White knight I couldn't agree more.
But since we have some real tosh being posted here comparing airline seats to buying cars etc.. let's take some of the nonsense to its logical conclusion, and see if the arguments stack up.
A good example is this, 'passengers want the cheapest flight possible, and yet want more comfortable seats for nothing extra'. Well let's just consider this, the CAA minimum seat pitch allowable is 26", so why is it that Britannia have around 28", monarch and airtours similarly. None of them use the legal mimimum seat pitch. If market conditions were genuinely being driven by the desire to keep costs (and fares) low, all budget and charter airlines would have the legal minimum seat pitch. Wouldn't they?
BUT THEY DON'T - why is that??
Similarly, the argument is put forward that if a given charter airline were to increase its seat pitch by say two inches (thereby increasing the cost of the flight), they would lose so much business, they would face financial ruin. If that is so, and the earlier argument is also correct, then clearly there is a killing to be made in the aviation industry. Someone please tell JMC, Brittania and airtours, that a lot of money can be made overnight by dropping the seat pitch from 28" to the legal minimum of 26".
Let's see who does it first. OR, is it due to the realisation that a seat pitch of 26" would be completely intolerable? From a logical point of view, doesn't that then make the use of the safety minimum (26"), irrelevant when discussing COMFORT.
Most of the so-called arguments put forward for not increasing seat pitch, are really not very sound at all. I think in this matter, there is an inherent element of not even considering the idea, as that is the way it always has been etc...
As regards this notion of choice, many charter flight do not have 'premium seats' available, and so anyone over about 5'9" inches or so can either sit in misery and real severe pain for eight hours or not travel abroad. From a personal perspective, if I cannot book extra leg room seats (for a fee), then I do not book the trip or holiday. And this has happened many times.
I've said it before, Joe punter generally has no idea what the flight comfort will be like when booking a trip. Check common holiday brochures, each one stresses how good and enjoyable the flight will be and not one says, if you are over 5'10" tall, the seats will be way too small and grossly uncomfortable, and you really must pay for an upgrade or do not travel.
The point is this, the passenger in this case, had no idea how truly teeny weeny the seats would be. He expected a degree of comfort (no doubt from the brochure). No one warned him otherwise.
Overall it's all very silly, why don't all airlines just agree on a standard minimum comfort seat pitch, and that would put an end to a lot of speculation and problems.
As regards the point made regarding an airline only making £9 on a £49 premium upgrade, anyone with a basic knowledge of airline economics knows a lot of the money on charters is made not from the seat price, but the extras, headsets, duty free (at seriously dodgy exchange rates), ice cream and drinks. Oh, and don't forget the scratchcards. They also make money from people like me who pay £40 extra to reserve wing exit seats (these seats would exist even if not charged for).