Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Lawmakers Propose Minimum Seat Sizes For Airlines (consumerist.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the measures-about-measurements dept.

The size of each passenger's seat on an airplane -- as well as the distance between rows of seats -- should be standardized, according to legislation proposed by two American lawmakers. Slashdot reader AmiMoJo quotes Consumerist: The text of the bill does not specify any dimensions for seat widths or legroom. Rather, if the legislation is passed, the particulars would be left up to the FAA to sort out... Though seat size may vary from airline to airline, Cohen notes that the average distance between rows of seats has dropped from 35 inches before airline deregulation in the 1970s, to around 31 inches today. Your backside is getting the squeeze, as well, as the average width of an airline seat has also shrunk from 18 inches to about 16.5 inches.

11 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Alternative headline... by c · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "US Lawmakers Solicit Campaign Donations From Airlines"

    It's not going to pass. There'll be a storm of lobbying activity and the proposal will quietly die at the bottom of a drawer somewhere...

    --
    Log in or piss off.
    1. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "US Lawmakers Solicit Campaign Donations From Airlines"

      It's not going to pass. There'll be a storm of lobbying activity and the proposal will quietly die at the bottom of a drawer somewhere...

      Yep.

      Probably better to just require full disclosure of seat size. That way smaller people could buy smaller seats, and larger people larger ones.

      Requiring a fixed size is just going to make things less efficient and fundamentally more expensive.

    2. Re: Alternative headline... by Cederic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right. So tall people have to suffer health impacts just so you can have a cheap seat?

      Fuck you and your selfishness.

      You already have a lower cost of living due to your size, you can fucking afford to subsidise others for once.

  2. Cost by KermodeBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These days I avoid flying if I can. I'd rather drive 10 hours then put up with lines in security, getting molested by the TSA, sitting in a tiny seat in a tin can with a dozen screaming babies and sneezing people...

    But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly. I'd like larger seats, sure - but I'd rather see that solved by the airlines instead of the government sticking their nose into the market yet again.

    Imagine this:

    Enjoy our spacious, comfortable seats on your flight with a full two feet of leg room. With no children under thirteen, you can be assured that your flight will be completed in peace. We still serve complimentary drinks and snacks and offer free pillows, so you'll be refreshed when you land. Why suffer? Fly NottaCrap Airline for only $100 more. Enjoy the experience. (tm)

    They'd have people stampeding to get tickets.

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Because the USA won't move into the 20th Century let alone the 21st.
      Industry does use Metric but for the average Jane/Joe Public they refuse to change.
      It is eben worse when you realise that the US Pint is smaller than everywhere else.
      To express weights in ibs (even for a Big-Boy steam loco) rather than Tons is just backward.
      Don't even get me on the insitence in using AM/PM.

      Yep, the USA is a Backward thinking nation with a 'Dear Leader' that will take them even further back.

    2. Re:Cost by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These days I avoid flying if I can. I'd rather drive 10 hours then put up with lines in security, getting molested by the TSA, sitting in a tiny seat in a tin can with a dozen screaming babies and sneezing people...

      But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly. I'd like larger seats, sure - but I'd rather see that solved by the airlines instead of the government sticking their nose into the market yet again.

      Imagine this:

      Enjoy our spacious, comfortable seats on your flight with a full two feet of leg room. With no children under thirteen, you can be assured that your flight will be completed in peace. We still serve complimentary drinks and snacks and offer free pillows, so you'll be refreshed when you land. Why suffer? Fly NottaCrap Airline for only $100 more. Enjoy the experience. (tm)

      They'd have people stampeding to get tickets.

      If you're presented with two options for a flight, and one ticket costs $20 less, then you're probably going to buy that ticket.

      However, if you got to actually sit in both seats first, and realized that one seat was a little bigger and more comfortable, you might be willing to spend the extra $20.

      The problem is that even if you really care about the size and comfort of your airplane seat it's really tough to judge it when you buy the ticket, so the airline has a strong incentive to reduce the price of the ticket by shrinking the seat and using cheaper materials.

      I think it's quite possible that consumers never wanted the trade-off of smaller seats for cheaper prices, and if we could have properly evaluated seats at the time of purchase they would have gotten bigger instead.

      If the market forces governing airplane seats are broken then it's exactly the kind of scenario where government should step in and regulate.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  3. Re:About time! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So why should short people subsidize you? If you need extra room, then pay for it yourself. Many airlines already offer "economy plus", so you already have that option. Why should that option be forced on everyone?

    Making every seat fit someone that is 6'6" will mean fewer people will fit on the plane, wasting fuel, and jacking up the ticket prices for everyone.

  4. Re:About time! by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem isn't space. The problem is people unwilling to pay extra for extra space. The small percentage of the population which falls outside size norms want to pass laws requiring that they be given enough space at the same price as everyone else. As a result, just like the ADA individuals who got UC Berkeley's online course videos pulled off the web, larger people are going to get lower priced seats for regular-sized and smaller people eliminated.

    Most airlines now have an economy+ section, with bigger seat pitch and sometimes wider seats. It only costs about 10%-20% more than a regular seat, so you're not stuck paying business class fares. I'm sorry you'll have to pay a bit more than me to fly, but what gives you the right to deny a smaller person lower prices for a smaller seat?

    Legislation requiring slightly larger seats and slightly higher prices (economy+) be available on all flights is fine. Legislation outlawing "smaller" seats which fit the vast majority of passengers is stupid.

  5. information by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    instead of interfering on behalf of the gluttons and the expense of everyone else, why not just mandate that the purchase page disclose the dimensions of the seat.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  6. Re:What I'm waiting for... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last time I flew from Denver to Phoenix, the round trip ticket was around $70. I can't even get to the Colorado border without paying that much in gas alone. And if I had wanted to go to Hawaii, well, that would have been a significantly more difficult drive.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  7. Re: About time! by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Starting a statement/question with 'so' is a tell for cognitive dissonance.

    That's rubbish and you know it. So why did you post it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."