I can’t believe we continually bump up against emminently-solvable problems, most often because people are simply pig-headed. Here is another great example. Overweight people being ejected from plane flights because, in the judgement of some individual, they are “too fat to fly”.
Please.
This is yet another example of how we hopelessly overcomplicate simple problems. The problem is simple:
- Airlines want to make as much money as possible. Left up to their own devices, they would pack us into planes like cordwood, or make us stand up for the entire flight. Also, if possible, they would charge us triple what they get now. That’s just the way it is.
- However, Airlines, and any other company for that matter, don’t want you to think they are this way. They want you to think they are “happy”, “fun” and “safety conscious” simply because they are nice people. This too, is a fact.
Airlines are a business. They have competing constraints put upon them, and they do their best to balance these constraints. Problem is, they all want to make as much money as possible, all while appearing to be completely innocent, helpful,and philanthropic.
So what about the airlines? What do they do? Simple. They push the problem down to the lowest person on their ladder. The flight attendant. This way, if there ever is a backlash, they can simply say the employee was “acting alone” and the company policy does not condone such action. The employee is fired, and the company, again, looks completely benevolent.
This action, however, does not solve anything. It simply kicks the can down the road, hoping that the problem can get ignored long enough for everybody to survive another fiscal year intact.
So what SHOULD we do?
Simple. That is where Government comes in.
Now just give me a second. Government actually can be helpful; it just needs to be applied in the proper fashion.
The answer to this problem is simple:
The government needs to require airlines to make all seats a minimum size and distance apart. This size and distance should be set such that 98% of all Americans are comfortable. This is not hard, nor is it ambiguous. It can be done. Easily. My guess is that if you made all seats 6 inches wider, and placed the rows 6 inches farther apart, you would be done.
The airlines in turn will all have to put fewer actual seats on every plane. They will have no choice. What they will be able to choose is what they charge for each seat. Since there are fewer seats, they will most likely charge all passengers a slightly higher fare.
That’s it. Simple.
If anybody out there thinks raising airfares by 10-20% on average will seriously affect how many folks travel, they are dead wrong. Think about it. Flying stinks. Everybody hates it. Do you think we do it because of the money? No way. We do it because we have to. That, too, is a fact of life in America today.
So there you have it. A simple solution. Airlines make the same money they do now. We all are more comfortable in the plane. Everybody wins. Now THAT is what government is for!
Categories: 
Ah, struck a nerve here Tom
Let me ask you a question:
Do you REALLY have to fly or is it a convenience for you? If you wanted to go from Sacramento to Boston (for example) you could fly, drive, take a bus, take a train, hitch on the back of a pickup, bike, walk, etc. There are lots of options. So if someone doesn’t like the treatment that they get on an airline, they can:
- fly a different one. There are many, all of whom set the seat pitches at different points. Of course, seat widths are a different story because they all have to fit into the same skinny aluminum tube
- take another means of transport. of course there are tradeoffs in convenience, cost, time, etc, but the option is there.
But what happens when government gets involved is that they design to the least common denominator. What if I wanted to have an all first-class airline? would that be allowed? What if I wanted all bench seats? What if I offered you a standing room seat but it was $10 to fly to Boston? Should not the market determine if my proposal will be successful? People will buy what makes sense for them, let’s trust them to do it and keep the government out of as much of our lives as possible.
Ouch! Guess I know where you stand!
But, with respect, I think your opinion is kind of extreme. Let’s break it down:
1. Yep…most of us feel flying is the only viable choice given our lifestyles. I’m not likely to make many business meetings if I choose to drive across the country rather than fly, and my vacations would be much less enjoyable hitchhiking with my 2-year old daughter in tow. Nope…pretty much have to fly.
2. Flying a different airline gets you nothing. All the seats are the same width [you got me on the row pitch].
3. As far as government involvement, I think you will agree that the government is ALREADY involved. I don’t think it’s an accident that all seats on American coach flights are the exact same width. My guess is there is some “Minimum Approved Seat Width” metric that some bean-counter came up with in the 50′s that all Airlines must adhere to. All I’m saying is that they should increase that value by six inches. Period.
The government should be kept out of our lives as much as possible. But It’s obvious to me that companies, left to their own devices, will not act in the best interests of consumers in all cases. In these specific cases, the government needs to step in, set a standard, and then quickly get out of the way. That’s exactly what I’m advocating here. Nothing more.
Hope you have calmed down. And thanks for the comment!
I’ll bet that the seat width of seats today come from the design of planes, which were determined by seat width of seats in the past. Sort of how things go over time with “installed bases”
Oh, and let’s question the 10-20% higher price guess, which I think is way off. here’s why:
‘On a 737 or A320 I’ll bet that the width of the plane is exactly 6* the width of the “standard” seat plus the minimum width of the aisle to fit a standard beverage cart. So, if you want to take make a seat 6″ wider, that means that you have to take out two of the six seats (I’m sure that 5 would not give you 6″ each since an airline seat is not 30″ wide) That’s a 33% reduction in the number of seats.
Next in the formula is that at least a couple of years ago the single most expensive thing that airlines have on an operating cost is fuel. So now you’re flying the same airplane across the country with fewer seats, so the cost per mile per passenger goes up by 33%. The second most expensive thing is people and assuming that you have the same number of pilots and attendants, that goes up by 33% as well.
Then add in that most companies manage and are measured not by margin dollars but by margin percentage, so you have to add the extra margin necessary to make that 33% cost increase acceptable. I’m not going to venture a guess of what those margins are, but what do you want to bet that the increase in airline ticket costs will be around 50%?
You sure that people won’t fly less?
WOW. That 6 inches sure blew up to 50% increase awful fast! I’m not sure about your math, but I am sure glad you aren’t working for the CBO! Or perhaps you are!
Let’s break it down just a “tad” simpler, OK? Here we go:
1. The TOTAL cost of flying a plane from point A to point B we shall assume is X. This includes fuel to get a fully loaded plane there, as well as the entire crew.
2. Further assume the total number of seats [ignore first class for this discussion] is S.
3. This implies the cost per seat is given by:
C1 = Cost per seat BEFORE reduction = X/S.
4. Now IF we reduce the number of seats by P percentage, then assuming the number does not result in a change in the number of crew, we get the following:
C2 = Cost per seat AFTER reduction = X/(S*(1-P)).
For example if the total cost X is $1000.00 and there are 10 seats, the cost per seat would be:
C1 example = 1000/10 = $100.00 per seat before reduction
Further assume a reduction of 30 % then we get:
C2 example = 1000/(10*(1-.3)) = 1000/(10*.7) = 1000/7 = $143 per seat after reduction.
BUT WAIT…less people means LESS fuel to fly to the same location! So in reality it costs LESS per seat when you reduce the number of seats! So this number is actually WORSE CASE and the actual price [if based solely on cost which we know it's not] would be less than the amount given by this simple calculation.
Sooo…I’m not sure where you get your numbers, but mine show that the calculation is much simpler than you imply. I think you are actually TRIPLE-dipping when you calculate your costs. You should be working for a government contractor selling sold-gold hammers.
Now the REAL issue is that all the planes were no doubtedly designed with a fuselage width and seat width, along with aisle width that all played nice together, and simply widening a seat will not not yield an easy situation with existing planes. But the point of my original post was much simpler than all this stuff:
Simply create a comfortable seating situation when flying. Force all airlines to do the same thing, that way they can’t compete on price on this one item, and so all planes can be standardized [which is no doubt what happened years ago when we all were thinner].
That’s it…whew.
Sorry for the long-winded reply. I’ll try to do better next time.
Sorry, I agree with Bill. Keep government out of the way. They do a few things well, but not very many. And I’m *in* government! But I know the limitations. I wish our current government did.
What’s your solution for overly tall people?
Hi “A Friend”,
As I said to Bill, this is not an issue of Government being “in” or “out”…they are already in! I’m just saying it’s patently obvious that the airlines will not take action themselves to improve this situation, so they need a little cover. Just like when some restaurant owners were losing customers due to a few customers smoking, they needed legislation. There was no way they were going to ask patrons to not smoke, but now since “it’s the law” I’m sure more than a few of them are happy. Sometimes, you just need someone who does not make money from an action setting the standard so everybody can enjoy the benefit.
BTW, sorry you feel you need to hide your identity in order to post a comment. But as long as you keep things civil and don’t spam me, you are allowed in. Welcome!