Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Transportation Businesses

Why Bigger Planes Mean Cramped Quarters (popsci.com) 234

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Bigger Planes Mean Cramped Quarters

Comments Filter:
  • Thing is... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by YuppieScum ( 1096 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:10PM (#57626024) Journal
    ...that they didn't complain about ticket prices.
    • Re:Thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:16PM (#57626042) Homepage

      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.

      • Re:Thing is... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:20PM (#57626066)

        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..."

      • by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @03:14PM (#57626748)

        Actual costs of operating an airline crashed in the last decade. Reminder: Analysts where talking about "when is oil barrel going to hit 200USD". One of the biggest costs of operating an airline is fuel.

      • by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @03:42PM (#57626886)

        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.

        They can't cut legroom much more, I'm not that tall (5'10"), but sometimes find my knees touching the seatpocket in front of me.

        If the airlines were required to advertise this information (seat width and pitch) along with ticket prices, then maybe consumers *could* take seat space into account, but it's very tedious and time consuming to do so now -- on any flight > 3 hours, I always try to Seat Guru and find out exactly what seat I'm buying. I started doing this after one cramped flight to Hawaii in a 777 configured with 10 seats across (3-4-3). I had upgraded to "Economy Plus", which gave a few inches of leg room but did nothing to help with the width.

        Airlines should be free to cram as many people on board as they like, as long as they make it clear to consumers what they are buying.

      • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @05:04PM (#57627320)

        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?

        • by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @09:53PM (#57628436) Homepage

          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... [cnbc.com]

      • Sneaky inflation (Score:4, Insightful)

        by erice ( 13380 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @06:08PM (#57627654) Homepage

        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.

      • by slasher999 ( 513533 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @09:28PM (#57628368)

        See, this is where I differ I guess. I stopped flying about 8 years ago, give or take. It was just too uncomfortable and too much of a nightmare that it simply wasnâ(TM)t worth it. I said for a long time that the airline industry was in a race to zero. That isnâ(TM)t good for customers. Iâ(TM)m happy paying a reasonable price for a flight. It doesnâ(TM)t need to be $50 for a two hour flight, but it shouldnâ(TM)t be $1000 either. A couple hundred bucks including my carry on and a checked bag and Iâ(TM)m good. Cross country? Sure, $500, maybe $800 for the same. Just make sure Iâ(TM)m comfortable and staff is attentive during that time. Not asking a lot.

        I havenâ(TM)t missed flying. My wife and I travel a bit too, but we drive. I bought a large suv that is extremely comfortable to drive long distances and can carry everything we need to bring. Iâ(TM)m not saying Iâ(TM)ll never fly again, but itâ(TM)s nice that I havenâ(TM)t needed to.

    • by ravib123 ( 903346 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:18PM (#57626052)
      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
    • by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:20PM (#57626064) Homepage

      Wish I had points to mod you up - you're exactly right. And it's not all US airlines. American Airlines is among the worst at these seat games and other nickel-and-dime bullshit. So guess what? I no longer fly with them, even though they have some routes that are very convenient for me. Southwest and Alaska are both fairly reasonable for seat quality and pricing, and so I use them more.

    • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:13PM (#57626384)

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

      "This airline food tastes terrible!"

      "Yeah, and the portions are too small!"

      For me, the most annoying thing about flying is . . . some of the other passengers.

      Folks fighting with each other while trying to skimp on check-in fees by trying to stuff all their entire worldly belongings into the overhead bins.

      Small children who obviously need their own seat, and are too young to travel anyway . . . but the parents MUST take them now, because next year, they will have . . . *gasp* . . . PAY for their ticket!

      Folks who can't fit in one seat . . . but refuse to reserve two seats, and blubber over the arm rest.

      . . . and with that . . . the airlines achieve what they really want . . . folks like me are now more willing to buy a business or first class ticket.

    • Re:Thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:14PM (#57626390) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:32PM (#57626494)

      I do all of the time.

      Not about the prices themselves, but about that lottery when buying tickets.

      No matter how low the price is in the end, it WILL feel like a ripoff when they sell it for half of that, too.

    • by careysub ( 976506 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @04:50PM (#57627238)

      Actually they did, or rather do. Those "low prices" are difficult to compare because of the unbundling of services (like "checked baggage") with ever multiplying fees stacked on top. It becomes very difficult to compare equivalent fares. There are tons of complaints about this situation.

      And leg room information is not provided with your fare. It you paid a higher ticket price, would you be able to reasonably expect more leg room? Please. If there is a difference it is as likely to be less, plus you just paid more for (less than) nothing.

      You can't shop for "more leg room" on flights unless you go whole hog and jump to business class. I have started to see offers for "pay for more legroom starting at $X" when I do the kiosk baggage check, but they don't provide comparative data about what you are buying, and it is offered at the worst possible time to make an informed decision.

      This is yet another case where the market place is racing to the bottom, and regulations are needed to step in to set minimum standards and providing honest information to the consumer.

    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @05:01PM (#57627304)
      Most airlines already offer seating with more legroom. Economy Plus, Comfort Plus, Premium Economy, etc. You pay a little extra (about $50-$100 from what I've seen) and you get a few more inches of legroom (and get to sit closer to the front, which seems to be the more desired section).

      So the complainers already have a solution at hand - pay a little more for more space. That they choose the cheaper, cramped seats means they're voting against more space. "Public wants bigger seats" is only true when coupled with "at no extra cost." Which is an economic impossibility.
  • by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:18PM (#57626054)

    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.

    • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:47PM (#57626246)

      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...)

    • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:30PM (#57626482) Journal

      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.

      • by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @03:03PM (#57626690)

        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.

        Even as a taller individual I am perfectly okay with these denser packed planes. I get upgraded to the extra leg room section automatically on ticket purchase so these lower prices help me, too. But even if I did not get the auto upgrade I would pay for the extra leg room. Anyway, I've been flying on a regular basis for about 15 years now and they have actually increased the number of emergency exits - they had to. They have to have a certain number of exits based on the number of passengers. So I don't think that there will be a significant problem with meeting the evacuation requirements anyway.

      • by CanadianMacFan ( 1900244 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @05:43PM (#57627534)

        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.

      • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @08:30PM (#57628164)

        There's no reason to think that denser packing leads to lower fares. Since airlines are posting record profits, it in fact makes it look like it leads to higher profits.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @03:10PM (#57626732) Homepage Journal

      That would just make it worse, because they would train those people to evacuate quickly and orderly.

      A better solution would be to simply mandate certain seat sizes. Minimum width, minimum legroom.

  • Capitalism (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:24PM (#57626080)
    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.
    • Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:19PM (#57626418) Journal

      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.

      • by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:46PM (#57626570) Homepage Journal

        10% higher ticket price for 10% less density is fine by me.

        The difference between sufficient leg room and insufficient leg room is not a whole lot.

      • by careysub ( 976506 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @05:00PM (#57627300)

        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.

        Data is not being provided in useful convenient form to consumer, therefore the consumer doesn't care that much? No, it just means that the booking tools chose not to provide it.

      • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @09:29PM (#57628376)

        t'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.

        That doesn't mean customers don't care. It means that customers cannot easily get information to make informed decisions. That is, if Kayak offered it, they could use stats to show most people don't care. But it doesn't.

    • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @04:28PM (#57627132) Journal
      Or it works great. I fly - a LOT - for work. Delta 2+MM mile flier here, who averages 200K miles per year. I rarely buy anything but economy seats on domestic flights - and Delta is VERY good about making sure I almost always get at least Economy Plus upgrades, if not business/first upgrades, for free. They have a great program for regular travelers, and that is capitalism at work. Adding other benefits that attract people and promote brand loyalty.
    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @05:13PM (#57627382)
      If airliner travel were purely capitalistic, you would get a seat proportional to your height and weight, with a higher ticket price for bigger seating.

      Air travel is in the situation it's in because it follows the socialist concept that everyone should pay the same price for a seat, regardless of their height or weight.
  • by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:24PM (#57626082) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:37PM (#57626182)
    My first international flight was in 1994 to Brazil (from US). That ticket was around $1,800. I went to Brazil again about 5 years ago for only $1,300.

    When you factor inflation into the mix, profits per passenger have to be almost nothing for most seats. What we've received in return is cramped seats, terrible customer service, and frequent issues while flying.

    I'm 5'8" so legroom has never been that much of an issue for me. My problem is that my shoulders are too wide for seats. It's extremely uncomfortable if you fly on short notice, get stuck in the middle, and are next to two average sized males.
    • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @05:10PM (#57627358)
      Most of the profit comes from the business and first class seats. The economy seats are just there to fill out the rest of the plane at-cost, because there aren't enough first- or business-class passengers to fill out an entire plane. But when I hear other passengers complain in economy class, it's that business and first class are unfair privileges for the well off, and should be eliminated. Yeah you could eliminate them. But then your economy class seat would cost 50%-100% more. It's like people complaining about first adopters buying flat screen TVs for $18,000. Those rich first adopters buying those ridiculously priced early TVs is what allowed the TV manufacturers to pay for R&D to give you the $300 flatscreen TVs we have today.

      I'm 5'8" so legroom has never been that much of an issue for me. My problem is that my shoulders are too wide for seats. It's extremely uncomfortable if you fly on short notice, get stuck in the middle, and are next to two average sized males.

      Boeing and Airbus try to prevent airlines from shrinking seat width by making their cabins wide enough to give passengers extra shoulder room, but not wide enough to squeeze in an extra seat across. Unfortunately, this strategy becomes less effective the wider the cabin. And most of the growth in the airliner industry lately has been in widebody planes (777, 787, A350).

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @01:41PM (#57626226)

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

  • by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:39PM (#57626528) Homepage

    in china, due to the number of people who travel to meet family at chinese new year (85% of a major city's population just... ups and leaves for 2 weeks), they're cramming 1,500 people into the larger planes, with special "half-standing" seats. 71cm legroom? ha, you never had it so guuhhd.... mind you, on the last 5 13-hour flights i've been on (taipei-brussels) i've spent 3 hours standing and walking around, due to persistent deep vein thrombosis. i know the warning signs really well, now...

  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @02:42PM (#57626550) Journal
    Face it: in first-world countries, obesity is becoming more and more of a problem, still, but airlines are making the seats closer together? They're shooting themselves in the foot. Of course the obesity problem needs to be solved, but airlines are letting those dollarsigns blind them to reality; if someone can't fit into a seat then it just isn't going to work. Also annoying people isn't good for profits either. I think people would be happier to pay a little more per seat and be comfortable.
  • Or take a bus, or train. Driving there gives you your own car there, saving on rental.

    An hour to drive to airport, 90 minutes before departure for security, gate rape by TSA, one more hour from airport to destination, need for a car rental there, additional wait times on the rental shuttle and the rental office....

    Flying is simply not worth it for less than 400 miles. Most people already avoid flights, squeezing the profits and revenue of airlines. That leads to more cost cutting and more squeezing of passengers ....

  • by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @03:28PM (#57626802)
    Slaves ships come to mind. I haven' been on a commercial airline since the Patriot Act and you shouldn't be flying either.
  • by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @03:33PM (#57626828)

    The 321 isn’t a “newer” version of the 320, it is a variant designed to hold more people with better economics.

    The people have spoken, and they will squeeze into a smaller seat with less legroom to save $10. I am lucky in that I generally fly business class, but when I can no longer afford that option, there aren’t many options beyond the lowest common denominator. Most premium economy seats don’t make enough of a difference to make it palatable. You pay by the square foot of cabin space essentially.

  • In 2000, American Airlines rolled out their "more room throughout coach" program, in contrast to United's "Economy Plus" for frequent-fliers only. Did casual fliers flock to American as a result of the increased legroom? No, they did not. Today, American's program is quite similar to United's, plus it's possible to buy the extra legroom under both programs.

    Casual fliers seem to want cheap fares above all. If you look at EasyJet or RyanAir in Europe, it seems like fliers relish the prospect of cheap flights above all other contortions to lower the cost of the offering.

  • by mark_reh ( 2015546 ) on Sunday November 11, 2018 @09:50PM (#57628434) Journal

    Right now it's on the tighter seating end of the swing. In a year or two the airlines will be advertising how they're taking seats out of planes to make customers more comfortable (just like they did a couple years ago). Nevermind that if they were really so concerned about my comfort and safety they wouldn't have put all those damned seats in the plane in the first place.

    Hear this, airlines (and GOP): others may, but I don't forget.

You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).

Working...