FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   TravelBuzz (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz-176/)
-   -   US Government Regulation of Seat Pitch? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/1937376-us-government-regulation-seat-pitch.html)

floridastorm Oct 30, 2018 9:16 am


Originally Posted by AggieNzona (Post 30355665)
Generally speaking I am a "let the market decide" kind of guy. I think the FAA is only going to study this from a safety standpoint and not a comfort one.
The likely standard will be in the 28-29" pitch IMHO and thus will have no impact.

The FAA is studying it from a medical standpoint. Cramped seating, especially on flights that are over 5 hours, have been proved to cause or exacerbate the condition DVT (deep vein thrombosis) which is a life threatening condition. I believe recent studies have concluded that nearly 50% of people who fly, and most predominantly in economy class, end up with DVT type conditions which eventually causes blood clots in their arteries that find their way to the heart, brain, or lungs. This is one of the major causes of premature death in the United States. There are a multitude of safety regulations promulgated by OSHA for all companies in this country to protect employees. Without these safety regulations I'm wondering how many companies would do it on their own? The airlines fall under OSHA and I think that OSHA should be regulating seating requirements aboard airlines to protect against medical conditions like DVT.

Often1 Oct 30, 2018 10:09 am

OSHA, of course, regulates US air carriers. But, its sole authority is for employee working conditions. It has zero authority to regulate passenger safety or comfort.

Bottom line is that this issue is dead, dead, dead. When something is sent off for study by a government agency, that is a nice way of saying that it is dead.

PepeBorja Oct 30, 2018 10:27 am

The reality is airlines are becoming “utility” like and should be subject to some minimum regulation to prevent the kind of behaviors that create the problems we see today.
A simple formula that an airline seat can not be sold for less than $X cents per mile flown can level off the playing field and remove the driving forces causing sardine like conditions.

Take PHL to MCO route. I have been flying that route for 4 years and have seen prices from $100 to $800 RT on AA with discounters often selling them for $49 each way.
The route is 861 miles giving AA between 5.8 cents/mile and 46.4 cents/mile with discounters selling for roughly 5.6 cents/mile

If the rule for a route of this range were set to be 10 cents a mile that means the MINIMUM price for a OW ticket is $86.10 and a RT is $172.20.
Airlines can still set any price they like as long as it does not violate the minimum price. The minimum rule is there to prevent pricing wars that drive prices and product quality down.

Having an equal baseline would force everyone to compete on the entire product and not just price for a seat.

m44 Oct 30, 2018 10:46 am


Originally Posted by AggieNzona (Post 30355665)
Generally speaking I am a "let the market decide" kind of guy. I think the FAA is only going to study this from a safety standpoint and not a comfort one.
The likely standard will be in the 28-29" pitch IMHO and thus will have no impact.

The 28-29" is OK if one is classified as little people or a circus midget. For normal people, it is 32-33" just for safety and preservation of health.
For comfort, the seat pitch needs to be 33-36" like it was before deregulation.
Those who claim that the free market works or should work - should be asked to provide a proof. There is no free market, never was and never will - the free market is a theory that was never proven, and to the contrary today the USA market clearly proves that the free market is a pipe dream and that the market was damaged by the deregulation and permissiveness for consolidation.
Research the issue of the seat pitch (e.g. https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...idth/16105491/) and stop the nonsensical pronouncements - please!

cbn42 Oct 30, 2018 12:05 pm


Originally Posted by jwrogers (Post 30372256)
There are several comments on here about consumers being able to choose ULCC and how consumers are the ones to blame for buying those tickets... but sometimes corporate travel policies specify "cheapest possible airfare", which sticks the traveler with no option. I'm not inclined to blame that traveler.

"Consumer" refers to whoever is paying for the ticket. If someone is flying on someone else's dime, then this needs to be worked out between them. If enough people refuse to fly ULCC, then companies will have to pay higher fares or risk losing qualified employees.


Originally Posted by Often1 (Post 30373173)
Bottom line is that this issue is dead, dead, dead. When something is sent off for study by a government agency, that is a nice way of saying that it is dead.

Quite the contrary, when Congress mandates a government agency to study something and issue regulations, that usually means there is going to be some action soon. This is the only way that such regulations are created.


Originally Posted by PepeBorja (Post 30373243)
The reality is airlines are becoming “utility” like and should be subject to some minimum regulation to prevent the kind of behaviors that create the problems we see today.
A simple formula that an airline seat can not be sold for less than $X cents per mile flown can level off the playing field and remove the driving forces causing sardine like conditions.

Take PHL to MCO route. I have been flying that route for 4 years and have seen prices from $100 to $800 RT on AA with discounters often selling them for $49 each way.
The route is 861 miles giving AA between 5.8 cents/mile and 46.4 cents/mile with discounters selling for roughly 5.6 cents/mile

If the rule for a route of this range were set to be 10 cents a mile that means the MINIMUM price for a OW ticket is $86.10 and a RT is $172.20.
Airlines can still set any price they like as long as it does not violate the minimum price. The minimum rule is there to prevent pricing wars that drive prices and product quality down.

Having an equal baseline would force everyone to compete on the entire product and not just price for a seat.

That was already tried during the regulation era. I don't think there is any political appetite for going that far.

danielSuper Oct 30, 2018 12:52 pm


Originally Posted by fotographer (Post 30355739)
Agree with aggie, let the airlines decide what they want to provide their customers

If it would be up to free market, they would refuse transport based on race, nation of origin and many other things. A public service must be regulated since it serves marginalized and underpriviledged. They use public money during banktrupcies, from airport and ATC funding; they are not some exclusive elective service. With many remote locations and constant lobby against public transport and fast rail they are often a functional monopoly. Regulate to the ground!

danielSuper Oct 30, 2018 12:56 pm


Originally Posted by HLCinCOU (Post 30355941)
They already make airlines run evacuation tests on their proposed layouts.

They use airline employees for that test, once per decade for a type or so. I don't believe 28 inch pitch test was done at all, correct me if I'm wrong.
Those employees are fit, thin, educated and not under stress. It's a total circus.

HLCinCOU Oct 30, 2018 1:26 pm


Originally Posted by danielSuper (Post 30373849)
They use airline employees for that test, once per decade for a type or so. I don't believe 28 inch pitch test was done at all, correct me if I'm wrong.
Those employees are fit, thin, educated and not under stress. It's a total circus.

LarryJ's post above linked some details about the testing procedures. Your description doesn't sound like what's described there. Do you have a source?

HLCinCOU Oct 30, 2018 1:29 pm


Originally Posted by PepeBorja (Post 30373243)
The reality is airlines are becoming “utility” like and should be subject to some minimum regulation to prevent the kind of behaviors that create the problems we see today.
A simple formula that an airline seat can not be sold for less than $X cents per mile flown can level off the playing field and remove the driving forces causing sardine like conditions.

Take PHL to MCO route. I have been flying that route for 4 years and have seen prices from $100 to $800 RT on AA with discounters often selling them for $49 each way.
The route is 861 miles giving AA between 5.8 cents/mile and 46.4 cents/mile with discounters selling for roughly 5.6 cents/mile

If the rule for a route of this range were set to be 10 cents a mile that means the MINIMUM price for a OW ticket is $86.10 and a RT is $172.20.
Airlines can still set any price they like as long as it does not violate the minimum price. The minimum rule is there to prevent pricing wars that drive prices and product quality down.

Having an equal baseline would force everyone to compete on the entire product and not just price for a seat.

I'm not sure how setting a floor on fares will cause airlines to increase pitch. It will, however, definitely cause a loss of utility to travelers. Probably greater than any loss from a direct regulation of pitch.

HLCinCOU Oct 30, 2018 1:32 pm


Originally Posted by Often1 (Post 30373173)
Bottom line is that this issue is dead, dead, dead. When something is sent off for study by a government agency, that is a nice way of saying that it is dead.

But this wasn't sent off for study. It was mandated for rulemaking. Those are just about opposites.

danielSuper Oct 30, 2018 1:52 pm


Originally Posted by HLCinCOU (Post 30373959)
LarryJ's post above linked some details about the testing procedures. Your description doesn't sound like what's described there. Do you have a source?

I know how it's done, aka it's not done at all nowadays. It's simulated on computer.
(Sources: http://assets.documentcloud.org/docu...DC-Circuit.pdf)

As an example, one evacuation test of A380 was done 12 years ago. There is a video of it
It's the most unrealistic stuff ever, those guys could compete in triathlon. And that Airbus was like 35 inch pitch economy. I want to see same test with 737 MAX with 29 inch pitch with a load of grandmas and kids to Florida and obese members reflecting population data.

HLCinCOU Oct 30, 2018 3:11 pm


Originally Posted by danielSuper (Post 30374071)
I know how it's done, aka it's not done at all nowadays. It's simulated on computer.
(Sources: http://assets.documentcloud.org/docu...DC-Circuit.pdf)

Well that's thoroughly interesting! For those less interested in me in reading the DC Circuit's opinion, I feel like this is the money quote:


Flyers Rights challenges two aspects of the Administration’s denial of its petition for rulemaking: (1) its conclusion that current seat pitch and width, as well as passenger size, do not negatively impact emergency egress, and (2) its denial of authority to consider matters related to passenger health and comfort. We agree with Flyers Rights that the Administration failed to provide a plausible evidentiary basis for concluding that decreased seat sizes combined with increased passenger sizes have no effect on emergency egress. But we disagree with Flyers Rights’ challenge to the Administration’s declination to regulate matters of physical comfort and routine health.
Anyway they do talk about the invalidity of the tests, but not maybe in as descriptive a way as we'd like. But then there's the video...


Originally Posted by danielSuper (Post 30374071)
As an example, one evacuation test of A380 was done 12 years ago. There is a video of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIaovi1JWyY
It's the most unrealistic stuff ever, those guys could compete in triathlon. And that Airbus was like 35 inch pitch economy. I want to see same test with 737 MAX with 29 inch pitch with a load of grandmas and kids to Florida and obese members reflecting population data.

Wow, that's something to see. Certainly you're right that it's not at all representative of the actual population. Zero obese people for sure. I didn't even see that children and seniors were represented, as the FAA sheet Larry put up seemed to indicate was required. And they had a broken leg in that test even under pretty ideal conditions. Thanks for the post!

trooper Oct 30, 2018 4:02 pm


Originally Posted by m44 (Post 30373303)
The 28-29" is OK if one is classified as little people or a circus midget. For normal people, it is 32-33" just for safety and preservation of health.
For comfort, the seat pitch needs to be 33-36" like it was before deregulation.
Those who claim that the free market works or should work - should be asked to provide a proof. There is no free market, never was and never will - the free market is a theory that was never proven, and to the contrary today the USA market clearly proves that the free market is a pipe dream and that the market was damaged by the deregulation and permissiveness for consolidation.
Research the issue of the seat pitch (e.g. https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...idth/16105491/) and stop the nonsensical pronouncements - please!

And would you be happy to pay the equivalent "pre-deregulation" fares?* Maybe you would, but it seems many people want less seats on each aircraft (OK ..they don't phrase it that way but you can't give each pax more room without reducing seat numbers) BUT expect no increase in fares. I put my money where my mouth is for long haul (and from Australia it is LOONG haul!) and buy Premium Economy. (BTW..when you can - so often - fly SYD-LAX return for under $1000 (and that's AUD!) you can't really expect roomy seating!

* Quoting The Atlantic - from an article of Feb 2013
"In 1974 it was illegal for an airline to charge less than $1442 in inflation adjusted dollars for a flight between New York City and Los Angeles." Want to go back to THAT?

RAAng Oct 31, 2018 6:19 am


Originally Posted by CPRich (Post 30361060)
Do you believe the reason the government should be involved in setting seat pitch is to assure passenger comfort? That seems to be what you're saying.

Why does the government have a role in the specifications of a product being sold beyond safety? Seems like getting the FDA involved in assuring only food that tastes good is approved for sale.

What would airlines think they can "get away with"? There's no regulation today - what's been stopping them over the last decade?

Seeing as how the government looks the other way at what appears, at least from the outside, to be a fair amount of airline collusion on a variety of issues, regulation is the price the airlines should pay. There is very little differentiation in the product, and anyway I can't really shop for airlines when my home airport is a hub. Delta may have a better product (I doubt it in any meaningful way), but I would never know because the Delta flights from PHL are pretty scarce, particularly internationally. So the market system doesn't really operate in the airline industry unless (I'm assuming) JFK is your home airport. Given that, regulation is in order, including for a base level of comfort for my hard-earned money.

floridastorm Oct 31, 2018 8:24 am

Airlines, just like any business that has a captive audience, will do whatever they legally can to make "maximum" profit since stockholders and bean counters are running everything these days. If the airlines could have people stand for the entire flight or take out bathrooms and galleys to make more room then they would. Some airlines actually proposed installing seats that would have the passengers literally standing up. They also proposed charging for bathroom use as if charging for checked bags, carry on bags, anything to drink and eat, to include paying for a specific seat (not a premium seat) was not enough. We have become a super egalitarian society where it's a race to the bottom. Everything is geared towards the lowest denominator and probably the reason we have 90 year old ladies pumping their own gasoline and a great many students who can't spell "It" or make change for a dollar.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:05 pm.


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.