CKNW Editorial
for January 31, 2001

Let me state at the outset my biases. I often do work with airlines and receive, on occasion, free or reduced passage … from which come regular travel segments on this program. And, most of the time, I fly business class … though in the past year I have flown to New Zealand and back, Vancouver to Fort Lauderdale and Santiago Chile to Vancouver in economy. Having stated that up front let me come to the aid of the airline industry on the issue of economy flying causing thrombosis and other assorted and serious things.

For openers, airline travel ought not to be unusually hazardous. That’s a given. But there are realities, one of which is that space is at a premium. The fewer passengers an airline flies, the lower the payback. And the airline industry is extremely competitive. To compound things, some airlines, British Airways comes to mind, are hugely profitable … they’ve been in the business a long time and have acquired many valuable and profitable routes and can afford cabin size adjustments where other airlines, not so profitable and perhaps in deep trouble cannot afford to giveaway passenger capacity. The problem, too, is that this marketplace is not like a shopping center where, if one business fails another can quickly move into its place. We saw that with Canadian Airlines. If CAI had simply failed, thousands of jobs would have been lost in an industry which is highly regulated. I say all this because it’s not so simple as to say some people have health problems flying Economy so make all the airlines give more leg room.

But there’s another issue here. Because we all like to beat up on what we see as greedy corporations we avoid some awkward questions such as what about the responsibility of passengers and what is reasonable to demand of airlines?

Let me illustrate what I mean. On a couple of occasions I have seen passengers who are – and there is no other way to describe it – grossly overweight, who have demanded that the airline put them in 1^st Class so they will be more comfortable. Is this fair? Indeed I’ve heard of passengers so large that even the larger seat won’t do … must airlines have super large seats available for these people? If airlines, why not buses, trains and indeed theaters? And if so, why should I pay for this out of the higher fares such individualistic concessions would bring?

Is there not an obligation on passengers to ensure that they are medically fit to fly in the conditions that prevail in Economy? And if they are not, even though it’s not their fault, shouldn’t they refrain from flying?

Now I would be the first to agree that if the airline so configures its plane that everyone is uncomfortable that’s wrong. I would like to say that the marketplace would take care of that by driving such an airline out of business but the nature of this market is such that this won’t necessarily happen. But assuming that an airline provides what for the vast majority of people is reasonable leg room, are they responsible for the health of those for whom this is not enough?

It’s back to the weight challenged passenger. What about very tall people? Are they entitled to first or business class upgrades because they happen to be 7 feet tall? Or special seats?

Surely it gets down to what is reasonable.

I flew back from Santiago last week on American Airlines and I have no hesitation is saying that the space they provide in Economy is reasonable. No Economy passenger would have refused an upgrade, including me, but it was reasonable. What was not reasonable was their refusal to provide bottled water as, for example, Air Canada does.

I believe that there is an obligation on airlines to do a number of things on longer flights.

1.drastically reduce the ability of a passenger to tilt his seat into the passenger behind. One notch will give you comfort and won’t jam your seat into the knees of the person behind you.

2.So configure their craft so that reasonable legroom is available for all passengers … which does not mean that they must take into account people who are unusually large or sensitive. Many airlines have done this or are doing it.

3.Provide bottled water … this is essential if one wishes to avoid a couple of medical conditions associated with long flights.

4.Improve, and in the case of some airlines dramatically improve, the quality of the air. This is costly because better air conditioning uses fuel but breathing is pretty basic, isn’t it.

5.Improve their communications with the traveling public by making available helpful information about traveling on long trips. This should come with the ticket, be a larger part of their advertising and be part of the safety information given out by the cabin crew before take-off.

There are things passengers can do such as reducing or eliminating alcohol intake. Even older passengers should be advised to get up and stretch the legs from time to time … one can even do a number of simple exercises that will help. Passengers who know that they need to move about can ask for an aisle seat so as not to disturb neighbours.

I suppose my overall point is this. We’ve become such victims in this society that we can’t wait to find new ways to become one and attach a lawsuit to it. This is not by any means to say that airlines don’t carry a heavy responsibility – it is to say, however, that so does the passenger.

Life isn’t fair. Virtually everything manufactured from cars to furniture to airplanes is designed with size and other limitations. Those who fall outside these limitations must make accommodations. That’s the unfair part.

And it may just be that some people shouldn’t fly.