Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

CBC: Air Canada passenger suffers 'horrible pain' after being stuck in cramped seat

CBC: Air Canada passenger suffers 'horrible pain' after being stuck in cramped seat

Old May 31, 2016, 8:58 pm
  #151  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YKF
Programs: AC Elite 50K, Amex AP Plat, Choice Privileges, National Exec Elite, Via Prefrence
Posts: 2,996
Originally Posted by yulred
No, it isn't. Here's why:

- no one is getting something for nothing. They are all paying fares to get a seat. Some are getting a little more space, but by most accounts they aren't paying for it (SEs etc). You could increase space across the board by getting rid of preferred seats and increasing legroom across the board. Any revenue loss (all incremental) is probably negligible.

- if pricing is at what the market can bear, there's not a whole lot of room to increase prices. Airlines aren't going to fly empty planes and charge more. They'll look to cut costs. There are ways to cut costs - but they won't be to the liking of the privileged few. Granted, the privileged few are more likely to have disposable income than the low rev pax ...so better prospects for revenue generation. Note that efficiency is not driven by prices increasing in lock step. It's forced on companies by consumers willingness to part with their money.
Indeed this is what we call
Price discrimination. Get everyone to pay their maximum willingness. While still getting everyone to their destination safely. A sound public policy.

I do like the idea of seat selection charges for J, since those pax are

a) the most willing to pay for it sincenthey wouldn't dare be associated with the cheap flying tribes

b) can easily afford it. And thereby less likely to roll the dice sitting in y hoping for an upgrade.

This would easily enhance Ac's triple bottom line.
kwflyer is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 9:01 pm
  #152  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,188
Originally Posted by kwflyer
Indeed this is what we call
Price discrimination. Get everyone to pay their maximum willingness. While still getting everyone to their destination safely. A sound public policy.

I do like the idea of seat selection charges for J, since those pax are

a) the most willing to pay for it sincenthey wouldn't dare be associated with the cheap flying tribes

b) can easily afford it. And thereby less likely to roll the dice sitting in y hoping for an upgrade.

This would easily enhance Ac's triple bottom line.
I'm not sure how b) applies. I don't think I'd pay. J seats are pretty much all the same. It's not a matter of getting an "upgrade". It's just a seat assignment.
canadiancow is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 9:04 pm
  #153  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YKF
Programs: AC Elite 50K, Amex AP Plat, Choice Privileges, National Exec Elite, Via Prefrence
Posts: 2,996
Originally Posted by montezume
Real question to everyone here - how far is too far? Should airlines be allowed to stuff 12 abreast on these planes? If people are willing to purchase fares on those planes, should industry be allowed to make the seats smaller and smaller? Should the market determine it, or should there be some sort of safety regulations in place? Not trying to make a slippery slope argument here - just curious as to the responses!
When public health is affected, the government has a statutory obligation to intervene. When that intervention happens is up for debate as yulred correctly pointed out.

Keeping in mind stories are greater than facts. If the electorate can position and sustain certain stories, expect public policy to be centred around that.
kwflyer is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 9:08 pm
  #154  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YKF
Programs: AC Elite 50K, Amex AP Plat, Choice Privileges, National Exec Elite, Via Prefrence
Posts: 2,996
Originally Posted by canadiancow
I'm not sure how b) applies. I don't think I'd pay. J seats are pretty much all the same. It's not a matter of getting an "upgrade". It's just a seat assignment.
Sure, but by your own admission, Ben Smith called your flying patterns/decision making special/unique.

Many opmers/premium travellers/ couples likely would. Especially if the price point was very marginal to their now sunk cost. Which ac can vary depending on the season/route/aircraft.
kwflyer is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 9:45 pm
  #155  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: Only J via Peasant Points, 777HDPeasant or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and Narcissism.
Posts: 5,944
Originally Posted by kwflyer
Sure, but by your own admission, Ben Smith called your flying patterns/decision making special/unique.

Many opmers/premium travellers/ couples likely would. Especially if the price point was very marginal to their now sunk cost. Which ac can vary depending on the season/route/aircraft.
Nicke and Dame is fine.. as long its for the peasants in Y.
Government regulation should be non-existent , oh wait this goes against the drug policy(AKA the conservative paradox)

I think the key here is: Is there a line? Also the YYZ-YVR ticket has MOST DEFINITELY did not go down as a result of HD, in fact, it went up. So while the argument flying is cheaper on HD vs 3-3-3 might be SOMEWHAT valid, it is not on the many domestic routes.

I can only pray that Jet Blue gets in long hauls and kick some serious butt, because transiting via JFK, why not?

Last edited by Jumper Jack; May 31, 2016 at 10:05 pm
Jumper Jack is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 10:29 pm
  #156  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 145
What I don't understand is the thinking that taking out J and evening out the spacing of all of the seats would:

1. Magically give everyone so much space that people won't complain. That is laughable.

2. Not increase the average cost for the people that typically fly Y.

Whoever supports this plan and thinks it will work, probably also thinks that health care in Canada is well run and that we shouldn't allow privatized health care.

Give your head a shake. You cannot explain this away, not a chance.
Dollars2Donuts is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 10:31 pm
  #157  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: Only J via Peasant Points, 777HDPeasant or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and Narcissism.
Posts: 5,944
Originally Posted by Dollars2Donuts
Whoever supports this plan and thinks it will work, probably also thinks that health care in Canada is well run and that we shouldn't allow privatized health care.
The only responses I have for what you have just said is...
"Lol" and "Really?"

1. It is significantly more well run than USA
2. We should not, only an idiot would think so. (Economic, Political Disaster if we do so)

What you have said displays so many economic fallacies I cant even........... LOL. We should not get in to political posts on this forum... however, but so much ignorance was displayed in that quote I had to shot you down.

Last edited by Jumper Jack; May 31, 2016 at 10:50 pm
Jumper Jack is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 10:44 pm
  #158  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer
We have regulations for animal cages on factory farms, and there are regulations for the space allocated for animals being transported to slaughterhouses. Surely, we can have some minimum standards for public health purposes for airline pax.
Minimum standard to what end though? If it's dimply a matter of surviving a trip, I'm certain it can be achieved with even less room than now. You can't arbitarily set 'comfort' standards.

The animal regulations precisely deal with minimum survival with little regard to long term health or welfare of the animal. They are mostly there to make life easier for the farmers by way of standardization.

Btw, if you apply minimum standards to air travel, what happens to all the various forms of ground transport? Heck even private cars?
payam81 is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 11:29 pm
  #159  
cur
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: fwp blood diamond, dykwia uranium
Posts: 7,251
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
Yes, prices would go up. Then the government would be forced to legislate pricing, and then the cost of serving the sale would be lower than the price.

Then the organization would go bankrupt.

That's what I don't get about some people's views on this thread. You can't have your own cake and eat it too.
no of course you can
it's canada

just raise fees and pass it on to the consumer!

tax payers are like money trees

seriously many "advocates" in that country have zero grip on economics and the role of the state

do people seriously think catsa is not as medicore as tsa because they don't overstaff lanes and charge pax a $22+ usage fee? (what is it in the usa? $4 or something?)
Originally Posted by Wpgjetse

1) What would WestJet do? They would need a new business model.
2) Would all foreign airline adjust their aircraft flying into Canada or just decide not to fly into Canada at all?
3) What would be the price increase on air fares? Will people still travel as much with higher prices?
4) Would these pax wanting larger seats now drive to US to fly because the flights are a lot cheaper with the smaller seats? (cheap seats are king over comfort)
2) guess what foreign airlines will do for an overpriced country with a population entirely as close to one major metro
3) no, they'd advocate for government to give everyone a travel subsidy
4) yes because consumers only want government intervention as long as there's no consequence for them

Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer
We have regulations for animal cages on factory farms, and there are regulations for the space allocated for animals being transported to slaughterhouses. Surely, we can have some minimum standards for public health purposes for airline pax.
wow reads like a well liked cbc.ca reader comment

travelling public are like animals on their way to the slaughter

Last edited by cur; May 31, 2016 at 11:36 pm
cur is offline  
Old May 31, 2016, 11:50 pm
  #160  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,889
Originally Posted by Dollars2Donuts
Wow. And you realistically think this is the same thing?

In my email to Rosa I actually told her that all of the people that are positively responding to her article, will be the exact people that write to her to complain about fares going up 25% after the legislation comes into effect. Crying that 'they have no choice but to pay it' and 'airlines are robbing us once again'.

I told Rosa that her article was trash....I won't tell you what I think of your statement.
Go right ahead, but I direct your attention to the nature of air travel in Canada: Because of the market size and the requirements to operate, the government has allowed the airline industry control on many aspects that would otherwise be regulated as they are in markets such as the EU and USA. The most obvious example are passenger rights and compensation provided when there is overbooking or delays. The Canadian airline sector has in large part been allowed to self regulate when it comes to passenger comfort and consumer protection.

I return to my point that it is not unreasonable that there be regulations that govern the space allocated for passenger aircraft seating. You have not provided one counter argument, save to arrogantly dismiss the opinions of those who you disagree with. The government sets safety standards for motor vehicles, so it is nothing extraordinary to set some minimum standards for airplanes.

In the USA the FAA certification process for an airplane requires a 90 second evacuation test. Do you disagree with this? Is this testing inappropriate? Who do you think is doing the certification in Canada? Well, this comes back to the airlines being allowed to self regulate. It is time to test the 90 second rule under realistic conditions. No more using healthy young adults who are anticipating an evacuation. It's time to stuff an airplane with a few wheelchair users, elderly, kids, fat people and intellectually challenged test subjects, have them sit for a minimum of 5 hours and then see if they can evacuate an airplane with the dense seating under 90 seconds. The airline industry in Canada has refused to undertake realistic testing. As long as the government doesn't intervene, airline passengers will fly with a false sense of security.

You claim that fares would increase 25% if there were some minimum standards. There might be some marginal increases on some routes, but I would like to know where you get your pricing model from. If you want to come out guns blazing and trash talking, you should base your arguments on factual information; you know "stuff" like a knowledge of the regulatory environment in Canada and the limited competition. The airline industry has operated and continues to operate in a quasi monopolistic state. That is how the parliamentary committee and Transport Canada along with just about every financial expert on Canada's air travel sector describes it. Note that I am not taking a position on the merits of the structure of the market, but I am merely recognizing what the state of the market is. This isn't an issue restricted to Air Canada. If the airlines want to keep the perks of the current market structure, they are going to have to give a little back.

The space issue isn't going away. The US will eventually pass some regulations, most likely once control of the House swings back to the Democrats. Once it happens in the USA, Canada will be obliged to follow if it wants to access the US market.Change will happen. It's like the long time it took to ban smoking on board airplanes. Big hue and cry. Oh, how the airlines would lose business and fares would increase. Didn't happen. It actually benefited the airline industry with less wear and tear. Same will happen with the seat sizes. There will be reduced air rage incidents, and less willful vandalism of the seats. Two expensive issues rarely mentioned by the airlines. Have a good look at some of the broken seats where pax have taken out their frustrations. It's getting nasty in the back of the bus.
Transpacificflyer is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2016, 12:01 am
  #161  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: YKF
Programs: AC Elite 50K, Amex AP Plat, Choice Privileges, National Exec Elite, Via Prefrence
Posts: 2,996
Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer
Go right ahead, but I direct your attention to the nature of air travel in Canada: Because of the market size and the requirements to operate, the government has allowed the airline industry control on many aspects that would otherwise be regulated as they are in markets such as the EU and USA. The most obvious example are passenger rights and compensation provided when there is overbooking or delays. The Canadian airline sector has in large part been allowed to self regulate when it comes to passenger comfort and consumer protection.

I return to my point that it is not unreasonable that there be regulations that govern the space allocated for passenger aircraft seating. You have not provided one counter argument, save to arrogantly dismiss the opinions of those who you disagree with. The government sets safety standards for motor vehicles, so it is nothing extraordinary to set some minimum standards for airplanes.

In the USA the FAA certification process for an airplane requires a 90 second evacuation test. Do you disagree with this? Is this testing inappropriate? Who do you think is doing the certification in Canada? Well, this comes back to the airlines being allowed to self regulate. It is time to test the 90 second rule under realistic conditions. No more using healthy young adults who are anticipating an evacuation. It's time to stuff an airplane with a few wheelchair users, elderly, kids, fat people and intellectually challenged test subjects, have them sit for a minimum of 5 hours and then see if they can evacuate an airplane with the dense seating under 90 seconds. The airline industry in Canada has refused to undertake realistic testing. As long as the government doesn't intervene, airline passengers will fly with a false sense of security.

You claim that fares would increase 25% if there were some minimum standards. There might be some marginal increases on some routes, but I would like to know where you get your pricing model from. If you want to come out guns blazing and trash talking, you should base your arguments on factual information; you know "stuff" like a knowledge of the regulatory environment in Canada and the limited competition. The airline industry has operated and continues to operate in a quasi monopolistic state. That is how the parliamentary committee and Transport Canada along with just about every financial expert on Canada's air travel sector describes it. Note that I am not taking a position on the merits of the structure of the market, but I am merely recognizing what the state of the market is. This isn't an issue restricted to Air Canada. If the airlines want to keep the perks of the current market structure, they are going to have to give a little back.

The space issue isn't going away. The US will eventually pass some regulations, most likely once control of the House swings back to the Democrats. Once it happens in the USA, Canada will be obliged to follow if it wants to access the US market.Change will happen. It's like the long time it took to ban smoking on board airplanes. Big hue and cry. Oh, how the airlines would lose business and fares would increase. Didn't happen. It actually benefited the airline industry with less wear and tear. Same will happen with the seat sizes. There will be reduced air rage incidents, and less willful vandalism of the seats. Two expensive issues rarely mentioned by the airlines. Have a good look at some of the broken seats where pax have taken out their frustrations. It's getting nasty in the back of the bus.
And that everyone, is the rest of the story ^^^
kwflyer is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2016, 2:09 am
  #162  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: YVR
Programs: UA Premier Platinum
Posts: 3,756
I'm booked on the slaveship in Y LHR-YVR in a few days. LX ticket stock. Phoned in for seat selection and asked what preferred seats were available. Agent provided a list of seats. I asked:

Is there a seat I can purchase for additional legroom but NOT next to a bassinet (I don't want to sit at the one location that will certainly have a crying child for 10 hours) and NOT at a lavatory bulkhead where the space in front of me will be used to congregate in line for the lavs?

The answer was no. There are six such seats (on a 398Y aircraft) and they are all occupied.

That's all I have left to say on "pax are too cheap to pay for anything but slaveship seating".
eigenvector is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2016, 3:11 am
  #163  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: Only J via Peasant Points, 777HDPeasant or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and Narcissism.
Posts: 5,944
Originally Posted by eigenvector
I'm booked on the slaveship in Y LHR-YVR in a few days. LX ticket stock. Phoned in for seat selection and asked what preferred seats were available. Agent provided a list of seats. I asked:

Is there a seat I can purchase for additional legroom but NOT next to a bassinet (I don't want to sit at the one location that will certainly have a crying child for 10 hours) and NOT at a lavatory bulkhead where the space in front of me will be used to congregate in line for the lavs?

The answer was no. There are six such seats (on a 398Y aircraft) and they are all occupied.

That's all I have left to say on "pax are too cheap to pay for anything but slaveship seating".
Well, they would say.

Pay $$$$ for J or $$$ for PY or ST*U :P

I also want to point how awful these "preferred" seats are , with the meal tray design, it would actually feel more uncomfortable.

So apparently they also doubled preferred seat prices on Transcon. AC loyalist's argument that "no one is paying for them" doesn't seems to be holding true.

Call Y people entitled, but scream as soon J feature diminished a pretty hypocritical like this:

Meanwhile at AC HQ

Last edited by Jumper Jack; Jun 1, 2016 at 5:17 am
Jumper Jack is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2016, 7:35 am
  #164  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: TXL
Programs: A3 Silver
Posts: 1,116
Originally Posted by Jumper Jack
Well, they would say.

Pay $$$$ for J or $$$ for PY or ST*U :P

I also want to point how awful these "preferred" seats are , with the meal tray design, it would actually feel more uncomfortable.

So apparently they also doubled preferred seat prices on Transcon. AC loyalist's argument that "no one is paying for them" doesn't seems to be holding true.

Call Y people entitled, but scream as soon J feature diminished a pretty hypocritical like this:

Meanwhile at AC HQ
Silicon Valley S03E06 - Gavin Belson abused - YouTube
I prefer your first video before the edit
montezume is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2016, 7:39 am
  #165  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Originally Posted by eigenvector
I'm booked on the slaveship in Y LHR-YVR in a few days. LX ticket stock. Phoned in for seat selection and asked what preferred seats were available. Agent provided a list of seats. I asked:

Is there a seat I can purchase for additional legroom but NOT next to a bassinet (I don't want to sit at the one location that will certainly have a crying child for 10 hours) and NOT at a lavatory bulkhead where the space in front of me will be used to congregate in line for the lavs?

The answer was no. There are six such seats (on a 398Y aircraft) and they are all occupied.

That's all I have left to say on "pax are too cheap to pay for anything but slaveship seating".
PY? J?

The agent was incorrect.

I could not resist.
superangrypenguin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.