SWA cuts legroom....

Don't worry it's to "protect the environment."!

And my favorite: "Southwest says that these changes will actually make seats more comfortable"
 
you say its protecting the environment? Boy everyone is trying to put a green label on everything now a days to make them sound better.... its getting old
 
Maybe I glossed over if they're now using some kind of crazy soy-based ester for the seating surfaces, but leather from raising cows is not especially friendly for the air.

Also, still no club-style seating. :def:
 
They've got the slim seats on some of the Delta E170s. They're actually not terribly uncomfortable. What the sites above don't show is that while the legroom/pitch is reduced, the thinner seats actually throw off the numbers. Don't knock it till ya try it.
 
I'd love to see the math for the "weight savings". I cant fathom how adding room for 6 more passengers and their luggage still amounts to a weight savings. If they went with an average of 100 lbs per person that's 600 extra pounds, not including luggage and carry on. Which again conservatively would be 300 if only 50lbs per extra passenger. How do they still manage to save weight when they will be adding 900 lbs to each flight. What are the old seats made of concrete?
 
Matt13C said:
I'd love to see the math for the "weight savings". I cant fathom how adding room for 6 more passengers and their luggage still amounts to a weight savings. If they went with an average of 100 lbs per person that's 600 extra pounds, not including luggage and carry on. Which again conservatively would be 300 if only 50lbs per extra passenger. How do they still manage to save weight when they will be adding 900 lbs to each flight. What are the old seats made of concrete?
Click to expand...
Useless pounds per revenue pound. ;)

I've experienced slimline seats on Delta's 737-800 and -700, they're thoroughly alright. I don't remember what the pitch was, though. At 32", I have 1" of clearance with the seat in front of me with respect to my knees...so...yeah.
 
Matt13C said:
I'd love to see the math for the "weight savings". I cant fathom how adding room for 6 more passengers and their luggage still amounts to a weight savings. If they went with an average of 100 lbs per person that's 600 extra pounds, not including luggage and carry on. Which again conservatively would be 300 if only 50lbs per extra passenger. How do they still manage to save weight when they will be adding 900 lbs to each flight. What are the old seats made of concrete?
Click to expand...

If they reduce the weight of each seat by 10 lbs. x 137 seats, that's 1370-900 = 470 lbs. Given SWA's strategy of making a profit by saving pennies per flight, it makes sense.
 
WTH is "pleather"??? Very little leather and lots of ple?? That will make for some nice sweaty butts. Why don't they just start stacking in the pax like cord wood, reduce the number of flights and get it over with. Man, when they said thinner cushions, they weren't kidding.....especially the backs. I guess when the person in front of you reclines now, they will be on your thighs and not just on your knees. That's friendly. Ahhh for the days of 36". "We created more personal space for you. As a result we were able to put in six more seats into the aircraft”. Ummm..... yeah....okay. So if you are short, you will sit back further do to the thinner backs and your legs will dangle and if you are tall, no real dif as you were already cramped for leg room to begin with.

And seriously...unless the frames and plates of the seats are now thinner and made of cardboard, how does adding more pax and their luggage offset fuel costs? What am I missing? Must go long with Kelly stating the other day that "There are no plans for SWA to grow this year. Our network plans, in that respect, are conservative and are geared toward boosting our revenue performance," i.e. the seats.
 
SWA has to do something to offset the cost of the AirTran deadweight they're bringing onboard.....




:sarcasm: :)
 
I wish airlines would follow alligiants seats and move the crap pocket up to the back of the headrest and make room for my knees.
 
Folks, I don't know about you, but in my opinion SWA is doing exactly what they should be doing. They are being innovative and they are attempting to save money. If they get more seats on the plane that will mean more revenue per flight. The weight savings will save them some fuel. Also reducing the recline from 3 inches to 2 inches is not a bad idea. I wish every airline would do that. It seems to me that SWA had more legroom than some of the other airlines. Now they will have the same as the other airlines.

Maybe the seats will be more comfortable. Maybe they won't. I never understood why an airline seats that cost $2000+ each have to be so darn uncomfortable anyway.

Joe
 
Ahhh yes, the ole' rag on Southwest thread. Have any of you sat in the new seat? No? Okay, so hold judgement till you have then. And the whole green thing is important. Maybe because theres so much pressure from society to be 'green' for everything we do, instead of fighting the trend, they're rolling with the punches. Of all the peanut counters in the airline industry, Southwest has some of the best. They've kept us profitable for 40 years.

You know what's funny? We're adding 6 more seats, found a way to reduce fuel, and improve profits per flight and people have the nerve to complain about it. Is the bashing on a passenger side of things or on an airline pilot side of things? If it's the latter, if you want a potential future job flying airplanes for a living, it's quite ironic your bashing the very thing that will keep a profession alive.

I see the bashing of the seats, but do you all care so much about 1 inch less legroom to the fact that you'll turn a blind eye to EVERY airline charging for bags? Airlines charging for a can soda? Airlines charging to change your ticket + the fare difference? Airlines charging you to check in at the airport? Sorry, I forgot, Southwest is just soooooo evil and deceptive in their business model because they ANNOUNCED what they'll be doing instead of just changing the policy overnight under the radar. Right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top