Let's not forget that on short haul flights, there's virtually NO difference in seat size and pitch between business and economy.

Five times this year I've flown business:

CWL-AMS with KLM - short hop in Fokker 100, first few rows 'europe select'. Pointless, not even a curtain to separate the rows. Hostie goes down the aisle handing out complimentary papers for the 'selected' and stops at row 4! All the pax in row 5 expecting a free read looked a bit peeved....

AMS-AMM with KLM - a long flight for a 737, nice food, digiplayer and a bit wider and more pitch than at the back but hardly the last word in comfort...

LGW-MLA with BA - A320 this time, exactly the same seats as down the back, rushed food service, waste of money...

MAN-CDG with AF - A320, middle seat blocked out. Nice food, good service. Might be worth the money.

CDG-BEY with AF - 777, now you're talking, tons of legroom, PTV, bring it on....well worth the ££££.

Yes, they are reversing the decision at the next main overhaul for a/c. The increase in pax numbers overall did not balance the books.

There is no limit to how cheap people want things to be. That is simple. If the lowest price has reached the point where you do not want to be cramped up, then you do not go.

The excessively cheap cost of flights in the 1990s is over. Fuel price and modern computer yield management have changed that. Folks got used to cheap and easy travel and I wish it could continue too but it hasn't.

ATN
They will go down if there is competition in the market.
they won't go down if there is little or non of (you only have to look at the SYD LA sector and the fares Qantas charges) that.

Anyway as I said before if airlines are regulated to provide a greater seat pitch all things being equal, at the end of the day the passenger is going to pay more for that privledge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...567633,00.html

Bondage at 36,000 feet

Ryanair has overtaken BA by making the ordeal of flying a selling point

Peter Preston
Monday September 12, 2005
The Guardian


Cry victory for Tampere, Rzeszow, Kaunas and, indeed, Bydgoszcz! They - along with 85 other faraway places with strange-sounding names - have just made Ryanair your carrier of supreme choice: more bums (3.26 million of them) on more seats in August even than BA. It's another triumph for Michael O'Leary, for rampant expansion - and for sheer, unadulterated, un-Irish nastiness. Welcome to MasochismAir.

Here we are again, waiting to check in with 102 people in front of us because the bus from the big city - 60 miles away - arrived five seconds before we did. Nothing's moving. A Croatian girl at the front has left her passport in the hotel (60 miles away). A Spanish boy thought that identity cards would get him on a plane to Stansted.

And the familiar business of the baggage rebalancing is already far advanced. Right down those two stretching, desultory queues, lads in trainers have their suitcases open on the floor, shuffling stuff back and forth. "Is it under 15 kilos now?" "No, still bloody 17.5." Piles of jeans and T-shirts are slyly decanted into a black garbage bag to be carried through below check-in sightlines - then stuffed into hand luggage. The floor itself is strewn with mounds of crumpled cotton debris, as though Mandelson's China boycott has gone flops in a trice.

Occasionally, after glum altercations, company weight watchers dispatch cursing transgressors to queue at an overflow office and pay for their sins. When does a £40 ticket cost you double the money? When you're 10 kilos over a load. Expletives seldom deleted. So back to the crawl through security, and the sharp-elbowed rush when the boys with the black bags disregard any hope of an orderly boarding routine (as explained via a defective loudspeaker system). So to seats so closely packed you can hear the first squeaks of incipient pulmonary embolism starting four rows away.

Nasty? Of course. But insanely cheap some of the time (unless you're old, young, disabled or want to change your booking) and relatively efficient most of the time. MasochismAir takes you to places you never knew existed, destinations without reasonable alternatives. That's not the whole of its branding success, though.

For O'Leary doesn't play emerald super-yob by accident. He's just a "jumped-up Paddy" who "doesn't give a !!!!e", because he says so. Worried about the environment? Then "sell your car and walk". Worried about Europe's commissioners? They're "morons". Fill in the blanks after B and A "and you get bastards". His most unctuous ballad is called "Screw the share price, this is a fares war". He's honed Mr O'Nasty, the guy who liked to charge extra for wheelchairs.

One lurking strand of Ryanair's subliminal pitch, in short, seems to translate BO down that stretching queue into bloody ordeal. This isn't supposed to be a pleasant experience circa 1986, with welcome smiles and blond stewardesses handing out cocktails. This is a carefully constructed obstacle race. O'Leary's increasing operational shift from Stansted to Luton puts the airport of reality TV choice back at screen centre. I'm a nonentity, get me out of here.

And, of course, it works brilliantly, 3.26 million times over. Decades of airline marketing tried to make flying a wondrous experience, full of cosseted comfort and luxurious treats. The truth, though, was always grimly different. The ordeal was constant; it just wasn't made into a selling point.

Michael O'Leary has put that straight for ever. Bondage and humiliation still function at 36,000 feet. Ryanair prospers because indignity sells. There's the same retrospective glow from the standing and scrabbling as you get from kneeling in front of a pile of jeans in Primark, Peckham, and finding a £5 pair that fit. I went, I fought, I endured - and now I have a bargain tale to tell. Call it victim consumerism: classless examination by indignity.

How does BA strike back? The good news, maybe, is that they've finally got the message, courtesy of Gate Gourmet, days of inaction and buckets of bile. On my last long-haul test a few days ago, check-in pushed a scrap of paper back over the desk along with my boarding pass. What's this? It was a voucher to spend $20 (Canadian) on any airport meal before leaving, "because the in-flight food may not be up to our normal standards".

Good, old-style thinking, except that the only "meals" on offer before the departure gate were polythene-wrapped bagels at a bar. I notionally dined on two packets of peanuts, an apple and a Bloody Mary, and left the notional change. The cabin stewards - serving below-normal-standards cheese and biscuits - were surly all the way home. But the captain wasn't on message with his farewell "thank-yous" and "pleasant trips". On MasochismAir, we never forget we have no choice.

Just flew back from a pleasant week in Rhodes. Paid peanuts for a late booking and got precisely the the standard of accomodation I expected. Basic. But on the flights over and back I was distinctly uncomfortable with the seat pitch and I'm only 5'8". I hate to think what taller and larger individuals were experiencing.
I do think a limit has been reached. Maybe a seat redesign is in order.

Yes, as the Guardian article puts it well, flying the airlines is no longer a pleasant experience just an ordeal to be endured to get to our destination. An unpleasant interlude to be got through so we can go places we never could before.

All fine, except for a couple of things, even if you can afford to pay a bit more and want to make to make the experience more enjoyable, you can't. Fly Ryanair or Easyjet or any airline for that matter these days and if you miss the low fares you still pay a high premium for same treatment as everyone else. You can't get good seat pitches on short haul flights even if you wanted it. On long haul the premium you pay is enormous and unaffordable for the most part.

Add on security hassles, delays and the rest of those petty annoyances and you sometimes wonder why you bother to go anywhere that requres you to fly.

To be honest with the advent of the low fare culture I don't think people fly more often. But judging by the cluelessness of fellow passengers, more people are flying who previously didn't. If you fly at all you get used to the do's and don'ts and what to look out for. You can see examples all the time. The futile rush for the exit followed by the long wait at the luggage carousel. Another regular drama is the passenger who only flew previously with an airline without allocated seats getting all stroppy when asked to move from someone's allocated seat. 'We got here first' is the classic line.

Yes, flying as a passenger is just an endurance test at the moment.

Well actually wizofoz , I'm very fortunate in that I can afford to fly in Business, and I always do on medium to long haul. What I was refering to was your flippant comment which failed to account for the fact that many can't afford Business Class, yet may have a valid reason for the need to travel long haul other than leisure!. I find your solution of accepting Economy discomfort or not travelling at all as a very immature solution.

Immature? Maybe. Realistic? Sadly, yes.

As always, it depends on the time and destination, not to mention the phases of the moon :p .

On VS ex-LHR to JNB I usually find that the PE is about double the cheapest Y. For this you get the bigger and wider seat with increased pitch. Two seats rather than three across (or 3 rather than 4). You get the same food and service as Y but a separate check-in. The fare CAN be fully flexible, dependent on price. Various FFM bonus. For all intents and purposes, the BA product is identical.

Is it worth the extra? To me? Yes. As I have understood the economics of airlines, it is the F + C + cargo that provide the main revenue and Y are there to nuture people into choosing the carrier for biz and when they can afford the premium cabins. I sit (in my comfortable German designed home office chair) to be corrected. ;) The only uncomfortable aspect is that my cat is sleeping in my lap and I have to stretch around her to reach the keyboard. :rolleyes: This is because she insists on having a free ride. OK, OK, I'll stop now.

Pax comfort in Tourist class
 

It all reminds me of the quote of one of the Directors of the Great Western Railway Company before a Parliamentary Committee on transport in the 1880s. He admitted that..." the Company was thinking of the possibility of transporting the lower orders of passengers for a lower fare, in carriages of an inferior description, at a very slow speed, perhaps at night."

Fact is that only air-travel has the enormous GULF in comfort levels between passengers. Third class in trains was abolished decades ago. There is no longer "steerage" on ocean liners. There is much less of a difference between 2nd and 1st class on trains or between cruise ship cabins. There is an awful lot of 19th century class division and snobbery in this 20th century industry.

I could go on a two week cruise for the asking price of a business-class long-haul seat.

The EU was pressed to legislate for larger seats (wider and with larger pitch), they passed the buck and finally refused to do anything because of airline lobbying and with the amazing excuse that seating with a bigger pitch is less safe in case of a crash! (In which case, why not abolish 1st and Business Class on H&S grounds?) Guy in charge of Commission Transport portfolio at the time was one Neil Kinnock, man of the people, champion of the working class.

Seats certainly need redesigning. Who was the twerp who put the controls for TV, sound, reading light etc in the inside of the armrest so that you have to either get out of your seat to see it, or try all the buttons blindly thus calling the stewardess instead of turning the volume up?

Current tourist class seat sizes are based on the average height, weight and girth of adults in 1948. Humans are on average much larger now. Beware when flying KLM- the Dutch are the tallest people in the world. Netherlands house door standard height has been increased to take account of this. Airline seats, including KLM, have not.

It's not a simple question of "you get what you pay for". Pax power will eventually prevail. For example, I would fly in an Airbus 380 if the extra space is used by sensible airlines to improve tourist class seating (width and pitch), toilet facilities and overall comfort. If an airline uses a 380 just to put 1000 people in like sardines, I won't touch it with a barge pole. I refer to long-haul flights. As Ryanair proves, for short haul (up to 3 hours), seat pitch and comfort is by no means as important.

:cool:

Tricky call actually.

I travel from BRU to SNN. I have a choice, either via CRL direct or from BRU via LHR.

The choice I make is based on flight timing rather than price, and also on convenience; however, the last 2 occassions I travelled BA to LHR / LGW the flights departed late. The first was over an hour late, hence I missed my connection at LHR and the second was 40 minutes late. FR at CRL departed on schedule.

The Ryanair flight was uncomfortable;the seat was fixed and leg room non existent. The BA flight was marginally more comfortable but cost me 4 hours waiting for the next connection! The service was garbage on Ryanair and utterly appaling on BA: "Yes, we are late but you will just have to run through to Flight Connections" - parking on the stand furthest away from FC at T4 helps too!!!

Maybe FR are calling the shots now on service and the majors are responding. Dumbing down. Having said that though I prefer FR to EZY; what on earth is this "Orange" culture bullsh1t?

As for long haul, I've just come back with VS in PE and it's a good priduct and worth the extra money. I flew NW last year on holiday in C class across the Atlantic and F internally and it does make a difference. When I can afford it I will travel in PE or Business long haul.

You pay your money and take your choice!

Choosing BRU-LHR4-LHR1-SNN over a non-stop is definitely a form of masochism - even from the POV of this regular BA pax!

daedalus In that case, I suggest, you will never set foot on an A380!!! All that you ask for was promised on the 747 (35 years ago) and none of it appeared/lasted.

Carriers could provide more space and bigger toilets today - but they do not. So, no need to wait for the A380 as the only advantage of the machine, is that it will provide the carriers with the same kind of step change in costs as was provided by the 747 and the 767 (and other ETOPS a/c).

Globaliser,

Unfortunately at times I don't have much of a choice. FR only have the service late in the evening and if I have to travel, due to time constraints, at any other time I have little choice but to go via LHR. Even BRU - LGW - SNN is limited; a very early BRU - LGW sector and the 8 hours at LGW waiting for the only SNN flight!

And of course as it is BRU you pay through the nose!!

Not sure about pitch, but width is certain.

Airbus 380 is 48 cm wider inside than Boeing 747, 78 cm wider than Boeing 777 and even more wider than DC-10 and MD-11.

The standard 555-seat layout of Airbus 380 has in Coach 3-4--3 configuration. 3-4-3 is also prevalent on Boeing 747, frequent on Boeing 777 and occasionally seen on MD-11... Therefore, a coach section of 3-4-3 Airbus 380 has 48 cm to divide between 10 seat columns and 2 aisles compared to Boeing 747. Thus, it must be more comfortable about width. Not sure about pitch and toilets.

Sure, the airline could alternatively insert an extra seat column, and fly Airbus 380 in 3-5-3 layout. It would still be more comfortable than 3-4-3 on Boeing 777 (unless you sit in the middle-middle seat).

But will they?

It was once asserted that no airline wants to seat 11 abreast on Airbus 380. Well, it was before the Kingfisher order. Emirates want to put in up to 644 seats in 2 classes. Kingfisher speaks of 750-800. Perhaps Kingfisher is going to have 3-5-3 seating. They would be the first.

Will the extra width last? Boeing 747 entered into service with 2-4-3 coach seating. Which is still seen, but rare - by now, 3-4-3 is standard.

What is the next Airbus 380 customer after Kingfisher?

Funny how every time a punter raises this really important point about shrinking legroom in Economy, all we get is stupid, trite, ill though out answers along the lines of "don't fly then" or "go first class then"

The point made earlier is very valid. If a regulatory minimum seat pitch of say 34" was introduced. the playing field would be levelled, and competition for economy pricing would no longer be based on providing teeny weeny seats, but on other competitive elements.

For the record, the notion that all economy class passengers pay just a few quid for their flight is nonsense. On say LHR to JFK, comparing different airlines, the cheapest ticket in economy could be £300, whereas some people would pay over £500 for the same cramped conditions. In discussions on legroom, people with their own agendas (or stupidity) regularly trot out nonsense about "paying your money and making your choice", but this just is NOT the case. Yes, i can go Premium economy with BA, but say I don't want a seat pitch of 38", just maybe a semi civilised 33-34", i can't get that. So in most scenarios, i either pay a helluva lot more, or go economy. In my case I just choose not to travel.

Gradually little by little legroom is still being whittled away. For example, just a couple of years ago, BA advertised there economy pitch as 31", but they told us it will seem like 32"as their new style seats are thinner. Now they claim on the BA website, you get 'a comfortable (ha ha) 30-31" of legroom'. So now even BA is down to 30", and that is a proverbial f****** joke for anyone over 5'8" on even a medium flight.

Flybe were recently highlighting there advantages on their website, amongst which was 32" of legroom, but this has now been changed to 31" of legroom.

For the record, one move that should be welcomed, is First choice airlines, as the seat pitch is now 34" and 36" in premier - and that's a charter airline!

As regards AA, and the more room in coach thing, it really only worked in the USA, as by the time they had finished re-fitting all the planes that fly from the UK, they decided to reverse it.

I just don't get all this price guff anyway, i mean Jet blue do 34" seat pitch, which is 3" more than BA. If only we had a Jet Blue equivalent in Europe, that might just help.

One final point, there seems to be a notion that airlines make no money from economy class passengers so such passengers deserve to be treated like sh***, well if that's the case why do people like BA, Virgin, Lufthansa, KLM and so on all offer economy class? Are you seriously telling me the airlines of the world carry millions in economy class every year, even though they make no profit from them?? Maybe someone should let the bean counters know then.

I guess there is an advantage after all in being an 'economically' sized person... (5'5"), though I have sympathy for the 'taller traveller'... In 25 years of regular flying I can never recall ever having what I'd call a totally unacceaptable seat pitch... Always travel Business on business and always travel Economy when forking out my own money - though occasionally I'll go Premium Economy if it's got better IFE or if I'm using miles. And as an aside I've generally found a much more congenial type of person in economy - and the only time I've ever seen a fight on a flight was in First.

How would you introduce this regulation? Would it apply only to G- registered carriers? If so, how could you justify to them the requirement that all their Y fares go up by 10% just to maintain the trip revenue from the Y cabin when their competitors would not have to do this? If not, through what legal medium would you enforce that on the airlines regulated by other countries?

BA Y pitch is generally still 31", which is fine for this 5' 11½" person, to HKG (regularly) and SYD (occasionally). I don't think it's been generally whittled down but I believe that there is a section immediately behind the 747's W cabins which has had to be squeezed a bit because of dimensional constraints. If you stick to the main Y cabin (Zone E, or Zone D in the low yield aircraft) you should be fine.

I recently bought an old Mini Cooper which was available at a knock-down price. It gets me from A to B nicely, reliably and at a price I can afford.

A friend of mine has a Rolls-Royce and I travelled in it recently. It had much more space and was much more comfortable. This seems unfair to me. Why should he experience a greater degree of comfort on his journey than I, purely because he has paid more for his car?

:E

But there aren't just Minis and RRs on the road. There's plenty of comfort available in between those two categories at reasonable prices. With arguably the exception of those airlines offering Y plus options, in most cases you have two choices: Discomfort (not always cheap either) of Comfort at highly inflated fares. The only time you can approach "reasonable" Business Class fares (long haul) is if you fly on a highly competitive route via another carrier's hub, instead of direct. (E.g., I fly BRU-LAX via AMS at almost half the Business Class fare charged for AMS-LAX).

Can anybody do the sums and tell us how many rows of seats they would have to chuck out of an A340 or B747 to give us an extra,say, 3".
I would , but I've had too many reds and my brain hurts.