costs LESS than the same economy seat did 10 years ago). If you're too cheap to do this, then suck it up.

    3. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by NotSanguine · · Score: 0

      Oh go BZZZT yourself.

      Look, you can pontificate on and on about the glory days of yesteryear where you had enough legroom to roast a pig until you're blue in the face, but the simple FACT is that TODAY there is not enough legroom in coach to offer reclining. This is due mainly to the downward price pressures of a fiercely competitive airline industry with razor-thin margins.

      If you want room to recline, then feel free to purchase a premium economy seat (which by the way costs LESS than the same economy seat did 10 years ago). If you're too cheap to do this, then suck it up.

      I'll repeat: When I am assigned a seat, I get that seat along with all its accoutrements. That includes reclining. Deal with it.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    4. Re: Reclining should be banned in coach. by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      Which is why in my original post I said reclining should be removed/banned.

      It's coming soon you can be assured. Airlines won't keep putting up with the costs of these disruptions, they'll just disable reclining. And we shall rejoice.

    5. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      It makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the person to get any work done in the plane.

      That should be quite expected. It is actually that people that want to get work done, that should take the business class seats. Most of the seats will be reclined in economy class, and you may not be able to fit anything on your tray, other than may be your food and a drink. It is not designed to sit a laptop, inclined or upright. You would also be expected to sleep most of the time (or use the on board entertainment system or read a book)

    6. Re: Reclining should be banned in coach. by NotSanguine · · Score: 0

      Which is why in my original post I said reclining should be removed/banned.

      It's coming soon you can be assured. Airlines won't keep putting up with the costs of these disruptions, they'll just disable reclining. And we shall rejoice.

      You go, girlfriend!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    7. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by rsclient · · Score: 2

      I don't understand this modern "etiquette". Airline says have a recline button; it has exactly one function, and people are using it correctly. How can anyone then suggest that politeness requires that people should not recline their seats?

      --
      Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
    8. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that in at least one of the cases of airborne anger over reclining seats they WERE in the premium Economy Plus seats? If I want a seat that reclines I purchase a seat that reclines, there are at least 12 seats on every modern jet that don't recline. I avoid those. If you want a seat with out someone sitting in front of you reclining then kindly purchase such a seat. There are at least 18 seats in every modern jet that don't have a reclining seat in front of them. There, problem solved.

    9. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always recline on a flight. I do try to not go all the way back unless sleeping (long flights). The reason I recline is simply due to the seat back angle. It puts pressure on my back and is painful for extended lengths of time. A slight recline relieves the pressure making the flight bearable.

      Besides, the airlines never guaranteed that you would be able to get any work done on the flight.

    10. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      This has been debated to death already, but I find all your arguments pretty weak, if not plain wrong. What else is there to do on a noisy flight besides taking a nap ? If you want to work, get an office ! As for hurting your back, those seats are way too straight and hurt my back quickly if not reclined. PS: the angle of the table doesn't change upon reclining.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    11. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since all aircraft seats I've been in barely recline more than 2-3", and that's at the top--it barely affects leg room at all. It might make using a laptop harder but it's never bothered my knees, and I'm around 6' tall.

    12. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by McFly777 · · Score: 2

      Reclining your seat on plane... screws up their tray table angle, and it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the person to get any work done in the plane.

      Mechanical engineer and former seat-mechanism engineer here to correct one small error. From all of the flights that I have ever been on, the tray angle is not affected by the recline of the seat, because the tray is attached (and its angle set) at the bottom of the seat, well below the pivot point of the recliner mechanism. What does happen is that the distance between the tray and the alcove in which the tray stores decreases a bit, resulting in potential damage to a laptop which has been "improperly" wedged between the two. (stay calm... I put the quotes there to indicate that I don't really mean that there is an improper location. However, one should be aware of the issue and be careful in how you position your equipment.)

      Now, I will also add that, personally, I try to avoid doing any work while on the airplane (in coach). If my employer wants me to do work, then they can pay for first class, where I can have a (closer to) ergonomic workspace. (ergonimic workstations are required by OSHA etc. after all) My job for those hours is to allow myself to be transported in space to a different point on the globe, and I try to make the best of that by doing some pleasure reading. If necessary, I will earn some comp-time once I get to the hotel, where I usually have a desk of some kind to do work; I redeem it unofficially elsewhere on the trip, or officially on another day after I return home.

      Myself, I find it rude when people try to conduct business in the airplane. Reading a document quietly is one thing, holding a meeting on the cell-phone (prior to takeoff or after landing) or insisting that everyone else treat the cabin as their office-space is another thing all-together. It's also a bad idea if you have any sort of proprietary or otherwise sensitive material (legal, financial, HR-related, etc.) as you never know who might be reading over your shoulder. (Me! Well, not really... But it makes me have to try to avert my eyes to politely not see what you are rudely putting almost directly in front of my face.)

      --

      McFly777
      - - -
      "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
    13. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Now you have not only screwed over the NEXT person behind you but you also might be hurting your back because you need to sit upright.

      I don't know what airlines you're flying, but in my experience, there is no ability to recline sufficiently to sit anything but upright when flying coach.

      The 10 degree recline that seems to be the norm today is so minimal that cabin crew rarely even notice when people's seats aren't in the full upright position for takeoff and approach.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    14. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems pretty obvious. It's a button you are allowed to press that makes you imperceptibly more comfortable, while making the person behind you immensely more uncomfortable. A human who feels empathy would feel bad for causing pain to the person behind them, even if they are "entitled" to do so.

    15. Re:Reclining should be banned in coach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand how it's polite to not massively inconvenience (to the point of fighting) someone so you can have a moderate convenience? Are you just unbelievably selfish or stupid? If there's no one behind you, recline away. If there's someone there, you are a dick and the person behind you hates you. If they're over 6 feet tall, they're probably considering strangling you depending on flight length. That's pretty much how it works. My guess is you're a dick most of the time, though, so you don't really notice.

  92. Free market economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will squeeze the space as much as they can. They'll make you stand if that doubles their capacity and income. There are three ways to fight this: cancel your plans and stay in your basement, make alternative arrangements for travel (which may also be inconvenient), make the airline actually lose money on the flight (which may also put you in jail). These guys who start fights are taking the third option, even though not consciously. Conscious people will either take one of options one or two, or STFU and take it.

    Now, if airlines do go the standing route, I'm sure some sort of harness would work. Something that makes it easy to get out of and get into, but otherwise also acts like a seatbelt in case of a crash or turbulence. You shouldn't be using your feet to prop yourself while in one of these, and should have pockets for your limbs that would be used a braces in the "brace position".

  93. Seven letters by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    I travel a huge amount for work, and I am required to select the cheapest available option (within a window)

    Three letters: ADA

    Four more letters: OSHA

    The $20 for Economy Plus is a "reasonable accommodation." However, if you're able to use frequent flier miles earned on the job to obtain Economy Plus, your case is much weaker.

    IANAL, nor have I tried this yet (because I've never had an employer decline my initial polite request).

  94. Hammocks or bunks. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Everyone can recline. Sheesh. The Navy and prison solved this problem ages ago.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  95. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hate to break it to you, but arm rests are already a battle ground. My wife hates it, but I always try to get on the plane as early as possible. This is for two reasons, one is so I can actually put my carry on in an overhead compartment. The second is so that I can claim the arm rest on both sides of me. I'm not a big guy, so I don't necessarily need the space, but what I do need is the knowledge that the person next to me isn't going to spill over into my space. Being cramped in an airplane is already bad enough, losing additional space because the person next to me doesn't fit in their seat is unacceptable.

  96. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...but somehow the people who never flew before have 250,000 on their account.

    I was surprised to discover a whole sub-culture of folks doing this... The primary scheme is: credit card rewards you with 1 point for every $1 you spend. So "spend" $20k worth on gift cards, then move/deposit those gift cards back into your bank account. Repeat until you got enough to fly first class anywhere with your whole family.

    Yes, there are fees involved, but if you use the right venues (walmart ATM) and perhaps a point multiplier bonus ("shop at staples for x5 the points"), the points value is much higher than fees (e.g. cash value of points is perhaps 1.5-1.9 cents). E.g. $20k gets you 20000 points, market value ~$300. If you were to spend $150 on fees, you're still way ahead---just sell points and pocket $150 cash).

  97. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lot of the labour cost of running an airline is pretty invisible (ground crew, engineering and so forth). I suspect that would be a large part of your answer. State ownership/subsidy, I suspect, also plays a part.

    Most of the cost is FUEL. That's why it needs to fly full as often as it can to make money. Leasing/depreciation costs of an aircraft are also significant.

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed... , page #20

    Fuel: $2.5b
    Salaries: $2b

    on revenue of $10b.

    They made $1.3b before taxes.

    But 10% more people on a plane, means probably 7-10% higher revenue without additional expenses.

    Extra legroom scales out ALL costs, not just labour. It increases fuel costs too, per passenger. Different comforts on those flights are more indicative that the airlines compete differently than in the US. Maybe it's not only about the price of the ticket for them.

    PS. Americans also have much higher "girth" than Asians. This causes all sorts of problems. Higher fuel costs and less space for the people in question. Airlines make money per kg shipped mostly, so 50% more mass and no revenue swells that fuel/kg costs.

  98. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Salgat · · Score: 1

    You're right. I'll just take a boat to visit my family in China. Or better yet, I'll pay $10,000 instead of $1,500 for that round trip ticket just so that I have enough leg room to feel some form of comfort on my 10 hour flight. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. The simple fact is that flying is no longer a convenience but for many is a necessity. Not all businesses are willing to pay for business class and not all people can afford the extra couple days to travel by car or train.

  99. They are not done yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  100. Re:Aren't all the airlines complaining about usage by russotto · · Score: 1

    I was of the impression that most of the airlines were all bemoaning the low traffic, driving up the costs of flying because "nobody is flying anymore". If that is the case, why are they not making flight a more appealing option to draw more passengers?

    It's easier to just reduce costs by run fewer flights with more people crammed into each flight.

    Book your flight based on things like creature comforts. If the airline doesn't offer what you consider a bare minimum, DON'T Use them! Vote with your Money! If enough people did that, the airlines would Have to accommodate, or go broke in a hurry! Be willing to pay for what you want, or Not pay for a bad experience!

    Unless you have days to drive or cruise to where you can fly in hours, the airlines are the only game in town.

  101. Perhaps packing people in was a bad idea. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    After the bean-counters were allowed to design airplane layouts, they forgot about the people that had to sit in them.

    Then people wonder why consumers want regulation in air travel to smack these practices down.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Perhaps packing people in was a bad idea. by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

      Careful, they may take out the overhead storage because you could charge people a premium for 'lie down' space.

  102. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    Flights to the UK have almost doubled since three years ago. That's not just inflation. Apparently, some routes have been dropped and there are increased taxes and security fees also.

  103. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    When I flew Air Brunei , the impression I got was that it was run as a vanity business for the owner (The Sultan of Brunei) and not so much to make a profit. The oil revenues distort everything out there.

  104. The alternative by PPH · · Score: 1

    A DIY knee defender.

    Or this.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  105. Don't eat so much then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't eat so much then.

    Either that, or learn to drive a fat waggon.

    Seriously, pay for TWO seats if you are that fat, anyway, when the plane crashes, you will be ending up with your head up his arse kissing it.

    So be a nice tourist.

    1. Re:Don't eat so much then. by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

      This arguement isn't about the width of your ass, is about the length of your thigh. As a 6'2" person, I have trouble like this all over the place with my knees butting up again whatever is in front of me (concert venues, my car's steering wheel). If my knees are already touching the seat and the jackhoel decides to recline, that's gonna hurt and I'm gonna be pissed.

  106. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry jackness if we are in a pushing match I win.

    The point is that it is not a pushing match. If you turn it into a pushing match you will lose. If you fail to follow the directions of the airline attendant you will lose. If you interfere with the operation of the seat in front of you, you will likely lose.

    But feel free to keep that strategy up... I look forward to your upcoming role as the next idiot to be met at the receiving gate by airport police.

  107. Knee Defender is a smash hit now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Knee Defender inventor Ira Goldman expressed his thoughts on the incident after hearing about it through mainstream media.

    "Sometimes people do things they shouldn't do on airplanes, but as far as I know this is the first time anything like this has happened," Goldman said.

    "United could make seats that do not recline, but they have not chosen to do so," he added. In the meantime, the Knee Defender says right on it: 'Be courteous. Do not hog space. Listen to the flight crew.' Apparently that is not what happened here."

    Interestingly, after the incident was reported nationwide, the Knee Defender website crashed because of the large number of people who attempted to access it, reported International Business Times."

    Even bad press turned out to be good press for them.

  108. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Judging by images like these, today's business class is pretty much what economy class used to be in the 70s.

    Hoo boy. Do you have any idea how much more expensive flying was in the 1970s, before deregulation?

    In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
    "In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268."


    Of course that factoid cherry picked the 1974 fare to coincide with the Arab oil embargo. But current oil prices are actually higher in inflation-adjusted dollars, and a cheap ticket between LA and NY is still around $350.

    Some argue that flying has become too cheap. I beg to disagree: flying in a humane manner has not become cheaper, it's just that you'd have to book business class nowadays.

    Of course that's exactly what happened. Because back when the LGA-LAX ticket cost $1442, very few people flew. The fundamentals of weight on an airplane and fuel use means the more people you can squeeze on a plane, the cheaper it is (per seat) to operate. So when federal regulation fixed the lowest airline price at $1442 making it inaccessible to the vast majority of people, the planes were emptier and the airlines could get away with fewer seats.

    Air travel is in the state it's currently in because passengers prioritized lower fares over seating space, and the airlines found a way to deliver upon passenger desires. If passengers had demanded lush, business-class seating as you suggest, then that's what airlines would have delivered. Most of the seats on airplanes would be business-class sized, and a LGA-LAX ticket would still be around $1442 (actually, probably higher since current real oil prices are higher than in 1974).

    i.e. It's not that current seating is "inhumane", it's that your definition of "humane" differs from what the vast majority of people buying airline tickets consider to be acceptable. Many airlines have premium economy seats offering an extra 5-6 inches of legroom at a higher price. A few people are willing to pay for those, but not many. If more people were wiling to pay for those bigger seats, the airlines would put more of them in - unless you're a monopoly, you always make more money giving people what they want.

    The fundamental problem with air travel is that it's too fast. People look at that tiny seat and figure they can deal with it for a few hours. If air travel were slower and you were stuck in that seat for a day or two, people would demand more room.

  109. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move closer to your job instead of burning fossil fuels killing the rest of us just to move your fat arse about the US.

  110. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Where in the Midwest are you? At KC you can fly Air Canada, Air Tran, Alaska, American, Delta, Frontier, Southwest, Spirit Airlines, United and US Airways. Just checked at the site - and they go other places than Florida or Mexico. AIr Canada goes to Boston from Terminal B, for instance. There's a handy little drop down selection screen.

  111. Being tall isn't a choice by sjbe · · Score: 1, Informative

    Why is it scummy for airlines to charge extra for better seating?

    Having adequate leg room isn't a "premium feature", it's what should simply be standard. Being tall isn't even theoretically a choice like being overweight. Premium features are things like better food, better entertainment, better seats. There are plenty of tall people who don't actually fit in the economy seating. I have a good friend who is roughly 2 meters tall (~6'7") and he HAS to sit in an aisle seat or an exit row in coach because he simply cannot get his legs to fit behind a typical economy seat. Seems unfair to force him to pay more simply because he's taller than average. There is a difference between premium seating and seating that simply is adequate to fit a normal (if tall) human being. While you have to draw the line somewhere, airlines have gotten to the point where a statistically significant percent of the population has difficulty squeezing into the seats.

    1. Re:Being tall isn't a choice by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having adequate leg room isn't a "premium feature", it's what should simply be standard

      "Economy plus" or whatever they call the seats wit normal legroom is the old-school standard. Think of is this way: you can buy a "standard seat" ticket for $350, or an "I don't care how you torture me just give me the cheapest price" ticket for $300. 90% of customers choose the torture option over the standard option, cheap bastards, but you don't have to.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Being tall isn't a choice by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're not being cheap, they're just expecting the *standard* seats to be the *same standard*?

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    3. Re:Being tall isn't a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also seems unfair to pay him more simply because he's taller than average.

      For us short people it seems kinda hard to get too riled up over this.

    4. Re:Being tall isn't a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/02/02/cb.tall.people/

    5. Re:Being tall isn't a choice by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Having MORE legroom is a premium feature whether in in a car or an airplane. I'm sorry you don't fit in a standard seat, can't wear standard shoes or can't ride some ride at the amusement park because you exceed their weight limit. Life is full of unfairness. Some people end up 6' 7" and some people end up with spinal bifida. All domestic airline seats are adequate for the (as you put it) "normal human being" as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of quite normal passengers that travel by air every year. I sympathize with you having to squeeze into a seat or having difficulty finding clothes in the style you like that fit your size. I also sympathize with you for not being able to fit in a Renault Twingo and having to purchase a more expensive car that fits you better. I even sympathize with you having to buy two Big Macs instead of the one a smaller person would be satisfied with for a meal. But you'll just have to accept that you are above average in height, consume more calories, need a larger car and will find standard dining room chair heights to be uncomfortable and can't find clothes at all the same stores a more average height person could. You might have to buy custom furniture and you might find buying a premium seat on an airline is worth the additional cost. If the airlines can't charge more for premium seating than they wouldn't have any. If the airlines have to make the seat pitch greater for all their seats than everyone pays more for a ticket as opposed to just those who are beyond the 90 percentile for height. You might find that to be "fair", I find that to be an economic waste.

    6. Re:Being tall isn't a choice by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      No airline charges people more because they are taller than average. Most airlines do charge a premium for premium seating. But life is full of unfairness. Some people are born tall and beautiful and get to have more sex with other beautiful people and others are born short and dumpy and tend to have less sex with beautiful people but don't have to buy their clothes at the Big and Tall store and fit better on standard couches and airline seats. The airlines aren't the great equalizers for tall people who have trouble fitting in things. If you need more room, pay for it.

  112. Personal space in different places by sjbe · · Score: 1

    and this is what happens. Survival 101: you do not violate my personal space. EVER.

    I strongly suggest you never travel to China then. There are places in this world that have a VERY different concept of personal space than what you are probably accustomed to. In China they don't respect personal space or lines the same way we do here in the US and they don't see any problem with that. It's not wrong but it is very different and jarring at first.

  113. Faulty comparison. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Concerts don't generally pack people into sealed areas with no provisions for leaving the venue(which in the case of the airline, is the plane at 35,000). As for cars, the same generally applies - as you can pull over to a safe area and exit in a speedier manner. Air travel has no such advantages, so a certain degree of comfort is expected at minimum - enough that people have no thought to warrant a diverted flight.

    If you're going to be packed in a crammed space, cannot leave it, and it is not punitive in nature, it is a generally bad idea to do extra charges. That, and bad customer service might work for the bean counters that end up having enough status to escape their design, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have it.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Faulty comparison. by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      If you want a certain degree of comfort on an airline, purchase it. If you want to complain that you bought a cheap seat and aren't getting a free glass of wine like the people in the front of the plane, feel free, just don't expect sympathy. If you feel like you might have the urge to leave a plane in the air I'd suggest you stick to ground transportation, flying is no place for people who get claustrophobic or have anxiety issues.

  114. Whine bitch moan complain by nojayuk · · Score: 1

    Shorter Slashdot commentariat: Everybody on a plane is an inconsiderate asshole except me.

    1. Re:Whine bitch moan complain by PPH · · Score: 1

      Particularly the person in the front, left hand seat.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  115. Adequate legroom is not a premium feature by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Tall people are free to purchase bulkhead and emergency row seats right now.

    So are you. Being tall isn't a choice so why should they be discriminated against if we don't force the 300 pound tub of lard next to us to pay for the portion of my seat he oozes into? After all, being fat is at least in theory a choice. There are times to be a capitalist but not when it involves human decency and dignity.

    Adequate leg room isn't a premium feature. It's simple human decency to allow taller than average passengers the ability to sit with reasonable comfort without forcing them to pay more for the "privilege". There is nothing wrong with airlines waiving premium seating fees for unusually tall passengers to get them a adequate leg room. I'm all for being a capitalist for things that are genuinely extras but this doesn't fall into that category.

    1. Re:Adequate legroom is not a premium feature by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Adequate leg room isn't a premium feature. It's simple human decency to allow taller than average passengers the ability to sit with reasonable comfort without forcing them to pay more for the "privilege". There is nothing wrong with airlines waiving premium seating fees for unusually tall passengers to get them a adequate leg room.

      If you're tall you're also probably making a few thousand more per year than your shorter co-passengers. You're also probably male, which means you make a little more money. All told being tall generally gives you enough benefits in life that you can pay $20 more for more legroom. I wish a better seat at a concert be able to see over your freakishly tall head was only $20.

      A 2004 study by psychologist Timothy A. Judge, Ph.D., of the University of Florida, and researcher Daniel M. Cable, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina, found that every inch of height amounts to a salary increase of about $789 per year (the study controlled for gender, weight and age).

  116. Re:my solution is the gym by Solandri · · Score: 1

    I'd be happy if airlines made seats non-reclinable since the few degrees you get is pretty much useless;

    Yeah, most of the time I don't even recline my seat. And when I do, it's usually because the person in front has reclined theirs, putting the video screen too close to my face for comfort.

    Anyhow, if you want a few extra inches of legroom and don't care about reclining seats, check in early and get the emergency exit row seats. Because they're an egress route they need a lot of space between the seats to allow passengers to file out quickly, and the seats can't recline. Airlines generally can't pre-book those because they have to see you in person to verify that you're able to open the emergency exit seat (about 40-50 lbs). A few of them have started policies where frequent fliers (who've been allowed to use those seats before) can pre-book them.

  117. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by JoshWurzel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you are in the US, please let your company know that they're risking a worker's comp suit by refusing to purchase you the legroom that you need. Protecting the health of employees on the job is not optional. They may not have the same obligation if you're overweight (unless squeezing into the seat is also injuring you), but if you are incurring injuries during the execution of your job responsibilities then the company needs to do what it takes to prevent that from happening, up to and including eliminating travel from your job responsibilities.

    People also need to be aware of their body type when booking on their own dime. Cattle class is fine for a couple hours if you're less than 5'10" and less than 160 lbs. I'm small enough to fly across the US in standard economy. But if you're too big to fit in a standard seat, you need to do the right thing for *your* health and comfort.

  118. Just be rich! by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Stop complaining and buy business class if economy is too hard on your delicate knees.

    So everyone should be rich is your answer? How generous of you... [/sarcasm]

    There is a point where the pursuit of money has to end and causing needless discomfort to paying customers is right about at that point.

    1. Re:Just be rich! by qbast · · Score: 1

      So everyone should be rich is your answer? How generous of you... [/sarcasm]

      You can also not fly if you can't afford it. Where exactly did you get idea that you are entitled to as much leg room as you want for as little money as you are willing to pay? Do you also have habit of going into five start hotels and demanding their best room for price of flea-infested motel?

      There is a point where the pursuit of money has to end

      Of course, let's turn airlines into charities or nationalize them. For greater glory of proletariat!

      and causing needless discomfort to paying customers is right about at that point.

      You are getting the exact service you are paying for. Waving around your cheapest ticket around while demanding special treatment for being a PAYING CUSTOMER won't work very well.

    2. Re:Just be rich! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      So everyone should be rich is your answer?

      That sounds like an excellent idea!

      (Now before you go on about the impossibility of everyone being rich compared to their peers, compare your level of wealth to that of the average person 400 years ago)

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  119. seat rage by kencurry · · Score: 1

    It's what's happening at 30,000 feet!

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  120. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by scarboni888 · · Score: 2

    I still fail to grasp the 'necessity' part. If family is that important then don't live half a planet away from them and then whine about it. Change your priorities because the world isn't going to change to suit you.

  121. Why not be courteous? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Instead of just pushing your seat into recline first, why not politely ask the person behind you if they'd mind? Shit flying is a fucking pain in the ass now, with Security, Airline Policies and Ticket prices the last thing I need is some rude fuck flipping the seat back into my lap. Usually I just wind up sneezing a bit and coughing. The seat recline usually stops after that. Yeah it's faux germ warfare but it works.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  122. Airlines are terrible investments by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Delta's stock price has increased 400% since 2009. That's 5 years. Still sure about "notoriously bad investment"?

    Pretty much yes. Sure they go up sometimes but you're looking at the data retrospectively. Go ahead and tell me which airline stock is going to go up 400% from today's price. Anyone who claims they can do that is either a liar or an idiot and likely both.

    There is copious data about how badly airline companies have been as investments over the years. Lots of competition, high fixed costs, huge capital investments and a commodity product in a fickle retail business. One of the biggest costs (fuel) is almost entirely out of the control of the airlines and fluctuates wildly at times. Even profitable airlines like Southwest generate a big portion of their profits basically from making good hedging bets on fuel costs instead of on their day to day operations. If you needed a formula for minimizing profits, you'd have a hard time coming up with a more difficult industry to make a buck in.

  123. Re:That doesn't match the evidence and observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. It walks that very fine line of Poe's Law. I nearly replied directly. +1 Troll.

  124. Re: That doesn't match the evidence and observati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YEEEEHAAAAW FLAMEWAR!

    Perhaps when a couple of poor innocent overworked "cops" beats the shit out
    of you and breaks out five or six of your teeth in the process, you will come
    to a better understanding of reality.

    Until then you are just a naive idiot who has led a sheltered life and has no fucking clue
    about how the world outside your bubble really is.

    FTFY buddy. BTW, excellent troll.

  125. Inconsiderate by sjbe · · Score: 2

    The knee defenders are narcissistic jerks.

    So are the people reclining. Both sides are being inconsiderate here and I don't see either as being more wrong than they other.

    The airlines should just disable the recline option

    That I agree with. Honestly the seats don't recline enough to really matter except for the placebo effect in most cases. Plus then they don't have to make people "return their seats to their full upright and locked position" on every flippin' flight.

    1. Re:Inconsiderate by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inconsiderate about doing something that they remind you to undo before landing...

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
  126. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Mousit · · Score: 2

    This is something that still shocks me every time I fly on a non-American airline; I never get used to it. Probably because the domestic American airlines continue to get worse, so every foreign airline experience seems even better by comparison. :P

    As an example, I recently flew to China. All on Air China. NYC -> Beijing, Beijing -> Xi'an, Xi'an -> Shanghai, Shanghai -> Beijing, and Beijing -> NYC. That entire itinerary cost about the same as a round-trip flight between NYC and Beijing would cost alone, using an American airline that flies that route. I checked. I checked several actually, using Orbitz and such.

    The cabin amenities were surprising to me too. I'm so used to domestic commuter flights being little puddle-jumper planes where you.. just don't get anything. You're lucky if you get something to drink (some two-hour flights don't do drink service though you can ask for a drink). Air China apparently has a fairly standard plane configuration for both international and domestic flights, even short two-hour domestic flights. The seats are wider than American counterparts. The spacing is maybe about the same though; I'm a short person so I'm not the best to comment about legroom, but to me it felt like I had more. Every seat had an entertainment system built into the headrest in front of you, even on short-haul planes. A large selection of movies, TV shows, and games. All of it free; domestic American flights I've been on that have this service (which is typically only longer-haul flights to begin with) usually charge money for much or most of the selection.

    On top of that, every flight was free food and drink. The overseas flight served two full meals, which admittedly is kind of expected even from American flights of that length. However, what really surprised me was the in-country flights. Going from Beijing to Xi'an is about two, two and a half hours. A full meal was still served to everyone. Same thing for heading to Shanghai and eventually back to Beijing. All those flights were two or three hours. Full meals, every one. And all on top of the realization of what that entire itinerary cost.

    Now, I realize there's some economies of scale at play with a domestic Chinese airline (flying a much larger Chinese population), and also some state-run subsidization factors at play too, but that can't cover ALL of it. And I'm not saying all the domestic Americans need to go to THAT level of service (though it would be nice) with a meal on every flight no matter how short, or such things. Nonetheless, the shear size and scope of the service level difference, and price difference, between the two was shockingly astounding. Reinforced by the fact that I don't live in NYC itself, so I got to and from there via a domestic American airline and had a terrible experience both directions, with a round-trip ticket price that was more than a third what that whole Air China flight itinerary cost.

    Getting outside our own borders can teach you a lot about how good American life is in many ways compared to the rest of the world--something we shouldn't forget, but it can also show you just how bad we have it in other ways, especially when it comes to consumer(/employee, even more) business economics of any kind. Yeah yeah, "first world problems" and all that. Fuck that. A problem is a problem, and it shouldn't be hand-waved away just because "we have it better than so much of the world". Yeah, we do. And we could have even better than that.

  127. Slimline Seats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody here has mentioned the fact that all the airlines are in the process up "upgrading" their seats to these new slimline seats. The seats offer the same seating as far as width goes, but where they save space and weight is in the length. On a typical 737-800 these seats can accommodate up to 2 extra rows of seats that were not there before. The airlines claim people prefer these seats which is total bullshit. As soon as you sit in one you know instantly you've just been fucked by the airline. During these seat changes they've done their best to maximize space available. People write your airlines and vote with your wallet, these slimline seats must DIE!

  128. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    It is dull but it's Dulles.. Also AA has a flight into Regan on a 757 avoiding the NOVA mess getting into DC.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  129. Something special in the air by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Which of these is worse?

    Freakouts over minor incidents necessitating changing course. Apparently common sense has been brutally slaughtered by terrorists and bureaucratic CYA.

    Seeing a profit in pissing off or otherwise making your customers as uncomfortable as possible. How much does it cost per plane to rearrange all those seats again when one of the airlines starts running ads comparing legroom?

    1. Re:Something special in the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much does it cost per plane to rearrange all those seats again when one of the airlines starts running ads comparing legroom?

      Not having any precise numbers, I'm still pretty sure interior is overhauled at least once a year.

  130. my solution by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    I just bring a car jack, and jack the seat in front of me right off it's rails.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  131. Customers going postal by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    The quality of service no longer meets customer requirements, and customers are rebelling. The airlines and airports have done their best to remove any aspect of comfort or pleasure from air travel, and customers, the people who actually pay the bills, have had enough.

    Entitled attitudes don't help. I ended up with bruised knees on a British Airways flight from the person ahead of me refusing to negotiate on seat reclining, with the flight attendants refusing to mediate. On a American flight the passenger next to me went ballistic and very loudly demanded to be reseated, because I was wearing perfume.

    On my last long-haul flight (Vancouver to London) I did an on-the-spot upgrade to premium economy and had a good flight. I had cashed in credit card points for the ticket, so the extra $$$ was money well-spent.

    I think diverting is a lousy way to handle customer disputes, but it scares me that the airlines may start accepting this as part of the cost of doing business...

    ...laura

    1. Re:Customers going postal by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      On a American flight the passenger next to me went ballistic and very loudly demanded to be reseated, because I was wearing perfume.

      This can actually be a pretty serious issue for people with asthma - just sayin'...

  132. Rights by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    A few years down the road the right to be able to travel might end up as a defended right. Reasonable accommodations have to be made for disabled people, and I think it would be reasonable to require airlines to provide accommodations, at no cost, for tall people. A couple inches of knee space should be regulated. The current race to the bottom has gone more than far enough.

    1. Re:Rights by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Do you see any limits to those accommodations? The 7' 10" guy has to be accommodated, the 850lb man has to be accommodated? How do you propose they manage that? They measure you at the gate? Will sales of elevator shoes take off when people realize they can get a premium seat by being a bit taller? Does the 6' 0.5" person feel slighted because he gets a regular seat while his buddy who is 1/2" taller gets 5" of extra legroom for free? There is already a very simple solution already in place. If you desire, for whatever reason, extra legroom you purchase a premium legroom seat. There, problem solved. At least for everyone but that 850lb man who is simply too large to safely accommodate.

  133. Re:This is just one reason why we don't fly any mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or buying the middle seat.

    That doesn't work anymore. Most airlines will put a standby in any empty seat, even if you have already paid for that seat.

  134. Bill by weight by sjbe · · Score: 1, Troll

    Think of is this way: you can buy a "standard seat" ticket for $350, or an "I don't care how you torture me just give me the cheapest price" ticket for $300.

    Or you can be a decent human being and accommodate those customers who are a little bit physically different for no extra money. It's not like there are a huge number of people 2 meters tall. There is a difference between being cheap and not having any reasonable options available at all. If you really want to be a bastard capitalist about it you should weigh every passenger with their luggage before they board and charge by weight because that has a MUCH bigger impact on airline costs than some modest legroom accommodations for unusually tall passengers. Of course that will never happen but it's actually the most reflective means of allocating cost to what the airline's actual cost per passenger is.

    Not everything has to be about maximizing short term profit for the airline. The small amount for marginal revenue forgone by an airline making special arrangements for tall passengers would be probably more than made up for by customer loyalty.

    1. Re:Bill by weight by lgw · · Score: 1

      Pay for what you need. Whatever happened to that idea? Should you get extra food for the same price if you eat more? Should you get a bigger car for the same price if you have kids and need the space? Should you get a bigger apartment for the same price if you're bigger?

      Meh, statistically you'll make significantly more over your lifetime if you're tall. I think you're still coming out ahead from that particular genetic lottery, without also getting free seat upgrades.

      The small amount for marginal revenue forgone by an airline making special arrangements for tall passengers would be probably more than made up for by customer loyalty.

      Doesn't every airline that offers economy plus (or whatever it's called) also let you upgrade with frequent flyer miles?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Bill by weight by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Pay for what you need. Whatever happened to that idea?

      What happened to that idea is that not everyone in the world is a money hungry sociopath and sometimes you just make allowances for the corner cases. You think handicapped people should have to pay extra to fly? My grandmother should pay more to visit my sick mother because she needs a little extra help getting to the gate in spite of the fact that she doesn't have a lot of money? Wow, you have a pretty cold way of looking at the world. It takes a real sociopath to think that everyone should have to pay for every little accommodation regardless of whether they have the means to do so or not.

      Meh, statistically you'll make significantly more over your lifetime if you're tall.

      Statistically that doesn't mean shit with regards to any specific person. If you're going to make a statistical argument at least make one that isn't retarded.

      Doesn't every airline that offers economy plus (or whatever it's called) also let you upgrade with frequent flyer miles?

      That is for paying for EXTRA leg room beyond what you actually need. If you actually need the legroom it isn't an upgrade and shouldn't cost extra.

    3. Re:Bill by weight by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Something better is an upgrade. Apple is rumored to be coming out with an iPhone 6 in two screen sizes. The larger screen is a premium price for the premium feature. As best I know they will not be selling the larger screen version at the same price as the smaller screen version to people who are vision impaired. I'm not sure who you are to determine that any extra legroom I purchase is or is not "actually need(ed)". If I want it I pay for it ($$$, FF points, my loyalty). I'd suggest you do the same. The last thing we thing is airline people at the gate measuring our femurs to determine if we "need" the extra legroom and then collecting or not collecting a fee based on femur length. It's a plane, you'll be on it for a few hours, either suck it up for those few hours in the cheap seat you bought in the back or pay up to move up to a better seat.

    4. Re:Bill by weight by lgw · · Score: 1

      So you're actually playing the victim card now? Ohhhh, I'm just like a handicapped person or the elderly because I'm tall, get women easier, and make more money. Pity me!

      You can guess my delight at that idea.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Bill by weight by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      Several problems here:

      * I was comfortable in premium seating. Now I'm not. What gives?

      * I'm 6'3. It's not a genetic anomaly. It's just 6'3.

      * Airlines aren't required to guarantee seat dimensions. They can swap a flight out at any time. If there was an airline that was guaranteed to accommodate my height on every flight, you better believe I'd pay more but there's no guarantees in premium seating even if you're willing to spend the absurd amount more for what is often only a marginal upgrade.

      * 6'3 doesn't mean I'm rich.

      * It does mean I'm probably bigger than you. A lot bigger than you judging by your self-evident short-guy complex.

      * But if it means I am in fact among the larger customers AND I statistically have more money to spend, why do you or the airlines want to piss me off?

  135. A'murica by jbssm · · Score: 1

    Oh well and continuing the stereotype of Americans having big asses, behaving like kids and making an art of off their lack of basic politeness.

  136. Re:my solution is the gym by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Anyhow, if you want a few extra inches of legroom and don't care about reclining seats, check in early and get the emergency exit row seats. Because they're an egress route they need a lot of space between the seats to allow passengers to file out quickly, and the seats can't recline. Airlines generally can't pre-book those because they have to see you in person to verify that you're able to open the emergency exit seat (about 40-50 lbs). A few of them have started policies where frequent fliers (who've been allowed to use those seats before) can pre-book them.

    I've found unless I book a couple of weeks in advance the exit rows are gone. If I book one the questions come up and as long as I answer correctly I get one. I've never gotten one at the airport but YMMV. The best exit is the wind ones were there is no seat in front (a 2 -3 configuration) so you have a ton of legroom. Next best is one were there is a bulkhead in front of the exit; but then the window one is usually worse then the aisle.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  137. Brace Position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time you're flying Sardine Airlines, check out the brace position shown on the safety card in the seatback pocket and try to assume it.

  138. Re:This is just one reason why we don't fly any mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GP is probably from the Middle East.

  139. Who pays? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

    Either the small people subsidize the large people ( large because of natural high/size, or large because of poor nutrition ), or people pay more proportionally to the actual costs the of carrying them ( weight of person + baggage ). This is like the difference between data rate or total data caps on ISPs

  140. I go first or business class now. by jcr · · Score: 1

    ..and I fly far less often than I would if coach were tolerable.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  141. It's better than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    an arrow to the knee.

  142. Exactly right. He is part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly right. He is part of the problem.

    I haven't flown anywhere for any reason since the mid-90's. I also haven't had a steady job since 2001.

    When people put up with all this shit, which I refuse to do, they poison the workplace for all of us. In my semi-retirement I'm getting healthier, and when I hear about people getting sick and injured because they put up with company greed and treating employees as disposable, as no more valuable than the toilet paper a CEO wipes his ass with, I just laugh.

    You reap what you sow.

  143. I simply quit flying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The whole process is just a miserable experience.

    The lines at the airport, the security theater BS, the cramped conditions on the plane, the 900lb passenger stuffed into the seat beside you who needs to visit the bathroom twice per hour, the screaming kids, the drunk idiots, the lady who douses herself in two gallons of perfume that morning, the delays, the thieves who handle your luggage, the ever shrinking seats, man this list can go on for days.

    I just don't fly anymore. Any trip I could possibly take would be ruined by the dreaded flight to and from my destination. Thus, I just don't go.

    My last trip to Hawaii isn't remembered for Hawaii, rather it's remembered for being the eight hour flight from hell. ( Why are infants even allowed on a plane ? )

    Screw the airline industry. May it burn brightly as it ceases to exist. Hopefully something decent will rise to replace it.

  144. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a bad post, but it does include a dash of ignorance:

    "That's fine if you are in New York or California -- but in the midwest, there are only two to choose from -- United and Delta."

    You meant to say Detroit, right? Right?

    Have you ever sampled what's available in Chicago? Atlanta? DFW?

    @#$% me.

  145. Re:What does this have to do with tech? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    well, in one incident, the guy wanted to use his laptop on the tray table. To prevent the passenger in front of him to recline too far (and damage his laptop) he put a knee defender, a gizmo that limits reclining the seat. That passenger got mad and things escalated, causing the pilot to divert his flight.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  146. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by sudon't · · Score: 1

    I can confirm that, and add that flying actually used to be fun. Fun! Imagine that. Kids, I'm going to tell you, it was a flying cocktail party, (excepting morning flights, of course). If you made it there fifteen minutes before the scheduled departure, and you didn't need to check baggage, you had plenty of time. Sure, you had to take the metal out of your pockets, but if you had a little dope in there, no one was going to look. Now, you're treated like a convict entering a prison. An over-crowded prison, at that.

    I used to love flying. Now I hate it with a passion.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  147. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by chihowa · · Score: 2

    And we could have even better than that.

    I also fail to understand the mindset that we should silently endure any cuts to our standard of living until we're as bad off as the worst among us. Our goal as a civilization and a species should be to constantly ratchet up everyone's standard of living so that we're all better off than we previously were.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  148. Fuck You, I've Got Mine by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this whole comment trail is a gigantic version of Occupy.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  149. Isolation, not greater comfort. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    I have flown in first, business and economy class. I'm not rich, but I can collect points like anyone else who travels frequently on business. I think it's safe to say the benefits of first class have nothing to do with the seats and everything to do with isolating you from others. A business class seat is plenty comfortable enough. Improving the first class seats achieves nothing. First class travelers don't go around thinking "Gee I wish the seats were a bit nicer".

    Look at some Middle East airlines that have been installing what is essentially a seat in a box. Not better comfort, better isolation. That's what people will pay for.

    If you travel first class international, typically there will be a separate first class lounge at the airport so you don't have to mix with the great unwashed in business class.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  150. one word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unions

  151. Re:my solution is the gym by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

    Awesome. Because you are bigger and stronger than the other person then you get to bully them with your 'advantage'.

    I thought we gave up that stuff in school.

  152. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1

    My only conclusion is that the frequent bailouts they've received has allowed them to institutionalize failures in their business models. We need to stop "Saving" industries/businesses.

    Interesting, then, that you cite the Asian and Middle Eastern airlines as examples of the "right" way, as many of them are heavily subsidized.

  153. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    The coffee table between each seat seems objectively better.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  154. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by chihowa · · Score: 1

    The business class used to be that intermediate class. First class was the luxury class for the monied and coach was for everyone else, including business travelers. As coach service started getting worse and worse (and being called "economy class"), the intermediate business class was made for frequent travelers. It was not as bad as economy, but not posh like first class.

    I think business class cannibalized the first class business, so first class was reabsorbed into business class (even if it's still called "first class"). First class is much cheaper than it used to be and not nearly as nice. The people who used to travel in the truly luxurious first class can afford to keep or charter their own planes now, so the market for the old first class service is gone (at least for domestic and intracontinental flights).

    The plan now is to make economy service so bad that upgrading to "Economy Plus" or business class becomes tempting for anyone who can afford it. The difference between economy and business/first is only like 2-3x on many domestic flights these days.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  155. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Well, you're right, 91% of the population is somewhere around 5'10". However, I don't get a choice. I work for the US government; my options are to buy the cheapest seat available. I can't upgrade/skim/use miles/etc, I'm even supposed to donate the miles I get to the US Government if you read the FTR. So, you know what I do? I drive everywhere and your taxes pay for it. Thanks for the money!

  156. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    Air China heavily overbooks their flights. One of my flights from SFO to Shanghai took me 4 days to get onto. They basically just overbook the flights so much that they eventually end up filling a new plane with the spillover. That's one way to increase profits.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  157. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    Has there been an airline bailout since 2001? A problem with justifying airline bailouts is the 41 consecutive years of profitability that Southwest touts.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  158. Modular seating by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    I don't fly often, but when I do, there are often a fuck ton of empty seats. Why not make the seat rows modular and on rails so individual rows may be removed and the remaining rows adjusted along the rail to fill the free space? If the plane is packed then you're SOL, but for non-capacity flights everyone would feel like they were flying first class.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  159. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still fail to grasp the 'necessity' part.

    Because you're a socipathic idiot?

  160. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know some people say, well if that space is that important to you pay for the business class ticket. I fly almost every week, and my company policy does not let me do so.

    Is there an answer - none that I can see in the foreseeable future. Until then, every week is a battle, and the headlines will continue.

    [emphasis added]

    So. That's the problem. You're not one of the job creators. What's wrong with you?

    Why aren't you running your own business where you get to decide when and how you fly? Better yet, start your own airline.

    Anyone with the drive and smarts can rise to the top in any industry. The only thing holding you back is your own stupidity and sloth. Because if it weren't for the failings of losers like you, everyone would be in the 1%.

    Because society owes you nothing. And you owe nothing to society.

    In fact, "society" is a fiction promulgated by those who are too lazy to work. It's easier to complain about how everything is sooo unfair and that attitude has gained a lot of traction.

    Two days off in a week? Forty hours a week? Minimum wages? Safety standards? It's a travesty!

    All the hard-working job creators are having their hard-earned money stolen by employees who think they have some kind of right to a living wage. Stolen by the government who steals and steals to pay for all the lazy fucks who sit around all day doing nothing and waiting for their filthy lucre stolen from those who actually know what a hard day's work is all about.

    There is no social contract, it's about survival of the fittest and you aren't.

    Become a job creator and a useful person or get used to it, bud. Oh noes! my employer won't let me fly business class!

    If you had ever worked hard a day in your life and didn't have shit for brains, you'd have your own private jet. Since you don't, you're clearly inferior and need to be put down.

    So shut the fuck up, or go whine to someone who cares!

    Since you don't have the brains, wherewithal or discipline to be in the 1%, it's your fault. So get over yourself and be a good boy. Only the stupid and lazy aren't in the 1%, because the market (and only the market, anything else is socialist meddling) always efficiently sorts out the wheat from the chaff.

    Don't want to be the chaff? Then get off your ass and start your own business. Why are you a slave? Aren't you competent enough or smart enough or hard-working enough? Clearly not or you wouldn't work for someone else.

    All of you liberal commie pinkos thing you should get something for nothing! If any of you had any brains or balls, you'd all be in the 1%. Sure, complain about regulatory capture and barriers to entry. Go on about how 80% of new businesses fail within the first five years. Worst of all is when you lot complain about how existing businesses pay to entrench their positions with laws and regulations. If you had half a brain, you'd buy those politicians yourself.

    You are irrelevant. You're just another worthless cog to be used and thrown away. Until you grow a pair and become part of the real economy, not just some leech sucking at the teat of your betters for a paycheck, you're just a worthless loser who deserves worse than you get.

    This message is a public service announcement from Libtards of 'murica! Fuck Yeah!

  161. Re: That doesn't match the evidence and observatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just about the only thing you got right in that trope was that Brown robbed a convenience store. There was no evidence that Wilson suffered any kind if injury and even if he was there was no justification for shooting an unarmed civilian from 30 feet away. You should be ashamed of yourself!

  162. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by calidoscope · · Score: 1

    In 1972, SAN to OAK was $24.50 on PSA with no restrictions. Equivalent fare on Southwest is ~$260, cheaper fares are available but come with restrictions.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  163. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by quetwo · · Score: 1

    Sure, the biggest of the biggest airports, there are more options. But If you look at the remaining 1,000 smaller airports (wait, Detroit is a smaller airport?), the selection goes WAY down. Hell, even MSP, has only a handful of flights that aren't Delta or United. In my case unless I want the one or two flights a week that Frontier, Southwest have, the next closest airport to get away from the crap that is United/Delta is about a 5 - 6 hour drive. The truth really is that if you live between the coasts, you are pretty much screwed when it comes to selection of airlines...

  164. Re:my solution is the gym by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    You must be short. Any discussion with said Air Marshall would quickly and visually indicate that there is no room between your seatback and my knee in any position. Short legged people just don't understand that.

    Don't like the leg room? Fly a different airline. What? All airlines are nickel and diming their passengers on space? Clearly it's your fellow passengers' fault. How dare they use the space and the equipment they've been assigned?

    I mean, the airline is your friend. They would never sacrifice your comfort just to make more money.

    Yes. It's definitely the asshole in front of you. He/she is determined to make your life hell. What? You've never seen that person before in your life? In that case, they must be mentally disturbed because all they can think about is harming you. In fact, they've made it the focus of their lives to harry and oppress you however they can. Because they're evil. Evil I say! Please.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  165. Re: my solution is the gym by Dynedain · · Score: 1

    I had a 14 hour flight to Hong Kong with those. Even with free entertainment and meals on a brand new plane, it was the worst flight of my life.

    That slump-to-recline is literally unusable for tall passengers.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  166. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by quetwo · · Score: 1

    I live within 2 miles of my organization's HQ. That doesn't help the fact they sell my services all over the USA.

  167. Consider Alternatives? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Take the Train? Take the Bus? Start your own Air Charter?

    Instead of being reactive, be proactive; screw'em all.

  168. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    My only conclusion is that the frequent bailouts they've received has allowed them to institutionalize failures in their business models. We need to stop "Saving" industries/businesses.

    Interesting, then, that you cite the Asian and Middle Eastern airlines as examples of the "right" way, as many of them are heavily subsidized.

    Good point, I have no idea if the airlines I flew were bailed out as well.

    I do know, that despite being bailed out, ours are still complete and total shit. :-)

  169. The Entitled by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    All I get from the comments here is that a lot of people feel entitled. If anyone has something they don't, however trivial, they feel entitled to have it, and it is morally wrong that they do not. I saw this strikingly when I moved from the Midwest to California. I see if more and more on Slashdot. I don't know what this has to do with anything. Just an observation.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  170. Re:So, they've reached the limits of human enduran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I know it is not popular to say these days but if you allow the "Free Market" to determine how everything runs it frequently runs things into the ground. Rampant over-regulation is bad too. Couldn't there be a happy medium? Couldn't we have a specification that required a minimum seat width and spacing? Might it cause all airlines to raise prices a small amount to make up for 6 fewer seats or whatever? Perhaps, but the reason we've become sardines is that with no rules you can't afford to be the only airline still offering reasonable seating if the other airlines are selling seats for $10 less. Price is easy to market, less tangible features, much, much less so.

    For the health and safety of all flying passengers, yes, I do think that certain standards, such as seat size and spacing should be regulated.

  171. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bullshit argument. "Ticket prices are lower than ever! Just upgrade!"

    What else is lower than ever, rube? Perhaps wages?

    People have to "suffer" the deleterious effects of modern travel because they can't afford to improve it, despite cheaper tickets. It's not their fault then, but yet again the corporate masters chase for profit squeezing them into their model.

    Suffer in silence. Jesus Christ. Let the spongers wring a bit more out of this system, man! Don't raise your voice and demand better. I mean it's the majority that makes these things work in the first place. Fuck sake, you expect to be treated humanely *and* have access to this shit? But profits! The temerity of folks that think such things.

  172. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a load of rhetorical garbage. When the airlines offer several sizes of seating based on height and weight at reasonable differentials in price then you _MIGHT_ have a point. The facts are otherwise. There is usually only economy and first/business class on offer. The price difference is astounding. No one should have to pay double for being 2 inches taller than you.

    The problem is clear, with competition being almost solely on ticket price, the airlines have had every incentive to cram more people into the same space in order make a profit at the requisite low ticket price.

    A reasonable rule on seat size and spacing wouldn't increase prices all that much. I mean on a 200 passenger flight, the loss of 6 seats would be only 3%. So your $300 ticket might have to be $309. Whoop-De-Doo! A small price to pay for the SAFETY and comfort of the flying public I think.

  173. Take a Hint from Atoms by darenw · · Score: 1

    One thing they haven't tried yet is hexagonal packing. Any physicist, chemist or minerologist can tell you hexagonal is denser packing than rectangles.

    Even better, pack in those passengers in three dimensions, Face Centered Cubic lattices and all that. Of course, this works best for spherical passengers.

    1. Re:Take a Hint from Atoms by mysidia · · Score: 1

      One thing they haven't tried yet is hexagonal packing. Any physicist, chemist or minerologist can tell you hexagonal is denser packing than rectangles.

      Perhaps... as each passenger steps on a plane, they will be packed into a body-fitting padded egg shell capsule and then dropped into a slot. In the event of a crash, the shell will also double as a flotation device.

      Nobody will have any freedom of movement, but they will at least achieve the maximum possible number of bodies, as they can stack passengers both horizontally and vertically and on top of one another.

  174. Re:So, they've reached the limits of human enduran by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    You can't physically cram people any tighter, and fights are breaking out.

    Oh, but you can pack people far closer together. And if you had a policy where anyone fighting had to exit the craft (parachute optional) then there wouldn't even be fighting. The fighting could also be reduced by any means that would reduce people's feeling of being treated unfairly, as people naturally get vicious if they feel they are being treated unfairly. Also anything that would reduce other sources of discomfort would reduce fights over unrelated discomforts as they are less likely to push them over the edge.

    Personally, I wonder what would happen if the replaced some seats with bunk beds, and maybe for good measure add an inch of noise absorbing panels or noise cancellation speakers. I would greatly prefer this especially since I don't like sitting on a long trip. If you could fit in three bunks (may require rearranging the overhead luggage), it might even save space.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  175. Re:That doesn't match the evidence and observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's the GP's comment a troll? Everything it says is factual. Now, these facts will no doubt anger the sensitive, politically correct crowd, I'm sure. Regardless, the facts are the facts.

    The GP isn't even joking when it comes to the electrocution part. To quote the New York Times,

    In life, they were uncelebrated. In death, Zyed Benna, 17, and Bouna Traore, 15, have inspired more than 10 days of riots that have spread from housing projects in the suburbs of Paris to cities and towns across France.

    A chance encounter with the police on a walk back from a soccer game on Oct. 27 ended with the two young men dead and a friend seriously injured in what the authorities have called an accidental electrocution.

    I wish the GP was trolling. At least that would mean that the world isn't as fucked up as the GP makes it sound. Unfortunately, the GP isn't trolling, and is absolutely correct, I'm afraid to say.

  176. Just be richer! by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You can also not fly if you can't afford it.

    So again you make the argument that only the wealthy should be entitled to a seat that they can actually fit in even if swapping seats with a short person costs nothing. Wow you're cold.

    Where exactly did you get idea that you are entitled to as much leg room as you want for as little money as you are willing to pay?

    It costs the airline NOTHING to have a tall person who literally cannot fit in a seat swap seats with a short person who can and you'll find that most people are willing to switch seats if you ask nicely. Sometimes you just do the right thing because its the right thing. Sometimes you leave the ideology behind and help someone out when they need it. In fact generally the passengers can work it out among themselves. The only time the airline needs to get involved is if they run into a cold hearted jerk who thinks people others should suffer if they don't happen to be wealthy enough.

    1. Re:Just be richer! by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      You are perfectly free to swap seats with any short person you can get to agree. The problem is most of those 'short' people picked a premium seat and aren't interested in swapping you for your cheaper seat. I pick a second exit row seat on every flight I can and if you offer to swap me your regular economy seat I'll be happy to name you a price. Premium seat, premium price. You can pay, just like the short person did, or you can do without. Yes, if you aren't wealthy enough you won't have all the creature comforts. In fact I understand that some people aren't wealthy enough to fly at all and have to take Greyhound. Some can't even afford Greyhound and they have to stay home.

  177. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by locnar42 · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you saw anyone smiling on a plane?

    Probably the last time I flew to Las Vegas. The trip home on the other hand was a different matter...not so many smiles.

  178. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

    The banks and airlines actually have a term for that: manufactured spending.

    If they catch you engaging in it they'll void your card and your miles. As far as they're concerned it's not legit.

  179. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by AdamInParadise · · Score: 1

    I hope that you're being sarcastic, because it's very simple really. Cruise lines uses a loophole in work regulations: they pay their staff according to the flag they fly. In other words, cruise lines rely on being able to bring thousands of third-world workers to the developed world, while still paying them third-world rates, just because they live on a boar. Imagine how sweet would life be if you could hire a maid in New York for the price of a maid in Vietnam!

    Airlines do the same, plus subsidized, cheap fuel. Oh, and no large pensions obligations either.

    Now I'm not saying that american airlines are not mismanaged, but that's not the only reason why they seem so bad in comparisons with other.

    --
    Nobox: Only simple products.
  180. Simple way to get rid of this issue by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Remove the capability of all seats to recline.

    The debate arises, because seats are capable of reclining by default, AND when the feature exists, the person feel's entitled to use it.

    Therefore... I suggest removing the capability altogether, or use seats where the recline button will be a feature that requires paying for the seat behind you and pushing a button behind your seat to enable recline.

  181. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone is 6' 1" and not every seat should be designed to accommodate someone who is 6' 1".

    So we just need to discriminate against the folks that are 6'1"? I thought the 1900s taught us discrimination was bad.

  182. Why do they bother to divert at all? by ctmurray · · Score: 2

    Why do the divert the flight over these minor upsets? I assume the flight attendants can distinguish between two people in a minor scuffle and say a terrorist assault on the crew? With locked cockpits the plane is in little danger of being hijacked. One of the flights diverted to an airport in the same state, so not really saving any time. I would argue there is a small increase in the danger by requiring the pilots change their flight plan and land at a (possibly) unknown airport. The diversion inconveniences the rest of the passengers, with no apparent (to me) improvement in safety or solving the situation.

    1. Re:Why do they bother to divert at all? by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      This puzzles me too. It would make some sense if the airliners were trying to push politicians to intervene in some way, or to sway public opinion, but all I can see them getting out of this is fingers pointing at them (aside for the direct financial loss, of course)...

  183. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you saw anyone smiling on a plane?

    Last time a flew. It was a 2 year old. They're short so the lack of legroom isn't an issue. Of course, the kid started screaming her lungs out right before takeoff because mommy and daddy made her turn off her iPad, but she was smiling before that.

  184. No we are not by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Tall people are free to purchase bulkhead and emergency row seats right now.

    Really? How do you do that? I would every time if I could.

    I have NEVER ONCE been able to get an emergency row or bulkhead seat in advance, despite being willing to pay more to do so. They are always taken even if I book many months or a year in advance.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No we are not by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      That's strange, I get an extra legroom seat on virtually every flight I've ever flown on and rarely book more than a week or two in advance. Domestic and International. Pick a flight two weeks out, any flight. Let's say LAX to EWR on 9/14/2014 (that's one week out). I'll bet there are at least 20 seats across all available flights that have extra legroom (bulkhead, exit row).

    2. Re:No we are not by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      First check: United UA 1556 on 9/14 LAX to EWR non-stop - 5 exit row seats available right now UA 1564 - 3 exit row seats UA 1498 - 5 exit row seats UA 1534 - 8 exit row seats UA 1244 - 4 exit row, 4 bulkhead seats UA 1043 - 3 exit row seats That's 32 exit row seats just on United. To assert you have to book months or even a year in advance is not credible.

    3. Re:No we are not by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That's 32 exit row seats just on United. To assert you have to book months or even a year in advance is not credible.

      I'm saying that I always have booked months to a year in advance, and have not been able to get those seats.

      That's great if it's possible, perhaps I've just had bad luck.

      I gave up on normal airlines because of this and fly only Southwest when possible, were I have a shot at the better seats.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  185. Re:my solution is the gym by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, what?

    The parent said he is 6'3 and I can sympathize as I am also 6'3. There is literally NO ROOM for the person in front to recline, my knees are already jammed hard into his seat and getting bruised. The gap in between seats is too small.

    Now on longhaul flights (between Aus/NZ and the US) economy seats DO have more room and even fully reclined I fit fine. (It's still a small uncomfortable space, but my legs are no longer being fucking crushed like on shorthaul flights in the US.)

    I literally could not fit my legs into the space infront of me on an LAX to SFO light. It's ridiculous.

    Flying in economy is only for short people now....

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
  186. The Solution is Pretty Easy by master_p · · Score: 1

    The solution of the problem is pretty easy: replace the chairs with beds. Not normal beds (of course), but bed/chair hybrid boards that are reclined in such a degree that allow the person to relax, stretch his/her body, take a nap etc, while at the same time have even more passengers in flight.

  187. Re:Aren't all the airlines complaining about usage by jemmyw · · Score: 1

    This is a well thought out comment.

    Perhaps an all-seats-equal type business model might make a better travel experience.

    I've wondered the same, I'd certainly pay a bit more for seat equality and this experiment at the premium economy level of comfort.

    Ever tried a Bus over the holidays?

    It'd work in some places, but not all. America is pretty big, I've been driving around the Western states for 2 months, but getting all the way across was too long and complicated with kids and cats (yeah) so we flew the rest from CO to MA. I'm moving overseas this month to Europe, and we're planning to use the trains instead of flying or driving for our holidays.

  188. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Todays "coach" class really is no more than a bus. If you want comfort, upgrade. Else, suffer in silence :-)

    Fuck off, cunt. You want to let my class on the plane, you get my class on the plane.

    If you want "nice" customers, drop economy class from your planes. Else, put up with our complaints.

  189. I don't care. by Geek_Cop · · Score: 1

    I'm short. So fuck you. Lol

  190. Seat backs are perfect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for looping a garotte over their head and ending the problem. Thoughtless bastards!

  191. Recline into your own space. . . by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

    If airlines wish to continue to offer reclining seats, they should reconfigure them so they recline forward instead of backwards, otherwise you get this war between people who have common frequent flier etiquette (avoid reclining except during overnight flights and when you do recline, do so slowly and only a bit while looking backwards over the seat to ensure you are not tossing someone's food in their lap or damaging their electronics) and airborne bumpkins.

    I've already cracked one kindle screen and gotten into a physical fight with someone on a plane because they reclined hard into my knees (and strangely both people were hobbits, only about 5'10". I suspect that non-midgets have a better understanding of the issue and are less likely to recline). Airlines either need to remove the recline function altogether or make the seats recline within a fixed shell.

  192. Re: That doesn't match the evidence and observatio by pete6677 · · Score: 1

    He was in fact injured: http://youngcons.com/breaking-...

  193. Re: by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

    Every seat should accommodate someone that is at least 6'4". The airlines have no way to know who may be on the flight and extra-legroom seats are likely to be booked by hobbits (those under 5'11") even if they are offered, so it is not as if slightly taller people necessarily have a choice of seats.

    Also, it is not as if every flier gets their choice of seats. If you are flying on business, you get the seats that are available and within the travel policy, which may not be comfortable for someone who is on the taller side of normal (6'1-6'6").

  194. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by mjwx · · Score: 1

    6'4" buddy here.
    I always take an aisle seat which gives me the chance to stretch my legs whenever I want too.
    If you travel for work, flights are often booked late so you may not have the chance of choosing your seat.
    However, I don't mind for short flights (2 hrs). Transantlantic flights (+8hrs) are hell.

    Try doing a transpacific flight, 13 hours SYD-LAX plus another 4 hours PER-SYD and another 2-3 hours depending on where I need to go in the US (Perth to Montreal was fun).

    The better part about flying from Perth is you have the options of some very good airlines like Cathay and Singapore.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  195. It's Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been proven dozens of times over the past couple of years that industry self-regulation of the finance and air travel business simply DOES NOT work and it is time for the Feds to show up and HEAVILY REGULATE both. Particularly in the "hidden fees" area. Of course the airline's lobbyists spent almost $30 million last year in bribes to make sure this will never happen.

  196. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I deserve it. Every time I fly my knees swell up and look like and apple after a food fight because the 5' 3" housewife ahead of me deserves to lounge in comfort.

    Good you do deserve it you piece of shit. Society is stacked against the short so any suffering you incur is poetic justice.

  197. Re:my solution is the gym by mjwx · · Score: 1

    That few degrees makes a big difference to me. I have back problems and am tall, and unfortunately the part of the seat that most people rest their head against pushes out on my shoulders, making even a 1 hour flight a pain session. A slight recline makes a huge difference. I am amazed that the poor ergonomic range of airline seats.

    If you have back problems, reclining only makes them worse.

    I actually have a lingering lower back issue. Reclining makes your weight go through your lower or mid back. Sitting upright makes your weight thorough your arse and into the chair. By reclining, you're actually making your back problem worse by making it support weight it doesn't need to.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  198. Why does anyone recline anyway? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Leave your seats upright, you don't need to recline on a short flight, or really any flight under 7 hours. Either buy a first class seat if you want to lay down or stay seated properly!!! I don't pay money to have someone jam the seat into my knees, I would use knee blockers ( or what ever those plastic clips were ).

  199. Re:my solution is the gym by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    You should stick to discussing your own back problems and not mine. The reason reclining slightly helps ME in many airline seats is due to my height and the mismatch of seat support to my back. Lumbar support (added by me) with a slight recline reduces the forward pressure near my shoulder area from the part of the seat that is a headrest area for many.

    I have managed my back issues quite well for many years, thanks for your unsolicited advice.

  200. No, Reclining is *not* "socially unacceptable" by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Reclining is perfectly reasonable, even though there are people who whine about it because they'd like to be using a laptop. The exception is during meals, where people behind you need to be able to reach their tray and where most airlines no longer provide enough space (though they've mitigated this by no longer providing meals either.) And as a tall passenger, I especially need to recline, because airplane seats aren't built for tall people's backs.

    However, I agree with you that you should recline slowly, giving the person behind you time to move a laptop.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  201. Re:So, they've reached the limits of human enduran by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    And if you had a policy where anyone fighting had to exit the craft (parachute optional) then there wouldn't even be fighting.

    If you propose on-the-spot executions for people who violate the rules, you'll get the exact opposite of what you intend. What do you think would happen when a flight attendant asked the passenger to get into the newly-installed airlock? Do you imagine that they'll just happily comply?

    If you could fit in three bunks (may require rearranging the overhead luggage), it might even save space.

    I wonder just how big a space you could use if you made them horizontal. You wouldn't need space between rows - just dividers. Evacuation might be a problem - people would tend to get trampled when everybody tries to de-bunk at the same time.

  202. Re: by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

    So every seat needs to accommodate a 7' 10" man or someone who is 800lbs as well or do you admit that there are limits and having limits on seat size doesn't imply discrimination? How is it that the airlines discriminate against people who are 6' 1" when they never see you when you purchase a ticket? Do they pull out a tape measure at the gate, measure you and discriminate against you there? Or is it not a case of discrimination at all but merely you don't LIKE the product they are selling and what a DIFFERENT product they are selling (Economy Plus) but believe you should be able to have that premium product for the same price? I think what the 1960's taught us is that not everything is discrimination just because some things are. For example, if you have a king size appetite to go with your king size frame you still get the same size hamburger at McDonalds for your $2.49 as a petite woman does. That isn't due to discrimination but in fact is due to McDonald's NOT discriminating on the basis of size.

  203. Re:That doesn't match the evidence and observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, you're just ruining the joke now. It's like pissing on a Picasso.

  204. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An example of how ridiculous this policy is... my employer has a "cheapest airfare possible" policy. We are under strict orders... the flight must be the absolute cheapest with no exceptions. I needed to fly from Europe to the US head office (in California). The flight from the closest airport was (for example) 1000 Euro. The next closest airport (two hours away by car) was 950 Euro. The company insisted I select this cheaper flight even though I would have to pay 150 Euro more for the taxi to the airport and 2 extra nights in a hotel in California because the flight dates were not as good as the other flight. I had to fight it to Regional Director level to take the flight that was 50 Euro more (saving the company 150 Euro in additional taxi costs, plus $200 US in additional hotel costs).

    The insanity of it all...

  205. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change your job if they're damaging your health for work

  206. Re:my solution is the gym by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    Sure I could just be the world's biggest dick. But what does that get me?

    A lucrative career in adult entertainment.

  207. Does the article mention the companies? by ruir · · Score: 1

    I want to know the names, you know, to avoid them.

    1. Re:Does the article mention the companies? by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      Same as usual. Everybody. It's not like we'll let them fail for sucking or anything.

  208. Not just tall people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just tall people - it's the leg length.
    My wife is 5'9", but with her super long legs, she gets screwed on nearly every airline we've flown.
    And this ends up messing with her back, cause she has to twist and turn.
    And this messes with her flight, and sleep on long haul, and mood on landing (the worst consequence by far - I can handle a moan for a few hours, but bitching for days afterwards is horrendous).
    I can tell you - if first class didn't cost three times, I'd probably still be married if there was just one inch more available in coach.
    It's ruined many a shared vacation, cause the pain and anguish and fucking around can just ruin the first few days of a holiday, and if that's the only quality time out you get, you're in shit. It's tough enough adjusting to new cars, new beds, new temperatures/humidity/food/water.

    Really - big/tall/"un-normalized" persons - they're being Darwined out of the air passenger pool.

    Man - listen to me bitch about being a 1%er - we really do all have it tough, don't we?

  209. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, you're such an asshole.

  210. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It would help if there were alternatives. High speed rail is just as fast or faster for many journeys once you factor in time wasted getting to the airport, going through security and all that crap.

    I'm lucky in that JAL fly the route I travel and offer bigger seats and food as standard for the same price as the shitty British carriers who pack you in like a sardine.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  211. Seat recliners are jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one here who thinks that the 2-inch recline you get out of your seat is not really essential for you to survive a flight? After having flown nearly 200,000 mi without reclining my seat, I think folks who recline their seats are just insensitive pricks.

  212. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Also, the cruise lines are cheaper and include foo

    Who cares about foo? It's the bar department that matters...

  213. Re:my solution is the gym by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    No I need the space to prevent serious cramping/bruising. They need the space (for the most part) because they want to take a knap. Pain wins over knap time.

  214. Re: by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Not everyone is 6' 1" and not every seat should be designed to accommodate someone who is 6' 1".

    That's like saying not everyone drives cars so we only need to make your garage wide enough for a bike. If a product accepts things of multiple sizes it should be big enough to accommodate the biggest, pretty simple really.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  215. seat foam by McFly777 · · Score: 1

    I've been on a few flights where the seat foam was so worn out that sitting on a board would have been preferable. At least it would have been consistantly flat, instead of havng pressure points from the structure underneath.

    --

    McFly777
    - - -
    "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
  216. time for FAA to grow a pair! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all right, this had gotten BEYOND ridiculous! FAA needs to go on record stating that either reclining is allowed or it's not & either the recliner or the hostile reclinee is going to get prosecuted & put on the no-fly list (at least it would finally do something useful!)! personally, I'm in the "if it's there I can use it just like light or air duct!" camp but would rather see a definitive blanket prohibition than the status quo continue...

  217. Reclining by McFly777 · · Score: 1

    I've been on more than one flight where my seat was broken such that I couldn't NOT recline. (or to avoid the double negative, the seat would ONLY recline, as it would not stay latched in the upright position). This was annoying, as I wanted to read and actually wanted the more upright position.

    While I don't always recline, I don't find it "rude", and am not insulted / offended / bothered when the person in front of me does so. When I do recline, it is often only to the center of the travel of the recliner (which isn't very far to begin with).

    What I find annoying is the FMVSS 202A requirements for car head-restraints that are further forward than the original 202 regulation. This was implemented to reduce the travel of your head in an impact, but is only necessary IMHO because many people recline their driver's-seats so much that the headrestraints are less effective. In contrast, I prefer to sit more upright; as a result, the 202A head-restraints are actually forcing my head forward and down. (This has been somewhat alieveated by the development of active head-restraints which only come forward in the case of a crash. Yeaa, more pyrotechnics right behind my noggin. Just what I wanted.)

    --

    McFly777
    - - -
    "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
  218. Not height by phorm · · Score: 1

    Leg length. My father and I are the same height, but when I driven his car on occasion I feel like the pedals are a mile away. I've got more upper-body length and he's more lower-body.

    You can have two people that are 6' tall. The one with the long legs is going to suffer more on a plane where the passenger in front reclines backwards

  219. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by phorm · · Score: 1

    the 5' 3" housewife ahead of me deserves to lounge in comfort

    I doubt it's "lounging in comfort", but yeah actually she does deserve as much conform as is available in her seat. The problem is that the airlines have designed crappy seats wherein her comfort detracts from yours. Don't blame the passenger in front, blame the shitty airline seating and your cheap company which only provides cheap fares but (apparently) requires lots of travel.

  220. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by phorm · · Score: 1

    This might be part of it. My favourite part is how airlines (or just companies, really) that are doing poorly hire even more expensive CEO's with the expectation that they'll have some magic fix to things, but instead they drive the company into the ground and collect their big payout and golden parachute.

  221. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

    It's not that easy. The beverage cart is often in the aisle for long periods of time - that prevents someone from putting their legs in the aisle and trying to sleep.

    The flight crew will also warn passengers if their legs are too far out.

  222. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

    How does one "move/deposit those gift cards back into their bank account"?

  223. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    My company will only book the cheapest fare (X or lower),

    Get a doctor to certify that you need X inches of legroom when you fly or [bad medical outcome] will happen to you. Then, go to HR and say, "Need reasonable accommodation. Doctor's orders." My guess is that you and your knees will be pleasantly surprised.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  224. He who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The airlines decided to save money at the expense of passenger comfort and they end up suffering losses? What a terrible injustice!

  225. What, cut into profits? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And CEO salaries? Why, when we can just laugh (other than at the cost of unscheduled landings and takeoffs) at people who can't afford business class?

    What did you think steerage was? Are you *so* last century that you rembember free checked luggage, and free food (since you'd paid so much for the flight)? What, just because Americans have been growing larger for the last century (men going into the US Army, in WWI: 5'6, WWII, 5'8", 'Nam: 5'10") why should we make enough room for the majority of the population?

    You don't like it, take the train (but we won't fund it, the way we do planes, with tax-paid airports, and transportation to the airports....)

                        mark "how many airline CEOs can fit in steerage with the rest of us?"

  226. Gear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, if I wanted to have to wear special gear to survive a fight, I could've stayed in the Air Force...

    What gear, your government issued dishwasher gloves?

    Gloves, pair, OD, medium

    Used for dishwashing and onboard latrine cleaning.

  227. Re:Today's business class is the 70s' economy clas by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    There's also the practice of scheduling the flight to take up some of the employee's weekend time, without compensation, because it's cheaper for the employer.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  228. Who's space belongs to whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your seat can recline, it is your right to do that except for takeoffs and landings.
    The person behind you has the same right.
    Unless he is seated just ahead of an exit row or the back bulkhead.

    Complaints are best addressed by paying attention to where you are seated when you book the flight.
    The idea that it is impolite to recline your seat is nuts.

    I guess the TSA screening could put knee defenders on their list of banned gedgets.
    At least that way they would be preventing something from traveling that has no business on board.

    It is annoying that the airlines are setting up a situation where the passengers are fighting with each other
    when the real bad guy in this is the airlines. Tough job to be a flight attendant these days.
    Can't think of much that would make me want to fly.

  229. Seems like the facts were lost sight of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some passenger puts a device on the seat of the person in front of then so that they can have more room by restricting another passenger.

    As much as I try to think of why anyone would think this is OK, I cannot imagine anyone, other than a self-centered sociopath using a device like this and thinking it is OK.

    Flying sucks anymore. Making it better for you by making it worse for someone else is not the answer.

    This should have been handled simply and easily. The passenger tells the attendant that the person behind them has altered the plane to restrict their seat.
    The flight attendant has the offender remove the device. If the offender refuses to comply, they should suffer the consequences (could be jail).

  230. That backed fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well i understand there trying to get more money out of their flights but it sure as hell backed fired on them. Not to mention the money the lost from those flight but the bad publicity must hirt even more

  231. Native Alaskans are the problem in Anchorage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alaska has the highest ratio of men to women, something like 107 men per 100 women. It's skewed, but not outrageous. It's a rough country in many ways, statistically leading the nation in domestic violence, rape, and murders committed by men against women. The majority of these crimes are committed by and upon Native Alaskans. The statistics I've seen were 66% of rape victims, out of 14.8% total population. Another statistic was that 3 out of 4 Native women would be rape or domestic abuse victims. You can also look at rates of alcoholism and suicide. The male/female ratio does tend to be more skewed in the Native villages.

    Poverty is a problem. Wealth inequality is a problem. Alcohol in cultures that haven't been exposed to it until recent history is an insurmountable problem.

    I know enough Natives to know that they have alcohol problems, and I knew the rape statistics, but I didn't know the ethnic distribution of those statistics before writing this post. Everyone's got problems, but damn it sucks to be Native, even with all the free money.

  232. Profit Margin? by ramriot · · Score: 1

    I would love to see the financial analysis of this i.e.

    Remove 1" of leg room to get in x extra seats and make n dollars per extra customer
      VS
    Cost of an interrupted flight due to personal space induced aggression.

    I have a feeling that with margins being squeezed and the high cost of missing your allocated airport departure / arrival slot, it may well work out that keeping customers happy is actually more profitable than skimming them for every inch and dollar.

  233. Re:my solution is the gym by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    No I need the space to prevent serious cramping/bruising.

    Then why didn't you pay for it?

  234. Re:my solution is the gym by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Because just because I'm 20% bigger than you doesn't mean I'm 3X richer than you.

  235. Hmm by goldcd · · Score: 1

    Seat reclining should be considered like smoking.
    Yes you used to be able to do it, yes you might even have something on your seat that suggest you might still be able to do it - but as a consideration to your fellow passengers, you can't.

  236. Hmm by goldcd · · Score: 1

    There are all manner of double standards already though - as a 37 year old I'd get kicked off a plane if I made as much noise as some children.
    I've been (OK, willingly) booted from a bulkhead (more leg-room) so a parent could have a clip on tray-thing to put their child on.

    Long-haul holiday, I cash in my air-miles for something with leg-room. I unfortunately happen to have a scummy-cheap-employer, who'll pay for nothing other than economy on my enforced trips.

    Most of the time it's fine, there's enough legroom, the flight's not full, blah blah. It's just those occasions where this isn't the case. You sit down and know for the next 8 hours you're going to be in pain. Actual pain. AND then somebody slams a seat into you. Strike that, most of the time they notice 'the resistance' - but when they don't..
    Ideally it should just be treated in the same way as a kosher meal. x inches of leg-room is a requirement for my travel. Can't supply that, you lose my business. I really don't care about the rest of it. Air-travel is not something I wish to 'enjoy' - simply be as unaware of as possible.

  237. I disagree by goldcd · · Score: 1

    I'm not 'very' tall - I don't have to shop in different shops. The regular shops I go to don't charge me extra for the material required to make my clothes etc. They've determined the cost of fabric isn't economically justifiable in maintaining different price points for the clothing - we all pay the same, we all get something that fits.
    What's wasteful on planes is the handing out of 'excess' legroom. If you don't need 1 inch of space, you certainly don't need 3" of space. That's a waste. An empty seat that nobody is using is an AWFUL lot of waste that could be allocated, for nothing, to other passengers.

    The seats are already on tracks, how about simply just allowing them to crawl up and down the plane according to need? Sure it's not simple - but planes are reasonably complex already. Simply pitch would be - all passengers get the most legroom we can possibly provide them with.
    Airlines are already trying to shift us off the peak-hour flights on cost - but I'd happily shift, for nothing (as my employer is paying), if I was actually comfortable.

  238. Agreed. by goldcd · · Score: 1

    I quite liked my Hertz Bug - I think they thought we were a gay couple though, when we were offered it, but I digress - loads of space.
    Next time we got a Mini (the fuggly big one) and I loathed it.
    I know you're taller than me, so don't wish to tell you what's comfortable - but for me at least: Huge cars always have space. Anything beneath that appears to be completely random whether it's comfortable or not. Some are designed for tall people, some aren't - there just doesn't seem to be any particular reasoning/pricing around it.

  239. Indeed by goldcd · · Score: 1

    The *single* time I've ever argued on a plane (I'm British and we're big on silent compliance), was then I could only fit by putting by twisting (really not good for your back), my legs ended up in the aisle and was woken and chastised by stewardess unable to get her trolley past (after slamming it into my legs a few times).
    Ended up having to stand up to let the duty-free go by.
    To return to the point above. I'm not asking for luxury, I'm just wanting it not to physically hurt. I don't have a choice of airline as I have a cheap-arse employer - I can maybe choose a flight time that I think will be less popular, but that's all the say I have. Yes - maybe I should change jobs - but just seems bizarre that in my corporate world of IT, decisions have been made as to whether I should feel pain or not.

  240. Maybe it's the lack of choice. by goldcd · · Score: 1

    If I buy a car, or a pair of trousers, I make a decision as to what I will and won't accept.
    If I buy a plane ticket, I can see the airports, the times, the meal I don't want, the films I can watch, religious meal-types available etc - there's never an absolute statement saying you'll have x many inches of space between your back and the seat infront.
    If there was, I could appeal to corporate travel to black-list some options. As it stands you're already on the plane, before you realize what you're in for.

  241. Re:my solution is the gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, so now it's not only to protect your knees, but simply to be able to work like in your office ? Wow. This is not zero sum. You just expect everyone to pay for your little comforts.

    Sorry. If I pay for a reclining seat, I see no reason why I should not be able to recline it. If the seat is non-reclineable, that is a significant factor, should be advertized and I would not pick it. But just like everything you buy is expected to be in working order, so is my seat purchase.

  242. Cargo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just started flying again and I feel I have now officially become "Cargo". That unfortunately is alive and needs to be watered at least once in 5 hours.

  243. Business model for 'bulk' -- Pay By Weight by brindafella · · Score: 1

    There is already a 'flying' business model for Pay By Weight -- Samoa Air. The Samoan people tend to be "large framed", so they now pay for their bodies and their baggage, or cargo, by weight. Getting their frames into the seats is then another matter. But, how could they complain?

    --
    Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.