MaxBuck

The answer to the concern voiced is simple: purchase only business or first-class tickets. Or even comfort-economy.

I'm in no way a one-percenter, and that's the approach I've taken.

Rebelyell

The problem with this is that the airlines don't sell these seats at a price that is proportional to the increase in seat size. Going from nine to 10 seats across on a 777 increases maximum revenue by 11 percent. Reducing pitch by three inches increases revenue by roughly another 10 percent. BUT, adding this additional revenue is not without substantial cost. It's not free for the airlines to fly all of these additional customers. I don't know what the marginal cost is of adding additional passengers, but they must be served meals, their bags must be carried on international flights, they must be compensated for bumps, etc. I would guess that the net increase in revenue from all this seat packing is less than 10 percent, but it's something that could be easily determined. In any even, whatever that figure is, that is the amount the airlines should be required to offer larger seats for, that and no more. If they want to have a higher class of service great, but they should also be required to offer bigger seats where people can pay for just the space and nothing more.

I think it is pretty obvious that the airlines are making their coach product as miserable as possible in order to force people to pay a very inflated price to upgrade to what used to be the standard coach product. Government regulation for the benefit of the citizenry is what government is for, and this regulation is well overdue.

trooper

So lets be clear. You want Government Regulations to force commercial entities to charge what the product costs, and no more? Not even "cost plus x%"?
Just cost?

Thats...bold.

Rebelyell

Yes, that is exactly what I want. The airlines as an industry were formerly highly regulated. I'm not seeking a return to those days of regulation, just a requirement that they be required to offer larger seats at cost. Essentially I want to government to prohibit them from shrinking the seats in an effort to force passengers to pony up massive amounts of money for a seat that ought to cost 10 percent more.

There is nothing wrong with the government setting a minimum standard to which all businesses must hew. We do it with minimum wages, working conditions, etc. An 18-inch wide seat and 32 inches of pitch seems a reasonable base to me. Fares will rise slightly, just as the minimum wage causes hamburger prices to go up. As a society we are better off with some regulations.

pinniped

I'm with Daniel on this one. Free inflight booze is a Constitutional right, and I demand to be on the committee determining which labels the airlines must provide to their passengers.

We'll start with a well-aged Islay. Need to have a nice Bordeaux for the wine drinkers. Beer list is gonna be pretty much an all-Oregon all-star lineup. I'll take Bourbon, vodka, and gin recommendations from the crowd...not my specialty.

Badenoch

I stand to be corrected but even during the era of airline regulation governments did not specify a minimum seat size.

Fares will rise more than slightly not only because of reduced capacity but will have to cover the cost of the retrofit, time out of service, new seats, etc. Meanwhile, those large international carriers to whom the regulations do not apply will overnight be far more appealing to people who can tolerate smaller seats and want cheaper fares. Air Canada would be an immediate beneficiary.

Government would also need a better reason than passenger comfort and accommodating broad American behinds. If it were strictly about comfort an argument could then be made regulations should also be introduced for trains, theaters, sporting venues and other places where the public sits.

catcher1

The most enjoyable aspect of this thread, for me, is extrapolating the posts as reflecting the posters' political viewpoints generally, beyond the thread topic.

Jeannietx

We have reached the point in life that being in the front cabin is a must, and yes that is a privilege. All the OP's railing about free food and drink is funny to me because I seldom want the food and really don't want the drink.

To each his own, but I'll buy my water before I board and I'm happy.

trooper

I think it would be equally fair to say it reflects the posters philosophical viewpoints. That may..(often?)..be the same thing of course.... I always want to see those demanding full or partial regulation of airlines ALSO demanding similar regulation of whatever field THEY make money from..... I suspect I will forever be disappointed in that....

GUWonder

Kagehitokiri

everything except format of emirates private jet (10 F suites) should be illegal !
(although if it kills the country's / world's economy, impacts even non travelers)

some regulations are affordable only by mega corporations, and not startups

personally i find political labels worthless, should be issue by issue / contextual
many libertarians on FT, most only talk 'politically' in Travel Safety/Security

catcher1

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who divide everybody into two kinds of people, and those who don't.

Kagehitokiri

"American humorist, critic and actor" Robert Benchley, in 1920 >
1923 >
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Benchley

amusing, many in US on "right" like self identifying (while disliking "republican") , while many on "left" avoid labels except "democrat" , and many on all sides like labeling those they disagree with

many supposedly inclusive are often worst about exclusion

GUWonder mentions social libertarian, that is what many mean by social liberal but they are mis using it, in terms of how various things have developed over time especially in western politics

labels are likely 'less informative' in US because it is a two (instead of multiple) party government

Rebelyell

One of the best ways to regulate is through taxation. A tax of say between $5 and $20 per ticketed seat per flight could be placed on seats narrower than 18 inches or with less than 32 inches of pitch. If reconfiguring the aircraft isn't economically feasible, then a tax can be paid. The tax would be levied on all carriers, so foreign carriers wouldn't get an advantage. This would also allow the airlines to make the changes at their leisure, so planes wouldn't have to be rushed into a retrofit. But until the seats meet minimum standards, each substandard seat would be subject to a tax. This would be a great way to stop the race to the bottom, by removing the profit motive for shrinking seats beyond a certain minimum.

pinniped

One man's "race to the bottom" is another man's "race to extremely affordable mass transit."

I'm about to leave work at go pick up my daughter at the airport. She's arriving from Detroit on a $34 ticket I bought for her a few weeks ago. It has never in my life, prior to Spirit Airlines, been possible to fly DTW-MCI one-way for $34. In fact, thanks to NW/DL anticompetitive fortress hub tactics, it was usually $300+ for a one-way ticket. The Spirit seat is tiny, but she's 5' tall. There is no free food. She can't check a bag. Her backpack goes under her seat. The FFP is so worthless we don't even bother with it. But we don't care: we're happy the $34 ticket exists. Me personally? I would prefer to *not* fly Spirit myself, but lots of people have no problem with it, so why shouldn't it exist?

Why stop the "race to the bottom" on things like inflight comfort and amenities when that's clearly what an overwhelming majority of the public wants? You know what else is uncomfortable: a seat on the NYC subway. Yet we've long ago decided that we prefer uncomfortable seats and a lot of people standing during the ride to posh seating and much higher fares.

F/J airline seats still exist, for people who want that. In fact, they're generally getting cheaper in real terms, and the product is getting better on many carriers.

I fail to see the issue here.