Hot n Hih,
I agree you get what you pay for in all walks of life. But in the context of my last two posts, I was relating purely to SAFETY.
Are we to assume, that a lower fare could be offered to passengers by only having one pilot on say a 737, and if he pops his clogs, then the passengers have no right to complain as 'they get what they pay for'.
What is being discussed is MINIMUM safety standards, and most passengers ASSUME that the airlines priority will be to comply with minimum standards. The ICE report suggests that current practice is unsafe in relation to some seat dimensions (read the report). As regards the brace position, I am no expert on this, but my understanding has always been it was derived from data and studies looking at actual injuries sustained in airline crashes. (but, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I am pretty sure the described brace position would not have been mandated in the way it has been, if it was not felt to be of importance, and as such, it can only be dangerous if, according to this report a large percentage of passengers cannot adopt said position.
As regards, 'you get what you pay for', it should more correctly, in aviation, be 'you get what you think you pay for'. Most passengers believe safety is paramount when they purchase an airline ticket. If this report is correct, then that is simply not the case.
As someone has already pointed out, if passengers were told at time of ticket purchase that the flight would be grossly uncomfortable and they would not be able to adopt the CAA stipulated brace position (designed to minimise injury)and the seats were too close together to evacuate quickly in an emergency, then most passengers WOULD choose an alternative. At present they DO NOT have that information and cannot make such a judgement.
Much has been made of studies suggesting that passengers will not pay more for larger seats etc.. but if those same passengers were given the above information at time of purchase, with a compliant ticket costing £50 more, I do not think many would go for the cheaper ticket.
I cannot stress this more than enough, the general public ASSUME safety is assured no matter how cheap the ticket. A typical explanation of this from the travelling public would be "they wouldn't let it fly if it was unsafe".
As regards the comment that everything in life has risks, I agree entirely. Does this mean that in aviation we should not minimise risks where possible? No one is asking for ten extra engines or airbags! Simply that the seats are adequately placed to allow for evacuation and adoption of the Brace position. As the cost would be passed on to the punters, I really do not think it is such a big deal.
Cost benefit analysis in relation to safety is irrelevant, until such an anlysis is performed in the light of all relevant factors, including said sudy. Until then it is theoretical piffle.
Anyway I've had my say, I'm not an expert in this area, so I feel as though I've had more than my thruppennies worth, already. I just get irritated at the nonsense arguments put forward as a means of bypassing good safety standards, and excusing sloppy practice. The nonsense arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. I hope the Sunday Times is successful. I suspect nothing will happen, as I said before, until the sh*t hits the fan. Sadly.
I'll shut up now.