#1 By: Cory Doctorow, October 27th, 2013 10:38
#2 By: Mindy Clegg, October 27th, 2013 10:53
And then they wonder why Kevin Smith didn't fit! They shrink the sizes of the seats and fat shame anyone who is wider than a rail. WTF?
#3 By: Salgak, October 27th, 2013 11:00
Could be worse: ever hear of the STANDING passenger arrangement ??
RyanAir in Britain was actually considering it. . .
The term jet-setter is still applied to travelers heading to chic, exciting places. But by now, after years of enduring countless fees, painfully long airport waits and humiliation by way of clothing removal and body scans, travelers should know that the era when flying equated to glamour is long g...
#4 By: Mindy Clegg, October 27th, 2013 11:03
Ugh... why? I mean, how can they even do that? Even with straps, it still seems dangerous, even for short trips.
#5 By: TheMetalPedant, October 27th, 2013 11:13
They can do that because we have no other choice. Sure, we have a "choice" in airlines, but I can't remember the last time I had more than one legitimate choice for any given flight unless I was willing to fly not at all close to the times I needed to and/or was willing to pay a lot more and/or was willing to drive a significant distance to another airport, and I live in an urban area. My parents live near Pittsburgh, and that airport has a fraction of the flights available that it had not that long ago because of various contract disputes with airlines and other tomfoolery. It will be even more of a moot point if multiple airlines all order their planes with sardine torture seats.
#6 By: Dustin Ambler, October 27th, 2013 11:17
I just flew to Africa and back and had an aisle seat. Every time the stewards and stewardess' walked through with a cart, they'd strike my shoulder. I'm 6', 180 lb. My shoulders measure about 20 inches. I don't know how anybody larger than I would be able to cope.
#7 By: Mindy Clegg, October 27th, 2013 11:20
That's true, but doesn't make it better. I mean the alternative is planes, trains, and automobiles, right.
#8 By: lecti, October 27th, 2013 11:26
I hate to be a jerk, but if this discourages people from traveling for leisure, the better it is for the conservation of finite resources. Burning fuel to ship live meat from places to places so it can experience things is overrated
#9 By: Israel B, October 27th, 2013 11:28
Actual quote from the article:
"With food and TV," said Mr. Clark at Emirates, "people are mesmerized."
Considering that this is Emirates it probably won't apply to me but there is pretty much nothing mesmerizing about the kosher meals on long haul international flights. Since I live in Tokyo, thats all flights I ever take.
#10 By: Ignatius, October 27th, 2013 11:29
Indeed. The only thing worse for even moderately tall people is getting a window seat on a smaller plane on a flight longer than 45 minutes.
#11 By: Sam Wormleighton, October 27th, 2013 11:37
I am the reason this is happening. I fly fairly frequently and I select purely and only based on price. I don't care if the food is terrible. I don't care if the seats are tired, worn and too small. I don't care about anything except safety (airlines operating in modern democracies are more or less equal here) and price.
Seriously. I'd squat at the back in the galley if they offered a cheaper ticket. Have you guys ever been on a bus in a developing country? Western airlines are incredibly comfortable, utter luxury. I just want the cheapest deal they have (seat + 1 carry bag + 20kg hold bag) and to hell with the rest. By shopping on price I go on trips I wouldn't have otherwise been able to take. And 8 hours of my knees by my ears? So what. If I save $100 that's fine by me. Being in mild discomfort for 8 hours is nothing. I'd sit on a spike for 8 hours if the flight was cheap enough!
#12 By: Ignatius, October 27th, 2013 11:38
The problem with your line of thinking is that it has a disproportionate effect on those who aren't super wealthy. Rich people can afford to get the higher quality food that makes them skinnier and the first class seating which makes it so they don't have to be skinnier. Poorer people--who often can't afford to fly but may have to anyway in cases of family emergencies--end up footing the entire consequence of your desire for conservation.
It also does nothing to solve the problem: how to travel efficiently without having a huge drain on the environment. "Just don't travel!"?
#13 By: IMB, October 27th, 2013 11:41
#14 By: Phasma Felis, October 27th, 2013 11:41
No, you don't.
Ignatius pretty much summarized the rest of my argument.
#15 By: Phasma Felis, October 27th, 2013 11:44
Why aren't there any airlines trying to compete on comfort at competitive prices?
#16 By: Jason Andresen, October 27th, 2013 11:50
Like JetBlue or British Airways?
#17 By: daneel, October 27th, 2013 11:52
Generally being a short-ass isn't a good thing, but at least I can fit in airplane seats.
On the mention of Ryanair by @salgak, I'd generally ignore anything Michael O'Leary says, he's always suggesting ludicrous things to get his airline in the news, where he can talk up his cheap prices.
However, how about these?
Saddle up, you're going on holiday. A new seat design unveiled by an Italian company in the US this week could revolutionise economy class cabins, enabling carriers to squeeze more passengers in.
But these are more for me.
#18 By: StewartTongue, October 27th, 2013 11:55
If people fly less, seats get wider... If they fly more or the same amount the seats get smaller. It's pretty simple economics. If you font like it, don't give them your money. They will be replaced by companies you do give money.
Talk less... Do more.
#19 By: Rindan, October 27th, 2013 12:10
Eh. I have no rage. This is a "problem" of our own making. People don't select on anything other than price. Sure, you might pick one airline over another if the price difference is minimal, but for the most part, people are not willing to pay more for more room. Hell, most of these airlines will let you drop an extra $40 for a slightly nicer coach seat and I bet you rarely take them up on the offer.
Airlines are a boom and bust industry with relatively thin margins and vicious competition over price (when government is doing its job and keeping them from monopolying up). They are not gouging you. They are not cramming you in to be mean. They are doing everything in their power to make that price tag you see when you search for a flight on your travel website of choice as small as humanly possible because you WILL decide based upon that price. They can either sacrifice a few inches of room on the alter of the price gods or be die. The solution is simple; pay more for better seats on better airlines. I am pretty sure that the airlines would vastly prefer to ship fewer people at a higher cost then have to deal with the headache of using a cattle prod shove Americans into a seat that is the width of a single ass cheek.
#20 By: Miramon, October 27th, 2013 12:12
The rule is not to fly coach. If you have to fly coach, then take the train instead. The bus. Drive. Decide that you didn't need to go there after all. The bigger the airline, the worse they are, especially the American carriers (but there are plenty of malicious and stupid foreign carriers as well). These companies' managements are scum who deserve to fail; the only shame is what will happen to the workers when they do. American. United/Continental. Delta/Northwest. It's a race to the bottom, and you shouldn't fly any of them if you can avoid it.
next page →