Charter Airline Legroom

[adfly]

is it just me are are charter airlines/locos really cruel with legroom-i went on an ezy flight (lgw-pfo)and the legroom was pretty rubbish-i couldent pick something up of the floor and im not what youd call lanky!

[Bealzebub]

Well, your location comes as something of a surprise, but what were you expecting? If you book on a charter flight or a lo-cost charter flight presumably it is armed with some knowledge?

It isn't difficult these days, to find plenty of web sites that will provide details of seat pitch, service levels, travellers reports, etc. It only adds a few more minutes to the in depth hunt for a 2000 mile journey by air for £39!

Aircraft by their very nature have a defined revenue floor space. The revenue that space can potentially generate is dependent on the type of service and number of seat units that can be contained in that space. If you are talking "Low cost" then it doesn't take a large amount of imagination to realize that you need to sell more or generate a higher turnover. On an aircraft this requires placing the greatest number of seats into the available space. If you provide more leg room it means taking seats out. When you do that (all things being equal) you either have to charge more or accept higher break even costs and lower profit margins. In an industry with wafer thin margins and cut throat competition your chances of business survival would be short lived in reality, even though some might sing your praise. At this end of the market (despite what people say) price is everything!

[Final 3 Greens]

I always thought easyJet offered much better legroom than charters :}

[TightSlot]

is it just me

Yes it is... (Weary Sigh)

[TSR2]

The revenue that space can potentially generate is dependent on the type of service and number of seat units that can be contained in that space

And also the daily utilisation of the aircraft.

[Avman]

NO, it's not just you. Legroom is ridiculously and dangerously tight on some carriers. The reasons given above are correct, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it shouldn't be allowed. If there were to be international legislation on a sensible minimum permissible seat pitch it would eliminate this abuse of space. YES, it will increase air fares, but airlines will have to find other means of competing then by simply cramming as many bodies into their tin machines. I find it quite ironic that in this age of some quite ridiculous Health & Safety rules (in all industries) that it's still perfectly legal to cram human beings into flying sardine cans. It's not just about comfort but SAFETY too.

[oldbalboy]

the EU brought in new legislation a couple of years back and changed minimum seat pitch from 26-28 inches (28 inches is what the UK charter airlines already had so no change)the airline i work for was expecting an increase to 30 and even had it programmed in to the heavy engineering checks for tht winter!! unless legislation comes in upping the minimum nothing will change as the industry is so cost driven by the SLF.

[OFSO]

A few years ago a rumour was launched that FR were about to take the seats out and fly with passengers standing up as they could get PX more in that way (yes, I know, ha-ha).

But coming back from Charleroi to Girona last week (nice landing, skipper !) on those uncomfortable dead-upright FR seats I thought that frankly I WOULD rather stand for two hours than sit.

Thousands do it every day on whatever British Rail is called these days, or so I'm told.....

[gatbusdriver]

AVMAN

There are plenty of airlines out there to choose from. They vary from loco/charter/scheduled. They all vary in price and seat pitch etc....offering a wide variety of prices to choose from.

May I suggest you part with a little more money than others wish to, and fly in a little more comfort.

If you had your way you would make flying a lot more elitist as you push prices higher than some can afford.

[Avman]

gatbusdriver, you make wrong assumptions about me. My post is NOT about me, it´s about a principle of HEALTH and SAFETY. For your info:

1. I do not fly on charter airlines!

2. I do not fly on certain low cost carriers!

3. I do indeed part with my money to fly on more comfortable airlines. I often do not have to pay any more than I would on a so-called low cost no-frills airline!

4. I fly Business Class on any trip which exceeds 4 hours flying time - at my personal cost may I add (I make sure that I get good deals) - because I can no longer tollerate Y class in most of today´s airlines.

Finally, I say again, it´s not about personal choice, it´s about health and safety. The minimum seat pitch should be 32 inches short and medium haul and 34 inches long haul. If people can´t afford it, then quit smoking and binge drinking every weekend :}

[TomU]

A cost/comfort relationship is not always true.

I recently flew Luton to Paris on Easyjet. I am 1.83m tall, and leg room was sufficient. I then flew Paris to Rome on Air France for a great deal more Euros, and legroom was so short that I had to remove the in-flight mag and DF mag from the seat-back pocket to get my knees in, and then they were still pressed against the seat back. I was almost de-kneecapitated when the person in front abruptly reclined his seat. Later from Sicily on an Italian LCC just a tad more legroom than AF, but still inadequate (but again, a small fraction of the price). So, AF most expensive (by far) and least legroom.
I do believe that 30 inches should be the legal minimum, not 28.

ANd really, with minimum legroom, reclining seats are a REALLY bad idea, not only for the legroom, but I detest having someones dandruff shoved right under my nose.

Tom.

[TomU]

Just to clarify before some humorist picks it up...of course I meant I had to remove the mags to get my knees in behind the seat, not into the literature pocket :rolleyes: :)
Tom.

[Final 3 Greens]

AVMAN

Well said.

[ryansf]

I find legroom on any aircraft perfectly acceptable. I usually appreciate the fact that I can go to many places only by paying a relatively small amount rather than whittling on about comfort. We get on buses, National Express and numerous trains per day, and no one complains about legroom. Why is it that as soon as people are locked in a metal tube with does the issue of comfort and legroom come along? I've sat on a Greyhound bus for 7 hours with less legroom that most charters (Thomas Cook being the worst in my opinion) and that was fine! No entertainment, no trolley service, just a seat and a window. Oh, and I'm 6'2" by the way.

[Hartington]

You're looking in the wrong place! I see plenty of complaints about seating on trains in the UK.

I'm with Avman when it comes to flying. That said I quite often use Premium Economy for flights of between 4 and 7/8 hours particularly in daylight and then make sure I do fly in daylight. This means that going to the UK/US East Coast I will deliberately structure my trip to end up in New York, Boston or Washington to make use of the daylight flights back to the UK. Among other things I find the flights back from those cities too short to get any proper sleep in business. Going further west I'll look at PE out and business home.

[Envoy320]

why do people go on and on and on about legroom......just get on the plane - shut up - and get off the other end.....either that - OR STAY AT HOME FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!!

STOP MOANING ABOUT IT ALLLLLLL THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TSR2]

just get on the plane - shut up - and get off the other end.

Glad to say this is not typical of TCX personnel.

[Envoy320]

im talking about the pax......not the crew.....just stop moaning!!

[Capot]

I have a friend who has no problem whatsoever with legroom.

But you should hear him on the subject of wheelchair access and treatment at airports.

Drift alert......

Everyone has their special beef. Yours may be legroom; mine is the way that returning residents and more importantly visitors are treated by airports and the infamous "UK Borders" (Immigration to those who don't understand fatuous, catchy titles), at BAA airports in particular, where the standard is worse than third-world.


Back to legroom; if you want more don't use locos, and pay to sit at the front in the others. It's that simple.

[10secondsurvey]

AVMAN,

I couldn't agree more with what you say. It is an important safety aspect that is avoided by airlines. The actual legal minimum legroom in the UK is 26 inches, and you need to be careful with websites stating seat pitch at this point, because legroom is not seat pitch.

Seat pitch is the distance from a point on one seat, to the same point on the seat in front. So, the measurement called 'seat pitch' actually includes the thickness of the seat. So, for example if the seat pitch is 31 inches, and the seat is 2 inches thick, this would give around 29 inches of legroom. This is why most charters for short haul from the UK have a seat pitch of 28 inches (as it allows two inches for the seat thickness) ensuring the legal minimum of 26 inches of legroom remains.

But, the point you make avman is perfectly valid. If the minimum were set at say thirty one inches of legroom (around 33 pitch) then ALL airlines would have to compete on a level playing field.

As for it being impossible to run a budget airline with more legroom, that is just hogwash. In the USA, Virgin America gives 32 inches as standard (EZY by comparison just 29 inches), and JetBlue, a very successful budget carrier, gives 34 inches (more than BA longhaul economy) as standard, and by paying an extra 15 dollars, you can get one of the six front rows, which have a seat pitch of......wait for it.........a whopping 38 inches.

There are many, many examples of this around the world. It is only in Europe that pax have been 'suckered' in to believing all the airline sponsored guff about how legroom needs to be low in a budget airline.

I genuinely believe it is a safety issue, and I fully agree with what you say.

So, avman, it's not just you, there are many who think exactly the same thing.

[Capot]

That's interesting. I never knew that the legal minimum seat spacing is defined in terms of "legroom" as opposed to seat pitch. Since it is, it follows that "legroom" is very precisely defined also, and I have never heard of that before.

I've only ever talked in terms of pitch. We live to learn.

I'm guessing, from what you say, that it's the distance between the front of the seat back where it meets the bottom cushion, to the back of the seat in front on a horizontal line, across the centre of the seat.

Is that anywhere close?

Incidentally, when you say "legal in the UK", which is the applicable law/regulation here? Is there a reference we can look up for this? Does it apply only to UK-registered aircraft?

[TightSlot]

I've also never heard of a legal requirement for minimum legroom, only seat pitch. I'm curious how airlines could physically mechanically fit seats to comply, given that the thickness of a seat cushion is a variable, whereas the seat pitch is surely a constant, related to the position in the seat track. Is there a reference document (link pls) somewhere that specifies the legal legroom requirement?


Edit: For interest only, how can the seat pitch be measured at 38" when a seat is a bulkhead seat - surely there is no seat in front to establish pitch: Is this a measure to the bulkhead wall, and if so, is there a minimum published distance somewhere?

[Envoy320]

Seat pitch is the legal requirement NOT legroom....there are only guidelines for legroom based on the seat pitch.

[Capot]

I rather thought so, but I was trying to be polite, if sceptical.

I was not seriously expecting the assertion "The actual legal minimum legroom in the UK is 26 inches" to be substantiated by a valid reference, and nor was Tightslot, I think.

[TightSlot]

Absolutely Capot - on the money!

[Michael SWS]

Seat pitch is the legal requirement NOT legroom...
Not so.

The following is an extract from this document (http://www.bata.uk.com/Web/Documents/data/pitch/Seat%20Pitch%202008v2.pdf) issued by the British Air Transport Association.The United Kingdom is the only country that has regulations defining the minimum size of passenger seats and the space between seats. These regulations apply to all aircraft registered in the UK. The regulations state that the minimum distance between the front of the back support cushion of a seat and the back of the seat or other fixed structure in front should be 26 inches (660mm). This distance is designed to ensure the rapid and safe evacuation of passengers in an emergency. This dimension is not the same as seat pitch. Consideration must also be given to the thickness of the back support and cushion which will vary with the type of seat but is on average about 2 inches (51mm) thick. In practice, the minimum seat pitch necessary to comply with the regulations is 28 inches (711mm).So while there is no legal requirement for legroom, there is a legal requirement for the space between seats, and that minimum is 26 inches. Let's just agree to a draw.

[Capot]

Michael SWS

Thanks for that; very illuminating, and I agree to the draw! (I'm gratified to see that my guess as to what it might mean wasn't far off the mark...)

However, while I have every respect for BATA and do not doubt their information, I would still be very interested to know precisely which law or regulation they are basing that statment on.

Not because I am still sceptical, but because I would like to bottom this one out for a lot of reasons.

Does anyone have any knowledge on that?

[Capot]

This is getting interesting...well, perhaps not, but it is to me!

There was an Airworthiness Notice AN 64 which did indeed specify various minimum dimensions for seat spacing.

The last reference I can find to that, in a very quick trawl, was 2005, when in a Parliamentary reply it was said that "at the time EASA took over responsibility, the CAA had a set of minimum seat-space dimensions" by which I assume the writer meant AN 64.

So the question is whether or not EASA have adopted and applied any minimum dimensions, and I think the answer is "no".

The CAA refer to their "belief that there is a safety case for minimum seat-space dimensions", here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1770). But that's all.

(Incidentally, EASA regulation starts with a safety case, so if the CAA are still trying to persuade EASA that there is a case, the rule-making process hasn't even started.)

Therefore, I suspect that the reality is that EASA, and therefore the UK, presently has no defined minimum dimensions similar to the old AN 64, and that BATA, typically, simply have not caught up with that.

But I could very easily be wrong!

Apart from a safety case paper about aisle width in a B737 being converted from private to commercial use, EASA doesn't appear to have anything in the pipeline, but with their website as it is, I could well have missed it.

UK Government websites, with the honourable exception of the CAA, seem to take the weekend off just like their owners, and research is hampered by that. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........

What prompted my scepticism was the idea that there can be an aviation safety regulation for public air transport that applies only to aircraft registered in the UK. All the CAA (SRG) now exists for is to enforce EASA compliance. (As slowly and expensively as they can possibly manage, but that's another issue.)