Court Win May Change Future of Air travel
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality check guys !!!!!!!!.Airlines offer a service. If they subject their customers to life threatening situations they are responsible...there is mounting evidence that DVT is more prevalent than than once was thought. So do something or pay for the consequences . Nothing to do with you sharp end people but never the less true .. ."Discomfort".....well that's us SLF .....all complaints.....if you're 6 foot and monied you go to the Small Claims Court ........if your 70 and poor o 30 with two young children .........tought **** !!!!!!!
Get real !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peter J
Get real !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peter J
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both sides have a valid point - if you pay cheap expect to get cramped cr@ppy seats. I have serious safety concerns about any flight with 26" pitch but that aside it seems real simple to me. Pull a few seats, raise rates to compensate and if the punters do not want to spend a few more dollars or pounds or euros - leave them at home - the world is probably better off without their influence anyway.
Airlines have to wake up to the fact that they are providing a service - and like any service it must have minimum standards or the customers will walk or sue or do something else stupid.
To all who advocate minimal fares so we can have an affordable holiday - where do you draw the line - 26" pitch, cut corners on aircraft maintenance, low pay for pilots, low time pilots??? In this world you get what you pay for and it is time everyone understood that paying a little more is not necessarily bad.
Airlines have to wake up to the fact that they are providing a service - and like any service it must have minimum standards or the customers will walk or sue or do something else stupid.
To all who advocate minimal fares so we can have an affordable holiday - where do you draw the line - 26" pitch, cut corners on aircraft maintenance, low pay for pilots, low time pilots??? In this world you get what you pay for and it is time everyone understood that paying a little more is not necessarily bad.
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the majority of the public book a holiday, they cannot have any control over how they sit on any aircraft involved, they may feel that they can have more room by" booking in advance" but in reality this is yet another con to prise money from their pockets,the airlines that serve most Holiday company's have a tie up or own the aircraft company, it is in their operating/Profit interest to cram as many people into their A/c as possible, they seem not to care that any of us SLF have DVT or cannot get out quick enough in case of a fire,or are just uncomfortable or some other such incident, they the operators are there and exist to generate PROFIT, it will carry on in the same manner until the Holiday buying public force a change by booking with the company's that CARE, and really want your business! And as for all the people who are defending the Holiday/charter company's, well why are they, they must earn their crust from them!
Look further for your hols, bigger seat pitch , or no fly!!
Look further for your hols, bigger seat pitch , or no fly!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to see the CAA research you can download the whole document at <a href="http://www.ice.co.uk" target="_blank">www.ice.co.uk</a> - the company that undertook the work. Although the CAA paid for it they did so on behalf of the JAA - who the report has gone to. The UK is one of the very few countries with a minimum spacing - the idea is that if the UK can persuade the JAA to impliment it then it would benefit a lot more pax.
If you don't want to download the whole doc then there is a press notice summary on the CAA site.
If you don't want to download the whole doc then there is a press notice summary on the CAA site.
This from the latest Sunday Times....
"...AND WHAT are the airlines doing? Many are employing spin doctors and PR consultants to convince us that we've never had it so good, and that giving us more legroom will cause fares to rocket. And they might have got away with it, had it not been for one carrier that broke ranks.. .Two years ago, American Airlines decided to give its economy passengers more legroom. In a highly publicised £44m campaign, it reconfigured its entire fleet by taking out several rows of seats from each aircraft, thus increasing seat pitch in economy to 34in-36in. It did this without increasing fares, gambling on the fact that travellers would choose to fly on American because it treated them with more respect. The gamble paid off..."
"...AND WHAT are the airlines doing? Many are employing spin doctors and PR consultants to convince us that we've never had it so good, and that giving us more legroom will cause fares to rocket. And they might have got away with it, had it not been for one carrier that broke ranks.. .Two years ago, American Airlines decided to give its economy passengers more legroom. In a highly publicised £44m campaign, it reconfigured its entire fleet by taking out several rows of seats from each aircraft, thus increasing seat pitch in economy to 34in-36in. It did this without increasing fares, gambling on the fact that travellers would choose to fly on American because it treated them with more respect. The gamble paid off..."
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: somewhere underneath 3rd rock
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess one of the reasons none of the charter lines have dropped to a 26" pitch is that they would never get the plane loaded as anyone of over 5'10" would not be able to sit down.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San FrancisGo
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oncemorealoft:
While AA is indeed my preferred choice in airlines, I'd remind you that TWA did precisely the same thing a number of years earlier, and no economic benefits resulted.
The Sunday Times alleges that "the gamble paid off", but the gamble wasn't quite as simple as that rag alleges.
What the paper fails to mention is that AA was, and is, engaged in a refleeting exercise that includes deploying a large fleet of 737-800's and 777-200s, which typically provide more capacity per hull than the types they are replacing. So, rather than flying this new capacity empty while the economy staggers a bit (which was happening prior to 9/11, etc.), they reduce capacity via this campaign.
Sadly, I suspect it won't last forever, but in the meantime, it's a win/win solution!
Malc.
While AA is indeed my preferred choice in airlines, I'd remind you that TWA did precisely the same thing a number of years earlier, and no economic benefits resulted.
The Sunday Times alleges that "the gamble paid off", but the gamble wasn't quite as simple as that rag alleges.
What the paper fails to mention is that AA was, and is, engaged in a refleeting exercise that includes deploying a large fleet of 737-800's and 777-200s, which typically provide more capacity per hull than the types they are replacing. So, rather than flying this new capacity empty while the economy staggers a bit (which was happening prior to 9/11, etc.), they reduce capacity via this campaign.
Sadly, I suspect it won't last forever, but in the meantime, it's a win/win solution!
Malc.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Englands newest City
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still say that the average punter if he wants his annual holiday, irrespective of cost, does not get a fair deal. If I want to go on my cruise I have no choice in the airline I fly with. I flew BWIA to the Barbados a couple of years ago and that was no better than most charters. Why should I pay extra to fly schedule when it is no better. I will pay extra for more leg room if it is available. All airlines should take note. At least give it a go.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: France
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm 6'5" tall, and as a fairly frequent flyer out of the Middle East, I always ask for a seat beside the emergency exit. I have even tried to reserve that type of seat when booking.
Despite checking in very early, I never get one because they seem to be reserved for full fare paying passengers.
It would help us more generously proportioned humans if the seats with more legroom on every type of aircraft could be reserved for the taller passengers-assuming that they meet the requirements for physical fitness that I believe are relevant.
Despite checking in very early, I never get one because they seem to be reserved for full fare paying passengers.
It would help us more generously proportioned humans if the seats with more legroom on every type of aircraft could be reserved for the taller passengers-assuming that they meet the requirements for physical fitness that I believe are relevant.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have now read the CAA/JAA ergonomics report into safe seat sizes, and am pretty shocked. Not purely in terms of the fact that the current minimum seat spacing and seat requirements are wholly inadequate, but also in relation to the brace position.
. .In almost all measurements, current practice in economy is completely inadequate.
. .Since this report relates purely to safety, the implication is that the current practices are in most cases unsafe.
On page 42 (for those interested), it is quite clearly demonstrated that a lot of passengers would be unable to correctly adopt the CAA required emergency 'brace' position, even with a seat pitch of 30", never mind 28". Is this explained in the pre-flight briefing?
I am no lawyer, but surely this type of information must be dynamite in litigation, and may even be of relevance in DVT cases. Will the airlines bury their heads in the sand until the sh*t hits the fan? Probably.
Time for the airlines to wake up, I think.
. .In almost all measurements, current practice in economy is completely inadequate.
. .Since this report relates purely to safety, the implication is that the current practices are in most cases unsafe.
On page 42 (for those interested), it is quite clearly demonstrated that a lot of passengers would be unable to correctly adopt the CAA required emergency 'brace' position, even with a seat pitch of 30", never mind 28". Is this explained in the pre-flight briefing?
I am no lawyer, but surely this type of information must be dynamite in litigation, and may even be of relevance in DVT cases. Will the airlines bury their heads in the sand until the sh*t hits the fan? Probably.
Time for the airlines to wake up, I think.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have now read the CAA/JAA ergonomics report into safe seat sizes, and am pretty shocked. Not purely in terms of the fact that the current minimum seat spacing and seat requirements are wholly inadequate, but also in relation to the brace position.
. .In almost all measurements, current practice in economy is completely inadequate.
. .Since this report relates purely to safety, the implication is that the current practices are in most cases unsafe.
On page 42 (for those interested), it is quite clearly demonstrated that a lot of passengers would be unable to correctly adopt the CAA required emergency 'brace' position, even with a seat pitch of 30", never mind 28". Is this explained in the pre-flight briefing?
I am no lawyer, but surely this type of information must be dynamite in litigation, and may even be of relevance in DVT cases. Will the airlines bury their heads in the sand until the sh*t hits the fan? Probably.
Time for the airlines to wake up, I think.
. .In almost all measurements, current practice in economy is completely inadequate.
. .Since this report relates purely to safety, the implication is that the current practices are in most cases unsafe.
On page 42 (for those interested), it is quite clearly demonstrated that a lot of passengers would be unable to correctly adopt the CAA required emergency 'brace' position, even with a seat pitch of 30", never mind 28". Is this explained in the pre-flight briefing?
I am no lawyer, but surely this type of information must be dynamite in litigation, and may even be of relevance in DVT cases. Will the airlines bury their heads in the sand until the sh*t hits the fan? Probably.
Time for the airlines to wake up, I think.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good evening. This is my first post.
I'm a journalist (boo! hiss!) with the Sunday Times and I'm working on our campaign to improve passenger conditions on commercial aircraft. We want two things: an increase in passenger space - Dimension A as laid out in the CAA's AN64 - from the current 26in to 30in, roughly equating to a seat pitch of 32in; and a law requiring companies advertising flights to state in their ads the minimum seat pitch passengers will "enjoy".
It looks to me like flypastpastfast has hit the nail on the head. The ICE report is well worth reading - it's alarming stuff, and it forms the basis of our campaign. Current flying conditions may be uncomfortable; they may be unhealthy; but they certainly appear to be unsafe. Among the report's findings is the fact that the current minimum of 26in will only accommodate 77% of the European population. And, as you know, charter carriers on short-haul routes are all flying with that 26in minimum.
The reason this report didn't make headlines was down to the date of its publication - just a few days after Sept 11. Not only did it get "buried" in the news agenda, it may be that it contained a message that nobody wanted to hear - that the existing situation is untenable.
As you may know, the report was commissioned by the CAA on behalf of the JAA, which is now "considering" it. The JAA itself is due to be replaced by EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, though this won't happen for at least three years and EASA won't turn its attention to operational matters until some time after that. How convenient - some borrowed time for the industry.
But it is borrowed time. Change appears to be on the cards. As you may know, a firm of solicitors today won an application in the High Court to bring a group litigation order - a class action - against a number of airlines. The firm now has 284 clients, a number that is rising daily. Public feeling is strong: we have already had 2,500 letters and emails of support from readers (including some from pilots).
I know many here are hostile to journalists, but please take the time to read what we're doing. I know a lot of bollox is written about aviation in the papers. Personally, I try to get all facts right, and that is made easier if the experts talk to the press. So, if you think there's something I should know, please email me ([email protected]).
Or, if you like, you add your name to the campaign ([email protected]).
All the best.
I'm a journalist (boo! hiss!) with the Sunday Times and I'm working on our campaign to improve passenger conditions on commercial aircraft. We want two things: an increase in passenger space - Dimension A as laid out in the CAA's AN64 - from the current 26in to 30in, roughly equating to a seat pitch of 32in; and a law requiring companies advertising flights to state in their ads the minimum seat pitch passengers will "enjoy".
It looks to me like flypastpastfast has hit the nail on the head. The ICE report is well worth reading - it's alarming stuff, and it forms the basis of our campaign. Current flying conditions may be uncomfortable; they may be unhealthy; but they certainly appear to be unsafe. Among the report's findings is the fact that the current minimum of 26in will only accommodate 77% of the European population. And, as you know, charter carriers on short-haul routes are all flying with that 26in minimum.
The reason this report didn't make headlines was down to the date of its publication - just a few days after Sept 11. Not only did it get "buried" in the news agenda, it may be that it contained a message that nobody wanted to hear - that the existing situation is untenable.
As you may know, the report was commissioned by the CAA on behalf of the JAA, which is now "considering" it. The JAA itself is due to be replaced by EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, though this won't happen for at least three years and EASA won't turn its attention to operational matters until some time after that. How convenient - some borrowed time for the industry.
But it is borrowed time. Change appears to be on the cards. As you may know, a firm of solicitors today won an application in the High Court to bring a group litigation order - a class action - against a number of airlines. The firm now has 284 clients, a number that is rising daily. Public feeling is strong: we have already had 2,500 letters and emails of support from readers (including some from pilots).
I know many here are hostile to journalists, but please take the time to read what we're doing. I know a lot of bollox is written about aviation in the papers. Personally, I try to get all facts right, and that is made easier if the experts talk to the press. So, if you think there's something I should know, please email me ([email protected]).
Or, if you like, you add your name to the campaign ([email protected]).
All the best.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: kent
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry: before long we'll have a bevy of legal sharks at airport exits offering "No win - No fee" action against the airline you've travelled with for any discomfort due to low seat pitch.... AeRoFot
Gamekeeper
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: South East
Age: 61
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark Hodson,. .You say…`I know a lot of bollox is written about aviation in the papers’... and you’ve just written some !..... .You say previous ...`as you know, charter carriers on short-haul routes are all flying with that 26in minimum.. .26 inch ! None that I know, 28 inch maybe but 26, I think not. . .26 inch is the minimum AWN64 will allow and I’d be very interested to know which carriers are at 26..... .Need to get your facts right on this one matey..... .Who’s going to pick-up the tab for operating the a/c with less seats then? Fare paying punter?
. . <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
. . <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting to place Hodson's campaign with the DVT concerns and the Ryanair 'You don't pay enough to have a complaint'. What it adds up to is the beginning of a recognition that you get what you pay for. There are definitely people who will pay more (of their own money) for quality but they are in the minority at the moment. When I go into a travel agent I ask about seat pitch because it is important to me but I doubt many others do.. .Flying in economy is not fun. It is uncomfortable and probably, to a certain extent, dangerous. More power to the Sunday Times' elbow but the only thing that will really change things is a CAA directive.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Usually in a cockpit
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't gone through every message, but it seems the arguement is, you get what you pay for. I usually agree with this 100% but recently I flew with BA (who I like a lot) in Business class and the stewardess had to ask the passenger in front, who had reclined her chair, to sit up until I had my breakfast (which I found out was inedible). Later I had trouble reading my paper. In addition, on this particular European route they have been serving the same food for the last 18-24 months - if it has changed, I certainly can't tell the difference. This is not a dig at BA as I believe they are all about the same.
I think the large scheduled airlines who are having their legs cut off by the Budget outfits might have themselves to blame. I now question Business fares as the food is awful and the seat pitch is poor - indeed, I think the food quality and personal space is less than you got in Economy 10 years ago - therefore, why pay more than Budget economy for short flights. I would pay the Business Class fares if I could see much of a difference.
I think the large scheduled airlines who are having their legs cut off by the Budget outfits might have themselves to blame. I now question Business fares as the food is awful and the seat pitch is poor - indeed, I think the food quality and personal space is less than you got in Economy 10 years ago - therefore, why pay more than Budget economy for short flights. I would pay the Business Class fares if I could see much of a difference.
MalcLoadingCargo
I'm afraid you're wrong. American announced their More Room project in February 2000 (presumably after the bean counters had given it MUCH thought!). At the time the industry was at it's height and even the pre-911 down turn not anticipated.. .I read somewhere that their expectation was that other US carriers would follow suit but then things did start to take a turn for the worse and no one did. Let's hope they stick to their guns at AA.....
I'm afraid you're wrong. American announced their More Room project in February 2000 (presumably after the bean counters had given it MUCH thought!). At the time the industry was at it's height and even the pre-911 down turn not anticipated.. .I read somewhere that their expectation was that other US carriers would follow suit but then things did start to take a turn for the worse and no one did. Let's hope they stick to their guns at AA.....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LOCATION LOCATION
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark Hodson : Please don't ignore the simple economics of what you are advocating i.e., a 757 carying 235 pax @ 28" will lose 5 rows if changed to 32". It will carry 30 less pax and direct operating costs will be 15% higher per pax. The only savings will be about £15/pax on airport charges and catering.
Good luck with your campagn and thanks for talking to us
Good luck with your campagn and thanks for talking to us