Dissecting Spirit Airlines’ Argument over Seat Pitch

Since the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to consider a minimum seat pitch standard at the end of July, much has been made of the constantly shrinking seat. Those on all sides of the situation have offered opinions on how to solve the issue, from aviation industry pundits to executives running those carriers.

One such piece came from Ben Baldzana, chief executive of Spirit Airlines. In his editorial published by USA Today, he unequivocally states that the three-judge panel made the wrong decision in forcing the minimum seat pitch discussion. Rather, the airline leader argues that decisions on seat pitch should be made by the industry in concert with the FAA.

“For every aircraft it certifies, the FAA determines the maximum number of seats safely allowed,” Baldzana wrote. “Airlines must demonstrate that they can safely evacuate customers under whatever seat configuration they choose.”

Are his arguments grounded by facts? We investigated three key arguments from his editorial – and here’s how they stack up to the truth today.

“It is true that airlines have added more seats to their airplanes. This has resulted in lower fares with no compromise to safety.”

In 1992, Spirit took their current name after investing in jet-engine aircraft. Since then, there have been over 50 commercial aviation accidents in the United States, from the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 incident, to the “Miracle on the Hudson” in U.S. Airways Flight 1549. However, those incidents have been across a variety of aircraft, each with different configurations and seat pitch.

In an example of Baldzana’s point on safety: US1549 was flown on an Airbus A320, with an economy seat pitch of 31 inches. All passengers were able to evacuate onto the wings and into life rafts safely and with no loss of life. Compared against OZ214, in which three people died, it may appear that the additional 3.5 inches of seat pitch aboard the Boeing 777-200ER may not have mattered.

However, there is limited data to conclusively assert that seat pitch and safety are not mutually connected. In their 25 years of operations, Spirit Airlines – with an average seat pitch of 28 inches – has never experienced a fatal accident. Therefore, we don’t actually know if seat pitch could hinder flyers in an emergency.

“Regulating seat pitch, or even mandating that airlines disclose it in advance, would actually take away a marketing benefit even from airlines that invest in and advertise more legroom. (And many of them do!)”

Baldzana’s argument may be targeted towards premium flyers who are willing to spend more to receive a seat with more legroom while sitting in a premium economy product. At the economy and basic economy level, there is not much difference in the room between seats.

According to a study by Skytrax, economy class seat pitch across international carriers ranges between 30 and 33 inches all around the world. Those who dip below 30 inches include the world’s low coast carriers: AirAsia, EasyJet, Spirit and Thomas Cook Airlines.

Furthermore, the argument cannot be applied to Spirit’s “premium” products, the “Big Front Seat.” Compared to other carriers, premium economy seat pitch range from 38 to 46 inches – all larger than Spirit’s product.

“Efforts to reduce the seat count below the level determined by the FAA would simply raise fares for all, as the airlines would need to cover their costs with fewer total passengers per flight.”

When Spirit began flying as a low-cost carrier in 1992, there was plenty of competition at the airport. Despite the number of airlines, flying was expensive: In 1995, the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) reported that the average roundtrip airfare was $467 when adjusted to today’s dollars. Over the last 22 years, the cost of flying has decreased by over $100 per trip, with the average roundtrip cost in 2016 costing only $354.

Although low-cost carriers have helped to drive down the cost of flying, they only do so at the airports where they operate. Airline consolidation has left many flyers with limited choices, resulting in higher fares compared to other markets.

While Baldzana may have one compelling argument for reducing seat pitch, airlines still have an obligation to customers safety, followed by comfort. The Spirit executive – not the courts – got it wrong: there’s not enough information to support continually reducing seat pitch as the industry would suggest. The judges have made the right decision in standing on the side of flyers everywhere.

[Photo: Shutterstock]