Wpgjetse

Maybe only 2,000 will fly, plus International connection pax could fly via the US. I think many FT members are to young to know the cost of flying before seat density start. There was a time $4k was a cheap price for return flights between YYZ and YVR.

montezume

Didn't AC start HD'ing their fleet in 2012? I don't remember paying $4k for return flights from YYZ to YVR then...

Wpgjetse

NO, they started adding seats when 14 day adv and sat stay requirements ended. They just keep adding seats as the prices get lower.

rankourabu

What are you doing stating facts? No place for that here.

Prior to 2012, Air Canada offered spacious non-density coach cabin, and tickets cost $4000 on YYZ-YVR. Then because pax are cheap, and entitled, they high-densified coach, and prices dropped by 3/4.

You know, today its $1000, because AC has 4 times as many seats in coach. duh.

montezume

Ah, the problem I was having was that I was searching google to find out when AC started to introduce these HD configs. When really, I should have been searching in my gut. My gut tells me that airline tickets used to cost $4000 in 2012.

YOWgary

Was this around the same time you had to stop in Winnipeg so the plane could be refuelled, and everyone could buy another pack of cigarettes to replace the ones they smoked on the 8-hour flight from Toronto?

It doesn't answer this particular question, but I thought this might be interesting to some:

Adam Smith

Several others have tried and failed to inject some reason into this discussion, but I'm going to give it another shot anyway.

I'm a tall guy (6'4"), so this is an issue that's close to my heart. But I have no sympathy for the guy who was the subject of the CBC story, because the fact of the matter is that it's ridiculous to blame his problem on AC's seating configuration and these calls on the government to regulate seat pitch and so on are completely out of place.

DVT isn't AC's fault

Firstly, it's important to understand what happened in the case that spurred all this debate. The guy in the CBC story suffered from deep vein thrombosis, or DVT, shortly after his flight on AC.

While a lot of people in this thread have made all sorts of comments about the health risks posed by tighter seating, DVT is not caused solely by air travel, although it can worsen the risks. There are a variety of factors that lead one to be at risk for DVT that are far more important than how one got from A to B. Air travel is a risk factor whether one is flying in AC's 777HD Y product or an Emirates F suite. Sitting on a bus or on a train for many hours can also be a problem.

Consult the Mayo Clinic page on DVT if you don't believe me, but you won't see "cramped airline seats" on the page of causes of DVT, and "sitting for long periods of time" is the very last of 13 risk factors they mention.

Moving around is the best way to help avoid DVT, but there are things that can be done to help prevent DVT, even if one can't get up and walk around the cabin - stretches, compression stockings, etc.

Who knows, the guy in the story may even have been at higher risk after spending 5 hours in a cramped bus from some remote mountain town to SCL before his flight.

So to pin this solely on AC's seats is completely wrong. Just as it would be wrong if the other airline were WS or DL or Ryanair. Just as it would be wrong to pin it on Greyhound or the bus manufacturer if he had gotten DVT after a long bus trip.

What exactly are you trying to regulate?

Since there are so many other risk factors for DVT, it's hardly legitimate to regulate seat pitch/size on that basis. And as far as I've seen, no one else here has listed any other specific potential ailments developed as a result of cramped seating, I see no legitimate way one can call this a safety issue justifying regulation (the issue of evacuation capability is legitimate, but presumably AC's HDs and HD layouts from other carriers have all passed).

When you get right down to it, this is about comfort and preference, not safety. People hate cramped Y seats. I've never flown Y in 3-4-3, but I imagine it's dreadful for a guy my size.

But let's get real about how many people this really impacts. People are of differing sizes, a point the cow has already tried to make, but I'm not sure everyone really grasps, so I'll try to put some numbers to it. The average male in Canada is about 5'9; the average female around 5'4" (data from here).

The only people I see complaining much about the seat pitch here are men of above average height, and not all the above-average guys are too fussed. So, for probably over 90% of the Canadian population, the HD seats aren't really an issue. For that remaining 10%, maybe sometimes, maybe not, but this is hardly a problem screaming out for regulation.

Choices, choices

Furthermore, it's important that we recognise what flying is: it's not a right or a necessity of day-to-day life like clean drinking water. It's a consumer good and a luxury. It's provided by private companies and subject to the competitive forces of the market.

Travelling is a choice in all respects, but there's a lot of nonsense in this thread suggesting people have little or no choice. Let's just look at the guy in the CBC story.

He chose to go Chile. Instead, he could have not gone anywhere or chosen a destination within driving distance. He could have also flown somewhere that was much closer - lots of interesting hiking within North America.

He chose to fly with AC, in Y, in a non-preferred seat, on a long flight from SCL to YYZ. Alternatives would have included flying in J, PY or a preferred seat on AC, flying Y on another airline with better seat pitch (or in another class of service) or taking a different routing that didn't include an 11-hour flight.

Those of you complaining about work travel policies, you have choices too. You could switch to a job within the company that doesn't require travel. You could change companies. You could pay out of pocket to upgrade yourselves. You could learn the ins and outs of your company's system and game it to find more comfortable options. You could negotiate different policies with your employer.

But spare me all this crap about how AC is the bad guy in this like you all have guns put to your head as you get marched back to sit in 63E on the 77W.

The fact of the matter is that most people are cheap. They gravitate heavily towards the cheapest base fare and don't think much beyond that. One of my friends is booked to fly on WS to LGA in a few weeks and is now annoyed at finding out that the base fare gets you nothing but a seat on the plane. What did you expect for $400 round trip or whatever it was? And a buddy of mine swore a blue streak last week after flying rouge YUL-FCO. When I pointed out to him he could have bought a preferred seat, PY, flown mainline through YYZ, flown BA through LHR or KL through AMS, etc, to get an extra inch or more of pitch, he said "but this was cheaper".

Bottom line

I'm very tall. I get it. Long-haul flights in Y suck. I did YYZ-LHR (and LHR-YYZ) in was 2004 and I swore I would never do a trans-oceanic flight in Y again. But the occasional case of DVT, which may be caused in part by sitting in a cramped Y seat, is not justification to go out and regulate seat pitch.

If you don't like 30/31" seat pitch, do something about it. If customers demonstrate that they will pay extra for more leg room by buying preferred seats, PY, etc, we will get more preferred seats, more PY, etc. AC and other airlines aren't run by sadists; they're run by people looking to maximise profits. Right now though, profits are maximised by increasing density because that's what people want to buy.

So put your money where your mouth is and buy preferred seats. Buy PY. Buy J. Travel less. Find great deals and mistake fares. Fly on points. You have numerous choices that don't involve you sitting in AC's Y product for many hours at a time.

But enough of this melodrama about how HD layouts are killing people and the government needs to save us all.

Ber2dca

Doesn't that sound like an argument in favor of child labour? "Hey, they have choices, no-one forces these little brats to work in a sweatshop for 30 cents an hour."

Adam Smith

Do you actually expect a response to that non sequitur?

24left

@adam.smith

Thanks for the brilliant and rational analysis. It's been a while since you've graced us with one of these.

(someone should send your post to the CBC howlers)

montezume

@adam.smith Thanks for the commentary. I would be interested in your response to the post who mentioned that they had an ex coworker who died after a long haul flight, and in response to the safety "issues" of being able to evacuate in a reasonable amount of time in a packed high density cabin?

Ber2dca

Not really, but your post reeks of free market glorification. Air Canada managers want to maximize profits, same as every other capitalist from the drug dealer at the corner all the way up to say Microsoft or Pfizer. That doesn't address the issue though, *successful* market strategies can incur social cost which outweighs the profits. A lot of people want to buy really cheap goods yet that does not make sweatshop work practices ethical or legal in Canada even though no doubt it would be a boost for the Canadian textile industry if it was.

Regulation is typically meant to protect society from the damaging social cost of free market practices or to force business to carry its fair share of that social cost. The issue with the call for regulation isn't whether it goes against market laws - it does - but whether the social cost here is significant enough to justify the burden for the airline industry. That would in part be determined by the number of people significantly inconvenienced or even harmed by these practices but also by how strongly everyone else felt about it even if not affected. Regulation of things that affect only small numbers of people isn't unheard of or even especially rare.

If people felt strongly enough about it (and several other complaints about commercial aviation today), one could re-nationalize Air Canada of course to insulate the airline from these market forces.

ffsim

Adam, brilliant post and incredibly well-presented, as usual. I just can't help but notice that you're essentially suggesting a guy your size cannot travel in Y because airlines should have every opportunity to maximize profits in a free market

mapleg

Wow. I had this dream I was back in University decades ago listening to a speaker for the Marxist-Leninist party. Let's nationalize everything.

kwflyer

Choice is a good thing. Although the opposite is true with too much choice (choice paradox) leading to analysis paralysis and poor public policy/decision making.

Canadians via their government, choose to start a national flag carrier called tca (then ac), to be built by Canadians and (shockingly) served for Canadian interests by creating positive externalities for Canadians through the balancing of economic, social, and environmental costs.

Those same Canadians, if pushed far enough (which we are seeing increased compelling stories) can choose to lobby public policy holders (via the media since most can't afford to hire lobbyists) to
Ensure Canada's flag carrier (who has special rights and responsibilities not bestowed
On any other canadian airline) does not go too far, or even dial back the economic bias over social costs to bring back a more sustainable equilibrium.

And don't think that Canada's new government is not listening to the market/electorate. Or that the inconvenient truth that Canada's population is not only getting older, and travelling more, but that the social
And economic costs of treating/dealing with dvt is getting costlier.

But I can tell you they are not listening to or referencing foreign, private/elitist style, medical experts to understand situational, compounding factors back home.