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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday March 18, 2017 @01:34AM 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.

266 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's about time! I don't fit in a standard airline seat, so currently have 3 options - Pay for business class, have an uncomfortable flight for me and seat neighbours, or don't fly. In recent years I've been taking option 3 more and more often.
I'm not particularly fat, I'm just 6'6 and broad shouldered. With each generation getting bigger than their parents it doesn't make sense to be reducing seat sizes year on year.
1. Re:About time! by rfengr · 2017-03-18 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm 6'5" and used to pre-board on SW. The gate attendant suggested that, and said they will let those 6'3" and over preboard. Worked great until the policy changed that does not allow pre boards to sit in exit rows. It's still useful for getting the 1st row bulkhead seat.
2. Re:About time! by ShanghaiBill · 2017-03-18 02:56 · 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.
3. Re:About time! by rfengr · 2017-03-18 03:13 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  It'd be nice if the airlines banned short people from sitting in the exit rows.
4. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  So why should short people subsidize you?
  Why should someone who bought their ticket on a Tuesday subsidize someone who bought their ticket on a Wednesday?
  In fact, it's not not just that there's no correlation between price and space. In general, there's an inverse correlation between how much you pay and how much space you have. If tickets are cheap it means that that flight is mostly empty and the small seats won't be a problem because everyone will have an entire row to themselves. If tickets are expensive then it means the flight is fully booked and you're likely to be sharing half your seat with a 300 lb businessman. And, of course, that goes for the upgrades, too. In cases where the "economy plus" upgrades are available, the flight is usually mostly empty anyway - and therefore a total waste of money. But on the fully booked flights the economy plus upgrades are already sold out.
  Now, in my limited experience, Japan Airlines does consistently provide larger seats (and better service even for passengers in economy class). So I fly Japan Airlines when I have that option. And some of the worst experiences of my life have been with British Air (if you're rich and perfectly well behaved they treat you well but if you're not rich or you need any accommodation at all they will treat you like you're not even human). So I avoid British Air whenever possible.
5. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Because not being short wasn't a choice...it's genetics. A few years back I flew Air Transat and the seat in front of me was so close I couldn't have my thighs straight out. (Knee to hip distance insufficent) I'm only 5' 11''. Absolutely miserable experience.
6. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  As long as everyone is paying by the pound or by dimension, fine, but why should my toddler (and his 77 pound mother) subsidize YOU?
7. Re:About time! by vivian · 2017-03-18 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I can never have my thighs straight out in economy unless I score an emergency exit seat - my knees are hard up against the back of the seat in front of me. I'm 6"4. Don't even get me started about traditional doorway heights in Japan...
8. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:46 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  So why should short people subsidize you?
  Probably for the same reason I have to subsidize other minorities, such as unwed teenage mothers, unemployed liberal arts majors, and illegal mexicant babies?
  We live in a Democrat society, which means we all have to take it up the ass for the greater good.
9. Re:About time! by mallyn · 2017-03-18 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. I have chosen option 3. The last time I flew anywhere was April, 2015. Almost two years ago.
  
  --
  Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
10. Re:About time! by Solandri · 2017-03-18 04:05 · 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.
11. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  So you agree that having seats mean fewer people fit on a plane, and that they waste fuel, right? Not to mention restrooms - every seat has a fluid resistant bag available. Perhaps everyone should be placed into a waiting area for 6 hours before flights and prevented from food or water to further reduce weight and increase efficiency. Clearly, pay toilets and prohibition of carry-on luggage is only logical. Same with anything in your pocket - in fact everyone should be required to wear hospital gowns and paper slippers - another weight savings! Your comment about "Many airlines..." is as stupid as it is ignorant. If you bothered to inform yourself, then you'd learn just what is offered from most airlines is far short of what used to be common sized seating. I avoid air travel because its become so uncomfortable.
12. Re:About time! by Opportunist · 2017-03-18 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  My last flight was in 2010. I replaced air travel by overnight train travel. It's awesome! Benefits all around.
  - I have to sleep anyway.
  - I have to get up at 7, not at 4.
  - No ass groping and penis pic perverts
  - A fucking HUGE room compared to the cramped ... well, let's be generous and call it seat, next stage would probably be more aptly called a perch. With my own toilet and washing place to use for as long or short as I please without some asshat knocking at the door.
  - Better food
  And it's not even more expensive. Yes, it takes 10 hours instead of 2. SO WHAT? I get to sleep those 10 hours. Instead of getting maybe 4 hours of sleep, then hurrying to the airport, wrestling with airport security who is just as awake as I am, squeezing myself into a seat, getting my stuff all wrinkled and fucked up and be sleep deprived at my destination, I have a full night sleep, with my gear being in pristine condition after I had a through morning toilet.
  Fuck planes, trains is where my money is!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re: About time! by DaHat · 2017-03-18 04:18 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  So why should short people subsidize you?
  Starting a statement/question with 'so' is a tell for cognitive dissonance.
  Funny you should ask, the folks up in business and first class are asking the same thing about you back in cattle class and your rather cheap seat.
  
  --
  Help Brendan pay off his student loans
14. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's all relative.
  Let's make the seat size so small that even average people don't fit and see if you still hold the same opinion.
15. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  I have no control over my height.
16. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument is hypocritical. You complain about tall people forcing extra price onto short people, and then you advocate that it's reasonable for short people to force extra price onto tall people.
17. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Before taxes and fees, an Economy ticket for round trip between Newark and Geneva (on some random Tuesday in September) costs $1,080.00. Economy Plus costs an additional $448.00 (or $591.00 if you go for whatever the hell Economy Plus Enhanced is). That's a price increase of 41%, for 4 inches of leg room and an extra checked bag. Even if we assume that the extra checked bag is used, which (when last I did that flgiht) costs a ridiculous $100 each way, then that extra 4 inches of leg room adds 22% to the ticket prices. Assuming the distance between seats in economy is that average 31 (and you're paying to get back to your original 35 from the 70s), this is a 13% increase is space between seats.
  In terms of price per distance between seats, which is the metric you've chosen, Economy Plus seats are unambiguously subsidizing Economy seats. Or to be more precise, the cost has nothing to do with the business cost of larger distances between seats, they're simply charging as much as the market will bear.
  If your legs simply do not fit in an economy seat, as is the case for me (6'3''-ish but with legs for days), then there's no option but to sit in an exit row or fly economy plus. I have to travel somewhat frequently for work, on extremely short notice, so the exit row option has happened once out of maybe two dozen flights in the past 3 or 4 years. The upgrade isn't considered valid business expense (as a matter of law, and rightly so, the work is publicly funded), so I've had to eat the expense out of pocket.
18. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Because smaller people are POS ... that's why they get smash-faced in UTB ghetto street-fights.
19. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  That'd be a wonderful point if there was any connection between seat amount and airline costs.
  But even as the price of oil plummeted, and airline costs plummeted, seat sizes got smaller, and tickets have gone up.
  The only thing that's grown is airline costs. I'm short (5'6"), but I still find airline seats way too small. I wouldn't be subsidising him, because I too would be getting a bearable service.
  Fact is even for shorter people like me airline seats are now uncomfortable to the point they cause health problems because you can't sleep properly in them anymore as there just isn't the space to get into a sleeping position where you wont strain yourself.
  The real issue is that airlines put profit growth above health and safety, but it's not an industry where that can be reasonably allowed to happen.
  In most of the western world buses, boats, and trains are regulated such that there is a limit to the amount of passengers, and restrictions on seating conditions. Why the hell should airlines be a special case when they involve people being stuck in those conditions for the longest time of all those forms of transport?
  It's got fuck all to do with subsidies, and everything to do with an industry that's been allowed to bypass all consumer protection laws for too long for the sake of chasing ever increasing profits.
20. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  except there is no way for airlines to make sections of the plane with smaller seats or larger seats because they know they will never get it right an they will lose money
21. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's about time! I don't fit in a standard airline seat, so currently have 3 options - Pay for business class, have an uncomfortable flight for me and seat neighbours, or don't fly. In recent years I've been taking option 3 more and more often.
  I'm not particularly fat, I'm just 6'6 and broad shouldered. With each generation getting bigger than their parents it doesn't make sense to be reducing seat sizes year on year.
  This obviously won't pass a Republican congress because it would "cost jobs"
22. Re:About time! by PopeRatzo · 2017-03-18 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  - No ass groping and penis pic perverts
  You're a killjoy.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
23. Re:About time! by thewolfkin · 2017-03-18 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  And it's not even more expensive.
  
  I doubt this. I'd gladly take the time for a train but they're so prohibatively expensive. That and oceans are the two reasons I choose airplanes.
  
  --
  Just another second banana
24. Re:About time! by epyT-R · 2017-03-18 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Bigger? You mean fatter? Perhaps you're in shape and are just large, which is understandable, but we should not accommodate the grotesque obesity.
25. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Not asking for a subsidy. But business class is 5x the expense maybe more. Why are there no larger economy seats for a small premium?
26. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Eat less.
27. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Are you suggesting the FAA should set the rules on Japanese doorway heights?
28. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  Ass groping and penis pic perverts...
  This is a plane we're talking about, correct?
29. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't provide them the extra space they just end up paying equal amounts and taking your space anyway.
  Ever had a fat guy sit beside you and consume 20% of your shoulder room? Of course you have if you fly in the US.
  They should charge passengers by weight. Get them and their luggage on a scale and pro-rate the cost. If your fatter, taller or bring too much luggage you pay more. Their fuel costs are directly proportional.
  I would fly any airline that adopted this policy.
30. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  That is not how airlines work. Economy class seats are just to fill the plane. The airline makes it's money on all the other classes unless the plane is entirely economy class. So it's those business class and first class customers that are paying 20X the ticket price subsidizing the economy class.
  Which is to say, Airline seats should assume that passengers are 8' tall, this would cover all but maybe 10 people in the world who have medical conditions to blame for their height.
  If trains can do it, planes can do it. That said, quit flying and take the train whenever it's convenient to do so.
31. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Height is genetically controlled, and the only way you don't end up 8' tall is estrogen during purberty. Once you reach maximum height, you only shrink due to bone/muscle loss, and even then you're only going to lose a maximum of 2" from your torso, not your legs, which is what counts.
32. Re:About time! by WarJolt · 2017-03-18 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not 6'5", but I will never get on a plane again without knowing the model and seat configuration. I've been on a trip where the way there I had plenty of room. On the way back I felt like I was molesting this poor woman next me because my shoulders were wider than the seats.
  Lawmakers are useless. Vote with your ass.
33. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  The small percentage of the population which falls outside size norms
  Except its not a small percentage - it is the overwhelming majority: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx
  The airlines are NOT targetting seat size at the average passenger - they have now gone below the recommended seat size for even "normal" BMI, which is by far the minority.
  Thus, legislation will help put boundaries on the greed they have, and re-encourage them to at least match the needs of the mean of the population.
34. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's cheaper to take the train in all situations. (A cross-contentment train ride is 3-5 days, depending if you're going Amtrak north/south or east-west, or via Canada)
  I've done this route. The Empire Builder, has seats that recline all the way back, and even when not reclined you have a good 24" of leg room. Most of the other shorter routes have 2x2 row configurations. If train travel was more popular/faster/frequent, you'd likely see the same kind of shrinking of the seats, but that isn't likely for a number of reasons, one being that they can just add and extra car to pretty much any train until the train is a mile long, it may make pulling into some stations awkward, but it's completely doable by letting passengers off/on, and then moving the train.
  The lack of any train solution to get from Europe to America is obviously a problem, and it's also easily solved if Russia, USA and Canada wanted to, just not likely in our lifetime until there isn't a sociopath in the US and Russian governments at the same time.
  I don't know how trains fare in Asia or Europe, but in the US, the seats are pretty much the same as first class/business class. Plus you can actually get real food.
35. Re: About time! by slasher999 · 2017-03-18 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Agree with a lot of the comments here, I skip flying most of the time. Drove 21 hours each way last vacation to avoid it. As consumers we simply need to demand to know seat configuration before we pay for a flight. I'm a big guy - 6'3" and around 350 lbs. I flew for work a couple of years ago, so coach and they had me in a middle seat. Can't image how unhappy those guys on either side of me were, but it's not my plane so not really my problem.
36. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  No buddy, they have a choice. And it's not law
37. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  You've obviously Neve traveled in Canada. Just lol. Train is way more expensive. Only goes through certain cities, takes 5 days for what's 5 hrs by plane
38. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Idiot, it's how it always works. You don't pay the same price to get more food based on your body size unless you go to a buffet
39. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  There are. They're called Premium Economy - would pay a small premium for them, like you suggested.
40. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it should be the other way around where your toddler should subsidize us... I hate people that fly with their small kids that keep screaming/running around/kicking the seat in front of them...
  Not saying all kids are like that, but i would estimate at least 80% of them not being able to behave, and parents not correcting their behaviour..... Have been flying 1-2 times per week for the last couple of years so i do know what i'm talking about....
  Even better would be to have sections in the airplane... front would be as today with business/first-class then economy comfort (children not allowed) then economy and then people traveling with children less than 10-12 years of age.. You could even fit more seats that way by having child-seats there..
41. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Lol, a train through Alaska and Russia to get to western Europe...
  Sure, if you want a scenic journey that takes a week.
42. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  But that's legroom, not seat size. Which is its own issue, but not this issue.
  I sympathize with people who are large genetically speaking, but most of the complainers are simply fatasses.
43. Re:About time! by blincoln · 2017-03-18 08:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  I'm well within "normal" size - 5'10", 150-160 pounds depending on the season and what kind of exercise I've been doing. I wear a jacket with 36" shoulders, and my trousers have a 31" waist.
  Most of the major US airlines have seats that just barely fit me. I have flown on one (can't remember which offhand) where my hip bone was pressing into the padding on both sides of the seat simultaneously. If my hips had been any wider, I would literally have not fit in the seat.
  This isn't about edge-cases. This is about airlines trying to provide accommodations that are inadequate for something like half of the population.
  
  --
  "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
44. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  There is perfect and "objective solution" - pay "per pound" adding passenger baggage weight.
  We are just cargo to haul ...
  That was proposed once by my wife - who is delightful curvy bundle of love at whole 5'2" but usually takes 2 suitcases .
  Together they weight more or less ass much as me and my one suitcase.
45. Re:About time! by amiga3D · 2017-03-18 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a big guy and I agree with you. I think it's only fair to let the market decide. I don't fly unless I have to, if it's less than 2 days travel by car I go by car. The last flight I made was to Hawaii a 10 hour flight from Atlanta. I took some pills before the flight and slept in misery most of the flight. I spent 4 months in Hawaii, took my pills and endured the cattle car flight back. If I had to do it every day it would be a problem but I can endure a little misery occasionally. People need to toughen up a little.
46. Re:About time! by meerling · 2017-03-18 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  If the airlines have their way, you'll be crammed into suitcases and loaded like luggage while having to pay extra for oxygen and not being thrown by the handlers.
47. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe 50% of the USA, but there are larger global demographics that will probably be affected by that legislation, most specifically international flights. In many countries, you're well above average, for instance, you're (like me) probably a 2XL shirt size in Korean-targeted markets (common brands like nike, etc). We're in an age where large physical size is declining as an evolutionary advantage as it is more economical to be smaller (to pack) and lighter weight; true for all people-movers from cars to rocket ships.
48. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  It becomes your problem when your fat rolls invade my space.
49. Re: About time! by Hognoxious · 2017-03-18 09:26 · 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."
50. Re:About time! by thegarbz · 2017-03-18 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  *Never seen a booked out exit row.
51. Re:About time! by thegarbz · 2017-03-18 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like something the market regulates. Kinda like how the seat pitch is huge on KLM flights because the population is tall.
52. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, just yes, all this madness needs to stop.
  Sorry, but NICHE should not define the standards.
  Even fat people are a niche. Tall people even more so a niche.
  The only thing that should be made standard is a certain number of larger seats per plane. (based on the average fat and tall person ratio to an average body stature, not just some figure pulled out someones ass)
  Equal representation and all that junk.
  Planes are a very limited resource in terms of seats, and also very fucking expensive to operate.
  Fitting as many people in as possible is a requirement. (which is why you can even get cheap plane tickets because they NEED to fill that quota at all costs, even if mere cents / pennies in rarer cases)
53. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely right. And the next time someone designs a car jack or spare wheel why should they give a fuck you're only pint sized and cannot possibly muster the physical strength required to do the needful?
  You should pay extra for a large person to comr and help you.
  I bet its those sort of "initiatives" that will MAGA
54. Re:About time! by lophophore · 2017-03-18 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not egregiously overweight. I'm just a large man. 6'5", 250 lbs.
  Coach class on some airlines (hello Delta) is like torture. My knees press against the back of the seat in front of me, god forbid they recline it. My shoulders are so wide (and I'm not giant that way) that if I sit besides another person who is not "challenged of stature", there is not room for my shoulders or arms. I will almost always pay for "premium economy" to get the leg room, but there is still the matter of fitting my shoulders in. My butt fits in the seat just fine, it's just that my butt is not the widest part of me.
  I'm all for smaller seats for smaller people. The airlines can fit them 10 abreast for all I care. But I feel bad for the person sitting next to me, because I am wider than the seat is, and it is not because I am overweight.
  On the last flight I booked, premium economy was 24% more than coach, so it's not as cheap as you claim. I cannot afford first class for personal trips. First is usually 2.5 times the price of coach. I'm just an engineer.
  Also, the width of shoulders of the *average* American man is 18.5" -- quite a bit more than the 16" seat width that is typical in most airliners. Do you want to jockey with me for that 2.5 inches? I didn't think so. If you have not noticed the silent battle for the arm rest, I'm guessing you don't fly very much. Seat cramping is a problem on most airliners.
  
  --
  there are 3 kinds of people:
  * those who can count
  * those who can't
55. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  All of us big mofos should just not hold back anymore. No sucking in of the shoulders for hours at a time. Invade everyone else's space to make room for our legs. Let the fat rolls flow. Whatever. Be utterly antisocial about it, no fucks given. Make the tiny little shits squeak and bitch in their tiny high pitch voices. That's obviously the only solution. Might is right.
56. Re:About time! by rtb61 · 2017-03-18 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  So I gather you would love high speed rail which the Republicans killed. Just curious are network connections available on the train, how much and what speed.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
57. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Does she have a twin sister? With 1 suitcase?
58. Re: About time! by dougdonovan · 2017-03-18 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  damnit, now the price of peanuts and booze just went up again...
59. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Why not have the FAA issue a naming convention for seat sizes (pitch and width), and allow the airlines to require passengers of certain sizes to book a certain minimum (not that anyone will be comfortable at the minimum, but rather, that you know nobody will be comfortable below the minimum).
  So, an airline could offer standard, sub-standard, and extended size seats in any combination that makes economic sense, and people can book knowing they'll get the size they paid for.
  Replacement aircraft would, of course, need to meet or exceed the pitch requirements sold.
60. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Trains have the second best cost-per-passenger-mile efficiency on the planet and planes the worst (until we get suborbitals). The space concerns are incomparable.
61. Re:About time! by Opportunist · 2017-03-18 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  We over here in Europe don't give a fuck what your hicksville GOP politicians kill. Yes, I do enjoy high speed rail.
  And yes, internet is available. At reasonable speed, never bothered to make a speed test, it's fast enough for pretty much anything I wanted to do.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
62. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  lol. "the market". you a retard?
63. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Standardizing the seats makes sense IF all people are the same size. If you need plus-size seat width this is "available" in first class.
  Airlines should declare seat width and leg room before ticket purchase. "One size fits all" is not a good idea for aircraft seats. The airline could have a range of seats, allocated as needed with a declaration of passenger size at ticket purchase, but this will likely not happen, as this could possibly be extra bucks for the airline. I've seen very short people in exit rows, a few times, which makes no sense whatsoever.
  Selling the exit-row seats as premium seats makes no sense either if the passenger is not pre-qualified. For example, in the US it would not make sense to have a non-English speaking person in the exit row, or even weak and small persons.
64. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  18.5" x 6 seats in 737 would mean an extra 15" or almost a complete row of seats could be lost. Not likely to happen.
  A few extra size seats should be available and makes sense. Population statistics should be employed in the seat design.
  Forcing airlines having to declare seat-width and leg-room would enable a new competition in aircraft seating.
65. Re:About time! by zippthorne · 2017-03-18 12:51 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the problem is that people aren't able to compare airlines based on space. You can sort by price, departure time, number of stops, airline, connection time, total time, arrival time, but I've not seen a flight booking site offer filters based on amenities or comfort metrics of any kind.
  In the absence of that information, people are going to be making decisions without consideration of those things and so the airlines will race to reduce their costs.
  This market failure is not caused by a lack of regulation of seat size, but by a lack of important information. There is apparently a desparate need for a new flight booking service to provide that information.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
66. Re: About time! by Scarletdown · 2017-03-18 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  Lol, a train through Alaska and Russia to get to western Europe...
  Sure, if you want a scenic journey that takes a week.
  That would be pretty freakin' awesome, actually. Of course, I would have to resist the urge to sing a certain Rush song the entire trip...
  Our first stop is in Bogotà
  To check Columbian fields
  The natives smile and pass along
  A sample of their yield
  Sweet Jamaican pipe dreams
  Golden Acapulco nights
  Then Morocco, and the East
  Fly by morning light
  We're on the train to Bangkok
  Aboard the Thailand Express
  We'll hit the stops along the way
  We only stop for the best
  Wreathed in smoke in Lebanon
  We burn the midnight oil
  The fragrance of Afghanistan
  Rewards a long day's toil
  Pulling into Kathmandu
  Smoke rings fill the air
  Perfumed by a Nepal night
  The Express gets you there
  We're on the train to Bangkok
  Aboard the Thailand Express
  We'll hit the stops along the way
  We only stop for the best
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
67. Re:About time! by Scarletdown · 2017-03-18 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a big guy and I agree with you. I think it's only fair to let the market decide. I don't fly unless I have to, if it's less than 2 days travel by car I go by car. The last flight I made was to Hawaii a 10 hour flight from Atlanta. I took some pills before the flight and slept in misery most of the flight. I spent 4 months in Hawaii, took my pills and endured the cattle car flight back. If I had to do it every day it would be a problem but I can endure a little misery occasionally. People need to toughen up a little.
  I think my last flight was back around 2008 or 2009. Can't recall exactly. However, it was also to Hawaii, on board a KC-135 out of what was once McChord AFB, WA. That was probably the least comfortable flight I was ever on, or perhaps the second least comfortable. Least would have been the C-130 flight from Bagram, Afghanistan to Al Udeid, Qatar. Not only are those "cargo strap" bench seats uncomfortable, but that was one freakin' long flight for a 130 (still one of my top favorite aircraft though). At least the first leg of that trip was a little more comfortable, C-17 from Kandahar to Bagram.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
68. Re:About time! by mysidia · 2017-03-18 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  The small percentage of the population which falls outside size norms want to pass laws requiring
  No..... Even for people within size norms, the amount of space is inadequate and uncomfortble.
  The regulation should benefit everyone, they should do two things at minimum:
  (1) Require enough space for comfortable seating for people within a standard deviation of the average
  height and size to not be squeezed, and have enough space to not contact or bump into their neighbors., AND
  (2) Ban reclining seats --- Unless such additional space is added to the passenger seat behind each reclining seat to ensure the seat will not encroach upon the desk / laptop computer, lap, or knees, of the person behind for a reference person of 6'6" in height.
69. Re:About time! by sheramil · 2017-03-18 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  I did consider traveling by train from Melbourne to New York, but I wasn't able to get SCUBA certification in time.
70. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  Why? Because "fairness" never works in the opposite direction. As a giant, I pay more for clothes than normal people. I bought a large car since my head hits the ceiling on normal ones. That's all fine. But when I had a job in a warehouse moving boxes, I didn't get paid twice as much as everybody else even though I could carry twice as much.
71. Re:About time! by Gussington · 2017-03-18 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Well you can't discriminate on height
  I submitted an idea years ago for a seating plan that had staggered rows. So Row A would have the same sized space. Row B would have slightly different pitch per seat (say ranging from 31 to 38inches) and Row C would be fixed again, but because Row B was staggered, Row C would also have different seat pitch per seat.
  You only have to do this with one section of the plane and it will allow the few taller people the space they need, and short people and kids can fill the gaps.This would allow the same number of seats, but the extra room that small people don't need would be reallocated to taller people.
  I never got any response from the airline and forgot all about it until now.
72. Re:About time! by Gussington · 2017-03-18 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
  *Never seen a booked out exit row.
  Do you fly much? I used to travel a little and used to pay for the upgrade whenever possible. At least half the time it was booked out.
73. Re:About time! by Gussington · 2017-03-18 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  The problem isn't space. The problem is people unwilling to pay extra for extra space.
  
  10% yes, 50% no, which is how it works here.
  
  Legislation requiring slightly larger seats and slightly higher prices (economy+) be available on all flights is fine.
  
  No it isn't, it's discrimination. Fair enough if you're a fat bastard who created your own problems, but tall people have no control over their height.
  
  Legislation outlawing "smaller" seats which fit the vast majority of passengers is stupid.
  So why not just stagger some rows so that some seats have 3 inches less pitch and the seat in front gets 3 inches extra? Average pitch stays the same, number of seats stays the same, prices stays the same, but taller people now have options.
74. Re:About time! by dywolf · 2017-03-18 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  oh fuck off.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
75. Re: About time! by cyber-vandal · 2017-03-18 22:52 · Score: 0
  
  You selfish fat slob. The airline should've made you pay for all three seats.
76. Re:About time! by GNious · 2017-03-18 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  The problem isn't space. The problem is people unwilling to pay extra for extra space.
  
  Most of my travels have been for work, where I had zero say in the booking, and no options for upgrading to a better seat.
  Now, that's anecdotal, but experiences from other people confirms this - it's not people being unwilling to pay extra, it's the companies they work for who don't care whether you end up 9 hours in a too-small seat, bent in ways that would make a chiropractor flinch.
77. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a 5'6" guy and I buy the extra+ seats, and they are still way too small for me. They're so uncomfortable that I would NEVER consider a short domestic flight that could be driven or reached by train.
78. Re:About time! by amiga3D · 2017-03-19 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  I made a few hops in a C-130 back and forth from Menorca, Spain to Torrejon Air Base near Madrid back when I was stationed at a radio relay post on Menorca. That is one hot, noisy and bumpy ride. At least there was plenty of room though.
79. Re: About time! by bondsbw · 2017-03-19 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  "As consumers we simply need to demand to know seat configuration before we pay for a flight."
  Regulation would help. I get why some prefer little regulation (to give more options and let the free market with things out) but sometimes I would like to simply know that all players in an industry are following sensible rules without the need to spend a bunch of time researching. Regulation sometimes simply leads to efficiency.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
80. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but what you're saying just isn't true. The cost of an Amtrak train ticket that includes a sleeping berth is astronomically expensive when compared to an airplane ticket.
  If you're planning on sitting up in a coach seat on Amtrak for 1 to 3 days, then you must be completely fucking batshit insane.
81. Re: About time! by cthulhu11 · 2017-03-19 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Plus freakishly tall guys win at everything else in our culture. They are paid more, preferentially win jobs and promotions, and women throw themselves at them with wild abandon despite being treated like crap. So they can well afford $70 to upgrade a flight and STFU.
82. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  Shift to pay by the pound, where the passenger and their baggage has to get on a scale.
83. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  Can you explain to me why businesses are not allowed to reject you as a customer if you are:
  black,
  disabled,
  gay,
  of a particular religion,
  etc,
  but someone who is born with genes that turn them into 6'5" adults like me are perfectly fine to not service right. We simply don't fit in that shit. Are we banned from air travel unless we're willing to spend 5 times that of everyone else? WTF. The least airlines could do is have a few seats that people can actually fit into and shuffle people around as needed.
84. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Why should I, a first class passenger subsidized YOU?
85. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  The reason that won't work is because there is nothing that stops larger people from getting the smallest seats since they are the cheapest.
86. Re:About time! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2017-03-19 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter, Trump will not sign this into law without eliminating two other regulations to balance it out.
  I don't undertand why airlines don't compete on seat size.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
87. Re:About time! by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-19 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  How about they have a mix of seat sizes, which are allocated based on the person's height? Would probably work out cost neutral.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
88. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 07:28 · Score: -1
  
  It's your problem because you caused it, you disgusting fat shit.
89. Re:About time! by barrygrommit · 2017-03-19 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Wait. The proposed rules are backwards:
  There should be lower prices for smaller people. After all, they take up less space, making it more convenient for other customers.
  AND, they weigh less, allowing the airline to consume less fuel, thus contributing to their margin.
  
  So, smaller people, lower prices.
  
  There, solved another proplem...back to my nap.
90. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  I don't have a choice on how tall I am (okay, maybe a choice on how wide) ... so the flight should not restrict legroom as it does. Deep-vein thrombosis is also well-documented for cases where people who 'fit' cannot move for long periods of time. Perhaps not every seat needs to be larger, but larger people should not be required to may more just to fit the seat. Allocate 'economy+' to them.
  First Class or Business Class can cost extra, but you get extra perks there, too.
91. Re:About time! by RockDoctor · 2017-03-19 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  it doesn't make sense to be reducing seat sizes year on year.
  Why on Earth do you think that "making sense" has any part in the decision process? The only thing that counts - the ONLY thing - is making more profit.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
92. Re: About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  Unwed teenage fathers
93. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  The same reason we don't make blind people pay for the cost of the upgraded pedestrian crossing signs with audible signals.
  Or maybe shorter people would like to start paying for the chiropractic bills of tall people from having to reach down and get poor leverage opening doors with ridiculously low doorknobs....
94. Re:About time! by n329619 · 2017-03-19 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Adding a slight different perspective
  
  just like the ADA individuals who got UC Berkeley's online course videos pulled off the web, everyone will be focused to pay larger business class seats as all smaller economy class seats are pulled due to this regulation. It will also cause flight seats to fill up faster due to the decrease in available seats.
95. Re:About time! by Opportunist · 2017-03-20 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  The overnight train sleeping cabin is on par with the price of a sardine class seat on a plane. With the difference that the train personnel treats you like you're one of their first class passenger, which you essentially are.
  Sleeper cabins cost about 60 to 80 "extra" (i.e. take the normal fare and add 80 bucks). As soon as you're traveling closer to the 8 hours mark where a sleeper makes sense, you easily reach the break even point with at least halfway decent plane carriers. Of course, coconut airlines will always be cheaper, but I refuse to travel as freight.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
96. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is this is that, as we shop now, there will be no upfront pricing, so someone will pay 300 for a ticket, then 150 for an upgrade fee.
  Whereas, they could have gotten a 350 ticket on a more honest airline with a 50 upgrade fee.
  I think this is more of a case of preventing the airlines from making the seats SMALLER than they currently are. Certain Chinese airlines have managed to fit an extra row in a standard 747, and the seats near the bulkhead that have "more legroom" actually have LESS.
97. Re: About time! by harrkev · 2017-03-20 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  In an ideal world, regulation would not be necessary. Sometimes the threat of regulation is enough.
  Take maturity ratings for games. The government saw a problem and proposed passing laws for ratings, so the industry took responsibility and set up its own rating system, removing the need for the government to mandate it.
  Hopefully the threat of a new regulation will cause the airline industry to come up with its own standards.
  
  --
  "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
98. Re:About time! by michael_wojcik · 2017-03-20 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not particularly tall or broad-shouldered (just quietly handsome), but I support the OP's position. Even if I fit into coach-class seats, that doesn't guarantee the person sitting next to me will.
  I'd be happy to see, oh, a 15% or 20% price increase across the board if it meant a bit more seating room. You wouldn't be? Well, consumers often have different opinions on price / value trade-offs.
  As for upgrading: I just looked at a random itinerary for a route I sometimes fly. Economy Plus was only available in one direction (for a flight six weeks from today), at a 24% premium. Presumably if it had been available in both directions I'd be looking at around a 50% additional charge. Business Class was almost nine times as expensive.
  What I'd really like, though, is to see fees for checked luggage eliminated. Carry-on luggage is in my mind one of the worst aspects of air travel. People trying to cram their bags into the overhead compartments, or haul them down at the end of the flight, cause most of the latency in boarding and disembarking. They fight over luggage space, and fight to board early in order to get it. It's madness, so what have the airlines done? Created a huge incentive against using the alternative.
99. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  No it isn't, it's discrimination. Fair enough if you're a fat bastard who created your own problems, but tall people have no control over their height.
  I'm sure you complain just as much when your height gives you an unfair advantage over short people, whether when playing sports, taking home bigger paychecks, or enjoying a larger dating pool.
100. Re:About time! by kaatochacha · 2017-03-20 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I once took a train from Los Angeles to Seattle.
  Three Days.
101. Re:About time! by kaatochacha · 2017-03-20 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Taller people, on average, earn more.
  https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...
102. Re:About time! by kaatochacha · 2017-03-20 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  I've always considered tall people getting screwed on planes to be the one minor equalizer. In all other aspects in society, height is a benefit.
103. Re: About time! by kaatochacha · 2017-03-20 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  I did that once, never again.
104. Re:About time! by kaatochacha · 2017-03-20 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot be talking about US sleeper trains.
  Here's Amtraks current price, random day trip in April, San Francisco to Chicago. 3 day trip.
  200-450 or so, coach seat
  1220, sleeper.
  that's roughly triple the seat only fare.
105. Re:About time! by rtb61 · 2017-03-20 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Keh? ah missed the tiniest bit of satire, I personally think high speed rail is an excellent idea and more countries should follow suit, especially Australia, hint, hint ;). How much did the internet access cost, by the way or was it included which would be really cool.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
106. Re:About time! by Opportunist · 2017-03-20 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  WiFi included, as is a breakfast. Our trains are pretty much trying to compete with airlines by outdoing them on the service edge. The advantage trains have over planes is that space and weight isn't as big a concern, so they are going for the selling point of having more comfort for the same price.
  And in Australia this would actually be a bit large for the idea. It works in Europe because the distances you usually have to cross are manageable with overnight train, but anything beyond 1000km gets unwieldy. Sydney-Brisbane would be doable, anything beyond is probably out of reach.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
107. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-21 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  For real! And those dammed people in wheel chairs making it take longer to board the plane and take up extra cargo space with their special chairs. People should all take up the same amount of space which is determined by the airline companies or pay!
108. Re:About time! by RivenAleem · 2017-03-23 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like the parent searched for a genuine argument ... *puts on sunglasses* ... but came up short.
Alternative headline... by c · 2017-03-18 01:44 · 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 · 2017-03-18 01:53 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Probably better to pass a maximum passenger size. Very large payloads still go by canal for a reason, and it's not just because it's unpleasant to sit next to one.
3. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  I read this bill as "give us money to keep this bill away".
4. Re: Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that how democracy's supposed to work? ;)
5. Re: Alternative headline... by Type44Q · 2017-03-18 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  That way smaller people could buy smaller seats, and larger people larger ones
  Speaking as someone who goes to great lengths to stay healthy, it wouldn't be right if I - or any others who can be accommodated by a seat designed for normal-width asses - had to subsidize the cost of larger seats for those who thought Supersize Me was a how-to guide...
6. Re: Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed, there is a market bias towards small seats right now because price is visible, but seat size is difficult to determine in advance. Let's see government correct the information imbalance and make the market more efficient rather than less.
7. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Nah. This is just a Democrat posturing for some free publicity; his bill has zero chance of getting out of committee. But magazines like The Consumerist will publish the story to stir up their readers.
8. Re:Alternative headline... by ShanghaiBill · 2017-03-18 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Nah. This is just a Democrat posturing for some free publicity
  It is odd that a Democrat is proposing this, since most fat people are Republicans. But he is from Tennessee, which is a Republican state and has plenty of fatties.
9. Re:Alternative headline... by Fire_Wraith · 2017-03-18 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  Eh, you might be surprised. There's a lot of people who feel VERY vocal about the discomforts of flying. After all, the Passenger's Bill of Rights that put a bunch of previous restrictions passed easily. I suspect that issues like this are one of the ones that's nonpartisan enough for it to get lots of support, because congresscritters like doing popular stuff such as this which they can point to at election time (especially when it distracts people from the less visible crap that gets them bigger donations).
  
  Furthermore, not all the airlines have seats that small, and the ones who don't aren't going to care if it hurts their competitors and not them.
10. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:01 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Maybe YOU should check at wally world. Those fatties are NOT Republicans.
  It only takes TWO to "OWN" an eight foot lane.
  Quit spouting your bullshit, or give an example as proof.
11. Re:Alternative headline... by c · 2017-03-18 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, you might be surprised.
  I might be, yeah. Not too many people have fond feelings about airlines, and I'm sure even the most stay-at-home politician has had some poor experiences.
  But seeing what's happening right now, I'm inclined to treat any pro-consumer legislation actually passing in the USA as a complete fluke.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
12. Re: Alternative headline... by Cederic · 2017-03-18 05:21 · 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.
13. Re:Alternative headline... by ShanghaiBill · 2017-03-18 05:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Those fatties are NOT Republicans.
  Uh ... yes they are.
  The ten states with the highest obesity rates, and who they voted for in 2016:
  Louisiana - Trump
  Alabama - Trump
  Mississippi - Trump
  West Virginia - Trump
  Kentucky - Trump
  Arkansas - Trump
  Kansas - Trump
  Oklahoma - Trump
  Tennessee - Trump
  Missouri - Trump
  And here are the states with the lowest rates of obesity:
  Colorado - Hillary
  DC - Hillary
  Hawaii - Hillary
  Montana - Trump
  California - Hillary
  Massachusetts - Hillary
  Utah - Trump
  New York - Hillary
  Vermont - Hillary
  Connecticut - Hillary
14. Re: Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:50 · Score: -1
  
  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.
  Whhhhhaaaaaaa whhhhhaaaaaa
  Chop your legs off if fucking piece of shit.
15. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Hawaii low rate of obesity.
  What mainlander, you got beef?
  Come into our polynesian lands driving down our sizes, you make me laugh with your arrogant enslavement of our culture. ........... Sadly this is meant for humor, except for the parts that are true, those should just make us cry.
16. Re: Alternative headline... by swb · 2017-03-18 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  The historical way this problem has been solved has been for the larger people to simply take the surplus from the smaller people.
17. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  DC is not a state.
18. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  As a fatty in a fat state, I agree with this.
  Rural areas are usually fatter. We drive everywhere.
  The walking in cities makes a big difference. I lost 5 pounds just by going to NYC for a few days and walking everywhere.
  Rural areas = Republican, Urban = Democrat.
19. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  You're making gross (sorry) assumptions that may not be correct. You need, at the least, to show a correlation between party and weight. The way the state voted won't suffice.
20. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  The ten states with the highest obesity rates, and who they voted for in 2016:
  Though obesity rates are higher in rural America, most people don't live there, and the rates aren't different enough to make up for the large number of city dwellers who are obese, simply because there are a lot more city dwellers.
  Specifically, the difference in obesity rates is reported at 6% greater in rural America - but since only 18% of Americans live in rural America, the majority of the obese people are in the cities.
  Now, unlike certain other people, I'm not going to assume those obese city folks voted a particular way: although it is true that the majority of big city dwellers voted blue, we don't have any data on city dwellers in general with respect to this issue.
  In general, however, state level data tells you NOTHING about red versus blue. This has been shown many times. There are lots of propaganda claims about "red states" and "blue states" and every one I've seen so far has been shown to be unfounded. Why do some people feel the need to produce so much false propaganda instead of rationally examining the issues? It almost seems like people have made up their minds, doubtless with incomplete knowledge, and aren't interested in adverse facts.
21. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  The ten states with the highest obesity rates, and who they voted for in 2016:
  Whites: 58% Trump 37% Clinton
  Whites Obesity: 34%
  Hispanics: 65% Clinton 29% Trump
  Hispanics Obesity: 42%
  Blacks: 88% Clinton 8% Trump
  Blacks Obesity: 48%
  Similar trends would appear if you compared men vs. women or middle class vs. lower class.
  Turns out if you want to find a statistic to support you, it's easy to do.
22. Re:Alternative headline... by TechnoJoe · 2017-03-19 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is because the Democrats support subsidies for processed foods high in sugar, like sugar tariffs and HFCS. It's part of their plot to fatten us up, so we can't make it to the polls.
23. Re: Alternative headline... by dlingman · 2017-03-19 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  The historical way this problem has been solved has been for the larger people to simply take the surplus from the smaller people.
  Isn't that part of the issue at hand? Overlapping into the smaller people's seat space?
24. Re:Alternative headline... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-21 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations. You just figured out that more people voted for Donald than Hillary.
Cost by KermodeBear · 2017-03-18 01:46 · 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 sinij · 2017-03-18 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  "But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly."
  
  Unfortunately, as a business traveler that has to fly no matter what they charge, I am suffering as a result.
2. Re:Cost by Richard_at_work · 2017-03-18 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  What a lovely ideal you have - unfortunately, $100 over a typical ticket today isnt going to fund the reduction in seat rows needed to create 2 foot of leg room per passenger...
3. Re:Cost by bickerdyke · 2017-03-18 02:15 · Score: 2
  
  For two feet, fly business class. But who needs this? They only can sell that at all because economy became so crappy.
  Just raise the standard again. By those two inces in width, by those two inches in legroom. Give everyone a decent sandwich.
  I'm NOT going to pay extra if an airline wants to divide pasengers further into the poor cattle and the "luxury" of "economy plus" where in the end they charge you $50 for that sandwich and a bag with a towel and a sleeping mask, but I'll pick an airline that offers better basic service if the difference is no more than say, $100.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
4. Re:Cost by wisnoskij · 2017-03-18 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  What does having the option of cheaper seats than are comfortable hurt you?
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
5. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  What mythical land do you live in where business class still exists?
6. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Why are we still using 18th century units on a techno blog?
7. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  TSA is only an issue if you go to the US, which is not connected by land to most of the world.
8. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  No, more, what you are describing is charter flight or private plane.
9. Re:Cost by gfxguy · 2017-03-18 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly.
  Yes, and now it's a race to the bottom, as more and more people will continue to sacrifice comfort for lower ticket prices. It's like all the retail stores competing with WalMart, and the resulting drop in quality all the way around. Also, businesses generate the most revenue for airlines (from what I understand). That might include business class seats for some, but when my crew goes to a remote, nobody gets anything but coach, and I suspect most businesses are flying their non-executive employees that way.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
10. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  because businesses will chose the cheaper, smaller seats to increase their own profits
11. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  found the person who only flies on 737s. you do realize there are still widebody jets and while they do service regionally (think JFK to LAX) they are very popular on transcontinental or transnational flights
12. Re:Cost by Chris+Mattern · 2017-03-18 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  Presumably because company policy (they, after all, are paying for the seat) requires him to take cheapest seat available, and doesn't give him the option to pay for his own upgrade. That's usually how it works.
13. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  The fantasy you generally describe is 'first class seating' and the airlines would love to sell you that seat today, but it costs a lot more than $100.
14. Re:Cost by ColdWetDog · 2017-03-18 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  You just (mostly) described first class.
  Actually, what you really described is a private jet.
  TANSTAAFL.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
15. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:29 · 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.
16. Re:Cost by quantaman · 2017-03-18 03:34 · 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
17. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Fly NottaCrap Airline for only $100 more.
  Japan Airlines does consistently offer larger seats and decent customer service even in economy class so I choose them whenever that's an option.
  But let's do some math. Let's say we increase the width of the airline seats by 20%. That is, a 17 inch goes up to over 20 inches wide. Now, in practice, a lot of the cost of a flight is fuel and the amount of fuel burned is determined by the weight of the (loaded) plane. So if you have 20% less passengers then you'll have less weight and it will cost less to fly the plane. But let's assume that it costs a fixed total amount to fly a plane on a given route. In that case, you'd expect the ticket price to increase by 20%.
  So, for example, a round trip $1,000 plane fare from Los Angeles to Tokyo and back would go up to $1,200. So is a business class ticket about $200 more than an economy ticket? No, a typical business ticket will be roughly in the ball park of $5,000 and a first class ticket goes for over $20,000.
  Clearly when you upgrade from economy class you're being charged a lot more than the cost of simply providing a larger seat. There's a whole economic theory about this. But essentially the whole "just pay the cost of a larger seat" argument is utter nonsense when it comes to airline ticket pricing.
18. Re:Cost by ShanghaiBill · 2017-03-18 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  They'd have people stampeding to get tickets.
  Actually, they would not. When people fly their top three concerns are:
  1. The cost
  2. The airfare
  3. The ticket price
  The reason seats have shrunk is because it allows the airlines to cut costs and reduce prices. That is what most passengers care about. Current seat sizes are fine for most people. For those that want more room, and are willing to pay for it, there is already "economy plus".
19. Re:Cost by ShanghaiBill · 2017-03-18 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably because company policy (they, after all, are paying for the seat) requires him to take cheapest seat available
  Wouldn't it make more sense to change that internal policy rather than force a new regulation on an entire industry, and imposing additional costs on millions of people?
20. Re: Cost by DaHat · 2017-03-18 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  Good luck with that.
  Recently I had a lengthy international trip which I was dreading, so much so that I read our travel policy word for word to see what options there might be for me, a man of 6'5". The policy allows purchasing only the cheapest coach/cattle seats... Even fot executives.
  In the end, it was easier for me to spend $2000 of my own money for a second seat so I would have sufficient leg room (economy plus doesnt do it, and still less than a business class ticket).
  Usually I drive, everywhere because of the love I have fot my knees and hatred of thr airlines, but for this trip driving 6500 miles over thr ocean simply wasn't an option, thankfully me dropping the $2k was, though an expensive one.
  I can see such a law being far easier to pass than getting every company out there to have a more sensible travel policy with regards to their employees who have so.e height to them.
  
  --
  Help Brendan pay off his student loans
21. Re:Cost by toonces33 · 2017-03-18 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  The routes that I fly typically have just an RJ. Flying coke cans I call them.
  A 737 feels like a wide body even though it technically isn't.
22. Re:Cost by Cederic · 2017-03-18 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, no.
  I don't give a shit how cheap you make it, I'm not doing a 12 hour flight with my knees crushed by the seat in front.
  No point getting somewhere and having to hire a wheelchair. I'll stay at home and walk.
23. Re:Cost by Greyfox · 2017-03-18 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  I say that too, but recently flew from Denver to Phoenix and back for less than it cost to park my car at the airport for the three days I was gone. The round trip ticket was neighborhood of $70. I was quite surprised at how comfortable the flight was, there was ample room for the couple of items I'd carried on and I cleared the TSA checkpoints with a minimum of fondling. I enjoy that drive, too, and have done it a couple of times, but I can't drive it for anywhere close to the cost of an airline ticket along that route, even with parking and the cost of a rental car at the far side factored in.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
24. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Presumably because company policy (they, after all, are paying for the seat) requires him to take cheapest seat available, and doesn't give him the option to pay for his own upgrade. That's usually how it works.
  It's how it works in my company (which is in the Fortune 100). Cheapest available seat - in economy class. If only business/first class seats are left, then you don't go.
25. Re:Cost by thogard · 2017-03-18 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  The last time I checked, a passenger was about $20 to $60 of fuel per hour of flight time on most jets.
  If the costs per square foot is considered, the cheap seats are seriously subsidizing business and 1st class.
  I think that adding 2 inches of pitch and width to the 1970s standard wouldn't effect prices very much at all considering how many other factors go into how much a seat costs on a route.
26. Re:Cost by Fringe · 2017-03-18 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you are racing to the bottom, doesn't mean everyone is. Delta dedicates quite a few seats to Comfort+, and just brought back in-flight meals for cross-country flights for all seats.
27. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you Euros shouldn't post on American sites. Go build a European slashdot.. You can impose all the sjw nonsense you want, too, with the force of law.
28. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  "a full two feet of leg room" - That is called Amtrak. You get this kind of space in any train that does an overnight run like the Empire Builder.
  It's also still cheaper to get a sleeper car on a train than pay business/first class on an airline for pretty much nothing.
29. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Nope that is backwards. The First Class and Business class seats (which are 20x the price) are subsidizing the economy class. The economy class is just to fill the plane, otherwise every airline would be entirely first class/business class.
  If you really want to see a change, quit flying. Take the train (which is far more comfortable,) take the bus (which is typically worse than flying) or drive (which is not cost effective or time efficient unless you have three drivers)
30. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Been doing loads of flying the last few years... and we also have that policy to always go with the cheapest flight... I just said... either we find something we both can accept or you can find someone else to do the traveling... and suddenly we could agree on a minimal bump to economy comfort for all my flights at a minimal addition to each flight....
  The policy can usually be ignored, if you bring it up with your manager, to some degree for some flights... If you are doing a intercontinental flight of 12-18 hours having them pay $100 extra for economy comfort or emergency exit on a ticket that already costs $1000 is usually no biggie if they want you to go there.. It also benefits them to a degree since you will arrive much more refreshed , instead of arriving as a zombie, allowing you to be more productive... and the same on the way back.. If i cannot sleep good on long flights i lose at least 1-1.5 days in productivity when getting back home, and that is worth quite a bit more than $100.
  Another benefit with traveling buissniess is that you can get a really good nights sleep on the plane, and maybe do some work, making it possible to go straight into the office and work and not have to go there 1-2 days in advance. Ie less hotel/expense costs for the company moved to a better ticket.
31. Re:Cost by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-18 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  JAL and ANA advertise more leg room and charge a little more. I always pay more to fly with them. I would guess that people's willingness to put up with small seats is inversely proportional to the length of the flight.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
32. Re: Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  We all suffer from you and your business deals. Please spare us from both your shitty negotiating and your flying.
33. Re: Cost by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-03-18 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  At this time, only three countries—Burma, Liberia, and the US—have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures. ... The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities...
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
34. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  I am amazed at how selfish you are and how your post and others like this are actually rated as 5- insightful. Given the amount of racism and absolute selfishness I see on Slashdot( which was not there a while back), its hardly surprising that you had to choose between Trump and Hillary for president. I am alright Jack- screw you and your needs, seems to be the motto here. Shame on you.
35. Re: Cost by sound+vision · 2017-03-18 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's the height, is it?
  How many inches around is your height, 50?
36. Re:Cost by Gussington · 2017-03-18 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  JAL and ANA advertise more leg room and charge a little more. I always pay more to fly with them. I would guess that people's willingness to put up with small seats is inversely proportional to the length of the flight.
  But how much more? I travel to Asia quite regularly and have found a couple of the budget airlines will do a premium economy seat for about $50 extra (on a 9 hour flight). This is a no brainer, but last time I checked, the branded airlines were charging about $1000 more for the same thing.
37. Re:Cost by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-19 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  It depends when you book etc, but basically the standard economy seats are larger and generally about â50-100 more than other airlines, and they often fly at better times too. Upgrading to premium economy is usually around â150-300.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
38. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  You are way off. I was involved with travel website, it was sold to a larger competitor. I learnt a few things about this industry, the most shocking is that even a few cents difference will be enough for the client to pick a flight.
  Airlines try very hard to offer the absolute lowest price because that is what people demand. At least economy pax.
39. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  These numbers appear on airline websites but not in reality. It always says upgrade to Economy Plus, starting from $19!
  But when you click, it turns out that upgrade costs $89-$140 one way for a 2-3 hour flight.
40. Re:Cost by MooseMiester · 2017-03-20 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. The politicians are no doubt figuring that it's been so long since Airlines were deregulated that they can sneak it back in again.
  
  When the airlines were deregulated the Democrats howled, wailed, caterwauled, and did their usual emotionally charged rhetoric about how the EVIL Airline CORPORATIONS would lock out the poor folks, and the middle class, and only the rich and powerful would be able to afford to fly.
  
  Surprise
  
  With competition - .vs. the heavy hand of government - prices dropped and suddenly the middle class was flying everywhere.... So I'm sure I'll be flamed by people who weren't even alive when this happened telling me I am wrong LOL
  
  --
  Murphy was an optimist
41. Re: Cost by MooseMiester · 2017-03-20 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  So you have a website where you're asking for donations to pay off your student loan but you can afford to spend $2,000 for your personal comfort on a 16 hour flight?
  
  --
  Murphy was an optimist
42. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-20 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Asia? Is that where you go to rape kids?
No no no no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 01:48 · Score: 0

Government has plenty of higher priority issues on their plate. Plus, they are certainly not experts when it comes to designing airplanes and airline economics. Leave it up to the airline operators to solve.
1. Re:No no no no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  The airlines are solving it. We're moving towards a standing subway-type solution. It's the free market in action, dontcha know.
2. Re:No no no no by fluffernutter · 2017-03-18 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you see me with this small woman on my shoulders? You don't have any one on your shoulders! Why am I subsidizing you??
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Stick to the important stuff by mi · 2017-03-18 01:48 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Lawmakers — and SlashDot editors — should stick to "stuff that matters". No other laws should even be evaluated, until the "Obamacare" disaster is properly abolished — with or without a replacement...
They've passed such repeals six times while Obama was President — and could be relied on to veto it. Now that Trump is eager to sign it as soon as it hits his desk, they've become "thoughtful" seeing "nuances"...
Meanwhile, regulating the seat-sizes?.. Seriously?

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Re:Stick to the important stuff by El+Cubano · 2017-03-18 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  They've passed such repeals six times while Obama was President [anncoulter.com] â" and could be relied on to veto it. Now that Trump is eager to sign it as soon as it hits his desk, they've become "thoughtful" seeing "nuances"...
  This just infuriates me. It is part of the reason why people don't have any faith in the two major US political parties. It is sort of like how people will eagerly issue wedding invites to relatives they have no desire to see when they are confident that the invite will be refused. The Republicans now obviously have the same lack of spine as during the last 6 years of the Obama administration. During the Obama administration they quickly rolled over on every debt ceiling increase and budget increase requested. They sent unworkable legislation that they knew Obama would veto (not just Obamacare repeal bills). They were clearly posturing/grandstanding.
  I can't help but feel that the way they are behaving now is an effort by the establishment types to subvert Trump because they don't like him. Funny enough, I think that they are likely to more damage than the Democrats that also don't like Trump.
  
  Meanwhile, regulating the seat-sizes?.. Seriously?
  Seriously, this is not an issue of public health and safety. It is an issue of comfort. There are already standards for aviation safety and airworthiness. The government has no business considering this.
  
  --
  After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.
  Yeah, I got whiplash from last 16 years. Rewind to the Bush administration and dissent was patriotic, at least according to the media. It was hysterically funny to see the diehard Democrats who tried to pass themselves off as being all about civil liberties oppose renewal of the PATRIOT Act under Bush, but not really a peep out of those same people when Obama pushed for the same exact renewal of powers as Bush had.
2. Re:Stick to the important stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  There aren't 2 parties anymore. There haven't been in decades, really.
  There's *one* party, that's been using a number of carefully crafted wedge issues to maintain the illusion of having differences.
  Some of its members pander to the extremists in the central states, others pander to the moderates along the coasts, and when the party manages to get in through the loud screams of the extremists it moves a little faster than it does otherwise.
  But the party still does the same thing either way; slowly squeeze the taxpayers for more and more, providing less and less, and handing the ever-greater difference to their actual bosses.
3. Re:Stick to the important stuff by Richard_at_work · 2017-03-18 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  You need to reread your linked source (and also find something better to do with your life). It doesn't say that there were six bills repealing "Obamacare" that were passed to Obama, it says that the House passed a repeal six times - it only made it to Obamas desk once, in January 2016. And that was his only veto of any "Obamacare" repeal.
  Given that the Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate for the 114th Congress, they had plenty of opportunity to force a repeal through...
  So no, they havent just got "thoughtful" at all.
4. Re:Stick to the important stuff by shmlco · 2017-03-18 03:09 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Of course they're seeing "nuances". The whole thing was a carefully crafted wedge issue upon which the Republicans could scream and shout. And ridiculously, they were screaming about a health care bill based almost entirely on a Republican health care bill -- RomneyCare.
  But the ACA is government intrusion! (Actually, it is, in a good way.) It's dying! (CBO says it's stable, though it is having issues in some Republican-based states who fought it in the first place.) It's raised my rates! (It's true that rates have increased, though not as much as rates would have increased without it. And part of that is through elimination of "insurance" plans that some people paid for that covered basically nothing at all.)
  Regardless, now that the Republicans COULD pass the same bill, they're stalling why they try to figure out the actual political impact of kicking millions of registered voters off the ACA and off of Medicaid, not to mention dramatically raising insurance rates for millions of others.
  So much for "more people will have more access to more affordable health care."
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
5. Re: Stick to the important stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Lawmakers â" and SlashDot editors â" should stick to "stuff that matters". No other laws should even be evaluated, until the "Obamacare" disaster is properly abolished â" with or without a replacement...
  A). Government is a mutlitasking system, capable of pursuing multiple avenues at once.
  B). There is no Obamacare disaster, it is working reasonably well, and will continue to do so, unless Trump and company blow it up. Which they want to do, to be sure, but they might be prevented.
  C). Republicans have had eight years to offer an alternative. Now that they finally have been forced to do so, they delivered an option that strips insurance from people, reduces healthcare and will get people killed. So that speaks a lot for them.
  
  They've passed such repeals six times while Obama was President â" and could be relied on to veto it. Now that Trump is eager to sign it as soon as it hits his desk, they've become "thoughtful" seeing "nuances"...
  You didn't know already? They had it easy when they could stand on the street corner and shout, but now they own responsibility for doing things. Trump might be willing to sign anything, he suffers from cognitive disorders and is likely to do whatever some sweet-talking nimrod shoves in front of him, but that doesn't work for people who would rather not be castigated and defenestrated.
  They are scared, because they know they can be ruined by it.
  
  Meanwhile, regulating the seat-sizes?.. Seriously?
  Already a matter of regulation due to safety issues. Sorry, but you must have missed the Seventies.
  It was even earlier in buses and trains.
  Mi, it seems to me that you are ignorant and uninformed, have you not ever been taught anything?
6. Re: Stick to the important stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, this is not an issue of public health and safety. It is an issue of comfort. There are already standards for aviation safety and airworthiness. The government has no business considering this.
  Comfort is easily connected to health and safety. The DOD has copious studies on accommodations for soldiers, sailors, and airmen. It is simple to recognize the potential for injuries in seating that is too small and too large. Not to mention evacuation issues.
  Sorry, but this is government business.
7. Re:Stick to the important stuff by sjames · 2017-03-18 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Since cramped seating is known to increase the chances of a DVT, and WILL slow people evacuating the plane, health and safety are involved.
8. Re:Stick to the important stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  This just infuriates me. It is part of the reason why people don't have any faith in the two major US political parties. It is sort of like how people will eagerly issue wedding invites to relatives they have no desire to see when they are confident that the invite will be refused. The Republicans now obviously have the same lack of spine as during the last 6 years of the Obama administration. During the Obama administration they quickly rolled over on every debt ceiling increase and budget increase requested. They sent unworkable legislation that they knew Obama would veto (not just Obamacare repeal bills). They were clearly posturing/grandstanding.
  This is something you didn't know from the start? Trump's own blandishments were a joke. And his excuse that nobody realized how complicated it was? That's what we call revealing insight into his character.
  
  I can't help but feel that the way they are behaving now is an effort by the establishment types to subvert Trump because they don't like him. Funny enough, I think that they are likely to more damage than the Democrats that also don't like Trump.
  Yes, your average Republican is more likely to do more damage than any Democrat, the party has turned crazy enough to elect Trump is full of nutbars.
  
  Yeah, I got whiplash from last 16 years. Rewind to the Bush administration and dissent was patriotic, at least according to the media. It was hysterically funny to see the diehard Democrats who tried to pass themselves off as being all about civil liberties oppose renewal of the PATRIOT Act under Bush, but not really a peep out of those same people when Obama pushed for the same exact renewal of powers as Bush had.
  In reality, you were only called racist because you were paying attention only to the deluded ravings of Orly Taitz, meanwhile, unbeknownst to you, the ACLU, EPIC, and FreedomWatch continued their opposition to the Patriot Act, both in the courts and the legislatures.
  In fact, most Democrats opposed an extension in 2010,2011 2013, and 2015. Rand Paul might be the only name you know, but Dennis Kucinich and Ron Wyden stood against it numerous times as well.
  This is why you have no credibility, you go along with the empty-headed Mi when he plays the "race card" card, while anybody with a modicum of information can point out the flaws to your story. The deep factual ones.
9. Re:Stick to the important stuff by El+Cubano · 2017-03-18 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Did you miss where I said this: There are already standards for aviation safety and airworthiness.
  The FAA certifies commercial aircraft to the proper standards that allow safe evacuation in an emergency. If there is a problem in that process, then let's fix the FAA so that they do it right. The proposed legislation sort of says "we know better than the FAA." Like someone else in this discussion said: "US Lawmakers Solicit Campaign Donations From Airlines".
  Part of the FAA's job is to employ aviation safety experts to figure things out like appropriate minimum seat dimensions and separation. In any event, if legislators want to do something like this, then they should at least be honest and not say it is a safety issue.
10. Re:Stick to the important stuff by sjames · 2017-03-18 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ideally, yes, the FAA would call bullshit on a seat shrink until proper evacuation studies are completed. They would also be looking in to the DVT issue as a potential flight safety issue. Since they haven't done those things, it's time for that balance of power thing to step in and direct them to do their job.
Why not let the market sort this out? by bogaboga · 2017-03-18 01:55 · Score: 1

Is there a problem having the "market" sort this out? Why [the attempt to] legislate it?
If this were some regimes in the east, we'd be trumpeting our "luck" for living in the west, where we have "all the freedom"' and minimal government involvement in our lives.
1. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by fluffernutter · 2017-03-18 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  Stop talking about the market. If the market was a real thing then different airlines would be shrinking seats to a different degree. Some airlines would be advertising 'our seats are bigger'. But as usual, every company moves in lock step with one another. There is no such thing as having the market sort it out, as is the case for most products and services.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
2. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  then different airlines would be shrinking seats to a different degree
  Not if the market demands the same thing from all of them.
  Look at phones say. Phones with physical keyboards have been driven out of the market because not enough ppl wanted to buy them, while phones with a display occupying as much of the surface as possible have taken over because that's what most people want.
3. Re: Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  The market answer to this was proposed several years ago when an airline suggested removing seats and making you stand the whole ride. No one seemed interested in cattlecar airlines.
4. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Moof123 · 2017-03-18 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  the problem is that seat sizes are only a major issue for about 10-20% of the population. It is more profitable to ignore the comfort and well being of those people, but they still need to fly. I see no need to regulate seat size, but rather to require that all passengers be acommodated with at least 2" of spare knee space if they choose not to follow a minimum size. Leave it to airlines to have to provide first class upgrades or whatever if they choose to cattle car everyone.
  In general flying has become so crummy that I avoid it as much as possible, and I am only 5'9". I can only imagine how awful a couple hour flight is for someone over 6'.
5. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, see any JetBlue advertisement in the past 3-4 years. "Biggest seat pitch in the industry" etc. Also, economy plus, etc. The market has sorted this out, and its people going to RyanAir and the like that says "I'll pay for the cheapest ticket possible even if it means $200 in fees on the backend" that have fucked up the rest of it. Fortunately if you fly frequently they still cater to their bread and butter, so upgrades, preferred seating, etc. means a smart, frequent traveler still rides in comfort.
6. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  The market is a real thing. Just like democracy. Both require a highly educated populace to work. There exists no country in the world that has a highly educated populace. Rote memorization, standardized testing, and college degrees do not translate into de facto education.
  God help me for sounding like a fucking nanny state loving Democrat, but: The government, therefore, often has to protect people from their own stupid fucktardery. You know and I know that given the option, dumbasses would fork over $80 to hold on to a strap and stand the entire way on a transatlantic flight.
7. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by gfxguy · 2017-03-18 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, the market is fully functional - unfortunately, though, it goes where the money is - and most people will allow themselves to be treated worse by the airlines if it means saving a few bucks, so they are in a race to the bottom. The only ones competing at the high end are for the longest flights, where people start to pay attention to comfort.
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
8. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by ProzacPatient · 2017-03-18 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think the problems with airlines is the result of a lack of government intervention when the previous administration allowed a dozen or so airlines to merge into 4 huge monolithic airlines (American, Delta, United and Southwest) three of which all seem to have the same policies, prices, fees and outright contempt for the consumer. The ideal of the free market only works when the consumer has choices available to them and but under these circumstances I honestly feel the airlines have formed into a cartel, and while the DOJ declined to pursue any further investigation into anti-trust behavior there is a class action lawsuit working its way the the courts accusing the major airlines of collusion.
9. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by mtmiller100 · 2017-03-18 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  "The Market" is the reason for undersized seats. The airlines get to spread the cost of operating the flight over more seats/fares, allowing them to lower the cost per fare (in theory), and giving them an edge over the competition. The customers book the cheaper flights, so the competition has to follow suit. It's finally, over the past few years, been getting to the point that the customers are fed up with being cramped up. I live in Charlotte, and have family in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Washington (state)... I'm also 6' 2" and a fit 210lbs. I don't mind being shoved in a sardine tin for the 90 minute flight to Cleveland... but the 4+hour flight to Seattle sucks. I digresses significantly, but my point is, when the market is broken, sometimes it takes legislation to stop the "race to the bottom".
10. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by moeinvt · 2017-03-18 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  The market is absolutely a real thing. Government is artificial. People would be engaging in commerce with or without government and often do so despite government. Notice that every single time a government tries to ban commerce, the market simply moves underground? Supply finds a way to meet demand regardless of what government tries to do.
  If you think it's bad that companies sometimes move in lock step with one another, how is it any better for a government bureaucrat to impose a "one size fits all" policy on the companies thus forcing them to move in lockstep? You also make it sound like you have no options for air travel when you always have the option of buying a first class ticket and getting plenty of space. Some airlines also offer a "business class" which is somewhere in between economy and first. That's the market at work, providing options for a small number of people who are willing to pay a premium for amenities. The overwhelming majority of people are just looking for the cheapest way to get somewhere, so it's hardly a surprise that airlines focus on that segment of the market.
  Airlines are not going to give you space for free because some bureaucrat waved a magic wand. Removing one or two rows of seats means that the cost for those seats gets distributed over all the other passengers. Small and average sized people will now be forced to subsidize travel for tall and fat people who are too cheap to buy better tickets.
11. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by bogaboga · 2017-03-18 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  I digresses significantly, but my point is, when the market is broken, sometimes it takes legislation to stop the "race to the bottom".
  I wonder whether the airline companies themselves are reasonably profitable as they "race to the bottom." Are they?
12. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'd suggest following your own advice about stopping talking about the market, because what you said about it gives the clear impression you have no idea about markets or this sector. Various airlines have tried launching as premium, all business, higher service etc in various western countries and they've failed. A free market doesn't mean that every possible service will exist, it doesn't even mean that every possible service that would be successful will exist; there is however plenty of real life evidence that free markets do innovate more than state controlled or excessively regulated ones. In the case of air transport that innovation has been finding ways to cut cost even if that means degrading the service.
13. Re: Why not let the market sort this out? by fluffernutter · 2017-03-18 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Because when the government does it, they are imposing a limit on what they deem to be workable for people, which is exactly what the government should be doing. If companies didn't get locked in a race to the bottom then we wouldn't need the government but sadly we do in many cases because commercial ventures lose all common sense pursuing profits.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
14. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by fluffernutter · 2017-03-18 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  For a real free market to exist, at least one airline needs to stand up and say "we are making our seats bigger because that is the right thing to do. We will make less money than our competitors but our customers will be happier and we will still be able to stay in business". THIS is not what happens. You are far willing to excuse them for not doing the things they could do but don't choose to because it is a more difficult way to go.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
15. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by fluffernutter · 2017-03-18 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone benefits from having more room. It's not just about fitting into the seat, it's about being comfortable. A small seat is more uncomfortable for people than a bigger seat.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
16. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  Says the guy who fundamentally misunderstands what the market is and how it behaves.
17. Re: Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  You just blamed Obama. I'm impressed.
18. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by thegarbz · 2017-03-18 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Stop talking about the market. If the market was a real thing then different airlines would be shrinking seats to a different degree.
  Err they are. You can google the seat pitch per airline per aircraft. There are some flights I upgrade to premium, and others where I don't have to.
19. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by fluffernutter · 2017-03-18 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  But the point is you only get what you pay for.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
20. Re: Why not let the market sort this out? by ProzacPatient · 2017-03-18 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest I would have expected the same of any previous administration. Not sure about the current one this early in but honestly I wouldn't expect anything different.
21. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by thegarbz · 2017-03-18 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how that point came out of your earlier post, especially given every point you made was wrong.
  Airlines do have different pitches.
  Some airlines to advertise comfort.
  Airlines advertise different pitches for different prices on the same aircraft.
  Airlines have a different limit where customers no longer fly the carrier and stop reducing seat spacing (which is why I try and fly dutch airlines whenever I'm in Europe)
  This is a perfect example of market forces at work, which you claimed wasn't happening.
22. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 00:00 · Score: 0
  
  Airlines have a different limit where customers no longer fly the carrier and stop reducing seat spacing (which is why I try and fly dutch airlines whenever I'm in Europe)
  What's special about Dutch airlines? I'm Dutch and I haven't really noticed a difference between seat spacing in airlines from different countries so far. I do notice a difference between budget airlines and flag carriers, though.
23. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by fluffernutter · 2017-03-19 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's called advertising! They will promise anything as long as they can do it without it costing them much money. But yet then where is the airline with the biggest seats? I just tried it on two search engines. I expected st least one airline boasting larger seats all around but there are none. Where is the corporate investment in earning customers?
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
24. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by golden_hands · 2017-03-19 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  This kind of cartel formation is exactly what was predicted by Adam Smith. All the 'free marketeers' who have never read Adam Smith are talking crap when they pretend that he was against regulation.
25. Re:Why not let the market sort this out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Because the market is not really free. When the big-3 airlines found themselves competing against Middle Eastern airlines providing bigger seats and better meals, they tried lobbying against them, the free market be damned.
Its gotten rediculous by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 01:55 · Score: 0

Ever been in a middle seat on one of these things? Not only do people NOT fit in 17" seats, if you're in the middle, they are in yours. I've been in the situation where I've been sharing my seat with 2 other "non petite" other people..
Unless people get smaller, these seats need to get bigger. 18" with maybe 20" in the middle..
its important, wrong place. This is not Time mag.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 01:59 · Score: 0

This is fucking stoopid,,
How the fuck is this news for werds?
Re:its important, wrong place. This is not Time ma by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:02 · Score: 0

thats news for nerds
#NotMyAirplane by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:15 · Score: 0

First, no more paper tickets, and now this, smaller spaces!?
Initiating electronic protest!
FUCK THAT :echo chamber:
(Fuck That!!!... fuck that!!, fuk tha!, eff dat)
Oh
Use TRUMP's ASS as measure! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

Because if your ass is as big as his ass, you too fat to fly in one seat!
1. Re:Use TRUMP's ASS as measure! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Looking forward to Trump's army of amply girthed supporters posting stuff like "I'm usually opposed to excessive government regulations, but some things could really make a positive difference in people's lives.."
2. Re:Use TRUMP's ASS as measure! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't it the left that loves ample girth as 'body positivity' and 'fat is still beautiful/healthy'?
I guess you'll find out if you watch the movie by waspleg · 2017-03-18 02:26 · Score: 2

theaters. Minus the age restriction and free snacks this is exactly what some of the big theater chains are doing to try to get people to come back to the movies.
The AMC near me just ripped out all of their seats and put in leather recliners with enough leg room that people can walk by without you having to stand up (or so says the wife, I haven't been yet). Unfortunately they can't control the kids on their fucking phones and rude dumb fucks talking.
I remember what it was like to go to the theater and actually be engaged by the movie and not the other assholes in the room. I feel bad for people too young to know what that magic is like.
1. Re:I guess you'll find out if you watch the movie by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  There is something to that, yes, but it isn't a full fix. Now that I live in range of an Alamo Drafthouse with spacious seats, serving food and drinks, with enforced age restrictions and a policy of removing people who talk or use cell phones, I've gone from seeing one or two movies a year and hating it to seeing one or two movies a year and actually enjoying it. And that's the important part; the experience is better, but it hasn't increased my consumption.
  For me, flights have a similar problem. I have a lot of places I'd like to visit, and I actually enjoy flying. A few hours of crying kids and bruised knees (6'4" sucks sometimes) is a fair trade for being on another coast after a few movies and a nap. More space would make each individual flight more enjoyable, but I wouldn't fly more. My problem is that I'm a little more spontaneous than airlines want me to be. If we plan a family vacation 8 months in advance it's not too bad, but if I want to be in LA next weekend the ticket price triples regardless of space. I've spoken to a lot of people who complain about the space on planes. None of them said they'd fly to Rome next week if they had an extra 2" leg room and a higher ticket price.
I like more space. by Bender+Unit+22 · 2017-03-18 02:33 · Score: 1

On my last flight from CPH to LAS and back again(about 10 hours each way). I booked a 1000$ seat instead of a 500$ seat to get a "premium" seat, and it was worth it. I could open my laptop and play games, I there was room for my legs and even to each side in the seat, I could even recline my seat enough to get a decent nap.
But often you don't have the option of a seat double the price, you have to pay three or four times as much as the next step up.
I have been traveling with other people that are below the average size for scandinavians, and that always say that they have no problems with the small seats, and yet their elbows are always entering my space. :)
1. Re:I like more space. by dknj · 2017-03-18 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  sounds like you had a bulkhead seat. a > 14" laptop does not bode well on airplanes at all, even economy plus or whatever they call a 2" increase of space while you're still in economy. i downsized to a 14" laptop and i have zero issue with using it on any flight. my last flight i was sitting in the middle seat back in row 34 or something near the back of the plane and i was able to code without issue.
  if you fly, stay away from 15" or larger laptops, they are incompatible with planes
  -dk
2. Re:I like more space. by mtmiller100 · 2017-03-18 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  When travelling with my wife and our 1 year old, I found it is well worth it to buy our daughter her own seat, so we take up all 3 seats in the row. It is cheaper to do this, than to book 2 business class or first class seats, and it gives us (my wife and I) just enough extra ass room to be relatively comfortable. It also gives our restless 1 year old some much needed room.
How about setting maximum size for passengers? by mobby_6kl · 2017-03-18 02:49 · Score: 0

The seats aren't big but not really out of line with what I've seen in coaches or even trains. Sucks for super tall freaks but the fat bastards, who are the majority complaining about this, should just put down the sammich for a while. Fun anecdote: on a recent trip I've watched a fat family cram themselves with various junk food they brought onto the plane while barely fitting into the seats. Nobody else had to snack before they brought the food.
If you want, pony up for first class and get the full regulation-era experience including the pricing.
way to go beau.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 02:49 · Score: 0

Editor david..
fucking please...
more like editor Beau with another phallus in place.
same face, different place? Kitchen versus bathroom or bedroon?
Re: its important, wrong place. This is not Time m by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 03:41 · Score: 0

I want to know why werds is a suggestion on your phone.
Better hurry! by fahrbot-bot · 2017-03-18 03:44 · Score: 1

... if the legislation is passed, the particulars would be left up to the FAA to sort out...

The FAA reauthorization expires in 198 days.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re-regulate the airlines, it'll fix everything by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:01 · Score: 0

Prior to 1979, air travel cost was fixed from point to point and airlines were guaranteed a profit on every seat. It did cost more to fly, but airlines competed on customer service and schedule, not in a race to the bottom to see how many people they could stuff on a plane.
Airlines, especially low cost ones, are incredibly low margin businesses. They have enormous fixed costs and a customer base that simultaneously demands pampering at the high end and $49 flights on the low end. Setting a minimum floor to limit how bad the airline can make the experience is a good thing. Otherwise, Spirit, EasyJet and Ryanair will be offering "straphanger fares" for people willing to stand for a transatlantic flight. Delta, American and United have started offering "Economy Minus" fares that don't let you choose your seat, reduce seat pitch even further, and don't even give you free snacks/drinks.
I wish they'd just re-regulate passenger service and stop the fare wars, but this is a good compromise. Imagine not having to sit next to angry drunk people who have no idea how to behave in public. Let those people take the train, bus or drive.
while we're at it... by mad7777 · 2017-03-18 04:01 · Score: 1
Great idea. After all, what business isn't the government's business?
While we're at it, I'd like to propose a few more regulations about things that piss me off:
- Bananas must be yellow, and curved to within specifications to be determined by the USDA
- Dumb music should be outlawed. The dumbness of music shall be determined by a special congressional committee of musical experts.
- Broccoli should be illegal. I hate that stuff.
- Bad movies. Also illegal.
- All videos posted online must have closed captions. Oh wait... looks like I'm too late for that one.
- Any other transaction between two consenting parties that I personally determine to be offensive.
/sarc
--
Might makes right irrelevant.
I sit on the small airline seat possible by mallyn · 2017-03-18 04:03 · Score: 1

Yes. It's the smallest seat and the longest trip I made on that seat was 350 miles.
It's the seat on my bicycle.
And I enjoyed every bit of it! I call it Bicycle Class!

--
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
I propose a maximum instead: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:13 · Score: 0

How about a maximum ass size instead. We are a nation of overly large humans and that's not counting our over-inflated egos.
Snowflake by ghoul · 2017-03-18 04:23 · Score: 1

So because you are a special snowflake air travel has to become more expensive for us normal folks?

--
**Life is too short to be serious**
Different sized people should pay different money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 04:31 · Score: 0

Bigger, and more massive people should pay more for bigger seats. Volume on an airplane costs money. Fuel to move mass on an airplane costs more. Use more, pay more.
What I'm waiting for... by MMC+Monster · 2017-03-18 04:45 · Score: 1

Purely autonomous personal vehicles will solve this.
Recline your car seat back all the way and get in at 9 PM and have the car drive you all night long.
No TSA hassles. No rumblings about paying extra for a carry on bag, a snack that should cost $1 instead costing $5, or being kicked by the guy behind you getting out of his seat because he has a small bladder.
Driverless cars won't be the end of domestic airlines, but they will have to adapt to keep customers.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
1. Re:What I'm waiting for... by Greyfox · 2017-03-18 05:42 · 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?
Isn't this "more regulation"? by stikves · 2017-03-18 04:56 · Score: 1

This "more regulation" will not going to fly with the current administration. They will either need to "remove two regulations" to make face, or not do it at all.
That being said, we were able to vote with our dollars until very recently when there was real competition in the airline industry. Now there are only a few major airlines, and everything seems to be going downwards, at the passengers' expense. Wouldn't it be better to break them up again for better competition? This way we don't need to wait for the house to pass laws to get better service.
1. Re:Isn't this "more regulation"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  The airlines have literally never made a profit every single year since deregulation. We should just cut to the chase and nationalize them.
This isn't the airline's fault by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:12 · Score: 0

It's our fault for being so undemanding. It's our fault for always going for the cheapest price instead of the best service. If we aren't selective based on things like legroom, the airlines are going to eliminate those features. They hire people for $500K to show them how to save $100 by screwing the passengers. The consumer did it, not the airlines. Same thing with Made In China, who chose cheap over quality?
I refuse to fly by p51d007 · 2017-03-18 05:25 · Score: 2

#1 reason is the (illegal) TSA treating everyone like a criminal...searching EVERYONE in the name of "safety" (giving up your rights as a citizen...in the name of security LMAO). #2, I remember when just 30+ years ago, it was still somewhat of a treat to get on an airliner. I even remember as a kid, anyone would walk right up to the gate of the airplane, to see someone depart or arrive. Heck, you even got REAL China, REAL stainless steel knives and forks. #3, flying today? Nothing more than cattle being transported from one location to the other. Rude people, rude staff at times, courtesty out the door. Wonder how long it will be, until public transit hand rails will come along, and everyone is made to stand during the flight. Gotta maximize the passenger load. Sorry...I'll just drive to where I need to go. Screw the airlines, TSA and all that other crap!
1. Re:I refuse to fly by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  I also refuse to fly for the _exact_ same reasons. People these days continue to give airlines their money and then complain about the crappy service they receive on social media. You can't expect the market to correct itself if you refuse to participate. No amount of complaints on the internet will reduce an airline's bottom line. If you get crappy service, STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY.
  Changes happen in the marketplace when LOTS of people stop buying tickets from the airlines that treat people the worst. If you believe it doesn't matter which airline you buy your ticket from because they all treat people the same, then follow my example and stop flying. You have the power to refuse crappy service and crappy products. You exercise your power by refusing to buy from that company. The money you give them, or refuse to give, is what affects companies' bottom lines.
  You can drive, take a train, or take part in general aviation. Flying your own plane is awesome because you have complete control and total freedom, just like when you drive your own car. Even if all you can afford is an ultralight, you're still flying at freeway speeds and you don't have to deal with the traffic jams on the ground.
  As far as the fascist police state implemented by the DHS, TSA, and others at all the nation's airports, courthouses, football stadiums, baseball fields, concert venues, many train stations (or trains), and bus depots, not to mention how Disneyland is training our children to accept the fascist police state as the normal state of affairs with all their fingerprint scanners (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=disney+fingerprint+scanner&*), I voted against Hilary precisely to get rid of all that along with Obamacare.
  I'm still waiting.
2. Re:I refuse to fly by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  I'd rather have the beds from that 'flight' in The Fifth Element. Or bunk bed like sort of things.
  An actual wall, and the airplane could use structural supports through the cabin to be more effectively designed.
information by Lehk228 · 2017-03-18 05:26 · 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.
Fine! You can have your spacious seats! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 05:28 · Score: 0

We'll make up for our losses by reducing cabin pressure and by shipping all luggage (including carry-on) via the most *economical option available at all terminals we operate out of.
(*) Usually, an LTL shipper.
more baggage by nastyphil · 2017-03-18 08:05 · Score: 1

Just like cargo, you should pay per kilogram.

--
Dialectician. Archology.
Then intercept the lobbyists. by sethstorm · 2017-03-18 08:29 · Score: 1

If the lobbyists dont make it, they can't affect the proposal.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I'm glad the Republicans are in charge by jader3rd · 2017-03-18 08:34 · Score: 1

They're all about reducing regulations, deregulating airlines and letting the market sort issues out. They'll stick to their principles and never let additional regulation pass.
FAA has conflict of interest. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-03-18 09:12 · Score: 1

FAA has dual mandate. One to issue regulation and to enforce compliance. Second to promote air travel. It is high time we remove language regarding promotion of air travel. It does not make sense anymore. It should only be concerned with safety and compliance.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Remember Midwest Express Airlines by Pauldow · 2017-03-18 09:15 · Score: 1

A while back there was Midwest Express Airlines. They were formed from the Kimberly Clark internal flight department, and was based in Milwaukee. They flew DC-9 and MD-80 planes with 2 X 2 seating, good legroom, good food, and baked on-board cookies.
The flights I took were only about $20 more than the competition. It was a great way to fly.
Then the internet came along and destroyed them. People will always choose the flight that comes out the cheapest, although there's a little leeway to pay more for a flight that doesn't leave at 4 AM.
Midwest couldn't compete, so they eventually went to standard seating and cut back on services. By then they were just like any other airline, except with a limited route structure that couldn't compete with the big airlines.
I rarely fly, but when I do I try to fly on Airbus narrow body planes, or Embraer regional jets. Those usually have 18 inch wide seats..
Sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 09:42 · Score: 0

A mossing word in the title.
_Fat_ Us lawmakers..(almost as obese as the president, but with larger hands) ...
More Seats = More Time to Evacuate by SCUBA+Instructor · 2017-03-18 09:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Hi, Certification for emergency evacuation requires a test of real people evacuating in less than a specified amount of time. These tests are done with all airline employees as passengers, all physically fit, all alert, all expecting the drill to occur, and with no luggage. More seats means more less-physically fit passengers, clueless and sleepy passengers, kids, handicapped pax, and lots and lots of luggage and obstructions. Make safety the number 1 reason for seat minimums.
The market failed. by sethstorm · 2017-03-18 10:02 · Score: 1

The market has failed, thus legislation was proposed.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Lawmakers Market any day. by sethstorm · 2017-03-18 10:04 · Score: 1

Lawmakers can do what the market cannot - force the larger seats to happen.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re: Lawmakers Market any day. by cthulhu11 · 2017-03-19 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Have you paid attention to D.C. lately? If the FAA even exists next year, any standard they will set will be even smaller than we currently suffer.
Give it to the CDC by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 10:24 · Score: 0

No, seriously.
cattle class... by sxpert · 2017-03-18 20:41 · Score: 2

is this law proposition coming from lawmakers that were recently forced to fly cattle class and didn't like it ?
Counterpoint. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 20:46 · Score: -1

Lose some fucking weight. When they say to eat healthy, enjoy a salad, not the whole salad bar!!!
EAT LESS FAT!!
Re: TSA agents by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-18 22:44 · Score: 0

Sometimes a bit of rough, surprising human contact is all the difference between a boring trip to the airport and a sensual adventure. Just hide a bit of tinfoil in your nether regions and get yourself a free handy!
Please tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 06:14 · Score: 0

...how the fuck I'm supposed to take a train to Hawaii?
Seat sizes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-19 12:30 · Score: 0

You want a larger seat? It's easy! Buy a business class or first class ticket!
Make 'em Stand by coinreturn · 2017-03-20 06:46 · Score: 1

Solution: take out all the seats and make everybody stand.