New seats let airlines squeeze in more passengers

[Swadian Hardcore]

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.

I do agree but I still fly internation a lot because the ocean liners are almost all gone (QM2 being the exception). International's not that bad, I check seat figures beforehand to book a more comfortable flight. Most of the fares are not that different. It's not just pitch and width, seat quality itself is important too. Generally I like the AA seats as far as US airlines go, but their new seats are no good. Thankfully, Greyhound is upgrading their whole fleet so I'll just ride them.

 

[xyzzy]

YYZ for Toronto comes from an old telegraph and railway station code, YZ, for Malton. I believe YUL has a similar explanation (UL for Dorval).

 

[PRR 60]

YYZ for Toronto comes from an old telegraph and railway station code, YZ, for Malton. I believe YUL has a similar explanation (UL for Dorval).

Thanks for the explanation! I always seemed like Canada took their "Y" prefix and just used a random generator for the second and third letters to come up with YYZ and YUL. This makes some sense: at lease as much as Moisant Stock Yards being the source of the New Orleans airport code (MSY).

 

[jis]

Speaking of telegraph office codes, back in the days in India when railway telegraph was used to arrange reservations from enroute points, special telegraph codes were used to transmit status of a reservation request. As I vaguely recall for example, the code KIMBAM was used to transmit status "waitlisted" and KASKAM was used to transmit "confirmed".

 

[railiner]

Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.

I find it interesting how an EMB190 is considered a 'regional', while classic 737's and DC-9 variants with less seats than the Embraer are considered 'mainline' airliner's....

 

[Texan Eagle]

Embraer 190 from Toronto to Portland OR, over 4000km is the longest commercial RJ flight today. The airline that flies it is Air Canada.

I find it interesting how an EMB190 is considered a 'regional', while classic 737's and DC-9 variants with less seats than the Embraer are considered 'mainline' airliner's....

I wouldn't call EMB190 a "regional jet". They are as much, if not more, comfortable as 737 and A320 series. When someone says "regional jet", I think of CRJ and the smaller ERJ-135/145 etc small planes, may I suggest a name for them? "Crampliners"

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.

 

[railiner]

Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......

 

[trainman74]

When someone says "regional jet", I think of CRJ and the smaller ERJ-135/145 etc small planes, may I suggest a name for them? "Crampliners"

Hmm, I might take out the "M" in that term.

 

[jis]

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.

Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.

Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.

What about outside the US?

I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.

Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.

Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......

Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.

 

[railiner]

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.

Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.

What about outside the US?

I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.

Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.

Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......

Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.

VERY cheap....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.

Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.

What about outside the US?

I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.

Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.

Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......

Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.

VERY cheap....

Hmm? How much cheaper than the regular fare? You probably don't want to say how much it actually cost but just about what percent off the regular fare?

If it's cheap and safe, I would do it too!

 

[railiner]

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.

Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.

What about outside the US?

I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.

Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.

Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......

Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.

VERY cheap....

Hmm? How much cheaper than the regular fare? You probably don't want to say how much it actually cost but just about what percent off the regular fare?

If it's cheap and safe, I would do it too!

Percentage? Hmmm....let's just say "three figures", and let it go at that.....

 

[xyzzy]

American and perhaps other airlines looked closely at a proposed E195X that would have had about 120 seats. However, no design could produce the range that AA needed, so AA went with the A319. As far as I know, the E195X is dead although it could be revived if airlines show interest.

For all practical purposes the E170, E175, E190, and E195 are "mainline" aircraft. They just don't have transcontinental range.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Which begs the question- what is the longest regional jet flight in the US that is truly on a Crampliner regional jet? No E190 sized pseudo-regional jets.

Purely inside the US I think is AUS - SFO CRJ700 flight by Skywest dba United Express (UA6347) clocking in at 1500 or so miles.

What about outside the US?

I think the E-190 could be a regional jet because it only has two-abreast. But that is probably the confusion point between RJs and mainliners.

Then again, DC-3s were considered mainliners back in the day.

Not exactly fitting the thread definition, but my personal longest trip on regional aircraft, was from New York to Los Angeles, with a change from an ERJ145 to a CRJ700 at Northwest Arkansas on American Eagle several years ago. I rather enjoyed the small plane experience....it was probably like a throwback to when the DC-3 ruled the air, although a lot faster.......

Woah, how'd you book that one? Was it cheap or expensive? I would not pay extra to fly on a RJ transcon consering the 767 is a lot more comfortable.

VERY cheap....

Hmm? How much cheaper than the regular fare? You probably don't want to say how much it actually cost but just about what percent off the regular fare?

If it's cheap and safe, I would do it too!

Percentage? Hmmm....let's just say "three figures", and let it go at that.....

You work for AA? I thought you worked for Trailways?

 

[chakk]

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.

Rode this week on a Lufthansa Airbus 319 with the new slimline seats this week. I found them no more and no less uncomfortable then other seats. Same amount of legroom as on the other seats. But, with the slimmer bodies, I am guessing that the airline is able to add one or two extra rows in coach. Although this will upset window alignment with the seats, such as it may be.

 

[jis]

Just read today that Emirates is gunning for 11 abreast on the main deck of the A380. Which is interesting since Airbus was trying to make a case for 18" seat width standard, and now their biggest customer is telling them to go screw their marketing needs. It was EK that became a big proponent of 10 abreast on 777s and many followed suit. Boeing originally positioned the 777 as a 9 abreast aircraft.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Just read today that Emirates is gunning for 11 abreast on the main deck of the A380. Which is interesting since Airbus was trying to make a case for 18" seat width standard, and now their biggest customer is telling them to go screw their marketing needs. It was EK that became a big proponent of 10 abreast on 777s and many followed suit. Boeing originally positioned the 777 as a 9 abreast aircraft.

Wow! Imagine Riding Steerage Class on Over the Pond Flights in these Cattle Cars!!

 

[SarahZ]

Ugh. 18" is borderline okay. 17" is torture for a flight longer than an hour or two. There's a reason a lot of movie houses are switching to 20" seats. It isn't even so much that people are heavier; there are lots of guys who are tall with broad shoulders and have to assume the croquet mallet position just to fit into the middle seat.

I know they want to get more people onto each plane, but at what expense?

On the other hand, if enough people get fed up, maybe they'll start using Amtrak.

 

[jis]

Emirates, who started all this won't care since Amtrak cannot get you from anywhere in the world to anywhere else bouncing through Dubai.

Coach seats that are 17" to 17.5" inch wide have been around for a long long time, so that is nothing new. Started with the 6 abreast in 707s and DC-8s. The cabin width of a 737 is pretty much the same as that of a 707, and 6 abreast has been pretty routine in those for decades.

I believe American is the only US carrier who has gone for 10 abreast on a 777 so far, that too only in the 777Ws.

The most common US Domestic Mainline fleet has 17.2" (Boeing narrow body) to 18" (Airbus narrow body, and most wide bodies).

 

[SarahZ]

Emirates, who started all this won't care since Amtrak cannot get you from anywhere in the world to anywhere else bouncing through Dubai.

Yeah, I was just venting. <_<

I've seen pictures of Emirates' first class seats - the lie-flat cubicle bedroom type things, and wow. They are swank.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I couldn't care less about 17" vs 18" width to be perfectly honest. I'm tall so it's the seat in front of me that is closer than ever and crushing my knees. Doesn't matter if it's an aircraft or a theater or a stadium. If you're tall then you're screwed.

 

[railiner]

I couldn't care less about 17" vs 18" width to be perfectly honest. I'm tall so it's the seat in front of me that is closer than ever and crushing my knees. Doesn't matter if it's an aircraft or a theater or a stadium. If you're tall then you're screwed.

One of the few times in life that short people have the advantage......mostly height is an advantage, right?

 

[SarahZ]

I couldn't care less about 17" vs 18" width to be perfectly honest. I'm tall so it's the seat in front of me that is closer than ever and crushing my knees. Doesn't matter if it's an aircraft or a theater or a stadium. If you're tall then you're screwed.

Truth. I feel cramped, and I'm only 5'5". I always feel really bad for people over 6'.

 

[railiner]

One other factor in seat pitch comfort, is how the seats are designed. By that, I mean how much 'shin room' you actually get. Sometimes seats may have the exact same spacing, but due to differences in their design, some will allow you to slouch down and slide your feet far forward under the seat ahead of you, while others will hit your shin, and not allow much stretching. I don't fly different airlines enough to identify which...