Originally Posted by
WisMan
Why can airlines get away with providing seats that they know are too small for reasonable accommodation for much of the flying public?
Because that's what the flying public has determined they want by voting with their wallets (even when they complain about it). Remember when AA tried "More Room Throughout Coach"? That didn't work out to well for them, did it? So they went back to offering the industry standard in Y. The airlines are now finding that having a handful of rows with extra legroom (Economy Plus/Economy Comfort/Main Cabin Extra - whatever each airline calls it) is what meets market demand.
Originally Posted by
WisMan
So, I'd like to see the Federal government set minimums - 20" of seat width and 35" of seat pitch. Doing so will make the reclining issue moot.
Most flights already have seats with 20" width and 35" pitch. It's called first class. Buy it. I do.
Originally Posted by
WisMan
Right now, it is discriminatory to tell tall/heavier people that they must purchase a seat that is more expensive (EC/1st) to be comfortable.
How is that discriminatory? I'm 6'4 with most of that height in my legs so I know what it's like to be miserable in regular Y. But why is that the airline's fault? Is a restaurant "discriminatory" if the meal they serve is too small to satisfy the hunger of a 350 lb person? And given that being heavy is most often a choice (poor diet and/or lack of physical activity), it's hard for me to view telling large people to buy EC or FC to be comfortable "discriminatory".
Originally Posted by
WisMan
Where else in life are you jammed into such an uncomfortable area - not at restaurants, movie theaters, etc.
When's the last time you went to a professional or college sporting event? Some of those places are worse than regular Y on airlines.