There’s a current call for the federal government to impose ‘minimum seat standards’ on US airlines.
I’ve seen reporting on this, and largely ignored it as silly, but since it keeps showing up everywhere I look it seemed worth comment. One example is, via Paul H., this story in the Los Angeles Times.
“The shrinkage of seats and passenger space by airlines to generate higher profits while the size of passengers has substantially increased has created an intolerable crisis situation,” according to the petition. “It is threatening the health, safety and comfort of all passengers.”
Singapore Airlines long haul economy seat: head rest, foot rest, video on demand and a cup holder
It’s reporting on a petition circulated by Flyers’ Rights and forwarded to the FAA. Flyers’ Rights told everyone their miles were at risk in American Airlines’ bankruptcy. They’ve been alleged to fabricate their data.
Christopher Elliott was hawking this idea last fall. As then, there’s absolutely no evidence that current seat sizes ‘threaten health’ or ‘safety’.
- Standard legroom on US carriers hasn’t decreased over the past 25 years. Average legroom has actually increased over that time, with the advent of extra legroom (“economy plus”-style) seats.
- Airlines have offered 31 inch pitch (distance from seat back to seat back) for many many years and so there’s ample empirical evidence on this.
- Spirit Airlines offers 3 fewer inches of legroom in most seats. Many airlines do the same. Those seats are considered ‘safe’ if not uncomfortable. But Spirit isn’t the primary target of the group’s criticisms, the major airlines are. (And without Spirit’s business model competing against the major airlines, fares would be higher.)
Seats may be less comfortable: the introduction of slimline seats, more seats in a row (eg 10-across seating on a 777), and overall planes are more full than they were 5 years ago. But none of that is a legroom issue per se.
American Airlines Boeing 787 economy legroom
“Main Cabin Extra” offers additional inches of legroom
As for width, an Airbus narrowbody aircraft will generally give you an 18 inch seat width now. While a Boeing aircraft, same six-across seating, will give you about 17 inches. It seems the problem here is the airframe. Should we outlaw the 737?
What level of comfort any passenger needs will vary based on personal preferences, body characteristics (shorter people don’t need as much legroom as tall people do), as well as the length of the flight.
There is this zinger, though:
During the meeting, panel member and travel expert Charles Leocha said he was troubled that the government has adopted minimum space requirements for dogs traveling on airplanes but not for humans.
I’ll be sympathetic to that argument the next time a passenger is involuntarily downgraded from economy to cargo.
We’d all love it if airlines just had to give us more space, and there were no consequences beyond that. But restricting seats on a flight raises the price of remaining seats.
The bottom line is this:
- There are different airlines offering different products.
- Most airlines themselves offer differentiated products at different price points.
Consumers can choose the level of comfortable they’re looking for, and what ithat level of comfort is worth paying for. All this petition would do is remove inexpensive choices. We’d all be forced to pay more, while we currently have a choice to pay less (and less get) on a given trip if we prefer.
American Airlines 787 Business Class Seat
Agreed. Slow news day.
Making a minimum level of service is what we want regulators to do. The question is what should that minimum be? Seats are regulated right now… Whats the news story?
Yes that’s the Leocha/Elliott/Flyers Rights crowd. These so-called consumer advocates really aren’t pro-consumer at all. They are pro “free lunch for the well off”, though they won’t even achieve that if their ideas are enforced. Some of the consequences of their ideas:
1) Higher prices for everybody. As you note, you can already simply pay a little extra for more legroom, probably no more than ALL will have to pay if these people get their way. Low fares have been the driving force in the democratization of air travel.
2) More people driving rather than flying to save money, causing more highway deaths as a certainty. How can you talk about “safety” of airline seats, but ignore this unintended but very predictable consequence?
3) Less efficient use of aircraft, creating more carbon emissions per person carried. Airlines are, let’s face it, bad for the environment. So we want to make the situation worse?
4) Killing off airlines whose business model demands low fares, reducing competition in many markets. Without Spirit and Frontier to deal with, remaining carriers can raise prices even more than the added costs would dictate. Of course some of these “consumer advocates” want to bring back the “good old days” of regulated pricing that made flying twice or three times as expensive in real dollars as it is today.
But don’t even try to get into a discussion with them. You make too much sense. They have a worldview of airlines as these big evil corporations wanting to hurt everybody and if the benevolent government will only slap them down life will be better for all.
One of the biggest frustrations of having a weightlifter frame is that you can pay a bit more and get more leg room. But there is no way to pay 20% more and get more width. Now I’m lucky and can pay for domestic first many times a year.
But I do wish there was economy plus for broad shoulders. 17″ is just uncomfortable.
The other fear would be that once the government mandates a minimum, that minimum has a tendency to become a de facto standard.
But since you asked, yes, I would like to outlaw 6 across seating on the 737. Those narrow seats have quickly made that my least favorite aircraft.
Yes, let’s get the government to mandate bigger seats. Then the airlines fly with less paying customers, or spend more on wider planes, both of which cause fares to rise. Then let’s complain to the government that airlines are charging too much. We, the public, are mostly idiots. No wonder someone like Elliot has followers. Of course, one simple idea for many fliers is losing weight, which makes fitting in the seat much easier. And I count myself in that group. But that entails personal responsibility. Can’t have that.
I agree, but airlines should clearly disclose seat width, leg space, and recline when one selects a seat/ticket.
In addition, I would like to be able two purchase two adjoining economy seats for extra comfort.
I agree the argument is dumb, but it’s a bit rich to hear Gary try to speak as an authority on this. When was your last time in a non extra leg room coach seat? I read your “fly coach and love it!” posts, then realized it was really “get extra leg room and you’ll be more comfortable.” Makes me think your free market principles, while not wrong, could ring similarly tone-deaf to lots of people here too.
@Tim every single time I sat in coach on US Airways. Every single time. Because they do not yet have any extra legroom seats on those aircraft. I am very vocal, however, that I choose to fly legacy American aircraft when possible (ie when I am connecting anyway I will connect over an American hub rather than a US Airways one) and that I choose not to fly Spirit.
I lived in DC for 18 years, up until a year ago. And Washington National airport is dominated by US Airways. What’s more, I’ve written many times about the value of British Airways avios redemptions for short haul travel. That meant, outside of Chicago and Raleigh and New York JFK on American, flying US Airways.
@margita try Seatguru for width, pitch, and recline
Regulation is the only way to get airlines to behave. 18″ seat and 33″ pitch would be a good minimum for domestic flights.
More pitch for international or flights over 6 hrs.
And there needs to be a law that the toilet seat in the forward Lavatory on 737’s must stay up by itself since aircraft Interior designers are apparently incapable of moving the bowl further from the wall or providing a magnetic latch.
Yep, definitely need to regulate the aesthetics of onboard toilet seats.
Both of your “bottom lines” are questionable:
“There are different airlines offering different products.”
Yes, but far fewer than there were. Consolidation has resulted in far fewer airlines, and there are very few (1-3) products per airline. (Compare the range of products in the hotel space with those in the airline business.) This has led to cartel-like behavior with little or no competition in product quality (except for the 1%).
“Most airlines themselves offer differentiated products at different price points.”
First class is priced out of range of almost all travelers, and is unavailable by policy to most business travelers. So let’s focus on economy. While there are differentiated products based on seat pitch and window/aisle access, there is no differentiation based on seat width. This is not a technical problem; Eurobusiness has shown how economy seating can be easily reconfigured for width. And for an increasingly obese population – see http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/26/obese.passengers.airlines/ – the lack of products differentiated by width is both a comfort and safety issue.
It may be possible to fill a 10-across, minimum pitch 777 with a statistically representative mix of passengers, including the obese, children, the elderly, and so forth, and meet the 90 second evacuation benchmark. Count me skeptical.
@Geoff Arnold – domestic first class is often available at a premium of ~ $100 each way, more on longer routes but pick and choose flights I almost always see it not more than ~ $200 each way extra on American (excluding JFK-LAX/SFO).
While there are fewer airlines, there are in many ways more differentiated products. 30 years ago there was no extra legroom economy seating. There also weren’t cheap buy ups to first.
There’s Spirit, Southwest, Major Airline Economy, Major Airline Economy Plus, Major Airline Domestic First and premium transcon … at least half a dozen different domestic products.
Eurobusiness is a far less comfortable product that US airline premium cabin offerings.
I have no problem with regulations requiring larger seats, even if it pushes up the price of travel. Travel today is immensely cheaper that in previous times and it would be nice to see the comforts and conveniences of yesteryear brought back a bit. Airlines are presently reaping huge profits and trying to stick it to the consumer every way they can, be it the coach, business or first class traveler. They keep cutting back on comforts and conveniences and having little regard for their clientele. If paying a few dollars more for people to have some modicum of comfort in their travel excludes a few people from travelling, and I highly doubt that it will, those few perhaps need to reevaluate their priorities.
Of course Eurobusiness is less comfortable than domestic first. But it’s more comfortable than domestic economy, even that with extra leg room. My point is that it’s an example of how a broader range of products can be offered without substantial capex.
You list a number of products from different companies, but to the customer the important thing is how many distinct choices they represent. It’s useless to me if many companies offer 17″ wide 31″ pitch product and I’m looking for a 19″ wide 32″ pitch.
Here’s an important point that you (and perhaps the airlines) miss: quite a few passengers are relatively price insensitive. They would happily pay an extra $100 for a more comfortable seat. But unless they step up to first class (which is usually *MUCH* more than $100), they’re screwed. Where are the intermediate offerings?
@Geoff Arnold it’s also often priced at a multiple higher than domestic first.
If you think there’s a market for a product being missed by an incumbent airline, there’s an obvious solution . . . (and it isn’t “have the government require airlines to offer the product I want at the price point I wish to pay”)
I’d be satisfied with the Government simply enforcing the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It would also be good if the DOT followed through on http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publications/ATA%20Guidelines%20Lavatories%201.pdf
I disagree and hope for a minimum mandated requirement or rather a maximum misery experience . On flights less than an hour I don’t care at all . Flights less than three hours I care little . For longer flights , however , I would like to see a minimum space requirement enacted . I’ve always flown peasant class and that’s on many flights exceeding ten hours . It’s obvious to me that the airlines are trying to shave every little bit to squeeze in more passengers and thus yield more profit .
From a business perspective it is only reasonable for them to do this . It also seems predictable that flying will not stop getting more miserable for economy passengers without regulation . I would not require a great expanse of seating area but . I agree with U600 that 33″ pitch and an 18″ seat width would be a good start .
Without regulation the question upon boarding will eventually be ” packed in oil or packed in water ? “
@Daryl if you ‘don’t care at all’ on flights less than an hour, and ‘care little’ on flights less than 3 hours how exactly do you support a rule on minimum seat pitch (requiring everyone to pay for economy plus whether they want to or not on every flight, even those 3 hours and under)?
@Geoff,
Strangely, 19″x32″ isn’t too far from how delta configures their 767 first class (I think the pitch is a bit larger, maybe 34.) I fly SFO-DTW a lot and it is horrible to spend $1300 and still feel a bit claustrophobic. But that product, with no extra service, priced for the extra area it takes up, would be killer for people like me. I would never fly coach or domestic first again.
2. points:
1. Bring back regulation! I’m happy to pay for a comfortable seat and the more or less guarantee of a safe plane. I suspect the carriers are cutting every legal corner available in order to cut costs to maintain aircraft. Why else has UA been put on notice that they are under scrutiny?
2. Southwest is no longer a discount carrier. Thanks to government sanctioned mergers that stripped out any real competition, they can now charge what they want in most markets. And they do.
I think it would be great if we could have every product in exactly the size, quantity and price that each person wants. Unfortunately, airlines are not a public utility. They are companies with shareholders and, for the vast majority of their histories, they have provided negative total returns.
There was a time when airlines were regulated much more heavily. Prices were higher, travel was open to far fewer people and schedules were fixed. The few hours on the plane may have been more comfortable, but everything else was worse. Let’s remember this: The vast majority of people who read this, and just about every other airline blog, are in a higher demographic than the average traveler. The growth of low-cost carriers (and ULCCs) like Southwest and Spirit reflect one, and exactly one, phenomenon: customers care about price, not comfort. Everyone remember flying MAXjet and Eos? Neither do I.
I do, however, have a proposal: If the government wishes to set prices, seat sizes, bag fees, etc. for the industry, it should pay the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to buy out the shareholders and do what it wishes with the industry. Until that time, you are free to buy up to premium economy or first. This isn’t about “comfortable seats aren’t available.” It’s about “comfortable seats aren’t available at the price I wish to pay.”
@blacksheep, Why do you want to force sky high prices on everyone? Go back to the glory days of regulation, 1974. Take the then current round trip airfare from New York to Los Angeles. Adjust only for inflation. That airfare would be $1,300 round trip today! People who want to bring back regulation just don’t understand how tremendous the impact of deregulation has been on reducing airfares so that just about anyone can afford to fly. And if you want extra comfort, you should be able to find first class seats today between New York and Los Angeles for what the inflation-adjusted economy fare was back in the day of regulation.
Good grief… what’s with all this black-and-white thinking? Why does it have to be a binary choice between unfettered capitalism versus draconian re-regulation and nationalization? Enough ideology, more pragmatism, please.
And Mike, it isn’t simply that “comfortable seats aren’t available at the price I wish to pay.” Many fewer cities have “mainline” service (i.e. not LCC, not RJ) than before.
@blacksheep safety regulations have in no way been relaxed. what airline deregulation did is eliminate government setting of prices and routes. that’s really it. government no longer tells airlines where they are allowed to fly and what prices to charge. prices were set at a level that airlines would be sure to make money, and the government’s role was to prevent “ruinous competition.”
Simplistic argument. Yes, other things being equal and perfect competition seat prices would rise. Do you really think that we have perfect competition between airlines now? We have a collusive oligopoly, just take a look at transAtlantic fares which amazingly enough are within a dollar or so of one another. At present airlines have an incentive to pack as many seats in as possible if you place a minimum requirement for legroom, and width, airlines would no longer compete on how many seats they would put in a plane, and how small an overhead compartment they could provide (the better to force more passengers to check their bags), but they would still have as much, or as little, incentive to compete. Oh, and I notice that Gary Leff is below average height.
@Geoff Arnold says “Eurobusiness has shown how economy seating can be easily reconfigured for width.”
Presume you are referring to “business: class in Europe? Could you PLEASE tell me which European airline has “reconfigured for width” because I would sure like to fly them! All of my travels in biz class intra-Europe have been in standard economy seats with economy seat pitch. The only thing different is the middle seat is blocked. My seats have always been as narrow as any standard economy seat.
@Geoff Arnold,
I understand what you are saying, but there are only smaller planes on those routes because they don’t support larger ones. Having said that, I entirely agree with you that this regulating transportation is not a black or white issue, nor is it an ideological one (I’m a Massachusetts liberal Democrat). But if the government were to start regulating for comfort instead of safety, there would be some major unintended consequences, including further reductions of service on only marginally profitable routes.
Gary, have you noticed that lately seatguru and seatexpert often won’t display the plane layout when you type in the flight info? It just goes to a page with the airline that you picked different plane types and then you have to choose which one you’re flying. Then it will show you the seat configuration. But there’s generally two or more different configurations to choose from making it more difficult.
Minimum seat size is ‘necessary’ to travel as a ‘human being’. There are people who just want to go from point A to point B even if you put them in a 3’x3′ box. If some people agree to this kind of travel & are happy with it, that doesn’t mean its ok for everyone & everyone can & should do it.
Most people traveling in economy are doing so because they can’t afford business/first. They have to choose the cheapest option most of the time. I’ve traveled economy on every major airline & all of them are crap – to say anything else means you don’t understand ‘decent’ traveling. Sometimes your wallet just does not allow you to spend more on extras like premium economy etc. & you’re forced to join everyone else like minions.
I’m not saying economy should be like first/business but at least an extra few inches of width & legroom is not like you’re asking for the moon, for decent respectful traveling.
Airlines have gotten too greedy and nickel & dime passengers like shady street peddlers.
With increasing greed, they will inevitably invite regulations, thats a given.
The problem is the regulators will fix 1 thing but worsen 5 others as the govt is often known for doing. Hopefully they won’t this time.
If you regulate out the cheap options, people who can’t afford more than the cheap options won’t be able to travel. I don’t think that’s your goal, but that’s what you’d be doing.
@Buddy M – I haven’t realized that, I always just pull up the aircraft type directly without those websites telling me what it is
@Mike indeed, it was another Massachusetts liberal Democrat – Ted Kennedy – who brought us deregulation in the first place. It was a pro-consumer issue. Remember that federal regulation was protecting airlines, keeping prices high.
@Ian Stuart I think that calling United, Delta, American and Southwest plus Alaska, Spirit, Frontier and others a ‘collusive oligopoly’ is a pretty simplistic argument. If you want more competition, though, make competition legal and eliminate restrictions on foreign ownership of US airlines. Allow Singapore and Ryanair and others to compete in US markets.
@Geoff Arnold the airlines are one of the last industries you’d ever use as an example of unfettered capitalism. Airports are mostly government owned. Airspace is managed by the government. Safety is completely government regulated. About the only things airlines are allowed to do is determine schedules, price, and within defined limits inflight product (remember that the government even has to sign off on seats and even changes to overhead bins).
So we are leaving the airline seat minimum comfort levels unregulated for the generally poor who wouldn’t be able to travel otherwise? Come on Gary… That’s a horrid argument. There is nothing wrong with minimum service levels. Almost every industry has them today. Airline seats shouldn’t have an exception.
@joelfreak rather than saying ‘that’s a horrid argument’ how about saying why you think so? you know, offering any argument at all other than that we regulate everything else so why not that too? [and in fact, seats ARE very much regulated by the government, they have to be certified prior to installation, you just want seat standards to be different than they currently are]
The problem with a completely many free markets is that it causes everyone to go towards the lowest common denominator to compete. This makes any company that tries to create a higher end product at a GREAT disadvantage. Also, saying that we need to have no regulations for service quality on airplanes because it will make it so that lower income citizens can’t afford to travel makes some assumptions that I am just not ready to make. The first is that any cost savings is passed to the customer. I don’t think this is true most of the time. In monopoly situations, we don’t see airfare being lower. If a company can pocket an extra dime, they will, its their duty. One could use your logic and say that the requirements for safety add cost to a plane ride, and without them costs could be lower, and more people could fly. How about the number of FAs on a flight? Or how much crew? This all raises costs, and if we eliminated these rules costs would be lower, and by your argument, more people could fly…
Gary, Good economics can be bad public policy. What your economic arguments fail to account for is that we are talking about people not widgets. Are people not entitled to some minimum level of comfort and dignity, or is it simply whatever we can endure and will pay for to get where we need to go? If so, then, I suppose, the lowest wage that people will work for in order to eat is an appropriate wage.
Pack more in the back and it will give airlines the ability to throw more private suites, showers, Porsche rides, Krug and other perks at the folks up front. After all, the slobs in the back should be grateful to the big spenders up front for subsidizing their meager existence in low class as economy is referred to in Soul Plane.
The dichotomy between those upfront and those in back is illustrative and symptomatic of the ever expanding income disparity in society as a whole. The Flyer’s Rights petition is IMO not just about seat size but is a reaction to the growing disparity between the total flying experience of those in back and those up front and a perception that those in back are being exploited. Society, not just the airlines, must address these issues at some point.
@john what you seem to miss is that people are denied transportation, they basically have to stay home, if you raise costs on them. When Southwest was a true low cost carrier they didn’t just compete with existing airlines for passengers, they made flying possible. Spirit does that today. Raise costs on those carriers and they no longer do that.
@joelfreak except that this lowest common denominator should already exist, yet we have options at different price points now.
As I say, most of an airline’s operations are already regulated. We’re just talking about whether airlines can have as many seats on a plane as they do now or not.
Gary, Actually people who cannot afford a plane ticket are not being denied transportation. They have the option to take the train, drive or take the bus to get where they need to go. But the point I’m making has to do with growing inequalities and perceived exploitation. For example, even though there are those who would work for much less than minimum wage to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, we have a public policy that says no, and we all pay more for goods and services.
@john you’re telling them “take the bus instead of spirit airlines, which we don’t think should be allowed to exist” .. you can take that position, just be clear that’s the position you’re taking.
Gary, Please. I realize you probably don’t have time to think about all the comments you get, but my position is clear.
Since it’s the start of the 2015 college football season, I’ll add this comment:
#GoNannyState
/snark
A good suggestion you make is for giving someone who is short a seat with less room than say, a tall person who would perhaps want more legroom.
Perhaps the airlines should start requiring a customers’ height and weight so as to assign them the appropriate seat.
The National Association of Airline Passengers filed a formal petition for rulemaking on this subject last year.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0663-0001
This issue goes back to the days of sailing ships and the Passenger Act of 1819. Then as now, operators were primarily concerned with making money, and less concerned with passengers health and comfort.
Current FAA rules regulate only three areas – the width of the isle, no more than 3 seats on either side of the aisle, and seats must support a 170lb occupant. Good enough rules 50 years ago, but inadequate today.
The contention that such standards will raise fares and/or decrease capacity is bogus; Airlines can make just as much money selling comfortable seats as uncomfortable ones. Whether prices would rise remains to be seen; as airlines price their product based upon market conditions, quite apart from cost. (That’s why they’re upset with hidden city ticketing). I’ve seen differences of more than 100% on the prices for the same flights between the same destination
There is no free lunch for consumers either. Shrinking legroom and seat pitch is a price increase, just like when milk and juice containers are reduced from half gallon (64 oz) to 60 oz containers. The price only appears to be level. Passengers pay the price either way.
Standards for passenger seats is the only assurance we have that all airlines would have to meet certain minimum standards for their base product. There’s no good reason not to have them.
@Douglas Kidd “The contention that such standards will raise fares and/or decrease capacity is bogus; Airlines can make just as much money selling comfortable seats as uncomfortable ones.” If you mandate more legroom, you fit fewer seats on the plane. How does requiring more legroom NOT decrease capacity? And how does restricting capacity not mean upward pressure on fares?
“There is no free lunch for consumers either. Shrinking legroom and seat pitch is a price increase, just like when milk and juice containers are reduced from half gallon (64 oz) to 60 oz containers.”
First, “shrinking legroom” is generally false. There wasn’t more legroom on planes 25 years ago than there is today. And consumers have options now to spend less for standard legroom (prices have fallen in real terms since then) or spend more for additional legroom. Currently the consumer has the power and choice regarding which product they get. Seat pitch regulation would take away the choice to sacrifice legroom for savings.