I prefer a contest, which is the opposite of a protest.

-----------------

All kidding aside, magexpect, there have been several protest movements, including www.saveskymiles.com for Delta frequent flyers, and the “cockroaches” for USAirways.

While their goals have not solely protested the comfort of coach cabin seats, that item has been amongst the agenda.

Usually, frequent flyers are not as concerned about comfort in the coach cabin if they are able to secure upgrades more often than not. For some frequent flyers in this scenario, the relatively few times they have to fly in discomfort in the coach cabin is too minimal to worry about protesting.

Also, one trick implemented by many frequent flyers with flexible schedules is to find out which aircraft equipment is used as what hours of the day. This ensures a greater possibility of either an upgrade to the front cabin or more comfortable coach seats.

As mentioned earlier, other frequent flyers avoid certain airlines altogether.

I suppose more seats on an airplane means more revenue for the airlines, who need as much revenue as possible to survive these days, as mismanaged as the airlines may be. I further suppose that it is in our best interests for the airlines to survive.

Many frequent flyers do not have the time to protest even if they wanted to, I surmise.

I certainly do not have all of the answers, but perhaps these are some of the reasons that there is a mistakenly-perceived complacency amongst the responses in this thread, magexpect.

This is a very vague memory, but didn't a British judge intervene sometime ago on space when dealing with a deep leg thrombosis case?

Another oddity is that on international flights especially BUS and 1st the seats are wider, foot rest and a greater recline.

However you generally pay less for international per mile than you pay national.

Go fiqure, I really dislike flying nationally on the cramped seats and lack of foot rest.

How much room is enough? I have flown hundreds of thousands of miles in international first sleeper seats. It is still not a pleasant experience. I have only had a couple of meals in flight (SQ) that would compete with even the worst restaurants I would patronize on the ground.

Flying commercial flights is not comfortable. If you REALLY want to spend on charters and private jet shares, it is certainly a bit better. Even then, it is still a way to get from point A to B, and not a luxury cruise.

And if you are larger than average, yes it is even more uncomfortable. You get it back, however, on large clothing for the same price as the smaller sizes.

[This message has been edited by divaof travel (edited Dec 27, 2003).]

So lets see the reasoning here:

A percentage of Americans keep getting fatter so the airlines should offer larger seats - and we all pay for it. I don't think so - if anything maybe the airlines should weigh you in and charge for every 10 pound over the normal weight. After all a 400 pound passenger uses more fuel than a 150 pound passenger.

I feel for those who are 6-5 and above as they are the ones who can't stretch their feet - I think the airlines do a pretty decent job of getting these passengers into bulkhead seats. As for those that are overweight - buy two seats or better yet get in shape.

I personally don't think it's unreasonable to hope for wider seats and more legroom throughout the entire plane. I-- and I'm sure that many others on FT-- would be perfectly happy if every seat on the plane was a first class seat. Then there would be no more worrying about securing upgrades, flying in cattle-car-coach, etc., etc. Every person would have as much as s/he wanted.

Now back to reality...

As much as I agree with your sentiments, I don't think that complaining or campaigning on our part is going to do very much to change things. I would join you in a heartbeat if I thought that it would, though, because I agree with you very much-- airlines just don't give the average person enough room these days.

Unfortunately the airline market seems to be all about price, price, and price. People seem to be willing to save $10 on a ticket and risk having a seat back jammed into their knees rather than telling the airline that they would be willing to pay slightly more for more room.

When I fly on business trips, I'd gladly spend the money to get into business or first class-- if my firm would reimburse me for the whole cost of the ticket (I don't really care about how much travel costs, so long as I'm reimbursed for all costs). When I fly on leisure trips, I'd still be willing to pay more for more room-- as long as the charge was reasonable (it isn't today).

MacDaddie-

it ain't that easy. My husband is normal weight but he's 6'2". Even on CO, where I had Silver status, I haven't been able to get us into the bulkhead row. The final indignity was a flight to Europe last year, where we were just behind the bulkhead row, which was occupied by a couple of kids (ages 8 and 10, maybe) with their parents across the aisle. They RECLINED. I don't want to get into the debate we have on the other thread about reclining but, darn it, they had enough leg room to begin with and then took up some of ours.

I think CO would rather give the bulkhead seats to short, lightweight people with higher status than people who need it because of their size. I've found DL, on the other hand, to be totally random. I once got an Exit row seat on a flight where people were waitlisted to get on because the previous flight had been cancelled- and I hadn't flown DL for over 2 years. We took a DL flight from ATL to MCI 2 days ago and 2 exit rows were empty. (We took one of them over.)

But, to be realistic, there just aren't enough Exit row and bulkhead seats to accomodate everyone who could use the extra space- and not everyone qualifies for the Exit row, anyway.

It's just economics, I'm afraid. The more passengers on the plane, the greater the revenue.

The airlines are well aware that their economy cabins are uncomfortable. United responded by creating more legroom for its elite and full-fare economy passengers in Economy Plus. But the fare difference from the cheapest economy ticket to full-fare can be thousands of dollars.

BMI British Midland, British Airways, EVA Air, SAS, Virgin Atlantic, and some others have created a separate cabin, comparable to Economy Plus. As with Economy Plus, the fare diffential can be staggering.

TWA attempted to create "Comfort Class" with more room in economy; it was a short-lived experiment. American's "More Room Throughout Coach" campaign sadly now applies only to certain aircraft.

During this cash-strapped era, I think that passenger comfort will continue to decline. There are fewer cabin crew, there is a charge for food and for drinks, I doubt that we'll see any reversal of this trend. It's depressing.

It may put me at odds with some on here, but I think some things should not be left up to the market.

Why have seats at all? They could do away with them entirely and sell standing room and get a lot more people in. If they priced the tickets low enough, they'd probably sell out. But that meddlesome government (or, in some places, the "gummint") probably would fuss about safety or health risks or some other thing.

It'd be unfortunate if the government had to set minimum standards for seat width and pitch, but if the airlines keep pushing the envelope, then I think it's an appropriate response. The 737-800 is a good case in point, as it violated a long-held seat-width standard - and on a plane that can fly long trans-cons. Anybody actually making seats narrower these days is just asking for trouble.

It becomes more than just a marketplace issue when health and safety are concerned. In a perfect world airlines would compete on something other than trying to cram the plane too tightly and would draw the line in the sand somewhere; in the real world sometimes only the fear of a lawsuit or a government mandate is an effective deterrent. Some things are fair game for competition (am changing airlines this year over FF program changes, for example), but I think others should not be.

From a health and safety standpoint, the FAA requires that passengers be able to evacuate the plane in 90 seconds with half of the exits blocked. As long as the passengers can get out in a simulated evacuation, the actual number of seats is of no regulatory consequence.

Although the risk of deep vein thromboses has met with media frenzy, the scientific evidence is not too convincing; business class passengers seem to have the same risk of a thrombotic event.

Many people ask me about infectious disease transmission on airplanes (I'm an epidemiologist and work in TB.) Yes, it is possible to catch TB on an airplane, but it is not a common source of TB transmission.

The health risks are less exciting from a media standpoint: the stress of travelling in economy class presents a far greater health risk than deep vein thromboses or microbial diseases. There is no question that sleep deprivation, standing in lines, undignified security, carrying heavy bags, and going hungry can take years off of one's life.

I second the post above that the issue of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been overblown by the media. The classic case of DVT we learn in med school is someone who has taken a long car trip, where presumably one has more leg room than in an airplane. The key in developing a DVT is sitting for long periods of time, not so much the amount of leg room. My advice is to avoid a DVT, make sure you get up and walk down the aisle at least once or twice during a flight.

There is certainly a lot of competition in the airline business. Probably too much, the market is causing a retrenchment with a lot of "full service" airlines destined for oblivion, I think.

The public has spoken and what it wants is CHEAP SEATS. The airlines are convinced that the public wants the lowest possible price. So quality cannot be higher because customers aren't willing to pay.

If customers would pay more, the airlines would provide a better product. They do so on long haul routes where the customers are willing to pay more, after all.

My experience with Ryanair is that they were about equally comfortable to an Alaska Air seat. My 6' son, with an aisle seat, thought Ryanair was fine in terms of comfort. I think the pitch is cramped, but the flights are all pretty short anyway.

Most passengers are not terribly fat or terribly tall. Most passengers are probably under 5'10, because after all there are an awful lot of passengers who are women, children, and men under 5'10. I think the airline comfortably meets the needs of at least 80% of its passengers with its current seats. I would guess another 19% can manage to squeeze in. Maybe 1% really, literally can't squeeze into their seats. (I've never seen this happen personally.) Using the Pareto principle, airlines are doing fine.

If we are going to charge by weight, there's no reason a 2-year-old's fare should be the same as that of a 400-pound, 6'6 samurai, but currently the two passengers pay exactly the same amount. This makes economic sense, though, because passengers would be driven away in droves if required to weigh in before boarding, not to mention the process would be very difficult and expensive to administer.

Seems to me HAMMOCKS would be peachy keen. They would save tons of weight, people would have more room, and would be able to evacuate just as well.