Why Airlines Want to Make You Suffer

Fortunately, I'm retired and time is less of a factor than a few years ago. I refuse to fly within the domestic U.S. these days, and prefer to drive. I have more legroom, effectively unlimited baggage storage, discretionary restroom choice, choice of seatmate, and few if any weather delays. I wonder how much revenue the airlines are losing from people who have just given up flying? I now avoid flying whenever possible.

I tend to disagree with the author's premise as outlined in the headline. IMO the airlines do not want you to suffer, it is just that they don't care and you don't matter. What matters is the return on stockholder equity. Passengers are just self-loading cargo.

I try to stick with SWA for domestic when possible (every other week), and then drive rest of the way if the destination is not serviced by them. They are consistent, seats sizes are the same, no fees for 2 bags, and the employees seem to like working there + those giant bags of peanuts! The other airlines are awful pretty much all the time, and the employees seem to hate their jobs, from gate agents on up the line.

To say that airlines have no incentive to board planes faster is one of the most uninformed statements I've ever heard! Every minute an plane is on the ground, it is losing money. Therefore airlines have huge incentives to board planes as quickly and efficiently as possible. The New Yorker clearly lacks a real understanding of the airline industry.

I don't mind the TSA hassle. What I can't (and won't) tolerate is the decreasing legroom. I am 6'4" tall with long legs. I can sit in a United 757 seat in steerage with my butt against the seatback and my knees touching the seatframe in front of me. I get bruised kneecaps from people in front of me trying to recline the seatback. I have given up flying domestically which hasn't cost the airlines much - perhaps 10 ticket prices a year.

I understand. Either the CEO's of these airlines always fly first class, or they are 5'0" midgets sitting in steerage. Best economy class seating I've seen in recent years was on an Emirates 777 and that wasn't all that great.

A point comes to mind regarding the increase in the number of seats and passengers - have they received FAA approval by performing airplane evacuation tests? As I believe, the airplane must meet certain requirements involving the amount of time it takes to empty in the event of an emergency evacuation based on the number of passengers versus the number of emergency exits. I doubt the number of emergency exits are increased in proportion to the number of additional seats on these cattle cars of the air.

If we don't get some new pilots in the pipeline, it will be a moot point because there won't be any flights.

I only fly Southwest from one of the three Washington area airports (DCA, IAD or BWI) because of friendly crews, the absence of outrageously high change fees and the ability to check two bags free. Recently, my wife and I flew from DCA to SFO on Southwest via ATL instead of nonstop on one of the legacy carriers. We had a wonderful experience aboard even though we could have saved 90-110 minutes flying nonstop. Don't complain about high fees, switch to Southwest.

I have to agree that Southwest is my airline of choice - WHEN I must fly. But SW is also crowding seats another inch or two to stuff another row in. Other than leg room, they are the best I've flown for domestic flights.

It's the sardine can seating that makes me dread going home on leave from overseas. It's almost to a point that I don't want to fly back.

This kind of journalism from the New Yorker is not surprising.