Upgraded: Frontier Airlines, front half
Downgraded: Frontier Airlines, rear half
Frontier Airlines is reorganizing the seatmap to put in an extra-legroom section in economy, a la United’s Economy Plus. The section, dubbed “Stretch,” will have 36 inches of pitch between seats. Seats in the rear will have between 30 and 32 inches. 30? That is tight.

Upgraded: The Expedia-Choice Hotels War
You may recall the spat between the Choice Hotels chain and Expedia. Expedia demanded numerous draconian terms of Choice, and Choice said no. But now… As of this evening, Choice is back in. But no details yet on what the deal actual consists of. Stay tuned.

Upgraded: Ways to share your miles with veterans
It’s not new, but on this Veteran’s Day (or Armistice Day in the UK), you may be interested in the Fisher House Foundation’s program that accepts frequent flier miles to share with “military (or DoD civilian employees) hospitalized as a result of their service in Iraq, Afghanistan, or surrounding areas, and their families. These tickets can not be used for R&R travel, ordinary leave, emergency leave, or other travel not related to a medical condition.”

To get the “bed,” the adjacent seat would need to be empty (a rare phenomenon in the sky these days), so there would be no guarantee of upgrading the seat before booking. Two adjacent economy seats could be mechanically adjusted to create an angled but flat seat.

Regrettably, there are no photos to show at this point. But here are some details that were provided to analysts:

Curley, head of research at Goldman Sachs JB Were, said the airline’s management was coy about revealing too much before a relaunch of its aircraft interiors ahead of the first arrival of one of several Boeing 777-300ER planes at the end of next year. But he said he believed the seat arrangement would involve a system where both seats could slide forward and the seat rest would come up so the foot room disappeared and the passenger could spread out across both seats.

Unlike the herringbone design used in business class, where the seats fold down flat, the economy class “beds” would still have a slight pitch.

Because this is a world first, the idea also has the potential to earn millions of dollars for Air New Zealand in export revenue. Its aircraft interior design subsidiary Altitude Aerospace Interiors, set up in 2008, plans to sell its new turn-into-a-bed economy seat design to other airlines.

Given the long flights from New Zealand to nearly anywhere else in the world, it makes perfect sense for this particular airline to be spearheading this. And this sounds like a fantastic idea for those looking to travel more comfortably on the cheap.

But it’s no substitute for a reserved seat in a premium cabin. There’s always a big risk that the flight will be full, and that the adjacent seat won’t be available. But this is creative thinking. I’m looking forward to seeing the design.

Related:
- Lufthansa considering bunk-bed style sleeper seating in economy class
- Airline seating: Standing, alternating, elevated, and now, sideways
- A step up for economy class seating
- Three people, six arms, four armrests: Can they coexist?

Downgraded: Hilton hotels in Venezuela
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has nationalized another Hilton-managed property, this one on Margarita Island. It looks like the 154 timeshare owners are out of luck. And yet, the hotel is still in the Hilton system, and maintains the Hilton branding. Huh?!

Downgraded: Hotel reviews… for libel
TripAdvisor contributors, take note: If you’re writing a scathing review of a small Australian hotel or inn, you may find yourself the defendant in a libel suit. Companies with fewer than 10 employees are legally less restricted in suing for libel than larger firms, apparently. But the best defense for libel remains the truth.

Downgraded: USA Today
USA Today’s circulation took a 17% hit, and Gannett’s management placed the blame on a decline in travel. Those papers that show up in front of the hotel door sure do add up!

Downgraded: Pilots’ holsters
Remember the pilot who discharged his pistol in the cockpit and shot a hole through the fuselage, in-flight? He’s been permitted to fly again, 18 months after being fired by US Airways for the incident. In his defense, “the Department of Homeland Security faulted the design of holsters used by pilots who carry their weapons on board planes. The department’s inspector general said the design increased the chance of accidental discharge when pilots inserted their guns in the holsters.” But why a pilot needs a holstered sidearm — behind a locked cockpit door — in the first place isn’t clear to me. The pilot is no longer allowed to carry a weapon aboard.

Upgraded: Peep shows for UK airport security
The US isn’t the only country installing full-body through-the-clothes scanners at airports. The UK is doing so as well. Yes, the systems are designed to show hidden weapons. But “the full body scans will also show up breast enlargements, body piercings and a clear black-and-white outline of passengers’ genitals.” Black-and-white nude silhouettes are already visible to security personnel at Manchester Airport. Passengers have the right opt out of that screen and choose a more traditional scan instead.

Downgraded: Glib descriptions of getting upgrades
Upgraded: Smackdowns
Gary Leff and I got the same e-mail from the folks at TripBase, promoting a post on their blog describing how to “almost always” get upgrades. The post is yet another piece of upgrade disinformation, perpetuating mythologies that may have once held sway but no longer mean anything in today’s airline environment. Gary has a fantastic point-by-point takedown of the piece.

The rates vary by class and distance: £10 per person for European economy, £20 on long-haul economy or short flights in business class, emergency exit row will cost £50 (bookable between 10 and four days before departure), and £60 for long haul trips in business class. No charge for first-class cabins on three-class aircraft.

This isn’t just the “preferred seating” reservation charge that many US airlines offer. It’s indeed more in line with a discount carrier like Spirit or Easyjet.

Mind you, British Airways hasn’t been very friendly in the realm of seating assignments for some time. Back in 2006, I posted about how they limited the window when you could select seats to 24 hour hours before the flight. The new policy opens that window, but at a price.

In the LA Times’ blog, Jane Engle calls out the British Airways PR spin on the fee:

Here’s how British Airways described the new fees in their e-mail to agents: “Effective Oct. 7, 2009, your British Airways customers will have more control over their seating, with our new paid seating option.” I kid you not.

That’s not far from the same language they used in 2006: The ban at the time (of all seat pre-reservations) was “designed to simplify the process of choosing a seat and give all customers more transparency and control of the seating options available on their flight.” Simpler for whom?

British Airways tried to piss on you and tell you it was raining in 2006, and they’re doing it again now. Lufthansa is looking better and better.

(image)

It’s not Hannibal class seating, but it’s not going to evoke images of comfort: The British firm Design Q has proposed a military-transport style for (discount) airline seating.

Howard Guy, director of the UK company Design Q, acknowledges that some people will not be happy with the plan, but says they will be able to pay less for any inconvenience.

‘Having passengers face each other is not an ideal situation,’ he said. ‘But this will see increased revenue for the operator and more economical tickets for the passenger – so by keeping both happy, this concept makes an attractive alternative.

‘Sure the passenger can choose a flight facing forward in a traditional seating position, but he or she will have to pay more for the luxury.’

Mr Guy predicts that the design could see a 50 per cent increase in the number of passengers on board and a 30 per cent reduced cost per seat.

However, he did concede that the seats would not be comfortable for passengers on flights of more than two hours.

Yes, flying forward sure is “luxurious”… Remember that when you’re staring at a tray table. I don’t like the way this firm is thinking.

Then there’s the logistics of it: I’ve often wondered about the safety issues regarding sideways seating. Sure, the military does it. But even if you assume “crash position,” you’re going to get wrenched sideways in an impact (or even in a rough landing), which can’t be good.

Perhaps the design is sponsored by the UK Chiropracters’ Council? Good luck ever seeing this on board a commercial aircraft.

Related:
- The return of Hannibal Class: Standing seats on airliners make a comeback
- A step up for economy class seating
- Three people, six arms, four armrests: Can they coexist?
- Lufthansa considering bunk-bed style sleeper seating in economy class
- Looking backward: Airlines considering alternating forward and rear-facing seats

When I first saw this, I had to check the calendar to make sure it really was July 1, not April 1. But sure enough, it’s being picked up by news services and MSNBC.

The standing jet could accommodate 40% more passengers compared to a traditional plane. It could also help airlines cut 20% of their costs, while lowering airfares for consumers.

Mr Wuan added: “It’s just like bar stools. The safety belt is the most important thing. It will still be fastened around the waist.” The airline would need government backing to go ahead with the plans. But Spring Airlines president Wang Zhenghua said that he was confident because the idea had been suggested by China’s vice premier Zhang Dejiang.

“He suggested that, for a lower price, passengers should be able to get on a plane like catching a bus, with no seat, no luggage consignment, no food, no water, but very convenient,” said Mr Zhenghua.

History really DOES repeat itself. Back in 2006, sketches of an Airbus-designed standing configuration were floated in the New York Times. Airbus backpedaled when outrage erupted, but the idea clearly survived. And Airbus is being named again in this latest iteration:

[Mr. Zhenghua] added that the company had consulted with Airbus, the company which built most of its aeroplanes, and had been told the proposals were safe. “So once the government approves it formally, we’ll try it,” he added.

My only disappointment is that Ryanair isn’t the one proposing this.

Here’s a visual from the last time this concept was floated. It still reminds me of “The Silence of the Lambs,” and the means of transporting Hannibal Lecter; I still chuckle with smug self-satisfaction at my labeling of this idea as “Hannibal Class” back in 2006.

(Hat tip to Marilyn Terrell)

Related:
- Think air travel is like riding the bus? Think subway.
- Standing room only: real or not?
- Short hops — May 2, 2006 — Standing seats (again), miles for dry cleaning, and more
- Posts tagged “Standing Seats” | Upgrade: Travel Better
- Looking backward: Airlines considering alternating forward and rear-facing seats

Emil Jacob’s website offers a range of patent-pending design options, from double-decker business class to tiered economy class designs. The Boston Globe recently profiled Jacob and his designs.

“I was looking up at all the height, and I thought it was absurd that people are suffering down here,” Jacob said. “Just a couple of steps away there is a lot of space and comfort.”
[...]
He eventually came up with the “step seat principle.” It involves elevating alternate rows of seats, from one to five steps above the cabin floor, to give passengers more room to lean back in economy class and enough space in business class to lie down, either by sliding their legs under the seat in front of them or stretching out in pods stacked on top of each other – no sweater on the floor required.

Maybe some images would help… Here are some sketches of the concept:

For a premium economy seat, this is pretty good. Hey, you get a bed! And it’s a little more defined than the Lufthansa bunk bed proto-design.

Another of Jacob’s designs is a bit simpler, but makes use of vertical separation to expand legroom while keeping density high. The trick: Inserting a seven-inch platform in alternating rows. Very clever:

Yes, these concepts aren’t perfect. I can imagine the steps causing problems for some passengers, either during boarding, or in an emergency. And some of the designs could lead to a seat shell coming quite close to your face. But I like the way Jacob is thinking.

Airlines, take notice.

Related:
- Three people, six arms, four armrests: Can they coexist?
- Looking backward: Airlines considering alternating forward and rear-facing seats
- Lufthansa considering bunk-bed style sleeper seating in economy class

(images via Boston Globe and Jacob Innovations)

But now, the competing site SeatExpert has gotten a makeover. Is it finally the worthy competitor it promised to be, or is the ‘guru still the king?

Both of these sites have changed owners in recent years. SeatGuru was bought by TripAdvisor (part of Expedia, Inc.), and SeatExpert was bought by Randy Petersen’s Frequent Flyer Services, the onetime parent of the Flyertalk message boards, and the publisher of various websites related to travel (such as BoardingArea.com, which syndicates Upgrade: Travel Better content).

So which site is the champ?

The assessment:
Both sites use a similar color-coding scheme for indicating seat quality, and both focus on seat pitch (distance between rows), with a secondary emphasis on proximity to toilets and galleys. SeatExpert cleverly figures out which aircraft configuration you’ll be flying, which is a nice feature. But while SeatExpert has offered some good improvements on the usability front, it still doesn’t have the breadth of information that SeatGuru does. Consult both. But if you choose only one, choose SeatGuru.

Depth and Breadth
For starters, the number of airlines covered is significantly different. SeatExpert lists aircraft from 57 different airlines. SeatGuru has 84 airlines in its database.

Within airlines, there’s some variation too. One site may list 5 aircraft for an airline, while another may list 8. Or the aircraft listed may be different: For example, SeatGuru and SeatExpert both list 6 seatmaps for Aeroflot, but SeatGuru lists two different Ilyushin IL 96-300’s, while SeatExpert doesn’t have any. Instead, SeatExpert maps a broader range of Boeing 767’s. If you’re not traveling domestically on one of the major US airlines, you’ll want to browse to both sites.

Display
I find SeatGuru’s visual design more elegant, overall. Not only is it relatively “clean,” and generally conveys information more effectively. For example, passengers who like window seats should check to see that they’re not sitting in a row with a misaligned window. SeatGuru typically marks those seats in yellow, with an explanation when you hover over with your mouse. On SeatExpert, misaligned windows are noted with a tiny, easy-to-miss red line on the fuselage. The seat itself might still be highlighted in bright green, indicating a good seat, though it could really stink. The warning about the window is visible when you hover over, but SeatExpert’s color coded warnings aren’t strong enough.

To be fair, SeatGuru has some inconsistencies as well. A seat that’s got a ton of legroom but that’s close to the galley might be green and yellow on one plane, but simply green on another.

While I prefer SeatGuru’s graphics overall, SeatExpert’s categories for critiquing seats are more in-depth. One seat could have seven or eight commentaries. I particularly like comments like, “You will be one of the last from this cabin off the plane and through immigration.” Another one for queasy fliers, is “Beware that the back of the plane has more sideways motion.”

For the most part, the information is comparable when comparing apples to apples. But there are almost always minor differences. Here’s a head-to-head analysis of the same seat (80A on a Qantas A380):

What SeatExpert lacks in depth, it attempts to make up for with a search engine. You enter the airline you’re flying, the route, and the date of departure, and it looks to see which equipment the airline is using on your route. This is very handy. You don’t need to figure out what model aircraft you’re on, which many travelers aren’t quick to notice. The search engine is not 100% correct, but it’s very close.

What’s missing?
One factor that’s missing from both sites — and which may be the Holy Grail of seat selection — is the comfort level of the seats themselves. I received an e-mail from a reader recently, which addressed this precise point:

…being a 6′4″ person I noticed that 32inch pitch on KLM is not the same as 32inch pitch on, say, United. One seat might feel comfy and roomy, while the other might feel horrible. Is there a site that rates seats using some measure of “comfort”? Should there be?

Yes, there should be. But there’s nothing really systematic out there like that. Yet. It would be tough to do, admittedly, and you’ll find comfort variation from plane to plane for the very same seat. But you can still generalize, based on seat design and features. Yes, there are the Skytrax seat ratings, but they focus primarily on seat pitch, rather than comfort. You can sift through review after review describing the comfort on an individual flight, but it’s not organized effectively.

So, at the end of the day, there’s an opportunity here for an entrepreneurial spirit to bring these valuable user-generated data sources together into a graphically-accessible format.

The bottom line:
When it comes to searching for a good seat, I’m still starting with SeatGuru because of their coverage of more airlines and cleaner interface. But if I don’t know the equipment the airline is using on my flight, or if SeatGuru doesn’t have the aircraft I need in its database, I’ll run it through SeatExpert. And I’ll keep hoping for one of these sites (or a third competitor) to add seat quality and comfort to the calculus someday soon.

Boeing has launched a new “Sky” interior for its current generation of 737s. The design combines elements of the soon-to-fly 787 interior, with LED mood lights and futuristic molding, as well as the 777’s design for overhead bins.

The most touted benefit of the new design is that it provides more headroom than earlier versions. Though the headline in the Seattle Times is a bit much (”Spiffed-up 737 will let passengers stand tall at their seats”), the change is certainly welcomed. (It looks like you can “stand tall” at the aisle, but not at the window or middle seat…)

The new design will be delivered starting in 2010. Minor structural changes and a new engine, will follow in 2011. (The changes will lead to a fuel efficiency improvement of 2% over the current design.)

Of course, in today’s global economic climate, it’s going to be a while before airlines order these designs en masse. So far, Continental Airlines, FlyDubai of the United Arab Emirates, GOL of Brazil, Lion Air of Indonesia, Malaysia Airlines, Norwegian Air Shuttle, and TUI Travel have signed on to purchase this version.

United’s policy doesn’t break any new ground for the industry. Southwest has had a policy like this for years: If you can’t fit into a single seat with the armrests down, you need to buy a second seat.

The only countervailing tendency is in Canada, where a one-person, one-fare rule was recently enforced by the courts.

These policies aren’t new at most other airlines, either. But they weren’t really well-publicized. SmarterTravel did the legwork a few months ago and ran a rundown. The still-active policies are reprinted below:

* American: Passengers over 250 pounds should recognize that there may be limitations to the service that the airline can provide. However, it does not require that you purchase an extra seat automatically.
* Midwest: Like Southwest, passengers are encouraged to know their needs in advance. If staff determine that two seats are required, the seat will be sold at the lowest possible fare, with a refund available if there is one or more open seats on the flight.
[...]
* Air France: Passengers with “high body mass” may receive a 25 percent discount on an extra seat, knowing that if they choose to not buy the seat, they may risk not being able to fly.
* JetBlue: You are required to buy a second seat, and there are no refunds.
* Delta: The airline “works to accommodate” passengers with special needs. Upon request and availability, it will try to make sure the next seat is unoccupied. However, if the plane is full, you will most likely be asked to leave the flight and buy a second seat on the next available flight. (You can actually count on this being a fairly typical practice on most airlines.)

United was doing three things when it announced the policy.
1) First, it got a policy, period. Previously, there was none.
2) Second, UA’s policy wisely follow’s Southwest’s standard: If the armrests don’t go all the way down, you’re infringing on your neighbor and need to buy another seat. This is far more sensible than simply calling an affected passenger “obese” or “overweight,” or applying an arbitrary or difficult to enforce cutoff like 250 lbs. or a “high body mass index.” Armrests are an easily-tested and functionally-relevant standard. Thumbs up.
3) Third, United made it a publicly-visible policy. The other airlines had policies (or at least consistent practices) in place, but didn’t have the courage to publish them on their websites or in their contract of carriage. Transparency is good.

The problem with transparency is that it opens the airline to criticism from those who find such policies objectionable. (As a passenger who fits between the armrests, and enjoys their use, I approve of the change. I realize that those whose bodies spill over the 17 or 18″ of seat width are not trying to impose on their neighbors. But face it, sometimes they do.)

Perhaps another airline will try a different tactic. Melissa Lafsky offers the following alternative:

…but what about the possibility of rewarding socially “good” behavior rather than punishing “bad”? There’s always offering skinny people ticket discounts, priority boarding, more preference on seat assignments—or even letting them sell part of their seat space to larger passengers.

I’m offering an inch of room for $100 per hour in-seat. Any takers? Cash only.

Thanks to an e-mail forwarded to me by a reader of this site, we’ve got UA’s internal-company pitch of the new seats:

New features of the modified B757 include:

* four additional economy-class seats
* leather seat covers in both classes of service, United First and United Economy
* in-seat power available in both classes of service
* life vests installed for all passengers and crew members (given that the seat cushions are not floatable in the new design)
* brand-new seat cushions

The new, slimmer seats have 40 percent fewer parts, making them easier for Maintenance to service, and they are of a lighter weight. In addition, the passenger control units which are typically placed on the tops of the armrests are located on the sides of the seats for a smoother armrest surface.

Literature pockets on the new seats are located above the tray tables, opening up additional personal space surrounding the knees and legs. A smaller, mesh pocket is available lower down on the seat to hold incidentals such as PDAs or eyeglasses.

The test aircraft will enter modification at Timco in Greensboro, N.C., on April 18 and is scheduled to return to service this month. Testing will be conducted for 60 to 90 days to determine customer response.

The aircraft is flying as nose number 5493 today; it will be renumbered 5093 after the modification.

Squeezing four more seats into the 757? I’m trying to figure out how that will work on the seatmap.

Inseat power in both cabins is a good thing, as long as it doesn’t require en EmPower or other adapter.

Reconfiguration of the seatback pocket to provide more room at the knees sounds good, too.

The big risk? Butt and back support. These 757s fly cross-country, and a thinner seat means less padding. (The seat cushions are no longer a floatation device…) Materials science has admittedly come a long way since these planes were last outfitted, so the slimmer seat may be equal to the existing, well-worn seats. But passengers should hope for an upgrade, not a lateral.

And that’s where the phrasing of the announcement worries me. “Testing customers’ acceptance” of the new seats doesn’t sound like the kind of thing you say when there’s an improvement at hand.

Photos of the new seat below (admittedly small pics, but they’re all I can get at the moment.) I enjoy the way the seats are untethered from the confines of an aircraft cabin, and have a backdrop of staircases and shrubbery…

Help may be on the way… slowly. Airlines and seat manufacturers have been floating alternative designs that offer more armrest privacy, either with alternating rear-facing seats, or with staggered rows.

But those designs are radical reconfigurations of the existing airline architecture, instead of simpler add-ons to the existing space.

So J has come up with his own design that amends what we’re already used to, by adding on a double-decker armrest. As an added “bonus,” his design comes complete with a profanity-laden description.

Here’s the basic concept:

I’m reminded of the brilliant “Open Letter to the Infrequent Traveler” and its depictions of armrest wars, from the all-too-rarely-updated consultant-centric blog, “Getting Drunk in First Class.”

The challenge to J’s solution is arm height: You don’t want your arms resting too high, or too low, or else it’s just not comfortable. But at least you’d be in your own space.

Would this work? Would this be something you’d want to see in action? Vote!

(reading this via the feed?…click here to vote on the site.)