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.
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?"
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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) 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
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, you're that big internet guy I've argued with in every forum ever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because you can't afford anything better. Now you see?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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.
This is the finest troll I've seen in at least a month.
Kudos, Anonymous Coward!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Then don't fly. I'm not sure where your sense of entitlement comes from but you'd do well to lose it asap.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ----
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
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).
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?!
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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."
...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).
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.
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.
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!
It's easier to just reduce costs by run fewer flights with more people crammed into each flight.
Unless you have days to drive or cruise to where you can fly in hours, the airlines are the only game in town.
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.
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.
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.
A DIY knee defender.
Or this.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shorter Slashdot commentariat: Everybody on a plane is an inconsiderate asshole except me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's what's happening at 30,000 feet!
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
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.
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"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
..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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Seriously, this whole comment trail is a gigantic version of Occupy.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
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.
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.
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.
The real litigious bastards...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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.....
I live within 2 miles of my organization's HQ. That doesn't help the fact they sell my services all over the USA.
Take the Train? Take the Bus? Start your own Air Charter?
Instead of being reactive, be proactive; screw'em all.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I'm short. So fuck you. Lol
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!
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.
He was in fact injured: http://youngcons.com/breaking-...
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.
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").
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.
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.
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 ).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Sure I could just be the world's biggest dick. But what does that get me?
A lucrative career in adult entertainment.
I want to know the names, you know, to avoid them.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
How does one "move/deposit those gift cards back into their bank account"?
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
It's not realistic to expect someone to maintain that singular position for the entire trip.
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?"
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
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.
No I need the space to prevent serious cramping/bruising.
Then why didn't you pay for it?
Because just because I'm 20% bigger than you doesn't mean I'm 3X richer than you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.