Todos
← Back to Squawk list
US House FAA Bill Would Set Minimum Airline Seat Size Requirements
A provision tucked into the US House’s FAA reauthorization bill would require the agency to regulate airline seat sizes. FAA said in early July there was no evidence that higher-capacity seat configurations would prevent passengers from evacuating in an emergency within the required minimum times. (www.atwonline.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I would think that Airlines may eventually install "bunks" from floor to ceiling. Perhaps 5 bunks high by 4 across with narrow walkways (shuffle sideways) between rows. It would be quite efficient, much like stacking cord wood. They could advertise "Nap Time Flights."
Some airlines have, on a very limited basis. At least one airline has provided this for customers, but many provide this to their pilot crews on 10+ hour long overseas flights.
The FAA needs to get off their butts and put them in the seats we consumers have to deal with. I think they'll see it's gotten way out of hand. We pay for a comfortable seat and are humans, not sardines to be packed tight in a tin can. We pay the FAA salaries so do your jobs and mandate decent seat widths/depths/recline for all US flights. Then we can stop this nonsense, otherwise you can tell the airlines we are going to promote high-speed trains, subways, busses and even aero-cars. We won't stand for this ill treatment any more.
1. FAA employees do routinely fly commercial, and since they are government workers their pay is no higher than the general public and they fly coach like everyone else.
2. The FAA has been authorized by Congress from the beginning to regulate safety. Until this new legislation, that was all that they could legally regulate. Comfort was not part of their Congressional authorization. To do what you suggest would have been illegal and would have been shut down by the judicial system in a moment for being so.
When you don't know what you are talking about it would be sensible not to take such a harsh tone with others trying to do their best with the authority they have been given.
2. The FAA has been authorized by Congress from the beginning to regulate safety. Until this new legislation, that was all that they could legally regulate. Comfort was not part of their Congressional authorization. To do what you suggest would have been illegal and would have been shut down by the judicial system in a moment for being so.
When you don't know what you are talking about it would be sensible not to take such a harsh tone with others trying to do their best with the authority they have been given.
Thanks for knowing so much about the FAA and the history lesson. Just because someone uses a harsh tone doesn't meant they don't know what they are talking about. As a consumer I know exactly what I'm talking about and it does partially have to do with safety, health of the consumer to be exact. You are welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. Could it be you are the one who doesn't understand and can't read. I said nothing about their pay being higher, I said we pay their salaries, completely different idea. Since we do they are suppose to look out for our interest. Packing more people on a plane with the same number of exits does present a safety issue but the FAA doesn't seem worried about that either. Seats so narrow that and lack of proper leg room presents a health safety hazard but the FAA doesn't address such things saying it's a comfort issue. The FAA is an important agency but like many others, they have become lax in some areas. I applaud your effort to stand up for them but advising others about what they say and what tone to use isn't keeping with our freedom of speech. It would be better if you just said I don't agree with you and let it go at that.
Hmmm. You feel so free to criticize people at the FAA and me, and then you tell me I am wrong to criticize you. Does that sound hypocritical to you? If you can't take it, don't dish it out.