An amendment to address shrinking legroom for airline passengers was defeated recently by members of Congress fueled by campaign dollars from the airline industry.
An amendment proposed by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., would have required the federal government to study the issue of shrinking legroom and allowed it to set a minimum dimension for commercial airline seats.
During the debate over the amendment in a House Transportation Committee hearing, members backed by the industry laughed the idea off.
“I see we have some different size seats here in the House,” joked Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill. “Mr. Chairman has a larger seat, do you think the House Administration Committee should study seat sizes here?”
Cohen was not amused. “We’re not in airplanes that are crashing and having 180 people trying to get off at one time to get to a ramp to save their life,” Cohen replied. “This is not about seats here, Mr. Davis. … This is not a funny issue.”
Cohen said the free market won’t solve the problem because of the lack of competition in most air travel markets. “The airlines have been deregulated. They’re down to four major carriers and they do what they want to do, because they can. If you don’t live in one of the major cities in this country … you have to take what flight’s available on maybe one airline. … They talk about market conditions? There are no longer market conditions, this is a controlled industry.”
Davis dismissed Cohen’s concerns. “I think we got to the root of what this issue is. It’s your issue with the airline industry as a whole rather than this specific study,” he said. “I don’t think we should be able to require the FAA to spend taxpayer dollars on what I would consider a redundant study.”
The industry has been a good friend to Davis, forming his fifth-largest group of campaign supporters. That includes backing from airlines such as American, Continental, Delta, Jetblue, and Southwest. Altogether, air transportation PACs have given $40,000 to Davis.
The chairman of the committee, Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., urged his members to vote against the amendment, and every member of his party did, except Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. Air transport PACs are Shuster’s largest source of campaign funding, with backing from major airlines such as American, Alaskan, Continental, Delta, Hawaiian, Jetblue, and Southwest. Air transportation PACs have given $92,000 to Shuster this cycle.
Shrinking legroom is a major concern of airline passengers, and for good reason. In the 1970s, average legroom — measured as “seat pitch”— was around 35 inches; todays it is closer to 31 inches. The average width of an airline seat shrank from 18 inches to around 16.5 inches in the same timeframe.
Grassroots passengers’ rights organizations have long pushed for a reversal of this trend, arguing that it harms travelers. “Reducing the seat space even more would only expand the issue and cause greater health, safety, and comfort concerns,” said Paul Hudson, the president of FlyersRights, to Fortune Magazine.
Cohen said he plans to move the legislation as a stand-alone bill in the future.
Profit over people.Vote them all out.
This is easy, any new planes made for American use will be designed on the basis of CAFOs…
I feel like you’ve missed the story here. There are two directions I’d have preferred to see you go in:
* Competition: You talk about four air carriers, say you might not have a choice beyond one, then you list five major carriers, then seven who are against the bill. Can you get to the data here? How competitive is the air market? More to the point — I remember that in better times, it seemed like just about anybody could rent some planes and some terminals and call themselves an airline. How was the competitive market destroyed?
* Civil rights: fat passengers, tall passengers should have rights to be fairly treated – but don’t. Can you round up some anecdotes about this, and make a case that publicly owned airport facilities should not do business with discriminatory air carriers?
Really, it this article representative of The Intercept? Assemble a super staff of great reporters and have a fat budget then proceed to ignore huge economic issues, the possible disintegration of the EU, the stripping of Greek sovereignty and the US escalation of provocative acts in the South China Sea?
I mean really – leg room???
Think you’re missing the bigger issue here. This is less about leg room per se, and more about an industry buying legislation it likes from a Congress that is up for sale to the highest bidder. That issue is indeed worthy of the Intercept’s scrutiny.
In any other country only low level politicians and bureaucrats get paid 40k. At the top the price is usually millions. Sad to see some of the highest level representatives sell out so cheap.
Just about every government on the planet is bought & paid for by ‘special interests’. To change that, you’ll either need a bloody revolution (Paris July 1789 anyone?) or maybe a completely new religion with massive popular support.
But back to seats; aircraft types are certificated by the FAA in the USA and have a maximum number of seats based on evacuating the cabin in 90 seconds using only half the exits. If anyone tries to dilute that standard, THEN will be the time to scream blue murder about profits before safety.
Its funny…I live in America where a great product sells its self…..Damn socialist….now you want the “right to fly comfortable”.
Fly Alaska if you can. This issue is no joke if you’re tall, I’m 6-2 and it was a tight fit. I wonder if it effects emergency evacuation time? I know there’s standards for that or maybe not….
Gee, it’s a pity the U.S. doesn’t have a clean, comfortable, efficient and affordable high-speed railway system like Japan, S. Korea, Germany, Spain, France, et al.
I recently took a flight for the first time in many years. I was astonished at the degradation of the entire experience. I had to pay for my luggage. There were only a couple of attendants to help with checkin. Security was just a nightmare. The price for any kind of food or drink was outrageous.
When I boarded the plane, it brought to mind one of those pictures of slave ships, with bodies squeezed next to each other like sardines in a can. To access wifi you must pay for it. Thank goodness I had my own movies loaded and my kindle. Still, I took a tiny bit of sleeping bill to escape the torture of a 3 hour flight crammed onto a seat that felt like a stool.
Upon return, I checked in online and kept being asked if I wanted a better seat for $50, $25….
I recall the days I’d travel for business regularly and it was heaven compared to the hell I went through last month. Even first class looked unappetizing.
You are wasting your time about airplane legroom when there is a very interesting story about the Uber driver in Kalamazoo not being called a “terrorist” simply because of his color and faith. Or perhaps Murtaza Hussain has beaten you to that story?
Not calling it terrorism clearly means that terrorism is violence that is carried out for political reasons.
Trying to achieve a political objective is part of the popular definition of terrorism.
Which means that those Muslims who carry out terrorism, their primary motive is political and not religious. They use religion to make them seem their evil acts noble, and to define us vs them, but religion is not their primary motive or objective — political goals are.
Politics and Religion are both instruments to mobilize people and induce them to give up “their” lives for “your” cause, assuming you are their leader. There was a very interesting CIA Assassination Manual (click here) that sheds light on the things that motivates the assassin (you may find other links too to this manual if you search around).
In the Manual you will find the following:
“Politics, religion, and revenge are about the only feasible motives.
So, “politics” is not the goal.
Think a little bit more and you will identify the goal – it’s fairly easy. You are a wise Sufi man, and you will be able to identify it right away and share it with us.
I was talking about what is termed as terrorism these days. Islam is generally presented as the primary motive for it. I’m arguing that by definition terrorism is carried out for political objectives.
If a political motive was not part of the definition, this current mass murder would’ve been called terrorism, but it’s not, even though the suspect clearly terrorized people.
Well, in the end it’s all money and power.
The word “terrorist” is given to such opponents as would you feel good about killing them for one of the three motives outlined in the CIA Assassination Manual. In that sense it would be wrong to term the Kalamazoo Killer as terrorist as he is at best a psychopathic Uber company’s official driver.
That reminds me – Uber should be banned everywhere. Otherwise, next we will get all sorts of app services being offered by the Syrian refugees who have spread to all parts of the globe. Uber Toilet Cleaners, Uber Gardeners, Uber Pilots … (the last is definitely dangerous).
Anyone who even implies that this is not an issue for congressional action should be required to take a remedial class in federal bailouts. With special attention to the several major federal bailouts of the airlines, and I include Reagan’s strikebreaking as one of those bailouts.
Is there any problem small enough that the author thinks Congress should not get involved? Good grief! Don’t like the legroom in coach? Upgrade your ticket.
As it is Congress that has allowed the great consolidation of airlines to almost the point of there being a monopoly, it is indeed part of their responsibility to ensure that some minimum standards of service are maintained.
As for buying an upgrade, I guess you must either be rich or not a flier. Business class tickets usually cost 4 to 5 times as much as economy seats. Do the math, and you will see that makes them out of reach for most of us.
it was at one point congresses job to regulate things like out of control business taking advantage of people. This is a small very specific situation, but rest assured, “as above so below” nothing happens in a vacuum. This is how everything is being done. This is the system and has been.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
First national bank v. Belloti (1978)
We have the best Congress money can buy
Easy solution, just have everybody ride the airplanes without any seats. If you have the money, you can pay for a stool to rest on. Think of how many passengers you can stuff into a VW, compare that to the roomieness of a jumbo jet.
(not at all serious)
If our legislators had to ride coach – they would soon change their tune. However, since tax-payers pay for business or first class for them – what do they care.
By highlighting a seemingly “minor” issue, we’re able to see the inner workings of an ineffectual government. The inability to get this issue addressed is why the people of this country are fed up, and why major change needs to happen. Some people seem to believe that lobbying interests serve those of the greater population. That to me is unfathomable. Do the airlines that kick in money to these candidates all live in the districts of these reps? I doubt it, which is why these politicians need to do their job and serve the people, not the corporations. I believe this reporting is helpful, and commend the author.
I think the entire national government of the US is hopelessly corrupt, and the only hope left is dramatic change.
The problem solving capabilities of Congress are legendary, so it’s too bad they weren’t allowed to tackle this difficult issue. It would have been interesting to see if they passed a law making planes bigger, people smaller or mandating that everyone fly by private jet. It is strange that lobbyists, who work so closely with legislators, have such little faith in their ability.
Mr. Jilani
“……..An amendment to address shrinking legroom for airline passengers was defeated recently by members of Congress fueled by campaign dollars from the airline industry……”
With all of the important issues facing mankind, this article is ridiculous. Lobbying along with campaign donations is free speech. Lobbyist represent the interests of industries (and people) like unions, agriculture, airlines, Wall Street, mining, environmental regulation, converting US Forest Service land to Wilderness, teachers and so on who pool their interests so they can have a voice in Congress. There is no better way for “the people” to influence the actions of Congress which might otherwise pass legislation contrary to their (our) interests.
The journalists at the Intercept give unqualified support for free speech – until they don’t. It’s free speech when a fatwa is issued to murder someone; it’s bribery when you lobby Congress. So what if the airlines give $40,000 to a candidate that will support them in Congress. Don’t fly if the leg room is not enough. You will be doing your part to stop global warming. Isn’t saving the planet more important?
‘Lobbying along with campaign donations is free speech’
I think most people would think that ‘bribery’ is a far more appropriate term.
Technically, bribery is not ‘free’ speech.
However, it’s a simple fact of life that you can often get further with a convincing argument and a bag of cash, than you can with a convincing argument alone.
That’s a really ignorant comment. The money spent on lobbying and legalized bribery, aka campaign contributions, by large corporations dwarfs that spent even by unions, the second largest spender.
That said, I agree that this article is ridiculous because it’s such a minor issue it doesn’t warrant an article. But the reason is that the important issue here is how environmentally harmful flying is, not how uncomfortable it is for people participating in its environmental harms.
Hi Craig,
The looming crisis of corporate dollars affecting legislative outcomes is central to the very concepts of individual sovereignty and self determination. You are clearly an intelligent man… how is it then that you choose not to recognize that fact when responding to the symbolic example of such legislation as it relates to “shrinking leg room for airline passengers?”
Hi Karl
Why shouldn’t a corporation be able to lobby Congress in the interests of the share holders and the thousands of people that work directly or indirectly for the corporation? If a mining company has a project in an area that one candidate favors designating a wilderness area (thus killing the project), why shouldn’t that corporation be able to lobby and financially support the candidate that does favor the project because it will bring jobs to his district? It literally makes no sense to me if they can’t.
Thanks.
So… it is alright with you then if corporations unite in a way that systematically:
1. undermines competition in various sectors of the economy?
2. undermines the right of workers to collectively bargain?
3. rigs the system in a way whereby a steady stream of corporate welfare assures that all failed ventures are underwritten by the taxpayer while all profits are enjoyed by wealthy shareholders and corporate executives?
4. undermines the ability of the consumers to seek legal redress for corporate malfeasance?
to name just a few…
Karl
I never mentioned anything about No. 1-4 in your reply. Those are different questions which require different answers – none of which undermines the basic point I made.
1. Of course it is in the best interest of a corporation to undermine the competition because that increases margins and profit. You cannot blame a corporation for taking advantage of the laws and/or tax breaks anymore that you can blame regular citizens for taking advantage of the loop holes they find in the tax system (and there have been plenty).
2. You will have to give me an example of that. I support private unions collective bargaining and getting whatever they can bargain for; however, public workers are a different story. I think it is fairly well known that public unions give almost exclusively to the democratic party who – in turn – return the favor by providing huge pensions at the public expense (state or urban jurisdictions). This almost led to state bankruptcy in several states – most (or all) of which are blue states. Many of the people who financially support public union pensions through taxes are people without any pensions.
3. I don’t support the idea that companies are too big too fail. For example, the American car companies (and their unions) clearly knew that they would not be allowed to dissolve. The large banks were also good examples. I am opposed to companies taking advantage of their size (too big to fail) to take unnecessary risk – and then expecting a bailout. Let them fail.
4. I’m deferring on this one because it is a complex question which requires some expertise in corporate and/or criminal law. I support criminal prosecution for criminal intent. However, poor management is not criminal in my opinion (but NO bailout).
I’m constantly amazed at the anti-corporate mentality on sites like the Intercept.
Thanks. Those are all really good and controversial questions.
Last things first… I do not have an “anti-corporate mentality.” You asked the rhetorical question, “Why shouldn’t a corporation be able to lobby Congress in the interests of the share holders and the thousands of people that work directly or indirectly for the corporation?” And in return I responded with a short list of known outcomes affected by congress on behalf of corporate interests.
1. You argue that it is in the best interest of corporations to manipulate the political process in a way that undermines their competition. Are you aware that coercive monopolies are unlawful in this country (US) because they undermine free markets and, by extension, the public good?
2. “There are more than 50,000 cities, counties and communities in the United States, and five of them have filed for bankruptcy protection.” http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-07-30/public-employee-union-bankruptcy/56578478/1 – Blaming public unions for those five failures is pure nonsense.
3. I am glad that there are limits to your argument that corporate political donors should be allowed to manipulate the system to such outcomes. Are you aware that when banking deregulation was taking place, financial industry lobbyists were making “free market” arguments akin to your own (see # 1)?
4. I agree, this was a very broad question. However, this is what I had in mind when I asked this question: https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/11/18/congress-introduces-legislation-to-ensure-corporate-criminals-remain-above-the-law/
5. One more thing that everyone should consider in regard to the corporate climate in America and abroad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no8zxGPyapU
Craig,
I fully support the idea of you setting up a website called ‘The Un-Intercept’.
I promise to post comments on it so long as you don’t require commenters to post through their Facebook accounts as I’m not on it.
Thanks,
Sufi
“…….I fully support the idea of you setting up a website called ‘The Un-Intercept’…..”
Your idea is actually a very good one (and I have never posted on, or had a Facebook account). There certainly would be plenty of material. I could call it: “The rest of the story……”.
Thanks Sufi.
So then you’re assuming that every airline passenger is using the one and the only airline available for their flight just for shits and giggles, but never for necessary business reasons or funerals or other common reasons that people in a society need to use flights for? And you’re assuming that buses, cars, trains and other available transportation options have no effect on your cynical “global warning?”
As usual, you’re just being an asshole rather than arguing in good faith.
The reason is why Trump and Sanders are doing so well,
the people should come first not the Airlines.