4 ms·

It is about cost to airlines but to call out the cramped conditions in the same breath as carbon emissions when the cramped conditions reduce overall carbon emi

by pb7 4y ago

It is about cost to airlines but to call out the cramped conditions in the same breath as carbon emissions when the cramped conditions reduce overall carbon emissions immediately gave away that the OP doesn’t give one shit about climate change when it comes to their personal comfort. Dialing in on how it benefits the airlines when low prices also benefit flyers and lower per-passenger emissions benefit everyone shows you just have a bone to pick.

b112 4y ago
Of course I have a bone to pick. It is too cramped! Having my knees mashed into the seat in front of me, my back aching, for a 9 hour flight is absurd, and should be illegal. Many, many flyer hate this. It absolutely does not benefit flyers, not when you see seat price static, or going up, and airline profits up (prior covid). It. does. not. help. consumers. Airlines care not about emissions. You claimed it was done to reduce emissions. This is completely false. No hand wavy logic will change this.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Would you rather take the slower form of travel? If it's a nine hour flight, that could be over the ocean, so days instead of hours to get there.
  - b112 4y ago
    I am not against air travel. I am against people claiming that the reason I am cramped, is to help the environment. Or customers. It's not. It is to help airline profits.
    - pb7 4y ago
      You don’t seem to understand how this business works so let me explain. Air travel prices have been dropped significantly over the last few decades. What used to be a luxury reserved for the wealth can now enjoyed by folks paying as little as $10 for a 2 hour flight (e.g. RyanAir). The average economy experience used to resemble that of a business class ticket with a price to match. Over the years, this experience was whittled down to what we have to today to make air travel affordable to the masses and capture more demand. Airlines are a notoriously low-margin business and most of them make nearly no money — this is why there are literally thousands of them that have gone out of business. Often their greatest asset is their loyalty program and the rest is a massive liability. Whether lowering emissions is a direct consequence or an indirect consequence, increasing seat density does just that so suck it up.
      - b112 4y ago
        increasing seat density does just that so suck it up. No. Airlines in my country (Canada), exhibit the behaviour I described. Greater profits, zero real savings for consumers, and cramped seats. Thus, again, hand wavy stuff re:environment, is not the cause. Assertions otherwise are 100% wrong. Airflight does not need to be cramped. If you wish to push this narrative, the narrative of "good! cramped is good cause environment), then I suggest you start with more effective places. Such as, limiting hot water usage, temperatures in homes, the size of homes, the size of cars, bus seating, the ability to use anything but your feet, for short (1km) trip distances, and on and on and on. All of these will do far more, immensely more for the environment. And will be far less onerous that cramped airline seating. EG, drip all indoor temps, by law, to 60F in winter, and just wear a sweater.
      - b112 4y ago
        increasing seat density does just that so suck it up. No. Airlines in my country (Canada), exhibit the behaviour I described. Greater profits, zero real savings for consumers, and cramped seats. Thus, again, hand wavy stuff re:environment, is not the cause. Assertions otherwise are 100% wrong. Airflight does not need to be cramped. If you wish to push this narrative, the narrative of "good! cramped is good cause environment", then I suggest you start with more effective places. Such as, limiting hot water usage, temperatures in homes, the size of homes, the size of cars, bus seating, the ability to use anything but your feet, for short (1km) trip distances, and on and on and on. All of these will do far more, immensely more for the environment. And will be far less onerous than cramped airline seating. EG, drop all indoor temps, by law, to 60F in winter, and just wear a sweater. Of course, you'll get little traction making people take lukewarm showers, so instead, you want me to have aching knees for a week after an airflight. And no, this problem isn't rare in my country. Shame on you!
        pb7 4y ago
        Canadian airlines are not special. Air Canada has a negative operating income. They don't make shit. Since you seem to be missing the point, let me make it simple for you. If you have 100 passengers and two plane types, one can seat 100 passengers in a economy configuration, and another can seat 50 passengers in a business configuration with more room, and all 100 passengers must fly, which is the more efficient one? Which one is going to be double the price? Which one makes the airline more money (hint: neither)? Aching knees? You poor thing. Fly business class then, it's available to you, but don't pretend like you care about the environment.
- pb7 4y ago
  Pay for a lie flat seat and stop whining then. You have that option on flights that are 9 hours.

by pb7 4y ago

b112 4y ago

Of course I have a bone to pick. It is too cramped! Having my knees mashed into the seat in front of me, my back aching, for a 9 hour flight is absurd, and should be illegal. Many, many flyer hate this. It absolutely does not benefit flyers, not when you see seat price static, or going up, and airline profits up (prior covid). It. does. not. help. consumers. Airlines care not about emissions. You claimed it was done to reduce emissions. This is completely false. No hand wavy logic will change this.

goatlover 4y ago
Would you rather take the slower form of travel? If it's a nine hour flight, that could be over the ocean, so days instead of hours to get there.
- b112 4y ago
  I am not against air travel. I am against people claiming that the reason I am cramped, is to help the environment. Or customers. It's not. It is to help airline profits.
  - pb7 4y ago
    You don’t seem to understand how this business works so let me explain. Air travel prices have been dropped significantly over the last few decades. What used to be a luxury reserved for the wealth can now enjoyed by folks paying as little as $10 for a 2 hour flight (e.g. RyanAir). The average economy experience used to resemble that of a business class ticket with a price to match. Over the years, this experience was whittled down to what we have to today to make air travel affordable to the masses and capture more demand. Airlines are a notoriously low-margin business and most of them make nearly no money — this is why there are literally thousands of them that have gone out of business. Often their greatest asset is their loyalty program and the rest is a massive liability. Whether lowering emissions is a direct consequence or an indirect consequence, increasing seat density does just that so suck it up.
    - b112 4y ago
      increasing seat density does just that so suck it up. No. Airlines in my country (Canada), exhibit the behaviour I described. Greater profits, zero real savings for consumers, and cramped seats. Thus, again, hand wavy stuff re:environment, is not the cause. Assertions otherwise are 100% wrong. Airflight does not need to be cramped. If you wish to push this narrative, the narrative of "good! cramped is good cause environment), then I suggest you start with more effective places. Such as, limiting hot water usage, temperatures in homes, the size of homes, the size of cars, bus seating, the ability to use anything but your feet, for short (1km) trip distances, and on and on and on. All of these will do far more, immensely more for the environment. And will be far less onerous that cramped airline seating. EG, drip all indoor temps, by law, to 60F in winter, and just wear a sweater.
    - b112 4y ago
      increasing seat density does just that so suck it up. No. Airlines in my country (Canada), exhibit the behaviour I described. Greater profits, zero real savings for consumers, and cramped seats. Thus, again, hand wavy stuff re:environment, is not the cause. Assertions otherwise are 100% wrong. Airflight does not need to be cramped. If you wish to push this narrative, the narrative of "good! cramped is good cause environment", then I suggest you start with more effective places. Such as, limiting hot water usage, temperatures in homes, the size of homes, the size of cars, bus seating, the ability to use anything but your feet, for short (1km) trip distances, and on and on and on. All of these will do far more, immensely more for the environment. And will be far less onerous than cramped airline seating. EG, drop all indoor temps, by law, to 60F in winter, and just wear a sweater. Of course, you'll get little traction making people take lukewarm showers, so instead, you want me to have aching knees for a week after an airflight. And no, this problem isn't rare in my country. Shame on you!
      - pb7 4y ago
        Canadian airlines are not special. Air Canada has a negative operating income. They don't make shit. Since you seem to be missing the point, let me make it simple for you. If you have 100 passengers and two plane types, one can seat 100 passengers in a economy configuration, and another can seat 50 passengers in a business configuration with more room, and all 100 passengers must fly, which is the more efficient one? Which one is going to be double the price? Which one makes the airline more money (hint: neither)? Aching knees? You poor thing. Fly business class then, it's available to you, but don't pretend like you care about the environment.
pb7 4y ago
Pay for a lie flat seat and stop whining then. You have that option on flights that are 9 hours.