Slashdot Mirror


Why Bigger Planes Mean Cramped Quarters (popsci.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The ironic thing about the compressed state of air travel today is that planes are getting larger. The jet I was on, an Airbus A321, stretches nearly 23 feet longer than its predecessor, the A320. More space, more passengers, more profit. These bigger planes are increasingly the most common Âvariants -- both on American Airlines and across all carriers. The current Boeing 737s, the world's most flown craft, are all longer than the original by up to 45 feet. And yet, on the inside, we're getting squeezed.

That's because more space doesn't equal more space in Airline World. It equals more seats -- and typically less room per person. In 2017, for example, word leaked that American was planning to add six economy spots to its A320s, nine to its A321s, and 12 (that's two rows) to its Boeing 737-800s. JetBlue is reportedly ramming 12 extras into its A320s, and Delta's will gain 10. And, come 2020, you'll likely find more seats on every United plane. In Airline World, they call this densification, which is a silly word. Passengers call it arrrgh!

Consumer Reports recently polled 55,000 of its members about air travel. There were complaints about all aspects, from ticketing to agents checking carry-ons at the gate. But 30 percent of coach-class fliers rated their seats as outright uncomfortable, and every airline received extremely low scores on legroom and cushiness in economy. Clearly, things are dismal and seem to be getting even worse. They're so bad, in fact, that last year, nonprofit consumer-advocacy group FlyersRights.org filed a suit against the Federal Aviation Administration, after lobbying the agency to stop the squeeze and standardize seat sizes.

33 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Thing is... by YuppieScum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...that they didn't complain about ticket prices.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Thing is... by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly.

      Everyone's always willing to complain, but yet they continually want cheaper and cheaper flights, while the actual costs of operating an airline just keep rising. Customers want more destinations and more airport services. Somebody's going to be paying for that, so it comes at the cost of legroom.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re: Thing is... by ravib123 · · Score: 2

      You know the odd thing is regardless of the ticket price the number flights per day went down a lot so they needed more seats and fuller airplanes. I was lucky enough to sit next to an analyst who worked with the airlines once about 20 years ago. At the time only the small planes were profitable, most of the time. Ticket prices were higher (and dropping fast) but the large planes required to be 70% full for any profit to be made. As the density increase on the planes, and the number of flights decreased, you presumably see a high chance of profit on a flight. Since effectively they airlines all compete on price first, and they all cost the same to operate the same model if plane, itâ(TM)s almost like a garbage company. You make the money elsewhere; first class, foodstuffs, extra weight (which costs more for fuel), etc. I suppose we should be happy to have so many options in flying, Iâ(TM)m amazed so many companies exist to chose from. Despite all being more or less the same ðY

    3. Re:Thing is... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So use more efficient aircraft for medium and shorter haul flights. Dash-8 Q400 can have decent seat pitch and still use less fuel/resources than jet aircraft. Perfect for routes like New York-Toronto-Montreal where Porter Airlines uses it, without compromising service.

      Yeah, yeah, ignorant people are scared of a "prop plane..."

    4. Re:Thing is... by Pulzar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, yeah, ignorant people are scared of a "prop plane..."

      It's not that simple. Even WestJet says that they are only more efficient on short-hauls, less than 300 miles. They are louder, they generally don't fit in normal gates and require buses / walking to the plane, they have very little overhead room... They introduce a new type of plane to be handled by ground crews in many small airports with small crews.

      There are real disadvantages, along with advantages. If they made sense for an airline, the "sacred of prop plane" wouldn't be an issue, just like it's not an issue for Porter.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    5. Re:Thing is... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dash-8s work fine with jetways -- they need an adapter gangway that mates to the lower door height. But the same applies to small jet aircraft like the ERJ, CRJ, and BAE146. The reason jetways aren't used for many short-haul flights isn't due to aircraft type, but because smaller airports and regional terminals weren't set up for them.

      https://www.eiaviation.com/wp-...

    6. Re:Thing is... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the things they don't tell you about capitalism in civics class is that companies do everything they can to avoid competition by making their prices hard to compare with other vendors. They do this by making transactions absurdly complicated (car dealers), by bundling irrelevant stuff into the deal (mobile phone companies, cable companies), unbundling essential stuff (airlines and baggage fees) or by adulterating/diluting their product (airlines and seat sizes).

      If you are price comparing two tickets between the same destination, the airlines make it quite difficult to figure out what you're getting for the price, the incidentals you'll have to pay, and even the certainty that you'll actually be able to board the plane. There's intense competition to get the lowest found ticket price in a computerized search, but a price ranking of alternatives is highly unreliable.

      On top of this, many airline passengers are in the same position that Microsoft Windows users were for many years: other people make the purchasing decision. I once had an employer book me on an itinerary that took twenty three hours from the time I boarded in Manchester, NH to when wheels touched down in Sacramento, thanks to layovers in Newark and Phoenix. Normally I'd fly out of Boston (where I live) and it would take about eight and half hours, but my boss figured out he could save fifty bucks by making me drive an hour north to a smaller airport.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Thing is... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not exactly. Most accidents happen during takeoff or landing. Turboprop planes tend to fly shorter flight legs, therefore more takeoffs/landings per hour, even 4x as more. (This even takes slower speed into account).

    8. Re: Thing is... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      The purpose of a business is to maximize profits, not to "survive".

      This is just tall people expecting short people to subsidize them.

      Tall guys get all the chicks, they are paid more, and now they are trying to take away the one thing that works in favor of short people: cramped airline seats.

      Short people need to stand up for their rights ... and if nobody notices, they need to stand on a stool.

    9. Re: Thing is... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      How is your Napoleon complex faring? Sounds like you skipped your meds today....

      You can laugh now, but someday I will dance on your grave: short men live longer. ... and you will pay more for your extra-long coffin. Enjoy the legroom.

    10. Re: Thing is... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you try registering it as a emotional support animal? They have to let you take them on board for free, otherwise it's like racist or something.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Thing is... by uncqual · · Score: 2

      So, tell your boss that you expect to be paid an hourly rate (or at least comp time) for anything over eight hours on a "travel day".

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    12. Re:Thing is... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      We're not comparing a Q400 to a 737-800, but to an E170, E190, or C-series.

    13. Re:Thing is... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many top tier airports are slot restricted - they are at capacity and can't increase the number of aircraft landing or taking off, which means that the only alternative is larger aircraft.

    14. Re:Thing is... by mattb47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the cell phone, car, cable, and airline industries have nothing on the health industry on obfuscating pricing.

    15. Re:Thing is... by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      Somebody's going to be paying for that, so it comes at the cost of legroom.

      And yet it's rare to be on a full flight. How much extra are they really making?

      It seems that I'm on full flights a lot more than I used to be. I would say about 80% of my flights are full with many having waiting lists and/or paying people to voluntarily deboard. Airlines overbook and run at about 85% capacity. They can't increase that much more than the 85% because additional overbooking runs the risk of having too many flights where too many people can't get on the plane they paid for. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/1...

    16. Re: Thing is... by mjwx · · Score: 2

      How is your Napoleon complex faring? Sounds like you skipped your meds today....

      You can laugh now, but someday I will dance on your grave: short men live longer. ... and you will pay more for your extra-long coffin. Enjoy the legroom.

      The odd thing about Napoleon is that he wasn't that short. He was actually tall for the day at 5'7 which was actually slightly taller than most people at the time. The idea of Napoleon Bonaparte being diminutive came from British wartime propaganda where he was depicted as being short and monkey-like. Comparatively, Lord Horatio Nelson his British naval adversary was 5'4 but the Duke of Wellington, who commanded the British army during the Napoleonic wars towered over most people at 5'11.

      So Napoleon wasn't short at all, he was in fact, slightly tall for a Frenchman.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Solution is simple... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go back to live evacuation tests. Require that they use airline CEOs, upper management, and their families as the test subjects... If the plane can't be evac'ed in 90 seconds without injury, increase seat pitch and try again.

    If a few airline upper managers get hurt during an evacuation test, maybe they'll realize WHY extremely dense seating is a bad idea.

    1. Re:Solution is simple... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Use the CEO, upper management and their families as test subjects, stuff the rest of the plane with homeless people and then tell everyone the first 20 to exit the plane get 50 bucks.

      Then start looking for a new CEO and upper management. And pay your cleanup crew handsomely, they earned it.

      (that "first 20 to exit get money" test was actually done when airlines found out that the evacuation tests worked like a charm while there were many unnecessary deaths in real emergency situations. People don't act civil when their life's at stake...)

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

      Go back to live evacuation tests. Require that they use airline CEOs, upper management, and their families as the test subjects... If the plane can't be evac'ed in 90 seconds without injury, increase seat pitch and try again.

      If a few airline upper managers get hurt during an evacuation test, maybe they'll realize WHY extremely dense seating is a bad idea.

      Meh. As a numerate consumer, I think this is a bad idea. Denser seating lowers ticket prices, and given that the probability that a plane I'm on will need to be evacuated in 90 seconds is extraordinarily low, and given that in one of those rare situations I think minor injuries would be the least of my concerns, I'll take the denser seating and lower price as long as I get enough legroom that I can fit. Especially for short flights.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Solution is simple... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Why do you assume that they ticket price will go down? This could just as easily be used to pad profit (or at least reduce losses) on a flight. The airline business isn't a free and open competitive marketplace. There are some routes that only have one carrier. In cases like that the airline has no incentive to drop the price while at the same time cramming you into the plane like sardines.

  3. Capitalism by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is why capitalism rarely serves the needs of the consumer, because usually all players in the market have a a common goal that is the exact opposite of what the consumer needs.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Capitalism by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is why capitalism rarely serves the needs of the consumer, because usually all players in the market have a a common goal that is the exact opposite of what the consumer needs.

      There are two competing consumer needs here, but you're ignoring the one that is the most important for many consumers: cost. X% fewer seats on a plane, all else equal, means X% higher ticket price. And when consumers are shopping for airline tickets, they're mostly shopping on price.

      What consumers need that capitalism doesn't always provide is accurate information. As long as consumers can get accurate information about legroom when choosing their flights, then if they want to choose cheaper flights with less legroom, that's their decision and any regulations that try to force them to have more room just serve to price air travel out of reach for more people.

      And frankly, it's not clear to me that most travelers actually care that much, based on the fact that although legroom information is available from the airlines, only one of the major flight search tools provides it. I just checked Kayak, Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline and Google Flights. Google is the only one that provides legroom information, and even there you have to click the "expand" arrow on each fare option to see what the legroom is. Further, while Google allows you to specify a lot of different criteria to narrow your search options, legroom isn't one of them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Capitalism by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Pretty much every airline offers larger seats, in Economy Plus or business/first class. Oh, don't want to pay that? Then you just made the GP's case.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  4. What happened to competition and free market? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I certainly support free market as much as reasonably possible. But it doesn't seem to be working here.

    Where is the airline offering more legroom and less crammed cabins? Granted within the airlines there are different cabins, but there's no competition between a $350 coach seat and and a $6000 business class seat.

    I think its time for some regulation in seat densities.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    1. Re:What happened to competition and free market? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, if only for safety. Small-pitch seats are much more difficult to evacuate in an emergency than seats with more legroom. There should be actual, live-person evacuation tests for any proposed seating configuration of an aircraft, not just for the manufacturer's original/intended seating plan.

    2. Re:What happened to competition and free market? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      The last fatal crash of a US airliner was in 2009.

      That's largely due to the fact that they managed to successfully evacuate quite a few planes. (That were less densely packed than what's being proposed.)

    3. Re:What happened to competition and free market? by danlip · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Crashes" generally don't involve evacuation, because every one is instantly dead. Situations like US Air 1549 (the one that landed on the Hudson) or AA 383 (caught fire on take off) are much more common. No one died in those, but would the results be different if they were more packed? Emergency aircraft evacuations happen about once every 11 days in the U.S.

    4. Re:What happened to competition and free market? by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      My biggest complaint with reduced legroom is the fact that in a crash, your likelihood of surviving is probably considerably less if your kneecaps are already touching the seat in front of you. If ANYTHING causes the seat in front of you to move, it's probably going to kill you as well as the passenger who was occupying that seat. At least when there's a few inches of legroom, the seat could get pushed back by an inch or two without shattering your kneecaps.

      Admittedly, this might be an extreme edge case (airframe torn apart upon crashing, you end up alive in the first row that doesn't completely get crushed and shredded, survive the impact, and manage to climb out of the wreckage), but the alternative is pretty horrifying... surviving a crash long enough to spend several agonizing minutes with crushed kneecaps unable to escape, knowing that despite somehow surviving to that point, you were probably going to die a horrible fiery death anyway in 2-3 minutes.

    5. Re:What happened to competition and free market? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Small-pitch seats are much more difficult to evacuate in an emergency than seats with more legroom.

      So this is the second time I've seen this in this discussion. When making that claim start by showing the effect it will have. Look up all the flights where *some* people died and others survived, and provide numbers to back up your claim that people in tighter spaces had a higher chance of death.

      You'll find the reality is on fatal flights, not even the emergency exit row people survived. On flights with some survivors, typically nearly everyone survived.

  5. I'm seriously pondering traveling as freight by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    More legroom, fewer crying kids, what's not to like?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Sneaky inflation by erice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My thoughts exactly.

    Everyone's always willing to complain, but yet they continually want cheaper and cheaper flights

    What cheaper flights? In the US, at least, flights are getting more expensive and more cramped and with more extra fees.

    What I see happening is sneaky inflation. The base fare stays more or less the same but the ticket is less usable. To get back to where you were you have to pay more. We approaching the point where I may be forced to pay for "premium" economy. This is big problem because those seats are typically 50% more expensive for often less than one inch of extra knee room.

  7. Pay 10% more for 10% more? by aberglas · · Score: 2

    Many people, and certainly tall ones, would be happy to pay 10% more for 10% more leg room. That is an extra 3".

    But you actually need to pay 100% more to get a slightly bigger seat in Premium Economy.

    And that is the point. If Economy was too comfortable, they would not sell many Business class seats.

    If I ran an airline, I would remove the padding from Budget Economy seats.