It would be cheaper if people just stopped being priveledged assholes about slight inconveniences.

How about an experiment.

Take one 737 on a busy inter-city route.

Say, DEN-SEA.

Take 3 rows of seats and remove one. Spread the other two into the freed space.

Then charge 50% more.

See if there are takers.

Just do what I do and stiff arm the seat if they try to recline.

Also don't recline your seat on airplanes. It makes you an asshole.

@2 they've tried that. People won't pay the higher fares.

#5

Can you document. I'm interested in knowing what happened.

No sympathy, sorry. Tall people get so many advantages in other areas that as far as I'm concerned they can just suck it up on airline flights. I'm glad your knees hurt; I hope they bruise and get gangrene in fact.

They should just sedate people as they board. Then they could stack them in like cord wood.

They should make the seats unreclineable like on the Alaska/Horizon Q400s and some European low cost airlines. Just put the seats at a fixed and reasonable angle, and this particular problem is forever solved.

@4: You're the asshole.

People don't want more legroom. They want to pay less. If an airline charged as little as $10 more for legroom, hardly anyone would pay it. The price pressure in the airline business is RELENTLESS, and it is minute-by-minute, and it is intensely analyzed by hordes of technical boffins.

Their margins are ridiculously small, too. I'll bet that many airline employees can tell whether they're going to make a profit off a flight or not just by watching the passengers board and seeing how fat they are or aren't. Every added ounce makes a difference. Did you know that the airline business has made a net loss since its beginning in the 1920s -- yep, no profits at all.

@10 I'm sorry I won't passively accept being hit in the face with your chair. The seats shouldn't recline in the first place.

Flying in the U.S. is so ghetto. It's white trash land. I never fly an American carrier if there's any way to avoid it. U.S. airlines are basically greyhound buses in the sky. Sucks to be stuck in the U.S. and that's all you know. So glad I'm not!

What @5 and 11 said.

Flyers swarm ticket aggregator sites to get cheap, cheap, CHEAP. Then they complain that their comfort level sucks.

You get what you pay for people. Want comfort? Fly first class. Want cheap tickets? Don't act shocked when you suffer.

The petty me me me entitlement in these comments is hilarious.

This was inevitable.

When I was a kid, flying was an exciting adventure. Fast and convenient, and FUN. Even as a young adult, after some of the initial excitement wore off, it was still a reasonably pleasant way to get somewhere.

But as the airlines have shrunk legroom tighter and tighter, trying to cram as many people in a plane as possible, with tight flight schedules, long security lines, extra charges for everything they can stiff you for, flying has become an extremely unpleasant way to travel. We still fly because it's faster than the alternatives, but everyone hates it.

In their zeal for maximum profitability, airlines are now discovering just how far they can push passengers, just how miserable they can make the experience, before the shit hits the fan. They have now reached that point.

@12 don't put your face where knees belong.

The problem is not the person who reclines. They paid for that. The problem is the tall person who doesn't want to pay for the legroom they want. They prefer the person in from to get less for what they paid. It is a monetary exchange through force. It is only "uncourteous" if the person behind bought too-small a seat, and expects the person in front to subsidize the space.
Nope.

This is really the perfect opportunity to put the Coase Theorem to use.

@16: You look foolish when you ignore that the passengers are the ones driving the degradation of the experience by demanding the lowest fares possible.

Reverse Polarity's first two paragraphs sum up the experience of flying perfectly. I am not willing (or more accurately, able) to pay 50% more for a ticket, but I'll happily pay $20 for a few inches more legroom, which you can do on Virgin. I'd also pay a bit more for a three-inch wider chair.
But uncomfortable as I am, I understand the airlines' decisions to cram us in like cattle and sell more seats.

Worse than the lack of legroom is the nickel-and-diming that is characteristic of the coach experience today. A charge for the crappy headphones to watch a movie that you wouldn't even choose to rent at home; charge for a "snack" of cheese spread and three crackers, packaged in such a way to overwhelm landfill; and now (on Frontier) a charge for any bag at all, other than your purse--even a carry on. As if the airplane didn't have room for luggage or that space is being put to other use. Also on Frontier, charge for a drink of water. Everything about flying on an American carrier has become uncomfortable, inconvenient, and gauge-y. It is a very unpleasant experience.

But there's a difference between passengers getting angry at the airline for its inhospitable-ness and getting angry at each other for daring to try to get a little more comfortable. And yet, force people into as tight, uncomfortable positions as possible, then let them have control over a few inches that can't be spread equally amongst them and you have a recipe for fights. Angry as people get at the airline, at least they were united in their anger, which was directed at a disembodied entity. Blame the airlines for this shift, not the individual who decides to use the reclining feature on the chair.

People will--grudgingly--pay higher prices if that's what it costs to fly. They won't pay more if they have a choice. Perhaps airlines could raise rates by $30 and bring back "free" snacks or meals, "free" movies, "free" non-alcoholic drinks, and stop charging to check bags (or carry them on). I don't think people would object.

If airlines care at all about customer satisfaction, they could take out a few rows of seats and give everyone a few more inches of leg room; if that eats into the profit margin too much, than the least they can do is to make the seats fixed and take away a reason for resentment and animosity.

Profits don't seem too bad at the moment.

@7, Tall people get so many advantages in other areas that as far as I'm concerned they can just suck it up on airline flights. I'm glad your knees hurt; I hope they bruise and get gangrene in fact.

And just what do you do to beautiful/wealthy people because of all the advantages they get ?
The celebs with their naked photo taking obviously deserved it too, right ?

@7: As a 6'5" galoot, I take umbrage. Have you ever tried walking into a clothes store and finding a pair of size 14 shoes you like? How about finding a good pair of jeans with a 32" waist and a 36" leg? There are very few cars in which I can fully sit up without jamming my head against the ceiling. I must descend many staircases with extreme caution so I don't knock my head.
It's not all peaches and cream being enormously tall.

I'm with #9. I'm not all that tall, so leg room isn't a problem for me, but I still don't want some stranger's head in my lap.

But I hate flying, so this isn't really my fight.

Air planes are buses with wings. Take the trian. Have leg room.

@7: As a 6'5" galoot, I take umbrage. Have you ever tried walking into a clothes store and finding a pair of size 14 shoes you like? How about finding a good pair of jeans with a 32" waist and a 36" leg? There are very few cars in which I can fully sit up without jamming my head against the ceiling. I must descend many staircases with extreme caution so I don't knock my head.
It's not all peaches and cream being enormously tall.

Give me a moment to feel bad for you

@38

Surely there's one more example you could have hyperlinked a period to.

@jasha1, get fucked. Just because you have little man syndrome doesn't give you the right to take it out on others. You want fair? stand behind me at a concert and quit your bitching because you can't see. You should have ponied up for the VIP ticket in that case.

What, do we need affirmative action for short people too now?

Nah, but bruised knees for tall people on airlines is some measure of justice

Just re-regulate the airlines, Problem solved. Sure, less people will fly, but big whoop. People fly too much anyway.

Like @36, I'm not tall either, but I have had several flights where it was genuinely uncomfortable, and not just in a psychological way. I had one flight where I literally couldn't get my bag from under the seat (that they made me put there because the overheads were so full). I have had flights where even my knees (the knees of a not very large person) were getting banged up.

No one is asking for a five foot no enter zone. Just not to have some inconsiderate ass lean back so far you can see their dandruff.

It's not even about WANTING cheaper flights. I can't afford to pay more. In fact I don't travel nearly as much as I used to because I just can't afford it any more. People are cheap because people have to be cheap these days. Most of us have to scrape and save every penny just to get on a plane.

The real question is, why are the costs going up faster than peoples' incomes? Because when that happens and when what you provide technically falls under the category of luxury for the masses then you loose money. Find the real culprits for the cost increase and deal with it rather than nickel and dimming everyone else.

Eat shit, jasha. I hope you get crushed under the bootheel of a tall person who deems you unworthy of their notice or consideration, which you are ably demonstrating yourself to be.

Ah look, once again they get us fighting each other instead of targeting the airlines. Even Dan's focus on them hasn't kept this from devolving into "you're the asshole" finger pointing at other passengers.

BTW, jasha is correct that tall people (esp. tall men) enjoy a privileged life compared to shorter folks. The occassional inconvenience of small seats can be comforted by knowing you generally have it better than your height-challenged compatriots when it comes to career, dating choices, and even in the respect people will just give you for your size.

As 9/11 gets further behind us we are all remembering why we don't like people from that area of the country.

@48 BWAHAHAHA! I love that you try to make yourself seem above it all, just before diving right in on the very next comment. Well done hypocrite.

And all of you recliners realize you're justifying *actual* pain and suffering with *perceived* injustice, right..? I don't see any of you changing your stance when confronted by a 6'5" janitor sitting behind you.

The seats don't even recline that far anyway. Yes, airplanes have become hellishly uncomfortable. But if you're going to have a tantrum about it to the point where you demand the plane be landed, I hope the airline tries to recover their costs from this big baby and puts her on a do-not-fly list. One shared by every airline.

Ugh, is this going to be a thing? This whole discussion makes me embarassed. I bet this is what rich people picture when they think of the middle class.

In a way, this is the airlines' fault. They are fighting for the "white-trash" market share with all the el cheapo deals so that's who you end up flying with. Fat fucks in t-shirts and gym shorts making demands for things they feel they're owed. Coz, wow, they can afford to fly now! Serve ME, muthafuckas! And thus they bring their "greyhound bus" culture with them on the plane.

I say raise the prices a bit and then you get rid off the trash who demand their extra bag of chips, etc. Then you don't get nickel-and-dimed anymore, flight attendants are pleasant (because they don't have to deal with the riff raff), and the plane doesn't feel like a group of balcony seats at a ballgame. This won't happen any time soon though because the airlines want the "greyhound market share" since it ups the bottom line.

I just feel embarrassed when foreigners fly on U.S. carriers and are shocked at the conditions. "Wait, so this is how air travel goes in the richest country in the world?? WTF"

@60 I wish they would do that with just about everything. I see why the rich asshole company owners don't care about outsourcing jobs to provide the cheap goods and services demanded by middle class cheapskates.

Trying to seem avove it all, @55? By now everyone who pays any attention knows I'm not above anything. Sorry, but swing and a miss.

@59 yes, by all means make flying the prerogative of the privileged few. Because heaven knows their behavior is always impeccable.

@62

Please, talk to any flight attendant, ANY, and they will all tell you the same thing: That getting assigned to cover First Class is a promotion because they don't have to deal with the insane ill behavior that takes place in economy - fights, outrageous demands, pushiness, etc. And they should know as they have to deal with people's bullshit every. single. day. of their lives.

@8 You think you're joking, but I would take that option if it were available.

@16 You were probably also shorter when you were a kid.

If you ask me (and nobody did, but nobody asked the rest of you either) this is a confluence of factors.

1. Post-9/11 security measures have made flying less fun, and we are now far enough from 9/11 that people no longer have an "it's okay because 9/11" reaction. Instead they have a "why the hell do I have to take off my shoes again?" reaction. So, this puts people in an irritable mood right away.

2. More expensive fuel. Fuel prices went way, way up right before...

3. The economy went way, way down. Most people's financial well-being took a hit during the great recession, and that was after a decade of stagnating incomes. So of course they want the cheapest flights possible. However...

4. Both cost-saving and security measures taken by the airline make it more difficult for people to have food and drink on the plane. People who are dehydrated and have low blood sugar get bitchy and irrational.

1 and 4 could probably be changed. 3 is not going to change.

I don't understand how anyone who considers him or herself an environmentalist can endorse more legroom. These flights are among the most carbon-intensive things we do, and they'll be even more inefficient with several rows of seats removed. It's the equivalent of demanding airlines sell us SUVs for the same price as compact economy cars because they're more comfortable.

This issue seems so easily solved via a simple act of coordination: airlines should designate a reclining option (you can recline, but might be reclined upon) and non-reclining section, and let us choose. With everyone choosing their seat beforehand, this should be easy. Southwest, or any other festival seating airline, can just designate one side for recliners and the other for the upright. Why no one has tried this is beyond me.

I think it's odd that @59 is writing like a rich-guy cartoon villain, but the big controversy here appears to be tall v. short (full disclosure: I wish I was a little bit taller).

@64 - @11 has it pretty much right in the macro. The airline industry is very labor intensive and not easily scaled/automated. As a consequence: @12 is right: if you're going to pack in as many as possible as tightly as possible, then you need to make sure that some minimum level of space is afforded. Either state the legroom with the seat in front reclined or don't let it recline. @44 is correct about the real answer. The airlines are being incredibly flexible - now all costs for all aspects are ala carte - luggage fees, in flight meals, etc. You only pay for what you get.

It turns out we need a little statism to set a minimum floor below which we are not allowed to sell ourselves.

Sigh. The Cliff Claven of SLOG says:

Did you know that the airline business has made a net loss since its beginning in the 1920s -- yep, no profits at all.

Nope. Not true. Just. Sigh.

Christ fnarf. There is this thing called Google. Look into it next time.

July 2014 USA Today:
Several airlines announce record profits
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi…

In fact they're so, ahem, "unprofitable" that they're launching stock buy-backs:

American, United Launch Buybacks
Largest Carriers Have Overhauled Operations and Are Returning Cash to Shareholders
http://online.wsj.com/articles/american-…

tkc,

why do you seem to think "profitable right now" is in any way in conflict with the claim Fnarf makes? The industry has an extensive history of brief periods of profitability, punctuated by periods of extended losses. They add up to a modest loss. None of this is empirically controversial; it's a matter of public record if you bothered to look. Here's some analysis of airlines from 79-09:

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenst…

Note that a seven year run of profitability from 93-00 doesn't alter the fact that they lost money 23/30 years, and net money over the era under study. You seem to think the current run of profitability is different than all others, and should be considered the new normal going forward. Care to share your brilliant analysis with the rest of us?

If presented with the option I will add $30 to an OAK-SEA fare to be seated in a row with 3 inches more legroom. In dollars-per-inch terms, this is WAY more than the break-even that @2 suggests.

If you took out three seats on the left side of a 737 in back of the exit row, spreading the remaining seats out equally, you could offer 3 inches to 27 passengers and you would break even if you got only 12% higher ticket price in that section.

It takes a lot more than 12% for any of my existing options (like buying into the A group to snag an exit row seat on Southwest.)

@71 wow. An industry with periods of profitability and losses, you say?

You mean like like nearly ever other huge strategicly dependent industry on the planet that has in business over thirty years. (Which, btw, isn't very many corporations. Becuase most corporations don't last that long.)

Your reading comprehension is as inaccurate as your understanding of American corporations.

Frarf claimed the the airline industry had, and I quote, "no profits at all." No profits AT ALL. That's what he said. He pulled that out of his ass.

The characterization of airlines as struggling unprofitable paupers is horse shit. The only people in that industry struggling are the base workers whose pensions get raided. Investors, stockholders and executives have been raking in billions for decades.

Whatever, I prefer being on the short to medium side (5'8") - it's much easier to fit inside a sports car, especially the exotic ones. :D

@65 You're way, way off. The most carbon intensive thing we do is have children.

tkc,

You're being dishonest. Here's the sentence:

"Did you know that the airline business has made a net loss since its beginning in the 1920s -- yep, no profits at all."

Removing the last clause makes it seem wrong, but it's obviously tied to the (entirely correct) claim that if you add up the profits and losses over time, the net is negative. That is rather not like most industries--what other major industry has a) been around anywhere near that long and b) has net losses over time?