Southwest Customer of Size

[ducklite]

Of course they gripe, it is similar to the fact that cruise ship ventilation is so poor that clothes actually shrink while hanging in the closet.

 

 

I haven't had that problem. Oh wait, you're being cheeky, LOL!

[6rugrats]

So when airlines reduce the size of their seats and seatbelts even more, you'd expect people to lose weight to adjust to the seat size. Then the seats get reduced again until the only people who could fit into them are midgets with eating disorders. :rolleyes:

 

This poster merely said if someone was too big to fit comfortably into an airplane seat, they could lose weight by increasing exercise and decreasing calories. She didn't say anything about expecting people to do this, nor did she call them fat or midgets.

 

I think the point was the size of your ass is your responsibility, not the airline's.

Edited February 23, 2015 by 6rugrats

[A2Mich]

 

I think the point was the size of your ass is your responsibility, not the airline's.

 

 

Lol. Too funny!

[OzKiwiJJ]

This poster merely said if someone was too big to fit comfortably into an airplane seat, they could lose weight by increasing exercise and decreasing calories. She didn't say anything about expecting people to do this, nor did she call them fat or midgets.

 

I think the point was the size of your ass is your responsibility, not the airline's.

 

I fitted quite comfortably, both seat width and distance between seats, on planes used by a major Australian airline some years ago. Then they got new planes and suddenly I'm not comfortable any more. My ass didn't change, neither did the length of my legs (and I am of average height), the airline decided to squash more seats on their newer planes.

 

I did find having a breast reduction has helped considerably with upper body space on those planes, but that's a bit radical for most women who have large breasts.

 

Now I just fly with a different airline which does have that fraction of extra space in their seat widths and between seats.

[Globaliser]

I fitted quite comfortably, both seat width and distance between seats, on planes used by a major Australian airline some years ago. Then they got new planes and suddenly I'm not comfortable any more. My ass didn't change, neither did the length of my legs (and I am of average height), the airline decided to squash more seats on their newer planes.

As I pointed out above, this may have nothing to do with squashing more seats on. Different aircraft may simply be different sizes, and require seats of different widths.

 

For example, an airline might operate A320 family aircraft and its passengers may get used to the seat size on them. Then the airline might swap to operating B737 family aircraft. Superficially, they'll look the same to most passengers: about the same size, and seats laid out in a 3-3 configuration. But the seats in the B737 family aircraft are generally about an inch narrower, simply because the aircraft is a different size.

 

Conversely, the airline's passengers may get used to flying on B747 aircraft - a mainstay of one Australian airline for decades. The airline might then take some A380 aircraft - and the passengers may find that the seats are wider. Nothing to do with squashing more people into a 747 or being more generous on the 380. It's simply to do with the width of the cabin and the consequent effect on seat width.

[A2Mich]

One thing to consider too is that aircraft manufacturers (ie; Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc) generally offer the same basic airframe with several options in seating density, depending on the customer's requirements. Low cost carriers flying relatively short flights may request a higher density seating configuration than an airline such as Emirates, who is known to have more space per passenger, lower density, and generally nicer creature comforts. Some airlines may request a lower seating capacity for some of their aircraft that fly the longer routes to keep the passengers happier (or less miserable, depending on your perspective). So in the case of this unnamed AU airline (which likely has a kangaroo on their tails), their international flights flown on B747 or A389 aircraft may have a lower passenger density than aircraft used for domestic flights.

[OzKiwiJJ]

OSo in the case of this unnamed AU airline (which likely has a kangaroo on their tails), their international flights flown on B747 or A389 aircraft may have a lower passenger density than aircraft used for domestic flights.

 

Exactly.

 

I think the plane I was referring to was the A320, and I think the unnamed airline may have passed those planes onto it's budget subsidiary. Those planes have 30 rows of seats. The other AU airline, which I now choose to fly with where possible, also operates the same planes but with 27 rows of seats. Those extra three rows mean the difference between comfortable and uncomfortable.

 

Both airlines also fly A330-200s, one with 41 rows, the other with 57 rows :eek: Guess which is which :D

 

Note - seat information was sourced form SeatGuru.

Edited February 25, 2015 by OzKiwiJJ

[A2Mich]

Oops----I meant A380, not A389 - I was typing on my phone at the time.

[FlyerTalker]

The interior arrangement of lavs, closets, galleys and the like have an impact on the space available for seating. So just because an aircraft has X rows of seats and another has X-3 is not a definitive indicator of the actual pitch. Ditto with an A330 - depending on how many seats are allocated to first/business, you could easily have more room in coach even with more "rows".

 

Way too many variables to just rely on number of rows.

 

And, for the record, some of us are too lazy to cross-reference at seat guru. It's quite alright for you to mention an airline's name. Honest, you can. ;)

[A2Mich]

 

I did find having a breast reduction has helped considerably with upper body space on those planes, but that's a bit radical for most women who have large breasts.

 

 

You do know that a picture is worth a thousand words.....;)

[OzKiwiJJ]

The interior arrangement of lavs, closets, galleys and the like have an impact on the space available for seating. So just because an aircraft has X rows of seats and another has X-3 is not a definitive indicator of the actual pitch. Ditto with an A330 - depending on how many seats are allocated to first/business, you could easily have more room in coach even with more "rows".

 

Way too many variables to just rely on number of rows.

 

And, for the record, some of us are too lazy to cross-reference at seat guru. It's quite alright for you to mention an airline's name. Honest, you can. ;)

 

True but I did eyeball the seat configurations on Seat Guru and the rest of the plane layout looked very similar, including the business class rows. But there were far more economy rows on one airline than the other, and the squeeziness of the rows has been confirmed by personal experience on those planes.

 

I was trying to be fair. Just because I don't like Qantas for domestic travel doesn't mean that other people feel the same way. ;)

[OzKiwiJJ]

You do know that a picture is worth a thousand words.....;)

 

Of course, that's why I shared it. :D

[A2Mich]

Of course, that's why I shared it. :D

 

 

Like!

[ducklite]

Pitch has nothing to do with width of a seat. It is undeniable that many carriers have decreased leg room. However, the cabin width and seat widths haven't changed over the years. The seat on today's Airbus or Boeing is the exact same width as it was in that model 20 years or more ago.

[Viv0828]

Sheesh. This thread reminded me of the days looong ago when even in economy, the person seated by the window could get up and walk in front of his his two row mates without their getting up.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Viv0828

[ducklite]

Sheesh. This thread reminded me of the days looong ago when even in economy, the person seated by the window could get up and walk in front of his his two row mates without their getting up.

 

 

That was before deregulation where a flight from NYC to LA would cost $3K in today's dollars. Fine with me, it would get the riff raff off the planes and back onto Greyhound, but I can hear the screaming now from the average cruiser who can't understand why their ticket this year costs $25 more than the same flight three years previous.

[slidergirl]

That was before deregulation where a flight from NYC to LA would cost $3K in today's dollars. Fine with me, it would get the riff raff off the planes and back onto Greyhound, but I can hear the screaming now from the average cruiser who can't understand why their ticket this year costs $25 more than the same flight three years previous.

 

ducking for cover… (pun intended) ;)

 

I do chuckle when I see CCers comment about how much more a flight costs for them for the next cruise than it did for their cruise 5 years ago… I guess airfares are supposed to remain static over the years. I wish car prices were required to stay static…

 

The seat width hasn't changed that I can see; it is the distance between the rows that have changed. You get a plane that used to have 30 rows and the airline decides to put in 2 more rows so they can cram more people into one plane which can, down the pipe, eliminate one flight/day…

[OzKiwiJJ]

Pitch has nothing to do with width of a seat. It is undeniable that many carriers have decreased leg room. However, the cabin width and seat widths haven't changed over the years. The seat on today's Airbus or Boeing is the exact same width as it was in that model 20 years or more ago.

 

In some cases seat configurations have changed in the past 20 years. A 2-3 configuration is now a 3-3 configuration, 2-3-2 configuration is now a 2-4-2 configuration, and so on. More seats in the same space means less width in each seat.

 

Also I think it's a physical version of an optical illusion - because you feel cramped in one direction, from the change in pitch, it makes you feel cramped in all directions. Either that, or some airlines are having their planes fitted with seats that are perhaps a slightly different shape or something, making them feel roomier.

[OzKiwiJJ]

Sheesh. This thread reminded me of the days looong ago when even in economy, the person seated by the window could get up and walk in front of his his two row mates without their getting up.

 

The good old days, indeed. :D

[ducklite]

In some cases seat configurations have changed in the past 20 years. A 2-3 configuration is now a 3-3 configuration, 2-3-2 configuration is now a 2-4-2 configuration, and so on. More seats in the same space means less width in each seat.

 

Also I think it's a physical version of an optical illusion - because you feel cramped in one direction, from the change in pitch, it makes you feel cramped in all directions. Either that, or some airlines are having their planes fitted with seats that are perhaps a slightly different shape or something, making them feel roomier.

 

Impossible except on a wide body, and we aren't really talking about those on this thread.

 

Unless they have gone to a single class of service and the 2x2 seats from the pointy end were removed and replaced with 3x3, there is no way to add a seat on a narrow body jet. Do the math.

 

A seat is an average of 18" wide. You would need to find 18" to add a seat. That would mean that originally there was 2x3 seating and they removed 3.5" from each seat to be able to create 3x3 seating. Didn't happen.

[pcur]

I used to be involved in the aircraft seating industry. If a seatbelt fails it affects the safety of everyone around you. You could go flying forward or get tossed around the cabin in a crash, essentially becoming a lethal missile to others (just as unbelted passengers, pets, and items in a car accident often injure or kill others in the car).

 

Seat belts on a plane are regularly tested and replaced as necessary; they're considered a critical safety item. Certain repairs are allowed...after a repair the belt will be a few inches shorter.

 

Next time you're on a plane, look for a fabric label on the belt with all sorts of part numbers and "FAA-PMA" (parts manufacturer approval). If a belt extender does not show a PMA number, it violates FAA regs to use it. There are also counterfeit and falsely labeled aircraft parts...if your belt extender claims to have PMA you can double-check here: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/pma/pma_parts/

 

Many of the car seat belt recalls were due to crud fouling the latch. That's why aircraft seat buckles are "lift to release" instead of pressing a button.

 

Mine does. Thank you for the information.

[pcur]

Impossible except on a wide body, and we aren't really talking about those on this thread.

 

Unless they have gone to a single class of service and the 2x2 seats from the pointy end were removed and replaced with 3x3, there is no way to add a seat on a narrow body jet. Do the math.

 

A seat is an average of 18" wide. You would need to find 18" to add a seat. That would mean that originally there was 2x3 seating and they removed 3.5" from each seat to be able to create 3x3 seating. Didn't happen.

 

Since this thread is about Southwest, I checked seatguru, and their seats are 17" wide.

[ducklite]

Since this thread is about Southwest, I checked seatguru, and their seats are 17" wide.

 

Same difference. They didn't reduce the seats by 3.5 inches to add another one per row. WN has always had a 3x3 seating arrangement. ALWAYS.

[grandma*knows*best]

Hahahahahahaha....... I was waiting for this one. :D

 

 

I'm talking 1/4 inch difference in the seatbelt length here, and only on sporadic flights. I never know if I'm going to get one of the shorter belts or not. I usually have at least 4 inches of length left over, except for these pesky one.

 

Grandma doesn't know best in this case. Some people are just plain rude.

 

This poster merely said if someone was too big to fit comfortably into an airplane seat, they could lose weight by increasing exercise and decreasing calories. She didn't say anything about expecting people to do this, nor did she call them fat or midgets.

 

I think the point was the size of your ass is your responsibility, not the airline's.

 

Exactly!

 

I'm not sure how stating diet and exercise is the solution to weight loss and that people are responsible for themselves, not the airlines, is rude. :confused:

 

Some people are just plain too sensitive.

Edited February 26, 2015 by grandma*knows*best

[grandma*knows*best]

So when airlines reduce the size of their seats and seatbelts even more, you'd expect people to lose weight to adjust to the seat size. Then the seats get reduced again until the only people who could fit into them are midgets with eating disorders. :rolleyes:

 

You are being ridiculous.