FAA and airline seat size/pitch

Matthew

Matthew

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
19,106
Location
kojc, kixd, k34
Display Name
Display name:
Matthew
The "Case of the Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-planes-idUSKBN1AD28Y

Here's the DC Court of Appeals ruling:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...7FE8525816B00543945/$file/16-1101-1686279.pdf

--

FAA ordered to review airline seat size and pitch for impact on safety in emergency egress situations. Seats are getting smaller and closer together while pax are getting larger.

>>>
We grant Flyers Rights’ petition for review in part, and remand to the Administration for a properly reasoned disposition of the petition’s safety concerns about the adverse impact of decreased seat dimensions and increased passenger size on aircraft emergency egress.
<<<
 
One more reason not to fly commercial unless absolutely necessary

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Have had to endure economy lately cross country. Seats are 17 and 18", my shoulders measure 20 and arms naturally hang out a few more.....SO SUCKS!
 
So the FAA does a review, issues a report that says Seats are small, they are safe according to rules and another couple of millions of dollars down the drain.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
So the FAA does a review, issues a report that says Seats are small, they are safe according to rules and another couple of millions of dollars down the drain.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Probably just need to to require some evacuation drills and time them - but don't they already do that?
 
Matthew said:
Probably just need to to require some evacuation drills and time them - but don't they already do that?
Click to expand...
With FAA standard males only from what I read previously.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
There are other known risks like deep vein thrombosis...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The real PITA is those domestic medium-hauls flights done with NB aircraft. 5 hours in a 738? FML. I really wished my parents lived CONUS. I would drive or fly GA to them, every time. As it is, I have to sponsor that torturous experience every Xmas. I cringe just thinking about it coming round again this year...
 
I see the test requirements say to put half the carry-ons in the aisle.

>>>
(k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.
<<<

I didn't see where they require the pax to take the time to grab their bags from the overheads and to start their cellphones to record video in portrait mode.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The real PITA is those domestic medium-hauls flights done with NB aircraft. 5 hours in a 738? FML.
Click to expand...

About a month ago we had to sit on a JFK taxiway for a little over an hour (weather) before finally getting airborne for SEA. Total block was 7.8. There was a point where I thought to myself, "If hindsight were back there he'd be having a coronary." :D
 
Not a very good test, since I didn't see one person with a book, laptop, purse, handbag, knitting stuff, iPad, Phone, drink, lunch... really try it with real world crap and see how long that takes and how many people would get hurt.
 
I don't fly much commercial anymore, so admittedly I'm a little out of touch. However, I ferried a King Air up to the Northeast this past weekend and airlined home. The first leg was in a premium economy product seat, and was not really that bad. Reminds me of what regular economy seats were when I was growing up. My second leg was much worse in a regular economy seat. I couldn't hardly even get in and out of it, and I do not consider myself an overly large person. I've gotten a little bigger as I've aged, but this seat was ridiculous! Thank goodness it was only a 32 minute flight because there was no way I was going anywhere in that seat. Conversely, I will say that the MD-88 was crammed full for the short flight, and probably more people would've liked to have got on. Are load factors that high at the moment?
 
My airline doesn't even show the locations of the exits anymore. The flight attendants only show seat belts and O2 masks.

I typically try to get Economy+ or whatever that airline calls it. I'll actually seat in the jumpseat of a 200 before I sit in that back anymore. I barely fit and you'll sweat to death with the cabin at 95-100°F.
 
ARFlyer said:
My airline doesn't even show the locations of the exits anymore. The flight attendants only show seat belts and O2 masks.

I typically try to get Economy+ or whatever that airline calls it. I'll actually seat in the jumpseat of a 200 before I sit in that back anymore. I barely fit and you'll sweat to death with the cabin at 95-100°F.
Click to expand...

Who's busted ass 200's are you flying that are 95-100 cabin temp?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Who's busted ass 200's are you flying that are 95-100 cabin temp?
Click to expand...

The ones at work. The last month I haven't pushed off the gate with a temp less then 85°F. It's it's hot, sunny and a long taxi like LGA or CLT we might hit 90°F before we takeoff. Then it will only cool to 88°F, if your lucky.

If it's a 200 with no APU like about 25% of our fleet right now you might hit 98°F. I rode jump in one the other day and we hit 98° F right at takeoff.

Most CA will take the plane back but some of the new ones will let the company pressure them into flying it.
 
Hmmm, sounds like more government interference with free enterprise or "regulation" to me. But seriously if this were mandated it would be ok by me. I am back there riding to from work probably more than any of you. I just wish they would extend it to the 737 jump seats as well !
 
This will all continue until finally there's an incident where people are hurt/killed because they couldn't get out fast enough. Then there will be years of hearings and investigations to try and figure out how we got here. Such is the standard trajectory for these sorts of things.
 
The government has already set the standard for evacuation and all present configurations have no more than the maximum number of passenger seats as was successfully demonstrated in those tests. Evacuation standards will never ensure comfortable seating.

American, Delta, and United already offer additional legroom on all their mainline, and most of their regional, flights. Those seats are almost always the last ones to sell. Most customers prefer the save the money and deal with less room for a few hours.

If legroom is important to you, fly American, Delta, or United and book the seats with extra legroom.

If seat width is most important to you, book on the Airbus 319/320/321 or E170/175/190. The C-Series will have even more width as it enters service with Delta soon. It's already flying outside the US.
 
No. An OpSpec can be more restrictive than the applicable FAR but it cannot be less restrictive.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
No. An OpSpec can be more restrictive than the applicable FAR but it cannot be less restrictive.
Click to expand...

That's not true of say approach minimums. Not that it seems likely in this case...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mkosmo said:
Yeah, but can't an approved opspec legally conflict with 121?
Click to expand...

Well certain CFRs can be waived with a waiver which for air carriers are normally done with an ops spec but I don't know if that particular reg can be waived nor why it would be advantageous or otherwise desirable to do so. I'd hate to be involved in such a waiver should pax fail to egress safely in an accident. But that's just me.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Well certain CFRs can be waived with a waiver which for air carriers are normally done with an ops spec but I don't know if that particular reg can be waived nor why it would be advantageous or otherwise desirable to do so. I'd hate to be involved in such a waiver should pax fail to egress safely in an accident. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
Well, right. Most of us with any kind of risk adverse tendencies wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of a lawsuit banking on such a waiver.
 
gsengle said:
That's not true of say approach minimums. Not that it seems likely in this case...
Click to expand...

How so? I don't normally dig into FAR 121, but a cursory look results in 121.567, which merely states that we're to follow our ops specs for guidance. Is there something else that I'm missing? Greg's post is how I've always viewed it.
 
Larry in TN said:
American, Delta, and United already offer additional legroom on all their mainline, and most of their regional, flights. Those seats are almost always the last ones to sell. Most customers prefer the save the money and deal with less room for a few hours.

If legroom is important to you, fly American, Delta, or United and book the seats with extra legroom.
Click to expand...

I know ! When we first came out with that product that's where all the non-revs rode ! Seems like the price difference for these seats is something like $50 bucks. But with summer vacation season in full swing even these seats are getting snatched up. I can't wait for the kiddies to be back to school so I can get my reclining exit row aisle seat back !
 
SkyDog58 said:
Well certain CFRs can be waived with a waiver which for air carriers are normally done with an ops spec but I don't know if that particular reg can be waived nor why it would be advantageous or otherwise desirable to do so. I'd hate to be involved in such a waiver should pax fail to egress safely in an accident. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

It's called a deviation and they are located in the opsspecs. My latest airline has deviations to not carry certain drugs in the emergency medical kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top