Flying Coach Sucks
 

The notion that having to fly in Coach sucks is not new, on FT or elsewhere, but I thought people might appreciate reading an article from Ed Perkins, editor of the now-defunct Consumer Reports Travel Letter:

http://rd.SmarterTravel.com/?r=i1617...6&u=3F56ACFB92

Particularly upsetting that Boeing wanted to configure its 787 Dreamliner with 8 seats across, and the airlines insist on 9. NOW would be the time for AA to experiment with bringing back MRTC on selected flights (they've experimented with selling food, why not with this?). People really deserve better than this, even if they're apparently not willing to pay for it. An Airline Traveler's Bill of Rights would certainly help by defining minimum pitch and seat width, IMHO.

I see a bill of rights getting passed rather soon. I do not think seat pitch will be in it, but it would be nice. I can see things like cancelled flights, overbooked flights, a time limit for being on the runway, and luggage happening rather soon. I know the complaints are adding up for all the airlines and it almost happened, before Sept 11.

I've sat in coach and, while I don't like it, I can't really argue that the seat pitch is below a minimum that a "Bill of Rights" would need to improve. I'm 5'11", and the pitch is far from inhumane. Comfortable? Not really...that's why I upgrade. But my not liking it doesn't mean that a wider pitch should be legislated in some "Bill of Rights".

But, yeah, coach sucks.

Cheers.

There is another solution: more people should start thinking about losing weight. I'm 5'9", but at 150 lbs, coach class isn't that bad. I'm actually thinking of trying to shed at least another 20 lbs by the end of next year...

THey'll be able to slide you into the coat closet at that point :)

Seriously, though, girth is not terribly relevant to leg room. I'm notwhere near 150, but I can comfortable fit into the width of the seat with room to spare. While the legroom is not ridiculous, it is a bit tight, and would be even if I were at 110.

Cheers.

instead of making the "good" (exit row, bulkhead, etc) seats cost more, they should make the "sh*t" (no recline, lav, etc) seats cost less, then people will know in advance and have less reason to complain.

Unfortunately, the argument being made here, it seems, is that all seats except the exit are sh!t seats because of reduced legroom. It would be hard to discount all of them. (I actually consider bulkhead seats to be bad because I don't have the underseat in front to stretch legs...with the exception of the planes with infinite bulkhead space, of course.

Cheers.

While the government is telling airlines what seats they can put in their planes, why don't they just tell the airlines which domestic routes they can fly?

If the airlines could charge more and all passengers didn't try to get change for a penny, we'd have more room and better service. Or pay to fly in J and at least enjoy that, which is my strategy.

I don't see the comparison between selling food and giving away more space.

It's been tried. It didn't work. What has changed that would cause them to do it again? They are making money with fuller planes, why remove seats?

I like the idea of re-regulating the airline industry.

My Braniff cards have started to fray.

Do you really believe that? The way they run the (US) airlines nowadays they could charge double and still go broke.

Even though Emirates crams 10-across their 777's, they have 34" pitch on most of their 777's...I would take 10-across with 34' pitch ANY day over 9-across with 31'-32' seat pitch...in fact, I've taken cattle class on EK a few times.....much better than most other econ class...except for the "31's" on AA.... :D

that being said, I've never tried UA's E+...

cheers.

In what sense did AA's More Room Throughout Coach "not work"?

Did pax abandon the airline? Did AA lose money by charging the same price for a cabin of 6-12 fewer seats? Or did they charge A LOT more than the other airlines? Were the top executives not able to afford massive bonuses? Were AA's other features so below par that even more leg room couldn't make up for them?

I honestly don't know, because I haven't flown AA since the early 1980s.

It's not that I had anything against the airline. Personally, I would have flown AA just for its increased leg room...but they never offered the most direct routes to the places I wanted and needed to go.

That one. People were not willing to pay a bit extra for the legroom, still seeking out the bottom prices. As has been demonstrated, often a flight makes or loses money based on the last few seats sold. Since these seats were not available due to the increased legroom that was not generating more revenue, they lost money.

Cheers.