Court Win May Change Future of Air travel
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am someone who spends a long time sitting behind most of you guys (on trips to the US, Canada, Europe) - at least until I get this PPL finished anyway.
. .My company pays for most of my tickets (roughly 25 trips a year before 11/9). They point-blank refuse to pay any extra, even if it means that we are in a mess on arrival.
Example 1: trip to the USA. My boss at the time (around 6'4" - 6'6") spent 11 hours to SFO in economy and needed visits to a chiropractor while abroad. Company wouldn't pay for an upgrade to business for the home leg and he couldn't afford the huge price either.
Example 2: visit to PHX next month. We having to fly LGW-PHX on BA because it is cheaper. Not LHR-SFO-PHX on United (look at my profile and deduce the logic in that). This is despite the fact that United has more legroom than BA - I have spent similar trips with my legs twisted sideways because I couldn't get them straight in front of me - and it'll cost more that the UA / BA difference in taxi fares!
Incidentally, most companies in the electronics industry have a policy of "cheapest possible economy only".
When I'm paying to travel, it's different. I insisted that my wife & I flew to YYZ on AC rather than BA because I'd done the trip before with both and could still walk after getting off of the AC 747. It cost a bit more, but that's what we all have to do.
. .What has to happen is that everyone has to be forced to change together: more legroom, more cost. My company would rather pay doctors' bills while it has the choice - with no choice, it'll pay for our comfort and safety.
The same goes for all the PAX.
. .My company pays for most of my tickets (roughly 25 trips a year before 11/9). They point-blank refuse to pay any extra, even if it means that we are in a mess on arrival.
Example 1: trip to the USA. My boss at the time (around 6'4" - 6'6") spent 11 hours to SFO in economy and needed visits to a chiropractor while abroad. Company wouldn't pay for an upgrade to business for the home leg and he couldn't afford the huge price either.
Example 2: visit to PHX next month. We having to fly LGW-PHX on BA because it is cheaper. Not LHR-SFO-PHX on United (look at my profile and deduce the logic in that). This is despite the fact that United has more legroom than BA - I have spent similar trips with my legs twisted sideways because I couldn't get them straight in front of me - and it'll cost more that the UA / BA difference in taxi fares!
Incidentally, most companies in the electronics industry have a policy of "cheapest possible economy only".
When I'm paying to travel, it's different. I insisted that my wife & I flew to YYZ on AC rather than BA because I'd done the trip before with both and could still walk after getting off of the AC 747. It cost a bit more, but that's what we all have to do.
. .What has to happen is that everyone has to be forced to change together: more legroom, more cost. My company would rather pay doctors' bills while it has the choice - with no choice, it'll pay for our comfort and safety.
The same goes for all the PAX.
The solution is very simple. Regulatory bodies must impose an industry minimum, for instance 32" short & medium haul and 34" long haul (determined on a block time exceeding 4.5 hours). This way competition will not be determined by how many sardines you can pack in a tin!
Those of you comparing purchasing airline seats with cars are way off beam. You can go and take a look at the car in the show room before making a decision to purchase. Now, if you book a holiday through a travel agent you can't exactly ask to go and have a look around the aircraft they intend to put you on - if it's not subtituted on the day anyway!
Being an experienced air traveller I might know what to expect (which is why I haven't flown charter since the eighties), but most punters don't.
Those of you comparing purchasing airline seats with cars are way off beam. You can go and take a look at the car in the show room before making a decision to purchase. Now, if you book a holiday through a travel agent you can't exactly ask to go and have a look around the aircraft they intend to put you on - if it's not subtituted on the day anyway!
Being an experienced air traveller I might know what to expect (which is why I haven't flown charter since the eighties), but most punters don't.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone has already said, it needs the industry itself to set uniform minimum seat pitches 32" for short haul over 1 hour and 34" for anything over 4 hours. That way everyone can still compete on a level playing field. This really isn't rocket science, and would make flying enjoyable again.
I really do wonder about the safety of small seat pitches and the inability of passengers to adopt a recommended crash position.
One day the sh*t will hit the fan, and the lawyers will be suing for a long long time. Their has already been at least one study I know of, showing a significant percentage of passengers in economy would in the event of an emergency, be unable to take up the crash position.
It always makes me chuckle when on a charter flight they announce, "passenger safety is our main concern"... yeah, sure it is.
I really do wonder about the safety of small seat pitches and the inability of passengers to adopt a recommended crash position.
One day the sh*t will hit the fan, and the lawyers will be suing for a long long time. Their has already been at least one study I know of, showing a significant percentage of passengers in economy would in the event of an emergency, be unable to take up the crash position.
It always makes me chuckle when on a charter flight they announce, "passenger safety is our main concern"... yeah, sure it is.
Nothing less than 34" should be acceptable in any cabin are of any ac on any sector. Period.
Prices might go up? Undoubtedly - but it's a price worth paying. But comfort and safety would also go up - perhaps air rage stems not so much from banning smoking and too much booze, but primarily from irritation and anger at spending too long in cramped and uncomfortable seating.
Prices might go up? Undoubtedly - but it's a price worth paying. But comfort and safety would also go up - perhaps air rage stems not so much from banning smoking and too much booze, but primarily from irritation and anger at spending too long in cramped and uncomfortable seating.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Englands newest City
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max_Cont. .The point has already been made about the difference when buying a car and Purchasing a seat on a charter flight. A car you can try. Nothing to do with the difference between similar cars and so called extras. Its a case of what you can try before you buy, and I cant try out the aircraft I am going on holiday in. . .As for when I worked for Brits it was in the 80s. I left about a year after the first B767 came into service. Prior to that I worked for Laker and I can tell you the seats on Lakers aircraft were not as tight as Brits. After I left Brits I worked in Customer support for British Aerospace on the 146/RJ, and yes I was spoilt. I travelled most places longhaul in Business class. However it doesnt detract from the arguement that airlines have a duty to their customers, who have no choice in the airline that carries them on holiday, to give them a half comfortable flight not one they dread.. . <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the "Sunday Times" is launching a campaign to increase the leg room with airlines.
Perhaps airlines should launch a campaign to increase accurate reporting on newspapers. Most of them seem to have the equivalent of 18 inches in seat pitch/integrity.
Perhaps airlines should launch a campaign to increase accurate reporting on newspapers. Most of them seem to have the equivalent of 18 inches in seat pitch/integrity.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunatly it would not work to have a so called "level" playing field......
If the UK CAA (or JAA) stated minimum seat pitch then the airlines would have to put up the prices, as discussed eariler in this thread. Unfortunaty the FAA and other countries will not be bound by these measured heance will charge less and as already mentioned people want a cheap flight so all the business will go stateside.
What is needed is some sort of ICAO directive, but since i did Air Law several years ago i´ll leave that debate to someone else <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
If the UK CAA (or JAA) stated minimum seat pitch then the airlines would have to put up the prices, as discussed eariler in this thread. Unfortunaty the FAA and other countries will not be bound by these measured heance will charge less and as already mentioned people want a cheap flight so all the business will go stateside.
What is needed is some sort of ICAO directive, but since i did Air Law several years ago i´ll leave that debate to someone else <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
34” seat pitch is one thing. What about width? Having returned from a ski trip (charter) I thought things were a little tighter on the Britannia 767. Flying with BA the next week I found out why: 2-4-2 vs 2-3-2. If there’s legislation to fix minimum pitch, we also need to look at width!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rover 2701,that’s the point. Everybody DOES know that it’s going to be a tight squeeze on a charter flight. It has been for years. They keep on booking. The bottom line is that it is the cost of the holiday that will decide if a customer travels or not.
As I said earlier, we can ALL travel schedule airline, if we really want comfort.
Someone pointed out that some destinations are not served by a direct flight; well you have to get a connecting flight, most inconvenient. That’s the advantage of the package holiday. Convenience and price is the reason package holiday’s sell.
Clipstone posted the conclusions to some research that was carried out by the company that we both work for. It is genuine information.
I do believe that packing passengers in like sardines, isn’t safe. I took the opportunity to look at the safety briefing yesterday and we show the brace position to be; arms over your head, with your head on your lap OR the back of the seat in front. The CAA has approved this, I won’t comment. I will comment on the safety issue of passengers who stuff bags weighing 10 kg or more, in the overhead bins. These bins are not very strong and in an incident, a collapsing overhead bin would be certain. We even had one chap stow his chainsaw, still full of petrol!!! I personally had an incident of a gallon of white vinegar leaking into the wiring from the overhead bins. We get passengers who insist that they do not need to sit down in turbulence. They are willing to take the risk. It’s just hard luck for the poor devil that they get thrown onto as they stagger down the isle. The point is, that the safety concerns cited, is in my opinion more to do with the lawyers convenience in the court, rather than any real concern on the part of the plaintiff. (Or a significant number of passengers)
I hope all airlines are forced to provide very comfortable seats. It will help curb “air rage” incidents and because the price of a holiday will increase, the “riff raff” elements will be less likely to be able to save enough DHSS handouts to go for a p**s -up in “Ibeefa”.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: max_cont ]</p>
As I said earlier, we can ALL travel schedule airline, if we really want comfort.
Someone pointed out that some destinations are not served by a direct flight; well you have to get a connecting flight, most inconvenient. That’s the advantage of the package holiday. Convenience and price is the reason package holiday’s sell.
Clipstone posted the conclusions to some research that was carried out by the company that we both work for. It is genuine information.
I do believe that packing passengers in like sardines, isn’t safe. I took the opportunity to look at the safety briefing yesterday and we show the brace position to be; arms over your head, with your head on your lap OR the back of the seat in front. The CAA has approved this, I won’t comment. I will comment on the safety issue of passengers who stuff bags weighing 10 kg or more, in the overhead bins. These bins are not very strong and in an incident, a collapsing overhead bin would be certain. We even had one chap stow his chainsaw, still full of petrol!!! I personally had an incident of a gallon of white vinegar leaking into the wiring from the overhead bins. We get passengers who insist that they do not need to sit down in turbulence. They are willing to take the risk. It’s just hard luck for the poor devil that they get thrown onto as they stagger down the isle. The point is, that the safety concerns cited, is in my opinion more to do with the lawyers convenience in the court, rather than any real concern on the part of the plaintiff. (Or a significant number of passengers)
I hope all airlines are forced to provide very comfortable seats. It will help curb “air rage” incidents and because the price of a holiday will increase, the “riff raff” elements will be less likely to be able to save enough DHSS handouts to go for a p**s -up in “Ibeefa”.
[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: max_cont ]</p>
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday Times relevant page:
You will need to register.. .<a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/section/0,,9012,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/section/0,,9012,00.html</a>
You will need to register.. .<a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/section/0,,9012,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/section/0,,9012,00.html</a>
For once we in HMFC are actually providing a better service to our passengers than you chums in the commercial world, 't would seem. For the seat pitches on our dear ancient Vickers Funbus are as follows:
VC10C1K (RAF 'Standard VC10' from Day 1) : Minimum of 34" - years ago in max pax fit it was as low as 33", but we'd never stoop that low nowadays!!
VC10K4 (Ex-BA Super VC10): Fixed at 36"
VC10K3 (Ex-EAAC Super VC10): Depends upon configuration, but no worse than the other 2 variants!
How on Earth the commercial operators can expect people to tolerate sub-30" seating pitch is a mystery to me. No wonder they get 'air rage' on board.... Interesting to note, according to the press, Virgin Atlantic only offers seating at 31" pitch in Economy on the NA route.......
VC10C1K (RAF 'Standard VC10' from Day 1) : Minimum of 34" - years ago in max pax fit it was as low as 33", but we'd never stoop that low nowadays!!
VC10K4 (Ex-BA Super VC10): Fixed at 36"
VC10K3 (Ex-EAAC Super VC10): Depends upon configuration, but no worse than the other 2 variants!
How on Earth the commercial operators can expect people to tolerate sub-30" seating pitch is a mystery to me. No wonder they get 'air rage' on board.... Interesting to note, according to the press, Virgin Atlantic only offers seating at 31" pitch in Economy on the NA route.......
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hmmm
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've already posted this 'point of view' on my company forum, but just wanted to relay my fears.
IF charter airlines are forced to make these changes in seat pitch I can only assume that some of us will no longer be in Airline employmemt within the next few years.
The Trade has today warned that an increase in seat pitch within the UK charter airlines will cost them approximately £45 million this Summer season alone.
It has been suggested that 2 rows are removed from each Aircraft. For 1 B757 this means the removal of 12 seats. Each charter B757 should fly approximately 16 rotations per week for 26 weeks of a Summer season. Multiply this by an average seat price of £140 per seat equates to a loss in revenue of £700,000 PER aircraft for a the summer alone. This loss will damage Airlines and force them to increase their seat rates for next year.
If the market cannot / will not accept these increases the airlines will not be able justify operating flights, not operating flights reduces the need for aircraft, the rest is inevitable.
Just thought I'd add my point of view.
p.s. If you increase seat pitch in a B757 to greater than 34" you cant reach the drop down table in front of you to have your meal!!! Now that would cause a storm!
IF charter airlines are forced to make these changes in seat pitch I can only assume that some of us will no longer be in Airline employmemt within the next few years.
The Trade has today warned that an increase in seat pitch within the UK charter airlines will cost them approximately £45 million this Summer season alone.
It has been suggested that 2 rows are removed from each Aircraft. For 1 B757 this means the removal of 12 seats. Each charter B757 should fly approximately 16 rotations per week for 26 weeks of a Summer season. Multiply this by an average seat price of £140 per seat equates to a loss in revenue of £700,000 PER aircraft for a the summer alone. This loss will damage Airlines and force them to increase their seat rates for next year.
If the market cannot / will not accept these increases the airlines will not be able justify operating flights, not operating flights reduces the need for aircraft, the rest is inevitable.
Just thought I'd add my point of view.
p.s. If you increase seat pitch in a B757 to greater than 34" you cant reach the drop down table in front of you to have your meal!!! Now that would cause a storm!
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rentaghost. .Who are you trying to frighten?. .12 seats out of 235 is a 5% increase in the cost of a ticket: or about £7 on a PMI.
If the equation is that good add another 12 seats and improve the profitability by £45.
If the equation is that good add another 12 seats and improve the profitability by £45.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San FrancisGo
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rover2701:
You claim that you "had no choice" in the airline that will fly you to Barbados for your cruise.
This is simply nonsense: if you don't wan't to fly with Brittania, then book a different cruise! Or ask P&O about "cruise only" prices and book your own flight.
Now, this might feel harsh, and I don't mean it personally, but it seems to me that it is becomming endemic that the public wants various attributes of packages (e.g price), but not others, and demands that they get what they want.
And that's not fair or reasonable. If you decide that Brit's legroom will be inadequate, tell P&O that if they want your business, they'd better provide more legroom.
And presto, in time, they will... if enough people join you. If they don't, well, it's a democracy, isn't it?
You claim that you "had no choice" in the airline that will fly you to Barbados for your cruise.
This is simply nonsense: if you don't wan't to fly with Brittania, then book a different cruise! Or ask P&O about "cruise only" prices and book your own flight.
Now, this might feel harsh, and I don't mean it personally, but it seems to me that it is becomming endemic that the public wants various attributes of packages (e.g price), but not others, and demands that they get what they want.
And that's not fair or reasonable. If you decide that Brit's legroom will be inadequate, tell P&O that if they want your business, they'd better provide more legroom.
And presto, in time, they will... if enough people join you. If they don't, well, it's a democracy, isn't it?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and we could all charter Concorde too! (except they don't do charters anymore)
People are highlighting the lack of choice for a particular holiday, you just cannot book a thompson holiday and then decide you don't want the flight and will book your own. Not just for financial reasons, but also because of logistics, the brittannia flight arrives, pax are taken to ship and it then sails. The tour rep does not wait at the airport for the 'difficult' passenger who wants to travel on a different airline.
When you book a package holiday the flight comes with it - it is a 'package'. The average punter would not know how to change that.
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: flypastpastfast ]</p>
People are highlighting the lack of choice for a particular holiday, you just cannot book a thompson holiday and then decide you don't want the flight and will book your own. Not just for financial reasons, but also because of logistics, the brittannia flight arrives, pax are taken to ship and it then sails. The tour rep does not wait at the airport for the 'difficult' passenger who wants to travel on a different airline.
When you book a package holiday the flight comes with it - it is a 'package'. The average punter would not know how to change that.
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: flypastpastfast ]</p>
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPF Try the CAA website and search seatpitch which will give you a FAQ.. .Suggest that you write to your MP or to Stephen Byers and ask for a copy. I suspect that the information will only be available after he has made a decision.
Just a couple of points having waded through the entire thread.
1) The London Metro paper showed the pitch complained of to be significantly less than a London Bus or several species of commuter train.. .2)All the figures on revenue seem to assume that all the flights operate at 100% load factors. Those six removed seats are only a loss if you could have filled them.
I could also point out that the unnacceptable pitch is the same whether you pay the full rack rate in peak or go as a bum on seat an midnight 30 in November.
The fact is that the realationship between price, revenue and profit is a complex one. One part of that is a psychological campaign by the holiday companies to persuade the public that change such as this justifies higher prices
1) The London Metro paper showed the pitch complained of to be significantly less than a London Bus or several species of commuter train.. .2)All the figures on revenue seem to assume that all the flights operate at 100% load factors. Those six removed seats are only a loss if you could have filled them.
I could also point out that the unnacceptable pitch is the same whether you pay the full rack rate in peak or go as a bum on seat an midnight 30 in November.
The fact is that the realationship between price, revenue and profit is a complex one. One part of that is a psychological campaign by the holiday companies to persuade the public that change such as this justifies higher prices