Airline reclinng seat backs
Dec 23rd, 2013, 02:57 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dec 24th, 2013, 06:39 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also share AJPeabody's concern. There are spam links at this forum even though they usually have a short half-life before being triangled. Knowing whether a poster posts spam links knowingly or not requires knowledge of the poster, which takes time to develop. Also one must get familiar with this forum to know how to look at the posting history.
Dec 24th, 2013, 07:08 AM
#7
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I had previously read the article referenced, and it was interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/bu...anted=all&_r=0
But why have reclining seats at all when using that feature is considered an act of territorial aggression?
But why have reclining seats at all when using that feature is considered an act of territorial aggression?
Dec 24th, 2013, 07:47 AM
#8
Off topic, but I quite like using the preview links from tinyurl
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ngp9ayw
which will take you to the tinyurl page and give you the full url.
(the one above is this page)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ngp9ayw
which will take you to the tinyurl page and give you the full url.
(the one above is this page)
Dec 24th, 2013, 09:23 AM
#9
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as people keep putting price as their number one priority, space will always be a problem in C (cattle) class.
When I look at buying a ticket, one of the things I always look at is the 'seat pitch'. If it is less than 32", I'm not buying no matter what the price is.
Some airlines are now down to 28" as the article points out.
When I look at buying a ticket, one of the things I always look at is the 'seat pitch'. If it is less than 32", I'm not buying no matter what the price is.
Some airlines are now down to 28" as the article points out.
Dec 24th, 2013, 09:33 AM
#10
I already had read that article in real life, on paper. It looks like Gresham's Law is now applying to airline seats: Bad seats are driving out good. First to go was American's extra room for every coach seat, and now what's disappearing is any space for every every seat, except for premium coach, which is what coach used to be. How many deep vein thromboses and pulmonary emboli will it take to reverse the trend?
Dec 24th, 2013, 04:40 PM
#11
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AJPeabody, I'm no economist, but I thought Gresham's law required people to hoard the 'good stuff' so that only the 'bad' stuff would stay in circulation (?) But people aren't hoarding better quality seats, they can't even buy them at all in the economy cabin - at least, not on most routes. Air Canada now has "premium economy" seats - but only on a very few routes.
Part of the problem is that planes come in fixed sizes, and each plane must have its own crew, landing slot, etc. One can't just add on cars to a plane the way one can on a train to accommodate more passengers. If one has 200 people seeking to fly a route that formerly serviced on average only 160 people, then the 'solution' of flying two planes (100 people per plane) means the airline's cost DOUBLES, for an increase in revenue of only 25 per cent. Airlines run thin profit margins (I know, hard to believe) so this arrangement would see them either running at a loss (nope, CEO would be sacked) or having to increase fares as much as a third - far more than their customers would tolerate.
So they rearrange the seating and squeeze in 25 per cent more people. People complain, but they still buy the tickets.
At some point of course the airline cannot accommodate more people on a given size plane and they either start flying a different plane model on that route, or they fly two planes. But the math has to work out to keep the airline in the black, not the red.
Part of the problem is that planes come in fixed sizes, and each plane must have its own crew, landing slot, etc. One can't just add on cars to a plane the way one can on a train to accommodate more passengers. If one has 200 people seeking to fly a route that formerly serviced on average only 160 people, then the 'solution' of flying two planes (100 people per plane) means the airline's cost DOUBLES, for an increase in revenue of only 25 per cent. Airlines run thin profit margins (I know, hard to believe) so this arrangement would see them either running at a loss (nope, CEO would be sacked) or having to increase fares as much as a third - far more than their customers would tolerate.
So they rearrange the seating and squeeze in 25 per cent more people. People complain, but they still buy the tickets.
At some point of course the airline cannot accommodate more people on a given size plane and they either start flying a different plane model on that route, or they fly two planes. But the math has to work out to keep the airline in the black, not the red.
