I think reducing the max number of passengers so that everyone is next to a window is likely to reduce overall safety in the short term at least, due to the need for more flights, ie more pilots, more training and the consequential likelihood of levels of competence and experience being reduced, at a time when there is already a big expansion in pilot numbers going on.
Fortunately, the report doesn't actually say that, even though the media is promoting this line. It says that passengers have to be next to an exit / window UNLESS they have Category A emergency breathing systems (or side floats, which if they ever come about are some way off).
However I couldn't be bothered to wade through 169 pages of CAP 1034 so I don't really know what a Category A device is. Can anyone sum up?
Otherwise I find the report a little disappointing. Nothing concrete about VHM / HUMS except "we will form another committee, and its going to take until the end of the year just to do that, never mind the committee actually doing anything useful" which is surprising since 3 of the recent accidents have a direct link to sub-optimal use of VHM/HUMS.
Simulators don't get much of a mention either. Nothing about the quality of devices, the need accurately to replicate the complexities of display and autopilot systems (which are glossed over in the regulations for simulator approval).
I suppose the acid question is whether, had the actions and recommendations already been implemented, the recent spate of accidents would have been avoided. It's hard to answer "yes".