The obvious problem here is that the UK parliament has very little control over foreign airlines. And don't forget, Mytravel/TC and Thomson are already owned by German companies whilst Ryanair planes are registered in Ireland and some easyjet are already Swiss. If they were to try tearing up the various long standing international treaties such as the Warsaw Convention to enforce a rule it would simply cause action in other areas against BA and BMI.

So I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. The Lords can do something useful if they persuade the Government to take it up at the EU where there is more scope for meaningful rules.

I think it would be part of their route operating license. I think they would not be allowed to fly into or out of UK airports with seat pitch less than 28" and with most airlines giving 28" seat pitch now it shouldn't be a problem. I would think airlines would have a year or two to implement it.

The Lords can't change anything but it is for the government and the lords are putting pressure on the government to make the change. Because its linked to deep vein thrombosis it could become a health and safety issue in europe as well with medical advice what is the best seat pitch taking price into account and raised costs.

Just seen the lords recommend 30". One of their arguments is passenger in a 26" seat pitch cannot take the brace position.

LORDS SCIENCE COMMITTEE CALL FOR AIRCRAFT LEG ROOM BE INCREASED TO AT LEAST 28 INCHES AND EXTRA TAX ON PREMIUM ECONOMY SCRAPPED

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has today published a follow up report to its highly influential report Air Travel and Health.

Returning to the subject they initially reported on in 2000, the Committee argues that the Government is wrong to tax 'premium economy' services on long haul flights at the same £80 rate as first class travel rather than the standard £40 charge. It points out that premium economy was intended to represent a small extra charge to guarantee extra leg room for those who required it. The Committee feels that an extra tax on those who may have a medical need for extra leg room is unfair.

The Committee also calls on the Civil Aviation Authority to implement the recommendation of their own research and increase the regulatory minimum distance between seats on commercial aircraft from 26 inches to at least 28.2 inches. This is equivalent to a seat pitch of around 30 inches depending on the type of seat.

While most UK airlines already operate in accordance with the recommendation, the Committee feels this should be guaranteed by the CAA. The fact that many airlines already provide this suggests a regulatory requirement would not place onerous demands on the industry.

The Committee does not feel there is yet adequate scientific evidence to prove a link between contaminated air events and long term ill health. However, the Committee has received enough anecdotal evidence to convince it that this is an area that needs further in-depth research. It has strengthened its position from that taken in the 2000 report where it was argued that the risks from contaminated air events were not substantiated.

The Committee was very concerned to hear from the unions in evidence that fatigue in pilots may be putting passengers' lives at risk. The Committee recommends the CAA should work with Government, the airlines and the unions to ensure pilots have appropriate rest periods and call for the CAA to commission a long term study in to the effects of fatigue on air crew.

Other recommendations in the report include:

The Committee raises concerns about the proposals to transfer many of the CAA's health responsibilities to the European Aviation Safety Agency stating that until the EASA is shown to be competent to exercise such responsibilities the regulation of health risks associated with flying should remain with the CAA.

The Committee calls for the CAA to do more to raise the profile of the Aviation Health Unit amongst passengers and airlines. It argues that many people are unaware of the existence or role of the AHU leaving them unsure of how to register concerns about flight associated health risks. The report states the AHU should become the focus for all those interested in aviation health matters.

The Government and the Research Councils should explore ways to increase the research capacity into aviation health issues particularly into how jet lag can influence other health risks.

There should be more advice to passengers about the benefits of good hand hygiene on board flights and in particular passengers should be encouraged to wash their hands prior to eating on board to reduce the risks of in flight infection transfer.

Commenting Lord Patel, who played an active part in the Committee's inquiry, said:

"We are also disappointed that the Government's increase in tax on air travel last February resulted in premium economy seats being taxed at the same level as first class travel. Premium economy was intended to offer a relatively affordable option for those who need extra leg room be it for comfort or due to a medical condition. The current £80 tax rate on long haul flights will make this option unaffordable for many passengers.

"We are very concerned that the CAA has failed to follow up the recommendations of its own research and increase the regulatory minimum distance between seats to above 28 inches. In the event of an emergency the current minimum of 26 inches would not allow many passengers to adopt the recommended brace position.

"Air crew occupational health has featured heavily in our report. We heard concerns from the unions that the work schedules of pilots working for low-cost airlines may be putting passengers' lives at risks. The CAA must ensure that airlines provide sufficient rest periods to pilots

"With regards to contaminated air events we conclude that there is not yet adequate scientific evidence to prove a link between contaminated air events and long-term ill health. However, we have received enough anecdotal evidence to convince us that this is an area that needs further in-depth research. We therefore welcome the research project that the Aviation Health Working Group has initiated into this issue as a step in the right direction. In the meantime we call on the Government to make available to health professionals a medical protocol on how to deal with air crew who suffer contaminated air events."

Reproduced with permission from http://www.parliament.uk in accordance with © Parliamentary copyright

The UK's independent aviation regulator, the CAA, has issued its response to the to House of Lords report ... please click here.

David

I can't remember when I flew with an airline that only has a 28" seat pitch, even when flying with an airline with 30-31" pitch I feel cramped and I am only of average height albeit with long legs. Luckily on most of the long haul routes that I fly I can choose an airline like Malaysia, Thai or Air new Zealand that have 34", it must be a nightmare flying a long way with a 28" pitch.

Sorry if I'm missing anything - but will this make a change? Is there an airline flying with a seat pitch below 28 inches?

If it is right what david is saying the seat pitch will be 30" and the distance between seats 28". I feel airlines are moving towards what customers want, more room on all flights no matter if its short haul or long haul. Long haul seat pitch has been increased by most charters and once a charter starts to offer a higher seat pitch the rest will follow suit or lose business. First choice advertised extra leg room on their long haul flights and the rest had to follow in the end.

I would be quite happy to pay a extra £5 to 10 for more room.

I have just done a short trip on Qatar Airways new 777 and the seat belts were that short most of the guys had to use seat belt extentions and this was Buisness Class.Seat pitch is a big problem its the pack em in attitude but to remove seat rows will make the cost of package holidays more expensive.

Seat pitch is a big problem its the pack em in attitude but to remove seat rows will make the cost of package holidays more expensive.

I wonder if it is more a case of how much the carriers can make rather than how much the price will rise.

Remove a couple of rows to increase pitch might sound a big thing. But then modern aircraft carry in excess of 200.

Look at the cost of flights and the increase in price in most cases would not be that great to recoup the lost revenue.

The downside is that the number of flights may increase.

fwh

I agree fwh,
But with tour ops its the Hotel cost ect they lose.