Travel News - Airline squeeze: It's not you, 'it's the seat'

CNN - Airline squeeze: It's not you, 'it's the seat' (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/travel/airline-seats/index.html)

Somehow, I doubt the fact that people tend to be larger than they used to be does not affect the airline seat squeeze...

:)

Since Robinette's first airline seat study for NASA and the FAA in 1978, she has a different perspective when she boards an airliner. "I always see all kinds of arms hanging out into the aisles. That means the seats are too narrow, and there's nowhere for the shoulders and arms to go except into the aisle because there's not enough room in the seat."

When "you keep getting your arm whacked by the cart as it comes down the aisle," don't feel guilty, she says. It happens to everybody. "And it's because of the seats."

CNN - Airline squeeze: It's not you, 'it's the seat' (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/travel/airline-seats/index.html)

Somehow, I doubt the fact that people tend to be larger than they used to be does not affect the airline seat squeeze...

:)

I am with you. Even Robinette was joking when she blamed the seats.
Americans are getting bigger, says Kathleen Robinette, who's studied human body measurements for the U.S. Air Force for three decades.

But in general, the problem's "not you -- it's the seat," she says with a chuckle.
City buses, rapid trains, ambulances, wheel chairs, shopping carts/scooters, gurneys, hospital beds.... all are weighed down in the face of bigger American butt.

I am with you. Even Robinette was joking when she blamed the seats.

City buses, rapid trains, ambulances, wheel chairs, shopping carts/scooters, gurneys, hospital beds.... all are weighed down in the face of bigger American butt.

True, but in all those examples, the seats are getting bigger to accomodate the increasing size/weight of the people. It's only the airline industry that is increasingly shrinking the size and padding of the seats, not to mention shrinking the width of the aisles as well.

Buses and metro are sunsidised by local, state and federal govts. Consumers do not pay directly the extra costs involved, in oversizing most medical devices such as gurneys, wheel chairs. Airlines get no subsidy, nor do they have the choice of billing anyone else except the consumers, who are not willing to pay. I have nothing against bigger seats. But I see it from airlines' perspective too.
Reduction in pitch has been more than in width.

Is not the 737 the same width as it was since time began, with six seats across?

Yes, but the seats are getting narrower to accommodate the large gurneys full of food for the pax!

Yes, but the seats are getting narrower to accommodate the large gurneys full of food for the pax!

They serve food on planes??? ;)

A follow up...

CNN: Overheard on CNN.com: Angry fliers get what they deserve (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/travel/overheard-on-cnn-airline-seats/index.html)

If your coach airline seat is uncomfortable, it's your fault.

That's the gist of one of hundreds of responses to a CNN.com report about airline seat comfort, configuration and cost.

Coach fliers may complain about airline seats, but U.S. airlines are filling those seats pretty successfully. A commenter called withReason7 suggests that consumers are getting what they ask for.

"I will continue to blame the passengers that will sit in any crappy seat as long as it's a little bit cheaper. THAT IS WHY THE AIRLINES ARE DOING THIS. Not because they are mean, because that is what MOST travelers want..."

True, but in all those examples, the seats are getting bigger to accommodate the increasing size/weight of the people. It's only the airline industry that is increasingly shrinking the size and padding of the seats, not to mention shrinking the width of the aisles as well.I have not see any data to verify your claim that seats are shrinking in width. The article does not say that either. Nor does the article say what the width of the seats was in the 60's. If you have any information about the width of the seats in the 60'splease point me in that direction.

I have not see any data to verify your claim that seats are shrinking in width. The article does not say that either. Nor does the article say what the width of the seats was in the 60's. If you have any information about the width of the seats in the 60'splease point me in that direction.

I imagine the shrinking of aisles is on birds such as the 777 that go 3-3-3 to 3-4-3 or 767's with 2-4-2 ...been on both, neither are pleasant...

Try EK and a few others where it is TEN ACROSS on the 777.

I have not see any data to verify your claim that seats are shrinking in width. The article does not say that either. Nor does the article say what the width of the seats was in the 60's. If you have any information about the width of the seats in the 60'splease point me in that direction.
I meant to say the 7-'s, but the 6-'s will do too.
I imagine the shrinking of aisles is on birds such as the 777 that go 3-3-3 to 3-4-3 or 767's with 2-4-2 ...been on both, neither are pleasant...
Thanks for your answer, but it does not address my question at all, nor does it provide any useful data. Neither 777 nor 767 existed in the 70's or 60's.
We can use Boeing 747s, which have 3-4-3 seating with a seat width of 17" as a bench mark. Their 3-43 configuration, nor seat width has not changed over the years, nor seat width.
Boeing 777 with 3-3-3 sweating have seat width of 18.5 in.
As far as I know the only airlines that operate a Boeing 777 with 3-4-3 configuration are KLM, EK and NZ. None of them is a US airline. Not all of KLM's 777 have 3-4-3 seating. NZ claims its seat width to be 17.1 in in 10 breast configuration (3-4-3) and 17.8 in in the conventional 3-3-3, while KLM claims it's 17.5 in both configuration. In any case, seat width is no less than 17.1 in, still more than the benchmark.
I don't know of any 767s with seating other 7 abreast (2-3-2) with a seat width of 17.5 in.
I don;t see any data to support that seat width has been shrinking steadily. All we can say is that some airlines reduced the seat width to what it was in 1970's, in some aircraft that had a seat width of 17.5 or 18 in.
Some of the aircraft in three airlines with seat width that is not as liberal as it is in other configurations, but still more than what it was in 1970's, impacts U.S. travellers in a big way.
The real issue is people getting fatter. Seats have not been shrinking monotonically as some people are claiming.

I meant to say the 7-'s, but the 6-'s will do too.

Thanks for your answer, but it does not address my question at all, nor does it provide any useful data. Neither 777 nor 767 existed in the 70's or 60's.
We can use Boeing 747s, which have 3-4-3 seating with a seat width of 17" as a bench mark. Their 3-43 configuration, nor seat width has not changed over the years, nor seat width.
Boeing 777 with 3-3-3 sweating have seat width of 18.5 in.
As far as I know the only airlines that operate a Boeing 777 with 3-4-3 configuration are KLM, EK and NZ. None of them is a US airline. Not all of KLM's 777 have 3-4-3 seating. NZ claims its seat width to be 17.1 in in 10 breast configuration (3-4-3) and 17.8 in in the conventional 3-3-3, while KLM claims it's 17.5 in both configuration. In any case, seat width is no less than 17.1 in, still more than the benchmark.
I don't know of any 767s with seating other 7 abreast (2-3-2) with a seat width of 17.5 in.
I don;t see any data to support that seat width has been shrinking steadily. All we can say is that some airlines reduced the seat width to what it was in 1970's, in some aircraft that had a seat width of 17.5 or 18 in.
Some of the aircraft in three airlines with seat width that is not as liberal as it is in other configurations, but still more than what it was in 1970's, impacts U.S. travellers in a big way.
The real issue is people getting fatter. Seats have not been shrinking monotonically as some people are claiming.

AA's 777s are going from 9 seats in a row to 10 seats in a row.

787 orders that were earlier shown as 8 across are going to 9 across -- UA is a party to that.

Even without obesity rates rising -- and even as US airline passengers are less likely to be as obese as the average US person -- AA at least is going to make trips more miserable for most on the 777s when it comes to sitting in a packed plane.

And back in the 60's and 70's most planes in Y had an extra 2-4 inches in pitch, not to mention that the average seat was in fact at least an inch wider.

We can use Boeing 747s, which have 3-4-3 seating with a seat width of 17" as a bench mark. Their 3-43 configuration, nor seat width has not changed over the years, nor seat width.


747 used to be 3-4-2. DC-10 and Tristar used to be 2-4-2.

"I will continue to blame the passengers that will sit in any crappy seat as long as it's a little bit cheaper. THAT IS WHY THE AIRLINES ARE DOING THIS. Not because they are mean, because that is what MOST travelers want..."

Despite the preponderance of fatties, there are also a lot of small people, particularly those from shorter parts of the world (look it up), and they fit fine in smaller seats and enjoy the cheap prices. It's always worth remembering that in constant dollars, flying has never been cheaper and many people appreciate that. It's also one of the ways I justify flying in business when I can: I'm 6-3, 220# and haven't a hope of fitting in most coach seats--but I also reason that I'm paying about what a coach seat cost back in the 1950s, in constant dollars. Doubtless my comparison is not strictly accurate but it helps my conception of things http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i251/benzomatic/Emoticons/icon_smile_tongue.gif

Despite the preponderance of fatties, there are also a lot of small people, particularly those from shorter parts of the world (look it up), and they fit fine in smaller seats and enjoy the cheap prices. It's always worth remembering that in constant dollars, flying has never been cheaper and many people appreciate that. It's also one of the ways I justify flying in business when I can: I'm 6-3, 220# and haven't a hope of fitting in most coach seats--but I also reason that I'm paying about what a coach seat cost back in the 1950s, in constant dollars. Doubtless my comparison is not strictly accurate but it helps my conception of things http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i251/benzomatic/Emoticons/icon_smile_tongue.gif

For US persons, flying has been cheaper before in real terms than it is now.

People in "shorter parts of the world" are growing more and even faster than US persons.

For US persons, flying has been cheaper before in real terms than it is now.

When? It's almost free now, in Y anyway.

People in "shorter parts of the world" are growing more and even faster than US persons.

Definitely true, particularly wrt height. Americans are actually (slightly) shorter now than they were 30 years ago. The Dutch are the world's tallest.

It's the space between your face and the seat in front of you.
And the small people like the seats. Great !!!
Make the seats and legroom a liitle bigger and everyone will be happy.

For US persons, flying has been cheaper before in real terms than it is now.

While I'm perfectly willing to accept that, on some routes, for some types of tickets, pricing has risen, but pricing has fallen dramatically since the 70s in real terms (revenue per passenger seat mile is down by nearly 2/3).

It's the space between your face and the seat in front of you.
And the small people like the seats. Great !!!
Make the seats and legroom a liitle bigger and everyone will be happy.

Well, no, they won't, because if you're making the seats bigger, you've got fewer of them, so fares would go up.

The fares go up anyway.
Might as well get something for money.

The fares go up anyway.
Might as well get something for money.

Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, the fares would go up _more_.