Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Air Plane seats
Replies
-
magster4isu wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I don't know why anyone flies unless they have some Godforsaken reason to have to go overseas. And for most people that never happens. I've never heard anyone say a good word about the flying experience, the costs associated with it or anything else having to do with flying. Continental U.S. and Europe have rail. Screw flying. You can be fat on a train and it's okay. Go Amtrak for God's sake.
Wow. My "Godforsaken reason" to go overseas is to experience cultures that are different than my own. It's sad if a person's only reason for not traveling internationally is that flying sucks. Yeah, flying sucks. But it's a small price to pay to experience the world outside of Amtrack's reach.
Nope. I live in the best, most beautiful and expansive country in the world and there is nothing outside Amtrak's reach that interests me. Other than Alaska and for that I'll take Amtrak and then a cruise ship if I feel sufficiently compelled.
If I lived to be a thousand years old that wouldn't be enough time to for me to see and fall in love with every wonderful nook and cranny of this remarkably glorious and pristine country I live in.
International travel? Done that and I'm done with it. I prefer my own culture and my own nation and the beauty, the geographical diversity, the freedoms and the sense of security it provides me. I offer no apologies for that and I'm proud I feel that way. I don't feel at all sad about it, but if you do, okay.
How did you know that you prefer your own culture without the opportunity you had of experiencing another culture?
One, I've already traveled internationally. See the bolded. Two, I live in a multicultural metropolitan urban area and have more than enough opportunity on a daily basis to observe and experience subcultures originally from overseas who live and work alongside me.
The bolded part was kind of my point.2 -
If you think US based airline seats are small, try flying a Chinese domestic airline.
I had to fly from Hangzhou to Chongqing. My knees were touching the seat back in front of me.
Most the Chinese had plenty of leg room .6 -
One of my friends is barely 5’ and small framed. She jokes that she shouldn’t have to pay full fare since she doesn’t take up much space.5
-
This content has been removed.
-
Try fitting in a Chinese domestic airline seat
5 -
This content has been removed.
-
More leg room, more *kitten* room.
I think the seats are uncomfortable for several shapes and sizes.
I am 5 foot 3 and a half. I would gladly give you some of my leg room if you would give me some of your *kitten* room. Lol1 -
This is United and American airlines!! It pisses me off because my husband and i pay extra now for economy plus just to get some freaking leg room!!! I am 5'9" and my husband is 6'2". We both have very long legs!3 -
I don't know about the leg room thing. I mean of course I'd want more leg room but to have more leg room their would have to be less seats on the plane which would mean less passengers per flight which would mean more expensive tickets. Now would I pay an extra $100 to have more leg room for a 4 hour flight? Probably not to be honest. I'm imagining that those who run the airlines have done this market analysis and decided that people are more likely to select the cheaper flight rather than the "more legroom" flight. If that wasn't the case then they would have expanded leg room and increased ticket prices because why not. They are decreasing leg room to minimize costs because they feel that is what most customers actually want even if those same customers gripe about legroom they are still buying tickets based on prices.
As long as the cost of the ticket is what people primarily consider when purchasing a flight the leg room will continue to shrink up until the point that people start considering something else.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »As long as the cost of the ticket is what people primarily consider when purchasing a flight the leg room will continue to shrink up until the point that people start considering something else.
Yeah, presumably the charging extra for economy plus (and every other little thing) is a business model that they think works for them better than trying to sell a more comfortable flight experience overall.
Makes sense as they can get the people who care to pay more and still claim their tickets are super cheap.0 -
The ONLY advantage my short stature imparts: less uncomfortable on planes.3
-
-
well said/0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know about the leg room thing. I mean of course I'd want more leg room but to have more leg room their would have to be less seats on the plane which would mean less passengers per flight which would mean more expensive tickets. Now would I pay an extra $100 to have more leg room for a 4 hour flight? Probably not to be honest. I'm imagining that those who run the airlines have done this market analysis and decided that people are more likely to select the cheaper flight rather than the "more legroom" flight. If that wasn't the case then they would have expanded leg room and increased ticket prices because why not. They are decreasing leg room to minimize costs because they feel that is what most customers actually want even if those same customers gripe about legroom they are still buying tickets based on prices.
As long as the cost of the ticket is what people primarily consider when purchasing a flight the leg room will continue to shrink up until the point that people start considering something else.
Because they feel they can make the most profit, not because they think it's what customers want. They don't care what you want, only what you'll buy. Market research may have shown that it would cost $10 not $100 extra and that people would gladly pay it, but that if they didn't have the option they'd still buy what was on offer.
Or maybe that's not what the analysis showed. But we shouldn't assume companies are in the business of pleasing their customers, they're in the business of making money. Often those goals overlap but not fully, and sometimes not at all. Most companies would generally want to be a monopoly and most customers of any company generally want otherwise, for example.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know about the leg room thing. I mean of course I'd want more leg room but to have more leg room their would have to be less seats on the plane which would mean less passengers per flight which would mean more expensive tickets. Now would I pay an extra $100 to have more leg room for a 4 hour flight? Probably not to be honest. I'm imagining that those who run the airlines have done this market analysis and decided that people are more likely to select the cheaper flight rather than the "more legroom" flight. If that wasn't the case then they would have expanded leg room and increased ticket prices because why not. They are decreasing leg room to minimize costs because they feel that is what most customers actually want even if those same customers gripe about legroom they are still buying tickets based on prices.
As long as the cost of the ticket is what people primarily consider when purchasing a flight the leg room will continue to shrink up until the point that people start considering something else.
American Airlines had a campaign in the late 90's called more room throughout coach. What they did was to actually increase legroom throughout coach at the expense if removing a few rows of seats. In doing this the cost per seat increased to be able to make the same amount of money on the flight with fewer seats. This was all fine and dandy until customers started complaining about ticket prices and then would purchase the cheapest seat which forced airlines to return to the previous configurations. You can't have your cake and eat it to. As a customer, you will either get less legroom but pay less for that seat or pay an extra premium to get more legroom. That's why most airlines now offer both options. The aircraft are now outfitted with seats for the customers that want the legroom and are willing to pay extra for it along with standard seats for the customer who is just looking to purchase the cheapest seat.
BTW-AA is getting ready to add 2 rows of seats to the 737 fleet so that it will seat as many as the new 737 MAX aircraft.
0 -
AA and United (at least) have a new-ish below economy fare too.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know about the leg room thing. I mean of course I'd want more leg room but to have more leg room their would have to be less seats on the plane which would mean less passengers per flight which would mean more expensive tickets. Now would I pay an extra $100 to have more leg room for a 4 hour flight? Probably not to be honest. I'm imagining that those who run the airlines have done this market analysis and decided that people are more likely to select the cheaper flight rather than the "more legroom" flight. If that wasn't the case then they would have expanded leg room and increased ticket prices because why not. They are decreasing leg room to minimize costs because they feel that is what most customers actually want even if those same customers gripe about legroom they are still buying tickets based on prices.
As long as the cost of the ticket is what people primarily consider when purchasing a flight the leg room will continue to shrink up until the point that people start considering something else.
Because they feel they can make the most profit, not because they think it's what customers want. They don't care what you want, only what you'll buy. Market research may have shown that it would cost $10 not $100 extra and that people would gladly pay it, but that if they didn't have the option they'd still buy what was on offer.
Or maybe that's not what the analysis showed. But we shouldn't assume companies are in the business of pleasing their customers, they're in the business of making money. Often those goals overlap but not fully, and sometimes not at all. Most companies would generally want to be a monopoly and most customers of any company generally want otherwise, for example.
Well alright fair enough they are profit driven, I guess I should have said what customers will tolerate. I guess what I meant is that if an airline felt that they would attract customers by increasing legroom and increasing the price only enough to compensate for the extra legroom then they would do that. I mean they want your business, it is in their best interest to attract more customers after all. I assume they did the market research and determined that people on the whole would end up picking the flight that is $10 less on Expedia or w/e or the business travelers would be compelled to pick the lowest price (I know that is the case if you are flying on government funding).
Bottom line I just mean things won't change until people stop buying economy tickets and instead show some motivation to pay more for more legroom by selecting flights on airlines that have slightly more legroom even if it means a more expensive flight0 -
@Aaron_K123
The reason the distinction matters is that a lot of people are lazy thinkers, and assume anything they hear regularly must be true. A lot of people say business only gives consumers what they want, as useful shorthand for market dynamics that I guess are tedious to explain. And there should be nothing wrong with that. But I've seen people confused by this, for example a lady who thought all advertising was public service announcements.
Maybe I'm tilting at windmills.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »As long as the cost of the ticket is what people primarily consider when purchasing a flight the leg room will continue to shrink up until the point that people start considering something else.
Yeah, presumably the charging extra for economy plus (and every other little thing) is a business model that they think works for them better than trying to sell a more comfortable flight experience overall.
Makes sense as they can get the people who care to pay more and still claim their tickets are super cheap.
I just refuse to fly any more. I used to take six round trips a year.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@Aaron_K123
The reason the distinction matters is that a lot of people are lazy thinkers, and assume anything they hear regularly must be true. A lot of people say business only gives consumers what they want, as useful shorthand for market dynamics that I guess are tedious to explain. And there should be nothing wrong with that. But I've seen people confused by this, for example a lady who thought all advertising was public service announcements.
Maybe I'm tilting at windmills.
It's cool, I agree with your correction.1 -
The big seats are available. Business class, and First class.2
-
Those super economy fares sometimes end up working in your favor. Twice in a month I've ended up with exit row window seats. Doesn't always work out that way, but nice when it does.1
-
I have to laugh when I look at the laminated cards in the seat pockets...the ones that show what to do in case of emergency. The illustrations always show passengers taking the "crash position"...leaning forward with their heads down toward their knees. If you have actually attempted to do this in an economy class seat, it's impossible to do so. I'm under 5'3" and pretty limber, but there just isn't room to lean forward as illustrated.
About a decade ago, my dad (who is neither big nor tall) suffered a pulmonary embolism shortly after a long overseas flight. Now he takes blood thinners daily and wears compression socks whenever he travels.0 -
I think overall if people had better experiences on flights, they would fly more often, and prices would drop. That means more leg room for me, more seat room for larger people, less security dance on the way in, and better experiences while waiting for the plane. I fit into a seat side to side just fine but would rather drive several hours and be in charge of my own surroundings than pay to be crammed in with others and treated badly.3
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know about the leg room thing. I mean of course I'd want more leg room but to have more leg room their would have to be less seats on the plane which would mean less passengers per flight which would mean more expensive tickets. Now would I pay an extra $100 to have more leg room for a 4 hour flight? Probably not to be honest. I'm imagining that those who run the airlines have done this market analysis and decided that people are more likely to select the cheaper flight rather than the "more legroom" flight. If that wasn't the case then they would have expanded leg room and increased ticket prices because why not. They are decreasing leg room to minimize costs because they feel that is what most customers actually want even if those same customers gripe about legroom they are still buying tickets based on prices.
As long as the cost of the ticket is what people primarily consider when purchasing a flight the leg room will continue to shrink up until the point that people start considering something else.
Because they feel they can make the most profit, not because they think it's what customers want. They don't care what you want, only what you'll buy. Market research may have shown that it would cost $10 not $100 extra and that people would gladly pay it, but that if they didn't have the option they'd still buy what was on offer.
Or maybe that's not what the analysis showed. But we shouldn't assume companies are in the business of pleasing their customers, they're in the business of making money. Often those goals overlap but not fully, and sometimes not at all. Most companies would generally want to be a monopoly and most customers of any company generally want otherwise, for example.
Very true, and it's also worth mentioning that sometimes companies are just plain wrong about what will make them the most profit, despite all their market research.
If you've ever watched a failing restaurant go under, you can see what I mean. Usually it starts off with customers getting a little bored and going elsewhere. So the restaurant decides to shake things up and adds things to the menu, which makes the cooks frustrated and slow and drives up costs. The old staples suffer. More customers leave. The owners panic and start chopping costs - they may have certain items on the menu, but when ordered they are not available, annoying customers who ordered them. The situation gets worse and they raise prices, driving more customers away. The customer who used to ask for extra olives and got them for free won't be back after being charged for them. Now very few customers are still coming in. The owners in a last ditch attempt to save the restaurant fire half the staff and reduce the hours they are open, working double shifts themselves alongside the last two waitresses who now have a hunted look and could not be less concerned with good service. Any customer who stops by on Wednesday for lunch and turns in, saying to his friend, "This place used to be good but I haven't been here in a while," will not be back after he finds that the store is mysteriously closed on Wednesday until dinner hours. This restaurant is now doomed and will declare bankruptcy right after the owners come in at 3 am and remove all the fixtures to sell them before the lawyers get them.
Sorry for the long spiel but you can see the same kind of panicked downwards spiral in the airline industry. Nickel and diming customers over every little thing, service reductions along with price raises. The airline industry as a whole will survive because there are some places you have to reach by flying, but individual companies have already gone out of business and will continue to, until they stop the thrashing about.3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The big seats are available. Business class, and First class.
This makes me think of Top Gear's finest moment and the introduction of Scum Class:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPfF1IfuVnc 4 -
Friend was complaining on social media that the seats at a local theater weren't comfortable for someone who was "fluffy" like her. Fact of the matter is she is close to, if not, morbidly obese (guess that's what fluffy means to her). Problem isn't with the theater seats.6
-
Whatever size a person is they are a real person.
...........
I think it’s suitable for a person to have access to an appropriate sized seat, however I also think it is reasonable for there to be a charge for this.
............
My irritation with the airline industry is that why should I at 56kg have to pay for excess baggage over a certain weight when a 150kg person is charged the same price for ticket and luggage?
I remember a few years ago hearing about a Samoan airline charging their passengers by weight because Samoa is one of the most obese nations in the world. Googling it I come up with these articles in the Chicago Tribune and CNN: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-07/travel/ct-trav-0407-airfare-by-weight-20130407_1_samoa-air-pricing-management-bhatta http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/02/travel/samoa-air-fare-by-weight/index.html
CT says: "Charging passengers by weight rather than by the seat has been an industry discussion since fuel prices shot up about five years ago. But tiny Samoa Air, established in 2012 as the national carrier for that group of islands, appears to be the first intending to do it.
According to the airline's website, passengers enter an estimated weight of themselves and their baggage when booking online. They are reweighed at the airport to confirm the estimate."
And the Samoa Air CEO said: "It works both ways. People who pay more deserve more. ... So, it is in our interests that we take care of the people that who've chalked in at 150, 180 kilograms (330, 396 pounds). They've paid their fare and the we try to give them what they should have, which is a comfortable seat. We try to make sure they have space around them, that taller people have got more leg room -- within the confines of the airplane these days we try to do it."
The airline seems to have gone dormant now though, at least judging by the website.
On another note though, there are airlines wishing to weigh their passengers for fuel efficiency reasons. Distributing the weight in a better way throughout the plane will allow it to use fuel more efficiently and some airlines therefore wish to weigh their passengers and select their seats for them.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Friend was complaining on social media that the seats at a local theater weren't comfortable for someone who was "fluffy" like her. Fact of the matter is she is close to, if not, morbidly obese (guess that's what fluffy means to her). Problem isn't with the theater seats.
Fluffy is a weird term, is it an American thing? I've never heard it here, so assumed it was UK or something (after seeing it around on MFP on occasion).
It's a joke I've seen in cat gifs, of course, but I mean applied to humans.0 -
Fluffy.
If I recall, Garfield the overweight cartoon cat was referred to as fluffy. The term gets thrown around in Canada too.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions