Dealing with the situation of an obese passenger on QF
#31
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 547
As long as the consumer keeps insisting on cheap fares, issues related to that will exist. Fares today are 50% cheaper than they were 30 years ago, in real money (that is, corrected for inflation). Less space per passenger is just one fallout from that. The people get what the people deserve is very true in terms of air travel today.
This article sees lower fares as a good thing, I disagree. https://www.theatlantic.com/business...oticed/273506/
Only recently, questions have finally started to be raised about the effects of reduced space per passenger and the possible ramifications.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...more-miserable
What surprises me is that we constantly see references to airlines trying to reduce costs and increase profits as the reason for this. I've yet to see anyone writing about 'connecting the dots' on how the consumer's pushing for lower airfares is the ultimate reason for this.
Can anyone remember economy class when it had the kind of space shown in the following 1970s photo? Can anyone remember when the density of passengers was also often as shown in the photo?
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/vint...20interior.jpg
Also note the size of the overhead bins and the resulting feeling of openness in the cabin. I can remember when overhead bins were for hats, coats and briefcases, that's all. There were no cases of 'air rage' caused by people fighting over overhead bins, reclining seats and yes, obese passengers. They just go their own set of seats with no one beside them.
This article sees lower fares as a good thing, I disagree. https://www.theatlantic.com/business...oticed/273506/
Only recently, questions have finally started to be raised about the effects of reduced space per passenger and the possible ramifications.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...more-miserable
What surprises me is that we constantly see references to airlines trying to reduce costs and increase profits as the reason for this. I've yet to see anyone writing about 'connecting the dots' on how the consumer's pushing for lower airfares is the ultimate reason for this.
Can anyone remember economy class when it had the kind of space shown in the following 1970s photo? Can anyone remember when the density of passengers was also often as shown in the photo?
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/vint...20interior.jpg
Also note the size of the overhead bins and the resulting feeling of openness in the cabin. I can remember when overhead bins were for hats, coats and briefcases, that's all. There were no cases of 'air rage' caused by people fighting over overhead bins, reclining seats and yes, obese passengers. They just go their own set of seats with no one beside them.
In the 1970/80s I flew many times long haul (Y only), but today it is not more crammed. Admittedly, the latest years I flew mostly EK and their Y is like W (premium Y) of some others, but SQ and KL are also good in legroom, and I am rather tall (almost 2m height).
But I don't know the situation on short haul as it is long ago I took a short haul.
Competition is tight, so airlines tend to cram seats, but other things are that the seats of the 1970 were thicker than in modern aircraft.
On the other hand, wired IFE with on-seat screens is becoming more and more obsolete, most people now have smartphones, tablets and / or laptops to display IFE, so why can airlines just get rid of screens on the Y seats ? That few people without device needing IFE can rent a tablet for a small fee.
That saves a lot of weight: assume 300 Y seats in an average long haul plane such as a 777 / A350 / A380, slightly less on a 787 or A330, every screen is 1 kg extra plus all cabling from the servers, which can be replaced by a few (extra) wifi hotspots to stream the IFE from the onboard servers to the passenger's devices. Even adding 100 rental tablets of 0.5kg each will save 300kg - 50kg = 250kg plus the cables.
#32
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,424
EK economy is nothing like Premium Economy
EK was one of the early adopters of 10 abreast seating in economy rather than 9 across on a 777
Flights have got more cramped. The aeroplanes have not increased in size, but the number of seats across has increased on numerous types - e.g. 10 on 777 , 9 instead of 8 across on 787s .... when was last time that a 747 passenger service operated with 9 across layout in economy
EK was one of the early adopters of 10 abreast seating in economy rather than 9 across on a 777
Flights have got more cramped. The aeroplanes have not increased in size, but the number of seats across has increased on numerous types - e.g. 10 on 777 , 9 instead of 8 across on 787s .... when was last time that a 747 passenger service operated with 9 across layout in economy
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,399
EK economy is nothing like Premium Economy
EK was one of the early adopters of 10 abreast seating in economy rather than 9 across on a 777
Flights have got more cramped. The aeroplanes have not increased in size, but the number of seats across has increased on numerous types - e.g. 10 on 777 , 9 instead of 8 across on 787s .... when was last time that a 747 passenger service operated with 9 across layout in economy
EK was one of the early adopters of 10 abreast seating in economy rather than 9 across on a 777
Flights have got more cramped. The aeroplanes have not increased in size, but the number of seats across has increased on numerous types - e.g. 10 on 777 , 9 instead of 8 across on 787s .... when was last time that a 747 passenger service operated with 9 across layout in economy
Agree. EK's 777's with ultra narrow seats can't be compared to W class at an industry standard 19+ inch width (plus armrests) and 38 inch pitch.
Air India (currently in service), although only the first cabin behind F. But the seats are standard width, just wider aisles.
#34
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco/Sydney
Programs: UA 1K/MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Something, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 8,131
I'd love to know which airline does a 17" wide, 32" pitch in premium economy...
#35
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 698
Airlines generally have the perception (rightly or wrongly) that passengers in economy are extremely price driven and although there are some other factors how much a ticket costs will be at the top of the list for most.
Aircraft throughout history have taught us that. Many do not realise that the Queen of the Skies the 747 was launched initially with a 2x4x3 configuration in economy (nine abreast) which not long after became a standard of ten.
EK was a trail blazer for daring to go ten abreast on the 777 and for a little while was the only airline to do it. Most others eventually followed suit and now those with the 'regular' nine abreast seating are in the minority.
Even new aircraft - like the 787. Named the 'Drealminer' because of its much touted passenger comfort including a spacious eight abreast configuration in Economy. How long did that last? Only the first two customers (JAL and ANA) took deliveries in the original configuration while every other airline reckoned they could increase revenue by squeezing in an extra seat. What was marketed as the most comfortable of economy class cabins has now become (IMHO) the one to avoid most.
Aircraft throughout history have taught us that. Many do not realise that the Queen of the Skies the 747 was launched initially with a 2x4x3 configuration in economy (nine abreast) which not long after became a standard of ten.
EK was a trail blazer for daring to go ten abreast on the 777 and for a little while was the only airline to do it. Most others eventually followed suit and now those with the 'regular' nine abreast seating are in the minority.
Even new aircraft - like the 787. Named the 'Drealminer' because of its much touted passenger comfort including a spacious eight abreast configuration in Economy. How long did that last? Only the first two customers (JAL and ANA) took deliveries in the original configuration while every other airline reckoned they could increase revenue by squeezing in an extra seat. What was marketed as the most comfortable of economy class cabins has now become (IMHO) the one to avoid most.
#36
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 547
But another problem is also that people are getting wider (which is the reason for this topic) that makes seats beside overweight pax less comfortable.
Originally Posted by bananahead
any do not realise that the Queen of the Skies the 747 was launched initially with a 2x4x3 configuration in economy (nine abreast) which not long after became a standard of ten.
#37
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,424
Nice little article at https://sploid.gizmodo.com/traveling...amn-1504637666
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 13,518
TWA used to have a 3-4-2 layout I believe
Nice little article at https://sploid.gizmodo.com/traveling...amn-1504637666
Nice little article at https://sploid.gizmodo.com/traveling...amn-1504637666