On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:04:55 -0700, Phil wrote
in om:

It could be banked more slowly to mitigate that, especially if it had
fly-by-wire controls. And people experience those same feelings now
in turbulence anyway.

Exactly.

I suspect that if you were to offer people a
more roomy plane with a lower ticket price, you would get lots of
takers. I hate flying stuffed in like a sardine in a can. A blended
body aircraft could have more room for passengers. Imagine if an
airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
less to get more?

While I couldn't agree more about offensively cramped airline seating,
I can see how completive forces in the marketplace will force all air
carriers to increase seating density just as soon as the first
cut-rate operator equips his fleet with more seats to undercut his
competition. Cutting services, instead of increasing operating
efficiency, as a means of lowering costs is an easy method of
successfully increasing an enterprise's market share; consumers are
always looking for a 'deal.'

One of the 'features' of laissez-faire capitalism is its ability to
strip away non-essential amenities in the relentless quest to meet the
challenges mounted by competitors. Once the regular-rate, as opposed
to the cut-rate, airlines passenger volume is siphoned off by the
cheap-seats operators, it becomes impossible them to continue to offer
attractive frills and comforts like leg-room, blankets, meals, ...