GUWonder

Given how cramped aisles on my flights have become, how much more cramped seats have become on my flights, and how many more passengers there are on my flights without an increase in emergency exits, I'm sure that the risks of accidental injury/death of passengers during trips on such planes are at least marginally worse now than they would be if the airlines didn't cramp up the planes so much. Also, the luggage fees incentivizing more and heavier cabin baggage on domestic US flights isn't a good thing in that regard either.

The airlines don't care about passenger comfort, health and safety more than they are minimally required to do so to remain a going concern and make as much money as they can for their senior management figures.

SEA-Flyer

Average seat width dropped from 18.5 to 17? I call BS on that.

That is true on the 777 as many airlines switched from 2-5-2/3-3-3 to 3-4-3. And a similar thing happened on the 787 (although obviously, that didn't exist back in the early 2000s). And it overlooks the fact that the 777 at 18.5" available in the early 2000s was actually a big improvement over the 747 at 17.2" (so much for the idea of seat width always getting worse)

For every other aircraft, seat width is basically unchanged. I haven't seen anyone try to introduce 3-4 seating configs on A320 or B737 aircraft, which haul the vast majority of passengers.

To find an era when average seat width was 18.5" you'd have to go back almost 50 years to when folks were flying Boeing 707 aircraft with 2-3 seating config in economy.

Seat width has been pretty much constant on every Airbus. As well as every Boeing except for the 777 and 787.

GUWonder

Response to the above covered in the following words:

Seat pitch and width in the aggregate on flights to/within/from the US have not been pretty much constant. It's worse now than a decade or two or three or four or five ago.

SEA-Flyer

The article stated two things as facts:
Average seat width in the early 2000s was 18.5 inches. And now it is 17 inches.

Both are absolutely false. In the early 2000s, 18.5 inches was the best you could find, not the average. It was only available on the 777, which there were fewer than 400 worldwide. And there were tons of Boeing 737, 757 with 17 inch seat width flying, and a lot of 747s with 17.2 inch seating.

What has happened since then? Sure the 777 seats have gotten narrow, and now there are about 500-600 787 flying with the narrow seats.

But you know what else has happened since then:

757 are disappearing, and those that remain have had seat width unchanged
747 are disappearing, and those that remain have had seat width unchanged

And most significantly, Airbus has increased it's market share a lot compared to back then. There are a ton of Airbus 320 flying routes that used to be Boeing 737 - and those Airbus have seats that are on average 1 inch wider than the Boeing aircraft they replaced.

GUWonder

Seat pitch and seat width -- and the flight discomfort that comes with it -- is much worse on US flights now than it used to be. There is just no way around that fact.

Even as I'm sure the numbers provided by critics and supporters of the airlines aren't entirely correct, the point remains that the average seat pitch and width and the discomfort that comes with it on US flights is worse now than it was a decade or two or three or four ago. And this does have health/safety/security consequences.

SEA-Flyer

I'm not arguing the pitch aspect - absolutely agree that has gotten worse.

But regarding width, even a cursory look would reveal that it simply isn't true. There have been aspects that have gotten worse (10 across 777 and 9 across 787), but there have been many aspects that have gotten better (much more likely to fly on a 18 inch Airbus 319/320/321 than a 17 inch Boeing 727/737/757).

Ber2dca

I'd like to know how realistic the mandated evacuation tests are. Evacuating a plane of 150 average people, 5'11 185 pounds, 35 years old is a different exercise than evacuating a realistic crowd on a holiday flight to Costa del Sol among whom seniors, children and heavy set people are a significant presence.

GUWonder

Airbus has been better for passenger comfort than Boeing in that regard indeed, but variability matters too. The comfort levels to be experienced while flying are in recent times at the most extreme I've ever encountered. And that experience of variability over time also generates due complaints.

US obesity is worse now that it was decades ago. That also makes things less comfortable and even more dangerous on planes than it used to be.

davistev

FYI: In South Australia when we transport livestock, we must allow sufficient space for the livestock to be able to lie down on their side. The animals must also not be stressed and be provided with water. Penalty is $2,500 for the operator. So essentially, sheep and cattle in South Australia have more rights than people on aircraft.

See "Animal Welfare Regulations - South Australia."

GUWonder

Animal rights' lobby in parts seem to have more concentrated support than the airline passenger rights' lobby. Given how powerful the airline industry lobby is in the largest markets and how weak consumer lobbies are, this shouldn't be a surprise.

StayingHomeIsBetter

That might equally well describe the competition for a safe evacuation from a too-cramped cabin.

A potentially valid consideration.

But, adding 3 inches of seat pitch would be about a 10% increase. That should reduce the number of seats on the plane by 10%... which could increase ticket prices by 10%.

It would remain to be seen how many people would undertake a 4 to 6 hour drive, for example, to avoid a fare increase from $400 to $440. (Yes, I recognize that there might be multiple people from a single family planning to travel.)

Nothing says we can't seek the dual objectives of safety and comfort.


And, the airlines will continue to inflate the incremental cost of buying comfort while decreasing comfort in other seats... in order to incentivize the purchase of comfort. And, don't be surprised if the "comfortable" seats become less comfortable with time.

CPRich

14 CFR Part 25 plus Appendix J

1. 35% over age 50
2. Dolls simulating infants under age 2
3. Seat belts fastened
4. Emergency lighting
5. "one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions"
6. 1/2 of all exits unavailable (not disclosed in advance)
7. "flightcrew must take no active role in assisting others inside the cabin"
   

etc.

Initial introduction and any 5% increase in seating capacity, or "major change in interior" requires a new test, so I'm unclear on the statement impression that "for modern cabins, we don't even have an idealized evacuation test just to establish a baseline."

GUWonder

"one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions"

Given how airlines police cabin baggage policy implementation, and given the massive reduction in comfort items like blankets and pillows, and given how
airlines game capacity increases with staffing and cabin adjustments, make of the above what you wish when it comes to evacuation standards. No less so when dealing with a US DOT/FAA that is so very much in bed with the airlines that even blatant violations of law/rules by airlines result in barely a slap on the wrist (if even that) from the regulators/Admin.

Zorak

I said that was my impression from reading the article (or at least, that that was the question being implied) but never claimed any specific expertise or knowledge. I appreciate the info! ^

pvn

How many data points are there for evacuations with 28-inch seat pitch?