You can carry cash onto the airline and if the person in front of you reclines you can offer them cash to not recline. Or auction the cash to swap seats with someone who has someone in front of them who will accept cash to not recline.
It works at scale about as well as people slamming back when they recline. It’s not a bad idea, and I’d endorse recommending it. But it isn’t as reliable as paying for a better seat.
The person in front of me slammed her seat back in a recent flight and it made me yelp in pain. I’m tall and my knees were nearly pressed against the seat before she pounced. I started bouncing my knees to try to get comfortable. The person’s kid turned and said “you’re shaking my mom’s seat.” “Yes. It’s mashing my legs.” “Could you stop?” “No. Tell her to straighten up.” “Oh.” She did, and I stopped.
I do get that she just wanted to relax a little. She wasn’t trying to be mean. But wow, how the awful design of that plane made her reasonable desire to rest in her seat physically painful for me.
I don't recline my seat, partly out of respect for the person behind, but mostly out of not wanting to have to deal with someone with your kind of attitude.
It's not the person in front of you's fault that the little bit of comfort the feature built into the seat she bought offers her is inconvenient to you.
I think that’s pretty much what I said, right? She wasn’t a demon. It’s not her fault the seating was arranged so horribly. I wasn’t angry with her. And yet, the distance from the back of my seat to the reclining back of hers was shorter than the length of my legs, from rump to knee. It was physically impossible for me to put my legs together and I was physically in pain. I was annoyed with the airline, not the woman who just wanted to get a little more comfortable.
Your discomfort is not, in any way, her problem. Suck it up, dude. I’m sorry you are too tall for your budget.
I need to recline or else I have terrible back pain.
However, if someone asks me nicely I will switch seats with them or otherwise try to consider their happiness. So, ask nicely. Don’t thrash like a trapped chicken and hope to annoy people into submission.
By the end of the year, my wife and I will have flown over a dozen times - mostly domestic and short flights. I never pay for the cheapest seats nor do I fly budget airlines.
Congratulations on your wealthy status. You do understand that not everyone can do that, as evidenced by the fact that airplanes have a very small number of extra-comfort seats compared to basic economy seating?
Not wealthy at all. We downsized from a big house in the burbs to a condo 1/3 the size in state tax free Florida, we have one relatively cheap car that was 2/3rd the median price of a new car in the US, and we churn credit cards for points and use a few other tricks.
> Focusing on this instead of the point (how would you feel if X happened to you instead)
I’m 6’. My partner is 6’ 7”. I’d prefer to not have to pay extra for more legroom. I’d also prefer to not pay for anything else in my life.
Conflating safety and comfort in the context of an airline is incredibly disingenuous. I’m as safe as I’m miserable flying middle seat economy. I’m also in that position because I preferred to spend my dollars on something else.
I’m 6’0”, just run of the mill tall, not basketball player stratospheric. The notion that someone within 1 standard deviation of the mean should pay extra not to be in pain is ridiculous.
Flying is a privilege unless it’s an emergency. I pay for all sorts of conveniences when I fly. I alsopp think parents of small children shouldn’t be able to buy seats where they can’t choose their seats forcing others who did pay for the right to choose their seat to have to move.
Thank you! I was on a business trip. I could have paid an extra $500 out of pocket over the tickets the company paid for. I wasn’t asking to be super comfortable in the cheap seats. I just wanted to get from A to B without being hurt.
there is such a thing as reasonable accommodation for reasonable body types. That being said, the enemy here is airlines, not other passengers. The thing that makes me angry is how well airlines have turned this discussion from 'we just destroyed your comfort and provide horrible service' to 'it is the other passengers that are terrible people and you should get angry at them'
'reasonable' is the keyword here. I do not expect an airline to provide medical care on a flight but I do expect some level of accommodation for people with medical issues. We have crosswalks that acknowledge the blind but streets that are still far from perfectly accommodating for them. There is no 'perfect' but there is reasonable accommodation and there is a discussion what 'reasonable' is and what a 'reasonable' accommodation for extreme bodies are. I personally don't find it objectionable to require two seats to be purchased for someone that is that far away from average, but there is a discussion to be had for sure. For instance, how common is it? If it is pretty uncommon then just providing two seats, without extra cost, is probably the easiest thing for all parties involved since special cases are expensive. But now we are, again, playing the airline's games. 'blame the outlier', 'blame a passenger', 'blame security theater'. In the end they want us to blame everyone but them for the terrible service they provide. I have been stranded twice out of the last 5 times I flew because they didn't make their schedule. One of those times I had to sleep on the airport floor and had no compensation or even an 'I'm sorry' from the airline. Their bad, unprofessional and unacceptable level of service needs to end and the core of the problem is the airlines. Not the passengers.
Southwest has (had?) a policy that if you required two seats, you had to purchase them. But if the flight wasn’t full, they would be refunded one. But the only reason they could do that is because they didn’t have any reserve seating until recently
Basically the economies of scale and different route topography (hub & spoke vs. distributed) that powered low cost airlines in the past doesn't work anymore. It doesn't account for the basic fact that the bigger airlines have more cashflow and can outspend the smaller ones where the low-cost passengers don't have any brand loyalty.
Now it's a race to the bottom because the only way these kinds of airlines can survive is more cost cutting and a few more dollars of revenue per passenger.
One interesting aspect that is touched upon in the video is also that airports are basically municipally-run real estate monopolies for the airlines. The big carriers capture airports in the 6 biggest national markets (or geographic centers) and use the monopoly to punish the other carriers. In most places it's near impossible to expand or diversify airport capacity- it takes many decades.
Also the major airlines - especially Delta are subsidized by credit card spend. Not only their cobranded cards. But when points credit card users trade points in for airline miles.
Then the major airlines have a lot of business travelers where they are using other people’s money.
don't get the hate, cheap tix to Vegas were great, now it's less competition, if their plane config was not to your liking you can pay whatever you want for any other airline, don't get the schadenfreude.
I don't hate low cost carriers. I absolutely want competition.
I was flying Spirit quite frequently. I'm well prepped. I have a backpack that is the maximum size allowed as a personal item, I carry an empty water bottle and a meal from home. They have an option where you can bid on exit row and big seats in advance. I'd bid the lowest amount ($4-10) and almost always win the upgrade.
Not everyone is aware of this though. I dislike businesses that prey on customers' lack of knowledge to bombard them with fees.
The guy next to me on a flight last year got hit with a $80 fee at the gate because his bag was an inch or so too big. It was his first time flying Spirit. It was cheaper for him to discard that bag and purchase a smaller bag for the flight back.
How much more nickel and diming is there left to be done? Standing seats? [1]
Very anecdotal evidence, but I was on a trip last week and Spirit was more expensive than American which is what I chose. I'm not loyal to any airline.
No one was at the gate hounding at people for bag sizes. I had Wi-Fi on the plane and got a drink and a small snack. My knees also appreciated the slightly longer legroom.
This sounds like nightmare fuel compared to just getting a $100 - $150 annual fee credit card for your preferred airline for free checked bag and just buying your seat.
I am mostly loyal to Delta and by the end of the year, my wife and I will have flown over a dozen times on our dime - many of those shorter flights. I like free checked bags, priority check in, etc
Selling discomfort is the business model. Make it so terrible of an experience that people are forced to pay more. Too bad North America (Yes, I AM lumping a bunch of countries together here) doesn't understand the value of trains and doesn't invest in them.
> Make it so terrible of an experience that people are forced to pay more
This is ahistoric. Flying started out comfortable and expensive. (Though I’d argue a first-class seat in an unpressurized cabin flying through the weather was less comfortable than a modern economy seat flying over it.)
Airlines fought to find ways to make tickets cheaper because a vast majority of flyers choose the cheapest ticket on checkout. (There are legitimate issues with add-on fee transparency. But even after accounting for that, most travelers
—until super recently—chose the cheapest ticket.)
> doesn't understand the value of trains
I’m not seeing that many WestJet routes across which a train would make sense? It certainly wouldn’t be cheaper.
>According to a press release from the airline, economy seats on the retrofitted planes will have "back support with a fixed recline design," which in simpler terms means the seat will not have the ability to recline.
>The Premium section at the front of these planes will have "ergonomically contoured seat cushions, reclining seat backs and a large headrest with four-way adjustment capability."
I assume the version without recline feature and back support is lighter and takes up less space. If they can shave off an inch from the backrest they can fit in another row, and if they can shave off a pound by removing all adjustability that's 180 pound less per plane, saving fuel.
Also makes people more likely to upgrade. Basically all the same reasons why economy doesn't get business class seats
I doubt there is a notion in the world of what seats anyone deserves. Poor people maybe should be helped live but ergonomic seats etc. are not life threatening and so if anyone poor or rich wants to avoid paying for them then they should have the option.
In fact, I would go so far as to say there are no people in the world who earn an airplane ticket through deserving it. It's an entirely pay to play luxury.
I'm sure there are some lawyers already doing research for the class action lawsuit that's going to result from increased cases of deep vein thrombosis this will cause.
During Corona time all the airlines in Europe pleaded not to cash in the vouchers, but instead re-use them. I did that for many. But then Corona was over and there was no reciprocity. The amount of time they have fffd me over and not even have the decency to have a non-automated response is mindboggling
This is notable because Westjet is not an ultra low-cost airline. It's one of Canada's two major carriers.
For daytime flights within North America, I have to say I haven't reclined my seat in years. The person in front of me doesn't recline half the time, either. It just seems like there isn't the space for it, and it barely makes a difference in comfort, anyway. It's not like reclining increases legroom. So, I can see where Westjet is coming from.
(I think I might change my tune if I was on flight long enough to sleep/nap on.)
I’m stuck flying with Westjet for many routes because I’m Calgary-based and the inconvenience of non-direct flights is almost always greater than the inconvenience of poor seating/service/whatever - but Porter Airlines is expanding and is my first choice if I can fly direct with them.
(Or Air North - very limited service, but my favourite North American airline. Great service, they’ll pre-prep meals for you if you have dietary restrictions, their economy snack is a lovely warmed-up cookie, and they serve local beer and coffee from the Yukon.)
I am wondering if I am in the minority here but I always pick non-direct flights and not just because they are cheaper. I have a hard time spending 7-8 hours straight cramped up in a seat. I'd rather split that into two 4-4 flights.
I think you probably are, you've turned the flight into 4-4 flights plus layover, which you need to overbudget in case of delays on flight #1, and you risk flight #2 getting cancelled while you're in the air, not to mention doubling the chance of lost luggage.
I wonder if this has to do with American Airports. I've been flying for over a decade and quite extensively for the last 4 years. I've only lost a baggage in the US (newark) and I've only taken a dozen flights or so on the continental US. Most US airports are also quite unfriendly for layovers.
So, yeah, I recently learned about Westjet while visiting Ireland, and my first thought was "ah, OK, so Canada's RyanAir, eh?"
And they seem to be following the very same media playbook: make outrageous statements about some kind of insane fees they're going to introduce (like the famous RyanAir toilet-use add-on) to emphasize how cheap they are.
Anyway, the ever-ongoing enshittification in the air-travel space is entirely to blame on the consumers -- the people could stop this nonsense at any time, but apparently they're fine with it, so...
The important difference from Ryanair is that the average WestJet fare is more than 3x the average Ryanair fare. Consumers are willing to tolerate a lot of bad service in exchange for a good price. Canadian airlines specialize in bad service for bad prices.
> Anyway, the ever-ongoing enshittification in the air-travel space is entirely to blame on the consumers -- the people could stop this nonsense at any time, but apparently they're fine with it, so...
How? I suppose the answer is to stop flying, I basically don't fly already, so that'd be fine with me but, if you are a flyer, in Canada we have Air Canada and Westjet if you're flying domestic. I suppose we could stop buying economy seats, but "premium" doubles the price.
I wish premium were only double the price, I’d exclusively fly premium if that were the case. e.g. checking a random round-trip nonstop YYC<->YHZ flight in a couple months, it’s $687 for economy and $2391 for premium economy.
Oh, wow, I didn't know it was that bad, I just looked at YEG -> YYC, again, not much of a flyer, but yeah, your choices are paying truly exorbitant prices or putting up with whatever abuse they want to heap on you. It's not like $687 is in any way cheap.
Sure. Yet what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society. When you slice and dice every market segment such that everyone gets a product with just barely positive ROI, you spread cynicism, misery, and a zero-sum mindset and you actually reduce overall productivity.
Yeah, okay, if you require as policy that seats decline and people have a certain amount of legroom, prices might rise a bit, and on the margin, people would take fewer trips and thereby GDP would tick lower or something.
So what? Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips by some infinitesimal percentage of it reduces the overall misery of society.
The crappy thing about enshittification is we're all part of the same system and participate in the same economy. Hyperoptimization for cost is spiritually shitting where you eat.
> what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society
It’s called friction and it’s amply modelled in economics. (Luxury is in many cases exemption from transactional friction.)
> Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips taken by some infinitesimal percentage
In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying.
> In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying.
True. Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? We have minimum wages and we don't let people sell cars made of cardboard, even to those otherwise unable to buy transportation.
I'm not sure economists have properly modeled the mass psychic effects of enshittification or, more generally, model the morale and spirit of the people as a proper factor of production.
> Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold?
I think the reasonable delineation is that we do for safety and we don’t for comfort.
Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat.
> not sure economists have properly modeled
Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
> Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat.
My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why.
It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior.
Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that?
Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt?
Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors.
You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear.
> Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
> the optimal amount of economic paternalism is not zero
Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation.
It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf.
> Where's the economics model that captures that?
Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer?
> You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones
Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
> Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
Which frictions capture the concepts I'm describing? I'm not talking about transaction costs. I'm not talking about search frictions. I'm not talking about information frictions. I'm talking, ultimately, about how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor of production and fail to account for it when optimizing for consumer surplus. When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum, the consequent mass cynicism itself imposes severe transaction and opportunity costs on society. Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures! And don't bullshit me about economists taking this effect into account. Who models social capital depreciation? Give me names.
You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so.
> how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor
Again, did you even bother to look?
> When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum
Not how every economic interaction is modelled in even toy models.
> Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures
…yes.
> You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so
I can’t tell if this comment thread is just a desire to rant.
To third parties, yes, this is all modelled. Not perfectly. But not due to lack of effort. There are lots of things thrown out above, so I’m not going to chase down citations for someone who is unlikely to read them, given many should be findable within minutes of googling.
I'd pay extra to keep the person in front of me from being able to recline.
You can carry cash onto the airline and if the person in front of you reclines you can offer them cash to not recline. Or auction the cash to swap seats with someone who has someone in front of them who will accept cash to not recline.
The solution to being picky about other people reclining is to pay for a better seat. (Front cabin or exit row.)
he just gave you another solution which might also work for a lower price.
> he just gave you another solution
It works at scale about as well as people slamming back when they recline. It’s not a bad idea, and I’d endorse recommending it. But it isn’t as reliable as paying for a better seat.
what do you do when the person in front of you takes the deal and reclines anyway? Sue to get your money back?
Just tell them you’ll pay half now and half after landing.
Pay by the hour.
Or dump your apple juice on their head and claim accident.
No longer patronize her seat unreclining business.
No tip
The person in front of me slammed her seat back in a recent flight and it made me yelp in pain. I’m tall and my knees were nearly pressed against the seat before she pounced. I started bouncing my knees to try to get comfortable. The person’s kid turned and said “you’re shaking my mom’s seat.” “Yes. It’s mashing my legs.” “Could you stop?” “No. Tell her to straighten up.” “Oh.” She did, and I stopped.
I do get that she just wanted to relax a little. She wasn’t trying to be mean. But wow, how the awful design of that plane made her reasonable desire to rest in her seat physically painful for me.
> I started bouncing my knees to try to get comfortable
This is as obnoxious as slamming the seat backwards.
I apologize for not writhing in pain according to standard.
I don't recline my seat, partly out of respect for the person behind, but mostly out of not wanting to have to deal with someone with your kind of attitude.
It's not the person in front of you's fault that the little bit of comfort the feature built into the seat she bought offers her is inconvenient to you.
I think that’s pretty much what I said, right? She wasn’t a demon. It’s not her fault the seating was arranged so horribly. I wasn’t angry with her. And yet, the distance from the back of my seat to the reclining back of hers was shorter than the length of my legs, from rump to knee. It was physically impossible for me to put my legs together and I was physically in pain. I was annoyed with the airline, not the woman who just wanted to get a little more comfortable.
It's exactly what you said. You're not crazy :)
You're right, my bad.
Your discomfort is not, in any way, her problem. Suck it up, dude. I’m sorry you are too tall for your budget.
I need to recline or else I have terrible back pain.
However, if someone asks me nicely I will switch seats with them or otherwise try to consider their happiness. So, ask nicely. Don’t thrash like a trapped chicken and hope to annoy people into submission.
> Your discomfort is not, in any way, her problem
Eh, there is a polite and impolite way to recline a seat. It’s fair to complain about incourteous fellow travellers.
> Your discomfort is not, in any way, her problem. Suck it up, dude. I’m sorry you are too tall for your budget.
This is the reason the majority of people have to suffer rules created for the lowest common denominator. Jesus Christ.
I am five four as is my wife. I can’t imagine being tall and not paying for seats with more legroom.
How would you feel being charged extra for a seat that permits short people to be safely transported?
By the end of the year, my wife and I will have flown over a dozen times - mostly domestic and short flights. I never pay for the cheapest seats nor do I fly budget airlines.
Congratulations on your wealthy status. You do understand that not everyone can do that, as evidenced by the fact that airplanes have a very small number of extra-comfort seats compared to basic economy seating?
Not wealthy at all. We downsized from a big house in the burbs to a condo 1/3 the size in state tax free Florida, we have one relatively cheap car that was 2/3rd the median price of a new car in the US, and we churn credit cards for points and use a few other tricks.
> safely transported?
We’re talking about comfort, not safety. (I am struggling to find any reported injuries from reclining accidents.)
Focusing on this instead of the point (how would you feel if X happened to you instead) feels very corporate America.
We're talking about safety, not comfort! They can survive on low oxygen under the plane so put some seats down there!
> Focusing on this instead of the point (how would you feel if X happened to you instead)
I’m 6’. My partner is 6’ 7”. I’d prefer to not have to pay extra for more legroom. I’d also prefer to not pay for anything else in my life.
Conflating safety and comfort in the context of an airline is incredibly disingenuous. I’m as safe as I’m miserable flying middle seat economy. I’m also in that position because I preferred to spend my dollars on something else.
Comfort crosses over into safety when it changes the odds of DVTs in the legs etc.
> Comfort crosses over into safety when it changes the odds of DVTs
Do we have any evidence this varies based on reclining and leg room relative to height?
If so, you absolutely have a point, possibly legally under the ADA.
I’m 6’0”, just run of the mill tall, not basketball player stratospheric. The notion that someone within 1 standard deviation of the mean should pay extra not to be in pain is ridiculous.
You can't imagine that being tall doesn't automatically make people wealthy?
On the last flight I took, an Economy+ seat with more legroom, was over 250% more expensive. It came with no additional perks, just legroom.
Flying is a privilege unless it’s an emergency. I pay for all sorts of conveniences when I fly. I alsopp think parents of small children shouldn’t be able to buy seats where they can’t choose their seats forcing others who did pay for the right to choose their seat to have to move.
Thank you! I was on a business trip. I could have paid an extra $500 out of pocket over the tickets the company paid for. I wasn’t asking to be super comfortable in the cheap seats. I just wanted to get from A to B without being hurt.
there is such a thing as reasonable accommodation for reasonable body types. That being said, the enemy here is airlines, not other passengers. The thing that makes me angry is how well airlines have turned this discussion from 'we just destroyed your comfort and provide horrible service' to 'it is the other passengers that are terrible people and you should get angry at them'
Should they also rearrange seats so 600 pound people can fly or just keep making them pay for two seats? No the 600 pounds is not hyperbole
'reasonable' is the keyword here. I do not expect an airline to provide medical care on a flight but I do expect some level of accommodation for people with medical issues. We have crosswalks that acknowledge the blind but streets that are still far from perfectly accommodating for them. There is no 'perfect' but there is reasonable accommodation and there is a discussion what 'reasonable' is and what a 'reasonable' accommodation for extreme bodies are. I personally don't find it objectionable to require two seats to be purchased for someone that is that far away from average, but there is a discussion to be had for sure. For instance, how common is it? If it is pretty uncommon then just providing two seats, without extra cost, is probably the easiest thing for all parties involved since special cases are expensive. But now we are, again, playing the airline's games. 'blame the outlier', 'blame a passenger', 'blame security theater'. In the end they want us to blame everyone but them for the terrible service they provide. I have been stranded twice out of the last 5 times I flew because they didn't make their schedule. One of those times I had to sleep on the airport floor and had no compensation or even an 'I'm sorry' from the airline. Their bad, unprofessional and unacceptable level of service needs to end and the core of the problem is the airlines. Not the passengers.
Southwest has (had?) a policy that if you required two seats, you had to purchase them. But if the flight wasn’t full, they would be refunded one. But the only reason they could do that is because they didn’t have any reserve seating until recently
Alternatively we would all be paying extra legroom price for seats then though.
Isn’t that what this is? A WestJet economy seat now comes with a guarantee that the person in front of you can’t recline.
Joining the likes of Spirit Airlines, it seems. It's working out great for them, going through their second bankruptcy in less than 12 months.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/spirit-airlines-chapter-11-b...
I thought this was a good take: https://youtu.be/rslcr774JXM?si=KzjiSwC3hBE14zLZ
Basically the economies of scale and different route topography (hub & spoke vs. distributed) that powered low cost airlines in the past doesn't work anymore. It doesn't account for the basic fact that the bigger airlines have more cashflow and can outspend the smaller ones where the low-cost passengers don't have any brand loyalty.
Now it's a race to the bottom because the only way these kinds of airlines can survive is more cost cutting and a few more dollars of revenue per passenger.
One interesting aspect that is touched upon in the video is also that airports are basically municipally-run real estate monopolies for the airlines. The big carriers capture airports in the 6 biggest national markets (or geographic centers) and use the monopoly to punish the other carriers. In most places it's near impossible to expand or diversify airport capacity- it takes many decades.
Also the major airlines - especially Delta are subsidized by credit card spend. Not only their cobranded cards. But when points credit card users trade points in for airline miles.
Then the major airlines have a lot of business travelers where they are using other people’s money.
don't get the hate, cheap tix to Vegas were great, now it's less competition, if their plane config was not to your liking you can pay whatever you want for any other airline, don't get the schadenfreude.
I don't hate low cost carriers. I absolutely want competition.
I was flying Spirit quite frequently. I'm well prepped. I have a backpack that is the maximum size allowed as a personal item, I carry an empty water bottle and a meal from home. They have an option where you can bid on exit row and big seats in advance. I'd bid the lowest amount ($4-10) and almost always win the upgrade.
Not everyone is aware of this though. I dislike businesses that prey on customers' lack of knowledge to bombard them with fees.
The guy next to me on a flight last year got hit with a $80 fee at the gate because his bag was an inch or so too big. It was his first time flying Spirit. It was cheaper for him to discard that bag and purchase a smaller bag for the flight back.
How much more nickel and diming is there left to be done? Standing seats? [1]
Very anecdotal evidence, but I was on a trip last week and Spirit was more expensive than American which is what I chose. I'm not loyal to any airline.
No one was at the gate hounding at people for bag sizes. I had Wi-Fi on the plane and got a drink and a small snack. My knees also appreciated the slightly longer legroom.
[1] https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/standing-seats-budge...
This sounds like nightmare fuel compared to just getting a $100 - $150 annual fee credit card for your preferred airline for free checked bag and just buying your seat.
I am mostly loyal to Delta and by the end of the year, my wife and I will have flown over a dozen times on our dime - many of those shorter flights. I like free checked bags, priority check in, etc
> Spirit Airlines CEO Dave Davis received a $2.9 million retention bonus after the airline's second bankruptcy filing in August 2025
Seems to be working great for the man running the show right now!
Selling discomfort is the business model. Make it so terrible of an experience that people are forced to pay more. Too bad North America (Yes, I AM lumping a bunch of countries together here) doesn't understand the value of trains and doesn't invest in them.
> Make it so terrible of an experience that people are forced to pay more
This is ahistoric. Flying started out comfortable and expensive. (Though I’d argue a first-class seat in an unpressurized cabin flying through the weather was less comfortable than a modern economy seat flying over it.)
Airlines fought to find ways to make tickets cheaper because a vast majority of flyers choose the cheapest ticket on checkout. (There are legitimate issues with add-on fee transparency. But even after accounting for that, most travelers —until super recently—chose the cheapest ticket.)
> doesn't understand the value of trains
I’m not seeing that many WestJet routes across which a train would make sense? It certainly wouldn’t be cheaper.
>According to a press release from the airline, economy seats on the retrofitted planes will have "back support with a fixed recline design," which in simpler terms means the seat will not have the ability to recline.
>The Premium section at the front of these planes will have "ergonomically contoured seat cushions, reclining seat backs and a large headrest with four-way adjustment capability."
So.. poor people don't deserve ergonomic seats?
> poor people don't deserve ergonomic seats?
It’s more that you can sell a seat cheaper if it isn’t ergonomic.
I assume the version without recline feature and back support is lighter and takes up less space. If they can shave off an inch from the backrest they can fit in another row, and if they can shave off a pound by removing all adjustability that's 180 pound less per plane, saving fuel.
Also makes people more likely to upgrade. Basically all the same reasons why economy doesn't get business class seats
Be thankful they aren’t proposing a single board hah!
You know what I would pay for? Bunk beds.
Which would be 5' 9" long, exactly calibrated to the average American male and not an inch more.
The economy version would be hot on both ends. “Don’t be a cheapskate if you’re picky about not getting scalded.”
I hate how right you are. $500 to upgrade with an extra 4”
I doubt there is a notion in the world of what seats anyone deserves. Poor people maybe should be helped live but ergonomic seats etc. are not life threatening and so if anyone poor or rich wants to avoid paying for them then they should have the option.
In fact, I would go so far as to say there are no people in the world who earn an airplane ticket through deserving it. It's an entirely pay to play luxury.
I'm sure there are some lawyers already doing research for the class action lawsuit that's going to result from increased cases of deep vein thrombosis this will cause.
During Corona time all the airlines in Europe pleaded not to cash in the vouchers, but instead re-use them. I did that for many. But then Corona was over and there was no reciprocity. The amount of time they have fffd me over and not even have the decency to have a non-automated response is mindboggling
> the vouchers
What are you referring to?
I guess vouchers from cancelled flights and trips.
This is notable because Westjet is not an ultra low-cost airline. It's one of Canada's two major carriers.
For daytime flights within North America, I have to say I haven't reclined my seat in years. The person in front of me doesn't recline half the time, either. It just seems like there isn't the space for it, and it barely makes a difference in comfort, anyway. It's not like reclining increases legroom. So, I can see where Westjet is coming from.
(I think I might change my tune if I was on flight long enough to sleep/nap on.)
I’m stuck flying with Westjet for many routes because I’m Calgary-based and the inconvenience of non-direct flights is almost always greater than the inconvenience of poor seating/service/whatever - but Porter Airlines is expanding and is my first choice if I can fly direct with them.
(Or Air North - very limited service, but my favourite North American airline. Great service, they’ll pre-prep meals for you if you have dietary restrictions, their economy snack is a lovely warmed-up cookie, and they serve local beer and coffee from the Yukon.)
> the inconvenience of non-direct flights
I am wondering if I am in the minority here but I always pick non-direct flights and not just because they are cheaper. I have a hard time spending 7-8 hours straight cramped up in a seat. I'd rather split that into two 4-4 flights.
I think you probably are, you've turned the flight into 4-4 flights plus layover, which you need to overbudget in case of delays on flight #1, and you risk flight #2 getting cancelled while you're in the air, not to mention doubling the chance of lost luggage.
I wonder if this has to do with American Airports. I've been flying for over a decade and quite extensively for the last 4 years. I've only lost a baggage in the US (newark) and I've only taken a dozen flights or so on the continental US. Most US airports are also quite unfriendly for layovers.
So basically like EasyJet in EU?
Ryanair is probably a better comparison.
Ryanair's seats don't recline, period.
I love it so much, not having someone cause me excruciating pain by reclining their seat into my knees is a real selling point as a tall person.
It also helps that Ryanair forgo the usual magazine basket which typically sticks out and makes it impossible to move your legs left to right.
Thought this was an onion piece.
An airline for the people that think you should never recline your seat. This isnt a problem right? Lol
So, yeah, I recently learned about Westjet while visiting Ireland, and my first thought was "ah, OK, so Canada's RyanAir, eh?"
And they seem to be following the very same media playbook: make outrageous statements about some kind of insane fees they're going to introduce (like the famous RyanAir toilet-use add-on) to emphasize how cheap they are.
Anyway, the ever-ongoing enshittification in the air-travel space is entirely to blame on the consumers -- the people could stop this nonsense at any time, but apparently they're fine with it, so...
The important difference from Ryanair is that the average WestJet fare is more than 3x the average Ryanair fare. Consumers are willing to tolerate a lot of bad service in exchange for a good price. Canadian airlines specialize in bad service for bad prices.
It's not like RyanAir at all. It's a major carrier that competes directly with Air Canada and is not cheap.
A better comparison in Canada would be Flair.
> Anyway, the ever-ongoing enshittification in the air-travel space is entirely to blame on the consumers -- the people could stop this nonsense at any time, but apparently they're fine with it, so...
How? I suppose the answer is to stop flying, I basically don't fly already, so that'd be fine with me but, if you are a flyer, in Canada we have Air Canada and Westjet if you're flying domestic. I suppose we could stop buying economy seats, but "premium" doubles the price.
I wish premium were only double the price, I’d exclusively fly premium if that were the case. e.g. checking a random round-trip nonstop YYC<->YHZ flight in a couple months, it’s $687 for economy and $2391 for premium economy.
Oh, wow, I didn't know it was that bad, I just looked at YEG -> YYC, again, not much of a flyer, but yeah, your choices are paying truly exorbitant prices or putting up with whatever abuse they want to heap on you. It's not like $687 is in any way cheap.
> wish premium were only double the price, I’d exclusively fly premium if that were the case
This seems to be broadly true, and the driver behind at least American airlines expanding their middle and front cabins.
Usually when you have a tragedy of the commons then regulation is better at fixing it then deciding all consumers at once need to work in concert.
They're just doing price discrimination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination). It's economically efficient to match customers with their precise ability to pay, right?
Sure. Yet what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society. When you slice and dice every market segment such that everyone gets a product with just barely positive ROI, you spread cynicism, misery, and a zero-sum mindset and you actually reduce overall productivity.
Yeah, okay, if you require as policy that seats decline and people have a certain amount of legroom, prices might rise a bit, and on the margin, people would take fewer trips and thereby GDP would tick lower or something.
So what? Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips by some infinitesimal percentage of it reduces the overall misery of society.
The crappy thing about enshittification is we're all part of the same system and participate in the same economy. Hyperoptimization for cost is spiritually shitting where you eat.
> what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society
It’s called friction and it’s amply modelled in economics. (Luxury is in many cases exemption from transactional friction.)
> Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips taken by some infinitesimal percentage
In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying.
> In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying.
True. Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? We have minimum wages and we don't let people sell cars made of cardboard, even to those otherwise unable to buy transportation.
I'm not sure economists have properly modeled the mass psychic effects of enshittification or, more generally, model the morale and spirit of the people as a proper factor of production.
> Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold?
I think the reasonable delineation is that we do for safety and we don’t for comfort.
Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat.
> not sure economists have properly modeled
Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
> Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat.
My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why.
It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior.
Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that?
Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt?
Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors.
You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear.
> Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
> the optimal amount of economic paternalism is not zero
Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation.
It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf.
> Where's the economics model that captures that?
Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer?
> You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones
Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
> Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
Which frictions capture the concepts I'm describing? I'm not talking about transaction costs. I'm not talking about search frictions. I'm not talking about information frictions. I'm talking, ultimately, about how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor of production and fail to account for it when optimizing for consumer surplus. When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum, the consequent mass cynicism itself imposes severe transaction and opportunity costs on society. Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures! And don't bullshit me about economists taking this effect into account. Who models social capital depreciation? Give me names.
You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so.
> how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor
Again, did you even bother to look?
> When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum
Not how every economic interaction is modelled in even toy models.
> Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures
…yes.
> You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so
I can’t tell if this comment thread is just a desire to rant.
To third parties, yes, this is all modelled. Not perfectly. But not due to lack of effort. There are lots of things thrown out above, so I’m not going to chase down citations for someone who is unlikely to read them, given many should be findable within minutes of googling.