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?

FlyerJ

Excellent post, and very well put. Your 'bread' analogy is bang-on.

There's a consumer expectation - quite justifiably - that the standard Y product offered by an airline should suffice for safety, an "acceptable" level of comfort, and service. That's why, IMO, most fliers don't buy up to extra legroom seats.

In most cases on AC, the standard Y product meets these basic requirements (and in fact surpasses them).

In some, though, it doesn't. (Ie Rouge 319s, for many body types)

One should have to pay extra if you want extra comfort, extra legroom, or enhanced service. But if you're a normal-sized individual, there should be no expectation or requirement that one should have to pay a premium to avoid physical discomfort (or worse).

It's not a question of people being too cheap or having overly lofty expectations.

spark787

Little off-topic but my goodness what is the average IQ of people commenting in the CBC article? They all blame Air Canada ("This is why I fly westjet!" even though they have similar or less space) or Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau.

Wait till they see Air Asia's leg room.

rankourabu

Its the same as rouge

but yes, love the comments

Seat13F_AC_CRJ

If our 6'2" protagonist had managed to secure a preferred seat, or even something in PY, it would have been someone else sitting in Y-. It is impossible for 300 people to upgrade or buy preferred seats.

On that 777HD aka slave ship, how many in Y are "experienced" travellers and how many are VBITs? They are buying travel from a "reputable" company, the national brand. As others have pointed out, when you buy a seat, you perhaps do not expect comfort, but neither do you expect your health will be put in danger.
--
13F

mapleg

It's amazing isn't it? Every AC article on CBC attracts this kind of commenting:

• AC-we're not happy till you're not happy
• I drive everywhere I want to go
• I flew AC once 20 years ago, never again
• Sunwing is better than AC since they serve champagne in economy

montezume

Every news article on CBC has ridiculously terrible comments. It is not at all limited to articles about AC

mapleg

Apparently they are going to a system where you have to post under your real name. That ought to cut the chatter down.

(Let's hope FF never does that, haha)

yulred

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)?

krayZpaving

Idea for a new SE qualification requirement: must by >6'0" tall.

ffsim

Don't give them any ideas

Transpacificflyer

Dream on. It takes money to finance the type of litigation you wish for. You don't work for free, nor do talented litigators. Why do you describe AC as greedy? AC is an inanimate object, an entity. It is the shareholders who may be greedy. Blame the pensioners and mutual fund investors who want the high ROI. Better yet, have a look at Tysan Holdings. Nice Chinese company......

It will not happen. IMPOSSIBLE. 28 inches is about as low as it goes without safety being compromised. Spirit, Air Asia, Monarch and Thompson are at 28


What about air asia's leg room? It isn't that bad, I recenty had a few flights with them, and prefer FD to WE. Thai Smile is TG's version of Rouge, except it's worse. It's not worth the higher cost. And therein lies the beauty of Air Asia. I don't mind the leg room because it's never more than a 90 minute flight and once I pay all the extras, I am still around $100 or less for a flight. This is a significantly better value proposition than AC. AC gives me the cramped experience for 3-4X the FD fare and all the negatives associated with AC.

haolaowai_org

Not necessarily. If this risk of injury was high enough and people valued not injuring themselves highly enough, that risky seat would be EMPTY.

Jumper Jack

Some Keytake aways from the pro-AC side.
1. Poor people have no rights, therefore deserves to be treated like cattle
2. Government should not do its job and set basic standards to avoid potential safety issue with smaller seats and less legrooms. Because this way we should open doors to all illict drugs(Oh wait, I just entered Conservative paradox )
3. AC should be able to do whatever it wants, as long as people is willing to pay for it.
(Coming soon, on the wing seats for $100- Hey I mean if he only paid $100, he deserves to be treated like animal)
4. Every airline uses 3-4-3 and horrid seats with trash legrooms, I mean as long as you ignore JAL, Cathay, Delta, Jet Blue, EVA, Singapore......................
5. PY is only slightly more on Y pricing
6. Everyone seated in Y would wanted to pay less for less. (Unlike United , AA's economy + )
7. Bulkhead seat is actually comfortable.

IMO, There should be warning labels on AC's Y POS
"Do you have ____________ health issue, if so, the new horrid trash seats on our 777 may cause________,________________,______________"

I am going to make a prediction here: Superior Y product is going to win long term.

canadiancow

Except people aren't all the same height/width, which means they don't need the "same bread".

So it's actually quite a poor analogy.