Should the government regulate the pitch of airline seats?

‘Pitch’ an airline seat is the distance between a point on the seat, and the same point on the seat in front of it. According to Wiki, it can be as little as 28 inches on some low-cost airlines, but is typically 29 or 30 inches on others. Last time I measured myself, I was 5’ 11"; and I’m overweight. The last time I flew was on Southwest. It was not especially comfortable, but by not having a cary-on bag stowed below the seat in front of me, I could stretch my legs well enough. But forget using the tray table. It was uncomfortably close. If the person ahead reclined, it would have been very uncomfortable indeed.

Airlines were deregulated in 1978. This allowed more airlines to be formed and resulted in reduced fares, among other things. But there’s a downside. Reduced fares mean more people are flying. Airplanes are expensive, and airlines often lose money as it is. So the best way to move all of these people – and keep costs under control – is to put as many people on a plane as they can get away with. Once upon a time, before deregulation, airlines competed on amenities. They’d claim to have the most comfortable seats, the best in-flight meals, the sexiest stewardesses, or whatever. Now they (virtually) all compete on price. Recently airlines have been charging fees for things that have always been included in the ticket price; but the most noticeable cost of low fares is the reduction in seat pitch.

We’ve all heard about the Knee Defender incident. Now another flight has been diverted over a reclining seat dispute. I don’t know if it is true, but my feeling is that there have been more incidents in the past couple of years where irate passengers cause airplanes to divert. I foresee more incidents in the future.

So what’s to be done about it? The Holy Church of the Free Market teaches us that consumers will vote with their wallets, and that companies that don’t ‘deliver the goods’ will fail. I don’t think this is true in the case of airlines. People have little enough money now. I think most people will still buy the cheapest ticket. So in-flight incidents will continue as passengers continue to be packed into the aluminum tubes.

So what about regulating seat pitch? Airlines will complain that forcing them to carry fewer passengers per plane will cut into their already-slim profits. And it will. They will make less money if they carry fewer passengers, or they will have to spend money to buy planes and hire crews to carry all of their passengers. On the other hand, diverting an airplane also costs the airlines money. It also adds traffic to an already-busy system, which costs the government money and may affect aviation safety. Local authorities have to deal with the people being removed, so it costs them time and money. People who would be calm if they were comfortable would now have arrest records and face financial penalties. (Not to mention that irate passengers can be a physical hazard to the cabin crew.)

Suppose the government made a new rule that required a minimum of 32" or 34" in economy class? Would it be worth it to reduce in-flight disruptions, diversions, and costs? Or would that be too great an intrusion on an already heavily-regulated industry?

I’m surprised that there is not already a requirement on domestic flights of a certain duration.

Government has a clear interest is regulating safety issues. As seat pitch becomes smaller I can’t help but think that emergency evacuations become more complicated. To that extent seat pitch ties into whether an airline can meet the required evacuation times under safety regs.

The government already regulates seat pitch in exit rows, but not otherwise. And personally, it doesn’t bother me if the person in front reclines. The seat moves about two inches closer. And that’s at the top. It’s almost nothing at waist level.

The free marketer in me says no. But the employee-who-loves-his-job says yes. The free marketer says I can find another job, but my emotions make me love my job despite the coach-for-domestic policy.

However it’s rude to be selfish, so, “no.” What the OP described is called a “race to the bottom,” and if that’s what has to happen in a free market, then so be it. When it comes to spending my own money instead of my company’s, I still have a choice.

No. What should happen is that airlines should have to disclose, clearly, the amount of pitch of their airline seats, with a graph indicating how this aircraft’s pitch compares to others in the industry, much like the Energy Star graph on the side of refrigerators.

I’m all about letting the free market sort this out by letting people vote with their dollars (and that includes the airlines eating the cost of diversions because their decisions have made people a little cray-cray), but in order to vote, people have to have the information available before booking.

I think the problem is slowly fixing itself. Maybe there should be some regulation as to the percentage of stretch seats. But don’t regulate the pitch of every seat.

The same answer I give to 90+% of questions that start with “Should the government regulate…” - NJNBHN!

[sub]Not Just No, But Hell No![/sub]

The airlines already sell seats in the Economy Plus section. So if the seat pitch is an issue, pay extra for more legroom. Or ask to be seated in an exit row. (On JetBlue, which is what I’ve been flying lately, those seats are among the ones that cost extra.)

Look at it from a purely safety issue. There needs to be a defined minimum width for passengers to adequately and safely exit during an emergency. It would need to include all seats in the upright position, as well as a percentage of seats that remain inclined. Some passengers are just jerks and do not retract the seat incline despite instructions. Also, there could be an inflight emergency and speedy exit from a row needs to be accomplished with seats reclined.

I essentially agree with this. However, I am not sure it would work. It would decrease the availability of seats for larger people while increasing their cost, so those people would continue to book the low cost flight and continue to be unhappy and cause trouble and “defend” their seat.
People’s perception of the airlines product is that they sell a seat for a person. Period. What the airlines really sell is space, and more space equals more money (people as cargo). Regulating the size of the seat would be a victory for the “a seat for a person” view, but everybody would bear the additional cost. Indeed, the larger person might well pay more than he would have for a similar seat under a “free market” solution, but they would feel better about it because at least they aren’t paying any more than that little shit sitting next to them.

Recently I took a flight on Spirit Airlines. The only thing that made the flight bearable for me was the fact that the seats did not recline. My (shorter) companion, however, complained bitterly that they did not recline. Choosing our next flight will be a challenge.
I wait for the time when the US gets those “stand up” seats.

There’s simply no evidence at all that the current size or spacing of seats presents a safety issue. In the event of an emergency exit, the bottleneck is going to be getting everyone out of the 2-6 rows that are exit rows, not taking a few extra seconds to squeeze past the seat in front of you if it happens to be reclined. And, as has been said, the size of the exit row (where any emergency bottleneck is going to occur) is already regulated.

People are fighting over a comfort issue, which is not something we need government regulation for. I’m weakly in favor of regulation requiring the disclosure of information about the size and positioning of seats, just because I feel bad for people who are tall and don’t really have any way to figure that out beforehand. But I also don’t think that many people will bother to look at the info or take it into account when booking.

I’d also be in favor of the airlines making their policy on reclining seats more obvious. Perhaps a statement like “Passengers have the right to recline their seats. Please check that the person behind you is ready for you to recline before you do so.”

In the last thread about this, there was a poster who was quite upset over an incident where he had been sleeping with his head forward and the person ahead of him reclined their seat quickly, causing him injury. On the one hand, I sympathize with him for his injury. On the other hand, it’s not like the possibility of the seat reclining wasn’t a likely possibility. You shouldn’t go to sleep with your hand resting in a door jamb either.

I’m very aware of that, and as I’ve said in the ‘Knee Defender’ thread, I have NO problem paying more for the stretch seats (not the additional $2000 each first class price though)

The stretch seats are often not available and the first ones to go. When they are not available, I always try for an exit row. It’s very rare that I’m able to get that, even when I book months in advance.

Like with a lot of things, I’d favor a government-mandated minimum. Both for seat pitch and width, in this case. Airlines could have wider seats or greater seat pitch than the minimum to their hearts’ content, but there’d be a floor, and that would be a good thing.

I do think the government needs to step in. This is something that the free market has failed to achieve to the satisfaction of enough people. They failed, now the government should force the issue.

I think the government should leave the airlines alone. That’s just clear overreach. Instead they should mandate height restrictions for people. Kids with tall parents will be forced to start smoking and drinking coffee while still in the cradle, and then maintain a calcium restricted diet until they are 18. That’s really the simplest solution.

Cite? I disagree. The free market has provided a solution: pay more for a seat with more leg room. Some people are willing to pay more, but not most. When I check the seat availability on flights that I fly, (mostly American or United) there are still numerous upgrade seats (with more leg room) available even the night before my flight when I check in. So most people are still are not willing to pay a higher price to get the extra leg room.

What most people would like is that all the seats have more leg room and the price not be raised. Not gonna happen.

People complain - they always have and always will. I see no overriding safety concern so keep the government out of this. I don’t see a reason for it and I don’t see a lot of benefit from it.

they should issue parachutes.

make a fuss and you’re out (at a safe altitude over good terrain near civilization).

luggage will be shipped free to that nearest airport location affter landing.

Bolding mine.

Must be a regional thing.

Just did a search on Orbitz for a Premium Economy seat leaving in a week, and then returning after 7 more days.

For Premium Economy Seats
Denver > Chicago - Not available
Denver > Austin - Not available
Denver > San Fran - Not available
Denver > San Diego - Not available

(Denver is a United hub BTW)