Travel News - Airbus Re-designs seats to make them wider

Wider airline seat for fat flyers who will get an extra two inches...but slimmer travellers lose space (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160322/Chub-class-Airbus-makes-wider-airline-seat-fat-flyers-extra-inches--slimmer-travellers-lose-space.html)

But I'm not fat and like aisle seats - and what if I'm fat and want a window seat? I'd be peeved if my seat becomes narrower just to accommodate someone who is overweight.

Moderator note:

Such threads on FT have a history of turning shrill, nasty, and being full of inappropriate, uncivil, and un-gracious characterizations.

If this one heads that way, it will get closed and or deleted.

I have re-titled the thread to make it more factual and less tendentious.

There are plenty of threads in Travel Buzz where the general issues regarding passengers-of-size. Please focus this thread on the Airbus seat change.

And, of course, do so with the utmost graciousness :)

cblaisd
Moderator, Travel News.

Such threads on FT have a history of turning shrill, nasty, and being full of inappropriate, uncivil, and un-gracious characterizations.

Yup... it's up there with crying children threads.

Hmm, even as someone that's larger (but does fit in the seat with the armrests down), I don't think I particularly like this "solution". Let's face it, now everyone's going to want those aisle seats, and you've suddenly made the problem a lot worse when a larger person gets assigned a middle seat. And even for people that aren't larger, to take a seat that was probably only about 17" wide and now make it 16"? Brutal.

Don't airlines decide on the seat design, size, features etc - not the aircraft manufacturer?

OK, they may have a standard option but how many airlines take it up?

I have to wonder how many non-fat people would take the larger seat, I know I would if it was an option. Seems like it would become a discount economy plus in some ways. I really don't understand why the airlines can't adopt a standardized policy (at least for domestic airlines) as to people who don't fit in one seat being required to buy 2. No more seatbelt extenders, no spilling over, if the armrest can't be raised or lowered without interference then you buy a second seat as courtesy to your fellow passengers.

Don't airlines decide on the seat design, size, features etc - not the aircraft manufacturer?

OK, they may have a standard option but how many airlines take it up?

Not many, I think; there are a few big airline seat manufacturers -- I'm not sure if Boeing even makes their own, and while Airbus does, they have a separate division to do it.

For one example, AA uses a mix of Weber and Recaro.

Personally, I don't see a wider aisle seat on regular rows succeeding -- among other things, if my seat is made wider at the expense of the one next to it, it only helps at butt level... the guy next to me will have his shoulders in more of "my" space.

I DO see premium economy cabins with slightly wider seats becoming more common.

. No more seatbelt extenders, no spilling over, if the armrest can't be raised or lowered without interference then you buy a second seat as courtesy to your fellow passengers.

You still need seatbelt extenders. One person in two seats with two seatbelts isn't going to be able to secure either one of them.

Wider airline seat for fat flyers who will get an extra two inches...but slimmer travellers lose space (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160322/Chub-class-Airbus-makes-wider-airline-seat-fat-flyers-extra-inches--slimmer-travellers-lose-space.html)

But I'm not fat and like aisle seats - and what if I'm fat and want a window seat? I'd be peeved if my seat becomes narrower just to accommodate someone who is overweight.

I don't think a seat 2 inches wider is going to help the passenger on the AA flight shown in the Daily Mail article.

I don't think a seat 2 inches wider is going to help the passenger on the AA flight shown in the Daily Mail article.

Was it ever established that was a real picture and not a hoax?

While obviously there are people who don't fit in any sort of normal chair, in or outside of an airplane, I think it's worth pointing out, that airline seats are built on the average waist measurement of a man in the 1950s. The important point here is WAIST. The largest natural part of a person is their shoulders. I'll add to this that people's average shoulder size has probably also increased as we've generally gotten bigger as a population since then, obesity aside. Airlines went with these measurements because couples traveled together and obviously women had smaller shoulders so shoulder room wasn't an issue, nor was obesity. Also airlines have since crunched another seat into the plane rows to increase their bottom lines(no pun intended).

I'm 6'1, with a slender, athletic build. My shoulders aren't broad like Fabio or anything, I actually have a small upper body, but not small shoulders. I can barely survive 5 hours in a normal seat even on the aisle, because the chairbacks try to hunch one's shoulders in, which is bad for your neck, back and posture. That's to say nothing of the ridiculousness that is air travel when two men sit next to each other in coach. There is no way for them to sit straight up and be comfortable for lack of shoulder space.

Fair enough if people want to pay for bigger seats, be they for fatness or their own comfort/shoulders. I'm a believer in personal responsibility, so fine, I'd pay more for a "bigger" seat to accomodate my shoulders but the part that gets my goat is that the chairs are too damn small, even for an average person to begin with.

I would really love to see the whole seat width/spacing taken up as a human rights issue. Damn, your dog would not be permitted to travel in the conditions every airline is forcing onto Y passengers. In a work environment you would not be permitted to be work under such conditions, but suddenly when you get on a plane for a 14 hour flight it is somehow magically OK? And if your job involves a fair amount of travel then the plane is at least your part-time work space.
My company is Y only so no point is discussion business/first as that isn't an option.
Back on task, I can't see this seat being a good idea, especially as it is squeezing the other 2 passengers out of 1", which is sorely needed already. Dumb idea. Just fix the issue. I am not overlarge and as other have said, it's my shoulders that don't fit in the seat, period, they just don't fit.

I sit in a wheelchair with and 18 inch wide seat with no problem. I do it all day long. Sitting in a 17 inch airline seat is awful, though. I'm glad to see Airbus doing this. Hope Boeing does it too, and airlines buy them and install them.

You still need seatbelt extenders. One person in two seats with two seatbelts isn't going to be able to secure either one of them.

you're right ^ got me on that one!

Airbus keeps marketing the wider aisle seats, at the current 2013 Aircraft Interiors Expo:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/interiors-airbus-pitches-extra-wide-seat-for-growing-a320-passengers-384469/

More fat/slim news! ;)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22141525

Not a huge amount of substance to this story however. (No pun intended.)

Now discussed on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22141525

The extra-wide seats will measure 20 inches across instead of the standard 18 inches, and will likely be installed only as aisle seats.

The window and middle seats will each lose an inch of width to generate the extra space.

Airbus sells the idea as an innovative way to "meet passenger needs," even though two-thirds of its customers will lose out.

The planemaker first floated the idea in 2012, and not everyone loved it: A July poll by Skyscanner found 80 percent of Brits opposed losing an inch of seating to accommodate their larger neighbors, according to AOL UK.

The real winners will be airlines, who will be able to charge extra for the extra-wide seats.

Lets hope the airlines say no again.

I appreciate the concept, but if you have three people in a row, their sizes don't change. People who don't pay for a larger seat still may spill over into their neighbor's space. If they do pay for larger seats, their neighbors still get squeezed anyway.

Lets hope the airlines say no again.

Agreed. If someone is too wide to fit in a seat they should either pay for a wider business class seat, or two economy seats - a stance enforced by a number of US airlines.

I would avoid travelling with any airline that installs such an arrangement. I don't need the extra width, but neither do I wish to be squashed in. Travelling any distance in a narrowed middle seat would be particularly unpleasant.

Wow. No. Then you get the "I *have* to sit in a window" COS, and the whole system fails. Passenger sues for discrimination and/or pain and suffering because of pruported anxiety related to NOT sitting in a window seat..... and so on.

I don't see this as just being somebody too wide to fit into the seat and has to buy two seats.

Just like I don't see exit rows as only being comfortable for those people over seven feet tall.

The difference between a seventeen inch across seat and a 20 inch across seat (if that's what they go with ) can make a huge comfort difference for people of any size. The arm chairs on my dining room table are not 20 inches across, and if you offered me a airline seat for a five or eight hour trip, I'm going to take the 20 inch one over the seventeen inch one (or one of each to have 37 inches instead of 34 with the arm rest up). It's going to depend on the cost involved of course, but the assumption that only large people would benefit from this is like saying only basketball players benefit from economy plus seating's extra space on United.

This entire piece reflects incomplete journalism, or somebody who doesn't know much about aircraft manufacturing and delivery. Airbus (and Boeing) install seating arrangements inside aircraft according to each customer's specifications. Those customers would be the airlines themselves. This isn't an auto production line where you get manufacturer's seat arrangement as a given. Seats are produced by completely separate manufacturers then delivered to Airbus/Boeing for installation in a particular aircraft for a particular customer. Which begs the next question---exactly which airlines are proposing this stupid idea and which ones have actually ordered their Airbii A320 this way? After the 3:00 mark, the interviewee briefly mentions this as Airbus' suggestion to the airlines, but that doesn't ring true. Inquiring passenger minds want to know, so we can avoid.

Those are good points.

Some years ago I visited the Boeing plant at Everett and they had us test some seats proposed for airline service; I have no idea who the actual manufacturers were, and they prohibited photos or even note-taking. AFAIK, no airline actually ordered them.

This proposal (by whom, we have no clue), would seem to create at least as many problems as it would solve - requiring airlines to inventory different sized seats for the same aircraft type, offering yet another set of conflict points to passengers, etc.

The BBC video mentions one airline, not exactly a world leader or major airline, that now charges based on passenger weight combined with baggage weight - Samoa Air, with two BN Islanders and one Cessna 172. A rather different kettle of fish. Nor was it genuinely the first - I can recall diver friends of mine going to Bikini Atoll, also being weighed with their baggage, a number of years ago, on the flight from Kwajalein.

This entire piece reflects incomplete journalism, or somebody who doesn't know much about aircraft manufacturing and delivery. Airbus (and Boeing) install seating arrangements inside aircraft according to each customer's specifications. Those customers would be the airlines themselves. This isn't an auto production line where you get manufacturer's seat arrangement as a given. Seats are produced by completely separate manufacturers then delivered to Airbus/Boeing for installation in a particular aircraft for a particular customer. Which begs the next question---exactly which airlines are proposing this stupid idea and which ones have actually ordered their Airbii A320 this way? After the 3:00 mark, the interviewee briefly mentions this as Airbus' suggestion to the airlines, but that doesn't ring true. Inquiring passenger minds want to know, so we can avoid.

The seats that Airbus is looking for customers to install on their planes in this configuration are made by B/E Aerospace according to some of the stories.

The real winners will be airlines, who will be able to charge extra for the extra-wide seats.


That is only fair if the middle and window seats are cheaper. If for the same money you get the same space, just so that the person in the wider seat pays more, it's a stupid move that would generate a lot of negative PR.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-news/1357428-airbus-re-designs-seats-make-them-wider.html

As this topic is already being discussed in Travel News, let's shift this thread over to join the existing conversation. Thanks! :) /JY1024, TravelBuzz co-moderator

One of the articles points out that the Airbus 320 is slightly wider than competing Boeing planes. As such, the airline can shrink two seats on a row and have them be the same size of the Boeing seats and then increase the size of the aisle seat.

I'm a little overweight but by no means extra-seat fat. But I would pay extra for one of these aisle seats in a heartbeat. And I would really pay for one in the Economy Comfort or Economy Plus section. I don't like touching strangers, and the extra seat room would go a long way towards giving me the extra room I need. I should note that whenever the recline/don't recline debate comes up, I've always been of the opinion that at 5-10 or so I don't need any more legroom; I have plenty. What I want is more seat room. These seats deliver on that.

Look at other flying patterns. Families flying together often have some big people and some smaller, and then children. There is no harm in giving people who don't need a big seat a smaller seat.

I will accept that some of you say you won't fly on an airline with these seats. But as for me, it will become my airline of choice.

I will accept that some of you say you won't fly on an airline with these seats. But as for me, it will become my airline of choice.

What will you do when you get a seat reassignment, say because of an aircraft switch, or a misconnect and reroute on a different plane, or just being bumped from your selected seat by an elite FlyerTalker with more DYKWIA status than you? Or an FA decides that it would be "more fair" to move some oversized customer to your wider seat, while making you take a middle or window that has been downsized?

What will you do when you get a seat reassignment, say because of an aircraft switch, or a misconnect and reroute on a different plane, or just being bumped from your selected seat by an elite FlyerTalker with more DYKWIA status than you? Or an FA decides that it would be "more fair" to move some oversized customer to your wider seat, while making you take a middle or window that has been downsized?
The remaining two seats would be just as wide as seats on any Boeing plane, so it would not be the absolute end of the world. But in answer to your question:
1. If rerouted because of aircraft switch or misconnect, I would request a refund, as the seat charge is paid separately. If not given the refund I would ask my credit card company to reverse the charge.
2. The airlines have gotten out of the habit of forcing people to give up their seats, especially ones they have paid for. You will not find Economy Plus passengers being told to go sit in the back so a long-legged customer can have their seat. BUT hypothetically, if absolutely forced I would likely treat it is as an IDB. I would also likely take legal action for breach of contract, either at the justice court or circuit court level. I might only go to justice court and seek $800 in damages, but the airline would either have to pay me or pay a lawyer. I will not allow anyone to steal a seat for which I have paid cold, hard, cash.

Personally I feel the most practical way out of the space issue would be to add an upsize option to booking tools. For 50% extra (minus taxes), you get a seat next to you free, to be shared with another plus-sized (or comfort-minded) passenger.

This would be reasonably affordable for passengers ; practical issues should be manageable ; it would solve many problems of passengers requiring extra space.

Definitely easier to implement than weighing passengers etc., particularly in case of equipment changes etc.

If an airplane is not full it's a nice extra income for the airline. What happens in case of overbooking is another issue.

Of course the whole seat size issue doesn't really impact airlines bottom lines (au contraire, it's an argument for passengers to prefer business class).

Simply charging more for heavier passengers (without providing extra space) would be a nice extra income. I sincerely hope if introduced, such a policy wouldn't survive when challenged in court.

I'm not holding my breath.

Personally I feel the most practical way out of the space issue would be to add an upsize option to booking tools. For 50% extra (minus taxes), you get a seat next to you free, to be shared with another plus-sized (or comfort-minded) passenger.

This would be reasonably affordable for passengers ; practical issues should be manageable ; it would solve many problems of passengers requiring extra space.

Definitely easier to implement than weighing passengers etc., particularly in case of equipment changes etc.

If an airplane is not full it's a nice extra income for the airline. What happens in case of overbooking is another issue.

Of course the whole seat size issue doesn't really impact airlines bottom lines (au contraire, it's an argument for passengers to prefer business class).

Simply charging more for heavier passengers (without providing extra space) would be a nice extra income. I sincerely hope if introduced, such a policy wouldn't survive when challenged in court.

I'm not holding my breath.
As a comfort-minded passenger rather than someone who absolutely needs to have a bigger seat, I don't think it would be very comfortable to have an armrest sticking up in my back. The whole point of the wider seat is to provide a wider seat. Selling someone a narrower seat with an empty seat next to it doesn't accomplish the same purpose.

Nobody is talking about weighing passengers here. Airbus is talking about configuring its planes so that the five extra inches of width that its planes have over Boeing's planes all go into the aisle seats, which can then be sold at a mark-up. The other seats will remain the same size as the Boeing seats.

It should be noted that any airline offering wider aisle seats is going to have a substantial extra revenue stream which will allow it to lower fares, not to be nice, but to be more competitive. So this could be good for everyone. Folks who want bigger seats at a reasonable price get them. Skinny people get lower fares. Yay!

It should be noted that any airline offering wider aisle seats is going to have a substantial extra revenue stream which will allow it to lower fares, not to be nice, but to be more competitive. So this could be good for everyone. Folks who want bigger seats at a reasonable price get them. Skinny people get lower fares. Yay!

...and skinny people who want aisle seats are going to pay anyway, or not get the aisle.

Not to mention that many people won't pay extra for any seat (or for an advance assignment at all), and many of those extra-cost aisles are going to get assigned, without extra payment, at check-in.

Not to mention that many of the aisles will go to elites, who with many (most?) US-based airlines, will get them without paying.

Not to mention (again) that a skinnier seat next to my wider seat may not help, as most people are wider at the shoulders than at the tush, and they'll just be spilling into my seat more (being able to pay a smaller-than-a-whole-seat premium for a guaranteed empty seat next to me sounds a lot better.)

Now, that won't help the truly huge whose rear doesn't fit between two lowered seats, but I've never actually seen such a person. I've had plenty of neighbors whose rear fit in the seat, but whose width at the shoulder and elbow was too wide for comfort.

...etc...

I don't think it would be very comfortable to have an armrest sticking up in my back.

Huh, are there seats where the armrests can't be simply flipped up and out of the way? If they ever existed, I've not seen any for ages (now that I think of it, bulkhead seats have tables built into the armrests).

Not to mention (again) that a skinnier seat next to my wider seat may not help, as most people are wider at the shoulders than at the tush, and they'll just be spilling into my seat more (being able to pay a smaller-than-a-whole-seat premium for a guaranteed empty seat next to me sounds a lot better.)

Now, that won't help the truly huge whose rear doesn't fit between two lowered seats, but I've never actually seen such a person. I've had plenty of neighbors whose rear fit in the seat, but whose width at the shoulder and elbow was too wide for comfort.
...
Infringing on the next person is grounds for having to buy another seat regardless of the level -- shoulders, arms, knees, feet.

Unwanted touching is assault and the airline that lets it happen despite complaints at the very start (before departure) is aiding and abetting the assault.

Infringing on the next person is grounds for having to buy another seat regardless of the level -- shoulders, arms, knees, feet.

Heh, never seen it happen, and most of the cases I've heard of it happening have been where the butt can fit between the lowered armrests (or projects so far in front that a single extension won't work.)

Meanwhile, some of the worst neighbors I've had have been tall "thin" guns with big shoulders.

Unwanted touching is assault and the airline that lets it happen despite complaints at the very start (before departure) is aiding and abetting the assault.

You've clearly never taken a subway at rush hour. :rolleyes:

Unwanted touching is assault and the airline that lets it happen despite complaints at the very start (before departure) is aiding and abetting the assault.
You're confusing assault and battery, but obviously you will have difficulty fulfilling the "harmful and offensive" test of either tort. I suggest you get yourself a better lawyer.

Huh, are there seats where the armrests can't be simply flipped up and out of the way? If they ever existed, I've not seen any for ages (now that I think of it, bulkhead seats have tables built into the armrests).
No, even when the armrest is "flipped up" you can feel it. when you lean back.

If you ask me, the middle seat should have been the seat made wider.

Heh, never seen it happen, and most of the cases I've heard of it happening have been where the butt can fit between the lowered armrests (or projects so far in front that a single extension won't work.)

Meanwhile, some of the worst neighbors I've had have been tall "thin" guns with big shoulders.:
The assault charge becomes valid when the person overtly vies for the title of "worst neighbor" as opposed to simply possessing big shoulders or legs or whatever.

If you ask me, the middle seat should have been the seat made wider.

"Should have" implies this exists somewhere other than as a proposal... and that makes a lot of sense to me just as a sympathy measure to the folks in the middle seat, although trying to inventory and charge extra for those sounds like it would not be worth tracking.

If you ask me, the middle seat should have been the seat made wider.
I've always thought that the middle seats should be just a tad wider than the other two seats.

BUT, this is about creating a premium product that the airlines can sell at a profit while leaving the other two seats at exactly the same width as the competitor's product. The Airbus has five extra inches in width over the Boeing, and all this proposal does is put the extra width in the aisle seats and then make them available for a fee.