ffsim

Are you serious?

We're not talking about PY or J. We're talking about preferred seats. It's really not helpful to twist concrete examples just because they don't suit your arguments. Here we have a case of a pax actively looking to spend money on a preferred seat and unable to do so. It's not for being cheap, it's that in this case the ones suitable to eigenvector were unavailable.

For the umpteenth time: not everyone can travel in PY or J.

superangrypenguin

Yes. Then fly Y.

My gosh. Y is being looked at as this horrible product where one will die. It's like if one flies Y they will contract a disease. Yes, this passenger in the article suffered from "horrible" pain which is something that I have also gotten from Air Canada. I was perfectly healthy before I started my last job. I am now perfectly not healthy. AC Y broke me.

My argument is this. Airfares have dropped over the last few decades. Passengers are now feeling the repercussions from the invisible hand that is driving down airfares.

PY is the new Y. If one can't fly PY, then suffer in Y or do what I do. Don't fly? Save up money, then fly. I read an article once indicating that preferred seats are usually going out unsold. Eigenvector's woes are unfortunate, but it is what it is. It's truly unfortunate he couldn't buy one despite wanting to, but it's the aviation business. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

YOWgary

How do you keep saying

"pax should pay for PE/J or STFU and fly Y, it's not that bad"

followed by

"flying AC Y ruined my health and I'll never do it again"?

payam81

Well, beggars can't be choosers.

superangrypenguin

I am a bit lost as to your query.

1) It is my fault that I didn't pony up for preferred seats in Y as my employer does not permit I do so at their expense.
2) My employer says to book lowest Y.

If I had done so, maybe I wouldn't have a bad back that has really [expletive] with my quality of life. But is that Air Canada's fault? Hell no. Toronto to Vancouver for $1k? Really? That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

If I may, I'd like to sum up this thread.

"I deserve to fly for as cheaply as possible in a comfortable seat".

No, you don't. You don't deserve anything at all. Pay up, or suffer the consequences of the price of your airfare. Otherwise, you're entitled.

[none of this directed at you. "You" is referring to the people who are complaining]

EDIT: I see you edited your post. Going forward, because it's all for personal travel, I will never fly Y again. I have also never flown Y on a 10 across 777, and that's the limit. I'm not doing that. I saw the writing on the wall with the 737s and the reconfigured seats on widebodies.

I got a different job as a result. Hell no. Not doing that.

ffsim

No, it isn't. No one, in 160+ posts in this thread, has suggested that anyone will die in Y except you.

This has already been explained to you: AC did not break you. FWIW, I was in horrible shape during my last job, which involved almost no travel at all. I'm in the best shape of my life in this current job, which requires substantially more travel. The change in my health situation has everything to do with my life choices and nothing to do with the many tens of thousands of miles I spend in an airplane.

And if the airlines push too far, many posters in this thread are suggesting that the government will step in with legislation to ensure a certain minimum level of accommodation in airplanes. That's what much of the debate in this thread is about; not one guy complaining to CBC, but the overall problem of shrinking airplane seats.

montezume

For the sake of argument, let's say my name is Joseph Smith. I have three kids, and I was lucky enough to find a decent paying job. I spent a few months looking for that job, and it wasn't easy. This job requires travel, and like you Mr. SAP, my employer only pays for lowest Y. I can't afford to "pony up" and pay out of pocket to upgrade to a more comfortable seat. I don't have the extra income. For me, it's Y or quit and try to find another job, which make make me and my children homeless.

Should I suffer health consequences as a result of working this job? Do I deserve to live in pain because I didn't get a STEM / business degree (like the reddit-like comments here suggest...)? I guess it sucks to be me.

superangrypenguin

Maybe not in this thread, but how long has Jack gone on about death on the HD

I'll defer my medical guidance to my family physician, who disagrees with you.

Sure, posters can say that governments will step in, but I'm fairly certain 10 across on airlines all over the planet would indicate otherwise. These aren't corporations without very highly paid corporate lawyers.

I couldn't afford to pony up either. It was exactly that. Y or quit. So I sucked it up and flew Y. (at least for the first/second year before I met maradori)

One doesn't deserve to have children, but let's not go there. And yes, I did suffer the consequences which is why this thread pisses me off royally.

montezume

So because you couldn't afford to pony up, you DESERVE to have a bad back. You should have been born rich.

superangrypenguin

Precisely. That is how I feel.

I was just in the shower thinking about how best to approach this topic in a way that is as non controversial as possible.

Is flying a right?

The answer is no. Until that changes, this topic is never going to be resolved. If one is guaranteed a right to fly, then comfort levels can be discussed (IMHO). But if flying is voluntary and not a right, then isn't this subject moot?

montezume

Access to a safe workspace is a right. If I fly for work, does it not follow that I should not be injured through flying? An analogy could be banning smoking in restaurants, so that those who work in restaurants are no longer subjected to dangerous second hand smoke.

superangrypenguin

Ok, so then I should sue my employer so that they put me in PY, a preferred seat or J.

Yeah, I flew for work for a number of years. IBM's policy is even worse than mine, yet I don't see any employees who are all making 6 figures suing their organizations for their travel policy. Sure, collectively they have made probably around a trillion $, but yet I don't see a class action.

The founder of my company flew in Y. What more can I say/do?

If Y is so bad (which according to me, it is), then find another job (which I did) or find a sugar daddy (hi Maradori )

EDIT: Is flying Y worse than taking public transit? I argue not. Yet MILLIONS of people do this on a daily basis. Hell, some of them don't even get a seat. So this argument is, IMO, moot. Do those that have crappy cars that are worth $500 deserve a better car? Say yes and I'll blow an aneurysm. (so one of you will)

montezume

No, you shouldn't sue your employer. The airline should provide a base product that is adequate for the flight. That's all I'm saying. Hell, I would like to see the evacuation time of these HD jets 8 hours into a flight...

superangrypenguin

You see, my point of view is that I don't believe the airline should "do anything". Legislation has mandated egress times and conditions. The HD aircraft would have met that specification. If you want the legislation changed, fine, I guess. This is an IBB, nothing we say here has any consequential impact to life in the real world.

If it was up to the airlines, they'd probably remove the seats altogether. My point is that if we're going to cite work conditions as a reason for the changes, then, OK, umm, no one has sued their employer yet so there is no basis for this opinion. I respect your opinion, I guess all I'm saying is that "it hasn't worked before".

YOWgary

I'd be willing to bet that he's spent quite a bit more time complaining about the HD than he's spent *on* the HD.


I'm pretty sure I can match up doctor for doctor, MRI for MRI, and I hold to my earlier statement: anyone who says Air Canada hurt your back shouldn't call themselves a medical professional.

Your situation, and mine, aren't what we're discussing here, though. You and I are (or were) more susceptible to the effects of tiny airline seats due to existing, underlying health problems, and either of us would have gotten hurt 90% as fast if we'd done all our flying in J on a 321.

The issues here are (1) whether or not airline seats are already at the point where they cause pain to otherwise-healthy people on a single LH or ULH flight, and (2) how much worse they'd have to get before governments DID step in.

It's not nearly as outlandish as some have suggested here; governments already regulate ergonomics through a variety of workplace-safety and building codes, with the goal of preventing long-term injuries that will cause downstream problems to society (read: health-care costs and lawsuits).

I agree that Airbus and Boeing wouldn't have launched these configs without a pretty good idea that they were on solid ground, my only question is whether the market will self-limit in this case, or whether we'll see the next move towards 16.5" x 28", in an 11-across Boeing 797, or a 2x3x2 Airbus 322.

Actually, credit where it's due, Jack is the only one in this thread who's raised the issue of evacuation capacity, which may well prove to be the ultimate limiting factor in the next round of enhancements.

Though, I suspect that one's solvable by cramming another emergency exit into a 526-pax, all-Y 777HD, coming soon to Air Transat.