I have only just come to this thread but have read every single post. It's best to try and ignore a lot of what has been said and I am sad that the anonymity of the internet has allowed quite so much bad manners.
One of the concerns that has surfaced is the problem of those that carry weight out to each side (unlike vanderaj) who may not be able to get down the aisle - except by walking sideways. THAT is a real concern but one that will not be stopped by the carriers for fear of a discrimination suit and I expect that we will see the evidence in a accident report at some stage.
vanderaj
... the new gen 737's. For some reason, they have shorter straps as they expect midgets to fly on them.
My guess is that Boeing decided to use shorter straps to save money. Take NNNN seat belts per year and reduce the webbing by 10/15cm each and then add that to the other small savings of weight and money? But then, I always was cynical.
I once had to sit next to a Muscle Mary [snip]. Unlike me, there was zero give - he was all hard muscle. He was broad across the chest and shoulders, and he had huge thighs. He probably had a 32" waist and a BMI in the low teens. He spread into my seat in a way I never spread into other's seats. Would you discriminate against him? I thought not.
If he could not fit into the seat - then Yes, but remember I am pax not crew/staff.
I waited 35 minutes the last time I flew with my wife for the ground crew to find a wheelchair. It's really not the disabled person's fault that they can't walk, any more than it's a baby's fault for not being able to walk, or deaf people unable to hear or blind folks to see.
Nobody in this thread has accused your wife - or any other disabled person - of it being their 'fault'. Please, that does not help your, otherwise, well presented case.
With 30% of the population being obese today, with the average male height increasing from around 165 cm to nearer 180 cm, you'd think that seats and interior dimensions would have increased over the years to cope with the general population. Instead, seat pitches have narrowed to stack max capacity, 17" widths have stayed the same since the 1950's - see Fokker F-27's for the same 17" width seats you get on any LCC today.
Yes, it is uncomfortable but that is what an unfettered capitalistic society will do! In due course, they will either decide that there is a special market that they can go for, or they will be compelled to change seating dimensions and pitch by the FAA. My guess is that some of them would like that, as it would give them an excuse to put the prices up!
However, it must be remembered that AA tried the seat pitch as a marketing pitch a couple of years ago - and it failed. They did big adverts, showing a couple of rows being pulled out from Coach, and all the other rows having their pitch opened up and all with no increase in price.
Guess what? people didn't care, it was the pure price on which they based their purchase. Yes, there might have been some other influences of FFMs and so forth but they did not get the extra pax to warrant it and so they have, as I understand it, put the pitch back. Looking at comparison tables on the usual seat comparison web sites, AA for International Domestic are at 32", matching most of their competitors. Incidentally, when looking through US Domestic Economy, I noticed that the ERJs of some carriers had seats that were up to 1" wider than the CRJs.