To be fair, they're not forcing anyone into anything. As much as I loathe handing over my money to airlines - an experience I sometimes have to face three times a month - they are a for-profit commercial enterprise with no requirements for how they operate beyond government-imposed ones.
Want something legitimate to complain about when thinking of flying the friendly skies? Think about the airlines whining about the cost of fuel (and jacking up their ticket prices over 10%/year) when fuel prices are significantly less than four years ago when their whining was strongest.
Or, if you're like me, think about their failure to solve one major gripe by stating, "do not place your bag in an overhead bin at the front of the aircraft unless you're sitting in the goddamn front of the aircraft."
There should be a government imposed minimum seat pitch. The current distance between the back of one seat and the front of another is too small for the top 10% in terms of height of the population, disabled people, and older people.
Then airlines cannot use "competition" to argue why they should make seats smaller and smaller, as all competition would have to adapt also.
I don't care if they're a private business. That means nothing to me. When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition.
Particularly in the US, you can pick any airline you want but the products are identical.
> I don't care if they're a private business. That means nothing to me. When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition.
It's not collusion, because air travel is effectively a commoditized market. That means there is continuous downward pressure on pricing exactly because the product is nearly identical everywhere. It is a zero-sum game though with regards to seat size. I don't think they can realistically go much smaller though; as a person of average height (5'7") even I have trouble fitting in their seats.
That said, there are airlines that cater to "comfort". Virgin America is one of them. They're not doing so well: it turns out that most customers either don't know or don't care about the quality of the flight, just the price. Virgin's prices are 10-20% higher than their competitors, but they just can't seem to fill their flights. Virgin has scaled back their routes as a result.
Indeed. Everyone says they want legroom! then everyone goes on the internet and just buys whatever's cheapest. Same with people who talk about workers rights then go shop at Primark.
I think a part of this, though, is that everything is geared toward comparing only price. I don't fly often enough to have a good sense of what airlines are going to genuinely be more comfortable, so I weigh more heavily the thing I'm more certain of. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to pay more for a more comfortable flight.
When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition.
People like you have been saying this for a long time. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of airline customers have been saying, much more loudly, much more consistently and with money rather than words (i.e., in how they book and what fares they book) that all considerations other than the number of dollars in the ticket price are null and any and all devaluations, reductions or after-the-fact fees are accepted and encouraged if they bring the initial dollar amount of the ticket lower.
The market has been doing a terrible job of making such considerations visible. I'd like to book a flight from city A to city B on an A380. There are two possible routes on two different carriers, and I'm happy to pay the (fairly small) premium.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to actually do that, to manually go and find the flight times and numbers that correspond to an A380, and then to find those in a search engine (either Kayak or the airlines')? Especially when there's a stopover. Both airlines have a ton of other flights on the same route, which is just noise that I have to filter through. But I'm willing to spend a couple hours doing that to book a slightly less miserable transatlantic flight.
If comfort information was readily available and visible on a flight search, people would actually be able to make that choice. But it's not, so it's not reasonable to draw the conclusion that people don't care about it. It's not easy to research the differences, to the vast majority probably don't know them.
Again, the market does a terrible job of making such considerations visible because not enough consumers care. It's not like online travel agencies don't want to distinguish themselves or airlines don't want people to know they're operating A380s
There shouldn't be any difficulty in adding an "A380" filter to a search engine (even for third parties, it's a field in the schedules datasets), but the set of people searching for flights mostly by aircraft type, on routes where A380s actually operate isn't necessarily larger than the set of people who will check the A380 box out of curiosity, be surprised at how few options they get and then book on a different site.
It's perhaps telling that SeatGuru, with its excellent and unique rich data on airline seating, comes with a pretty bog standard search tool.
That would increase airlines' cost per-seat-mile, which will increase the average ticket costs for the majority of the public and decrease seat availability (and result in the cancellation of marginal routes).
Airlines have near universally tiny economy seats because the vast majority of people are sufficiently satisfied with small seats to be unwilling to patronise an alternative airline with slightly more expensive but larger economy seats. Why should we subsidise people that want premium economy at a lower price?
Then what happens is you effectively impose a surcharge on the 90% of the population who do not need a larger seat pitch, which hardly seems fair either.
You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline.
Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage as well. So less than 90%. Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch, even if just to allow them to more easily use things like a laptop in economy (which is not viable now if the person in front of you reclines fully).
> You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline.
It has nothing to do with "comfort." It isn't a luxury feature in the same vein as a complementary back massage, hot flannel, or free alcoholic drink. It is what people need so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight.
Now, yes, extreme seat pitch (e.g. business/first class) is absolutely about pure comfort. I am talking about a bare minimum so an adult can fit their butt, legs, and knees between the back of their seat and the back of the seat in front when reclined.
If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.
> Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage
> as well. So less than 90%.
How does being older have anything to do with needing more leg room?
Depending on the disability that may not matter either.
> Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch
As an anecdote I'm 183 cm (or 6") and I actually find it really
uncomfortable to sit at the optional incline offered by airlines, I'd
like to either be sitting straight up or lie completely level, nothing
in-between. So I'm not benefiting from it, unless it's getting quite
close to 90 degrees.
> It has nothing to do with "comfort. [...] It is what people need
> so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight.
I'm relatively fine with the current seat arrangement, and I'm happy
that airlines aren't being mandated to increase prices for everyone
due to some government-imposed seat size regulations.
I'm happy that I have the option to choose airlines like EasyJet for
shorter trips which are essentially glorified cattle carts with wings
on them, but which would allow me to affordably go somewhere over a
weekend. If I want more seat space there's always something like KLM's
Economy+, or other similar premium arrangements.
> If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.
Aside from the fact that you're entering into a voluntary business
arrangement with the airline, and it's somewhat presumptuous to assume
that you're better aware of how they could save money than they are:
When you're sitting down in a chair your upper body isn't taking up
volume in the space going up vertically from your knees, so there's
space for the seat in front of you to recline into that space.
So this suggestion doesn't make sense. It's not an either-or, maybe
airlines would benefit from removing or reducing recline, but that's
not mutually exclusive with saving money by reducing the space between
seats.
>"It has nothing to do with "comfort." It isn't a luxury feature in the same vein as a complementary back massage, hot flannel, or free alcoholic drink. It is what people need so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight."
I'm not in "physical pain" from the seats as they currently are. The key qualifier that you should add is "some" and replace "need" with "want", perhaps even "feel is necessary". Neither of which apply to me. I neither want more space, nor do I feel it is necessary for me in any way, hence why I suggested you change your view on the matter by adding the qualifier "some".
Many airlines offer seats with a few inches more legroom for a modest increase in price. If you want more room, pay for it. Despite your protest to the contrary, you can.
> To be fair, they're not forcing anyone into anything.
I see this argument a lot of time but I still don't really know how exactly that redeems companies bad business practices and user hostility. What is the purpose of this argument? Saying that it's ok? If not, what else?
Also, what is the alternative? Use a cargo ship over seas? Choose from another 5 companies with same crappy business practices?
It's offensive behavior, to be certain. But unless it's legislated otherwise, it's "okay", yes.
For the record, I'm 6'3" with rheumatoid arthritis, and I despise flying in coach. But I have to separate the irrationally perceived personal affront by the airlines from the reality of the situation: I am flying by choice. If I had a specific accessibility concern (and not a convenience or comfort one) the airline would accommodate me.
>"I see this argument a lot of time but I still don't really know how exactly that redeems companies bad business practices and user hostility."
It's not supposed to redeem them, that's where you took a wrong turn.
>"What is the purpose of this argument? Saying that it's ok? If not, what else?"
I believe the purpose is to tell people to "relax, it'll solve itself", or perhaps: "relax, if there was no coercion, then this is precisely what the market wants, or is willing to bear"
> Also, what is the alternative? Use a cargo ship over seas? Choose from another 5 companies with same crappy business practices?
It depends on where you're going. If it's an overseas trip, you could video conference or telecommute. If it's not, you could drive yourself or take a bus.
In the US? Hah. I once looked up the time it would take to take a train from Seattle to Chicago. Three days, one way. I would have to spend a week vacation just traveling to and from my destination. The flight between those two cities is four hours. Trains in the US are substitutes for driving, not flying.
Want something legitimate to complain about when thinking of flying the friendly skies? Think about the airlines whining about the cost of fuel (and jacking up their ticket prices over 10%/year) when fuel prices are significantly less than four years ago when their whining was strongest.
Or, if you're like me, think about their failure to solve one major gripe by stating, "do not place your bag in an overhead bin at the front of the aircraft unless you're sitting in the goddamn front of the aircraft."