New seats let airlines squeeze in more passengers

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

CHamilton

Engineer
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
5,301
Location
Seattle
New seats let airlines squeeze in more passengers


...The big U.S. airlines are taking out old, bulky seats in favor of so-called slimline models that take up less space from front to back, allowing for five or six more seats on each plane.

The changes, covering some of the most common planes flown on domestic and international routes, give the airlines two of their favorite things: More paying passengers, and a smaller fuel bill because the seats are slightly lighter. It's part of a trend among the airlines to view seats as money-makers, not just pieces of furniture. Add a few inches of legroom and airlines can charge more for tickets. Take away a few inches and they can fit more seats on the plane.

Some passengers seem to mind the tighter squeeze more than others. The new seats generally have thinner padding. And new layouts on some planes have made the aisles slightly narrower, meaning the dreaded beverage cart bump to the shoulder happens more often....

Whether the new seats are really closer together depends on how you measure. By the usual measure, called "pitch," the new ones are generally an inch closer together from front to back as measured at the armrest.

Airlines say you won't notice. And the new seats are designed to minimize this problem. The seats going onto Southwest's 737s have thinner seatback magazine pockets. Passengers on Alaska Airlines will find slightly smaller tray tables. United's new seats put the magazine pocket above the tray table, getting it away from passengers' knees. And seat-makers saved some space with lighter-weight frames and padding.

This allows airlines to claim that passengers have as much above-the-knee "personal space" as they did before, even if the seats are slightly closer together below the knee.

New seats going into United Airlines' Airbus A320s are an inch closer together from front to back. The new seats Southwest has put on nearly its entire fleet are 31 inches apart, about an inch less than before. In both cases, the airlines were able to add an extra row of six seats to each plane. Southwest went from 137 seats to 143. Both airlines say the new seats are just as comfortable.

United's says the new seats make each A320 1,200 pounds lighter. Southwest says the weight savings is cutting about $10 million per year in fuel spending. In addition, the extra seats allow Southwest to expand flying capacity 4 percent without adding any planes, says spokesman Brad Hawkins, while also collecting more revenue from the additional passengers....
 
good lord... I am 5'10" with a slim build and I log a lot of air miles... I already find the seats too small and I'm not a big guy.
 
I've flown on the Southwest 737-700 with their new "Evolve" interior. While it is true that the seat is thinner, you still easily perceive the decreased seat pitch (from 32" to 31") no matter what the carriers say about there being no change in the passengers' "personal space'.
 
Oh goody. Less cushioning in seats that already feel like torture devices. Fabulous.
 
I have been on consecutive flights on Lufthansa, same aircraft type (747), one with regular "thick" seats and the next one with these "slimline" seats, and I can tell you, both versions are equally uncomfortable. Comfort and economy class travel these days shouldn't be spoken in the same sentence, I have given up to that fact. If putting lighter seats can allow an airline to provide me a lower fare, that's ok let them do it. If they overdo it, I'll eventually move to another airline. Simple.
 
Hence why when I fly I carry both an inflatable seat cushion and lumbar pillow I picked up at REI. Makes the long haul TATL or TPAC a little more bearable.
 
Pretty soon airliners are gonna look like urban transit. Imagine riding a LRV all the way to Frankfurt or Tokyo.

For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.

Sure, KE and OZ have the same pitch with a truly reclining seat, but I once got sick from eating OZ food, so no more for me. Plus, NH has a much better safety record than both.
 
For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
 
Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.
 
For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.
 
Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane. :)
 
Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.
Not only that, but true Premium Economy is often twice the fare of Economy. Sure, Economy Plus is not that expensive, but the width is the same and the pitch is a bit better.

For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.
I heard the same with NH, their 777s and 787s have the same IOJ seats but the interior is somewhat different. The 777 flights have a cheaper fare and I've never flown with a 2-4-3 config so I'll try that if they offer a good deal.

Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane. :)
You're a pilot? As a passenger, I flew on the CRJ-200 quite a bit for 1-2 hours, they were very uncomfortable, it will be horrid to fly AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX on a CRJ-700, especially since Delta offers full-sized 757s on the MSP-LAX. Unfortunately, there's no good options by train or bus either on that route.
 
Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.
Not only that, but true Premium Economy is often twice the fare of Economy. Sure, Economy Plus is not that expensive, but the width is the same and the pitch is a bit better.

For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.
I heard the same with NH, their 777s and 787s have the same IOJ seats but the interior is somewhat different. The 777 flights have a cheaper fare and I've never flown with a 2-4-3 config so I'll try that if they offer a good deal.

Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane. :)
You're a pilot? As a passenger, I flew on the CRJ-200 quite a bit for 1-2 hours, they were very uncomfortable, it will be horrid to fly AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX on a CRJ-700, especially since Delta offers full-sized 757s on the MSP-LAX. Unfortunately, there's no good options by train or bus either on that route.
The 700 is a little more comfortable than the 200. Just a little though.
 
Seat pitch is one thing. Seat width is another. For the 777, airlines are moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in economy class. Most airlines offer a form of premium economy that has the older seat width - but unless you pay extra for the privilege or have elite status in an airline's frequent flyer program, don't expect to grab a seat in those rows. It stinks.
Not only that, but true Premium Economy is often twice the fare of Economy. Sure, Economy Plus is not that expensive, but the width is the same and the pitch is a bit better.

For this matter, I am thinking about trying ANA's new Inspiration of Japan interior. They have 34" pitch but their seats slide forward when reclining. Should be fine for day flights, but overnight TPAC is the problem.
I am flying ANA's Dreamliner trans-Pacific in December. Will let you know how those seats are.
On United 787s the Economy seats and the BF seats seeemed to be exactly the same as on their other planes.
I heard the same with NH, their 777s and 787s have the same IOJ seats but the interior is somewhat different. The 777 flights have a cheaper fare and I've never flown with a 2-4-3 config so I'll try that if they offer a good deal.

Our United CRJ-700's are also getting these slim line seats installed. I haven't see any yet though. They will add a row to make it 70 passengers instead of 66. We are wondering how it'll affect some of our ultra long flights (for the RJ) when it comes to weight restrictions. May not be able to take a full load on those AUS to SFO flights or the newly announced MSP-LAX on an RJ. I feel bad for you guys in back of my airplane. :)
You're a pilot? As a passenger, I flew on the CRJ-200 quite a bit for 1-2 hours, they were very uncomfortable, it will be horrid to fly AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX on a CRJ-700, especially since Delta offers full-sized 757s on the MSP-LAX. Unfortunately, there's no good options by train or bus either on that route.
The 700 is a little more comfortable than the 200. Just a little though.
I sure don't feel a difference between the two except the CRJ-700 might fly a bit smoother because it's a bit bigger. Do you mean more seat pitch, width, or what? You are a pilot, right?
 
I am in the minority. I love the RJ's due to the 2x2 seating. I can have my window and my wife can have her aisle with no middle seat complication. Someone once called it the "all First Class" configuration (I won't say who). Plus, my wife and I are in the lower segment of adult size, so that works well.

The biggest issue is headroom. I inevitably stand up to get off and hit my head on the overhead. It's kind of nice to think I'm too tall for something.
 
I sure don't feel a difference between the two except the CRJ-700 might fly a bit smoother because it's a bit bigger. Do you mean more seat pitch, width, or what? You are a pilot, right?

The windows are bigger and raised slightly so you don't get a neck cramp. The floor is dropped as well. The seats are larger. I have no idea about pitch, but UAX offers economy plus and there are a couple rows of 1st class seats as well. Also a few improvements to some systems were made, such as a better air conditioning, better engines, and well better everything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sure don't feel a difference between the two except the CRJ-700 might fly a bit smoother because it's a bit bigger. Do you mean more seat pitch, width, or what? You are a pilot, right?
The windows are bigger and raised slightly so you don't get a neck cramp. The floor is dropped as well. The seats are larger. I have no idea about pitch, but UAX offers economy plus and there are a couple rows of 1st class seats as well. Also a few improvements to some systems were made, such as a better air conditioning, better engines, and well better everything else.
OK, thanks. I really couldn't see much improvements myself but that sounds good anyhow, especially for those pax flying AUS-SFO or MSP-LAX. What's the world's longest flight in a RJ? Including things like an ATR, Yak-40, Saab 340, etc, but not including the 737 or A318.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?

I would still like to know, what's the longest RJ route still in operation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?
YYC is Calgary, not Montreal (YUL).
 
Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?
YYC is Calgary, not Montreal (YUL).
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Canadian airport codes. The Y-- always gets be confused. Then I do understand why they dropped Toronto, because it's probably too far away to make a profit.
 
Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.
That route may have been dropped. AC only lists YVR and YYC as destinations to and from PDX.
Interesting, Toronto is the largest city in Canada, so why would they keep Vancouver and Montreal but drop Toronto?
YYC is Calgary, not Montreal (YUL).
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Canadian airport codes. The Y-- always gets be confused. Then I do understand why they dropped Toronto, because it's probably too far away to make a profit.
I think that is it. It's probably due to the fact that Portland is not a major US city. Seattle, San Francisco and LA make sense for non-stops from Toronto. Portland: maybe not.

Some of the Canadian "Y" codes are a bit wacky. YVR I get. YYC: I guess I see something. YYZ and YUL: no clue.
 
Victoria = YYJ. I don't get that one either.

I only know that code because I flew from London to Winnipeg to Calgary to Victoria in 2007.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm so glad I no longer fly (if I can help it). A flight a couple of years ago on U.S. Air from Dallas to Phoenix to Seattle was one of the most cramped in recent memory. What are they going to cut out or trim down next?

Edit: About 20 years ago Alaska Airlines ran a hilarious set of commercials asking that very question, they were quite humorous with one of them featuring "pay toilets" and a man desperately going around the plane to get "change for a dollar". Could this be far off? The moral of the story was the nickel/diming of the airlines....what irony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top