Orlando Flight Training
 

This is cut down from the London Times of 5th Sept 2001. Full story at:

The Times

AIRLINE seats are so tightly packed together that passengers cannot adopt the “brace” position in an emergency and may take
too long to escape from a burning plane, according to a study commissioned by air safety regulators.

The minimum distance between seat rows, known as the seat pitch, must be increased by at least 3in, the report recommends. However, an extra 10in may be needed to accommodate taller people safely.

The report, which has been obtained by The Times, is being considered by Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority. If the
recommendations are adopted, airlines will have to strip out up to 100 seats from each plane. UK airlines say fares would rise by a third.

Charter and budget airlines would be most affected because their seat size is close to the current minimum, which the report finds is unsafe. One charter airline has estimated that it would cost £50 million a year to comply with the recommended new sizes.

“Most carriers have found few passengers are willing to pay more for extra legroom,” a spokesman for the British Air Transport Association, which represents airlines, said.

The report calls for a series of evacuation tests to be carried out to establish how many extra seconds it takes to escape when the seats are tightly packed. The report also recommends further research into the risks of developing deep vein thrombosis from sitting in cramped conditions.
<CUT>
The seat width, which is unregulated, was also too narrow on many planes, with “larger passengers having great difficulty in getting in and out of their seats”. It was also impossible, when seated, to avoid “body contact” with people in neighbouring seats.
<CUT>
The researchers, from Nottingham University Medical School, Loughborough University and the ICE ergonomics consultancy, criticise the current regulations for failing to take into account the 1in-2in of space lost when the person in front reclines his seat. The study recommends that the minimum be measured when the seat is reclined and be increased from 26in to 28.2in, meaning the gap would have to grow by at least 3.2in.

However, the report says it may be necessary to increase the seat pitch to 35in to allow for the “optimum safe brace position”.

The seat pitch on some charter airlines can be as little as 27in. Budget airlines tend to offer 29in. The study recommended a minimum seat width of 19.6in, 4in more than currently offered by some budget airlines. To comply, they may have to remove a whole line of seats running the length of the plane.
<CUT>
The CAA said that the report was being considered by the Joint Aviation Authorities, the European-wide safety regulator, which would decide whether to impose the recommendations.

Considering that you moan and bellyache all the time on the 'Cabin Crew' forum about the cost of the airfare to the Isle Of Man, I guess this would mean the end of your air travel as a pax.
You could always take up 'spotting' instead!
BTW my cars a bit cramped, maybe I'll sue the balls off F*rd (have to be careful) for DVT.

Oh dear! I grumble about paying one of the highest airfares in Europe and then you do not wish to consider anything else that I mention?

I shall not bother other readers with the number of times I pay a fare that I consider reasonable and that includes paying for 'C' on my own account.

The point of posting this item is to sit back and watch the response in the main media (I expect low) and the reaction of the airlines/CAA.

Then again why not log onto 'airdisaster.com'
Look at the video footage of some real crashes, and decide yourself whether or not an extra 3-4 inches legroom would have helped you walk away from that firey mass of moult and metal.

Having just returned from SFO to LHR in United Airlines' economy section, I can honestly say the ammount of space (or lack of it) is appalling. There's no room with the seat in front in the vertical position; when it's reclined it causes physical pain.

It'll probably take a lawsuit to change it though.

I think the Europeans and Brits should nationalize their aviation industries, lower fares, and increase the seat pitch to reasonable levels.

Crash Barrier I suggest you sit in any UK Charter Aircraft for 5 hours and try to atempt the brace position. Unless your in extra legroom seats or your a 3' midget. You won't be able to do it. Not every emergancy where the brace is adopted results in total fatality. I would be more worried about getting past the guy that gets wedged between the seats while the acrft's on fire, than if I'm gonna sue the airline. All pax should assume some risk when travelling and should not be allowed to sue, in return the airline should ensure that pax has the best possible chance of surviving an incident.

You can't have it both ways, you know - lower fares and more legroom! :D :D :D

However, if the charter boys have to increase their pitch by 10 inches and widen the seats sufficiently that a seat per row is lost, that will mean that for Mr & Mrs Shellsuit there will be precious few fortnight breaks in Ibiza for £149. That in turn will mean that there will have to be a serious and significant rationalisation of the UK charter market - meaning lots of redundancies.

However, that said, the Germans are perfectly happy to pay higher fares for more comfort and hopefully it will result in a better class of pax - reducing incidences of 'air rage'.

CB, because I KNOW that personal survival in a crash is largely due to luck. I do what I can to improve the luck that I am given (familiarity with the a/c I am in; counting rows and so forth).

The point of posting this was that it is 'news' and may generate some discussion in the public. I doubt it.

We all know that what has been found has been common knowledge for those who take an interest, or participate, in the airline business.

Of course Road Trip has probably found the answer ;)

Guv, could not agree more. If your comment re legroom/price was aimed at me, please do not be misled by others. I am always willing pay the rate for the journey and the space. My issue is with profiteering but that is the delight of having a monopoly on a route!

It was, I believe, Satan who decreed that all coach seats be the same. Why not make all clothing the same size as well!

The only rational solution is to classify pax by height. Have two or three zones - one meeting the current standard, and the others bigger.

I am 6'-3 and 235 lb. And yes, the 12 hours SFO-ICN on United did make me want to sue someone. Must be my dang american DNA....

Crash Barrier

What exactly is "moult", as in "moult and metal"? Is it the stuff you get when you brush your long-haired cat? :D :D

Over the last couple of years I've been lucky enough to be a regular SLF, and I for one would pay more for comfort, but only to a point (i.e. I can't afford business class!). An extra £50 on long-haul I would gladly part with.

The difference in pitch on the different 'classes' of airline is very noticeable. For example, I've been very comfortable in economy with CX and DL, yet recent trans-atlantic flights with AIH and BY were, quite frankly, horrendous. Like being in cattle trucks.

For most passengers on these charter flights, however, it's probably their one trip into the air per year, and they'll happily suffer discomfort in order to save a few quid. These flights are always full, and that speaks for itself. Noticed a lot doing exercises, though...

Must credit both Easyjet and Ryanair while I'm here, as I've always found them both comfortable (albeit on short-haul).

Heading back to the original post, I wouldn't imagine that increases in pitch and seat size would make a huge difference in a 300+ mph crash. Runway incidents / fires, yes.

But as already metioned in this thread, we as pax have to accept to a degree that business is business and 100% safety can never be provided due to economic constraints. I, for one, have faith when I board, but a bit of extra legroom never goes amiss!

The only way to get more seat pitch is tne UK market is to legislate. I suffered a dreadfull flight home in a spotty M airbus with my knees hard up against the seat in front and my bum wedged in the seat back. The quicker a minimum 31/32 inch seatpitch comes in the better.

The seat width comments are equally valid.

You can't be serious, Roadtrip. State-run companies are a recipe for disaster in any industry- here in Canada the most dangerous form of transport is the state-run rail service, and AC had its share of horror stories before it was privatized. Oh, and let's not forget what a wonderful record Aeroflot had!

Everyone would like more legroom. No one wants to pay the extra money. Most (if not all) UK charter airlines now offer some sort of premium class, for which you get a much bigger seat as well as some other frills. It does cost money though. On short haul around £50-60 return. On long haul quite a bit more. Some pay, some just buy the cheap seats then whinge.
If you are large then you have a choice. You buy yourself two seats or you pay extra for a seat with more room.
If you find economy uncomfortable then buy a Business Class seat. If you can't afford a business class seat and find you can't fit in an economy seat then don't fly. No-one is forced to go on an aircraft.
Economy class is a chance for those who don't mind putting up with a bit of discomfort the opportunity to go to places they otherwise could not afford to visit.
Just look back in time. Flying used to be a luxury, with individual service and a "luxury" cabin. And few could afford it. So economy class and the charter airlines came in.
Perhaps airlines should advertise that a standard seat is available at "x" price, but if you want a smaller seat its half the price. Guess which cabin will be full?

As a former skinny but now large person part of me has to agree with Mr Benn's rather acerbic comment...if you don't fit don't fly!

Why do I agree with him? well because everyone in an emergency should be able to "get around" an aircraft and very large people not only can't manage themselves but might block others.

I am a tall female and in the past couple of years have put on weight, as it happens, and the reasons are purely personal/medical and not to be shared in this forum. When I was skinny I was comfortable in any old airline seat. When I last flew to FL to visit friends in a BA 777 I had to request an aisle seat so that I had a chance to get myself out of the seat to visit the loos and generally give my legs a chance to move! To get in and out of the seat (with the one in front of me reclined) I had to clamber over the arm. I am still (relatively speaking) a young and mobile individual but anyone other would have been stuck. In an emergency those inboard of me (had I been immobile) would have been in trouble!

Most clothes manufacturers realise that the "standard" size is no longer a standard - I think airlines do have to acknowlege that a Brit 10/US 8 is no longer standard and to create cabins/seating more tailored to reality. If they wish to continue hiring tiny cabin crew that is fine but just recognise that pax sizes are different in 2001.

This does not mean I don't agree with Mr Benn - in fact in another forum I had the outrageous idea that a passenger should be weighed with checked bags and carry-on bags and there should be one UNIT of weight allocated per seat that can be distributed how SLF prefers. The fatter/heavier passenger would just have to pack less or take fewer gifts or just pay the diff!!

:D

Hi all, don't know if you only are interested in UK carriers or not, but if you want some nice leg room fly American.
I didn't pay any more for my ticket than the going price on other airlines at that time.
I had not flown them in many years and it was a nice surprise. The extra room really made a difference. I am tall and was with a toddler and it really helped make the trip more comfortable.
I hear there are one or two more US carriers that are now doing the same.
Hope this helps for anyone that really wants that extra space. :)

Hey how about a A380 config'd for the hadj? Anybody for a cheap ticket to Saudi Arabia.

Squawk 888 - Tongue was firmly in cheek with that crack about nationalizing airlines. Although, if you guys would like to do that up north, I'm sure some US airlines could fill the gap when AC grinds to a halt under government management. Be glad to send you some of our very effective bureaucrats from the Dept of Transportation and the FAA to help out. You can even keep them . . . please.

Mr Benn,

TVs and cars also used to be a luxury, so let's have a reality check. As times move on, so do people's expectations. And so should the service provided.

I count myself very fortunate to be able to see the world and fly a great deal in the process. But the last two long-haul charter flights I've been on (AIH & BY, as mentioned previously) simply took the p**s. It was worse than sitting in the back of a mini. I've flown on many such a flight before, but the space provided is decreasing by the year.

There's no doubt that such charter airlines are doing what they can to further profits, i.e. maximising the amount of seating in the cabin. People may not complain en-masse, but does that make it right??

Perish the thought, but if an aircraft configured with minimum pitch seating should ever have a major runway incident, then God help those on board.

It's correct that such 'budget' flying gets many people to places they might not otherwise go. Without wishing to sound condescending to such pax, ignorance is bliss. That is, until it backfires.

In ten years time, the goalposts will have moved considerably. And those airlines that do not adapt will suffer. Those pax who may be ignorant now will soon demand more. The more they travel, the more they will learn, and the more they will expect.

More airlines should follow the 'American' example. Why did they increase pitch? Because US citizens use air travel more, and are more 'sussed' as a result.

It's the reality of the modern world that the £/$ sign rules. People may be ignorant, but they are not stupid. Someone should give pax a better deal, and then they will see that the punters WILL pay for it.

Let's see the end of airborne 'charabangs'!

If my fading memory serves me right.all the original 747 100's & 200's were configured 9 abreast in economy.
Now that WAS civilised. ;)

Huck, who ate all the pies on you're flight then :~)

TJ, that American thing is a classic example of markets doing the job. It was a huge promotion started when the industry began to slump last year- they even held a contest to give away the seats they took out. Wouldn't that be a cool conversation piece for the living room? :D The discounters will always have veal-stall pitch but I think market pressure will make the majors open up a bit.

Had quite a pleasant trip LGW-PHL on USAir 2 weeks ago in economy. 6 feet tall (and 13 stone - 85kg) I fit reasonably well into most carriers a/c in "scheduled" config. (US, BA, SV, GF)

The only problem I have found is when somebody is seated next to me who is "very generously proportioned" and too inconsiderate to try to compensate - had a very uncomfortable flight on SV (fortunately under 2 hours) with a neighbour who had a problem fitting between the armrests of his own seat and whose elbows "overflowed" into my face when eating his meal. Whilst I feel sorry for anyone who cannot keep their weight to a "healthy level", I do get p1ssed when they apropriate half of the seat space that I paid for :( Fortunately (or perhaps he was being considerate?) he had the window seat so I would not have been blocked in emergency - he'd certainly have taken time to extricate himself if an evac was required :)

As for charter seats - can't comment as I haven't been on one for ages. But the last time, I was quite happy LHR-LCA when the seat and a week's hotel cost me £150!

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: ExSim ]

Pax Man, the choice is simple:

1. Fly charter, who out of shear economics must get the most pax they can onboard. Once one airline squeezes another seat on (with CAA approval) they all have to or no longer be competitive in the cut throat world of tour operators demand. At least you can buy a drink if you want one rather than have the cost of two included in your fare.

2. Pay £200 more and get more legroom and a free drink on a scheduled airline.

Simple really, so dig your hand deeper into your pocket or stop moaning. :rolleyes:

Back to the 'brace position' consideration...

Has the efficacy of this ever been actually demonstrated ? Seems to me if the seats break lose or the belts rupture, then the position of the pax would be pretty much immaterial. If seats stay in place but things are flying round the cabin, fuselage disintegrating etc., then I think I'd want my head up to see it coming and have a chance to dodge or fend off. Should the need arise, I'll scrunch down, put my feet up on the seat in front, hands over the 'jewels' and turtle my head. This sound any better ?

I am in the US at the moment taking advantage of my staff travel benefits and I too had a pleasant suprise at the new seat pitch with AA. Absolutely wonderful! the funny thing is that of all the airlines available to me AA were the only ones with any spare seats!!!!

If anyone can cast their minds back to the Britannia 757 which crashed at Gerona, I think you will find that all 235 pax evacuated from a seat pitch of 28".

Tour operators force charter airlines to put max seats in charter aircraft, and if you want more space you have to pay more, unfortunately it is only a minority who are willing. Try getting a family of four to pay an extra £120 (£30 each) for an extra 2-3" legroom and most won't.

People should quit moaning, like most things in life people get what they pay for.

Unfortunately unless the majority are willing to pay extra, pigs are more likely to fly than charter flights in the UK with 34" seat pitch.

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Next Generation PSR ]

My wife loves dragging me to see musicals in London. You think airline seat pitch is bad .... try sitting through 3 hours of Les Mis in those wretched theatre seats. I can feel a musical DVT lawsuit coming on .......

The worst trip ever experienced was an Air France flight to NBO where the seat pitch was riduculous to the point I am convinced a mistake had been made putting the seats in, it has had the effect however of my never ever traveling AF again. Case of Pavlovian reaction possibly.
'Les Mis' seats were princley by comparison, I was somewhat inconvenienced however by a Sumo tourist sitting in front of me. The deathbed scene created a little more vision occlusion because an equaly huge hankey came out to wipe away the tears which was quite touching. My tears however had already flowed for the cost of the seat where I not only was peering round a pillar but at an extremely big bloke in front. I believe he really enjoyed the show though, singing was good I did hear that.
Pleasantly surprised on BA 777 back from Jed the other day but heard it had been a substitution plane from a longhaul route where the seating is a tad more generous. The new layout is very nice indeed and seating V comfortable, I thought for a bit that I had been upgraded to business but it really was the back. Good one Birdseed it was a nice flight, on time, good cabin service, pleasant staff, made me proud to be a Brit, just get Concord back that'll really make our day

Pax-man
You say you are an experienced flyer so you must have known what the seat pitch would be like on AIH and BY so why book with them? Ignorance is bliss you say and yet you still booked with them. Doh!

A Britman. :confused:

Of course I knew in advance that flying long-haul charter would not be pleasant! We were taking lots of family to a wedding, so there was no other viable option, really.

I seem to be accused of whingeing on! Me? I just thought I was telling it like it is! And it is. Long-haul charter is crap. Full-stop. It's not a whinge, it's a fact!

As for the dead-heads who come out with the 'if you don't like it, tough' rubbish, I thought as intelligent aviators you might be a little more reasoned than that!

Flying to me is still the greatest wonder of the world, and every time I leave the runway I never fail to be awestruck by the sheer magic of this incredible engineering feat. I love being a pax, but it's not much fun when your knees are in your chest! That's all I was saying, I guess.

Pax-man, many of the points you make are correct. The problem is that their are a lot of 'vested interests' who peruse this web site such as charter opeators for example.

I think people have kind of drifted from the original posting, where the article concerned was primarily related to seat pitch and size in relation to safety.

I find it quite bizarre that some in the aviation industry have the belief that it is 'acceptable' to have very cramped seating even if safety is seriously compromised. The study, I believe was designed to address the safety element. It found that safety was compromised to a significant degree with airlines with smallest seats/pitch.

This is an extremely serious matter and hopefully will not be conveniently
'swept under the carpet' for ten years like DVT.

As regards the cost versus room issue in relation to holiday charter flights, the problem is the information given via travel agents. Many people going on 'package' holidays have never been on a plane before, and are seriously surprised when the seats do not live up to the glamorous impression created in the holiday brochures. When booking holidays, the agent always aims to get the lowest price so that the holiday will not be booked via a competitor agent, but most people are not told "by getting you a cheap price, your flight to the canaries will be a truly horrendous experience, and your safety may be compromised in the event of an accident".

Sadly, it is truly ignorant of people in this industry to criticise the passengers for opting for cheap flights when the passengers have no idea at time of booking that their flight would be so cramped.

You will probably find that the majority of passengers who opt for 'premium' charter seats are those who have already flown charter before, or who have been well advised by their agent. I have been on charter flights before, and the look of incredulity and disbelief on some tall passengers faces is remarkable. People who do not fly or work in aviation really do expect the flight will be really comfortable, and are gobsmacked when it is not.

As someone has already said, legislation on minimum seat pitch and size would provide benefits in that all airlines would have to work to the same seating standards. They could then compete on quality of booking/commections/reliability and so on.

I am surprised that the likes of BA have not jumped at this opportunity, as it would give them a considerable advantage against the budget airlines of this world. Stelios would have nightmares.


And all passengers would be happy contented souls (for a while).

I do think the safety element of this needs to be looked at in great detail.

The safety implications have already been looked into. All seating configs in relation to numbers have to pass the rigorous CAA/JAR evacuation test of all off within 90 seconds using half the available exits. It is market forces that decide seat pitch, not safety.

The only completely safe aeroplane is one parked on the ground with no passengers on!! Reality check?

Regulating seat pitch for safety's sake can backfire big-time. Whenever you push up the lowest fares, more people choose a driving holiday instead- and that prospect is truly frightening.

Rigorous, my left foot !
What possible connection is there between a planeload of fit volunteers knowing there's an evacuation coming and they are in no danger, and a load of hysterical suntrippers comprising children, grannies and soused brickies among others ?

Paxboy,
You say you don't mind 'paying a higher fare' for more legroom, and then you go over to the Cabin Crew forum to complain endlessly about the cost of the airfare to the Isle of Man!
Screw loose????

Raise the prices, increase the pitch.

This will have the happy result of decreasing passenger numbers and frustration, and increasing passenger quality and the level of satisfaction of the ones who can afford to fly.

If they can't afford the higher fares, they can stay at home or go to Butlins like last year.

Why let the lowest common denominator determine the industry standard?

[ 10 September 2001: Message edited by: AfricanSkies ]

Flypast: I think that BA will keep well away from this idea! Some of the new 777 that for high density routes, such as Florida, have been specially configured to be 10 seat rows, rather than 9. They use narrow seats and aisles and are then able to get nearly 100 extra seats (I stand to be corrected). As freight is not a main feature of these flights, they can take the weight.

When they were first introduced, they faced an action by a pax who was shown a seat layout of the conventional 9-in a row but found himself on the 10-in a row. If I recall correctly, they settled out of court.

The 10-in a row is not used on all their 777s.

CB: As I have already pointed out. My gripe about IOM flight cost is one of monopoly and lack of interest by the IOM govt. Please do not take the trhead off course with repeat postings of information that I have already corrected. However, I am pleased that you remember my posts so well, given that I made that post more months ago than I can recall.

Paxboy,
As I have said before, you should get your PPL, if money is no object as you are now saying. Then fly 'yourself' to the Isle of Man, therefore not lining any of those nasty airline's pockets. Failing that, go by ferry, failing that stay at home or pay for business class. Who really cares about another few inches of legroom ???
If your time is up, then it's up.
DVT, what crap ?? try spending 7 hours on a N*tional Express bus and you will know what cramped is! Mind you, I suppose they will be ripping seats out next, no more £9 one way fare to London!