|
Airline
Passengers – Comfort and Safety Issues
There has been
considerable debate - in the media, among MPs and within Government - over
airline seat comfort and the health and safety implications of current
regulation governing seat pitch. This brief has been prepared by the Charter
Group, representing the UK's leading charter airlines, to balance the debate
with data about passenger views on comfort, actual demand for extra legroom,
the real cost of providing more seat space, and the relationship between
seat pitch and safety.
The
psychology of charter and no frills air travel
Demands for increased legroom must be viewed in the light of the
prevalent attitude of low cost passengers to air travel. Many charter
travellers in particular regard a flight as only a means of getting to and
from a holiday destination. The great majority will have paid a package
price and tend to regard that as largely attributable to their stay at that
destination – in other words, the less that is spent on the flight, the
better. While some would prefer more space, the overwhelming majority tend
to regard seat density as a trade-off against low prices. This attitude has
been compounded by no frills marketing: although the fare element in a
holiday package is often lower than the equivalent no frills fare, charter
passengers have come to regard air travel as something that can be paid for
out of little more than loose change. Any attempt to increase the cost of
flying at a time when travellers perceive prices as being driven down would
be unpopular.
What do
passengers think about comfort?
It has been suggested in some newspapers that seat comfort is a major
issue; but this is incorrect. Their surveys indicate that many passengers
are dissatisfied with the seat pitch offered by charter airlines. However,
while the views of those contacting the papers should be taken seriously,
such surveys should be questioned. It is usual in such cases for a high
proportion of respondents to be critical, particularly since the stimulus
for response is articles which echo their dissatisfaction. However, although
several thousand responses have been received by two newspapers in
particular, they represent only a tiny proportion of the 104 million
passengers carried by UK airlines in 2001.
Against that
should be set the passenger research data conducted by most UK airlines. The
Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire exercise, as it is known, is the UK’s
largest opinion research exercise. Carried out during the summer and winter
travel seasons, it collates several million questionnaires completed by
passengers during their flight. The sample size is large enough to cover a
representative balance of satisfied and dissatisfied travellers. Charter
airlines each receive several hundred thousand of these, which ask for
comfort to be rated, and the average score is consistently in the “fair” to
“good” category. Seating-related complaints account for 3.6% of total
complaints, but this category includes seat allocation as well as space and
the significance of the figure is therefore overstated. The CSQ returns are
sensitive to changes in legroom: when attempts have been made to increase
seat density, satisfaction ratings have dropped.
Demand for
extra legroom
Newspaper surveys also suggest that many passengers would be prepared to
pay more for extra legroom. The experience of charter airlines suggests
otherwise.
Most charter
carriers now offer several different seating options, from a separate
premium class to more legroom in standard class, at a cost usually well
below comparable scheduled charges. Yet, because of the preference of most
charter passengers for travel at the lowest cost, take-up has been very
poor. The experience of one of the largest UK operators is typical:
Last summer
on long haul (and some short haul) flights we offered seats at 34" pitch and
charged between £30-£60 (depending on route length). We were forced to
abandon this scheme because of a very low take up. Even now, where we offer
a limited number of extra legroom seats we regularly have to fill them at no
charge because of insufficient take up.
It must
therefore be asked why those who complain about lack of legroom do not
request an upgrade. In many cases even the relatively small extra cost might
be unattractive, but at least the choice is generally available.
The real
cost of extra legroom
Airlines will give passengers the level of service and comfort they want
if it can be provided cost-effectively. It has been suggested that extra
legroom could be provided at no extra cost, or that the likely associated
fare increase would be small and would not deter demand. This assertion
overlooks the actual experience of charter airlines (see above) and does not
take account of the clear differences between the structure and economics of
scheduled and charter travel:
-
Much has been made of the
decision by one scheduled airline to remove seats in order to offer more
room at no extra cost. However, it must be remembered that scheduled
airliners typically take off with almost a third of their seats empty.
Charter loadings are typically close to 100% and there is no scope for
removing seats without increasing the cost to the remaining passengers.
-
It would not be realistic
for charter airlines to fund seat removal from their profits. The average
margin across the five major carriers for the most recent reporting year
was only 3.43% and £6.71 per passenger.
-
Would more legroom at a
small premium not attract passengers? Probably the opposite. Because
charter travel is paid for from disposable income, not company expenses,
the accepted elasticity of demand is high: around -1.5, meaning that a 10%
seat price rise would lead to a 15% drop in passengers, with the hardest
hit being those on lower incomes.
-
The UK’s air fares are the
most competitive in Europe and British consumers have come to expect and
to demand low-priced travel. By definition, any increase in fares through
having to recover costs from fewer passengers will reduce that competitive
advantage.
Seat pitch
and safety
It has also been suggested that the seat pitch in many charter and
scheduled aircraft is unsafe because it could hinder evacuation or adoption
of the emergency brace position. These conclusions derive from a report
produced last year for the Joint Airworthiness Authority on the basis of a
passenger questionnaire, examination of cabin simulations and desk research.
In fact:
-
Although some 2000
questionnaires were distributed via a range of airlines, only 312 were
completed – less than a thousandth of the total of just one airline’s CSQ
returns - and over half of the responses were attributable to just one
carrier. As with newspaper surveys, the methodology was more likely to
stimulate critical than satisfied responses.
-
The mean flying time of the
respondents was 7.6 hours. In fact, only two per cent of charter fights
are long haul (over four hours).
-
The report recommends that
trials be conducted. It ignores the fact that the CAA has approved all
aircraft types for use by airlines on the basis of evacuation trials in
50% of exits are blocked. In each case, the charter seat configuration has
enabled safe evacuation well within the CAA’s target time. It also
overlooks a recent assessment by the US National Transport Safety Board
(Flight Safety Digest, December 2000) of 46 emergency evacuations. Only a
handful of the 500 evacuees interviewed on factors hindering their exit
mentioned seating. A more significant problem was bunching at exits
because passengers left their seats too quickly. The most recent (Cranfield)
trials showed that evacuation was actually slower with a 36” pitch than
one of 29”. Real life experience contradicts the claim that current seat
pitch is unsafe.
-
The report, and media
coverage of it, also overlooks the alternative CAA-approved brace
position, involving resting the head on an arm braced across the back of
the seat in front.
On this basis,
there seem to be no comfort or safety grounds for requiring a regulatory
change in seat pitch. |
