Originally Posted by
canadiancow
I stopped reading the article around "my knees hit the seat in front of me".
I'd sooner say "if people weren't so tall" than fat or out of shape.
But I think "I wanted more legroom but all those seats were sold out" would be much more prominent in the article of that were the case.
But that's the difference. I'm 5'11. Alice is 6'5. Bob is 4'3. We can all eat the same bread, but we can't all sit in the same seat, unless they can all fit Alice.
And making every seat comfortable for someone 6'5 and 500 pounds is not economical, because most people need a small fraction of that space.
And since space seems to be more of a limiting factor than weight on most flights these days, airlines are trying to do what they can with things like preferred seats, E+, PY, etc.
In the context of a 777, maybe a few rows of 3-3-3 Y with 35 inch pitch, sold as a surcharge such that it is exactly (35/31) * (10/9) = 1.26x the regular fare (i.e. you buy a Y fare, and get charged an additional 26% for the seat)? Same Y service, and you're literally paying for the extra space, and nothing more?
In the case of tall people, the solution probably is that simple: give them preferred seats for free. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before this is regulated into place - both for the wellbeing of the tall person and the poor person stuck in front of him.
Granted, that would require AC giving up hypothetical revenue, and potentially upsetting some 5'6 SE who thinks he's entitled to that seat.
As for paying more for more space, that would work if price actually had anything to do with space. It doesn't. Right now a person flying on a Flex fate may already be paying 36% more than the Tango paying pax next to him. What does he get for it? Nada.
So... how do you propose implementing it? Tango + 26% or fare paid + 26%. Point being - what is the value of the actual space occupied: Tango or Flex? I suspect it's neither. Space is but one factor among many.
At the end of the day, airlines need to be careful about pushing pax too far. There is no better way to attract regulation than to upset the general public. We've already seen it in action in our economy (remember the pledge to address the pricing discrepancy between the US and Canada)?