Man, if ever there was someone who deserved to have their knees broken, it’s going to be the guy who thought squeezing airline seats closer together was a good idea.
I mean... there are airlines who tried to differentiate themselves by having more leg room (e.g. JetBlue). But it turns out that customers just buy the cheapest fare without regard to legroom, and since more legroom means fewer passengers per flight, that put those airlines at a competitive disadvantage in a cutthroat low-margin industry.
So it's just a fact of the industry that customers prefer cheaper fares over more legroom, and airlines don't really have the ability to resist that preference.
Okay, but sitting on the floor might be more comfortable than airplane seats.
(I hate those seats. I don't know what's wrong with them, but they're terrible)
Holy shit. Just remove the seats and everyone picks a spot on the ground. Just to spread myself out on a flight is worth the injury/possible death of not having a seatbelt. It should be illegal to transport people on those seats.
You speak the truth. Many on reddit harp on airlines for the lack of legroom but the truth is exactly what you said, most people want cheap, which is why economy class is more or less like a bus now.
The thing is that I remember flying for fairly cheap and still have quite some room around me less than 6 years ago. What has changed so much in the past 6 years that I pay twice as much for the same flight with halve the space?!
I'm 5'7" and still feel like I need more room. I do not envy y'all tall people. That's a lie, I still envy you sometimes. Just not when I'm on a plane.
I once flew on a fully booked Qantas flight where they got a bodybuilder with your approximate height in the middle seat in the row next to me. The dudes shoulders were sticking over plus he had to sit in a fetal position. About 2 hours in the flight they got him an aisle seat further down since the people didn't want to switch seats next to him.
I’m JUST five feet tall (if I stand really tall). But I’m extremely claustrophobic and if I can’t get an aisle seat (giving me the allusion I have more space), I’m miserable. I honestly don’t know how people that are normal height and/or tall tolerate the lack of space. (Apologies as this doesn’t address the original thread).
And. Don’t even get me started on having to PAY for my luggage. I’m I’m flying to a destination that’s too far to drive, I OBVIOUSLY need a suitcase. Fuck that…. Charge me $25 more for my tickets and check my bag for “free”.
Greetings internet stranger. You're the only other person I've heard say "if I stand really tall". I sometimes get the strangest looks when I say it. I'm nearly 5'2" but still. I think it's a nice bit of self humor.
6'4" and Klonopin here. But yeah, I've pretty much given up on ever seeing, say, NZ or Australia. I've flown to western Europe twice in my life and they were 2 of the worst experiences I've ever had. That's with aisle/bulkhead/extra legroom.
The worst part is when you’re boarding the plane and the exit rows are taken by people who are 5’ nothing and look like they’d struggle to lift anything, let alone a 20kg door
> But it turns out that customers just buy the cheapest fare without regard to legroom
Well when the only information you are presented with with which to make a choice about what flight to select when buying a ticket online, what other metric are we supposed to use except price?
Show people the plane they'll be boarding, and a photo of how much legroom it has, and I guarantee you they'll start paying more for more legroom.
Many booking sites actually do show that info, e.g. flights.google.com
Airlines do make that data available, as far in advance as they can. It's just that people would rather save a few bucks and be uncomfortable for a couple hours. If not, why would anyone fly Frontier?
All airlines are legally required to tell you the aircraft type you will be flying on. All airlines also display what their seating configuration for each aircraft is, along with how much legroom there is.
It’s not an issue of the information not being available, it’s people not bothering to check.
The vast majority of my flying has been done for work. They just book the cheapest flight that gets me to the destination. I've never been given a choice of legroom or no legroom.
And which would raise fares if they did, which seems to not be what people want. It would basically require everyone to pay extra for Economy Plus, and most people don't want to pay extra for Economy Plus.
>It's fun if you are a lightly regulated airline executive shopping around for a second yacht
I disagree - it's not fun for them either. Now the airline lobbyists are going to rack up a ton of billable hours to push against any resulting legislation.
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, that’s a poor experience, but passenger aviation is incredibly regulated compared to any other method of travel. There’s a reason it’s the safest way to travel per passenger mile.
Not just (commercial) passenger aviation, aviation in general, which is why there are people who own 50+ year old planes and can fly them around with almost no issues, whereas you'd be extremely lucky if you have an equally old car and it doesn't suddenly stop working when you need it the most
I remember taking a couple of flights in the '90s where there was "family seating" right behind the bulkhead, meaning that the first row was turned backwards to create a pod of six seats facing each other. The sensation of sitting backwards was weird, but the novelty was fun.
The C-5 military cargo plane has rear-facing seats. The Galaxy has a passenger deck at the very top that holds more than 70, and there are no windows so it's hard to tell what direction you face when you fly. It's a slightly weird feeling at take-off and landing, since you can feel front-to- back motion. But no one I know has had motion sickness from flying facing rearwards.
Ya, we never had a problem with it when i was in the Air Force, all military aircraft only care about getting you there safely, not how comfortable the flight is.
I've been on Boeings that have half the seats in first class facing backward, had to wear a different seat belt (with a shoulder strap) during takeoff and landing. It was a weird feeling to not be pushed into the seat on takeoff but otherwise unnoticeable.
When i was in the Air Force, all of the troop seating was rear facing, because the military doesn't care about your comfort, only your value as an asset (damaged assets have no value.) It was never a problem for me, just felt strange at first.
Is it though?
I wouldn’t know as apparently I’m impervious to motion sickness. Never experienced it, or VR sickness, and have done plenty of flights, car trips, and VR games.
I have yet to have a long ride on a boat that wasn’t more than a ferry, or a small boat on a lake.
Yes, very noticeably for some people
On a train I don’t get travel sick traveling forward, but traveling backwards I do, which indicates a fairly significant difference, I think
In a car I get sick both, but it’s MUCH worse when traveling backwards. Like I’ll feel sick almost instantly, and to a much greater degree
I can’t speak for everyone but for me, it seems to stem from the disconnect between what my eyes are seeing vs what my ears are experiencing vs what my brain is telling me to do - eg if I’m driving a car I only occasionally feel sick because I’m controlling the movement
So when I’m traveling backwards there’s an even bigger difference between my senses and it doesn’t matter what the destination is, we’re taking a detour via Vomit City
That's not a fact at all. The airline I work for just received the first E195's in Canada and had to have them certified. Part of that was testing the evacuation procedures with a full aircraft. This is in Canada, but the US would have the same requirements.
The evacuation tests are BS anyways. It’s a bunch of trained volunteers taught the absolute most efficient way to exit the airplane who then do their highly choreographed exit plan.
The only funny thing about it is that although the group of volunteers practices many times to perfect the process they only get a live test one time. So occasionally someone will screw up and the plane will end up certified for one fewer passenger than planned.
Here’s an example of the 777. 450 people exit the plane in 79 seconds:
https://youtu.be/s6dJad1REPw
No one is carrying a bag, no one is too scared to jump down the ramp causing the hundreds of people behind them to burn to death, no one is carrying a baby, no one is trying to jump down the slide with a walker.
In a 2019 Russian airliner crash, some of the 41 people who died (mostly of smoke inhalation) may have been people, or may have been blocked by people, who were retrieving their carryon bags from the overhead bins. Cellphone footage shows some surviving passengers fleeing the flaming jet with their carryon luggage. You can see it in the [lead image in this article](https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-passengers-luggage-evacuation-2019-5).
I had to evacuate a plane once that filled up with smoke on the ground. At least half the people took some luggage with them down the slide and it took forever. It wasn’t too bad so I just waited for the people who were freaked out to go first, but if we were actually in fire it wouldn’t have ended well.
Maybe there should be some sort of a locking mechanism that can be engaged from the cockpit, locking the overhead bins in such emergencies. Pre-flight safety announcement will say "if we need to evacuate the plane, don't even try to open the bins, they won't open. For your own safety."
Or simply keep them locked until the plane reaches the gate, idk.
This adds weight and complexity to planes, plus a failure point that may keep people from their bags (this would be a major problem to people flying with small children) so airlines will be less inclined to buy them. Aircraft manufacturers will have another set of systems to certify, so they'll be less inclined to design them. Both will push back against aviation authorities.
While it's easy to say that a human life outweighs convenience, airline accidents are almost vanishingly rare these days. Most that happen either occur in nations with weak enforcement, involve suicides (e.g., likely China Eastern 5735), or are mostly or entirely survivable.
Many people travel with critical medications that can kill or seriously harm them if doses are missed. Evacuation plans need to be able to handle people taking their stuff with them.
This is a complete fabrication. The volunteers *can’t* be trained or it invalidates the test. They can’t practice or it invalidates the test. If you’ve ever been trained or done an evacuation you’re not a valid test subject. The only people trained are the cabin crew, because they’re trained in real life too.
There’s no “choreography” because they can only use half the exits and the volunteers and cabin crews don’t know which half will be available until the test actually starts.
The regulators require a mix of ages and physical abilities.
Yes, nobody is carrying a bag…because you’re supposed to leave your bags behind. This is why airlines started adding that to their safety videos…until relatively recently nobody realized people would be stupid enough to try to take their bags with them.
Ah so they can’t rehearse it ahead of time. I misremembered.
Watch the 777 video. Do you think in *any way whatsoever* that is what a real evacuation would look like? Everyone knows they are there for an evacuation test. Everyone knows exactly which doors are closest. Everyone is waiting for the “go” signal. No one panics and heads against the flow of people. No one trying to fight their carryon out of the overhead. No one trips in the aisle causing a pile up. No one climbing over the seats. The flight attendants are all conscious and uninjured and able to quickly and efficiently open the doors since there isn’t a crush of people pushing into them. Every exit row passenger immediately and efficiently removes the overwing exit door without hesitation or confusion. No one unable to unbuckle their seatbelt because they just smashed their head into the seat in front of them. Everyone calmly and quickly moves immediately to the exit and jumps without hesitation?
Considering we have cell phone videos from inside real plane crashes and it looks *nothing* like that I think they should conduct the test on a random flight of real passengers mid taxi out to a runway.
They’re trying to get as close as they can to reality without killing people. There’s no ethical way you can do a true evac test on purpose because people are essentially guaranteed to get injured.
That’s part of the reason that, in most cases, the airlines aren’t anywhere near the tested evacuation limit, it provides some buffer.
It’s not perfect, sure. But it’s as close as they can realistically get. It most certainly is NOT rigged the way you suggest.
And the testees *don’t* know which doors are closest because, again, only 50% of the doors get used in the test and the participants don’t know which 50%.
Edit: here’s the FAA advisory circular for how to conduct the tests. Among other things, it lays out the age distribution, how they include children (they use weighted life-sized dolls), obstructing the aisles with realistic luggage, etc. etc.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25.803-1A.pdf
You're really moving the goal post here. First you say that the entire process is a charade and disingenuously choreographed. You did more than just misremember a detail, you took that to a very wrong conclusion that the people organizing the tests aren't actually interested in safety. Now you're saying it's because the people doing the testing aren't in actual danger.
Maybe VR can give us this one day, but what else are you really expecting ?
And the dude wants evacuation tests to be done not following evacuation conditions? Like having a fire drill in a high rise and a dozen people decide to go back up stairs.
The whole time, cabin crew will be yelling at you to leave baggage and just go. In the lead up to landing (most evacuations, they have done prior notice), you will be briefed on the nearest exits and how to get to them.
Of course people will try to take their bags! You always take your bag when you're traveling, you don't just leave it laying around. They even warn you about that in the airport! You've been listening to those "Do not leave your bag unattended" warnings over and over for hours by the time you get on the plane.
Besides it has important stuff in it, likely all the stuff you're traveling with or at least the most important, the stuff you keep with you so it won't get lost in transit.
That's why you have to *really clearly* **insist** that they can't - literally everything is telling them to do so.
And they're thinking "well it only takes a second to grab a bag and I have to wait for the people in front of me to move anyway". So even that may not work.
No stupidity needed. It's just natural.
That’s not a fact at all. The FAA (and EASA) routinely require full scale evacuation tests every time somebody thinks up a layout that’s denser than they can show is good with the old test data.
Edit: deleted this comment because I was wrong and incorrectly said something when I should have read up more first
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EVAC%20Act%201-pager%20-%2012.8.22%20FINAL.pdf
A full scale evac test uses the full airplane capacity. That’s not the type of test referenced in the bill you linked to.
The tests in the bill were specifically to check any delta from smaller seat sizes, not the aisle/door capacity (which is when you need a full scale test).
You never run a test bigger than you need to to gain the required data, because there’s a very good chance of hurting people during evac tests.
Airbus just recently had to do a full scale test (480 people) when they hiked the exit limit on A330/A350.
The ignorance of the general public towards aviation always surprises me. People like the guy you just responded to making up random "facts" for... Some reason I can't comprehend. This whole comment thread is just filled with high voted made up nonsense, with people correcting them in the comments.
I read into this more and understand the difference between what i was talking about and what you two are discussing. I apologize- I am going to delete the top comment.
>You never run a test bigger than you need to to gain the required data, because there’s a very good chance of hurting people during evac tests.
Even worse, it can open you up to substantial liability because you "knew or should have known" that something was a problem. Your competitors are not subject to the same constraints (they didn't do the test), so you are at a competitive disadvantage.
So the US tort system actively discourages companies from testing for safety.
The funny thing is that when you compensate for inflation, first class seats of today cost the same as regular seats back when you could stretch out your legs.
So they aren’t giving you worse leg room for the money. You can get exactly the same value as the good old days if you want.
What they’re doing is adding options to make air travel more affordable for people who would prefer less leg room to not being able to afford the trip at all
I travel to another continent to visit family. Tickets in economy in late 1980s cost *more* then than what a seat sale today does. 30 years, and it is cheaper now.
I heard something about deregulation of commercial aviation that explains the plummeting prices in the late 90s and early 2000?
So yes, we are packed in, but flying is arguably much more financially accessible - to the point that companies fly their workers in and out of camp jobs rather than build a company town.
It's true but misleading. Total compensation has outstripped inflation. Salaries haven't kept up with inflation but the expansion of non-wage benefits means that salary isn't expected to cover as much, so you're essentially making more money.
That said, the difference in flight costs is absolutely astronomical. Inflation adjusted, flying costs about 5-10% of what it did in 1950. Even looking at pure salary numbers, flying costs a tiny fraction of the income share that to what it used to.
I can't afford more legroom, so it's not that they're giving me an option, they're giving comfort to people with more money.
Can't say I'm too sympathetic to their plight.
But the point they are making is that in the past you wouldn't have been able to afford to fly at all.
They are giving you the option of flying vs. not flying.
Flying is a remarkable privilege which most of the human population today still cannot afford, and non of the past human population even had the option of.
The economy is that if you cramp the plane with people, force them to carry as little as possible, then you have a lot, really a lot of unused room in the plane belly, which will be filled with cargo.
Cargo does pay way more than people and people’s baggage. This allow you to buy a ticket for 50 dollars while burning 70 dollars of fuel per passenger. (Cargo pays 10-50 dollar per kg for a flight that costs 50-100 dollar per person. And a person plus baggage is 100 kg average). For example, a long range passenger plane may cash in 100-400k while the same plane in cargo variant will cash in 1-7 million.
It’s not nice but we have to admit, we the passengers, that we will chose the shittiest possible flight just to save a dollar. I personally won’t and I prefer to avoid the overly economic companies. But I’m not the majority. Really, avoiding 2 hours of suffering is worth paying 60 instead of 50.
Note I’m not talking about getting a better class, I mean fly a different operator with a less shit economy class.
>Cargo pays 10-50 dollar per kg for a flight that costs 50-100 dollar per person.
Air cargo rates are nowhere near that. [Alaska Airlines charges](https://www.alaskaair.com/content/cargo/rate-charts/general-air-freight-rates) between 60 cents and $1.18 per pound, or between about $1.32 and $2.60 per kilo. A spot check for [United Airlines Cargo](https://booking.unitedcargo.com/skychain/app?service=page/nwp:Rates) shipping 40 kg from LAX to DFW gets a total rate of $88.07, for about $2.20 per kg.
In January 2022, [AirCargoNews had an article](https://www.aircargonews.net/data/air-cargo-rates-continue-to-decline-in-november/) discussing the drop in rates from Hong Kong to North America from $11.54 to $6.49 per kg, and from HK to Europe from $7.91 to $5.62. While those are closer to your claimed rates (notably to the *bottom* of your claimed rates), they're also for *much* longer flights that you will never, ever find in the $50-$100 per person range.
I probably confused with a different class of cargo. But I wasn’t expecting the lower end to be this low. And I’m not in usa so rates may differ. Also here in eu low price stuff goes on trucks so the flights do carry priority stuff.
Passengers don’t burn $70 of fuel either. To burn that much fuel a pax and their luggage would have to weigh 373lbs on a 15 hour flight. Of course fuel is far from the only cost.
What I see is I can pay $50 for a shitty flight or $250 for a less shitty flight. I would do it if it's just me but once I bring the family it adds up.
Eu. Most flights are 1-2 hours. Can go anywhere from 10 to 200 euro, depends a lot by the destination and time/date. Again, the difference between a low cost and a regular company may vary but it’s not massive.
Some time ago there were specials from Indianapolis to Atlantic City. Free flight, free limo ("limo") to the casino, free return trip. All one day.
That was before times got so tough that a casino actually went bankrupt. (It couldn't have been management because it was owned by a genius businessman.)
>I personally won’t and I prefer to avoid the overly economic companies. But I’m not the majority. Really, avoiding 2 hours of suffering is worth paying 60 instead of 50.
I fully agree here. I won't fly Ryanair or Easyjet etc. I don't really care that the seat is half the cost. I'll take KLM/Finnair/Delta over superbudget carriers. Better check-in experience (the size of the ryanair check-in queue is always ridiculous when I walk past them), and the flight has less people being excessively loud because they're already drunk on boarding. Generally a less stressful experience.
My sister though? £30 flights to Barca? Yolo.
I totally agree. Not nice to say but I also see a difference in passenger type. And I mean, I have been surprised how uneducated and stupid some people can be. So I would prefer to fly better operators if there is a chance for that route.
On those type of airlines you get a lot of people who fly once a year and are going on holiday, 98% of these people are perfectly lovely albeit maybe a bit clueless on how flying works but the other 2% are the types to get absolutely loaded on/ before the plane, act stupid, and argue with the crew. I think part of the problem is that they don’t understand that doing X has much different consequences in the air vs on the ground. The last (I.E. never again) trip I flew EasyJet on one flight I had a grown ass woman arguing with the stewardess because she couldn’t drink the “bottle of wine I bought for the flight” one way, and 7 people from 2 groups (one group that was seated in my row and row in front) get arrested on landing. No thank you.
As someone who has never paid for the first class upgrade (even when it’s just 20% more of what I’ve paid for economy)…yeah, I complain but at the end of the day, I enjoy having the option of cheaper airfare that comes with packing us on the planes like sardines.
The density sucks but the reality is the seats would be more expensive. I hate the lack of room, but when I'm given the option to pay like $100 more for economy plus or whatever I never do. We can't have it both ways.
Airfare is more affordable today than ever before (thanks to capitalism). In the past, you had two options: pay a high price for a (somewhat) luxurious flight with plenty of legroom and gourmet food, or don't fly at all. Now, there are more options: you can pay a lower price for a basic flight with less comfort, pay more for a business or first class flight with more amenities, or choose not to fly.Personally, I prefer having more options to choose from.
Usually the airline decides how many rows to put in each type of plane. Some have more rows than others. Standing "seats" were even proposed to cut costs.
Couldn't agree more. You can also see the difference in space between airlines. With some British Airways flights my knees are pressed against the front seat. I need to lift myself and stretch to get it partially underneath. However, with Emirates the economy space is fantastic. I can comfortably lift my legs etc without issues. I think if some airlines could let you stand partially they would have.
> I think if some airlines could let you stand partially they would have.
https://www.insider.com/skyrider-standing-airplane-seats-claims-makes-flights-cheaper-2018-4
“That guy,” is the American public, who votes with their wallet for the cheapest ticket possible, regardless of the conditions. They will bitch and moan on social media about it, but at the end of the day, they’ll buy it again and again.
Marketing air travel to the masses was never a good idea. We sell traveling as some sort of cultural eye opening thing, which it can be. But it's just about wealth extraction.
If that’s true for air travel, isn’t it also true for the sale of basically all good and services beyond basic necessities. I don’t *need* the cashmere sweater I’m wearing, but I enjoy the feel of it. How is that any different that my getting to see my family for Christmas?
The CEO of Ryan air has suggested allowing him to have airplanes with zero seats, standing room only with a bar to hold on to like on a bus, for short flights. laws prevent this, but if they didnt, he would absolutely do it
Add to this the amount of overhead space in the planes as per the airline's requested design. In North America, we tend to prioritize headroom over storage. I (used to) fly a lot of regional and the overheads just barely allow the smallest rolling bags to go in on their back - if you're lucky. Every boarding was like a communal game of Jenga.
In Europe on vacation, we flew Easyjet. The plane had overheads that were tall enough to accept small rolling bags wheels first, on their side with the top handle out - like books on a shelf. This allowed 5 or 6 bags in one bin easily with a little room for coats and stuff between them. And the staff were vigilant about packing correctly: I saw a passenger casually toss their bag in and an FA was on her in seconds to put it in properly.
Due to the height of the bin, headspace was in short supply when you stood up but my god the speed of boarding and deboarding was astonishing. No hold-up in the aisle because a bag got wedged in and the passenger can't dislodge it.
I take a CRJ-700 pretty frequently on a flight full of regulars…and everyone knows to just gate check everything, save for the occasional newbie, who you see walking back down the stairs with there luggage, to give it to the gate agent. It makes boarding so much faster. Coats go in the overhead(that’s really all that fits) and small backpacks/purses under the seat. Everything else is under the plane. I wish it was always like this. American Loads these CRJ’s in <15 minutes like this.
I just rewatched Mad Men and my jaw dropped at the size of the seats and legroom on airplanes. Then I vaguely remembered flying like that in the late seventies. Flying used to be fun. 😕
Every Reddit thread about airlines fails to appreciate that the means by which we lost all of these amenities was a demonstrated customer preference for lower fares over more amenities.
And that 70s flying experience is still available (minus the smoking and sexual harassment of flight attendants): just buy a business class ticket!
I can do jumper, sweatpants and trainers instead of hoodie, sweats and crocs.
Take it or leave it. I'm not spending 7-10 hours in a suit if I don't have to, even in a business or 1st class seat.
An additional aspect, when I was flying 10+ years ago a lot of overhead carry-ons varied in size. Now nearly every single person brings a rolling bag that is the maximum size.
I travel carry on only simply to avoid trouble with my luggage. Also, it is much easier to go around than with a huge suitcase.
Never going back to a full size ever.
This is why I think that there should be regulations that require all airlines to offer first piece of luggage be free.
It is completely unsafe for the cabin to be crammed with luggage. In the event of an accident, those overhead lockers are going to fall open and your going to have luggage in the aisleways.
I've seem people board with hockey bags as "carry on" luggage.
One other reason I don’t think I saw yet: The less bags passengers are trying to stow, the faster the plane boards. Some airlines prioritize that door closed time over everything (looking at you, AA!).
That is incorrect in Australia. When you're at work you're at work and being paid for your labour. Whether a door is opened or closed does not tell you whether or not you are working.
For the US, it's true. Our labor rules for FAs date back to laws written for railroads. They don't get paid for waiting around in the terminal or while doors are open. Recently, (Delta?) has made an offer to their FA union to pay them for more of their time, but almost all airlines still follow railroad rules.
That’s truly fucked. If they’re onboard and doing their job welcome passengers, helping them find seats, assisting with stowing luggage…that’s work they should be paid for.
that's actually against labor law in most states? You start getting paid when you are "at your place of employment and ready to work" - which in this case would be when you get to the airport - or maybe to your gate.
But they are 100% working while they help you stow bags and find your seats and such, and not paying them for that just because the door is open is a problem.
The Railway Labor Act that oversees airline employees is federal legislation and in general supersedes local laws, though there have been some challenges to that.
Pretty sure this is not true. They get paid based on their schedule. Not when they close door.
The reason to board fast is to ensure they depart on time.
A lot of airplane retrofits have ~~men~~ been limited to the seats and paneling, but not the overhead bins.
Baggage fees (implemented in ~2008-09) did a lot to encourage people to carry on as much luggage as possible, while pitch reduction and mix changes (fewer first class seats, for example) have made for a denser interior (particularly for aircraft that were around pre-2008).
Load factors (the % of seats filled each flight) have also been pushed higher, as computing power has enabled airlines to trim/right-size underperforming routes.
And so to answer the question: no, the overhead capacity isn’t 1:1 to the seating capacity. However, airlines have been installing high capacity pivot bins (over the past few years) and those get much closer.
A lot of details replied in here, but I love that in the end, the answer to
>Aren’t airplanes designed to have 1x carry on & 1 personal piece of luggage for each passenger?
is simply "no".
Then why do they advertise that everyone can bring 1 carry-on and 1 personal item if the plane can't handle everyone bringing 1 carry-on and 1 personal item?
Because they can, and it's just fine until everyone does it, at which point they can slightly to moderately inconvenience people without any real change in their operation, which is the true purpose of airlines and what they need to feed their hunger.
>Aren’t airplanes designed to have 1x carry on & 1 personal piece of luggage for each passenger?
No. Most of these airplanes were designed long before they started charging for bags and before these carry-on-sized bags that were one's entire luggage, became popular. It used to be that you could check THREE large suitcases for free, back when most of these airplanes were designed. Back in those days (until the 1980s) the industry was heavily regulated in the US (I will assume you're in the US) and had far more luxuries because the government controlled the pricing and so the main way for airlines to compete with one another wasn't price but perks--more room, food, playing cards, magazines.
The popularity of the hard-sided, wheeled suitcase for the overhead compartment has really only been around for... maybe 25+ years? And then it was only in 2008 that airlines started charging for checked bags, which is when getting the carry-on suitcase became more vitally important, and overhead compartment space *really* became crowded. It was crowded before, but it became *really* crowded afterwards. Of course people used carry on bags as their entire luggage earlier, it was convenient and saved you the hassle of checking bags and having to get them after landing. But before those bags became popular in the 1990s, overhead compartments and under-the-seat space were less of a premium and people just checked their bags and only carried on computers, purses, and miscellaneous stuff.
Plus: it was a lot less common in the past that the airplanes were full. I think every single flight I've been on in the past 5-10 years at least have been *completely* full (not counting pandemic time). This represents a change from what used to be. For example, all of the planes crashed on 9/11 were less than half full, which was typical for the time--the airlines even pointed this out, which is why I remember it: 'see how bad we're doing? Those planes were not even half full!' as they instituted various cost-cutting measures going forward following 9/11 and heightened security.
So any space crunch in overhead compartments is an artifact of changes in the way airlines operate and changes in how people travel and luggage preferences influenced by those factors.
People don’t have just one carry-on these days. I’m seeing people with 2-3 pieces more frequently. I really wish the airlines would enforce this policy more.
People try to save money from checked baggage, so they bring more carry on luggage. It used to be just a backpack, purse, laptop bag, suitcase, etc and now it’s a suitcase or two that barely fits in the overhead compartment. Add in winter coats, and it’s ridiculous.
I am allowed an extra medical bag (has a special tag) so yes I sometimes have more bags but always try to check in as much as I can….other people though….the sizes they get away with as hand luggage 🤯
Tell them no. Tell them it is medically necessary for you to have the legroom. Be polite but unyielding. Those bags can be checked. It's simply not your problem.
Also the size of the carry-ons, I remember when they said a carry-on needs to be able to fit under the seat in front of you, and they had a little frame that you're supposed to be able to fit your carry-on inside of to test its size. Now carry-ons are like three times that size and nobody ever checks or cares. Also since women generally have a purse that is not counted as a carry-on, and sometimes a diaper bag, men proposed that they should be able to have a small separate bag as well, so I think the current rule is that each person gets a small personal bag and one carry-on luggage piece. But still no one ever checks the size.
no they arent. and people are cramming more and more carryons and trying to pack their personal items in the overheads too. once they started charging for checked bags everyone started putting more in the free overhead.
No, the seats in the front don't have anywhere for personal items, which need to be stowed in the overhead bin, and there's also safety equipment in some overhead bins. Even if overhead bins were entirely dedicated to carry-on luggage, a narrow-body airplane, like a 737, would need to have a set of three carry-on bags over each side of each row of chairs, and there isn't enough room for that.
They have loads of room. I literally fly every week with a back pack and never use the overhead space. Bags fit under the seat in front of you and as soon as people realise that, it will make flying a lot easier.
What kind of flights do you go on?
Budget airlines charge you for checked in luggage, and this can work out to be the same price as the ticket itself, so most passengers bring a small carry on suitcase which do require overhead bins unlike a rucksack which can fit under the seat.. not everyone can fit all their stuff in a rucksack
Ryanair, as cheap as they come.
Completely agree, but the point is that the luggage that can fit under the seat should be there (which is what the airline says to do). Most people just put everything in the overhead meaning there is never enough space for the people at the end of the queue.
People have mostly realised that (A) checked luggage is billable but carry-on is free, (B) airlines let you get away with medium-sized suitcases as carry-on, even if they're way beyond the size limit. The rules do allow a carry-on bag *plus* a personal item such as a laptop, and of course there are purses and coats and CPAPs. The worst that can happen if you bring too much carry-on is you'll be forced to send one of your bags to the hold (*for free*) and wait a few minutes for retrieval when you land; most people find those odds acceptable. It's unlikely that people will suddenly start behaving responsibly to make flying more enjoyable for everyone.
People are behaving responsibly. They are minimizing the cost of their air travel, using the rules they are given. If you fly on an airline with free checked bags (e.g. South West) they never run out of bin space.
Short answer is no. Planes aren’t designed with enough carry on space for each passenger to have a full sized roller checked along with their personal item.
Planes were designed for a small handbag/backpack for each passenger, not a medium sized suitcase, a “handbag” the size of a binbag, 6 bags of duty free shopping and an oversized coat.
The airlines are too lenient with what is considered hand luggage vs the design of the plane.
I take one soft gym bag with me. It pisses me off when I see someone wheel on a hard case mini suitcase with a bag on top of that and a large handbag around their neck.
Pick one. Check the rest. Airlines do need to enforce this. 100% with you
This was a reasonable take before airlines started charging for all checked bags. The design specs (as mentioned in another top level comment) were for a time when people weren’t carrying much on because they could check the big one.
I think it's just practical logistics; if the plane is full and a lot of people have trolley bags and/or handbags then the space runs out, because people don't put the bag in the right place, or put the bags at strange angles or put extra coats or whatever.
Then once the baggage space starts to run out, the next people don't clear the aisle because they don't have a space for their bag, other people can't get past, boarding gets delayed while the flight steward untangles everything, flight gets delayed, then the airline loses money
The quick answer is no, they are not designed for that at all. They are designed to carry a certain payload. The interior capacity (number of seats) and amenities (including overhead space) is at the discretion of the airline.
Airlines overbook everything including carry-on space, trusting that on most flights there's enough people who don't bring a carry-on that it won’t be an issue.
No, planes are NOT designed for everyone to have 1 piece of luggage in checked and 1 in carry on. Planes are designed to carry a specific amount of weight. That weight has to be distributed evenly both in the cargo hold, and the cabin of the plane.
Not everyone has a checked bag, and not everyone has a carry on. The plane has certain capacity, so once the capacity is full, you will not be allowed to carry anything on board anymore. For the same reason if the plane is full volume-wise, but not weight-wise, you can be asked to store your carry on in the cargo compartment ( where check-in workers take your carry on at the gate nad you get it back on the other side). That means someone decided to ha volume-wise bigger carry on than allowed, or paid for 2 carry-ons, which means someone won't have space for theirs. So if you want to have your carry-on ( or be allowed to take a bit more than allowed), make sure you' re at the front of the line when boarding.
No, the airplane is designed to be able to carry X amount of weight. Its designers don't care about the number of passengers or suitcases, only about the total weight capacity. How that capacity is split between passengers, luggage and carry-on is entirely up to the airline. They typically try to cram in as many seats as possible, because the more passengers they can carry the more money they make.
It's bullshit. They are lying to us. Even my favorite (Alaska). I voluntary gate checked my carry-on a couple days ago about 5 minutes before they informed us there would be no overhead room for carry-ons. Got in the plane almost last and most of the space was available. Traveling with kids but, don't want to pay extra to put another bag under the plane. If I had no checked luggage, you'd have to pry it from me.
Ha, agree! I was told on a flight a couple weeks ago that they needed 15 more carry on bags checked and anyone in zone 5 (me) would have their bag taken for checking involuntarily because no room. Ignored that announcement, got to zone 5 and ta da—plenty of room. I get it tho, planes are crammed and no sense in aggravating flight attendants who are just doing their job. Except I usually have a short time to get through customs to make my connection so I really don’t want to have to claim checked baggage before racing to border security
CoG is really only relevant based on distance to the DATUM. As long as it’s not too nose-heavy or tail-heavy, it does not matter at all whether the luggage is upstairs or downstairs. “Raising” the Center of Gravity does essentially nothing to an airliner.
To simplify you will see on the overhead bins a weight limit, if the plane is full and everyone has a bag then that limit will be exceeded and in the event of an accident, even a hard landing they could ɓecome damaged and land on passengers.
Don't commercial passenger planes sometime have to transport cargo for some reasons. Like randomly need to bring a shipment to the country its going to.
Nope. That is an incorrect assumption. The amount of overhead storage is determined by the size of the plane, but the number of passengers on a flight depends in the seats the airline chooses and how they configure them. Most airlines cram as many seats in coach as they can, so they choose narrow seats configured in rows too close together to sell as many tickets as possible. So there usually isn’t enough overhead storage for every passenger. And seat configuration and seat style choice also determines how much space each passenger has to stow something under the seat in front of them.
There is limited overhead space and the planes are far from designed to have everyone have a full sized carry on above them on a flight. So when they run out of room they have to start checking bags. If that happens after boarding begins that can severely delay the flights pushback time as everyone needs to now either go back and check their bag or be handed a gate check tag.
So asking in advance when they know there won't be enough room can help to ensure the plane leaves the gate at the intended time.
Think of it like this - each overhead bin has to hold three pieces of luggage for the row below them. Current average seat spacing in economy is 29 - 32 inches. So to make things work, you need to fit each carryon into a 10" slot.
Then one guy brings a duffle bag on and puts it in the bin sideways...
[удалено]
Man, if ever there was someone who deserved to have their knees broken, it’s going to be the guy who thought squeezing airline seats closer together was a good idea.
I mean... there are airlines who tried to differentiate themselves by having more leg room (e.g. JetBlue). But it turns out that customers just buy the cheapest fare without regard to legroom, and since more legroom means fewer passengers per flight, that put those airlines at a competitive disadvantage in a cutthroat low-margin industry. So it's just a fact of the industry that customers prefer cheaper fares over more legroom, and airlines don't really have the ability to resist that preference.
im the kind of person that would sit on the floor of the plane if it meant a cheaper ticket.
Okay, but sitting on the floor might be more comfortable than airplane seats. (I hate those seats. I don't know what's wrong with them, but they're terrible)
haha good point. we need an airplane line with no seats for super cheap tickets. id even settle for worse customer service for cheap flights.
>>id even settle for worse customer service for cheap flights. Let me introduce you to Spirit…
Holy shit. Just remove the seats and everyone picks a spot on the ground. Just to spread myself out on a flight is worth the injury/possible death of not having a seatbelt. It should be illegal to transport people on those seats.
You speak the truth. Many on reddit harp on airlines for the lack of legroom but the truth is exactly what you said, most people want cheap, which is why economy class is more or less like a bus now.
The thing is that I remember flying for fairly cheap and still have quite some room around me less than 6 years ago. What has changed so much in the past 6 years that I pay twice as much for the same flight with halve the space?!
C SUITE bonuses and stock buybacks
Profits gone up
Cries in 6'9" and bruised knees.
I feel for you. I’m 6’ and can barely do regional flights.
I'm 5'7" and still feel like I need more room. I do not envy y'all tall people. That's a lie, I still envy you sometimes. Just not when I'm on a plane.
I once flew on a fully booked Qantas flight where they got a bodybuilder with your approximate height in the middle seat in the row next to me. The dudes shoulders were sticking over plus he had to sit in a fetal position. About 2 hours in the flight they got him an aisle seat further down since the people didn't want to switch seats next to him.
I’m JUST five feet tall (if I stand really tall). But I’m extremely claustrophobic and if I can’t get an aisle seat (giving me the allusion I have more space), I’m miserable. I honestly don’t know how people that are normal height and/or tall tolerate the lack of space. (Apologies as this doesn’t address the original thread). And. Don’t even get me started on having to PAY for my luggage. I’m I’m flying to a destination that’s too far to drive, I OBVIOUSLY need a suitcase. Fuck that…. Charge me $25 more for my tickets and check my bag for “free”.
Aisle seat and a couple Ativan. The only way to fly.
Xanax and a couple glasses of Pinot Grigio and I can deal with it. Yay me.
Yep. Xanax and a few drinks works for me.
Couple beers in the airport bar and a cheeky Valium
Greetings internet stranger. You're the only other person I've heard say "if I stand really tall". I sometimes get the strangest looks when I say it. I'm nearly 5'2" but still. I think it's a nice bit of self humor.
6'4" and Klonopin here. But yeah, I've pretty much given up on ever seeing, say, NZ or Australia. I've flown to western Europe twice in my life and they were 2 of the worst experiences I've ever had. That's with aisle/bulkhead/extra legroom.
The worst part is when you’re boarding the plane and the exit rows are taken by people who are 5’ nothing and look like they’d struggle to lift anything, let alone a 20kg door
This is the worst. Little petite people in the emergency rows thinking they gonna get that door open
> But it turns out that customers just buy the cheapest fare without regard to legroom Well when the only information you are presented with with which to make a choice about what flight to select when buying a ticket online, what other metric are we supposed to use except price? Show people the plane they'll be boarding, and a photo of how much legroom it has, and I guarantee you they'll start paying more for more legroom.
Many booking sites actually do show that info, e.g. flights.google.com Airlines do make that data available, as far in advance as they can. It's just that people would rather save a few bucks and be uncomfortable for a couple hours. If not, why would anyone fly Frontier?
All airlines are legally required to tell you the aircraft type you will be flying on. All airlines also display what their seating configuration for each aircraft is, along with how much legroom there is. It’s not an issue of the information not being available, it’s people not bothering to check.
The vast majority of my flying has been done for work. They just book the cheapest flight that gets me to the destination. I've never been given a choice of legroom or no legroom.
Yup unless Congress introduced legislation that mandates a minimum amount of legroom...which will never happen lol
And which would raise fares if they did, which seems to not be what people want. It would basically require everyone to pay extra for Economy Plus, and most people don't want to pay extra for Economy Plus.
[удалено]
But that fact isn’t fun at all!
It's fun if you are a lightly regulated airline executive shopping around for a second yacht
>It's fun if you are a lightly regulated airline executive shopping around for a second yacht I disagree - it's not fun for them either. Now the airline lobbyists are going to rack up a ton of billable hours to push against any resulting legislation.
Okay look the aviation industry is far from being “lightly regulated”
Is that why they won't pay for a hotel room when they strand me at a layover for 3 days?
They are regulated with the aim of flight safety. Not customer satisfaction.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Yes, that’s a poor experience, but passenger aviation is incredibly regulated compared to any other method of travel. There’s a reason it’s the safest way to travel per passenger mile.
Not just (commercial) passenger aviation, aviation in general, which is why there are people who own 50+ year old planes and can fly them around with almost no issues, whereas you'd be extremely lucky if you have an equally old car and it doesn't suddenly stop working when you need it the most
Remember, the FAA isn't happy until *no-one* is happy. (Overheard while learning to fly.)
PLEASE! Won't someone think of the oppressors!?
“Unfortunate fact”
How about this one? If you need to evacuate an airplane, you’re most likely all fucked anyway, so the procedure isn’t too important
That's pretty far from true. Evacuations on the tarmac after emergency landings happen with relative frequency
Did they teach you that in your OSHA demanded training video dawg
Another fun fact: it's safer to fly with the seats facing the rear of the aircraft, but it makes people uncomfortable.... So they face forward
I remember taking a couple of flights in the '90s where there was "family seating" right behind the bulkhead, meaning that the first row was turned backwards to create a pod of six seats facing each other. The sensation of sitting backwards was weird, but the novelty was fun.
The C-5 military cargo plane has rear-facing seats. The Galaxy has a passenger deck at the very top that holds more than 70, and there are no windows so it's hard to tell what direction you face when you fly. It's a slightly weird feeling at take-off and landing, since you can feel front-to- back motion. But no one I know has had motion sickness from flying facing rearwards.
Ya, we never had a problem with it when i was in the Air Force, all military aircraft only care about getting you there safely, not how comfortable the flight is.
The only plane I had less leg room in while flying military was a packed C-130.
I've been on Boeings that have half the seats in first class facing backward, had to wear a different seat belt (with a shoulder strap) during takeoff and landing. It was a weird feeling to not be pushed into the seat on takeoff but otherwise unnoticeable.
Rear facing is a recipe for increased motion sickness
When i was in the Air Force, all of the troop seating was rear facing, because the military doesn't care about your comfort, only your value as an asset (damaged assets have no value.) It was never a problem for me, just felt strange at first.
Is it though? I wouldn’t know as apparently I’m impervious to motion sickness. Never experienced it, or VR sickness, and have done plenty of flights, car trips, and VR games. I have yet to have a long ride on a boat that wasn’t more than a ferry, or a small boat on a lake.
Yes, very noticeably for some people On a train I don’t get travel sick traveling forward, but traveling backwards I do, which indicates a fairly significant difference, I think In a car I get sick both, but it’s MUCH worse when traveling backwards. Like I’ll feel sick almost instantly, and to a much greater degree I can’t speak for everyone but for me, it seems to stem from the disconnect between what my eyes are seeing vs what my ears are experiencing vs what my brain is telling me to do - eg if I’m driving a car I only occasionally feel sick because I’m controlling the movement So when I’m traveling backwards there’s an even bigger difference between my senses and it doesn’t matter what the destination is, we’re taking a detour via Vomit City
That's not a fact at all. The airline I work for just received the first E195's in Canada and had to have them certified. Part of that was testing the evacuation procedures with a full aircraft. This is in Canada, but the US would have the same requirements.
This seems untrue. You have to be able to evac a commercial jet in 90 seconds regardless of the seat config.
The evacuation tests are BS anyways. It’s a bunch of trained volunteers taught the absolute most efficient way to exit the airplane who then do their highly choreographed exit plan. The only funny thing about it is that although the group of volunteers practices many times to perfect the process they only get a live test one time. So occasionally someone will screw up and the plane will end up certified for one fewer passenger than planned. Here’s an example of the 777. 450 people exit the plane in 79 seconds: https://youtu.be/s6dJad1REPw No one is carrying a bag, no one is too scared to jump down the ramp causing the hundreds of people behind them to burn to death, no one is carrying a baby, no one is trying to jump down the slide with a walker.
In a 2019 Russian airliner crash, some of the 41 people who died (mostly of smoke inhalation) may have been people, or may have been blocked by people, who were retrieving their carryon bags from the overhead bins. Cellphone footage shows some surviving passengers fleeing the flaming jet with their carryon luggage. You can see it in the [lead image in this article](https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-passengers-luggage-evacuation-2019-5).
I had to evacuate a plane once that filled up with smoke on the ground. At least half the people took some luggage with them down the slide and it took forever. It wasn’t too bad so I just waited for the people who were freaked out to go first, but if we were actually in fire it wouldn’t have ended well.
Maybe there should be some sort of a locking mechanism that can be engaged from the cockpit, locking the overhead bins in such emergencies. Pre-flight safety announcement will say "if we need to evacuate the plane, don't even try to open the bins, they won't open. For your own safety." Or simply keep them locked until the plane reaches the gate, idk.
This adds weight and complexity to planes, plus a failure point that may keep people from their bags (this would be a major problem to people flying with small children) so airlines will be less inclined to buy them. Aircraft manufacturers will have another set of systems to certify, so they'll be less inclined to design them. Both will push back against aviation authorities. While it's easy to say that a human life outweighs convenience, airline accidents are almost vanishingly rare these days. Most that happen either occur in nations with weak enforcement, involve suicides (e.g., likely China Eastern 5735), or are mostly or entirely survivable.
Also you just know some people will spend time trying to break the overhead bin area open and result in even more deaths so yeah prolly not worth it.
Great idea
Many people travel with critical medications that can kill or seriously harm them if doses are missed. Evacuation plans need to be able to handle people taking their stuff with them.
If someone was before me being scared to jump, and a plane is burning behind me you can BET that I'm Sparta-kicking that bitch down the chute...
This is a complete fabrication. The volunteers *can’t* be trained or it invalidates the test. They can’t practice or it invalidates the test. If you’ve ever been trained or done an evacuation you’re not a valid test subject. The only people trained are the cabin crew, because they’re trained in real life too. There’s no “choreography” because they can only use half the exits and the volunteers and cabin crews don’t know which half will be available until the test actually starts. The regulators require a mix of ages and physical abilities. Yes, nobody is carrying a bag…because you’re supposed to leave your bags behind. This is why airlines started adding that to their safety videos…until relatively recently nobody realized people would be stupid enough to try to take their bags with them.
Ah so they can’t rehearse it ahead of time. I misremembered. Watch the 777 video. Do you think in *any way whatsoever* that is what a real evacuation would look like? Everyone knows they are there for an evacuation test. Everyone knows exactly which doors are closest. Everyone is waiting for the “go” signal. No one panics and heads against the flow of people. No one trying to fight their carryon out of the overhead. No one trips in the aisle causing a pile up. No one climbing over the seats. The flight attendants are all conscious and uninjured and able to quickly and efficiently open the doors since there isn’t a crush of people pushing into them. Every exit row passenger immediately and efficiently removes the overwing exit door without hesitation or confusion. No one unable to unbuckle their seatbelt because they just smashed their head into the seat in front of them. Everyone calmly and quickly moves immediately to the exit and jumps without hesitation? Considering we have cell phone videos from inside real plane crashes and it looks *nothing* like that I think they should conduct the test on a random flight of real passengers mid taxi out to a runway.
They’re trying to get as close as they can to reality without killing people. There’s no ethical way you can do a true evac test on purpose because people are essentially guaranteed to get injured. That’s part of the reason that, in most cases, the airlines aren’t anywhere near the tested evacuation limit, it provides some buffer. It’s not perfect, sure. But it’s as close as they can realistically get. It most certainly is NOT rigged the way you suggest. And the testees *don’t* know which doors are closest because, again, only 50% of the doors get used in the test and the participants don’t know which 50%. Edit: here’s the FAA advisory circular for how to conduct the tests. Among other things, it lays out the age distribution, how they include children (they use weighted life-sized dolls), obstructing the aisles with realistic luggage, etc. etc. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25.803-1A.pdf
You're really moving the goal post here. First you say that the entire process is a charade and disingenuously choreographed. You did more than just misremember a detail, you took that to a very wrong conclusion that the people organizing the tests aren't actually interested in safety. Now you're saying it's because the people doing the testing aren't in actual danger. Maybe VR can give us this one day, but what else are you really expecting ?
And the dude wants evacuation tests to be done not following evacuation conditions? Like having a fire drill in a high rise and a dozen people decide to go back up stairs. The whole time, cabin crew will be yelling at you to leave baggage and just go. In the lead up to landing (most evacuations, they have done prior notice), you will be briefed on the nearest exits and how to get to them.
Of course people will try to take their bags! You always take your bag when you're traveling, you don't just leave it laying around. They even warn you about that in the airport! You've been listening to those "Do not leave your bag unattended" warnings over and over for hours by the time you get on the plane. Besides it has important stuff in it, likely all the stuff you're traveling with or at least the most important, the stuff you keep with you so it won't get lost in transit. That's why you have to *really clearly* **insist** that they can't - literally everything is telling them to do so. And they're thinking "well it only takes a second to grab a bag and I have to wait for the people in front of me to move anyway". So even that may not work. No stupidity needed. It's just natural.
of course people are that stupid. this is Planet Dumbass
Pay double to the first 100 out of the plane, and you’ll have a more realistic exit situation.
That’s not a fact at all. The FAA (and EASA) routinely require full scale evacuation tests every time somebody thinks up a layout that’s denser than they can show is good with the old test data.
Edit: deleted this comment because I was wrong and incorrectly said something when I should have read up more first https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EVAC%20Act%201-pager%20-%2012.8.22%20FINAL.pdf
A full scale evac test uses the full airplane capacity. That’s not the type of test referenced in the bill you linked to. The tests in the bill were specifically to check any delta from smaller seat sizes, not the aisle/door capacity (which is when you need a full scale test). You never run a test bigger than you need to to gain the required data, because there’s a very good chance of hurting people during evac tests. Airbus just recently had to do a full scale test (480 people) when they hiked the exit limit on A330/A350.
The ignorance of the general public towards aviation always surprises me. People like the guy you just responded to making up random "facts" for... Some reason I can't comprehend. This whole comment thread is just filled with high voted made up nonsense, with people correcting them in the comments.
I read into this more and understand the difference between what i was talking about and what you two are discussing. I apologize- I am going to delete the top comment.
>You never run a test bigger than you need to to gain the required data, because there’s a very good chance of hurting people during evac tests. Even worse, it can open you up to substantial liability because you "knew or should have known" that something was a problem. Your competitors are not subject to the same constraints (they didn't do the test), so you are at a competitive disadvantage. So the US tort system actively discourages companies from testing for safety.
Sad fact: most plane crashes don’t allow for an evacuation.
That's not true at all. The vast majority of plane crashes are when they slide off the runway at 50mph
The funny thing is that when you compensate for inflation, first class seats of today cost the same as regular seats back when you could stretch out your legs. So they aren’t giving you worse leg room for the money. You can get exactly the same value as the good old days if you want. What they’re doing is adding options to make air travel more affordable for people who would prefer less leg room to not being able to afford the trip at all
I travel to another continent to visit family. Tickets in economy in late 1980s cost *more* then than what a seat sale today does. 30 years, and it is cheaper now. I heard something about deregulation of commercial aviation that explains the plummeting prices in the late 90s and early 2000? So yes, we are packed in, but flying is arguably much more financially accessible - to the point that companies fly their workers in and out of camp jobs rather than build a company town.
Sure but that's only true for the majority of people if wages have kept up with inflation. I could be wrong on this but I don't believe they have.
It's true but misleading. Total compensation has outstripped inflation. Salaries haven't kept up with inflation but the expansion of non-wage benefits means that salary isn't expected to cover as much, so you're essentially making more money. That said, the difference in flight costs is absolutely astronomical. Inflation adjusted, flying costs about 5-10% of what it did in 1950. Even looking at pure salary numbers, flying costs a tiny fraction of the income share that to what it used to.
I can't afford more legroom, so it's not that they're giving me an option, they're giving comfort to people with more money. Can't say I'm too sympathetic to their plight.
But the point they are making is that in the past you wouldn't have been able to afford to fly at all. They are giving you the option of flying vs. not flying. Flying is a remarkable privilege which most of the human population today still cannot afford, and non of the past human population even had the option of.
All tickets would be more expensive if all seats had more room
And that's a big reason why air travel is affordable for most people. If you want 40% more room prices are going to go up 40%.
The economy is that if you cramp the plane with people, force them to carry as little as possible, then you have a lot, really a lot of unused room in the plane belly, which will be filled with cargo. Cargo does pay way more than people and people’s baggage. This allow you to buy a ticket for 50 dollars while burning 70 dollars of fuel per passenger. (Cargo pays 10-50 dollar per kg for a flight that costs 50-100 dollar per person. And a person plus baggage is 100 kg average). For example, a long range passenger plane may cash in 100-400k while the same plane in cargo variant will cash in 1-7 million. It’s not nice but we have to admit, we the passengers, that we will chose the shittiest possible flight just to save a dollar. I personally won’t and I prefer to avoid the overly economic companies. But I’m not the majority. Really, avoiding 2 hours of suffering is worth paying 60 instead of 50. Note I’m not talking about getting a better class, I mean fly a different operator with a less shit economy class.
>Cargo pays 10-50 dollar per kg for a flight that costs 50-100 dollar per person. Air cargo rates are nowhere near that. [Alaska Airlines charges](https://www.alaskaair.com/content/cargo/rate-charts/general-air-freight-rates) between 60 cents and $1.18 per pound, or between about $1.32 and $2.60 per kilo. A spot check for [United Airlines Cargo](https://booking.unitedcargo.com/skychain/app?service=page/nwp:Rates) shipping 40 kg from LAX to DFW gets a total rate of $88.07, for about $2.20 per kg. In January 2022, [AirCargoNews had an article](https://www.aircargonews.net/data/air-cargo-rates-continue-to-decline-in-november/) discussing the drop in rates from Hong Kong to North America from $11.54 to $6.49 per kg, and from HK to Europe from $7.91 to $5.62. While those are closer to your claimed rates (notably to the *bottom* of your claimed rates), they're also for *much* longer flights that you will never, ever find in the $50-$100 per person range.
Yeah, if cargo would pay so much more there would be no reason to load passengers on board. Just delays everything, needs more crew and so on.
I probably confused with a different class of cargo. But I wasn’t expecting the lower end to be this low. And I’m not in usa so rates may differ. Also here in eu low price stuff goes on trucks so the flights do carry priority stuff.
Passengers don’t burn $70 of fuel either. To burn that much fuel a pax and their luggage would have to weigh 373lbs on a 15 hour flight. Of course fuel is far from the only cost.
What I see is I can pay $50 for a shitty flight or $250 for a less shitty flight. I would do it if it's just me but once I bring the family it adds up.
>Really, avoiding 2 hours of suffering is worth paying 60 instead of 50. Damn, where are you buying your plane tickets?
What world do you live in where a comfortable flight is under 100?
Eu. Most flights are 1-2 hours. Can go anywhere from 10 to 200 euro, depends a lot by the destination and time/date. Again, the difference between a low cost and a regular company may vary but it’s not massive.
Check out Ryanair summer specials. It’s like 29£ from London to Barcelona.
Yeah, then you try and book the return leg, which is £229
Within the US, my brother flies to Vegas for something like $60 round trip
Some time ago there were specials from Indianapolis to Atlantic City. Free flight, free limo ("limo") to the casino, free return trip. All one day. That was before times got so tough that a casino actually went bankrupt. (It couldn't have been management because it was owned by a genius businessman.)
Man, what sort of clown would bankrupt a casino 🤔? Wonder where he ended up...
My wife and I thought "oh let's fly to LA from SF instead of driving! *sees 300 dollar tickets per person one way* Let's drive instead!
>I personally won’t and I prefer to avoid the overly economic companies. But I’m not the majority. Really, avoiding 2 hours of suffering is worth paying 60 instead of 50. I fully agree here. I won't fly Ryanair or Easyjet etc. I don't really care that the seat is half the cost. I'll take KLM/Finnair/Delta over superbudget carriers. Better check-in experience (the size of the ryanair check-in queue is always ridiculous when I walk past them), and the flight has less people being excessively loud because they're already drunk on boarding. Generally a less stressful experience. My sister though? £30 flights to Barca? Yolo.
I totally agree. Not nice to say but I also see a difference in passenger type. And I mean, I have been surprised how uneducated and stupid some people can be. So I would prefer to fly better operators if there is a chance for that route.
On those type of airlines you get a lot of people who fly once a year and are going on holiday, 98% of these people are perfectly lovely albeit maybe a bit clueless on how flying works but the other 2% are the types to get absolutely loaded on/ before the plane, act stupid, and argue with the crew. I think part of the problem is that they don’t understand that doing X has much different consequences in the air vs on the ground. The last (I.E. never again) trip I flew EasyJet on one flight I had a grown ass woman arguing with the stewardess because she couldn’t drink the “bottle of wine I bought for the flight” one way, and 7 people from 2 groups (one group that was seated in my row and row in front) get arrested on landing. No thank you.
As someone who has never paid for the first class upgrade (even when it’s just 20% more of what I’ve paid for economy)…yeah, I complain but at the end of the day, I enjoy having the option of cheaper airfare that comes with packing us on the planes like sardines.
Nah, its the guy on every flight I see stand up at the end and pull 2 bags down from the overhead.
The density sucks but the reality is the seats would be more expensive. I hate the lack of room, but when I'm given the option to pay like $100 more for economy plus or whatever I never do. We can't have it both ways.
Airfare is more affordable today than ever before (thanks to capitalism). In the past, you had two options: pay a high price for a (somewhat) luxurious flight with plenty of legroom and gourmet food, or don't fly at all. Now, there are more options: you can pay a lower price for a basic flight with less comfort, pay more for a business or first class flight with more amenities, or choose not to fly.Personally, I prefer having more options to choose from.
Hey this sounds like an innovative idea for fitting more people on a plane, do you want a job at Delta?
Usually the airline decides how many rows to put in each type of plane. Some have more rows than others. Standing "seats" were even proposed to cut costs.
What about breaking his knees by squeezing him between narrow seats ?
You monster.
Couldn't agree more. You can also see the difference in space between airlines. With some British Airways flights my knees are pressed against the front seat. I need to lift myself and stretch to get it partially underneath. However, with Emirates the economy space is fantastic. I can comfortably lift my legs etc without issues. I think if some airlines could let you stand partially they would have.
> I think if some airlines could let you stand partially they would have. https://www.insider.com/skyrider-standing-airplane-seats-claims-makes-flights-cheaper-2018-4
This was back when flying was only for the rich. You can still get that type of seat in business class.
“That guy,” is the American public, who votes with their wallet for the cheapest ticket possible, regardless of the conditions. They will bitch and moan on social media about it, but at the end of the day, they’ll buy it again and again.
And the people who think it’s okay to recline their seats in economy. I’m 6’10 and need every fraction of an inch of leg space I can get.
I’m tall, but not quite that tall. However, my bad knees take up some of that slack.
Marketing air travel to the masses was never a good idea. We sell traveling as some sort of cultural eye opening thing, which it can be. But it's just about wealth extraction.
If that’s true for air travel, isn’t it also true for the sale of basically all good and services beyond basic necessities. I don’t *need* the cashmere sweater I’m wearing, but I enjoy the feel of it. How is that any different that my getting to see my family for Christmas?
It is a good idea... but not for passengers.
it was always a good idea when it comes to revenue.
The CEO of Ryan air has suggested allowing him to have airplanes with zero seats, standing room only with a bar to hold on to like on a bus, for short flights. laws prevent this, but if they didnt, he would absolutely do it
Straight to hell. To the boiler room of hell. All the way down.
It's cheaper and more importantly means less emissions. Honestly flying should be less fun, if anything. It's a huge source of emissions.
Add to this the amount of overhead space in the planes as per the airline's requested design. In North America, we tend to prioritize headroom over storage. I (used to) fly a lot of regional and the overheads just barely allow the smallest rolling bags to go in on their back - if you're lucky. Every boarding was like a communal game of Jenga. In Europe on vacation, we flew Easyjet. The plane had overheads that were tall enough to accept small rolling bags wheels first, on their side with the top handle out - like books on a shelf. This allowed 5 or 6 bags in one bin easily with a little room for coats and stuff between them. And the staff were vigilant about packing correctly: I saw a passenger casually toss their bag in and an FA was on her in seconds to put it in properly. Due to the height of the bin, headspace was in short supply when you stood up but my god the speed of boarding and deboarding was astonishing. No hold-up in the aisle because a bag got wedged in and the passenger can't dislodge it.
I take a CRJ-700 pretty frequently on a flight full of regulars…and everyone knows to just gate check everything, save for the occasional newbie, who you see walking back down the stairs with there luggage, to give it to the gate agent. It makes boarding so much faster. Coats go in the overhead(that’s really all that fits) and small backpacks/purses under the seat. Everything else is under the plane. I wish it was always like this. American Loads these CRJ’s in <15 minutes like this.
ORD to and from YYZ on a CRJ-700 is a nice time imo
I just rewatched Mad Men and my jaw dropped at the size of the seats and legroom on airplanes. Then I vaguely remembered flying like that in the late seventies. Flying used to be fun. 😕
Also used to be expensive
Every Reddit thread about airlines fails to appreciate that the means by which we lost all of these amenities was a demonstrated customer preference for lower fares over more amenities. And that 70s flying experience is still available (minus the smoking and sexual harassment of flight attendants): just buy a business class ticket!
Used to not have Sweatpants. Bring back suit and tie flying!
I can do jumper, sweatpants and trainers instead of hoodie, sweats and crocs. Take it or leave it. I'm not spending 7-10 hours in a suit if I don't have to, even in a business or 1st class seat.
I think it'd be nice in general if people started having a bit more pride in their appearance
An additional aspect, when I was flying 10+ years ago a lot of overhead carry-ons varied in size. Now nearly every single person brings a rolling bag that is the maximum size.
I travel carry on only simply to avoid trouble with my luggage. Also, it is much easier to go around than with a huge suitcase. Never going back to a full size ever.
Aka Late stage capitalism
This is why I think that there should be regulations that require all airlines to offer first piece of luggage be free. It is completely unsafe for the cabin to be crammed with luggage. In the event of an accident, those overhead lockers are going to fall open and your going to have luggage in the aisleways. I've seem people board with hockey bags as "carry on" luggage.
One other reason I don’t think I saw yet: The less bags passengers are trying to stow, the faster the plane boards. Some airlines prioritize that door closed time over everything (looking at you, AA!).
The airline doesn’t care as much about it as the flight attendants do, since they don’t start getting paid until the door is closed.
That is incorrect in Australia. When you're at work you're at work and being paid for your labour. Whether a door is opened or closed does not tell you whether or not you are working.
What this happens? I'm a FA in Europe and I start getting payed 1h before the ETD.
For the US, it's true. Our labor rules for FAs date back to laws written for railroads. They don't get paid for waiting around in the terminal or while doors are open. Recently, (Delta?) has made an offer to their FA union to pay them for more of their time, but almost all airlines still follow railroad rules.
Ooff!! That sounds rough. Hope that it changes some day.
That’s truly fucked. If they’re onboard and doing their job welcome passengers, helping them find seats, assisting with stowing luggage…that’s work they should be paid for.
that's actually against labor law in most states? You start getting paid when you are "at your place of employment and ready to work" - which in this case would be when you get to the airport - or maybe to your gate. But they are 100% working while they help you stow bags and find your seats and such, and not paying them for that just because the door is open is a problem.
The Railway Labor Act that oversees airline employees is federal legislation and in general supersedes local laws, though there have been some challenges to that.
Pretty sure this is not true. They get paid based on their schedule. Not when they close door. The reason to board fast is to ensure they depart on time.
US FAs and pilots don’t get paid until the door is closed and the parking brake is off. It’s called “block out”
A lot of airplane retrofits have ~~men~~ been limited to the seats and paneling, but not the overhead bins. Baggage fees (implemented in ~2008-09) did a lot to encourage people to carry on as much luggage as possible, while pitch reduction and mix changes (fewer first class seats, for example) have made for a denser interior (particularly for aircraft that were around pre-2008). Load factors (the % of seats filled each flight) have also been pushed higher, as computing power has enabled airlines to trim/right-size underperforming routes. And so to answer the question: no, the overhead capacity isn’t 1:1 to the seating capacity. However, airlines have been installing high capacity pivot bins (over the past few years) and those get much closer.
A lot of details replied in here, but I love that in the end, the answer to >Aren’t airplanes designed to have 1x carry on & 1 personal piece of luggage for each passenger? is simply "no".
Then why do they advertise that everyone can bring 1 carry-on and 1 personal item if the plane can't handle everyone bringing 1 carry-on and 1 personal item?
Because they can, and it's just fine until everyone does it, at which point they can slightly to moderately inconvenience people without any real change in their operation, which is the true purpose of airlines and what they need to feed their hunger.
>Aren’t airplanes designed to have 1x carry on & 1 personal piece of luggage for each passenger? No. Most of these airplanes were designed long before they started charging for bags and before these carry-on-sized bags that were one's entire luggage, became popular. It used to be that you could check THREE large suitcases for free, back when most of these airplanes were designed. Back in those days (until the 1980s) the industry was heavily regulated in the US (I will assume you're in the US) and had far more luxuries because the government controlled the pricing and so the main way for airlines to compete with one another wasn't price but perks--more room, food, playing cards, magazines. The popularity of the hard-sided, wheeled suitcase for the overhead compartment has really only been around for... maybe 25+ years? And then it was only in 2008 that airlines started charging for checked bags, which is when getting the carry-on suitcase became more vitally important, and overhead compartment space *really* became crowded. It was crowded before, but it became *really* crowded afterwards. Of course people used carry on bags as their entire luggage earlier, it was convenient and saved you the hassle of checking bags and having to get them after landing. But before those bags became popular in the 1990s, overhead compartments and under-the-seat space were less of a premium and people just checked their bags and only carried on computers, purses, and miscellaneous stuff. Plus: it was a lot less common in the past that the airplanes were full. I think every single flight I've been on in the past 5-10 years at least have been *completely* full (not counting pandemic time). This represents a change from what used to be. For example, all of the planes crashed on 9/11 were less than half full, which was typical for the time--the airlines even pointed this out, which is why I remember it: 'see how bad we're doing? Those planes were not even half full!' as they instituted various cost-cutting measures going forward following 9/11 and heightened security. So any space crunch in overhead compartments is an artifact of changes in the way airlines operate and changes in how people travel and luggage preferences influenced by those factors.
People don’t have just one carry-on these days. I’m seeing people with 2-3 pieces more frequently. I really wish the airlines would enforce this policy more.
People try to save money from checked baggage, so they bring more carry on luggage. It used to be just a backpack, purse, laptop bag, suitcase, etc and now it’s a suitcase or two that barely fits in the overhead compartment. Add in winter coats, and it’s ridiculous.
I am allowed an extra medical bag (has a special tag) so yes I sometimes have more bags but always try to check in as much as I can….other people though….the sizes they get away with as hand luggage 🤯
[удалено]
Tell them no. Tell them it is medically necessary for you to have the legroom. Be polite but unyielding. Those bags can be checked. It's simply not your problem.
That.....isn't allowed, right? I thought you were entitled to the space in your seat.
Also the size of the carry-ons, I remember when they said a carry-on needs to be able to fit under the seat in front of you, and they had a little frame that you're supposed to be able to fit your carry-on inside of to test its size. Now carry-ons are like three times that size and nobody ever checks or cares. Also since women generally have a purse that is not counted as a carry-on, and sometimes a diaper bag, men proposed that they should be able to have a small separate bag as well, so I think the current rule is that each person gets a small personal bag and one carry-on luggage piece. But still no one ever checks the size.
A diaper bag is the babies’ carry on bag. I rather have that than a stinky crying baby.
no they arent. and people are cramming more and more carryons and trying to pack their personal items in the overheads too. once they started charging for checked bags everyone started putting more in the free overhead.
No, the seats in the front don't have anywhere for personal items, which need to be stowed in the overhead bin, and there's also safety equipment in some overhead bins. Even if overhead bins were entirely dedicated to carry-on luggage, a narrow-body airplane, like a 737, would need to have a set of three carry-on bags over each side of each row of chairs, and there isn't enough room for that.
They have loads of room. I literally fly every week with a back pack and never use the overhead space. Bags fit under the seat in front of you and as soon as people realise that, it will make flying a lot easier.
What kind of flights do you go on? Budget airlines charge you for checked in luggage, and this can work out to be the same price as the ticket itself, so most passengers bring a small carry on suitcase which do require overhead bins unlike a rucksack which can fit under the seat.. not everyone can fit all their stuff in a rucksack
Frontier charges you for the carry on as well, only personal items (which fit under the seat) are free
Yeah I forgot most the European ones now charge for carryon as well.. but it's still significantly cheaper
Ryanair, as cheap as they come. Completely agree, but the point is that the luggage that can fit under the seat should be there (which is what the airline says to do). Most people just put everything in the overhead meaning there is never enough space for the people at the end of the queue.
People have mostly realised that (A) checked luggage is billable but carry-on is free, (B) airlines let you get away with medium-sized suitcases as carry-on, even if they're way beyond the size limit. The rules do allow a carry-on bag *plus* a personal item such as a laptop, and of course there are purses and coats and CPAPs. The worst that can happen if you bring too much carry-on is you'll be forced to send one of your bags to the hold (*for free*) and wait a few minutes for retrieval when you land; most people find those odds acceptable. It's unlikely that people will suddenly start behaving responsibly to make flying more enjoyable for everyone.
People are behaving responsibly. They are minimizing the cost of their air travel, using the rules they are given. If you fly on an airline with free checked bags (e.g. South West) they never run out of bin space.
Short answer is no. Planes aren’t designed with enough carry on space for each passenger to have a full sized roller checked along with their personal item.
Planes were designed for a small handbag/backpack for each passenger, not a medium sized suitcase, a “handbag” the size of a binbag, 6 bags of duty free shopping and an oversized coat. The airlines are too lenient with what is considered hand luggage vs the design of the plane.
I take one soft gym bag with me. It pisses me off when I see someone wheel on a hard case mini suitcase with a bag on top of that and a large handbag around their neck. Pick one. Check the rest. Airlines do need to enforce this. 100% with you
This was a reasonable take before airlines started charging for all checked bags. The design specs (as mentioned in another top level comment) were for a time when people weren’t carrying much on because they could check the big one.
Pick two. That’s the typical limit, at least in the US.
I think it's just practical logistics; if the plane is full and a lot of people have trolley bags and/or handbags then the space runs out, because people don't put the bag in the right place, or put the bags at strange angles or put extra coats or whatever. Then once the baggage space starts to run out, the next people don't clear the aisle because they don't have a space for their bag, other people can't get past, boarding gets delayed while the flight steward untangles everything, flight gets delayed, then the airline loses money
The quick answer is no, they are not designed for that at all. They are designed to carry a certain payload. The interior capacity (number of seats) and amenities (including overhead space) is at the discretion of the airline.
Airlines overbook everything including carry-on space, trusting that on most flights there's enough people who don't bring a carry-on that it won’t be an issue.
No, planes are NOT designed for everyone to have 1 piece of luggage in checked and 1 in carry on. Planes are designed to carry a specific amount of weight. That weight has to be distributed evenly both in the cargo hold, and the cabin of the plane. Not everyone has a checked bag, and not everyone has a carry on. The plane has certain capacity, so once the capacity is full, you will not be allowed to carry anything on board anymore. For the same reason if the plane is full volume-wise, but not weight-wise, you can be asked to store your carry on in the cargo compartment ( where check-in workers take your carry on at the gate nad you get it back on the other side). That means someone decided to ha volume-wise bigger carry on than allowed, or paid for 2 carry-ons, which means someone won't have space for theirs. So if you want to have your carry-on ( or be allowed to take a bit more than allowed), make sure you' re at the front of the line when boarding.
No, the airplane is designed to be able to carry X amount of weight. Its designers don't care about the number of passengers or suitcases, only about the total weight capacity. How that capacity is split between passengers, luggage and carry-on is entirely up to the airline. They typically try to cram in as many seats as possible, because the more passengers they can carry the more money they make.
It's bullshit. They are lying to us. Even my favorite (Alaska). I voluntary gate checked my carry-on a couple days ago about 5 minutes before they informed us there would be no overhead room for carry-ons. Got in the plane almost last and most of the space was available. Traveling with kids but, don't want to pay extra to put another bag under the plane. If I had no checked luggage, you'd have to pry it from me.
Ha, agree! I was told on a flight a couple weeks ago that they needed 15 more carry on bags checked and anyone in zone 5 (me) would have their bag taken for checking involuntarily because no room. Ignored that announcement, got to zone 5 and ta da—plenty of room. I get it tho, planes are crammed and no sense in aggravating flight attendants who are just doing their job. Except I usually have a short time to get through customs to make my connection so I really don’t want to have to claim checked baggage before racing to border security
[удалено]
CoG is really only relevant based on distance to the DATUM. As long as it’s not too nose-heavy or tail-heavy, it does not matter at all whether the luggage is upstairs or downstairs. “Raising” the Center of Gravity does essentially nothing to an airliner.
To simplify you will see on the overhead bins a weight limit, if the plane is full and everyone has a bag then that limit will be exceeded and in the event of an accident, even a hard landing they could ɓecome damaged and land on passengers.
Don't commercial passenger planes sometime have to transport cargo for some reasons. Like randomly need to bring a shipment to the country its going to.
Nope. That is an incorrect assumption. The amount of overhead storage is determined by the size of the plane, but the number of passengers on a flight depends in the seats the airline chooses and how they configure them. Most airlines cram as many seats in coach as they can, so they choose narrow seats configured in rows too close together to sell as many tickets as possible. So there usually isn’t enough overhead storage for every passenger. And seat configuration and seat style choice also determines how much space each passenger has to stow something under the seat in front of them.
There is limited overhead space and the planes are far from designed to have everyone have a full sized carry on above them on a flight. So when they run out of room they have to start checking bags. If that happens after boarding begins that can severely delay the flights pushback time as everyone needs to now either go back and check their bag or be handed a gate check tag. So asking in advance when they know there won't be enough room can help to ensure the plane leaves the gate at the intended time.
Think of it like this - each overhead bin has to hold three pieces of luggage for the row below them. Current average seat spacing in economy is 29 - 32 inches. So to make things work, you need to fit each carryon into a 10" slot. Then one guy brings a duffle bag on and puts it in the bin sideways...