International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 69 (2019) 90–95

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

The ergonomics of airplane seats: The problem with economy class T

a,∗ a b
Jordi Porta , Gonzalo Saco-Ledo , María Dolores Cabañas
a
Catalan School of Kinanthropometry, National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia, University of Barcelona, Avinguda de l'Estadi, 12-22, 08038, Barcelona,
Spain
b
Department of Anatomy and Human Embryology, Complutense University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, Plaza Ramón y Canal s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The increase in size (body mass and stature) and changing proportions of the human body over the past few
Body size decades should be considered in the ergonomic design of economy class airline seats. The aim of this study was
Seat pitch to analyze the incongruity of the minimum space for seated passengers considering a group of Spanish adults.
Leg room Thirteen variables were measured in a group of 201 females and 346 males. The results suggest a minimum leg
Seat width
room between 68.1 and 70.1 cm, and seat width between 50.2 and 52.3 cm. According to this study we can
conclude that it is necessary to increase the minimum space in economy airline seats, specifically in terms of leg
room and seat width.
Relevance to industry: The increase in space of the economy class airline seats in the airline industry can be
regarded as an important measure to reduce health risks, and improvement of comfort in the 21st century.

1. Introduction product may belong to different groups within a population, especially

The ergonomic design of airplane seats in economy class should be
based on an assessment of the size and body proportions of its potential
passengers. However, Seat Pitch (SP) which is the distance between two
rows of seats, Leg Room (LR) which is the distance where a seated
passenger can put their buttock-knee lengths, and Seat Width (SW)
which is the distance between armrests of a seat are reduced in many
airlines for commercial reasons, especially in economy class, which may
affect comfort, safety and health of the passengers (SeatGuru, 2016a,
2016b; Kremser et al., 2012; Vink and Hallbeck, 2012; Vink and Brauer,
2011; Hinninghofen and Enck, 2006; Röggla et al., 1999). We found
that there is no international law requiring compliance with minimum
seat dimensions. The only regulation is from the Civil Aviation Au-
thority (CAA) in the United Kingdom: Airworthiness Notice: Minimum
space for seated passengers Nº 64 (AN64), since 1989 but currently
modified and in disuse (Civil Aviation Authority, 2016).
From an ergonomic approach, the design of SP, SW and LR should
be adapted to accommodate at least 95th percentile of the studied
population (Quigley et al., 2001). Adapting these spaces to 95th per-
centile or even to 99th percentile can be very difficult, for two reasons:
1) There is a secular trend in the size of the world population that has
accentuated since the early 20th century (NCD Risk Factor
Collaboration, 2016; Sánchez González et al., 2011; Komlos and
Lauderdale, 2007); 2) In a global society, the potential users of any
in terms of body proportions.
The increase of economy class airline seats is necessary because
immobility on airplane flights can develop different pathologies, such
as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism known as economy
class syndrome (Scurr et al., 2010; Trujillo-Santos et al., 2008; Kuipers
et al., 2007 Cruickshank et al., 1988), or gastrointestinal and postural
discomfort (Hinninghofen and Enck, 2006; Dowdall and Evans, 2004).
Pathologies which may be aggravated by different factors such as ad-
vanced age, immobility, arterial hypertension, cardiovascular and di-
gestive pathologies, use of certain medications, overweight/obesity,
taking long-duration flights or multiple short-duration flights
(Sugerman et al., 2012; Aryal and Al-Khaffaf, 2006; Adi et al., 2004;
Forbes and Johnston, 1998).
Some airlines should increase SP, LR and SW (SeatGuru, 2016a;
Kremser et al., 2012; Quigley et al., 2001; Röggla et al., 1999). In ad-
dition, the airline industry does not have mandatory regulations for
minimum seat dimensions to improve the comfort, health and safety of
passengers. Thus, there is a critical need to study the incongruity of SP,
LR and SW based on the anthropometric dimensions of individuals. If
the minimum SW and LR are not increased in economy class, then some
individuals who travel by airplane using economy class seats will not be
accommodated based on their anthropometric dimensions.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: antropometristas@gmail.com (J. Porta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.10.003
Received 10 December 2017; Received in revised form 22 September 2018; Accepted 20 October 2018
0169-8141/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Porta et al.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study design
A cross-sectional study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics
Committee of the Sports Administration of Catalunya (reference
number 12/2015/CEICEGC). The study followed the recommendations
of the Helsinki Declaration of Human Rights (World Medical
Association, 2013). The participants signed an informed consent form
before beginning the study.
2.2. Participants
The study sample was made up of 547 people, 201 women
(29.7 ± 9.8 years) and 346 men (28.9 ± 9.0 years). The inclusion
criteria were: Spanish nationality, age between 18 and 55 years, and
Caucasian ethnicity. Exclusion criteria were: Body Mass Index (BMI)
greater than or equal to 30 and physical malformations or deforma-
tions, because they need other special seats according to their anthro-
pometric characteristics. In addition, we decided only included
Caucasian participants in the sample because the majority of Spanish
population is Caucasian.
2.3. Equipment used
Calibrated anthropometric equipment used was: Harpenden 603
stadiometer, column scale (Seca 703), scale (Seca 803), sliding ruler
(RealMet), anthropometric bench of 40 cm tall, 50 cm wide and 30 cm
deep, anthropometer (Harpenden DIM-98601), small sliding caliper
(Holtain-Kahn), large sliding caliper (Rosscraft and RealMet) and
segmometers (UWA and RealMet).
2.4. Anthropometric evaluation
Data collection was performed at the National Institute of Physical
Education of Catalonia in Barcelona, Bernat Picornell Pools, the Holmes
Places Európolis fitness club, Faculty of Medicine at the University of
Barcelona, the Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences at the
University of A Coruña, and Faculty of Medicine at the Complutense
University of Madrid, from July 2014 to July 2016.
The protocol was performed by anthropometrists certified by the
International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK),
who followed society's recommendations to carry out the assessments
(Stewart et al., 2011). Before the anthropometric evaluation of the
participants, the intra-evaluator and inter-evaluator Technical Error of
Measurement (TEM) of the anthropometrists were calculated based on a
sample of 20 participants (Ulijaszek and Kerr, 1999; Prieto et al., 1998).
One of the anthropometrists of the study was ISAK level 4 and trained
the other anthropometrist who was level 1.
Thirteen measurements were included in the study to descriptive
different variables that can be useful to design new seats for airlines:
body mass, stature, seated height, arm span, umbilical height, popliteal
height with the knee in 90° flexion, tibia length, buttock-popliteal
length, buttock-knee length, buttock-foot length in dorsal flexion with
the knee extended, seated sagittal abdominal diameter, bideltoid dia-
meter and gluteal diameter (Fig. 1). Some of the listed variables are not
described in the ISAK manual, hence their protocols are described
below:
- Buttock-foot length: The participant was seated on the anthropo-
metric bench with head, back and buttocks in contact with the wall,
with the right knee extended and the foot in maximal dorsal flexion.
The distance along the longitudinal thigh-leg-foot axis between the wall
and the anterior plantar surface of the right foot was measured. In case
of difficulty due to lack of flexibility in the participant, the anthro-
pometrist's assistant helped the participant in keeping their knee ex-
tended during the measurement.
91
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 69 (2019) 90–95
- Buttock-popliteal length: The participant was seated on the an-
thropometric bench, as in the previous measure, with knees flexed
90° and hands placed on the thighs. The horizontal distance between
the wall and the insertion of the biceps femoral muscle in the po-
pliteal fossa was measured.
- Buttock-knee length: The participant was seated on the anthropo-
metric bench to measure the horizontal distance, parallel to the
ground, between the wall and the anterior face of the patella.
- Umbilical height: The participant stood in front of the anthropo-
metric bench with arms crossed in front of their thorax. The upper
caliper of the segmometer was placed at the midpoint of the navel,
and the lower caliper was placed at the top of the bench. The an-
thropometrist's assistant controlled the vertical position of the tape
with respect to the supporting base.
- Popliteal height: The participant stood with the knee of the right leg
flexed at 90°, placing the foot on top of the bench. The anthro-
pometrist placed himself at the right side and measured the distance
between the horizontal surface of the bench and the internal fold of
the popliteal arch at the point of insertion of the tendon of the biceps
femoral in the head of the fibula. The anthropometrist's assistant
controlled the vertical position of the anthropometric tape with
respect to the supporting base.
2.5. Statistical analysis
A descriptive analysis of the study variables according to gender
was performed, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality and the
Levene test for equality of variances were carried out. Afterwards, de-
pending of normality and equality of variances variables, we performed
parametric and non-parametric tests using the independent samples t-
test or the Mann-Whitney U test to analyze anthropometric differences
between genders. In addition, the 95th and 99th percentiles for the
anthropometric variables were calculated. The level of significance was
established at p < 0.05. Data analysis was performed using the soft-
ware SPSS (IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.)
3. Results
3.1. Anthropometric evaluation of the study participants
Table 1 presents the descriptive values and statistical differences of
the variables analyzed according to gender. All anthropometric vari-
ables had significant differences between genders (p < 0.001). Males
had higher values than females for all variables except for seated gluteal
diameter.
3.2. Intra- and inter-evaluator technical error of the anthropometrists
Tables 2 and 3 show the Technical Error of Measurement (TEM),
and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of the variables eval-
uated by the two anthropometrists. The diameters show a slightly larger
error with respect to the other measurements.
3.3. Ergonomic data of the study according to 50th, 95th and 99th
percentiles
Table 4 shows the results of the study variables of female and male
Spanish participants at 50th, 95th and 99th percentiles. Males had
higher values than females for all variables except for seated gluteal
diameter.
4. Discussion
This study with a group of Spanish adults demonstrates the need to
increase the LR and SW of many airplanes at the economy class. The
J. Porta et al.
Fig. 1. Anthropometric variables.
results suggest a minimum LR space of 68.1–70.1 cm, values which are
greater than the 66.0 cm recommended in the United Kingdom Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA) AN64 and lower than the AN64 revision
document, which recommends a LR of 71.4–74.0 cm for the European
population and of 71.7–74.7 cm for the global population (Quigley
et al., 2001). These differences could be explained by the fact that the
participants in the present study have a BMI that is lower than the AN64
revision study. We should note that we followed the same procedure to
calculate the minimum LR, and we added 2.5 cm of space between the
buttock-knee length at 95th and 99th percentiles and the back of the
preceding seat structure.
Despite the LR being one of the most appropriate measurements to
determine the usable seat space, many airline companies only describe
92
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 69 (2019) 90–95
the SP. The SP references of many airplanes are between 74.0 and
81.0 cm for short duration flights (SeatGuru, 2016a). However, it is
important to consider that SP does not describe usable space, because it
includes the structure and thickness of the seat backrest, and as such,
there may be a difference of 5.0 cm between SP and LR (Kremser et al.,
2012). This difference is highly dependent on the seat structure design,
the location of the pocket for magazines and the point at which the
measurement is taken, but we removed the 5.0 cm from the SP refer-
ences to calculate the LR. As a result, the LR of many airplanes for short
duration flights may be between 66.1 and 71.2 cm, which means that
the Spanish adult males would have insufficient space. In addition, if
we analyze buttock-knee length values in other populations, individuals
from the USA, Holland, Germany and England, would need even more
J. Porta et al. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 69 (2019) 90–95

Table 1
Characteristics of the participants and statistical differences between genders.
Variable Females (n = 201) Males (n = 346)

X ±σ (Min.– Max.) X ±σ (Min.–Max.)

Age (years) 29.7 ± 9.8 (18.1–54.7) 28.9 ± 9.0a (18.0–54.1)

Body mass (kg) 59.2 ± 7.6 (36.6–82.6) 75.3 ± 8.8***b (52.8–114.0)
Stature (cm) 165.3 ± 5.7 (146.0–183.8) 178.8 ± 6.7***a (159.7–196.7)
Seated height (cm) 88.0 ± 3.0 (80.3–97.5) 94.1 ± 3.2***b (85.2–103.5)
Arm span (cm) 165.9 ± 6.9 (143.0–185.8) 181.9 ± 7.9***a (162.2–204.0)
BMI (kg/m2) 21.6 ± 2.4 (16.7–29.2) 23.5 ± 2.2***a (17.9–29.9)
Umbilical height (cm) 98.4 ± 4.4 (84.3–112.0) 106.0 ± 5.2***a (92.1–122.8)
Popliteal height (cm) 41.4 ± 2.2 (35.7–48.2) 45.1 ± 2.5***b (37.4–52.9)
Tibia length (cm) 37.5 ± 2.0 (31.3–43.6) 40.7 ± 2.3***b (35.1–49.2)
Buttock-popliteal length (cm) 50.8 ± 2.6 (44.4–60.8) 53.1 ± 2.7***b (42.6–61.0)
Buttock-knee length (cm) 57.8 ± 2.6 (49.6–65.4) 61.0 ± 2.8***b (50.4–68.2)
Buttock-foot length (cm) 100.5 ± 4.8 (87.5–117.5) 108.4 ± 5.4***a (94.1–123.7)
Sagittal abdominal diameter (cm) 19.2 ± 2.2 (14.3–26.6) 21.8 ± 2.2***a (16.0–29.6)
Bideltoid diameter (cm) 39.7 ± 2.1 (33.8–45.7) 46.0 ± 2.3***a (40.3–55.4)
Gluteal diameter (cm) 37.7 ± 2.5 (31.2–44.9) 36.9 ± 2.1***a (30.6–47.5)

a b
BMI = Body Mass Index; Min = Minimum; Max = Maximum. Mann-Whitney U test; The paired-samples t-test; ***p < 0.001.

Table 2 Table 4
Intra-evaluator technical error. The 50th, 95th and 99th percentiles of the anthropometric variables according
to gender.
Variable Anthropometrist 1 Anthropometrist 2
Variable Females (n = 201) Males (n = 346)
Value TEM % ICC Value TEM % ICC
P.50 P. 95 P. 99 P.50 P. 95 P. 99
Body mass 0.04 0.07 1.00 0.05 0.06 1.00
Stature 0.52 0.31 0.99 0.80 0.45 0.99 Body mass (kg) 58.5 72.9 81.2 74.8 90.7 99.7
Seated height 0.27 0.30 0.99 0.57 0.61 0.99 Stature (cm) 164.6 175.6 180.2 178.9 189.5 195.4
Arm span 0.48 0.29 0.99 0.97 0.54 0.99 Seated height (cm) 88.0 93.1 95.9 94.1 99.3 101.2
Umbilical height 0.36 0.36 0.99 0.40 0.37 1.00 Arm span (cm) 165.3 178.2 184.4 182.2 196.1 201.5
Popliteal height 0.17 0.41 0.99 0.31 0.69 0.99 BMI (kg/m2) 21.4 26.4 28.8 23.3 27.5 29.1
Tibia length 0.10 0.26 1.00 0.25 0.62 0.99 Umbilical height (cm) 97.8 105.8 108.9 105.8 114.4 120.0
Buttock-popliteal length 0.22 0.43 0.99 0.38 0.73 0.98 Popliteal height (cm) 41.4. 45.2 47.3 45.1 49.0 52.1
Buttock-knee length 0.17 0.29 1.00 0.46 0.75 0.97 Tibia length (cm) 37.6 41.0 42.5 40.7 44.2 47.3
Buttock-foot length 0.34 0.33 0.99 0.81 0.75 0.98 Buttock-popliteal length (cm) 50.8 55.4 58.4 53.2 57.5 59.1
Sagittal abdominal diameter 0.27 1.40 0.97 0.35 1.68 0.92 Buttock-knee length (cm) 58.1 62.4 64.7 61.1 65.6 67.6
Bideltoid diameter 0.40 1.02 0.98 0.57 1.27 0.97 Buttock-foot length (cm) 100.4 108.3 112.3 108.2 117.9 122.7
Gluteal diameter 0.52 1.36 0.95 0.77 2.07 0.85 Sagittal abdominal diameter 19–0 23.7 26.1 21.7 25.4 28.4
(cm)
ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; TEM = Technical Error of Bideltoid diameter (cm) 39.8 43.7 45.4 45.9 50.2 52.3
Measurement. Gluteal diameter (cm) 37.6 42.4 44.4 36.8 40.7 43.7

BMI = Body Mass Index; P = Percentile.

Table 3
Inter-evaluator technical error.
analyzed LR and comfort, resulting in a correlation of 0.72, and 26% of
Variable ISAK Anthropometrists passengers considered SP, knee space and LR as important factors on
Value TEM % ICC
flights. The study also mentions a SP of 83.8 cm as comfortable (Vink
and Brauer, 2011). On the other hand, Kremser et al. (2012) analyzed
Body mass 0.05 0.08 1.00 the comfort of various airplane seats with different SP and LR. The
Stature 0.87 0.52 0.98 results indicated that the values for maximum comfort are between
Seated height 0.59 0.66 0.93
Arm span 0.87 0.52 0.98
86.3 and 106.6 cm for SP and between 81.2 and 101.6 cm for LR. Al-
Umbilical height 0.48 0.49 0.98 though our recommendations are for a minimum LR in terms of space, a
Popliteal height 0.61 1.46 0.89 SP of 85.0 cm seems to be appropriate for many passengers to be able to
Tibia length 0.30 0.79 0.97 travel comfortably.
Buttock-popliteal length 0.47 0.92 0.95
Another important factor to increase minimum space for seated
Buttock-knee length 0.43 0.74 0.97
Buttock-foot length 0.95 0.93 0.94 passengers is the insufficient SW for majority of the airplanes which is
Sagittal abdominal diameter 0.53 2.78 0.89 between 43.1 and 45.7 cm for short and long duration flights in the
Bideltoid diameter 0.55 1.40 0.97 economy class (SeatGuru, 2016a, 2016b). The SW is inadequate for P
Gluteal diameter 0.62 1.63 0.93 95 and P 99 according to the bideltoid diameter of the Spanish male
participants and individuals from China, Japan, USA, Holland, Ger-
ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; TEM = Technical Error of
Measurement.
many, England and France to avoid contact between passengers (Tables
5 and 6). In addition, passengers need to reduce the risk of developing
LR (Table 5 and Table 6). deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and gastrointestinal pro-
Vink and Hallbeck (2012) analyzed the correlation between comfort blems, in addition to postural discomfort during flights (Scurr et al.,
and different factors in 10,032 passengers. The factors that had the 2010; Trujillo-Santos et al., 2008; Kuipers et al., 2007; Cruickshank
highest correlation with the interior comfort of airplanes were: LR, et al., 1988; Hinninghofen and Enck, 2006; Dowdall and Evans, 2004).
hygiene, and service received from the cabin crew. Another study For this reason, passengers need sufficient usable space to move,

93
J. Porta et al. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 69 (2019) 90–95

Table 5
Anthropometric variables of men from different countries in the 95th percentile.
Variable Germany China USA Spain France Holland England Japan

Body mass (kg) 105.0 74.0 113.0 90.7 93.0 103.0 103.0 75.0
Stature (cm) 186.5 179.2 187.7 189.5 184.6 191.3 187.0 178.1
BMI (kg/m2) 30.1 23.0 32.0 27.5 27.2 28.1 29.4 23.6
Seated height (cm) 97.7 96.5 98.3 99.3 97.7 99.6 97.9 97.0
Buttock-popliteal length (cm) 55.9 50.0 56.8 57.5 52.6 56.7 55.6 53.1
Buttock-knee length (cm) 68.1 60.9 69.2 65.6 64.6 69.0 67.7 60.9
Bideltoid diameter (cm) 54.7 48.3 56.3 50.2 51.7 50.5 53.7 48.7
Gluteal diameter (cm) 49.7 39.5 52.2 40.7 43.7 46.9 48.5 40.4

BMI = Body Mass Index; The data from Spain was from this study. The data from the other countries comes from People Size in Quigley et al. (2001).

Table 6
Anthropometric variables of men from different countries in the 99th percentile.
Variable Germany China USA Spain France Holland England Japan

Body mass (kg) 118.0 82.0 130.0 97.9 104.0 115.0 117.0 84.0
Stature (cm) 191.0 183.4 192.2 195.4 189.4 196.3 191.8 182.0
BMI (kg/m2) 32.3 24.3 35.0 29.1 28.9 29.8 31.8 25.3
Seated height (cm) 100.0 99.0 100.8 101.2 100.1 102.2 100.4 99.5
Buttock-popliteal length (cm) 58.2 52.3 59.6 59.1 54.7 60.9 58.0 55.5
Buttock-knee length (cm) 70.6 63.4 72.2 67.6 66.8 71.5 70.4 63.2
Bideltoid diameter (cm) 57.6 50.8 60.8 52.3 54.2 52.8 56.4 50.8
Gluteal diameter (cm) 54.6 42.8 58.4 43.7 47.3 50.6 53.3 42.9

BMI = Body Mass Index; The data from Spain come from this study. Data from the other countries comes from People Size in Quigley et al. (2001).

perform specific exercises, sit in a correct position and leave the seat
easily to reduce the negative effects caused by immobility. Having the
ability to move is important to benefit venous return, blood circulation
and to reduce risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (Sugerman et al.,
2012; Aryal and Al-Khaffaf, 2006; Adi et al., 2004; Forbes and
Johnston, 1998).
4.1. Limitations and future research
The low BMI of the participants could be considered a limitation in
the study. Obese individuals were not included in the study, and
therefore should be included in future studies. Furthermore, this study
should be performed with representative individuals of different
countries who have different ethnicity. Lastly, future studies should
take into account the thickness of the back rest, the seat-back pockets,
and LR to recommend a minimum SP.
5. Conclusions
The minimum space for seated passengers in the economy class need
to be increased based on the anthropometric study of Spanish adults in
the current study. The minimum LR should be between 68.1 and
70.1 cm, and the minimum SW between 50.2 and 52.3 cm for Spanish
adults. In addition, an international law should regulate a minimum SP,
LR and SW for commercial airplanes.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our most sincere appreciation to Dr. Irurtia
(Director of Catalan School of Kinanthropometry at the University of
Barcelona), Dr. Agrasar (Department of Biomedical Sciences, Medicine
and Physiotherapy at the University of Coruña), Mr. Martínez (Director
of Bernat Picornell Pools of Barcelona), Mr. Viladot (Administration,
CEO Holmes Places), and Dr. Agell (Department of Cell Biology,
Immunology and Neurosciences at the University of Barcelona).
References
Aryal, K.R., Al-Khaffaf, H., 2006. Venous thromboembolic complications following air
travel: what's the quantitative risk? A literature review. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg.
31 (2), 187–199.
Adi, Y., Bayliss, S., Rouse, A., Taylor, R.S., 2004. Association between air travel and deep
vein thrombosis: systematic review & meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 4, 1–8.
Civil Aviation Authority, 2016. CAP 562 Civil Aircraft Airworthiness Information and
Procedures. Online Referencing (Chapter 25) Leaflet 25-90: 1-4. Retrieved from.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP562_Is4_Am1_28FEB2017.pdf, Accessed
date: 26 October 2017.
Cruickshank, J.M., Gorlin, R., Jennett, B., 1988. Air travel and thrombotic episodes: the
economy class syndrome. Lancet 2 (8609), 497–498.
Dowdall, N., Evans, T., 2004. The Impact of Flying on Passenger Health: a Guide for
Healthcare Professionals. BMA Policy Report. British Medical Association.
Forbes, C.D., Johnston, R.V., 1998. Venous and arterial thrombosis in airline passengers.
J. R. Soc. Med. 91, 565–566.
Hinninghofen, H., Enck, P., 2006. Passenger well-being in airplanes. Auton. Neurosci. 129
(1–2), 80–85.
Komlos, J., Lauderdale, B.E., 2007. The mysterious trend in American heights in the 20th
century. Ann. Hum. Biol. 34 (2), 206–215.
Kremser, F., Guenzkofer, F., Sedlmeier, C., Sabbah, O., Bengler, K., 2012. Aircraft seating
comfort: the influence of seat pitch on passengers' well-being. Work 41 (1),
4936–4942.
Kuipers, S., Schreijer, A.J., Cannegieter, S.C., Büller, H.R., Rosendaal, F.R., Middeldorp,
S., 2007. Travel and venous thrombosis: a systematic review. J. Intern. Med. 262 (6),
615–634.
NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC), 2016. Trends in adult body-mass index in 200
countries from 1975 to 2014: a pooled analysis of 1698 population-based measure-
ment studies with 19·2 million participants. Lancet 387 (10026), 1377–1396.
Prieto, L., Lamarca, R., Casado, A., 1998. Assessment of the reliability of clinical findings:
the intraclass correlation coefficient. Med. Clínica 110 (4), 142–145.
Quigley, C., Southall, D., Freer, M., Moody, A., Porter, M., 2001. Anthropometric Study to
Update Minimum Aircraft Seating Standards. Retrieved from. https://dspace.lboro.
ac.uk/2134/701, Accessed date: 6 June 2015.
Röggla, G., Moser, B., Röggla, M., 1999. Seat space on airlines. Lancet 353 (9163), 1532.
Retrieved from. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10232356, Accessed date:
20 May 2017.
Sánchez González, E., Carrascosa Lezcano, A., Fernández García, J.M., Ferrández Longás,
A., López de Lara, D., López-Siguero, J.P., 2011. Spanish growth studies: the current
situation, their effectiveness and recommendations for their use. Anales de Pediatría
74 (3), 193 e1-16.

94
J. Porta et al.
Scurr, J.R., Ahmad, N., Thavarajan, D., Fisher, R.K., 2010. Traveller's thrombosis: airlines
still not giving passengers the WRIGHT advice!. Phlebology 25 (5), 257–260.
SeatGuru, 2016a. Short- Haul Economy Class Comparison Chart. Retrieved from.
https://www.seatguru.com/charts/shorthaul_economy.php, Accessed date: 5 May
2017.
SeatGuru, 2016b. Long-haul Economy Class Comparison Chart. Retrieved from. https://
www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php, Accessed date: 5 May 2017.
Stewart, A., Marfell-Jones, M., Olds, T., Hans De Ridder, J., 2011. International Standards
for Anthropometric Assessment. ISAK, South Africa.
Sugerman, H.J., Eklöf, B.G., Toff, W.D., Burke, A.E., Livingston, E.H., 2012. JAMA patient
page: air travel-related deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. JAMA 308
(23), 2531.
95
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 69 (2019) 90–95
Trujillo-Santos, A.J., Jiménez-Puente, A., Perea-Milla, E., 2008. Association between long
travel and venous thromboembolic disease: a systematic review and metaanalysis of
case-control studies. Ann. Hematol. 87, 79–86.
Ulijaszek, S.J., Kerr, D.A., 1999. Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment
of nutritional status. Br. J. Nutr. 82 (3), 165–177.
Vink, P., Brauer, K., 2011. Aircraft Interior Comfort and Design. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Vink, P., Hallbeck, S., 2012. Editorial: comfort and discomfort studies demonstrate the
need for a new model. Appl. Ergon. 43 (2), 271–276.
World Medical Association, 2013. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki:
ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310 (20),
2191–2194.