There is also NO REGULATION that demands airlines actually provide a chair. If they can find something that passes the rules that do exist, that fits more people because it isn’t a chair, and that they think people will suffer through, they will do it.
My man, you’re required to be seated and buckled during takeoff and landing.
You may be thinking of minimum seat size requirements, which has been on ongoing battle for at least the last 5 years, and it seems the FAA isn’t required to come up with minimum safe dimensions of a seat, so long as the aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds or fewer.
There are some carve outs for very specific cases but right now, and for the foreseeable future, airlines must have seats.
Please point to a 14 cfr reg that states that being buckled must be in a seat. 14 CFR 121.311 outlines 121 carriers and seat, harnesses, etc.
Please pay special attention to the fact that every time a place to sit is mentioned it says SEAT OR BERTH. There is no requirement for it to be a seat.
Of particular note is that the FAA says “an approved seat or berth.” There has not been an explicit exclusion of “non seats”. Meaning that any airline can configure a cabin as they see fit and if they can convince the FAA that it’s okay, then it can be implemented.
The rules refer to “approved seats or berths” as seats as the language progresses and they start to detail exclusions and exceptions, but again, this does not exclude something that conventionally isn’t a chair from being labeled as an approved “seat”
There is an example, notice how they still refer to them as seats. My point isn’t that it will or won’t happen. My point is that the language doesn’t outlaw it as currently written. And you’re wrong for trying to say otherwise.
Lalala, don’t mind me, I’ll just leave this here…
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/feb/28/ryanair-standing-only-plane-tickets-regulator
People see these stupid concepts and forget that air travel is pretty strictly regulated.
There’s really not much room to squeeze more seats in and also appease regulators.
Which doesn’t mean it won’t get worse, they’ll capture the regulating agencies and then it’ll get worse.
There is also NO REGULATION that demands airlines actually provide a chair. If they can find something that passes the rules that do exist, that fits more people because it isn’t a chair, and that they think people will suffer through, they will do it.
My man, you’re required to be seated and buckled during takeoff and landing.
You may be thinking of minimum seat size requirements, which has been on ongoing battle for at least the last 5 years, and it seems the FAA isn’t required to come up with minimum safe dimensions of a seat, so long as the aircraft can be evacuated in 90 seconds or fewer.
There are some carve outs for very specific cases but right now, and for the foreseeable future, airlines must have seats.
Yeah, I’m reminded of that rollercoaster style semi-dangling legs seat. It gets everyone more vertical, so they can fit more rows in.
Please point to a 14 cfr reg that states that being buckled must be in a seat. 14 CFR 121.311 outlines 121 carriers and seat, harnesses, etc.
Please pay special attention to the fact that every time a place to sit is mentioned it says SEAT OR BERTH. There is no requirement for it to be a seat.
Of particular note is that the FAA says “an approved seat or berth.” There has not been an explicit exclusion of “non seats”. Meaning that any airline can configure a cabin as they see fit and if they can convince the FAA that it’s okay, then it can be implemented.
The rules refer to “approved seats or berths” as seats as the language progresses and they start to detail exclusions and exceptions, but again, this does not exclude something that conventionally isn’t a chair from being labeled as an approved “seat”
https://www.insider.com/skyrider-standing-airplane-seats-claims-makes-flights-cheaper-2018-4
There is an example, notice how they still refer to them as seats. My point isn’t that it will or won’t happen. My point is that the language doesn’t outlaw it as currently written. And you’re wrong for trying to say otherwise.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.311
Berths are for laying down.
But 91.107(a)(3) is the one you’re looking for.
The fuck I am, part 91 isn’t a common carrier
deleted by creator