A Court Will Not Be Forcing The FAA To Regulate Tiny Airline Seat Sizes, But There’s Some Good News

Seatstop1
ADVERTISEMENT

If you’ve been on a plane anytime in the past several years, you’ve probably noticed that airline seats are pretty tiny unless you pay for larger ones. If you were exceptionally unlucky, maybe you’ve even been the person squished in the middle, sharing both sides of your body with your fellow passengers. Recent reports suggest that a U.S. court will not require the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate airline seat sizes. This sounds like defeat, but there is some good news: Seat sizes may still end up mandated, it’s just that an airline passenger advocacy group has failed to prove that seats have gotten dangerously small. Let’s get into it.

Back in August 2022, the Federal Aviation Administration generated headlines when it published Request for Comments in Minimum Seat Dimensions Necessary for Safety of Air Passengers (Emergency Evacuation) on its site. The regulator is finally looking into if airline seats have gotten too small and asked for public comments on the subject. It wasn’t long before stories popped all over the web suggesting that the days of getting too personal with the people in your row could be numbered. Just a week after the FAA published its request for comments, it had received over 5,000 responses. Most of those comments were about how uncomfortable airline seats are.

What these commenters missed was that the FAA wasn’t looking to hear about how uncomfortable seats are. Instead, what the FAA is actually looking for is technical data to help determine the optimal seat size for a safe aircraft evacuation. The FAA doesn’t care if you rub shoulders with people so long as you can get off of the plane within 90 seconds during an emergency:

The FAA emphasizes that comments that include technical data and information will be the most helpful. The FAA is not requesting comments regarding matters unrelated to the agency’s determination under section 577, such as how the dimensions of passenger seats might relate to passenger comfort or convenience.

The Group Fighting For Bigger Seats

Airline
Mercedes Streeter

One group has decided to fight for larger seats by arguing that seats have indeed gotten dangerously small. FlyersRights was founded after realtor Kate Hanni had a poor experience aboard an American Airlines flight in 2006. The aircraft sat on the tarmac for nine hours in Austin, Texas with its passengers unable to deboard. In 2007, Hanni founded FlyersRights as a non-profit, lobbying the government for regulations that would treat airline passengers better. The group has been successful in making the lives of passengers easier in some regards. FlyersRights says it advocated for the Three Hour Rule, where passengers have the option to get off of a delayed aircraft before three hours on the ground and where airlines have to provide water, food, ventilation, and working toilets before two hours on the ground.

Lately, the group has been focusing on how tiny airline seats have gotten. In 2015, FlyersRights filed a petition with the FAA asking for the regulator to set minimum seat size standards. That petition was denied a year later, leading to FlyersRights filing an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging two matters in the denial. The FAA declined to regulate seat sizes for passenger comfort and health as well as asserting that current seat sizes do not negatively impact aircraft evacuation times.

Here’s what FlyersRights wants in terms of seat sizes:

[A] moratorium on further shrinkage and a minimum seat width of 20.1 inches (vs current 19 to 16 inches) and seat pitch (leg room) of 32.1 inches (vs current 31 to 27 inches). 

The Court disagreed with FlyersRights’ challenge regarding airline seat comfort but agreed that the FAA failed to prove that current seat sizes allowed for a safe evacuation. The matter was remanded to the FAA and the regulator again denied the petition.

Not long after, Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which appeared to finally solve this issue. In Section 577 of the Act (quoted below in the Court’s opinion), Congress directed the FAA to develop seat size standards to ensure a safe evacuation from an aircraft. In theory, the Act gave the FAA until October 5, 2019 to develop seat standards. That date came and went without action and it would take over two years for the FAA to begin to tackle the subject.

Why A Court Is Not Forcing The FAA To Act

Deltaair
Mercedes Streeter

FlyersRights filed a petition for Writ of Mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in January 2022. Basically, FlyersRights wants to get the court to order the Federal Aviation Administration to issue minimum airline seat size standards. After over a year of litigation, the Court has issued its opinion. Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Justin Walker wrote (emphasis of the Court):

In this case, Flyers Rights and its current president have taken aim at the small size of airline seats. In their view, small seats slow emergency evacuations and cause medical problems like blood clots. They have petitioned for a writ of mandamus ordering the FAA “to commence rulemaking to establish minimum seat size and spacing requirements for commercial aircraft and to issue a final rule by a date certain.” Pet. Br. 23.

Mandamus petitioners must show “a clear and indisputable right to relief.”

Flyers Rights says that the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 gives it that right. The Act provides:

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and after providing notice and an opportunity for comment, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue regulations that establish minimum dimensions for passenger seats on aircraft operated by air carriers in interstate air transportation or intrastate air transportation, including minimums for seat pitch, width, and length, and that are necessary for the safety of passengers.

Judge Walker continues:

Under that provision’s best interpretation — though perhaps not its only interpretation — the FAA must issue regulations if they satisfy those two bolded criteria. Id. First, the regulations must “establish minimum dimensions for passenger seats on aircraft.” Id. Second, the regulations must also be “necessary for the safety of passengers.” Id. That interpretation follows from the provision’s use of the conjunctive “and.” The FAA must issue regulations that mandate minimum seat sizes “and that are necessary for the safety of passengers.” Id. (emphasis added). So unless seatsize regulations are “necessary for the safety of passengers,” the FAA Reauthorization Act neither requires nor even authorizes the FAA to “establish minimum dimensions for passenger seats on aircraft.”

The problem for Flyers Rights is that it has not made a “‘clear and indisputable’” showing, In re Cheney, 406 F.3d at 729, that any seat-size regulations “are necessary for the safety of passengers,” 49 U.S.C. § 42301 note.

The Judge continues that FlyersRights hadn’t presented any compelling evidence that small seats slow down passengers in an emergency. Further, FlyersRights failed to show a “‘clear and indisputable’” connection between small seats and blood clots. In its opinion, the Court referenced the FAA’s own tests which found “no discernable difference in evacuation times due to seat dimensions.”

There Is Still Hope

A simulated cabin interior – FAA

All of this said, the Court recognizes that tiny seats are uncomfortable and that there is still a possibility that those seats can be unsafe. However, FlyersRights has failed to provide “‘clear and indisputable’” evidence that seats are too small:

To be clear about the limits of our holding, evidence might one day show that seat-size regulations are “necessary for the safety of passengers.” Id. The FAA has requested public comments and is currently reviewing them. In addition, Flyers Rights recently petitioned the FAA to promulgate seat-size regulations, and in that proceeding, new evidence might arise.

Thankfully, despite the headlines which may suggest that you’re stuck in a tiny seat, it’s not the end of the road just yet.

The Court notes that the FAA’s research is still ongoing and depending on the evidence, something may happen to airline seats. In other words, while FlyersRights has lost this battle, research into how tiny seats impact air safety is still ongoing. There is still a chance, given convincing data, that airlines will have to provide passengers with standardized seat sizes. So, continue to fight for better seats, with some luck, one day you won’t feel like cattle onboard a Spirit flight.

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

About the Author

View All My Posts

79 thoughts on “A Court Will Not Be Forcing The FAA To Regulate Tiny Airline Seat Sizes, But There’s Some Good News

  1. The fuselage size of airplanes haven’t change since they were originally designed (the 737 was designed in the 1960’s). I don’t buy that the interior size of airplanes have changed in an any meaningful way over the years. And thus the seat widths have probably not changed much as well. Could it be that people are getting bigger and more people are flying more frequently than 20+ years ago? Man, I remember flights in the 90’s that were nearly half empty – plenty of room to stretch out. Airlines are squeezing in more rows to accommodate more flyers (and boost profits). Add to that our collective distaste of being crowded (accelerated by Covid), and our intolerance of being inconvenienced, and you have a lot of unhappy flyers. Which of course adds to the stress of flying for everyone, on top of more security hoops etc. We all want airlines and the FAA to do better at reducing these issues, but regulating the actual seat size is not really a solution.

    1. You are correct in that fuselage width hasn’t really changed, but the FAA’s concerns have has little to do with seat width since that’s really more of a comfort issue. They care about seat pitch (distance between a seat and the one in front of it). That has definitely gotten worse over the years as airlines sacrifice legroom for more rows. But less leg room means more difficulty getting in and out of a row which hampers evacuation.

      1. 100%. As stated, airlines are squeezing more rows in, reducing seat pitch. No doubt a profit boosting move (we can sell 6 or 12 more seats per flight by adding one or two more rows!). This is a problem and makes flying very uncomfortable for all but the smallest of humans. It would be nice if the passenger in the window seat could at least physically get to the aisle without the middle and aisle passengers needing to completely vacate their seats. That would be an optimal starting point.

  2. unpopular angle coming…
    You get what you pay for. They offer tiny seats with no space at a 25% price savings and the seats sell out. They have a few rows of “plus” seats with extra leg room and they never sell out (or are the last seats purchased)
    What type of seat do you think they are going to offer most?

    Also, if they increase seat size they will have to increase prices. So que the whining about how $100 fares go away.

    1. Agreed. Though where I work its policy we can only purchase the lowest cost seat, I don’t fly enough to get free frequent flyer seat upgrades…

      1. On at least Delta and American I can book through my company’s travel system and have it linked to my personal account. After booking, I go in and pay for an upgrade to the better seats out of pocket. At 6’5″ with broad shoulders it is absolutely worth a few hundred bucks (or sometimes less, depending on the flight) to be comfortable(-ish) on flights. That goes 10x for international trips. I won’t do those in a regular coach seat anymore.

        1. United is the same way. You can upgrade anytime after booking through the app or online with a personal card.

          When I first started travelling a lot for work I paid the $700 for a year’s Economy Plus subscription so I could pretty much always fly a bulkhead or exit row seat. Money well spent flying 12 weeks a year. Now I fly enough to get those Economy Plus seats for free and a very rarely seat at the front of the plane

      2. That is my company policy too. So I pay for “plus” on my own dime. It’s actually a separate charge from the “fare” so its easy to pay separately as an upgrade.

  3. Unpopular opinion here: if you’re a flight seat safety and comfort advocate, instead of making everyone else pay for larger seats (and Yes, if the seats get bigger they will be more expensive) just pony up to fly first class. The seats are better, the treatment is better, the experience is better. If this matters so much, just upgrade for yourself. I’m a bigger guy and almost exclusively fly first class otherwise I’m in a cramped hell for the duration of the flight.

    1. LOL. Also: Let them eat cake. 😉

      Economy class ticket on Delta from LAX to JFK: $400. First class: $2600. Your solution is not viable for the majority of the travelling public.

  4. Heh.Trying to make this about safety is nice but we *know* idiots will block the isles in an emergency.Apparently their carry on luggage is more important than other’s lives

  5. You have a rather large error in your assumptions. Your calculations only work if every seat on every flight is sold and thus removing one seat removes one tickets worth of revenue.

    The actual load factor for 2022, which was an extremely profitable year for the airline industry, was 82.78% according to https://www.transtats.bts.gov/traffic/ which is lower than the 84% of seats that would remain in your example. Of course, the load is not evenly distributed between flights, so some revenue would be lost, but the overall effect would be greatly diminished.

    Also note that the load factor includes non-rev passengers such as airline employees and their family members. There are normally several non-revs on every flight, but they are only allowed on when there are unsold seats. Shifting the non-revs to less popular flight times would further decrease any revenue loss.

    Finally, the calculation assumes that the marginal cost of an additional passenger is $0. That is absolutely not true. If you have fewer passengers, you have lower staffing needs, less wear and tear on baggage handling equipment, etc. But the largest direct saving is in lower fuel costs from flying at a lower weight. Alternatively, the airline could recoup some of its revenue by adding cargo capacity.

    All said, I’d be happy to pay the extra 5-10% to get the seat room these folks are asking for. It might actually save me money since I currently pay extra to get the slightly better economy seats like bulkheads on longer flights.

  6. In addition to sizing, there are two other despicable changes:

    The use of leather or leather like seating surfaces. Great for quick clean up and maintenance, but awful for breath ability on a long flight and for enough traction not to slip around, because…

    …Seat cushions have been shortened to create the appearance of more legroom. Short cushions, especially slippery ones are hard to stay put on, but more importantly they cut off circulation in the legs. I think they prototyped these in some dark opps sites during the Afghan way alongside water boarding.

  7. Lets do the math because math is fun!

    A 20 inch minimum width would require a 737 to go from a 3 x 3 to a 2 x 3 configuration. Southwest flies the 737 max with 30 rows with 28 rows in a 3×3 configuration. So that is 28 seats you want to take out of the plane. The average domestic airfare is $300 so that is $8400 lost revenue. That $8400 has to be covered by the 147 people left on the plane so that is an extra $57 per passenger or an almost 20% increase in the price of a plane ticket.

    How many want to pay 20% more for a ticket to have a 3 inch wider seat?

    Increasing seat pitch from 31 to 32 inches takes a row out of the plane so that is 6 people or another $1800. That increases ticket prices by only $11 so that seems to be a better bang for your buck.

    Do both? $10,200 / 141 passengers = $72 (24%) more for a plane ticket.

    1. The problem is that even those of us prepared to pay a bit more don’t have the option. Even those ‘premium seats’ suck. Just like the economic divide in society, there is nothing left in the middle. Settle for the bottom or upgrade to first class, or GTFO.

      1. Those premium seats that you think “suck” are basically what is being proposed for about the same price as it would cost to upgrade today. It would just make everyone pay that higher fare.

        There most definitely is a middle option. Pretty much every legacy US airline offers 4 prices on domestic flights. 1. Basic economy – which is a middle seat in the back. 2. Economy which lets you select an aisle or window seat in the back. 3. Premium economy which are economy seats in the front with 6 inches more legroom, or a bulkhead or exit row with even more legroom. 4. First Class.

        Go to long haul or international routes and they add another 2 price points. There are the 3 economy fairs mentioned above. Then there is another level of Premium economy that are the same seats as domestic first class. Then there is Business class with lay-flat seats. Then there is international first class with even larger lay-flat seats

        1. Long haul international flights have a 1st class ‘cabin’ option on several airlines (like Singapore Airlines) where you have your own small room, like a sleeper car on a passenger train with a motorized rotating chair w/built in stowable desk, a separate ‘work surface’ next to the window, an actual clothes hanging closet and a separate fold down bed. Business Insider recently had a video on it where the journalist showed the accommodation differences between Economy +, Business class & 1st class. In her 1st class flight, Mr. Beast & his crew were in the other 1st class suites, which I can’t find right now, though this YouTube video should be close…
          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C3WBzG8cZnA

  8. Airline seats are as small as they have ever been.
    In-flight fights and hostilities are at an all-time high.

    Discuss.

    [Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it doesn’t disprove it either.]

  9. I’m built like a T-Rex, tall, with broad shoulders, shorter arms, a long torso, and average leg length. I started flying for work 40 years ago and spent 20-some-odd years traveling most of the year on aircraft. I’ve noticed how uncomfortable economy seats have become over time, especially as I’ve gotten older; I feel it in my lower back and get some slight edema in the lower legs on long trips.

    I’ve gone the bougie route and try to fly first, business, or economy plus whenever possible. I also try to avoid regional jets as much as possible, though the A220 in first isn’t bad. It costs me more money to do this, but I end up relaxed and ready to work or play at the end of the trip.

  10. I’m 6’4″ and the legroom is a problem. My knees are so close to the seat in front that I can’t really adjust my seating position. Anything over two hours and I’m pretty miserable. I try to get isle so I can swing my legs out occasionally, but that’s not always possible. It would be cool to have a reasonable standard that addresses passenger comfort someday, but I don’t think that will happen. Why would it?

    1. Dude, on my flight from New Jersey to London, the dude behind me was your height. His knees were in my back the entire time. I couldn’t even recline and it felt like I was getting kicked in the back the entire time. His legs were so long, they went under my seat and into my area. I was stuck in the middle and I had no armrests because people are fucking inconsiderate. I had a panic attack because I was so overwhelmed and uncomfortable for a transatlantic flight. I don’t blame the tall guy because I’m sure it was a miserable trip for him but this was pure fuckery. Or the time my seat was switched to keep a family together. I would have said yes if I was asked but really annoyed that it was done without my asking. Because I don’t have kids, I have no say in where I sit? Flying is just awful and people are rude. My flight from Spain to Charlotte had me next to a guy who’s shoulders were going into my side and he had so sit spread eagle and going into my foot area. Seriously, fuck flying. It’s torture.

  11. I’ve seen comments suggesting the airlines can’t cut any more space and I present to you the FBI and the universal terrorist playbook:

    https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/The-flying-saddle-would-you-give-it-a-try-14015191.php

    I have not flown since 2017 and could happily never set foot on a plane again. I don’t like to fly anyway. Add in miserable airport security lines, add-on fees, waiting an eternity for the people in front of you to free their carry-on from the overhead bin after they jammed it in there with a sledgehammer and I would just as soon drive it at all possible.

    Safety statistics be damned. If that plane crashes, the only thing the seat belt does it make it easier to find my body in the wreckage. At least in a car I may have a decent chance of survival. Why just this week I saw a car go off an overpass, roll over, and the occupants were able to run from the wreckage.

  12. After not flying for what seemed like a pandemic… I was surprised on how much leg room I had on newer planes… my ass still ended up sore and could not wait to get off, but I enjoyed not having the seat in front of me not being jammed into my 6 foot plus frame.

    Or my legs have freakishly shrunk.

    (I also got to enjoy the freakish emergency row double leg room row on a Southwest jet while on a 4 hour flight. That, my friend… is luxury.)

  13. As far as seat width goes, a 737 has had 3 seats a side for its entire life. There is no benefit t to making those seats narrower, since they can’t fit a decent seat in a row.

    There does seem to be more usage of regional jets that are narrower fuselages.

    Seat pitch is another thing altogether.

    1. There’s no place for rational thinking like that in today’s society! This is 2020s America where we don’t operate on FACTS — we operate on FEELINGS! It sure feels like seats are getting narrower, so somebody oughta make a law!

      But as you accurately point out, there’s no benefit to the airlines for actually shrinking the width of the seats, so it’s just not happening. Everybody’s yelling about an imaginary problem.

  14. I love all y’all so I’m going to break it down and keep it really real.

    Let’s make all the seats bigger. What happens to ticket cost ? It goes up for everyone. Who benefits ? People who want bigger seats, who end up sharing the cost with more people. Who doesn’t ? People who think things are fine as they are.

    Basically this is a way for big people to get a discount for bigger seats. Pass.

      1. More space = more expensive fares. Just upgrade your seats. Leave the option for cheap seats for those who don’t want to spend the money. Why eliminate options ? If more people chose the expensive/roomier seats, airlines would respond by making more of them. No need to regulate.

        1. What upgrade? Most low cost carriers are economy only, and you’re stuck paying out the nose with the crappy establishment airlines like United and American if you want “economy plus”. The benefit is simply not proportional to the extra cost unless you are an individual who cannot fly without the additional space.

          1. I’m most familiar with United and Alaska. Both offer the option of premium economy with roughly 6 inches more leg room for a pretty reasonable price.

            I’m not sure why you are calling large legacy airlines “crappy”. Yes, they cost more but they also get you where you are going more reliably which is the point of flying. For 2022 the airline with the best on time percentage was Delta at 82%. Allegient was last with 63%. JetBlue and Frontier were also in the 60s. None of the discount carriers beat any of the legacy carriers for on time performance.

            1. I dunno, I guess I am fundamentally incompatible with the way that the establishment airlines operate. With Southwest, despite last winter’s debacle, I am guaranteed two free bags, a 737, no assigned seating, and generally no surprises. It’s not particularly nice, but it’s very convenient.

              With other airlines there are checked bag fees, they fly E-Jets and Bombardiers with smaller overhead compartments and weird seating configurations, with American there’s 9(!?) loading zones that have zero bearing on seat number, etc. etc. I’ve honestly never had any issues with delays but I do only fly maybe six times a year and only on the west coast so I’m a fairly minor user; that said, the comfortable familiarity of Southwest just wins out every time. I only wish there could be an inch more legroom for those 5 hour flights.

        2. “Won’t someone think of the poor corporations? If they can’t hire children for pennies, you’ll have to pay more for your coal.”

          FOH. They’d strap you to the wings if they could. I’m happy to pay taxes to live in a functioning society. Move to Mars and pay Elmo for oxygen if that’s your jam. Don’t make my life shittier just because you don’t respect yourself.

        3. I might agree with this if price increased linearly with seat pitch – 10% more seat pitch = 10% higher ticket cost, but that’s not the way it works. Just a quick check of Delta from LAX to JFK shows economy seats are around $500, but “Comfort+” (10-15% more legroom) are around $1,000.

          If margins are so razor thin, then my $1000 ticket carrying more of the flight burden than your $500 ticket, even though I’m only using 15% more space. I could flop your sentiment around a bit – small people should stop getting a price break because large people are forced to pay a portion of the small person ticket for the privilege of not having their legs jammed against the seat in front of them for hours at a time.

    1. Let’s break down who benefits from the shrinking seats:
      They cram more people in, getting more fares. Carry-on luggage becomes more burdensome with more people and the same amount of overhead compartment (and less room under each seat). The airlines, which are really good at nickel and diming, charge their base fare. Plus any upgrade to a seat with a little more space. Plus more money on checked luggage.

      1. Getting “more fares” is not the goal. It’s a competitive industry and margins are low. Forcing airlines to have fewer seats isn’t going to trick them into charging less. It’s not going to eliminate nickel-and-diming; it will make it worse.

        1. I’m not saying they will charge less. I am saying that cramming people in doesn’t make them charge appreciably less and makes things worse in ways they can monetize. If they gave the space that they used to on flights, the overhead bins would not fill up so fast and there would be enough space to stow your personal item under the seat and still get to it during the flight.

          In the absence of regulation, companies will go to whatever lengths they can to maximize profit. Regulating

        2. I’m not saying they will charge less. I am saying that cramming people in doesn’t make them charge appreciably less and makes things worse in ways they can monetize. If they gave the space that they used to on flights, the overhead bins would not fill up so fast and there would be enough space to stow your personal item under the seat and still get to it during the flight.

          In the absence of regulation, companies will go to whatever lengths they can to maximize profit. Regulating seat sizes keeps airlines from going ever-further on that particular front in search of profits.

      2. Very interesting that you don’t like that airlines charge to upgrade to larger seat, while at the same time saying you want upgraded seats for everyone.

        1. You misunderstand, probably intentionally. Having shittier seats as the standard sells upgrades. It’s why you have first class, business class, comfort+, economy+, and economy on some flights. They make discomfort standard to sell what should be standard amounts of space as an upgrade.

            1. Yeah, I understand costs. I also understand that US airlines have gotten roughly twice as profitable as those in other countries, mostly by treating passengers worse.

              The best way to keep them from making flying even less comfortable is to put limits on how far they can go with it. Because they are always going to pursue the path of the most profit.

              1. Airlines are not profitable. They make some money for a while then go bankrupt. There isn’t a major US airline that hasn’t gone bankrupt in the last 2 decades.

                For the last 5 years United Airlines had an average profit margin of -3%. American Airlines averaged -5.5%. Delta Airlines averaged – 25%

            2. “A jet costs $X to fly from A to B. Regardless of number of seats.”

              Well THAT’S certainly not true. There are fixed costs for an airline (e.g., overhead), but there are plenty of added factors that affect revenue & profit. Number of seats is just one of those factors. Do ASM & CASM ring any bells?

  15. In the era of slim lines seats, seat pitch is a bogus metric. Seat pitch is the measurement between seat back to seat back.

    With 1″ slim line seats, a 32″ pitch is the same as a 35″ pitch on the old 4″ thick seats.

    A much better metric (coined by RunwayGirl Network) is ‘butt to knee’. What the passenger really cares about is how far the space from the back of their butt to their knees smashing into the seat in front of them.

  16. Just flew on Delta (737-900ER) for 4 hours each way and here are my thoughts on seat sizes. Width? They are okay. I was in main cabin and I’m pretty average for an American. 5’9″ and over roughly 200 lbs. A little larger than I need to be but not massive. I have short legs and and mostly torso and I fit fine width wise for sitting, but it’s completely unusable for working on a computer. If I were much wider…it would be a problem.

    The main problem is seat pitch. I had a single computer bag with me and it was nearly impossible to get to and from the seat in front of me. I also had to choose between a place for my feet and a place for my bag – not both. Near the end of the flight home I dropped my phone and it nearly killed me to try and get it. I’m actually fairly nimble but i couldn’t come close to doing a thing like reaching down to the floor without elbowing my small neighbor in the face.

    In short. Seat width is fine for me, but I’m far from the biggest users. Seat pitch on the other hand is bumping right up against unusable when combined with seat width. For someone with long legs, I honestly don’t know how you fit.

    Is it technically possible to use the seats now? Obviously, people are doing it every day, but there isn’t much left to cut out.

    1. Balderdash. You’ve seen a Tokyo subway car, right? There is plenty of room for more people. Legislation suggesting otherwise is downright anti-American.

  17. it’s not just seat width but seat pitch. increasing the space between rows of seats will help in an evacuation and blood clots because you can actually move your legs.

  18. I’m pretty slim, so I don’t find the seats at all uncomfortable, but I have a hard time imagining I could get off a plane in 90 seconds. That sounds like a tough standard to meet, no matter how large the seats are.

    1. I agree…also how on earth does one measure it given so many factors that can hinder a timely evacuation? Every time I get on I plane, I cannot imagine escaping out of it in 90 seconds in an emergency where there is fire, smoke, water, etc…

      Also I’m guessing airliners won’t like regulatory requirements that limit seats on airplanes

      1. Plus some idiots taking sweet time to extract their precious hand luggage from the overhead bins during the emergency evacuation as it has happened more often lately.

    2. You have to remember that we’re not talking about standard de-boarding here where everybody just takes their time slowly gathering their bags and lazily lumbering their way to the main cabin door and on to their connecting flight to Toledo. We’re talking about an emergency evacuation. The risk of fiery death is a major motivator. Leave all carry-on items behind, and just get to the nearest exit (usually at least two in the front, another two in the back, and at least two over the wings — consult the safety card in your seatback pocket for details on the specific aircraft you’re flying. You did pay attention during the safety briefing and review the card, right?).

      Prior to granting certification, each airliner must demonstrate that a maximum load of passengers can indeed evacuate the aircraft in that 90 second requirement. There are even some conditions that get thrown in to make it even harder (I’m pretty sure the test is done in the dark and a certain quantity of exits must be blocked.).

      So don’t worry. Every aircraft that is currently flying has shown that it is possible.

      Read about the successful A380 evacuation test that saw 853 people evacuate the airplane in just 78 seconds here:
      https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-evacuation-trial-full-report-everyone-off-in-time/66584.article

      1. Thank you for the link- some of that methodology cleared up the questions I was about to ask (for those that don’t look, they have a certain percentage of test subjects over 50, a minimum percentage of each sex, and used a 50/50 mix of volunteer air industry employees and people from a local gymnasium). It definitely worked in this test. Perhaps I’m just cynical and have a hard time seeing it in a real world scenario- and I’m sure there would be some doofus who wouldn’t want to emergency exit without their carry-on, gumming up the works.

        1. Oh, for sure. There are infinite variables that could get thrown in in real life that just can’t be accounted for in a controlled test. But also note that some of the test parameters are a worst-case scenario — capacity, for example. In the aforementioned A380 test, the airplane was packed with 837 passengers; Emirates, the largest A380 operator, has a few different configurations for their airplanes that range from at most 615 seats all the way down to only 484 seats in long-haul configuration. Most airlines just don’t cram the maximum amount of passengers into their airplanes (certain European budget airlines excepted).

          But even if it pessimistically takes double the amount of time to evacuate in the real world, you’re still making it to safety in under 3 minutes. That’s pretty good considering some of these airplanes have the same capacity as a medium-sized office building.

          And yes, sadly, I’ve seen plenty of pictures from airplane emergency landings that show evacuating passengers pulling their wheelie bags with them as they walk away from the plane. 🙁
          https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34191035

          1. I bet if they have at least 50% of test subjects who are obese (be it fairly to morbid) as part of emergency exit procedure, FDA would rethink its priorities about the “tiny seats”.

      2. “Leave all carry-on items behind…”

        This issue concerns me FAR more than seat size. The amount of cabin baggage has increased significantly in the past 10-15 years, driven by the rise of airline baggage charges. The next time a significant aviation accident occurs in the US that requires a rapid cabin evacuation there will be a large number of people grabbing for their bags, slowing the process. The slow evacuation may lead to death.

        This is not an academic discussion. A recent Sukhoi SSJ100 accident in Russia had passengers die during the evacuation, while many travelers went down the slides with their carryons. One possible solution might be for overhead compartment doors to be locked for both takeoff and landing.

        1. Unfortunately, lot of airlines have low fare tickets that don’t allow the one luggage plus one hand luggage gratis. This led to more people choosing to pay luggage surcharge (usually €20 or so), to select the more expensive fare that include both, or to stuff more useless stuff in the hand luggage, forgoing the luggage.

          Sometimes, the passengers are forced to extract a few more kilos from their luggage to avoid the penalty fee for going over the 23-kilo weight limit and stuff few more kilos in their hand luggage. Some of the hand luggage have gotten too heavy and unwieldy for the passengers to lift and store them in the overhead bins.

      3. The ‘passengers’ in this test were airline employees and people from a local gym. I doubt they met the size criteria of average airline passengers. There were no elderly, disabled, or children. They were all awake, none had been injured by turbulence, and no one was in a seat next to an unconscious person they had to get around. As someone who participated in staged emergency events as part of my profession the test was highly idealized and carries minimal value if any in demonstrating adequate evacuation space.

    3. It will take at least 90 seconds for the person in the aisle seat to get their overhead bag out. Because their favorite sweater is in there. And they are an idiot.

    4. Everyone getting off the plane in under 90 seconds? I doubt it.
      Me getting off the plane in under 90 seconds? You bet!
      Finally all my time spent in mosh pits could come in handy.
      “In the event of an emergency evacuation just follow in the wake of the tall long haired guy in the Iced Earth t-shirt.” Watch out for his elbows though.

  19. Although annoying, I’m not sure how someone can provide clear evidence tiny seats are unsafe.

    Uncomfortable does not mean illegal or unsafe

    1. Health risks and evacuation times are a matter of safety. Just depends whether there’s enough concrete evidence of it for corporations to put aside their profit margins.

    2. The problem is that FDA follows the archaic emergency exit procedure that involved the test subjects who are slender, fit, and such. FDA never consider whether the test subjects are representative of real-world passengers who aren’t slender, fit, and such.

  20. What’s the definition of a tiny seat? Because I’m pretty sure every coach seat I’ve ever sat in is either the same or wider than just about all the chairs in my house

    1. FlyersRights makes comparisons to how airline seats used to be sized decades ago, which I covered in our last entry here:

      https://www.theautopian.com/the-faa-wants-to-do-something-about-tiny-airline-seats-but-not-for-your-comfort/

      Edit: I did some more digging, and this is what the group wants to see:

      “It proposes a moratorium on further shrinkage and a minimum seat width of 20.1 inches (vs current 19 to 16 inches) and seat pitch (leg room) of 32.1 inches (vs current 31 to 27 inches).”

      1. My hip bones are wider than that. I (crudely) measured them once and the number I got was 20.5 inches across. Yes, you can call me hippy. But my skeleton is wider than the distance between the armrests.

        1. That just means you’re going to encroach on the seat(s) next to you. Whatever doesn’t fit in your seat goes into your neighbors’.

          I’m 6’4″ and around 240 (not considered obese). I have been on many flights where there wasn’t enough shoulder space for me and my neighbors. I usually get an aisle seat and, in those cases, have to lean towards the aisle the whole flight. Very uncomfortable and fatiguing.

          I try to fly the same airline whenever I fly so I can keep status and get exit row seats on every flight. Otherwise, I don’t fit and it’s torture. For the people commenting that they they’re tall and upgrade to 1st class all the time, I would love to do that, but 1st class is often 5X the cost of main cabin…

    2. It depends on the plane/airline. I’m not super broad-shouldered, but there have been times that I have had to turn my torso uncomfortably for most of the flight or stay leaned forward to avoid overlap with people beside me. I’m also not particularly tall (6’1″), but some airlines cram in the seats such that legroom is an issue. I now try to take short flights on turboprops (no center seat makes for less overlap) and pay for a small upgrade on other flights (Comfort+ or whatever an airline calls it). I also tend to avoid the budget airlines (I fly Alaska most of the time). I assume people broader and taller than I am have an even worse time.

      1. I’m 5’9 and it’s still awful to fly. Anything you can do to make your flight more comfortable, they charge an arm and a leg for. Also, I miss cloth seats because I don’t like getting swamp butt from sitting on that vinyl for hours on end.

    3. Are the only chairs you have dinning room chairs? Presumably without arms? The only times I’ve been in an airliner with seats wider than a typical upholstered living room arm chair were in business or first class. Even on international flights to/from the US, which tend to have bigger economy seats, the seats were not wider than a very cheap basic arm chair I have at home. The single time I got bumped up to first class on a US to UK flight was the only time I got a seat that rivals my Barcalounger.

      You also have to consider that when you sit in a chair at home, unless you are some kind of fetishist, you generally don’t have the chairs abutting one another on each side. If you ass hangs over a bit at home, no big whoop. Your ass oozes over into my seat on a plane and I’m using the in-flight magazine to smoosh it back over to you!

Leave a Reply