Court Win May Change Future of Air travel

[Mark Hodson]

Firstly, we haven't ignored the economics. BATA reckons on about a 10% increase in costs for an extra 2 inches on short-haul charter flights. I believe most people will be happy to pay that, and the response from our readers supports that view. And anyway, safety overrides cost considerations. There are probably people out there who would fly at any price in unsafe aircraft with inexperienced flight crew, but we wouldn't want them to, and we wouldn't let them.

I must reply to "PFR" who accuses me of writing bollox. I'm afraid you've got yourself confused between two types of measurement (it's a common mistake). Seat pitch is a term coined by engineers - it means the distance between seats and is measured from one fixed point on a seat to the SAME fixed point on a seat in front. The CAA does not measure seat pitch - it measures the distance "between the back support cushion of a seat and the back of the seat or structure in front" (I'm quoting directly from its website). Read AN64 or the pdf version of the ICE report and you'll see the diagrams, which make it easier.

Therefore, the difference between seat pitch and the CAA's measurement is the thickness of a seat. Assuming some seats are as thin as 2in, that means a charter carrier advertising a short-haul seat pitch of 28in (and they all do) is in fact providing just 26in of actual passenger space, which is the current legal minimum. Sorry to be a smartarse, but it's a vital distinction. Vital because any increase in the legal minimum will mean charters ripping up seats and reconfiguring.

By the way, have you seen this?

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1794000/1794330.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1794000/1794330.stm</a>

Mark.

[sky9]

Mark,. .Can I firstly say thank you for introducing yourself. PPRuner’s take a dim view of undercover reporters.. .Secondly can I draw you attention the little box that allows you to introduce yourself as "just another number" a small payment allows you to have an introduction say for instance " "Sunday Times reporter" which then will continue to identify yourself on the site. and also puts a small amount in Danny's pocket for running expenses. (Rupert no doubt would find it "allowable"). .Thirdly good luck; increased seat pitch will only come about when it is legislated and the sooner the better.

[GlueBall]

E Cam:. .The economics, competetively, wouldn't matter if a government were to set an operating mandate of, say, 30" minimum seat pitch for any carrier to operate into or out of the respective country. All carriers wishing to do business in that country would have to meet minimum seat pitch requirements, no matter whether flying scheduled or charterted. The public would be protected from seat claustrophobia, to be sure. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[[email protected]]

oncemorealoft:

I am categorically NOT wrong about the non-success of the TWA variant.

I am categorically NOT wrong about AA's refleeting operation, and the number of seats per hull.

Now, it may be that the bean counters didn't forsee a downturn (although, since the industry *is* cyclical, *everyone* should forsee downturns. The trick is knowing when, how deep, and for how long).

If you prefer, you can just recognize that AA certainly knew what the take-up (of the additional capacity) was on routes with the new configs. Plus, with their (then recent) acquisition of Reno, they knew that price wasn't working as a short-haul differentiator.

But, whatever... the fact is that the AA scheme is basically revenue neutral based on the larger aircraft being deployed!

Malc.

[TightSlot]

The information my company provides (and it may of course be propaganda) is that at a seat pitch above 28", the 757-200 becomes uneconomic, and therefore forces us to change fleet - I understand that A319/320/321 & 757-300 are preferred options. Therefore, the costs are somewhat higher than simply reconfiguring the cabin. This assumes an increase to 30" pitch - I thought that the Sunday Times was suggesting 32" on shorthaul and 34" on longhaul, in which case, who knows what type works?

In light of the court case that started this thread, wouldn't carriers still be vulnerable to litigation from pax suffering "discomfort", whatever the future seat pitch may be? Surely discomfort is a perception and therefore relative - you can still be uncomfortable at 36" pitch (seat width, hardness of seat back, lack of padding in cushions etc.)

[oncemorealoft]

Malc Loading Cargo

The 737-800 and 777 are a relatively small portion of AA's fleet and anyway the fact is that they are reconfiguring ALL their aircraft 777s, 737s, 757s, 767s, MD80s,Fokker 100s etc. including those taken on from TWA. SoAll their aircraft on All their routes will have the new configuration when the project is completed (next month I hear).

I don't believe I commented on the success or otherwise of TWA's move to increase seat pitch some year ago.

The point is one carrier has taken a bold step and provided more leg room and should be applauded for it.

[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: oncemorealoft ]</p>

[max_cont]

Mark, welcome to PPRuNE.

Instead of just looking at reports in isolation, I suggest you should talk to the operators concerned. As suggested by my colleague Tightslot, the costs involved are far more complex than just a simple fare increase in line with the loss of a few seats.

I don’t expect all the operators to agree to talk to you, but I imagine it’s in their own interests.

I would also hope, that when you have the operators point of view, you will publish a balanced article, citing all the facts and not just a select few.

[Hot 'n' High]

Good to see Mark on the Site. I just hope your Editor is as open-minded as you appear to be lest all your good intentions come to an untimely end. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

While the DVT issue and the Comfort issue are legally seperate from where I stand (as one of the great non-legally trained proletariat) I am sure the Comfort case came about due to the exposure given to the DVT issue. As I understand it, the DVT case is based on "failure to warn" rather than "did cause". The former will lead to market-driven change. The latter would lead(simplistically) to Regulatory change.

I have total sympathy with all those who have suffered from DVT, or lost loved ones through DVT. However, I recently saw a UK Trading Standards Officer discussing a completely non-Aviation related issue. She came up with an very sensible conclusion which I feel is worth bringing up. She said (and I paraphrase) "Notwithstanding what has happened here, I believe the general public has lost sight of the fact that you generally get what you pay for. In addition, life is full of risks and will never be risk-free. The Consumer must make a judgement call." There speaketh 'The System' with a good dose of common sense for a change.

I'm off shopping soon and will have to drive. Quick risk-assessment, take the plunge and lets risk the car on the road today. Mind you, what loopy driver is out there waiting to get me? If you never hear from H 'n' H again, you'll know he/she got me folks!

The fact is, if Industries are open and mature about Risk, the Public must also be open and mature about Risk. I believe this is where Mark and his fellow "Hacks" can educate and open up debate. Those in the Media who sensationalise to sell copy are actually standing in the way of progress brought about through free and frank discussion. Can we sue them and the Media for slowing down progress I ask myself? One could argue that anyone with unpalitable news to release will look at the media and see how it will be portrayed. If they feel it will be sensationalised who will be keen to step forward? What we need is more people like Mark who, I hope, will remain true to the cause of balanced argument. I hope he will point out the Consumers responsibilities as well as the Industries responsibilities in his discussion.

It is up to us all to keep a balanced approach to this. Oh, and just where is Eutopia on the Charts? And does it have an Airfield near by so I can fly there? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

H 'n' H

[sky9]

TightSlot. .I suspect that you and I work to the same organisation (but where is paradise?). . .Our problem really is that our previous MD went against the advice that he received and brought the Boeing 757 and we have paid for it ever since.. .He of course made lots of money for himself and is still being kept in profitable employment, no doubt with share options and "profit" related bonuses. <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> . .Something wrong somewhere.

[Desk Driver]

Mark,

I must admit that I've not read your article or all the posts. I suspect this campaign is more about selling papers than protecting the public

The Public demand extremely Low prices and to make this possible seat pitch must be set at the bare minimum to make it pay. Margins are already razor thin and what your suggesting is asking us to raise the average families holiday cost by

Flights under 2 hours = £120

Flights 2 - 4 hours = £220

Flights 4 + anywhere between £220 & £500.

(These are rough figures worked out on the back of a fag packet.)

And I suspect that if your successful your next campaign wil be titled

"Why are the British paying more for their holidays than the europeans?"

. .Welcome to pprune BTW <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[max_cont]

Sky 9, when I was interviewed for the job, I was asked what we should get to replace the aging 737-200 fleet. I replied in my youthful ignorance “the 757 sir” The interviewer looked at me over his specs and said, “good lord no…we would never buy the 757. Our competitors have those and we lead, not follow. R B wasn’t in charge at that point. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[RevMan2]

Simple solution to all this: legislate a minimum 30inch seat pitch, prices increase to compensate, watch a segment of the passenger demand (and a couple of marginally viable operators) drop off the radar and let market forces sort it out. Pure commodity stuff.. .And what's wrong with going to Butlins for your hols, anyway?. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Mark Hodson]

Thanks all for your interesting replies. A few points in no particular order:

Yes, I am aware that the extra costs of reconfiguring are complex (aircraft downtime, jiggling around with carpets, oxygen masks, IFE, etc). Some carriers have been reluctant to discuss this with me, but an ops manager at Monarch reckoned the total increase in costs might be as much as 15%, which would probably go directly on fares. Surely not too much to pay for increased comfort, safety and - perhaps - health?

Yes, we're out to sell papers, but we also think this is a worthwhile cause. We also don't promise a balanced view, as this is a campaign, so we'll be editorialising. However, I hope it'll be a considered view based on the available facts. I'd love to write the full story, as someone suggested, but I reckon I'd need about 5,000 words and I've only got room for about 1,500, so something has to go.

I do hope we won't be so crass as to make our next campaign "Why are the British paying more for their holidays than the Europeans?" Don't we actually pay less? Certainly we pay less than the Germans. Personally, I think we need to change the culture of cut-price holidays, even if that means some people can no longer afford to travel so much as they do now. It's rather like the way motoring has been cleaned up - we don't want people driving around old bangers that belch out smoke and have dodgy brakes, so we legislate, even if that means a few people can no longer afford to drive. Society is the winner.

You can read my stuff online (www.sunday-times.co.uk/travel). If I've got anything wrong, I'll trust you to let me have it with both barrels!

Mark.

[Hot 'n' High]

Well, Mark, at least you are honest about being biased!

However, I trust that you will point out the COST to the Consumer of any changes. After all, it will pay to remember two things. 1 - Openness is based on trust so if you stitch people up editorially, you as a professional will pay for it in the long run as people will cut you off. 2 - Even a campaign must be realistic. As I said in my last post, problems are solved by teamwork between all Stakeholders. If you are unrealistic you simply make yourself look foolish and further tarnish the Journalist as a Professional.

By all means call for a satisfactory solution but I trust you will include the sentiments of the Trading Standards lassie I cited and basically say "This is what we would like to see and these are the costs and benefits associated with that solution".

Look forward to your article!

H 'n' H <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[flypastpastfast]

Interesting to read the comments from Mark of Sunday Times.

One aspect of this I really cannot grasp when reading replies defending the current situation is the phrase 'you get what you pay for'.

If it were related to whether you get a cup of coffee or an inflight movie, then I can see the point (and would agree), but surely the same approach cannot be taken with safety.

Passengers who do not read this website, and who know little of aircraft safety, are hardly in a position to judge as to whether to fly with a given airline, where according to this report the seat pitch is too low to be safe. Passengers ASSUME that safety WILL be the main priority of the airlines (no matter how cheap).

For that reason (much as I generally dislike newspaper campaigns) I believe the Sunday Times is justified in asking what are very pertinent questions. Questions that everyone in the aviation industry seems to be hoping will go away.

American Airlines incidentally, should be widely paised for what they have done. They now provide the largest seat pitch (by a large margin) in regular economy.

[BEagle]

Mark - congratulations to you and to the Sunday Times for taking up this issue. I am convinced that many cases of 'air rage' might be the result of the discomfort and frustration of being hemmed in like a battery chicken.

Airlines and operators advertising increased seat pitch will be most welcome; there surely must be a minimum level of comfort and safety which must be provided - really we should expect 34" minimum on all public transport flights!

[BobBuilder]

Has there ever been research on the value of the crash position in a real impact?

[Hot 'n' High]

Hi FPPF, the phrase "you get what you pay for" is actually how all safety issues are addressed in terms of a Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) tradeoff - be it in planes, trains, buildings, ships, anything....., even the materials used in your bed! Apologies for being boring but I will explain.

100% safety is the goal but is statistically an impossibility. If you look at additional cost verses additional safety in, say, a building in an earthquake region, the returns are diminishing. For example, assume a 10% reduction in Probability of Damage (PoD) during a quake costs £10M. A further 10% reduction in PoD will cost £100M, a further 10% costs £1000M and so on. Somewhere, you trade off risk against cost else we could not afford the building in the first place! In fact, just to be safe, better chop the trees down too.

Aircraft are machines and as such are subject to similar risk assessment. As you said, the Consumer cannot become directly involved with this. However, and this is where the Press need to educate people into the Cost of any change, the Consumer influences where this and other CBAs cut off. By expecting/demanding lower fares, the Safety CBA will inevitably come under pressure along with all other aspects. That is why Regulations exist to ensure MIMIMUM standards are met.

Only by the Consumer paying for the extra safety, in this case, more room between seats, can the Safety CBA work to improve things. If they don't agree to pay for it then it will not appear in global terms. Short-term marketing strategies could "buy" Consumers additional safety over a competitor but, alas, market forces will ensure that blip is flattened out and there will be a net cost to the Industry which the Consumer eventually must pay for.

So there is a fact of life which I wish people would understand - you do get what you pay for. That is why I said "Stakeholder Teamwork" is what is required to sort this. Airline Managers want people to fly, do not want to be taken to Court, need to make a profit (where is your pension fund invested by the way?) and the price the Consumer is willing to pay has a direct bearing on what people in the Industry can do. And if you say markets are NOT price-sensitive, just look at Go, Easyjet, Ryanair et al!

So, when you go to bed tonight you may look on that bit of furniture in a different light. It has been well and truly CBA'd! Now, is H 'n' H simply "Sad" or has he completely "Lost It"! Either way, hopefully I've explained that phrase "you get what you pay for"!

H 'n' H <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Jet II]

DVT is not just confined to economy/charter class cabins, SLF travelling in Club/First have also been similarly afflicted. More people get DVT having travelled in Economy than Club/First, but then again more people travel Economy anyway. Has there been any scientific research into the ratios from each cabin, and why if sitting in one place causes DVT are the Flight Crew not dropping like flies.

Seat pitch and general comfort are a separate matter, and generally, as has been said before, you get what you pay for. If you buy a Mini you will not get the same amount of comfort as a Mercedes.

[FlyingRabbit]

I am only a pax, who flies almost every week on business purposes and twice a year on holidays. Always on economy class, btw. This is my simple view of this subject:

I must say that, as a customer, I always look for the best that costs the less, meaning that I have a certain amout of money and I'll try to get the best deal with that amount. Almost all customers would probably proceed like that. I weigh whatever is important to me in order to make this decision, meaning for instance that I will pay a little more for confort even if it means that I will have to stay less time than I wanted to. But that's me, others will probably have another view.

I personally agree that "you get what you pay for". It is generally fair. The main point here, though, is that almost all customers have no idea what they are paying when buying air tickets other than the fact that the airline will take them from point A to point B. If you ask general public how one measures seat pitch, 90% will have no idea. The other 10% will get it wrong. That is the issue here. General public knows they will be unconfortable in such low fare trips, they just do not know how much.

Can't change seat configurations on planes? No problem, but state on the advertisement that "Seat conditions may be unsafe in case of accident and evacuation". Just like a pack of cigarretes. That is honest to the general public. State that "People with back problems may need medical help on the arrival". Just like a rollercoaster. Then yes, after all this, I will agree that whoever bought it got what he paid for.

The way it is now, it is simply not a honest deal.