[dorianrolf]

These are the rules in California. If you remodel a business you have to upgrade and meet ADA standards. My brother works in a bar that had to make the area behind the bar wide enough to accommodate a bartender in a wheelchair. Don't even get me started on how you have to configure the bathroom. We can now hold a square dance in there. I am not an advocate of these kind of regulations but the airlines are getting away with murder.

[The_Judge]

Trying not to be insensitive but where is the line drawn? If the airlines created some seats that were wider for "POS" (I love that) what criteria is used to decide who gets them? And when they aren't all used on a flight, which "normal sized" passengers will get them?

After the POS group, then other groups will want changes made for them. People who are in wheelchairs and are immobile may want only the seats forward in the plane. They may want their wheelchairs to take them all the way to their seats which would mean widening the aisle by taking out seats.

Just a quick story about the wider seats thing....when I worked in Honolulu, at that time we had a seasonal flight non-stop to Minneapolis. It was a 747. The upper-deck was considered economy. These seats are first class sized. I mean international first class. Very nice at the time. This particular day, we had dupe seating upstairs, meaning 2 boarding passes printed with the same seat for 2 seperate people. In the end, there was a fist-fight for this seat.

Again, I don't want to sound like I'm not empathetic or insensitive but where do airlines stop appeasing special groups?

[jimworcs]

It is not "appeasing" special groups. Society is made up of a whole range of people, tall, short, fat, thin, able bodied, less abled, elderly, babies etc. When you start to pick out one group, you will eventually target them all. There was a poster on this site who recently advocated banning children under 5 from flying, others object to fat people, disabled people, etc.
Airlines provide a public accommodation and should be pragmatic about ensuring that they accommodate as many of the public as possible. Over 30% of the US population is obese or clinically overweight, so this is not a small number. In addition, the overall size of the general population in terms of height and weight (even when in proportion) is considerably bigger than it even was 30 years ago.

The seat width, pitch and the average weight calculations for the passengers need to be revised to account for this. (The FAA has modified these calculations for small aircraft, after the weight of passengers was a factor in an accident in CLT, NC).

There are already accommodations for people with disabilities.. no one is advocating wider aisles to permit wheelchairs. The issue is that the accommodations should be made. Likewise, obese people don't need a special seat. The pragmatic solution is to leave the seat next to them empty if the flight is not full. If the flight is full, require the obese passenger to buy a seat, along the lines of the Southwest policy. As long as this policy if fairly applied (as it is on Southwest), I can see no problem with that. I speak as a fat bloke myself. Gate agents can simply hand the passenger a sheet outlining the policy and requesting that they buy a seat. If necessary they may have to booked on a later flight if no extra seats are available.

On the issue of how it is applied: I recently went to Alton Towers (a theme park in the UK). The issue of whether obese people can fit into the seats for the big thrill rides is obviously a problem for them too. It is resolved by them having example seats dotted around the park. People can try out the seat and see if they are able to lock the clasp before going into the queue. This was not humiliating..as lots of people tried the seat, whether they were fat or not. What is to stop airports having a standard row in the terminal which people can try out and see if the armrest comes down. This is an objective and fair measure and I cannot see what the objection to that is. It can only work if it is uniformly applied by all. For that, I think we need rule making by the DOT, similar to how they handle disability rule making.

There are usually common sense solutions to these problems, but this is interfered with by people who spend their whole life being angry at things. The posters on here who write things like "why should we do this or that" for fat people, disabled people, etc, are very short-sighted. There but for the grace of god...

[The_Judge]

Good ideas. I'd love it if the government was the decider of who's too fat for one seat. Takes all the blame off the airline.

The idea of test seats located throughout the airport is a good idea. No reason why this couldn't be done. If I still worked at airline, I would definitely bring this idea forward.

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by The_Judge

Good ideas. I'd love it if the government was the decider of who's too fat for one seat. Takes all the blame off the airline.

The governement is not at the gate, the airline is.

Many Passenger's of size (POS) claim that their obesity is a disability. As such, under our disability rule, those passengers can be charged for a second seat since the rule specifically states: as a carrier "You are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased" [14 CFR 382.87(f)]

Now I know that charging for second seat is not the issue, but it raises the question - can a the passenger who is being squeezed bring a complaint of a violation under Part 382 when the carrier chooses not to force the POS to purchase a second seat.

As Jim stated earlier, the FAA does need to modifiy the minimum seat width and pitch to accomodate the "growing" population.

[The_Judge]

I'm aware the government is not at the gate. The proposal by Jim, unless I misunderstood it, is that the government regulate the size of a person that is required to purchase a second seat. That takes the decision off the airline then. Correct me if I misunderstood what he said.

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by The_Judge

I'm aware the government is not at the gate. The proposal by Jim, unless I misunderstood it, is that the government regulate the size of a person that is required to purchase a second seat. That takes the decision off the airline then. Correct me if I misunderstood what he said.

I missed the "rule making by DOT" in Jim's post.

Considering all the flack we got (and still get) in regards to the previously citeed section, that is not going to happen in the immediate future.

But the simpe rule of thumb should be... If you can not sit in the seat facing forward with the armrest down, you need 2 seats. Plain and simple. No need for a flight attendant or gate agent to make a subjective, and often wrong, decision.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by The_Judge

The idea of test seats located throughout the airport is a good idea. No reason why this couldn't be done. If I still worked at airline, I would definitely bring this idea forward.

It seems like a good idea (like the carry-on baggage sizer) but may not be practical for every airline. Most airlines have fleets comprised of many different aircraft types of varying age. For those airlines there is no such thing as a "standard economy" seat. Yes the width variance may be very slight however one may test themselves in the "person sizer" at the airport and barely fit only to find they are flying on an aircraft with a slightly narrower seat and cannot lower the armrest. For airlines like Southwest and JetBlue this wouldn't be a problem since the seats in their fleets are all the same but an airline like Delta or American with both Airbus and Boeing aircraft, some of which are 20+ years old, it would be a mistake to place a "person sizer" at the airport as a representation o a "typical" economy seat.

[AADFW]

What really blows my mind about the debate in this thread is that everyone's talking about girth but not at all height.

Originally Posted by justme

The other thing I have a problem with about this whole "make the seats wider" business is this: A NORMAL, HEALTHY, individual WILL fit in any current airline seat with no problems what-so-ever. I'm not saying they will all be comfortable, or you will have enuf room to stretch out like you're in your lazyboy...

Your ignorance is astounding and offensive. I am well over 6'4" and I literally will NOT fit in the standard seat of an E145 and several other commuter aircraft. In fact, on the few occasions when I have flown those aircraft the FA has had to ask an exit row passenger to switch seats with me. When seated in a standard economy seat on most larger aircraft my knees are literally crammed into the tray table of the seat in front of me for the duration of the flight. My employment options are even limited because I must demand business class on long-haul international flights to ensure that I'll have proper legroom.

At minimum, exit rows should be reserved for people over a certain height. No matter how much weight I lose or gain, there's nothing I can ever do about how long my legs are. Frankly, I don't understand why this hasn't been more of an industry topic than the POS issues.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by AADFW

What really blows my mind about the debate in this thread is that everyone's talking about girth but not at all height.

Frankly, I don't understand why this hasn't been more of an industry topic than the POS issues.

Actually some of the newer seats being installed on some airlines (Continental and Delta both come to mind) are taking that into consideration. Although the seat pitch is unchanged the new seats are thinner and the seat cushion actually slides forward slightly when the seat is reclined. (Much like a Barclonger or Laz-E-Boy recliner) The thinner seat and the forward motion actually create a bit (albeit a tiny bit) more legroom. I know it doesn't solve your issue with the regional jets (even I at just over 5'10" feel cramped in those seats) and may not even help too much on mainline aircraft but it is a slight improvement.

[Gromit801]

A rare agreement with AADFW. I'm 6'7", and this isn't considered a disability for ADA compliance. It's genetic, so I suppose it falls into other discrimination areas, like race.

I don't have much sympathy with those that a good diet, exercise, medical attention, or surgery couldn't fix.

[dorianrolf]

Originally Posted by abutterfinger25

The governement is not at the gate, the airline is.

Many Passenger's of size (POS) claim that their obesity is a disability. As such, under our disability rule, those passengers can be charged for a second seat since the rule specifically states: as a carrier "You are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased" [14 CFR 382.87(f)]

Now I know that charging for second seat is not the issue, but it raises the question - can a the passenger who is being squeezed bring a complaint of a violation under Part 382 when the carrier chooses not to force the POS to purchase a second seat.

I would really like the answer to that question. The gate is supposedly the entity responsible for identifying the passenger and enforcing what ever policy Delta may have. You would have to blind not to realize this man's weight was going to be an issue. Instead of continuing to fill seats by upgrading other passengers (and filling their seats) they could have dealt with the issue but they chose to ignore it and forced us to give up part of the seat we paid for.

[abutterfinger25]

Originally Posted by dorianrolf

I would really like the answer to that question. The gate is supposedly the entity responsible for identifying the passenger and enforcing what ever policy Delta may have. You would have to blind not to realize this man's weight was going to be an issue. Instead of continuing to fill seats by upgrading other passengers (and filling their seats) they could have dealt with the issue but they chose to ignore it and forced us to give up part of the seat we paid for.

You hit the nail on the head, most gate agents will ignore the issue and hopes it goes away, or becomes someone else's problem. Granted that there are some agents who will take the initiative and charge the passenger for 2 seats but then the agent becomes the nasty unsympathetic airline nazi when the complaint letter is written.

As for the answer to the question I raised earlier... That is above my pay grade.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

the new seats are thinner and the seat cushion actually slides forward slightly when the seat is reclined

The late great National Airlines (Miami) was the last airline I can remember having something like this. The recline, into the face of the person behind you, was very limited. Yet, your body still felt the sensation of a conventional recline. With the complaints about people having their laptops trashed I'm surprised more airlines don't use this. I'll assume cost is the issue--either the seats themselves, and/or the cost of re-fitting existing aircraft.

For those who feel the need to point it out: This type of seating was NOT fleet-wide with National. Their DC-10s were one exception.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

the new seats are thinner and the seat cushion actually slides forward slightly when the seat is reclined

The late great National Airlines (Miami) was the last airline I can remember having something like this. The recline, into the face of the person behind you, was very limited. Yet, your body still felt the sensation of a conventional recline. With the complaints about people having their laptops trashed I'm surprised more airlines don't use this. I'll assume cost is the issue--either the seats themselves, and/or the cost of re-fitting existing aircraft.

For those who feel the need to point it out: This type of seating was NOT fleet-wide with National. Their DC-10s were one exception.

Cost is an issue however the newer seats are made of more lightweight composite materials. They may be more expensive initially but over time actually save money. Less weight means less fuel burned per flight. The initial cost of seat replacement does, however, need to be budgeted and scheduled to coincide with each aircraft's heavy check. It's during those checks that the plane is essentially stripped and re-built from the inside out. Another cost of doing business that the average traveler doesn't think about.

New aircraft are being delivered with these seats already installed. In some cases an older aircraft may never get the new seats because it's nearing the end of it's useful life cycle as a passenger aircraft.

[jimworcs]

AADFW..

In addition, the overall size of the general population in terms of height and weight (even when in proportion) is considerably bigger than it even was 30 years ago

I agree that this is an issue of both girth and height, and not always of obesity. The population is getting taller and frankly I think some of the seat pitch is unsafe, both for DVT risks and for emergency evacuation purposes.

On the issue of rule making, my suggestion was simply that DOT make a rule that if a passenger is unable to completely lower the armrest of the seat, the passenger must purchase a second ticket. This would allow the gate agents and check in clerks to de-personalise the issue and simply state that federal rules require this. It would also eliminate the ridiculously arbitrary situation which currently exists which empowers morons to either make up rules as they go along or ignore the plight of passengers who are sold effectively half a seat.

There are different types of seats, but in truth not that many in which the width differs significantly. In general, Airbus seats are a bit wider than Boeing, but Delta would need a few examples in Atlanta but for the vast majority of airports served they would probably be able to use one standard seat.

There is absolutely a need to make FAA rules in relation to seat pitch. This is urgent. The market is placing enormous pressures on airlines to cram as many seats as possible into the airplane. This has safety implications and needs to be addressed. I believe that a statutory minimum of 31" should be mandated.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

There is absolutely a need to make FAA rules in relation to seat pitch. This is urgent. The market is placing enormous pressures on airlines to cram as many seats as possible into the airplane. This has safety implications and needs to be addressed. I believe that a statutory minimum of 31" should be mandated.

Those FAA regulations are already on the books. I'm honestly too lazy right now to look up the exact FARs but they do exist. On mainline aircraft in the US there aren't any airlines with a seat pitch of less than 31 inches. This is because the airlines have been able to demonstrate that the aircraft, when full, can be completely evacuated in under a given time limit. This is also why there is additional pitch in exit rows and in some cases there are only two seats in some exit rows in an aircraft with a 3x3 configuration.

There is also a correlation to the number of seats and how many flight attendants must be staffed on each aircraft. This is why airlines like JetBlue and Southwest have additional pitch. They chose to remove a couple of rows of economy seats so they don't have to add an extra FA. When Delta started taking delivery of 737-800s they too had an odd configuration where the last row had two seats on one side and a inexplicable "dead space" between the last row and the aft bulkhead. They then decided to add the seats back, shrink the overall pitch and add the extra FA.

[justme]

What really blows my mind about the debate in this thread is that everyone's talking about girth but not at all height.

Your ignorance is astounding and offensive. I am well over 6'4" and I literally will NOT fit in the standard seat of an E145 and several other commuter aircraft

Astounding and offensive? Man, I hope no one ever calls you ugly... I am also a very tall person, 6'2" to be exact. Like I said in my original post, the seat you are in may not be as comfortable as your living room recliner. The reason height was not mentioned in this post was because it was not an issue in this occasion.

on the few occasions when I have flown those aircraft the FA has had to ask an exit row passenger to switch seats with me.

Strange, considering that there are aircraft that exist in which the exit row actually has LESS legroom than the rest of the rows.

My employment options are even limited because I must demand business class on long-haul international flights to ensure that I'll have proper legroom.

No, you're employment options are limited because you are DEMANDING something that not all employers offers because it is a luxury, plain and simple. You are being high maintenance.

At minimum, exit rows should be reserved for people over a certain height.

What if no one on the flight is tall enuf to qualify? When you make a reservation should it be a requirement to enter your height? What if you're a 7'5" Russian basketball player, and don't speak english? Where do you sit then? What if you are 6'9" and are deaf? What then?

In addition, the overall size of the general population in terms of height and weight (even when in proportion) is considerably bigger than it even was 30 years ago

We're larger because we, as a human race, are exponentially more unhealthy and obese than we were 30 years ago. Maybe we should consider that a problem that is bigger than airlines not catering to obesity.

[jimworcs]

Sorry, I meant 36", I was reading from a previous post that I had made about standard seat pitch and transplanted the wrong figure. In fact, the FAA rejected the idea of regulating seat pitch per se. They instead regulate on the timings of egress in an emergency. The FAA argue that seat pitch has no impact on speed of evacuation.

I have serious issues with this. The trial evacuations by the manufacturers are conducted in conditions which are highly artificial. The people participating are generally employees and friends of employees and are fit. There are no wheelchair passengers, blind people, obese people, parents separated from children, etc. Nor are there any "assistance geese" onboard. As a result, when the trials are completed, you get youtube video's of whooping passengers clapping and generally high fiving at how clever they all are.

In a real situation, the video is very different... it is weeping relatives being told their loved one's died of smoke inhalation and were found scrunched together trying to find their way out.

For those who want it, here is a link to evidence given to congress relating to seat pitch. It is old, but remains the position of the FAA today.

http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pa...st/Taylor6.PDF

[The_Judge]

I am not sure how to say this tactfully and it will come out wrong I'm sure. I want it known up front I have no prejudices against anyone.

To expand a bit on Jim's thoughts on evacuations in a time regulated by the FAA. As someone who has personally lifted people from their wheelchair into their seat and from chair to aislechair and moved them on the plane then from aislechair to seat, these folks would have ZERO chance in evacuating an aircraft in an emergency, much less in a regulated amount of time. I don't know who is fooling who here but it just wouldn't happen. Maybe they should all be seated up front close to an exit just for this reason alone. My head hurts......think I'll have a beer.

[jimworcs]

Troy,
This is a sensitive issue, but the reality is that in some circumstances those who are mobility impaired do have to face the risk that they would be unable to evacuate. This is the same risk that wheelchair dependent people face in skyscapers, when lifts are shut down during emergency evacuations, in theatres, etc. Whilst I support placing such passengers near to an exit, it cannot be in the exit row of course.

[The_Judge]

Agreed......and I never said exit row. I wanted to be clear so I said up front meaning near the boarding door.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by justme

I am also a very tall person, 6'2" to be exact. Like I said in my original post, the seat you are in may not be as comfortable as your living room recliner.

This quote really reinforces my earlier assertion that you are an ignoramus. You seem to think that your comparatively short height of 6'2" somehow puts you on par with people who are five or more inches taller than you. I've got news for you: it doesn't.

Originally Posted by justme

Strange, considering that there are aircraft that exist in which the exit row actually has LESS legroom than the rest of the rows.

No, it's not strange. Most aircraft, and certainly the commuters in the instances I'm referring to (AA's E145s), have more space at the exit rows - not less. I'm assuming by "less legroom" you're referring to exit doors that limit legroom at the window seats of larger aircraft? The other seats in those rows still offer substantially more space than standard seats. Since you seem to fancy yourself an expert on the subject, perhaps you'd care to share with us exactly what commercial equipment currently in use actually has exit rows with less legroom in all exit row seats. You can't because one doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by justme

No, you're employment options are limited because you are DEMANDING something that not all employers offers because it is a luxury, plain and simple. You are being high maintenance.

It's not a luxury when attempting to contort myself to fit in a standard economy seat for ten hours or more poses very serious health risks. There's nothing high maintenance about preventing DVT and herniated spinal discs.

You've never even seen me and you have no idea of exactly how tall I am, yet you feel confident enough to make such assumptions. That says alot about the kind of person you are, and about the kind of people your troubled industry feels compelled to hire.

Originally Posted by justme

What if no one on the flight is tall enuf to qualify?

You assign the seats to other passengers.

Originally Posted by justme

When you make a reservation should it be a requirement to enter your height?

If you are requesting an exit row, yes.

Originally Posted by justme

What if you're a 7'5" Russian basketball player, and don't speak english? Where do you sit then? What if you are 6'9" and are deaf? What then?

This further exposes the depth of your intellectual deficit. I'm not proposing that people who are "unable, unwilling, or do not meet the requirements" of exit row seating should be allowed to sit in those seats -- only that qualified persons should be allocated to them on the basis of height. For example, those over 6'5" could get priority while those under that height would not. Ideally, however, the discussion should be about establishing seating standards that will comfortably accommodate more passengers in regular seats rather than the allocation of the exit row seating itself.

Originally Posted by justme

We're larger because we, as a human race, are exponentially more unhealthy and obese than we were 30 years ago.

Are you suggesting that my height is a product of poor health habits? Now you're really in the running for the gold medal of idiocy. Your hostility and willingness to assume the worst about people is a concise illustration of what everyone already knows about the airline business: a disproportionate number of employees are unhappy, ill-mannered, vindictive, uninformed, and incompetent. Based on your postings, I'm guessing you fall into that category as well. At least we honest paying passengers can all be thankful you're a "former" airline employee who is now only able to abuse airline customers within the confines of the internet.

[biljack]

There are a lot of posts on this topic so I didn't read everything. I just have to say, airline seats are not big enough for the average person. They may be big enough to accommodate a person's hips, but not necessarily their shoulders.

I am a 5' 4" female of small to average size. I recently sat between two average size men on a flight and was uncomfortable. I couldn't keep my arms for touching the person next to me without keeping them in front of me.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Welcome to the 21st century, and to "sardine class." Anyone, unless they're 5 years old or younger, will experience this. I was in a middle seat, on Frontier (which I'd fly again) and nearly the entire flight was spent with both hands on my kneecaps and my elbows pressing against my side. By the time I got to Philadelphia I thought I had joined a new religion! Indeed the only thing separating domestic coach from the 42nd St (subway) Shuttle, at 5:30, are the feely feely games (a/k/a subway sex.)

These kind of absurd conditions exist because people are willing to be treated this way in return for $150 trans-continental fares. If I can put a dog collar on you, and lead you on a leash through the airport, I'll take you to the west coast for $75. You know you'd probably get "takers," even with these kind of terms! Unlike Machiavelli's Prince, the airline's "subjects" are more than willing to tolerate a "stingy Prince."