Reclining, though, is a silly feature on coach airline seats. At best, you temporarily get more room at the expense of the person behind you. Until the person in front of you reclines. Reclining seats when the seat pitch is so tight is just dumb.
WRT reclining, I disagree. The seats need to be upright enough so that emergency egress is easy, but that runs contrary to what is comfortable for many people. I don't need much recline, but allowing the seat to move back an inch or two (as measured at the top) makes a huge difference in posture.
I'd like to see reclining seats keep the top stationary, but move the bottom forward. That way when you recline you are only taking away your own space.
Then I would argue for leaving them permanently reclined. An inch or two of recline isn't really "recline" given the initial bolt upright setup. I don't see the tiny amount of recline affecting emergency egress...it might even improve it.
If you ever do a long haul flight in economy (which I assume you haven't) you will realize the obvious purpose of reclining coach seats: to allow people a fighting chance of remaining asleep instead of being constantly awakened by their falling heads.
The reclining seats also allow you to be shaken awake every 15 minutes as someone uses the headrests as handholds while walking up the aisle in the dark.
That 45 degree upward incline in both directions is a bitch.
My head just barely remains upright whenever I don't use the reclining function. I always feel bad invading the space of the person behind me, especially when it's a tall person who is already at the limit for room. Although I'll lean back all day long when it's a child behind me.
Actually I do a lot of flying. the fact that the upright position isn't designed well doesn't really negate my point. A well-designed non reclining seat would work better with tight pitches.
For short flights, I do not mind the development of "standing seats." Airline margins will remain razor thin and the savings will be passed to the subset of customers who choose to be more cramped. There WILL continue to be "premium economy" or similar for those who choose it, that is undoubtable.
If the price sensitivity tradeoff of customers ultimately dictates that these standing seats do not gain adoption, I would not be surprised.
History has shown that customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort, but complaining all the while.
I don't believe that "customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort".
Really customers have about as much choice in the comfort of a flight as they do in the cost of health care services.
For years it has been "pay 4 times as much as economy or suffer", in the last ten years they've introduced "basic economy" which at least is realistic.
I might rather fly in a widebody on a domestic flight but I don't get the choice. One reason you hate to fly is that you hate to fly in a 737 (or A320) and you never get to fly in anything else so you just don't know it could be better (at a lower cost per seat mile!) in an A220 or E195.
>For short flights, I do not mind the development of "standing seats."
There are always those customers who would be willing to sit in the luggage hold or lay in the overhead bin or hang onto the wing to save $10.
But these new seating choices remind me of my train travel through Poland in the late 70's on my way to the USSR. I bought a first class ticket to Ukraine from Warsaw and when it pulled into the station there were people climbing through windows while folks used the doors to exit. By the time I got to my 1st class cabin there were about 15 people in there (seating for 6 comfortably). I had to stand in the aisle for about 8 hours overnight hanging on. Good Times...Good Times....LOL...
We need hyperloop to work and national high speed rail to offer alternatives and competition. I do a 2 hour flight, about 1000 miles for work once or twice a quarter, I’d seriously consider a 4-6 hour train ride if the experience was better. Rather than paying extra to carry my bag on, I wouldn’t mind paying extra for a proper meal and some comfortable work space. And if they streamlined the security process the time difference would be that much smaller.
Do you have TSA Pre? Security normally takes me about 5-10 minutes. I do prefer the experience taking the train but there's only about one destination a few hundred miles away where it makes sense.
Apparently they have over 180 million passengers a year[0]. That means that, at most, they're making $7 per passenger. It's not like they're gouging their customers.
with revenue in the same year of $44b, this is pretty much the average profit margin for an american business. I'm not sure which direction you're trying to argue here.
That’ll be fun when you spend 3 hours on the tarmac before your “short haul” flight due to airport congestion or weather conditions.
Edited to add: what about people with disabilities? Can elderly people no longer fly? Or even if they have a few sitting seats to comply with disability regulations, what happens if you sprain your ankle at some point between booking your flight and boarding?
Having been recently "traped" insinde a plane at the gate for nearly 3 hours, that is my main concern. Personaly i would have no problem with such a standing seat for short 30-60min flights if boarding and deboarding plane-to-gate process is <15min.
Sure, but if you have to pay a premium for regular seats just because you have a disability, that seems like a problem. And the injury scenario could also be extremely problematic. What if there are no sitting seats left, or you could afford the cattle class seat but not the business class seat?
If my grandmother needs to fly, do we have to upgrade both her seat and someone else’s in the family to something twice as expensive so someone can help her with the various things she can’t do for herself any more? Or upgrade the whole family if we want to sit together?
Current cattle class seats aren’t comfortable. But they’re accommodating to the elderly and people with disabilities or injuries. If some seat shuffling is required to accommodate a special case it’s usually just shifting people between aisle and non-aisle seats, not downgrading them to standing seats so someone else can sit.
Rubbish. This type of "news" is cheap brand name advertising by low cost airlines. The 5-pound toilet from European Ryanair was a similar campaign.
Though news coverage may appear negative, it is aligned with the impression of the brand as "low cost" and therefore strengthens the brand.
That’s interesting. I never thought about that. Any idea on the effectiveness of doing this? It just seems dicey to me with quite a lot of risk with minimal benefit. I’d rather pet a rabid raccoon than be the PR manager that pulls this stunt. But I do see your point and if done well... yea, just say you found better ways of being lower cost and everyone forgets this ever happened.
Some of us barely fit into a jet cabin at all now! Anything over maybe 5'10" and you have to duck. I'm 6'4". Imagine standing for an hour with your neck torqued because the headroom is too little.
In addition the new Delta legroom of 23" (including the depth of the seat!) will make it impossible for me to sit down. My knee is 25" from the seat (I just measured it). With existing 29" 'seat pitch' cabins, I have to splay my legs or sit sideways.
Yeah, I always argue that planes are just buses with wings for me and I don't understand the whole 'seat size thing'.
But I'm 5'10 with a healthy BMI. It's interesting that the airlines have effectively made height a disability, and what sort of responsibilities airlines have towards making their flights accessible.
The US has an extensive rail network, but it's main purpose is for freight transport. There is a lot of freight train traffic in the US, and so many Americans live and work near train tracks, cross them during commutes, are used to interacting with trains. Just not riding on them.
Subways and other forms of light rail are common in large cities and have a lot of ridership. But these are not typically very plugged into broader rail network. Only a few of the major cities like Chicago or New York have shared stations for local and non-local train service. Taking a train between metropolitan areas us very uncommon outside of the east coast corridor.
For my part, I travel between Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago quite often. I've done it once all by train, just to see what it was like. I can park my car at the Mall of America, take the light rail over to the Amtrak station, then the train down to Union station in Chicago, then a commuter train out to my destination in the suburbs. All told... it ends up taking 12+ hours, and costs about the same as the plane ticket down there. The Megabus is way cheaper, and takes about as long. I could just make the 6 to 8 hour drive, which gives me maximum flexibility. Passenger rail face some stiff competition.
I would want to try sitting in one sometime. Airlines might have a better time trying to push the idea if they can get mockups built that can be installed in terminals at major airlines. If it's actually not that bad, let people test it out. It looks terrible but so is sitting in a cramped airline chair with your knees jammed into the seatback. If the vertical seat at least gave the illusion of more room in the sense that you aren't physically pressed up against anything, it might feel more comfortable. Another issue with the vertical seats is that everyone is a different height and therefore a different inseam length, how do you accommodate shorter people and children while also fitting tall people in? Having the saddle/seat being able to move up and down like an office chair would help.
You are talking about the "hidden comfort" of such a system. Ask yourself this, where else do you see such a configuration where there isn't a profit motive? Do people eat dinner in such a configuration? Do their living rooms have vertical seats? What about movie theaters, stadiums and classrooms?
Business opportunity: A university where tuition is way cheaper because the lecture halls have those standing seats to cram in twice as many students. /s
Airlines are having near-record profits now. I have a hard time believing there isn't some implicit or explicit collusion going on with US carriers. Not only are seats ever-more cramped and the fees ever greater, but pilot benefits have been massively slashed at many airlines as well. The series of mergers we have had have made things worse, I think.
This is my suspicion, as well. I don't buy the complaints about thin margins driving these decisions. The main innovation of airlines appears to be exactly how much misery people will put up with and still buy a ticket.
Am I the only one who thinks standing for shorter flights of < 3 hours would be healthier and more comfortable? I work regularly at a standing desk, sitting for too long makes me feel lethargic and often causes headaches for me (it's much easier to have good posture, neck and back alignment when standing). For longer flights, people need a seat, but for shorter flights I would gladly pay the same price to be able to stand instead.
Readit News
Reclining, though, is a silly feature on coach airline seats. At best, you temporarily get more room at the expense of the person behind you. Until the person in front of you reclines. Reclining seats when the seat pitch is so tight is just dumb.
Oh, and if you get the paywall: http://archive.is/vqTNf
That 45 degree upward incline in both directions is a bitch.
If the price sensitivity tradeoff of customers ultimately dictates that these standing seats do not gain adoption, I would not be surprised.
History has shown that customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort, but complaining all the while.
Really customers have about as much choice in the comfort of a flight as they do in the cost of health care services.
For years it has been "pay 4 times as much as economy or suffer", in the last ten years they've introduced "basic economy" which at least is realistic.
I might rather fly in a widebody on a domestic flight but I don't get the choice. One reason you hate to fly is that you hate to fly in a 737 (or A320) and you never get to fly in anything else so you just don't know it could be better (at a lower cost per seat mile!) in an A220 or E195.
I've flow from NYC to Chicago $90 round trip. It's incredible how inexpensive flying as become.
There are always those customers who would be willing to sit in the luggage hold or lay in the overhead bin or hang onto the wing to save $10.
But these new seating choices remind me of my train travel through Poland in the late 70's on my way to the USSR. I bought a first class ticket to Ukraine from Warsaw and when it pulled into the station there were people climbing through windows while folks used the doors to exit. By the time I got to my 1st class cabin there were about 15 people in there (seating for 6 comfortably). I had to stand in the aisle for about 8 hours overnight hanging on. Good Times...Good Times....LOL...
[0]https://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts
Dead Comment
Edited to add: what about people with disabilities? Can elderly people no longer fly? Or even if they have a few sitting seats to comply with disability regulations, what happens if you sprain your ankle at some point between booking your flight and boarding?
If my grandmother needs to fly, do we have to upgrade both her seat and someone else’s in the family to something twice as expensive so someone can help her with the various things she can’t do for herself any more? Or upgrade the whole family if we want to sit together?
Current cattle class seats aren’t comfortable. But they’re accommodating to the elderly and people with disabilities or injuries. If some seat shuffling is required to accommodate a special case it’s usually just shifting people between aisle and non-aisle seats, not downgrading them to standing seats so someone else can sit.
In addition the new Delta legroom of 23" (including the depth of the seat!) will make it impossible for me to sit down. My knee is 25" from the seat (I just measured it). With existing 29" 'seat pitch' cabins, I have to splay my legs or sit sideways.
I guess it'll be the train for me.
But I'm 5'10 with a healthy BMI. It's interesting that the airlines have effectively made height a disability, and what sort of responsibilities airlines have towards making their flights accessible.
Subways and other forms of light rail are common in large cities and have a lot of ridership. But these are not typically very plugged into broader rail network. Only a few of the major cities like Chicago or New York have shared stations for local and non-local train service. Taking a train between metropolitan areas us very uncommon outside of the east coast corridor.
For my part, I travel between Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago quite often. I've done it once all by train, just to see what it was like. I can park my car at the Mall of America, take the light rail over to the Amtrak station, then the train down to Union station in Chicago, then a commuter train out to my destination in the suburbs. All told... it ends up taking 12+ hours, and costs about the same as the plane ticket down there. The Megabus is way cheaper, and takes about as long. I could just make the 6 to 8 hour drive, which gives me maximum flexibility. Passenger rail face some stiff competition.
...
Of course you don't.
Movement rather than standing or sitting still is the way to go.