<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Luxist - Comments for Standing Room Only?</title>
<link>http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</link>
<description>Luxist Comments for Standing Room Only?</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2013 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Standing Room Only?]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</guid><description><![CDATA[Re: "FAA regulations only require passengers to be 'secure,' not seated."<br><br>Electronic Code of Federal Regulations -- Title 14: Aeronautics and Space<br><br>PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES <br><br>Subpart D—Design and Construction <br><br>Personnel and Cargo Accommodations <br><br>§ 25.785   Seats, berths, safety belts, and harnesses.<br><br>(a)	A seat (or berth for a nonambulant person) must be provided for each occupant who has reached his or her second birthday.<br>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[F451]]></dc:creator><pubDate>May 2nd 2006 9:28AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Standing Room Only?]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</guid><description><![CDATA[I seem to recall that over the past few years, there have been several people seriously injured and even killed as the result of extreme air turbulence. This proposal also brings to mind the overcrowded trains and ferries in developing countries we read about when tragedy strikes them. Plus, does this plane have enough room for the luggage of that many people?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[DJ]]></dc:creator><pubDate>May 2nd 2006 9:36AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Standing Room Only?]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</guid><description><![CDATA[F415 - It is interesting to note that they are calling the padded boards "seats." Perhaps the FAA accepts them as seats and simply does not require the person to be sitting?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Nicole Weston]]></dc:creator><pubDate>May 2nd 2006 10:21AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Standing Room Only?]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2006/05/01/standing-room-only/</guid><description><![CDATA[1) Since this entire story has turned out to be pretty bogus (NYT has published not one but two corrections to it), I doubt the FAA has ever been approached about radically changing the definition of 'seat,' let alone made any such ruling.<br><br>2) In the certification documents for tranport aircraft, there are numerous technical specifications seats have to meet, which it would be very, very difficult for these backboard to satisfy for reasons I won't go into in such a limited comment space.<br><br>Mostly, this story was just lousy reporting.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[F451]]></dc:creator><pubDate>May 7th 2006 11:14AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>