House passes bill to require minimum standards for airplane seat size, legroom
U.S. House lawmakers passed legislation late Wednesday [October 3] that would give federal regulators the authority to set minimum standards for seat size and leg room on flights.
Tucked inside a 2,000-page funding bill is a provision that gives the Federal Aviation Administration a year to establish minimum pitch, width and length on airplane seats to ensure they are safe for passengers. The legislation, which funds the FAA for the next five years, passed 398-23 in the House and now goes to the Senate.
The proposed law is designed to ensure that what have become increasingly cramped planes can be evacuated quickly in an emergency. Current FAA rules require airlines to evacuate in 90 seconds or less.
That policy hasn't been updated significantly in almost two decades. Investigators at the Department of Transportation, which oversees the FAA, said in June that they plan to study whether the FAA is ensuring that today's more crowded aircraft meet federal evacuation standards.
Commercial airplane cabins have become more cramped as airlines fit more seats on board to increase profits and spread out costs among more travelers. Several carriers have reconfigured their planes to not only include more seats but also smaller lavatories in some cases.
Seat pitch, a proxy for legroom, on commercial airplanes measured about 35 inches in the middle of the 20th century, but that's now around 31 inches, according to SeatGuru. Some budget airlines, like Spirit, offer 28 inches of seat pitch.
[...] The bill also requires a government study of whether airlines' shrinking or reducing bathrooms in favor of more seats on board creates problems for passengers accessing lavatories.
Before going to vote, lawmakers scrapped a provision that would determine whether airline fees, such as those to change a travel date, are reasonable.
WATCH: It's not just your eyes. Airline seats really are getting smaller.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:22AM (9 children)
Airlines seem to be engaged in a "race to the bottom". Who can have the least comfortable planes with the worst service? Since the industry apparently cannot fix itself, it's all well and good for the regulators to step in.
However. This American tendency to pack everything into huge omnibus bills is just nuts. This one little gem may be in there, right next to a zillion little tidbits of pork and payola.
Every issue ought to be a separate bill with a separate vote.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:29AM (4 children)
This is in your best interest. Smaller seats means you can pack more passengers in each flight, which means fewer flights, which means less CO2 emissions, which means protecting you from global warming.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:44AM (3 children)
Alternatively: smaller seats mean lower prices, mean more people flying places they don't really need to go, mean more flights, mean more CO2, mean more global warming.
Seriously.
I'm not a fan of the global warming frenzy, but if we're serious about reducing CO2, the place to start is on long-haul transportation. One occasionally sees sterling examples of transport idiocy: Cattle shipped from Germany to Italy for slaughter, so that the meat can be shipped to Slovenia for processing, and then shipped back to Germany for sale.
Double or triple the price of fuel everywhere - planes, ships, trucks, cars - as an incentive to stop burning it for stupid reasons.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:54AM (2 children)
I think its something like 8 ships bringing cheap crap to the US from china produce as much pollution as all the cars in the world. Trumps tariffs may end up being the most environmentally friendly policy implemented yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @01:50PM (1 child)
Bullshit. Thanks. Bye.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:25PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:42AM (1 child)
The thing is, buying airline tickets is a voluntary thing. The people buying those low service tickets are what is driving these dynamics. And the act of buying those tickets indicates fliers don't value service all that much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:35PM
A good chunk of travel is business travel, which I wouldn't necessarily view as a voluntary thing.
I recall many years ago (maybe in the 90s) an interview with one of the heads of a major airline (I think it was American). He was asked about these issues and he said that they tried all kinds of things to add value to the flight, such as food choices, comfort options, etc. However, the only thing that significantly drove customer purchasing was the price. They would significantly choose a worse flight experience if it was a few dollars cheaper, so they basically threw in the towel and tried to cram as many seats into a plane as they could.
I think, and from time to time legislation has been proposed along these lines, that the airlines should have to report the expected actual expense and not allow them to charge add-on fees for everything and then advertise just the base ticket price. There should be a common set of assumptions for all airlines, such as checking one bag, or carrying on one item (for those airlines who charge for carry ons), and roll up all the other charges ("fuel surcharge", all those things that are airline charges but they dress them up to sound like federal taxes, etc.).
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:53PM (1 child)
I'd rephrase it as all the airlines are trying to be the "McDonalds of air travel" and the real problem is there's absolutely nobody out there trying to be the "Culvers of air travel". Heck I'd tolerate the "Applebees of air travel".
The situation is either you buy soy and pink slime fake meat stuff they couldn't even legally sell as dogfood or jump right to the fancy steakhouse of private rental and there seems to be nothing in between. I'd gladly pay 50% more for my living room leather recliner with a seat belt and really good food, but its simply not an option. The market having obviously utterly failed, need the .gov to step in.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 12 2018, @01:04PM
It's the same problem as our political system. Offering a variety of options is prohibitively expensive. Generally it's not going to be profitable to have multiple flights between the same airports at the same time with different plane configurations. Most people booking a flight are looking at the departure and arrival times first, and price second. So after you've picked your time, you *might* have two options for pricing -- cheap coach seats, or expensive first class. If you're really lucky and it's a really busy route you might get one or two more options, but probably no more than that.
If I want to pay a couple bucks more just for extra legroom...I can't. That's not a choice. So I'm forced to pick between cheap and crappy or more expensive than I can afford...so I go with cheap and crappy. Then the airlines see everyone buying cheap and crappy, so they figure that's what people want, so they make it cheaper and crappier. And *some* people probably do want that, but everyone who wants a reasonable seat for a reasonable price gets dragged along with them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:52AM (6 children)
You need a heavy truck to haul yo ass around, huge seats everywhere and ambulance crews who consist of semi-professional weight lifters...
Maybe try drinking something else besides your sodas.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:56AM (2 children)
Vodka's a good drink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:59AM (1 child)
Cheap vodka's a good window cleaner.
Now the FAA can regulate seats, will the lobbyists manage to make the minimum the size of a small child?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:01AM
You can't beat metho prices, mate.
Diggers is non toxic to humans, contains a bittering agent [wikipedia.org] for making it non-palatable .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:57AM (2 children)
Beer?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:06AM (1 child)
Only if you don't drink too much [webmd.com]
Make mine a stout [ratebeer.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:15AM
That page is bs. I switched to spiked seltzers from beer which have about the same calories but much fewer carbs. The carbs in beer make you hungry, so you eat more while drinking or the next day.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:55AM (2 children)
At least American flights still have seats. Those crazy Europeans want to make their passengers stand like on a bus: https://nypost.com/2017/06/27/airline-wants-to-make-passengers-stand-during-flights-for-cheaper-tickets/ [nypost.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:05AM
Don't believe a word of it. RyanAir boss Michael Whatsisname regularly announces outrageous "cost cutting" plans in order to get headlines and associate his brand name with low prices, for example charging customers to use the toilet in flight. Nothing ever comes of these ridiculous plans, it's pure publicity.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday October 11 2018, @12:32PM
(Checks TFA) Ah, yes, that famous crazy European country of, er, Colombia..? (...apparently there's a Columbia in Tyne and Wear, England but I'm not aware of it having a national airline...)
OK, so the idea was suggested, years ago, by a genuine crazy European - who has a history of jokingly announcing totally ludicrous ideas for cost-cutting, possibly to distract from the merely ridiculous levels of cost-cutting his airline is famous for.
Actually, it wouldn't be too surprising if Ryanair flights to Newcastle actually land in Columbia (Tyne & Wear). :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:46AM (3 children)
Is this:
A market failure due to lack of competition?
A tragedy of the commons where people are unwilling to pay to ensure a minimum comfort for everyone?
A slow boil where the marginal increase in discomfort is negligible?
The tyranny of the majority (who don't have extra long legs)?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Thursday October 11 2018, @01:19PM (1 child)
No, just more proof that the market couldn't find its invisible ass with both invisible hands.
To have "competition" you'd need multiple half-empty planes flying each route so that customers actually had a viable choice.
Even where there is a choice of carriers for a given route, the only thing they'll "compete" on is how many people they can cram on a plane. For every customer that gets fed up and goes to the competition you'll pick up a new one who the competition has pissed off. Most customers will buy on price, timetable and availability - its not like you can easily go and look at the planes to do comparison shopping on seat sizes before you buy. If you're travelling for work you'll probably be obliged to pick the cheapest ticket or used the approved airline (which probably got approved by people who only travel first class, probably at a substantial discount in return for the exclusive livestock transport rights).
Where's the option to pay a bit more for better seats all round? You can pay a substantial premium for better seats for yourself - probably at the expense of others.
That's what you get when the market works...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:49PM
Not quite. Air travel is very, very far from a free market. Sure it was all 'deregulated' and stuff way back in the day, but in reality all it really meant was that it was about as deregulated as the NYC cab industry, which is to say not at all.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:48PM
In my case [slashdot.org], it was just a good guess that they would ever pass (yet to pass in the Senate, though) something like this. I swear on my life.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:46PM
These stories all seem to be thinly veiled ads for
https://www.jetcards.org/ [jetcards.org]
or similar in the sense of having a gigantic heavily advertised multinational corporation turns out to provide worse more expensive service than less well known smaller alternatives.
A little Cessna Citation can move eight people 400 miles in an hour for $2500 or so, cash on the barrel. So I can take my extended family to NYC for about one grand per person in reasonable comfort and convenience. According to Expedia I could have the most unimaginably shitty flight of my life for a mere $350 per person or several alternatives exist around the $500 level. If you can't afford $1K/person you can't afford $500/person so it doesn't matter; also NYC is not a cheap place to visit, so the cost of the jet isn't even going to be the most significant cost if you spend a week or two there.
Ironically I've been to NYC; not terribly interested in visiting again. More likely I'd take the jet to a national park out west. Jackson Hole and visit Grand Teton, maybe. Still trying to get to Glacier before all the glaciers melt, LOL.
Where private jet rental doesn't work financially, is I need one ticket for me to meet someone for business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:06PM
Give everyone a pot brownie while they're in line at the insecurity groping checkpoint. If everyone on the flight is baked they won't care how small the seats are.
Cheap, easy, effective. As opposed to their proposed regulation, which is none of the above.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:01PM (1 child)
Having a minimum standard for airline seating is not unreasonable, however I question the thought process which leads to proposing new rules while noting that there is already a rule and the study which is to examine compliance with that rule has not been done yet. Can planes be evacuated in 90 seconds? If not then how about enforcing that rule? Or if they already can be evacuated in 90 seconds then what is the point in bringing this up as justification for regulating seat sizes?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday October 12 2018, @01:09AM
Maybe some legislative committees needed something quantifiable they could put into a regulation after recently realizing their teen grand/kids were both growing a lot taller and gaining a lot of weight?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:13PM
It wouldn't help this guy [youtube.com], but better late than never.