The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering minimum seat sizes on U.S. airlines. Is this something we should celebrate or something we should be wary of?
Should FAA Mandate Minimum Seat Sizes On U.S. Airlines?
In 2018, Congress directed the FAA to study airline seat size and its impact on safety. To some extent, the FAA has done nothing…until now. But this month the agency is soliciting public comment on a possibility of introducing stricter minimums when it comes to minimum seat size.
“Congress directed the FAA to, after notice and comment, issue such rules for minimum dimensions for passenger seats that are necessary for passenger safety. The FAA seeks public comment on the minimum seat dimensions that are necessary for passenger safety.”
One key is determining whether airplanes can actually be evacuated in 90 seconds in case of emergency, per federal rules (and the reason why flight attendants always remind us they are primarily here for our safety).
The FAA is using a mock-up facility in Oklahoma City to test evacuation time in relation to seat sizes.
For some, like Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) the issue is one of safety:
“The seats have gotten smaller and smaller and smaller and it’s been pretty apparent to the naked eye and the traveling public that airplanes aren’t safe if there’s an emergency.”
For others, the issue is about comfort. Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights.org, told USA Today:
“Seats have continued to shrink by some airlines, and people are continuing to get larger. Our estimate is that only 20% of the population can reasonably fit in these seats now. It’s beyond a matter of comfort, or even emergency evacuation, there are serious health and safety issues when you’re put in cramped conditions for hours on end.”
So what should we make of this?
There’s a need to avoid cliches on both sides. The market is not the savior here if certain airlines are cutting safety corners to squeeze more seats in. Consumers should not be allowed to trade away a minimum baseline of safety, since the inability to evacuate impacts others in a life-death manner. Evacuation models have certainly changed as the American population becomes more obese, and that must be carefully studied.
At the same time, airfare is much cheaper today than it was 30 years ago when seats were well-padded, wider, and everyone had an extra five inches of legroom. Let’s not forget the innovation of cheap airline tickets.
My own opinion is that consumers do have choice right now and that there are options if they want more room, including extra-legroom economy, premium economy, and of course business or first class. The only reason I believe that minimum size regulations would be appropriate (which of course would totally disrupt the business plans of many carriers) would be if evacuation studies consistently show an inability to evacuate in a timely manner with seats wedged so closely together.
CONCLUSION
Following a Congressional directive, the FAA is soliciting public feedback on minimum seat sizes for U.S. airlines. Should airline seat size grow in the USA? My own answer is only if absolutely necessary.
Are you in favor of minimum airplane seat sizes?
image: Frontier Airlines
We have extra legroom economy (33-34”) in lots of domestic aircraft, 29” pitch on ulcc for those who really want to save money, and AA oasis for people who hate themselves. It’s awesome that we have choices and I don’t think the government needs to interfere.
People don’t understand that mandating 34″ pitch would just force everyone to buy economy plus. Somehow they think those inches would be free.
I am larger than the average American (though not to the point of needing to buy two seats or use a seatbelt extended). I still favor minimum seat size, including legroom, based on safety concerns rather than who can fit in it comfortably.
Safety standards should be dictated by the government.
Comfort standards should be dictated by capitalism.
weary =/= wary
Thanks Paul.
I don’t think people need to sit. If they are suspended with shoulder harnesses I think people can easily stand upright for at least a few hours. This can dramatically increase the number of people flights can carry. Also perhaps start drugging people like they do in deep space movies on the way to other planets. Maybe all seats are actually self contained escape pods. Jettison them in case of an accident.
Also why do the people and luggage have to fly on the same plane. There should be two planes flying the same flight, one for people and one for luggage allowing both to be packed most efficiently respectively as sardines. This is especially useful on very high yield flights.
Watch this become mainstream idea in a few years, as all ideas are stolen from boardingarea.
You should have stopped at “I don’t think”
The standing seat already has a patent. It’s similar to a bike seat and you mostly stand. It might be ok for shorter flights, like BOS-DCA or LAX-SFO. There could be a seat pitch of about 21″ so a 737 might be able to carry 275 passengers.
I think fully body harness could work. Letting people stand without actually having to put weight on their bodies for an extended period of time.
Don’t fall for this – it’s a trick! Anything the government mandates that’s supposedly for your benefit has a nasty side effect in the end that makes things 5 times worse. I can see this happening here. Like they set the minimum at 27″ and airlines then comply with the minimum. Or somehow Nancy Pelosi’s husband and Hunter Biden each get a dollar from the new $8 minimum seat pitch fee that is imposed on each flight.
The answer to the question “Should the government…?” should always be HELL NO.
“Or somehow Nancy Pelosi’s husband and Hunter Biden each get a dollar from the new $8 minimum seat pitch fee that is imposed on each flight.”
???
It was a joke, yet indicative of the crazy sorts of carve-outs and sneaky clauses that are slipped into these bills that congress designs. The “minimum seat pitch” rule will undoubtedly have other things in it that have nothing to do with the seats or the pitch. Or aviation. Or, perhaps only tangentially to aviation.
Getting the government involved in these things is a bigger, badder version of the bad decision to involve HR in whatever work issue you have. It always backfires horribly.
Hard pass! Let the market decide. If airlines have to reduce the number of seats they’ll just raise prices. I have no desire to subsidize the comfort of the typical obese American. Easiest way to increase seat size is to reduce the size of your a$$. Hit the gym and start eating right. Thank me later when you feel a million times better each day.
How will overweight and entitled american women fit?
Honestly we don’t need $39 flights. The ULCC model needs to die a quick death and bring back a tiny bit of dignity and enjoyment to the experience. The headline-grabbing flash sales just need to end already and let the Frontiers-Spirits-Allegiants of the world go by the wayside. We have busses and train infrastructure that needs development and improvement, which won’t happen as long as folks are flying from Orlando to Biloxi for less than they spent on their Chick-Filla and Funyons at the airport. Not to mention that nobody should have to endure a middle seat with the Chick-Filla and Funyon crowd in a 28″ pitch. Let us all pay more to dispense with all this.
Let them eat cake!
The tests for evacuating in 90 seconds are bunk anyway. They should use the average flight to Florida as their test case. 1/3 of the people in wheelchairs, 1/3 morbidly obese, and 1/3 of the passengers high on bath salts. If that plane can evacuate in 90 seconds then the seat pitch is safe
How about a maximum passenger size on US Airlins.
How about a minimum height requirement? If it takes you more than eight seconds to remove your bag from an overhead without asking for help, you’re banned. Put that in, then set the pitch to what’s comfortable for those remaining.
What is Rep. Cohen talking about? As long as I’ve been alive, all narrow body Boeing aircraft have been in a 3-3 configuration. The seats aren’t getting smaller. They just aren’t. Pitch may be smaller, but the seats aren’t.
Seats aren’t getting smaller? Bull – Google it
When it comes to dumping hazardous material in our lakes and streams, just let businesses do that. Then let the market decide. If people don’t want to grow three tails swimming in the stream they will choose to do so. If you cant escape from a 16″ wide seat with 26″ pitch, you let the market select you for death. That’s the price we pay for freedom. The market solves all. Well my market selection is do away with the Spirit Airlines type of “freedom.”
Well,of airfare prices will go up with fewer cramming in of seats.
This isn’t about comfort and whether to fork out extra money to get a seat with more space – this is about safety. Any truly representative group of Americans trying to exit a packed plane in 90 seconds is going to fail miserably. Overweight people, small children, disabled people, people with babies, people trying to grab their possessions, people who are simply confused or disoriented, people who are drunk or on drugs, etc. and more make this need for less packed airplanes manifest.