Air Scoop Article: Seat Pitch Regulation: What Impact on LCCs?

The following article, concerning the potential regulation of seat pitch on European low-cost carriers, was recently published in the European low-cost airline newsletter, Air Scoop. Enjoy!

Seat Pitch Regulation: What Impact on LCCs?

As LCCs, and charter carriers in particular, have expanded across Europe, they have engaged in prolonged battles to profitably reduce fares. To do so, LCCs have had to trim costs, and one way to generate additional efficiencies is to pack more seats into an aircraft, cutting the seat pitch (the distance between any point on a seat and that same point on the seat in front).

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK mandates that carriers provide a minimum of 26 inches of seat pitch, and most charter carriers, including Thomas Cook, First Choice, and Monarch, offer the bare minimum or just above it. Short-haul LCCs such as easyJet and Ryanair offer slightly more, their seat pitches are around 28 inches, while legacy carriers such as British Airways and Bmi offer a minimum of around 30 inches. While a reduction in seat pitch to near the regulatory minimums has meant that LCCs can offer lower fares, some critics are raising questions that these reductions might be at the expense of passengers’ health and comfort.

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recently issued a report calling for the minimum seat pitch to be increased from 26 inches to 28.2 inches. The committee argues that this change will allow passengers to more easily adopt the brace position in an emergency, reduce the risk of passengers developing health problems as a result of sitting in cramped conditions, and improve their comfort. Many LCCs, and especially charter carriers that offer the legal minimum seat pitch, oppose the proposed regulations. I suggest a wiser course should be that LCCs fight for revised regulations, which take into account several aspects of passenger comfort while maintaining low fares.

One of the primary concerns of legislators is that a narrow seat pitch will cause health problems, such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT). While valid, this is a much bigger concern on long-haul flights, where customers sit in their seats for hours. On these flights, where seat pitches can be extremely tight on charter carriers in economy class, passengers are much more vulnerable to developing DVT. On short-haul flights, less than 6 hours or so, passengers run a lower risk of developing DVT, and carriers could argue that on short-haul flights, the current regulations should be kept. However, on flights over six hours, airlines should concede to the recommendations. This would affect virtually no flights from short-haul LCCs like Ryanair and easyJet, which don’t operate flights over six hours in length, but would affect charter carriers that operate long haul flights to Asia, Africa, or the States.

If regulations where seat pitch varied on flight time were contemplated, there would be several details to negotiate. The first is how flight time would be measured, as scheduled flight time is often not the same as actual flight time, and passengers’ time on the ground stuck in their seats could contribute to developing DVT. The second would be what penalties airlines would face if they were to violate the flight time requirements, since the severity of penalties can greatly affect how willing airlines are to violate the rules.

Additionally, the LCCs would have to determine how to subdivide their fleets into aircraft configured with long-haul seat pitches and short-haul seat pitches. LCCs hate subdividing their fleets, because it reduces flexibility and operating efficiencies. Although some aircraft, such as the 757 or 767, are versatile, and could be used for higher-density short-haul flights, or lower-density long-haul flights, seat pitch regulations, and the desire by airlines to pack as many seats as possible into aircraft, could encumber airlines and make it difficult for them to use those aircraft efficiently.

Another regulation that carriers should lobby for, because it is not very intrusive and could prevent regulators from imposing more burdensome requirements, would simply require cabin crew to discuss DVT and the dangers of staying in one’s seat too long in the pre-flight safety demonstration. Moreover, airlines should be required to put some sort of notice about DVT in onboard safety cards, with suggestions about how to prevent its effects during the flight. A brief announcement advising passengers to get up and walk around the cabin to avoid DVT would remind passengers of their role in maintaining their health. Granted, this would not address the safety issue of passengers being able to adopt the brace position, which regulators are also concerned with, but it would make it easier on LCCs to address some of the regulators’ concerns while maintaining the status quo in seat pitch.

If these new requirements are implemented, regulators may decide to eventually target other areas of passenger comfort. For instance, regulators may try to impose greater seat width requirements. With a narrow seat width, passengers often must squeeze into their seats, making the flight very uncomfortable and painful. Moreover, passengers can be squeezed further if a passenger of size sits next to them (though admittedly, this is a larger problem in the States, where I live). While this is an issue that cannot be rectified immediately, since it is difficult for carriers to add width to seats to existing aircraft without narrowing the aisle (a health and safety hazard), it will likely be taken under consideration by regulators in the future when Airbus and Boeing are designing new generations of aircraft. 

LCCs that already offer the proposed minimum seat pitch standard should have no problems in the future. However, charter carriers that currently offer the bare minimum will likely need to remove seats, leading to higher fares and fewer opportunities to offer loss-leading extra-low fares in order to lure customers to their planes. The regulations will also diminish the opportunities for carriers to utilize one potential revenue-generating tool, premium seating. Most charter carriers offer some form of “premium economy” seating, with similar seat widths, but slightly more legroom than regular economy. Many taller passengers who cannot comfortably sit in regular economy seats often purchase these premium economy seats, and if more legroom is given to economy passengers, fewer passengers will have a need to do this. Charter carriers could be forced to rethink the sizes of their premium economy seating sections and the potential revenue that they might generate as a result.

The House of Lords proposed regulations will, however, make charter carriers more attractive to fly on for passengers, and if these companies can keep fares substantially lower than legacy carriers, then they may be able to make the improved legroom a selling point. Many passengers currently avoid charter carriers because of uncomfortable seats, and instead fly with legacy carriers. Some of these passengers could be converted back to charter carriers if they were given more legroom. As a result, British Airways and other legacy carriers could be forced to offer more amenities to retain economy passengers. However, the regulations will change little in the short-haul market, as most LCCs already exceed the minimum seat pitch. But it will still be an important battle that LCCs and charter carriers will fight in the new year, as it affects their ability to operate economically. But whether the outcome will be successful for LCCs will depend on how much airlines fight the proposed requirements, and how much they choose to concede.