Jump to content

Reclining Your Airline Seat - What Is Right, and What Is Wrong?


DonRocks

Recommended Posts

A few days ago, I tweeted this:

"Serious question: Why can't a healthy person turn around, and say to the passenger behind them, 'Hi, would you mind if I reclined my seat?'"

---

And I got two very different responses:

1) "If the person in front asked if I minded if they reclined their seat, I'd say that I did. Seats too damned close now."

2) "Because I purchased a reclinable seat. It's my option. Your problem is with the airline, not me."

---

My original tweet (which was hindered by the 140-character limitation) had nothing to do with reclining seats, and everything to do with common courtesy - it was not unlike asking, "What's so hard about holding a door open for the person behind you?" However, it clearly touched some very raw nerves. Both of the replies are reasonable, and yet, both display a degree of selfishness.

This is a systematic, industry-wide problem that must be stopped - and if it takes government intervention to stop it, then so be it. I don't know if it's the airlines "fault," but they're doing almost nothing to help the situation. Flying in this day and age is a miserable, unpleasant experience, and is turning normal people into monsters. I view this one, simple issue as being extremely important (and now I'm talking about the actual legroom, not merely "being polite") - the situation has created a war-like, every-man-for-himself mentality, and nobody has any concern for their fellow man or neighbor - it has become Me, Me, Me!

But who can blame them? The situation in the skies is untenable. It is cruel, and it is humiliating. Last week, I got the center seat in an three-seat aisle - to my right was an obese woman; to my left was a morbidly obese woman (probably 400 pounds). It was physically impossible for her to stay in her seat, and when she fell asleep, it got even worse - I was wadded up like a roly-poly for almost five hours, and in a great deal of pain when I limped off of the airplane. Yet, I felt more sorry for her than I did for me - she didn't want this any more than I did.

Back to my original tweet: I choose not to recline my seat, but if I were going to, I would *always* turn around and give the person some notice, and do it gently - I once had a laptop that was cracked from someone turbo-reclining their seat into me; all it would have taken to prevent that was some common sense and decency.

The situation has made people *hate* other people. People they don't even know. And I refuse to let it turn me into one of "them." That said, if someone speed-reclines into me with no warning, and knocks over a drink, or breaks a laptop, they're going to hear about it. Yes, it's the airlines' fault (the passengers certainly didn't ask for this unwanted situation), but it's also the individuals' fault for letting this situation turn them into selfish, terrible people who care only about themselves, and don't display even a modicum of courtesy for their neighbor's well-being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's the airlines' fault (the passengers certainly didn't ask for this unwanted situation), 

Not really.  It actually is the passengers' fault, in that they look at only one thing when booking an airline seat, and that is the cheapest fare. They also don't look beyond the first page of the display in whatever booking engine they are using, which displays based on cheapness. The result is that there is endless and inexorable competitive pressure on the airlines to reduce fares by whatever means they can, to stay competitive and capture business from the flying public that is only looking at fares.  Reducing seat pitch (distance between rows of seats) to the absolute minimum is one of the ways to do this and that's what they have done.  Spirit is the worst at 28".  I hope it wasn't Spirit you were flying, but their seats don't recline anyway -- it would be impossible with a 28" pitch.

There is a long history of airlines occasionally offering a better product (more room) at a higher price, only to give up when the market doesn't respond.  Currently, some of the legacy carriers are offering "premium economy" seating in part of the economy cabin on some routes, but it costs more and you have to take the trouble to know it's there and book it, which few users of booking engines do.

In short, you get what you are willing to pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.  It actually is the passengers' fault, in that they look at only one thing when booking an airline seat, and that is the cheapest fare. They also don't look beyond the first page of the display in whatever booking engine they are using, which displays based on cheapness. The result is that there is endless and inexorable competitive pressure on the airlines to reduce fares by whatever means they can, to stay competitive and capture business from the flying public that is only looking at fares.  Reducing seat pitch (distance between rows of seats) to the absolute minimum is one of the ways to do this and that's what they have done.  Spirit is the worst at 28".  I hope it wasn't Spirit you were flying, but their seats don't recline anyway -- it would be impossible with a 28" pitch.

There is a long history of airlines occasionally offering a better product (more room) at a higher price, only to give up when the market doesn't respond.  Currently, some of the legacy carriers are offering "premium economy" seating in part of the economy cabin on some routes, but it costs more and you have to take the trouble to know it's there and book it, which few users of booking engines do.

In short, you get what you are willing to pay for.

The airlines are doing an extremely poor job of advertising that there are options in-between flying coach - which amounts to being little more than cargo - and paying triple and quadruple the price for what I consider to be a merely "normal" seating arrangement. I refuse to pay $2,000 for a few hours of extra legroom instead of $500 for a few hours of discomfort.

Customers as a group probably are partially responsible for this, as they've traditionally shopped for airline tickets like they were buying gasoline - the cheapest price in sight gets the deal. But the airlines have responded miserably, and have left passengers with a "pay through the nose, or suffer" decision.

Case in point: Two days ago, I had a connection to make coming home. Two flights were leaving at nearly the same time, and there were plenty of seats available on both flights. I asked the agent if I could take a flight into Reagan National instead of Marshall BWI, and she said, "No, not without a change fee, and paying the difference in ticket cost." She made me walk down to the "customer service" phone bank and call central booking, and I was flat-out told that there were no exceptions, and that I'd have to pay both a change fee and a difference in cost, which amounted to about $700. It didn't used to be like this - they would accommodate you, and try to make the change; no longer. Customers are treated like fungible goods - like grains of rice - any single, individual grain no longer matters.

My hatred for the airlines is growing each year, and I try to avoid flying whenever possible at this point because they no longer care about the customers as individuals. I would also be interested in seeing a graph of how much it costs to fly in 2015 vis-a-vis 2005 vis-a-vis 1995.

It is disgusting what they pay flight attendants. They make $15-20 per hour, but *only for the hours spent in the air*. The time driving, waiting around, setting up and cleaning the airplane, scrubbing the toilets after landing ... no pay.

"Here's Why The Airline Industry Is In For A Rough Ride" by Laura Lorenzetti on fortune.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The airlines are doing an extremely poor job of advertising that there are options in-between flying coach - which amounts to being little more than cargo - and paying triple and quadruple the price for what I consider to be a merely "normal" seating arrangement. I refuse to pay $2,000 for a few hours of extra legroom instead of $500 for a few hours of discomfort.

Customers as a group probably are partially responsible for this, as they've traditionally shopped for airline tickets like they were buying gasoline - the cheapest price in sight gets the deal. But the airlines have responded miserably, and have left passengers with a "pay through the nose, or suffer" decision.

Case in point: Two days ago, I had a connection to make coming home. Two flights were leaving at nearly the same time, and there were plenty of seats available on both flights. I asked the agent if I could take a flight into Reagan National instead of Marshall BWI, and she said, "No, not without a change fee, and paying the difference in ticket cost." She made me walk down to the "customer service" phone bank and call central booking, and I was flat-out told that there were no exceptions, and that I'd have to pay both a change fee and a difference in cost, which amounted to about $700. It didn't used to be like this - they would accommodate you, and try to make the change; no longer. Customers are treated like fungible goods - like grains of rice - any single, individual grain no longer matters.

My hatred for the airlines is growing each year, and I try to avoid flying whenever possible at this point because they no longer care about the customers as individuals. I would also be interested in seeing a graph of how much it costs to fly in 2015 vis-a-vis 2005 vis-a-vis 1995.

It is disgusting what they pay flight attendants. They make $15-20 per hour, but *only for the hours spent in the air*. The time driving, waiting around, setting up and cleaning the airplane, scrubbing the toilets after landing ... no pay.

"Here's Why The Airline Industry Is In For A Rough Ride" by Laura Lorenzetti on fortune.com

It's not the airlines that make it difficult to find the fares for better seats with more legroom.  It's the Travelocities etc. of the world who don't display them because people don't use them anyway.  You can find that info on airlines' web sites.

The reason they don't make it easy to make changes is, if they made it easy, then the business travelers who need flexibility and now buy more expensive tickets to get that flexibility would also buy cheap tickets.  Then the extra revenue the airlines now get from those business travelers would disappear, and would no longer be there to subsidize that cheap fare you got, so your cheap fares would go away and you'd have no choice but to pay more too. Maybe a lot more. Bottom line: you only get cheap fares if you forgo flexibility.  Don't buy cheap tickets and expect you can make changes -- again, you get what you pay for.  There are many fare classes on any route/flight with different fares and rules about making changes. This is called market segmentation.  Pay less, get less. Don't hate the airlines -- they are responding to the demands of the many different "markets" they serve on each and every flight. By purchasing the cheapest ticket you are placing yourself in the bottom category, and getting a very good deal in terms of price.

Here are data on the changes in air fares since 1995.  Note that average fares in real dollars (constant dollars) have actually dropped; even with fees, that's still a good deal. Other than electronics, these's very little in this world that can say that.  What has happened to the price of, say, housing in DC since 1995? Or cars, or restaurant meals, or just about anything?

I trust you're joking when you suggest you believe the flight attendants set up the airplane, clean it, and clean the toilets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is 6'5".  A number of years ago we sat next to each other on a full coach flight where he was assigned the middle seat.  Soon after taking off the person in the seat in front of him pulled his seat lever and reclined all the way back.  It hit my friend's knees.  Several times both my friend and I politely asked the person who had reclined all the way if we couldn't "compromise" and, perhaps, he would only go back one "notch" which would help my 6'5" friend.  Essentially he said no, he had bought his seat and felt that he had the right to recline-it was his "space."

Besides it was a red eye from LAX to IAD and he planned on sleeping.

Over the next five hours my 6'5" friend had to cross his legs a number of times.  As I type this I am certain that the person who refused to compromise and insisted on their seat being all the way back did not get very much sleep.

In fact his back probably became a bit sore from my friend's knees knocking him in the back.  I also remember my friend resting a blanket on his knee so when he crossed it it would not bother him.  Only the person trying to sleep in front of him with their seat all the way back.

Of course today airlines no longer give you a blanket on a coast to coast flight but that is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is economy plus even more expensive in constant dollars than coach of 30-40 years ago?  If you're willing to go back to the old ways, it seems like there are some considerably more pleasant options if you're willing to spend old time money.  Based on the full seating in business class and economy plus every time I fly, it seems like there is a market for paying for some luxury and leg room, but there is also a larger segment of consumers who are okay with flying as cheaply as possible even if it's a somewhat miserable experience.

If you're not personally okay with the experience, then pay more.  But why demand market changes that would deny the steerage willing customers the option to go with the cheapest possible price?  Orbitz and just about every airline site offers me economy plus and business class upgrade options every time I shop for tickets, but right now it's hard for me to justify greatly increasing the cost of a trip just for comfort.  I have made one recent concession to comfort "“ I used to fly mostly United but will no longer fly United long haul, their new seat design is awful.

As for reclining seats "“ putting anything that would be at risk in case of a recline at your own risk.  I'd prefer for short haul flights just to do away with reclining altogether, but don't hate the player and don't expect courtesy from strangers (who won't even bother to buy two seats when they obviously need to or restrain their horrible seat kicking children).  If you're going to complain about someone else's reclining to the flight attendant, do not expect a sympathetic hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is 6'5".  A number of years ago we sat next to each other on a full coach flight where he was assigned the middle seat.  Soon after taking off the person in the seat in front of him pulled his seat lever and reclined all the way back.  It hit my friend's knees.  Several times both my friend and I politely asked the person who had reclined all the way if we couldn't "compromise" and, perhaps, he would only go back one "notch" which would help my 6'5" friend.  Essentially he said no, he had bought his seat and felt that he had the right to recline-it was his "space."

If your friend is 6'5", shouldn't he have attempted mitigation by purchasing an economy plus ticket, rather than expect the person in front not to recline for a red eye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your friend is 6'5", shouldn't he have attempted mitigation by purchasing an economy plus ticket, rather than expect the person in front not to recline for a red eye?  

I think by today's standards, this might be considered discriminatory.

A lot of people are talking about how expensive flying used to be, but I distinctly remember in the early-mid 80s, flying from the Greenville, SC and Charlotte, NC to Newark, round-trip, for $29, and sometimes even $19. I'm sure it was an introductory rate, but they did it for quite awhile - it was People Express for whatever that's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people are talking about how expensive flying used to be, but I distinctly remember in the early-mid 80s, flying from the Greenville, SC and Charlotte, NC to Newark, round-trip, for $29, and sometimes even $19. I'm sure it was an introductory rate, but they did it for quite awhile - it was People Express for whatever that's worth. 

Wasn't worth much to People Express - they started in 1981, racked up huge operating debt (for reasons clear in your post), and were out of business by 1987.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't worth much to People Express - they started in 1981, racked up huge operating debt (for reasons clear in your post), and were out of business by 1987.

And then there was Piedmont, the Trump Shuttle (remember "If our shuttle is full from New York to DC, we'll fly another plane, even if you're the only passenger?") - there were plenty of low-cost options in the 80s, and all of them are getting absorbed into large mega-airlines (refer to the U.S. Air - American merger). You know what this sounds like? The banks. The barriers to entry in this market are enormous, and although I'm not a fan of government intervention, I'm starting to think it may not be such a bad idea here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your friend is 6'5", shouldn't he have attempted mitigation by purchasing an economy plus ticket, rather than expect the person in front not to recline for a red eye?  

Astrid, I know a bit about United:  I am a Million Mile Flyer and 6 time 1K who now has close to two million miles actually flown.  In the '80's and '90's (or sometime many years ago) Economy Plus didn't exist.  My friend asked for an exit row which, at one time, usually meant more room.  Those seats weren't available.

I also did not say that he (and I) asked the person not to recline.  We asked if we could compromise and the person "would only go back one "notch."  

From your perspective the person in front had the right to recline on any flight, perhaps especially on a red eye.  But my friend also had the right to cross his legs.  Especially on a red eye.  If, when he as a 6'5" passenger crossed his legs, he knocked the fully reclined seat a bit then that was part of the price that the person in front of him paid for their refusal to compromise.  

FWIW, I'm 6'1" and I really don't think Economy Plus is that spacious (pick a word).  There is, however, a lot to be said for seeking out specific seats on certain planes (i.e. row 21 on a trip 7 overwater which is directly behind the rows where the crew sleeps and has more leg room than even first class, exit row by a window seat of a three seat row behind a two seat row, exit row by a door, etc.).  One of the reasons I have so many miles on United (aside from 30+ years of heavy travel) is that I don't qualify for the equivalent of an Economy Plus seat on most other airlines.  The result is that i try to fly on United.  Having said this I used to think of Southwest as a cattle airline.  Today, it is better than most others.

Again, there was a time when Economy Plus didn't exist, On most airlines traditional coach seats had a bit more leg room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there was Piedmont, the Trump Shuttle (remember "If our shuttle is full from New York to DC, we'll fly another plane, even if you're the only passenger?") - there were plenty of low-cost options in the 80s, and all of them are getting absorbed into large mega-airlines (refer to the U.S. Air - American merger). You know what this sounds like? The banks. The barriers to entry in this market are enormous, and although I'm not a fan of government intervention, I'm starting to think it may not be such a bad idea here. 

Ryan Air is an interesting experience.  So was World Airways from BWI to Gatwick in the mid '80's for $299 roundtrip.  As I type this, given the 30 years, that actually doesn't sound nearly as cheap as it was at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there was Piedmont, the Trump Shuttle (remember "If our shuttle is full from New York to DC, we'll fly another plane, even if you're the only passenger?") - there were plenty of low-cost options in the 80s, and all of them are getting absorbed into large mega-airlines (refer to the U.S. Air - American merger). You know what this sounds like? The banks. The barriers to entry in this market are enormous, and although I'm not a fan of government intervention, I'm starting to think it may not be such a bad idea here. 

Oh how soon we forget!

Those low cost options resulted from the deregulation of airlines that took place in 1978, i.e. getting rid of government intervention that ruled the airline industry up to then (all fares, all routes, the works).  The regulated (government intervention) era up until then was an era of high fares, sclerotic route structures, and grossly overpaid workforces that fed back to the high fares.  Deregulation led to fare wars and endless bankruptcies of airlines; every airline but Southwest, which only expanded out of Texas after deregulation and had unique advantages, went bankrupt at one time or another after deregulation.

I vividly recall a study I did for the Indianapolis Airport in the late 70's -- I was shocked to discover that Delta's baggage handlers there were making the current equivalent of $90K a year to fling bags.  That was typical of how things were under the era of government intervention, when the Civil Aeronautics Board decided where you could fly and what you could charge, and everybody pretty much paid the same fare.  Nobody wants to go back to that.

Contrary to popular opinion, airlines are not eleemosynary institutions -- you cannot provide service between, say, Greenville and Newark for $29 a seat and stay in business, even in 1974.  People Express found that out the hard way, and it is just one example of many.  The bills have to be paid, and the investors need to get some sort of return.  You are not entitled to having airline investors (including me) endlessly subsidize your travel.  Those days are over.

Piedmont and the shuttles were never low-fare operations.  Shuttle fares were high in their times and the service was profitable.  By the way, it was Eastern Airlines (ever heard of them?) that pioneered the shuttle (1961) with the guarantee to roll out another airplane if necessary, not Trump.  Originally the main aircraft were Lockheed Super Constellations (remember those), later followed by Electras with the Connies as backups. Eastern later (1989) sold the shuttle to Trump in a bid to raise cash to stave off bankruptcy, which it ultimately failed to do. Trump never made money and finally defaulted on his loans, in typical Trump fashion.  Citibank took it back and finally USAir bought it.  Pan Am started its own shuttle which lasted until Pan Am went bankrupt.  Eastern, along with People Express, ended up being owned by Frank Lorenzo, who eventually folded them and New York Air into Continental, which after the shakeout became one of the better airlines under Gordon Bethune.  Continental finally took over United (out of bankruptcy), kept the name, and continues today.

Santayana was right.  Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh how soon we forget!

Those low cost options resulted from the deregulation of airlines that took place in 1978, i.e. getting rid of government intervention that ruled the airline industry up to then (all fares, all routes, the works).

The first time I ever flew in my life was in 1979 - it's possible that you're one of the few people here old enough to actually remember government intervention. At some point in the near future, nobody will be left who remembers, so now's a good time to speak your piece and record your wisdom. It obviously sounds like you have some sort of specific expertise on this subject.

All I know is that I've been flying now for 35 years, and I hate it now more than I ever have.

There are numerous examples of non-regulated industries that are broken, and numerous examples of regulated industries that aren't. Call me a "capitalist until it's proven that capitalism doesn't work," and right now, whatever amount of unbridled capitalism we have with the airline industry simply isn't working. Like the highway system, the airline system is vital to our national interest and cannot be left unregulated. One thing I do not pretend is to have any expertise on this specific subject (likewise telephone deregulation) - I'm interested in your thoughts much more than I am your condescension. Flying isn't working, the majority of people hate it, and if people like you don't speak up, then I promise you that we're "doomed to repeat the past" at some point in the future, and as of this moment, I can't wait for that day to occur; I remain open for you to convince me otherwise.

One possible solution is that the government can pass laws requiring private industry to meet certain standards, and let the airlines figure out how to do it. For example, it's illegal to have a three-seat row contain more than 750 pounds of people (yes, that would require self-reporting weight). Or, it's illegal to have seat pitch (pitch? really?) less than a certain amount relative to a person's height (and yes, that would require self-reporting height). Those are two laws that would make peoples' lives easier, and can be easily figured out by a computerized seating algorithm - this is my field, and I'm certain that a decent program could be developed in less than one man-year (that is, of course, just writing the code for the program given the input parameters). Why has nobody ever proposed this? That poor, obese woman sitting next to me suffers enough humiliation in everyday life, and she should at least be accommodated, perhaps by the Americans With Disabilities Act, by not having to be shoved into a space that is more suited to a cattle car - it's cruel and dehumanizing, and no, she shouldn't be forced to buy a second seat. If people with wheelchairs must be accommodated without charge, then so should the morbidly obese and the extremely tall.

I'm also going to point out that just because government regulation failed in the 1960s, doesn't mean some type of regulation will fail in the 2010s - it's an entirely different landscape. And yes, the government can learn from whatever mistakes it made in the past. Industries are going to be regulated, of that I am certain - I have no desire to live in Galt's Gulch, which doesn't work in reality: Left unregulated, the Grand Canyon would be crammed full of condominiums, factories would be spewing toxins into the environment which they do not own, innocent children would be getting slaughtered by guns on a regular basis, and I want no part of that world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend asked for an exit row which, at one time, usually meant more room.  Those seats weren't available.  

I see, yes, that is pretty horrible for your friend.  Luckily, that is one aspect of flying that's actually gotten better over time.

My own opinion of flying does grow lower and lower every year.  Right now, it's at least a 800 mile drive to even consider flying.  Shorter than that and it's not worth the hassle.  The TSA section seems to be getting a little better, but the new immigration/customs process is just awful.

United's current seats do seem to be uniquely (for now) terrible in my experience.  They're just terribly engineered - unless you firmly your foot on the ground and use your legs to push against the back of the seat at all time, you will start to slip down the seat immediately.  It's really hard on the back almost immediately.  I was suffering back pain and strain that I've never suffered on any prior flight and couldn't get any sleep at all (of course, I had to learn this on a 14 hour flight to China).  So after spending my life being that person who is okay with the cheapest steerage seat (even with occasional seat kicker and smoshing risks), I did find the limits of my tolerance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I ever flew in my life was in 1979 - it's possible that you're one of the few people here old enough to actually remember government intervention. At some point in the near future, nobody will be left who remembers, so now's a good time to speak your piece and record your wisdom. It obviously sounds like you have some sort of specific expertise on this subject.

All I know is that I've been flying now for 35 years, and I hate it now more than I ever have.

There are numerous examples of non-regulated industries that are broken, and numerous examples of regulated industries that aren't. Call me a "capitalist until it's proven that capitalism doesn't work," and right now, whatever amount of unbridled capitalism we have with the airline industry simply isn't working. Like the highway system, the airline system is vital to our national interest and cannot be left unregulated. One thing I do not pretend is to have any expertise on this specific subject (likewise telephone deregulation) - I'm interested in your thoughts much more than I am your condescension. Flying isn't working, the majority of people hate it, and if people like you don't speak up, then I promise you that we're "doomed to repeat the past" at some point in the future, and as of this moment, I can't wait for that day to occur; I remain open for you to convince me otherwise.

One possible solution is that the government can pass laws requiring private industry to meet certain standards, and let the airlines figure out how to do it. For example, it's illegal to have a three-seat row contain more than 750 pounds of people (yes, that would require self-reporting weight). Or, it's illegal to have seat pitch (pitch? really?) less than a certain amount relative to a person's height (and yes, that would require self-reporting height). Those are two laws that would make peoples' lives easier, and can be easily figured out by a computerized seating algorithm - this is my field, and I'm certain that a decent program could be developed in less than one man-year (that is, of course, just writing the code for the program given the input parameters). Why has nobody ever proposed this? That poor, obese woman sitting next to me suffers enough humiliation in everyday life, and she should at least be accommodated, perhaps by the Americans With Disabilities Act, by not having to be shoved into a space that is more suited to a cattle car - it's cruel and dehumanizing, and no, she shouldn't be forced to buy a second seat. If people with wheelchairs must be accommodated without charge, then so should the morbidly obese and the extremely tall.

I'm also going to point out that just because government regulation failed in the 1960s, doesn't mean some type of regulation will fail in the 2010s - it's an entirely different landscape. And yes, the government can learn from whatever mistakes it made in the past. Industries are going to be regulated, of that I am certain - I have no desire to live in Galt's Gulch, which doesn't work in reality: Left unregulated, the Grand Canyon would be crammed full of condominiums, factories would be spewing toxins into the environment which they do not own, innocent children would be getting slaughtered by guns on a regular basis, and I want no part of that world.

Sorry if I sounded condescending.  I don't mean it that way, but these constant rants about airlines do grow tiring after a while, to someone who has basically spent his entire life following the industry, having worked (brief stints) with two airlines and having spent many years in the airline consulting field, and having done his graduate work in transportation economics (yes there is such a thing as a PhD in transport economics).  I've probably read hundreds of rants about how bad the airlines are, from well-meaning laymen who really don't have much information or appreciation about the complexities involved.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that everyone flies so everyone thinks he is an expert on the airline industry.  This includes most journalists who write articles about the industry.  The truth is hardly anybody understands what is really going on or why we have arrived at the point we are today.  There are reasons.  I have hinted at them above.  Space doesn't allow more than a cursory discussion, but I'll have another shot at the points you made.

The short answer is you will get the level of service you are willing to pay for.  I have yet to see a single rant that shows the writer actually understands that.  Most flyers buy the cheapest ticket they can find, and then feel they should get treated substantially better and are at liberty to bellyache about it when they don't get it.   There is a disconnect here.  The result of always buying the cheap ticket is the level of service comes down to match the fare, both in the immediate case and in the long term.  Many entrepreneurs have tried over the years to start airlines offering premium service.  They have all failed.  The preferences have been revealed, and they are cheapness, which has clearly been shown to trump comfort and service.  Airline managements aren't stupid. They give the market what it shows it wants, not what it says.  Cheap is what the market has shown it wants, and so that's what it gets.  The system has come be be designed around saving costs to the maximum, in order to offer the lowest fares possible. The flying public would do itself a favor if it finally got its collective head around that.

As to government intervention, there are two kinds of that:  economic and technical.  On the technical side the government, mostly through the FAA, is extremely deeply involved in every aspect of the airline and aerospace industries -- I think most folks in DC understand about that so nothing more need be said. On the economic side, the government used to be deeply involved, but it didn't work.  Air travel was artificially expensive and not available to anything like the cross-section of folks it is today.  That's why the industry was deregulated. On balance it has been a good thing.  Far more people can get from A to B today and at extremely reasonable costs.  And the main reason it's a different "landscape" today is because of deregulation, not in spite of it.  A return to regulation simply isn't in the cards, nor should it be.

Now if you think that the government should set minimum standards for things like seat pitch, fine, but remember, it wouldn't be free. Everybody will be paying more, including those who who would rather have the lower fares.  And seats with greater pitch are already available anyway for those who want it.  They just have to pay more, which is as it should and must be.  

There is simply no way, practically speaking, to provide special seating specifically for large people. It would not only be expensive (which would have to be paid for by the rest of the traveling public) but would be a nightmare to book and allocate (however see below).  There are larger seats available on most routes, at a higher price, and if you are extremely tall or extremely fat you should save up and buy those.  You can also buy two adjacent seats and solve the your problem that way, and not impose your situation on innocent others. That's what that woman should have done, and obese people do it every day.  By the way it's not so much a computer problem as it is a physical space/design problem.  The airlines do comply with the ADA, and handle thousands of passengers with disabilities every day.

All that said, if you or anyone wants to start a movement to get the government to pass a law to force the airlines to equip every airplane with special large seats to accommodate large people, if it applies equally to all airlines then I see no problem, but understand that it will raise costs and thus fares for everybody else.  And who exactly decides who gets to sit in those seats and when?  And anyway they already have such seats -- it's called first class, or premium coach.  I suppose the government could simply force airlines to sell seats in first class cheaply to fat people.  I'm not too sure how well that would go over among the flying public at large.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi JohnB-- in your opinion, what are the next steps the airlines will take to maximize the number of passengers in a plane?

I ask because I think the government should have some involvement in standardizing space for passengers. I mean we'd be sitting in each others' laps if the airlines had their way. I use the term "the airlines" because as soon as one company finds a way to make money on our misery, the others quickly follow suit.

I understand your argument about cheap fares to an extent, but at some point the argument breaks down. For example, let's say the government gets out of regulating the auto industry. The free market would eventually allow you to buy a brand new car for $5k, but it'd be made out of tongue depressors and duct tape. It'd be a race to the bottom for car manufacturers to sell cheaper and shittier cars. What good is that? And what good is it if people can't fly because their bodies can't take sitting for hours in an increasingly cramped, and for some dangerous, position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned above that I have almost two million miles on United, 65 trips to Europe in a ten year period and other ad nauseum fluff.  For most of the 30+ years that I was in my industry I was also a straight commission salesman paying all of my own expenses.  (title aside this is what it came down to)  This meant that it might have cost $750 to fly from Dulles to Cleveland or $850 to fly from National to Charlotte.  At some point I decided to drive when the fares were this high.  Even if I had driven from Reston to BWI (for Southwest or a competitive fare on United)  by the time I factored in that drive, the flight, renting a car and then driving X miles to where I was going it really was only an hour or two longer to drive.  It made sense.  And $500+ cheaper which allowed a hotel room and enough left over for a case of good wine.

I drove a lot.  And bought a lot of wine.

As I type this I am sipping on a glass of '04 Clio that I bought a case of after a driving trip to Sandusky, OH instead of flying.  I remember the trip, remember that I really did not want to drive.  But there were so many trips like this that the fares, rental car, etc. really added up.  That morning @5:00AM I left for a noon lunch and afternoon presentation at Cedar Point.  I was home that night by midnight and spent $500 or so buying the case of Clio from NJ.  There were a lot of trips like that.  Now, retired and with 7 or 8 years of age on the wine, I am toasting a good decision.

In retrospect if I hadn't flown so much I would have even more to drink...

'04 Clio is seriously good.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi JohnB-- in your opinion, what are the next steps the airlines will take to maximize the number of passengers in a plane?

I ask because I think the government should have some involvement in standardizing space for passengers. I mean we'd be sitting in each others' laps if the airlines had their way. I use the term "the airlines" because as soon as one company finds a way to make money on our misery, the others quickly follow suit.

I understand your argument about cheap fares to an extent, but at some point the argument breaks down. For example, let's say the government gets out of regulating the auto industry. The free market would eventually allow you to buy a brand new car for $5k, but it'd be made out of tongue depressors and duct tape. It'd be a race to the bottom for car manufacturers to sell cheaper and shittier cars. What good is that? And what good is it if people can't fly because their bodies can't take sitting for hours in an increasingly cramped, and for some dangerous, position?

Thanks for asking.  It got me looking into it in more detail than I had before.

I don't foresee much change in the number of seats, because there are no "next steps" left to take.  Seat manufacturers have gotten seat backs about as streamlined (thin) as they can, so there's nothing left to do there (if you can reduce the thickness of the seat back you can reduce the pitch without reducing legroom, but that has probably already reached its limit).  Seat pitch (i.e. legroom) has been pretty stable for a while. Thus, increases in the number of pax per plane will come, if at all, from higher load factors (already pretty high) and greater number of hours of flying, but both of those are also near their limits already.

The legacy US carriers (American, Delta, United) domestic services all are at mostly 31" seat pitches in regular economy, with 30 or 32" in some aircraft. Southwest is mostly 32 with some 31. The worst case US carrier is Spirit at 28" -- those seats don't (can't) recline -- anybody who flies Spirit I pity you.  But their fares are really cheap.  Allegiant, another cheapo US carrier, is at 30."  In Europe, the two big low cost carriers, Ryanair and easyJet, are at 30 and 29 respectively.  Note that often when you see smaller pitches (e.g. 29 or 30) it is on an Airbus jet and the seats on those are slightly wider than on Boeings, which balances things out some.

Note that virtually all the US carriers have a few larger seats at a higher fare, so you can have a better service if you are willing to pay for it. And if you are an astute shopper there are always exit row and similar seats with plenty of leg room, but to get those you have to know what you are doing.  Seatguru is your friend.

Here are two somewhat extreme examples of how airlines will cater to market preferences where folks will pick up the tab for better service.  Look at this seatmap of American Airlines' 4 class transcon Airbus 321's.  These serve JFK-LAX/SFO and are used by entertainment and tech industry types. The second is this British Airways aircraft, a small narrow-body (A318) fitted out in an all business class configuration with all lie-flat seats; BA uses these exclusively between JFK and close-in London City Airport.  These show clearly what the airlines are willing to do for folks who are willing to pay.

Here's something that really puts the lie to the idea that the US carriers are so evil.  Compare the US seat pitch numbers with domestic services of, say, Lufthansa and its Germanwings low fare subsidiary, or British Airways. Germanwings is at 29; LH is at 30.  BA is mostly 30, with a very few going higher.  So the proposition that the US carriers' legroom is so bad compared with the big European names is bogus, at least for the domestic services.  

I don't think your doomsday scenario will ever happen.  Legroom is not going to go down.  If the legacies were going to reduce pitch they would have by now, but they haven't.  In particular, Spirit is becoming a serious competitive problem, particularly for American and Delta to a lesser extent.  But those carriers have not reduced pitch and fares to compete with Spirit -- they have both instituted new fares that have extreme restrictions similar to Spirit's fares.  If you choose those you are very likely to, among other things, end up in a middle seat, but at least you will still have decent legroom, and the possibility to recline your seat.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TSA section seems to be getting a little better, but the new immigration/customs process is just awful.

Do you know about Global Entry? It's similar to TSA Precheck but better (TSA Precheck was based on Global Entry, if anyone cares). With Global Entry, you have to apply on line, and then go to one of their processing centers for an "interview" and then you get a temporary card and can travel immediately. My son was going on a spring break trip with a family he's friendly with and they all had Global Entry (GE) so they asked him to get it. We applied online on Wednesday, he was approved on Friday, and we made his interview appointment the following Monday which happened to be MLK day (they were open!). Five days from start to finish!!!! I've spent more time waiting in DMV lines!

What GE does for you is it lets you skip the long immigration lines at the airport (the passport part) and check yourself in at a little kiosk. You fill out your customs form right there (no need to fill out those blue cards on the plane) and it gives you a print out. Then you get to skip the long lines at customs (the blue forms).......you walk past dozens and dozens of people and just give your print out to the agent and you're done.

My wife and I just came back from the Caribbean and our flight into Charlotte was late. The only way we made our connecting flight was because of GE. The entire customs/immigration process took maybe 3 minutes and the vast majority of that time was spent walking through the airport from station to station.

The other great thing about GE is you get all the TSA precheck benefits once you're approved for GE.

Even if there's only a slim change you're going to travel internationally in the next five years, it's worth the investment to sign up for GE. TSA precheck costs $85 for five years. GE costs $100 for five years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the airlines that make it difficult to find the fares for better seats with more legroom.  It's the Travelocities etc. of the world who don't display them because people don't use them anyway.  You can find that info on airlines' web sites.

@johnb:  I'm curious as to the airlines' reactions to the travelocities of the world, the OTA's (On Line Travel Agents)    I did see this article a bit ago.  I can add that I know independent hotel operators just hate them to the core...and the owners of hotel franchises hate them to the core....and I suspect the major hotel chains just hate them to the core...though I also know that in the early part of the 2000's...the major hotel chains ceded web visibility to the "travelocities of the world"

Any comments or insights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know about Global Entry? It's similar to TSA Precheck but better (TSA Precheck was based on Global Entry, if anyone cares). With Global Entry, you have to apply on line, and then go to one of their processing centers for an "interview" and then you get a temporary card and can travel immediately. My son was going on a spring break trip with a family he's friendly with and they all had Global Entry (GE) so they asked him to get it. We applied online on Wednesday, he was approved on Friday, and we made his interview appointment the following Monday which happened to be MLK day (they were open!). Five days from start to finish!!!! I've spent more time waiting in DMV lines!

What GE does for you is it lets you skip the long immigration lines at the airport (the passport part) and check yourself in at a little kiosk. You fill out your customs form right there (no need to fill out those blue cards on the plane) and it gives you a print out. Then you get to skip the long lines at customs (the blue forms).......you walk past dozens and dozens of people and just give your print out to the agent and you're done.

My wife and I just came back from the Caribbean and our flight into Charlotte was late. The only way we made our connecting flight was because of GE. The entire customs/immigration process took maybe 3 minutes and the vast majority of that time was spent walking through the airport from station to station.

The other great thing about GE is you get all the TSA precheck benefits once you're approved for GE.

Even if there's only a slim change you're going to travel internationally in the next five years, it's worth the investment to sign up for GE. TSA precheck costs $85 for five years. GE costs $100 for five years.

Are you saying that Global Entry helps out domestic travelers too, with getting through security lines like TSA precheck does? I *think* that's what you said, but I want to make sure - I was going to sign up for TSA precheck, but now I'm having second thoughts.

Is there any downside to Global Entry? Is there any greater risk of having your bags searched for contraband (hams, cheeses, etc.?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! That's what I'm saying...even if you never travel internationally GE will get you through domestic lines faster (you use the TSA precheck lines). It only costs 15 bucks more.

You have to register your "known traveler number" IE your GE number with your airline, but once that's done, you're good and your tickets will be printed with "TSA precheck" on them.

The only downside is the background check is more extensive than TSAs. A few years ago I met a guy (in his 60s who was a physician) who was denied GE because of some dumb thing he got arrested for in his youth. This was a while ago so they may have gotten smarted about dumb mistakes 40 years ago, but I don't know. I think there may be some way to grieve stuff like that, but I'm not totally sure.

As far as getting searched for cheese or whatever.......you're less likely to have that happen because you barely spend anytime with a real person. You do it all through a kiosk. We just had to show our printed "receipt" to one agent, and then give it to another. No one looked at our bags or even talked to us. We were doing carry on, so I don't know if there's any difference with checked bags, but I don't think so based on the layout in Charlotte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every once in awhile my Southwest boarding pass prints out with authorization to use the TSA PreCheck line (I have no idea why because I've never applied for TSA PreCheck) and it's awesome. The lines are shorter and you don't have to take off your shoes or disassemble your carry-ons to show your laptop or liquids. Global Entry sounds even better for only $15 more. Thanks for explaining that, Bart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bart, thanks for sharing your experience!  We had been pondering about the GE program ever since my terrible experience returning from China (where a combination of several delayed flights and confusion about the new system lead to a multi-hour wait to clear through border control) and almost as bad experience in Canada (we didn't realize that you now have to go through US border control IN CANADA)!  Both times, I got lucky that my flights happened to have long waits at the right airport, but I would have certainly missed a flight if I had booked a 90 minute connection.  Now I'm definitely going to get it done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll echo the consensus view that GE is all that for international travel and great for getting Pre-Check domestically.  One thing worth noting is that many credit cards (albeit those with very high annual fees due to getting unlimited access to certain airport lounges) will reimburse you in full for using it to pay the GE application fee.  To be clear, I'm not advising folks to get one of these cards just for the GE credit.  But if you travel a lot and will use many of the other perks of a given card -- and plenty of travel bloggers have dissected their benefits in opining on the overall value proposition -- it's a nice bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll echo the consensus view that GE is all that for international travel and great for getting Pre-Check domestically.  One thing worth noting is that many credit cards (albeit those with very high annual fees due to getting unlimited access to certain airport lounges) will reimburse you in full for using it to pay the GE application fee.  To be clear, I'm not advising folks to get one of these cards just for the GE credit.  But if you travel a lot and will use many of the other perks of a given card -- and plenty of travel bloggers have dissected their benefits in opining on the overall value proposition -- it's a nice bonus.

This thread needs to be split up at this point - it started out as a simple question about politeness!

But I have a question that will take it even further off-topic: What is the best Visa for traveling? Does anyone have any opinions about Chase Sapphire? My current card just *totally hosed* me by eliminating the benefits of using my points for air travel instead of cash (*), and I'm going to change cards after *17 years*. Their loss, not mine. I'd prefer not to use AmEx because it's not widely accepted, and I like to use only one company. Lounge access would be nice, as would upgrades, hotels, and rental cars; I don't care about concierge services (or at least, I don't think I do) or discounts on luggage, or Lettuce Entertain You gift cards, etc.

Oh, and needless to say, cards that give double-points for restaurants are a must (that has been one off-the-dial perk for me over the years!)

(*) It used to be that I could use 25,000 points for a $325 ticket; now, it's one-hundred points for every dollar, i.e., 25,000 points will only get me a $250 ticket. This is the exact same ratio as taking cash. (Why would anyone *not* take cash in this situation?) And how can they legally do this without notice?! I've been collecting points for 17 years! Can they just decide, "Well, we're announcing that your points are no longer worth anything?" Regardless, it's time to cash out and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread needs to be split up at this point - it started out as a simple question about politeness!

But I have a question that will take it even further off-topic: What is the best Visa for traveling? Does anyone have any opinions about Chase Sapphire? My current card just *totally hosed* me by eliminating the benefits of using my points for air travel instead of cash (*), and I'm going to change cards after *17 years*. Their loss, not mine. I'd prefer not to use AmEx because it's not widely accepted, and I like to use only one company. Lounge access would be nice, as would upgrades, hotels, and rental cars; I don't care about concierge services (or at least, I don't think I do) or discounts on luggage, or Lettuce Entertain You gift cards, etc.

Oh, and needless to say, cards that give double-points for restaurants are a must (that has been one off-the-dial perk for me over the years!)

(*) It used to be that I could use 25,000 points for a $325 ticket; now, it's one-hundred points for every dollar, i.e., 25,000 points will only get me a $250 ticket. This is the exact same ratio as taking cash. (Why would anyone *not* take cash in this situation?) And how can they legally do this without notice?! I've been collecting points for 17 years! Can they just decide, "Well, we're announcing that your points are no longer worth anything?" Regardless, it's time to cash out and move on.

I think we've had this discussion before, but anyway, I'm happy with the Citi Double cash card (It's a Mastercard).  2% cash back on everything you buy with no limits, so for example for $25,000 in spend you get back $500.  For me that beats all the points in the world; just give me the money thank you.  It is being offered with no interest charges for 16 months I think.  No annual fee.

For overseas purchases  the best I know of is the Capital One Quicksilver (Visa).  Like the above but only gives 1.5% cash back.  But they have no foreign transaction fee, which saves you a 3% extra charge on the top on overseas purchases.  So it's a good deal for any purchase not made in USDollars.  No annual fee.

I also have Discover and use it during the three-month periods when certain purchases (gas one quarter, restaurants another, and so on) rate 5% cash back.  No annual fee.

There are various web sites that compare credit cards.  Here's one.

BTW, when you shift don't cancel your old card (assuming there's no fee).  I helps your credit rating not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we've had this discussion before, but anyway, I'm happy with the Citi Double cash card (It's a Mastercard). 

You're right, we have.

That Citi Double Cash sounds almost too good to be true. Do you think it's a bait-and-switch, and they'll change up the rules at some point?

Do you know why it would help my credit rating not to cancel? Because of the length of time the account has been open? I'm kind of a "less is more" guy with things like this, so my natural inclination is to have fewer accounts, even if it drops my credit score (I don't really need a higher credit score, or at least not for any reason that I can think of right now). My one credit line is split into three cards, each having a $35 annual fee, so I'm inclined to discontinue the $105 in annual fees unless it's worth more not to.

I pay off my balances each month - is it better to start a new card with a zero balance, or to roll over whatever I currently have?

Things like lounge access, discounts on hotels and rental cars, etc. are worth something to me, but 2% cash back is, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Citi card is currently being heavily advertised, so it must be good economics for them.  Same with the Capital One card.  Who knows how long it will last; if the economics of credit cards don't change, I suppose there's no reason it will change, for a while anyway.  If it does and somebody else has a better offer, then switch -- these days it's easy and since it's become so common it apparently no longer affects your FICO score like in the old days

If you're paying an annual fee then it'd hard to justify keeping any card.  If I understand correctly the main reason keeping an old card affects your FICO is that one big factor in your FICO score is your credit utilization, i.e. how much you have on account vs. the total of your credit lines.  The lower the better, so if you have an inactive card its credit line is still there in your calculation and of course it lowers your utilization rate, and if I understand correctly the fact that you pay off monthly doesn't change that.  And having had cards with a good payment record a long time is also a positive as far as I know.

I have no idea about the rollover, except if you pay off every month anyway it shouldn't matter much.  If you get a new card and don't get charged interest for a while, and you can include rollovers in that, then I guess it's up to you if you want to get that deep into cash management.

Note to Costco freaks:  starting April you will need a Visa card, and the Citi card so far is only available as a Mastercard AFAIK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're paying an annual fee then it'd hard to justify keeping any card.  If I understand correctly the main reason keeping an old card affects your FICO is that one big factor in your FICO score is your credit utilization, i.e. how much you have on account vs. the total of your credit lines.  The lower the better, so if you have an inactive card its credit line is still there in your calculation and of course it lowers your utilization rate, and if I understand correctly the fact that you pay off monthly doesn't change that.  And having had cards with a good payment record a long time is also a positive as far as I know.

I've always wondered about this - I have *waaay* more of a credit limit on these cards than I actually use (like, five-times as much). Would it be advantageous for me to call and have them lower my credit limit? I've never thought about that before, but now I'm wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered about this - I have *waaay* more of a credit limit on these cards than I actually use (like, five-times as much). Would it be advantageous for me to call and have them lower my credit limit? I've never thought about that before, but now I'm wondering.

No.  The opposite.  Sorry if I wasn't clear (I'm never clear).  You want the highest credit limit you can because whatever is your balance your credit utilization percentage will be lower, and that's a positive for your credit rating.  They don't like to see people who are maxing out their cards -- that's a sign of impending credit problems.  The less utilization the better, up to a point anyway.  At least that's how I think it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  The opposite.  Sorry if I wasn't clear (I'm never clear).  You want the highest credit limit you can because whatever is your balance your credit utilization percentage will be lower, and that's a positive for your credit rating.  They don't like to see people who are maxing out their cards -- that's a sign of impending credit problems.  The less utilization the better, up to a point anyway.  At least that's how I think it works.

That's my understanding as well. And, aside from credit utilization concerns, another reason you don't want to close cards you don't use, assuming you've had them awhile and there are no annual fees, is that the length of your credit history also matters.

I'm a big fan of the Discover card, partially because it's simple and I don't have the bandwidth to figure out the intricacies of other reward programs. There's no annual fee, and you can get cash back or redeem your rewards for gift cards through their website. I haven't paid for Starbucks in years because I periodically cash in $45 in rewards for a $50 Starbucks card. You can use your Discover rewards at Amazon dollar for dollar. They also have a program called Discover Deals. I use it when I shop online. If you click on a participating merchant you can get additional cash back (on top of the regular rewards) if you use your Discover card. I just looked at some deals and merchants are offering 5%, 10%, and 15% cash back. Other than in international locations, I almost never encounter a merchant who doesn't take Discover (I encountered this more in the past). Some very small merchants continue not to take it. I have a Visa card as a back-up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@johnb:  I'm curious as to the airlines' reactions to the travelocities of the world, the OTA's (On Line Travel Agents)    I did see this article a bit ago.  I can add that I know independent hotel operators just hate them to the core...and the owners of hotel franchises hate them to the core....and I suspect the major hotel chains just hate them to the core...though I also know that in the early part of the 2000's...the major hotel chains ceded web visibility to the "travelocities of the world"

Any comments or insights?

Dave

I don't have any inside knowledge about the current views of the industry, but I'm sure they'd love to go around them if they could, but that's the problem of course -- that's very hard to do.  Southwest has been successful in not using outside ticket vendors and selling everything on heir own website, but they have a fairly unique customer base/market that the others don't have.  I know that back in the pre-internet dark ages, when I actually was inside the industry, travel agents were how lots of tickets got sold for a 10% commission, and the talk I heard made in clear the lines would have loved to get rid of them.  They finally succeeded when the net came along, and what they have now is probably better for them, but they'd like to get rid of it too, but I don't see any way they could do it short of perhaps establishing their own joint operation, but that obviously presents huge problems not least the anti-trust aspect so I strongly doubt it could ever happen.  All of this is speculation on my part -- I have no expertise in the area.  The article you linked is probably fairly close to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be a long time before Etihad or any of the Middle East/Asian carriers with private suites and showers etc. show up in Cleveland with a widebody, let alone an A380.  But don't despair!  If you have the kind of money it takes to book one of those, you can just rent your own private jet, skip the long TSA lines, and go whenever you please, complete with a traveling companion (or cabin attendant) of your choosing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to say how much I've enjoyed this discussion.  Thanks, johnb, for sharing your knowledge with us.

Thank you Elizabeth for saying that.  Transportation, particularly airline, ratemaking is a fascinating subject, for me at least.  If anybody has any more questions I'd be glad to try to answer them.

By the way, apropos Don's OP that started all this, I have been waiting all along for someone to chime in on the "knee defender" but nobody ever did, so I guess I will.  A kerfuffle erupted in the media about this last August/Sept:  here is a link to one story that appeared.  So others have been thinking about this matter as well, up to and including the occasional on-board fistfight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Elizabeth for saying that.  Transportation, particularly airline, ratemaking is a fascinating subject, for me at least.  If anybody has any more questions I'd be glad to try to answer them.

By the way, apropos Don's OP that started all this, I have been waiting all along for someone to chime in on the "knee defender" but nobody ever did, so I guess I will.  A kerfuffle erupted in the media about this last August/Sept:  here is a link to one story that appeared.  So others have been thinking about this matter as well, up to and including the occasional on-board fistfight.

Here is another article which is of interest. You may want to be sitting down before you begin to read it:

"Bottom Of The Class: American Airlines Is Introducing A Class Below Economy" on economist.com

John, the more that time goes by, and the more I think about this conversation, the less I agree with you: *The public did not ask for this*.

I'm ready for a higher degree of government regulation, and I cannot believe I'm saying this.

You can argue that "the public" is "asking for this" by voting with their pocketbooks, but I don't buy it - the airlines are preying on human beings' perfectly reasonable instinct to want to spend less money. Saying "the public asked for this" is something Ayn Rand would have said.

What's next, less-expensive surgery without anesthesia? Guess what? Some people would probably opt into it - it shouldn't be a legal option. and the current airline seating arrangements - coupled with mounting obesity in this country (due in part, I will add, to shitty, industrial food) is making being an airline passenger medically dangerous. I don't believe for a second that orthopedic injuries, or even blot clots, haven't occurred because of current seating layouts.

The free market has failed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another article which is of interest. You may want to be sitting down before you begin to read it:

"Bottom Of The Class: American Airlines Is Introducing A Class Below Economy" on economist.com

John, the more that time goes by, and the more I think about this conversation, the less I agree with you: *The public did not ask for this*.

I'm ready for a higher degree of government regulation, and I cannot believe I'm saying this.

You can argue that "the public" is "asking for this" by voting with their pocketbooks, but I don't buy it - the airlines are preying on human beings' perfectly reasonable instinct to want to spend less money. Saying "the public asked for this" is something Ayn Rand would have said.

What's next, less-expensive surgery without anesthesia? Guess what? Some people would probably opt into it - it shouldn't be a legal option. and the current airline seating arrangements - coupled with mounting obesity in this country (due in part, I will add, to shitty, industrial food) is making being an airline passenger medically dangerous. I don't believe for a second that orthopedic injuries, or even blot clots, haven't occurred because of current seating layouts.

The free market has failed.

Couple of things:

1.  These new fare classes being instituted by the legacy carriers (American, United, Delta) involve no change in seat comfort or legroom. The main thing is if you choose that supercheap fare you cannot select a seat in advance or change your travel plans.  I talked about this earlier -- see the last paragraph of reply #25 from Dec. 16.

2.  The final paragraph in the economist article you cited says exactly what I have said above -- these fare classes are what the public is demanding, and the low fare carriers (e.g. Spirit) that started it are doing extremely well financially, offering the public less seat room.  Note that the legacies are not reducing seat room with their new competitive fares.  All the legacy carriers have now instituted competitive fares because they have to in order to, well, compete with Spirit and Frontier and others that would surely come into the market.  This is a pretty clear case of the public showing what they want with their choices (cheap ticket) and forcing competitive moves by other market players.

3.  If you want government-imposed minimum seat pitch regulations, I personally have no problem with that since it would apply to all airlines equally (although it's not as simple to implement as one might think due to different cabin dimensions in different aircraft flying different routes).  But it would have the effect of raising average fares.

4.  Your argument is rooted in the medical aspect, combined with an assumption that buyers don't understand what they are buying. That's fine, but since this is a food board, why not argue for gummint regulations about the maximum calories, salt, etc. in any dish served at any restaurant.  Or that everybody must buy expensive organic local non-GMO groceries.  Bloomberg is famous for trying that type of thing, and he got nothing but blowback from the public.  To me, the bottom line is it's presumptuous at best and dangerous at worst to get in the business of telling the general public what they should want.

Full disclosure:  I'm in Santiago Chile right now and flew down here in a coach seat on a LAN 787 with 34" pitch.  Not bad, and it was a cheap ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of things:

1.  These new fare classes being instituted by the legacy carriers (American, United, Delta) involve no change in seat comfort or legroom. The main thing is if you choose that supercheap fare you cannot select a seat in advance or change your travel plans.  I talked about this earlier -- see the last paragraph of reply #25 from Dec. 16.

2.  The final paragraph in the economist article you cited says exactly what I have said above -- these fare classes are what the public is demanding, and the low fare carriers (e.g. Spirit) that started it are doing extremely well financially, offering the public less seat room.  Note that the legacies are not reducing seat room with their new competitive fares.  All the legacy carriers have now instituted competitive fares because they have to in order to, well, compete with Spirit and Frontier and others that would surely come into the market.  This is a pretty clear case of the public showing what they want with their choices (cheap ticket) and forcing competitive moves by other market players.

3.  If you want government-imposed minimum seat pitch regulations, I personally have no problem with that since it would apply to all airlines equally (although it's not as simple to implement as one might think due to different cabin dimensions in different aircraft flying different routes).  But it would have the effect of raising average fares.

4.  Your argument is rooted in the medical aspect, combined with an assumption that buyers don't understand what they are buying. That's fine, but since this is a food board, why not argue for gummint regulations about the maximum calories, salt, etc. in any dish served at any restaurant.  Or that everybody must buy expensive organic local non-GMO groceries.  Bloomberg is famous for trying that type of thing, and he got nothing but blowback from the public.  To me, the bottom line is it's presumptuous at best and dangerous at worst to get in the business of telling the general public what they should want.

Full disclosure:  I'm in Santiago Chile right now and flew down here in a coach seat on a LAN 787 with 34" pitch.  Not bad, and it was a cheap ticket.

Good response, thoughtful.

I'll reply number-by-number:

1) Yes, I realize this.

2) The key word is "economist." From an economic perspective, these airlines will do even better if they load passengers horizontally - I don't care if the airlines make ten billion dollars *as long as* the public's welfare is addressed.

3) Yes, I agree - fares will be raised (unless they're subsidized, in which case they'll be raised in the form of higher taxes).

4) My argument is rooted in the medical, convenience, *and* physical comfort aspect. It's clear that you're a free-market capitalist - so am I, *until* the free market fails, and it is failing (read on about whether or not this is an actual "free market"). Also, while this is a "food board" by birth, it is growing into something much more substantial than that, and yes, by all means let's have a discussion about Bloomberg's policies. Regarding your final sentence in 4), I refer you to this tweet of mine - this is a perfect example of that "middle category" in that the public gets told what it should want *all the time* (notice I said "it" and not "they"), and it obeys very obediently, too.

John, I respect you, and it's obvious how intelligent and educated you are, but you're addressing this issue from the stance of a pure Libertarian (if you're not, please tell me how you're not). There's nothing *wrong* with being a Libertarian, even just economically (as an example of how one person can be "different things," one can be a social Libertarian and an economic Communist). We're not as different as this conversation may make us sound, except that (and I admit that I'm attempting to read your mind here) when the public welfare is put into peril, the gummint must step in and keep the free market in check. Teddy Roosevelt's Trust busting is but one obvious example that everyone uses. The airline industry is hardly a free market to begin with, as you well know - who knows: perhaps if it was from day one, none of these problems would be happening; however, as it stands, consumers don't have a choice but to participate in this monopolistic system with its quasi-oligopolistic companies, other than, of course, opting out altogether.

Enjoy your trip to Chile, and don't worry about replying until you're back and have some free time on your hands - this thread will be waiting for you, and as always, I'll look forward to reading your reply in earnest,

Cheers,

Rocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good response, thoughtful.

I'll reply number-by-number:

1) Yes, I realize this.

2) The key word is "economist." From an economic perspective, these airlines will do even better if they load passengers horizontally - I don't care if the airlines make ten billion dollars *as long as* the public's welfare is addressed.

3) Yes, I agree - fares will be raised (unless they're subsidized, in which case they'll be raised in the form of higher taxes).

4) My argument is rooted in the medical, convenience, *and* physical comfort aspect. It's clear that you're a free-market capitalist - so am I, *until* the free market fails, and it is failing (read on about whether or not this is an actual "free market"). Also, while this is a "food board" by birth, it is growing into something much more substantial than that, and yes, by all means let's have a discussion about Bloomberg's policies. Regarding your final sentence in 4), I refer you to this tweet of mine - this is a perfect example of that "middle category" in that the public gets told what it should want *all the time* (notice I said "it" and not "they"), and it obeys very obediently, too.

John, I respect you, and it's obvious how intelligent and educated you are, but you're addressing this issue from the stance of a pure Libertarian (if you're not, please tell me how you're not). There's nothing *wrong* with being a Libertarian, even just economically (as an example of how one person can be "different things," one can be a social Libertarian and an economic Communist). We're not as different as this conversation may make us sound, except that (and I admit that I'm attempting to read your mind here) when the public welfare is put into peril, the gummint must step in and keep the free market in check. Teddy Roosevelt's Trust busting is but one obvious example that everyone uses. The airline industry is hardly a free market to begin with, as you well know - who knows: perhaps if it was from day one, none of these problems would be happening; however, as it stands, consumers don't have a choice but to participate in this monopolistic system with its quasi-oligopolistic companies, other than, of course, opting out altogether.

Enjoy your trip to Chile, and don't worry about replying until you're back and have some free time on your hands - this thread will be waiting for you, and as always, I'll look forward to reading your reply in earnest,

Cheers,

Rocks

Don:  I don't see his responses as libertarian at all.  I agree with his analyses above.  I view them from an "economic" perspective; not as an academic economist but one who worked in markets for decades, still looks at business as "within a market".

JohnB acknowledges govt regulations could step in.  Libertarians would not want that at all.  Therein lies the difference.  I've worked in markets forever.  None are perfect markets.  None.  And I also acknowledge the room for govt involvement...even as I acknowledge that the "market" seems to set prices in most cases.

Anyway things of this sort are always open to discussions and debates.  One thing about the airlines is that they are susceptible to government involvement; they have been for decades, and in my mind they should be....huge safety issues involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good response, thoughtful.

I'll reply number-by-number:

1) Yes, I realize this.

2) The key word is "economist." From an economic perspective, these airlines will do even better if they load passengers horizontally - I don't care if the airlines make ten billion dollars *as long as* the public's welfare is addressed.

3) Yes, I agree - fares will be raised (unless they're subsidized, in which case they'll be raised in the form of higher taxes).

4) My argument is rooted in the medical, convenience, *and* physical comfort aspect. It's clear that you're a free-market capitalist - so am I, *until* the free market fails, and it is failing (read on about whether or not this is an actual "free market"). Also, while this is a "food board" by birth, it is growing into something much more substantial than that, and yes, by all means let's have a discussion about Bloomberg's policies. Regarding your final sentence in 4), I refer you to this tweet of mine - this is a perfect example of that "middle category" in that the public gets told what it should want *all the time* (notice I said "it" and not "they"), and it obeys very obediently, too.

John, I respect you, and it's obvious how intelligent and educated you are, but you're addressing this issue from the stance of a pure Libertarian (if you're not, please tell me how you're not). There's nothing *wrong* with being a Libertarian, even just economically (as an example of how one person can be "different things," one can be a social Libertarian and an economic Communist). We're not as different as this conversation may make us sound, except that (and I admit that I'm attempting to read your mind here) when the public welfare is put into peril, the gummint must step in and keep the free market in check. Teddy Roosevelt's Trust busting is but one obvious example that everyone uses. The airline industry is hardly a free market to begin with, as you well know - who knows: perhaps if it was from day one, none of these problems would be happening; however, as it stands, consumers don't have a choice but to participate in this monopolistic system with its quasi-oligopolistic companies, other than, of course, opting out altogether.

Enjoy your trip to Chile, and don't worry about replying until you're back and have some free time on your hands - this thread will be waiting for you, and as always, I'll look forward to reading your reply in earnest,

Cheers,

Rocks

Not to worry.  I have time for this conversation.  We're mostly killing time and seeing old Chilean friends before getting on a ship next Sunday.

No I am most assuredly not a Libertarian, a philosophy that I find silly if not repugnant, because government (I used "gummint" before sardonically) definitely has an important role in society, making some choices and enforcing rules.  Just to clear things up, I'm a strong Democrat/Progressive (but with certain exceptions from my fellow Progressives where the science doesn't support their progressivism and I feel they've gone astray).  For example, I always watch MSNBC never Faux.  I support Hillary -- Bernie is fine but a bit unidimensional and unfortunately insists on calling himself something that will hurt him in the general election, and I definitely don't want to see Trump, or worse Cruz, win because of bad optics coming from the Democrat.  There comes a point where you must cater to the foolishness of crowds.

The problem is how far should government making choices for us go.  Roosevelt did the right thing (my branch of economics is actually anti-trust more than anything).  Setting aside land for National Parks was definitely the right thing.  Establishing social security and Medicare was the right thing.  Obamacare, for all its faults, was a big step in the right direction if not the optimal solution.  Most of what the EPA does is the right thing (and they have great people working for them).  Etc. However, whether that extends to choosing seat pitch for travelers is less clear, particularly when it means that nobody will have the choice and everybody will pay more.  It's pretty far for the government to drill down into people's economic choices/behavior.  If you can make a case that this is really crucial from a medical standpoint, I have no problem, as I already said.  Then again, when I have read about DVT from airline seats it seems the person didn't even stand up for hours.  I would think you can get DVT from sitting in a chair at home for several hours.  It's true that many non-frequent flyers don't know what they're buying, but again how far should government go in protecting people from not informing themselves of what they're buying?

The beat goes on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...