Pitch is a bit misleading. It measures both the air space between your seat and that in front of you, plus the width of your seat. A vast amount of time and money has been spent shrinking the latter. Which lets more seats fit into the same length of tube without necessarily reducing the space for each passenger at all.
Admittedly the airspace between your row and the one in front is now less than in e.g. 1965. But it’s less less than the raw numbers appear to make it.
Normally they put you on another flight and pay some compensation, and since that other flight has an empty seat by definition the cost to the airline is not much more than the compensation. However since they can’t put the empty seat on the next flight, they’d have to pay real money. This might be so complicated that the airline people would bump a single passenger to avoid figuring out how to do it.
Anyhow they almost always seem to get volunteers.
Do you have a cite for that? I’ve only ever seen pitch defined as the distance from one point of a seat to the same point on the seat in front of it.
ETA: Oh, you likely mean depth of your seat, not width?
I don’t think overbooking compensation is owed on the extra seat. So long as you make it from A to B on the scheduled flight (or within an hour of it), your travel hasn’t been disrupted, so you’d only be owed a refund of the extra service paid for but not received, much as if you’d paid extra for a bulkhead aisle seat but been bumped to a middle seat in the back, or your paid-for bag had gotten mulched by the conveyor belt.
Furthermore, I think federal regulations might even require the airline to take the extra seat away first in an overbooking situation, unless it’s impossible or unsafe to wedge another person in that space:
"In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily. "
I don’t know that “practicable” would include reducing the number of passengers on the plane on the grounds of simple comfort, as opposed to a genuine safety issue where, say, the larger passenger precluded the other passenger from buckling the seat belt.
Yes, exactly. “Width” was totally the wrong word. Oops on me.
The front-to-back depth of seats has been reduced by a couple inches over the last 20-ish years. Which means the same pitch gives more legroom, or that less than 100% of pitch reduction from pre-deregulation values translates into reduced legroom.
I will say I believe seats are about as thin as they can be made until we invent unobtanium. So going forward, any further pitch reductions will come substantially 100% at the expense of usable leg room.
Not disputing wiki’s info, but averages conceal some things.
The width of the cabin and the standard of 6-abreast coach seating on Boeing narrowbodies has not changed since the 707 was introduced in the late 1950s. 707, 727, 737, and 757 are exactly the same tube. Even the latest and greatest current production 737 MAX is the same old tube.
But what has changed is a lot more of a major airline’s flights are performed by their regional affililates on the much smaller RJs. Which have much narrower cabins with fewer seats abreast but also often narrower seats. As well, one of the competitors to Boeing’s narrow body offerings was the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and later MD-80. That cabin was a bit narrower than Boeing’s but always used 5-abreast coach seating which resulted in slightly wider individual seats. Substantially 100% of those airplanes that contributed to the averages in the old days are scrapped now.
Conversely, the Airbus narrowbody family A318, A319, A320, & A321 are all the same width inside, but are also all about 10" wider than the traditional Boeing narrowbodies. The extra width is divided between one aisle & 6 seats, giving one extra inch and some change is each spot. As I mentioned upthread, I’m a narrow guy. But even I can feel the benefit of that extra inch+ of width.
As others have said, wide-body airplanes are a different matter and a lot of different counts of seats abreast have been tried on the various types: Boeing 747, 767, 777, 787, and the Airbus 300, 310, 330, 340, 350, and 380. All of those Boeing models have different fuselage and cabin widths from each other. The A300 & A310 (both largely obsolete now) share a common width but differ from the width shared by the A330 and A340. The A350 and A380 are two additional different widths.
For those airplanes different cabins (and decks) may have different line breast counts even within coach to offset the fuselage tapering at either end. But for sure the net direction over time has been for more seats abreast where possible.
My bottom line:
IMO Americans have grown a lot more than seats have shrunk since US airline deregulation began 44(!) years ago. But for darn sure there is a large and still-growing size mismatch that IMO is at or past critical mass for action to be sorely needed.
I’m just not sure the public is actually willing to pay for what they need, much less what they want.
The Washington Post article is kind of vague, in that it doesn’t say which planes they’re referring to. But I assume they must be talking about widebody aircraft. I already mentioned that the seats on those planes have gotten narrower.
Which Wikipedia page did that come from? Because the Wikipedia page on the 727 says this (bolding mine):
The 727’s fuselage has an outer diameter of 148 inches (3.8 m). This allows six-abreast seating (three per side) and a single aisle when 18-inch (46 cm) wide coach-class seats are installed.
I don’t think 19 inch seats would even fit in a 727 (or 707, 737, or 757) with enough space left for an aisle, at least in a 6-abreast arrangement. And as far as I know, most airlines used a 6-abreast arrangement. Like this American Airlines 727 from 1978, for example.
To be fair there used to be more active asymmetric, narrow-body aircraft (e.g. DC-9) with 5-seat rows. If the industry has moved to 6-seat and 10-seat rows in their fleets, then a passenger would feel that seat width has been reduced on average.
Fair point, and like most people my knowledge of the topic is almost entirely anecdotal. Further, I’m a big guy now but used to be a veeeery big guy, so the seats feel more reasonable to me now than they did 15 years ago. Still unreasonable, but almost entirely in the knees. I’m no longer an active insult to the people on either side of me so long as I’m careful about my elbows.
Aside from the obesity issue, according to this flight attendant, the middle seat gets both armrests. (I had never heard that before so I guess it’s debatable.)
Yes, this. That’s exactly what would happen if the “buy the seat next to yours” option were widely available. The passenger who bought two seats won’t be able to insist on the second one if that would mean another passenger wouldn’t get to fly at all. So the second seat will go to a passenger who would otherwise get bumped, and the best the person who bought it could hope for would be a refund.
In US practice, you aren’t charged for seats you don’t occupy. Miss your flight entirely and your ticket is still good on some subsequent flight.
Where it gets complicated is the various fees & BS about differing fares on differing seats on differing flights. So while you may get the value of all the dollars of whatever fare you paid, that may not be enough dollars to pay for the seat you eventually occupy. Or, more rarely, it may be more than you need and you’re owed a partial refund. The main reason the latter is less common is that so very many people choose their travel arrangements on the basis of price, price, and price. By very carefully shopping for the absolute cheapest fare, no matter how inconvenient, folks pretty well ensure that any disruption will lead to a more expensive fare.
As applied to being bumped or having your desired second seat “bumped” to accommodate another passenger, there’d be no change fees. I’m not expert enough to know how differing fares apply versus the required denied boarding compensation.
That was my question……even if you want to buy the extra seat, can you? Does the airline’s software allow the same passenger to book two seats?
What happens if, after you book, they change the type of plane and reassign the seats and you end up with two non-adjacent seats?
What’s to keep the airline, on the final head count, from deciding that one of “you” didn’t show up and giving that seat to a standby passenger? Unless the airline makes specific provisions that allow passengers to book two adjacent seats for themselves it may be difficult from a logistical standpoint.
I was wondering about that as well. I don’t think the airline allows a single passenger to have two seats. I’ve tried to do that in the past and the airline cancelled one of the tickets. Perhaps you would have to call them directly so the rep can mark the extra ticket a certain way.
I found this page on Delta’s website which appears to be giving instructions to travel agents and other partners on how to code these types of reservations. Presumably other airlines have similar procedures.
And here I sit in the middle seat in coach on a 737. Between two large-boned meaty gentlemen. At least it’s the first row of coach with the hard dividers between each seat.so nobody’s hips are bumping mine. My shoulders are narrow enough that at least so far we’re not bumping biceps. But it’s close & the 3-hour flight hasn’t departed yet.
Don’t even think about leaning either way. And forget about lifting a cheek.
But if you do lift a cheek make sure to then lift the other cheek as the bible says. At least I think so, It’s been awhile since I read it.
The wider aisle on the Airbus planes is nice too. If you’re sitting in the aisle seat it means you’re less likely to get bumped by the drink cart or by passengers walking to and from the lavatory. And if you’re skinny enough you can even squeeze past the drink cart to get to the lavatory, something not possible on a 737.
Hmm - wife and I were perfectly comfy this morning. It WAS 1st class, tho! 
Quite often a proactive and equitable resolution to arm-rest disputes are spiked forearm bands, I’ve found.