4 ms·

What is your suggested alternative.. force every plane to land half way and take a coffee break? Also, aren't they the same planes and seats as decades ago? We

by soared 10y ago

What is your suggested alternative.. force every plane to land half way and take a coffee break? Also, aren't they the same planes and seats as decades ago? We don't replace planes very often, neither do they just sneak in another seat on every row.

untog 10y ago
I don't think they are the same seats - they get replaced - but they are pretty much the same size. Legroom, on the other hand, has definitely decreased.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Actually newer seats have increased legroom by making the seats thinner. Of course airlines have moved them closer together.
sandworm101 10y ago
(1) Yes. I could see maximum times for flights if one could draw a link between long flights and poor health outcomes. Speaking of which... "One person in 4,600 experiences a symptomatic VTE in a month following a flight of four hours or longer, and only a minority of those are serious." http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120207/New-guidelines-for-travellers-to-avoid-DVT-on-long-flights.aspx http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120207/New-guidelines-for... (2) The airframes aren't new. but the seating arrangements sure are. And modern tech, big-data, means far more flights are booked solid. When I was a kid flying london-vancouver it wasn't unusual to see an entire row empty. That's not a thing anymore.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  As for (2), exactly. Even at the start of the millennium I'd fly LAX-Melbourne and often the Sydney-Melbourne leg was a 747 with a dozen passengers on it (because there was also a non-stop that would routinely be half full).
  - eric_h 10y ago
    The one time I ever flew LAX->Sydney many years ago (with my parents) - we (a family of four) had the center group of seats in a 747 for that trip. So did the guy behind us. I'm still jealous that he had the whole thing to himself, 20 years later.
    - Manishearth 10y ago
      This year I got the full row (3+4+3 seats I think?) in SFO->FRA. I was not the only one, basically everyone near me had a row each. at least a segment of a row each. I didn't really go to the center row though; I was more comfortable resting on the window and keeping my legs on the seats -- can use a laptop comfortably, and also sleep.
- mikestew 10y ago
  When I was a kid flying london-vancouver it wasn't unusual to see an entire row empty. That's not a thing anymore. I've been on domestic U. S. flights that have had multiple rows empty, to the point that my rough math said the airline couldn't have been making a profit on that flight. About a quarter of the time I'd get a row to myself. Those days are long gone, of course. Now I can't even get an exit row months in advance even if I want to pay for it.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    Airplanes need to be moved around. Maybe one leg is partially empty because the plane needed to be somewhere for a D check. When I was a dispatcher for a very small regional carrier, we might cancel a flight that was too empty. More often we'd have to fly a nearly empty or empty flight so that the plane would be where it needed to be for the next day.
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    IIRC the government pays airlines to have sometimes-unprofitable flights from low volume airports. Or at least some governments do.
johannes1234321 10y ago
The cabin is updated more often than the plane itself. Also chairs change in order to become lighter and take less space. This allows for more rows (depending on airplane model and airline)
- coredog64 10y ago
  Certifying authorities set the limits on how many people you can put on the airplane. The JAA (essentially EU version of FAA) had a limit that was (IIRC) 5 fewer than the FAA because during their testing of evacuation that was all they could get out within the time limit.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    Too late for an edit: I forgot to name the airframe. This was the next-gen 737 (-7/8/900).
waqf 10y ago
Oh yes they do: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579141941949066648 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023043841045791419...
- zeusk 10y ago
  That's a comparison of various classes and other types of seating, not the same seats from some time ago. EDIT: From within the article, Early jet planes like Boeing's 707 had 17-inch seats, a dimension based on the width of a U.S. Air Force pilot's hips, says Airbus marketing chief Chris Emerson. That standard for long-haul flying increased to 18-inches in the 1970s and 1980s with the 747 jumbo and the first Airbus jets. It widened to 18.5 inches with the Boeing 777 in the 1990s and A380 superjumbo[1] in the 2000s. Now, cost-conscious airlines are moving to lighter 17-inch-wide seats on their Boeing 777 and 787 Dreamliners and 18-inch seats for A350s. [1] sic, A380 was only a concept at that point.
  - danudey 10y ago
    Boeing is saying that airlines are ordering more planes with more cramped economy seating than they were before, even though they're the same models of plane. "For almost 20 years, the standard setup in the back of a Boeing 777 was nine seats per row. But last year, nearly 70% of its biggest version of the plane were delivered with 10-abreast seating, up from just 15% in 2010." So over five years, airlines were ordering more and more of these especially cramped 777s than before, which means the same class and the same model of plane has narrower seats and aisles so they can cram in one extra person in each row. This is a discussion on new planes, but I would be surprised if airlines weren't moving to the new configuration on older planes as well whenever they do an upgrade or refurbish (or use those planes on lower-demand routes where the lower capacity doesn't impact the actual number of seats sold).
    - zeusk 10y ago
      > Also, aren't they the same planes and seats as decades ago? > Early jet planes like Boeing's 707 had 17-inch seats > Now, cost-conscious airlines are moving to lighter 17-inch-wide seats on their Boeing 777 and 787 Dreamliners and 18-inch seats for A350s. If anything, we're just going back to the older seat width after enjoying a few extra inches on the non-low cost carriers; Sure they're adding more rows but the seats themselves are just as wide (if not more) than what they were decades ago.

by soared 10y ago

untog 10y ago

I don't think they are the same seats - they get replaced - but they are pretty much the same size. Legroom, on the other hand, has definitely decreased.

greglindahl 10y ago
Actually newer seats have increased legroom by making the seats thinner. Of course airlines have moved them closer together.

sandworm101 10y ago

(1) Yes. I could see maximum times for flights if one could draw a link between long flights and poor health outcomes. Speaking of which... "One person in 4,600 experiences a symptomatic VTE in a month following a flight of four hours or longer, and only a minority of those are serious." http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120207/New-guidelines-for-travellers-to-avoid-DVT-on-long-flights.aspx http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120207/New-guidelines-for... (2) The airframes aren't new. but the seating arrangements sure are. And modern tech, big-data, means far more flights are booked solid. When I was a kid flying london-vancouver it wasn't unusual to see an entire row empty. That's not a thing anymore.

FireBeyond 10y ago
As for (2), exactly. Even at the start of the millennium I'd fly LAX-Melbourne and often the Sydney-Melbourne leg was a 747 with a dozen passengers on it (because there was also a non-stop that would routinely be half full).
- eric_h 10y ago
  The one time I ever flew LAX->Sydney many years ago (with my parents) - we (a family of four) had the center group of seats in a 747 for that trip. So did the guy behind us. I'm still jealous that he had the whole thing to himself, 20 years later.
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    This year I got the full row (3+4+3 seats I think?) in SFO->FRA. I was not the only one, basically everyone near me had a row each. at least a segment of a row each. I didn't really go to the center row though; I was more comfortable resting on the window and keeping my legs on the seats -- can use a laptop comfortably, and also sleep.
mikestew 10y ago
When I was a kid flying london-vancouver it wasn't unusual to see an entire row empty. That's not a thing anymore. I've been on domestic U. S. flights that have had multiple rows empty, to the point that my rough math said the airline couldn't have been making a profit on that flight. About a quarter of the time I'd get a row to myself. Those days are long gone, of course. Now I can't even get an exit row months in advance even if I want to pay for it.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Airplanes need to be moved around. Maybe one leg is partially empty because the plane needed to be somewhere for a D check. When I was a dispatcher for a very small regional carrier, we might cancel a flight that was too empty. More often we'd have to fly a nearly empty or empty flight so that the plane would be where it needed to be for the next day.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  IIRC the government pays airlines to have sometimes-unprofitable flights from low volume airports. Or at least some governments do.

johannes1234321 10y ago

The cabin is updated more often than the plane itself. Also chairs change in order to become lighter and take less space. This allows for more rows (depending on airplane model and airline)

coredog64 10y ago
Certifying authorities set the limits on how many people you can put on the airplane. The JAA (essentially EU version of FAA) had a limit that was (IIRC) 5 fewer than the FAA because during their testing of evacuation that was all they could get out within the time limit.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Too late for an edit: I forgot to name the airframe. This was the next-gen 737 (-7/8/900).

waqf 10y ago

Oh yes they do: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579141941949066648 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023043841045791419...

zeusk 10y ago
That's a comparison of various classes and other types of seating, not the same seats from some time ago. EDIT: From within the article, Early jet planes like Boeing's 707 had 17-inch seats, a dimension based on the width of a U.S. Air Force pilot's hips, says Airbus marketing chief Chris Emerson. That standard for long-haul flying increased to 18-inches in the 1970s and 1980s with the 747 jumbo and the first Airbus jets. It widened to 18.5 inches with the Boeing 777 in the 1990s and A380 superjumbo[1] in the 2000s. Now, cost-conscious airlines are moving to lighter 17-inch-wide seats on their Boeing 777 and 787 Dreamliners and 18-inch seats for A350s. [1] sic, A380 was only a concept at that point.
- danudey 10y ago
  Boeing is saying that airlines are ordering more planes with more cramped economy seating than they were before, even though they're the same models of plane. "For almost 20 years, the standard setup in the back of a Boeing 777 was nine seats per row. But last year, nearly 70% of its biggest version of the plane were delivered with 10-abreast seating, up from just 15% in 2010." So over five years, airlines were ordering more and more of these especially cramped 777s than before, which means the same class and the same model of plane has narrower seats and aisles so they can cram in one extra person in each row. This is a discussion on new planes, but I would be surprised if airlines weren't moving to the new configuration on older planes as well whenever they do an upgrade or refurbish (or use those planes on lower-demand routes where the lower capacity doesn't impact the actual number of seats sold).
  - zeusk 10y ago
    > Also, aren't they the same planes and seats as decades ago? > Early jet planes like Boeing's 707 had 17-inch seats > Now, cost-conscious airlines are moving to lighter 17-inch-wide seats on their Boeing 777 and 787 Dreamliners and 18-inch seats for A350s. If anything, we're just going back to the older seat width after enjoying a few extra inches on the non-low cost carriers; Sure they're adding more rows but the seats themselves are just as wide (if not more) than what they were decades ago.