Editorial: Airlines must face blood-clot facts

Lack of movement, not lack of space, causes deep vein thrombosis, according to Qantas. It is a subtle distinction probably lost on those crammed into "cattle class" on long international flights. As it is doubtless lost on the 11 New Zealanders among 1000 people who have joined planned legal action against airlines over economy-class syndrome - deadly blood clots in the legs formed during long-distance flights. If they feel aggrieved over airlines' failure to provide adequate warning of the condition, attitudes such as that of Qantas will hardly placate them.

Airlines say, in effect, that it is not their aircraft's seating arrangements that cause the syndrome but passengers sitting still for too long. It could just as easily afflict people who sit for long periods in cars, buses, theatre seats or at office desks. There is, they say, no evidence to directly link blood clots to air travel. Furthermore, to call the condition economy-class syndrome is misleading because passengers sitting in business and first-class seats have also suffered fatal clots.

Indeed, there is no evidence of a direct link, if only because virtually no scientific research has been done on the subject. Airlines, of course, would have to furnish much of the data for such investigation. So far, they have provided no discernable impetus. What has developed instead is mounting suspicion of a link. This has been cultivated by the likes of the British-based Aviation Health Institute, which estimates that up to 30,000 people a year die from deep vein thrombosis. Equally dramatically, doctors at London's Ashford Hospital, the closest accident and emergency centre to Heathrow, reckon that 2000 people die annually from the condition in Britain alone.

Their concerns make Qantas' attempt to differentiate between space and movement appear somewhat vacuous. Passengers' lack of movement is, of course, directly related to their lack of space. Generally, they are jammed into tighter spaces for longer periods than on any other form of transport. The seating arrangements not only make it impossible to stretch out - a practice recommended by doctors - but difficult to get up to exercise. Airlines may encourage such exercise but all too often it is impractical. This situation has been exacerbated over the past decade by code-sharing deals which usually allow airlines to achieve maximum passenger loads. Unsurprisingly, doctors at Tokyo Airport say that 70 per cent of deep vein thrombosis sufferers had flown economy, 25 per cent business and 5 per cent first-class.

Some airlines have responded to increasing concern about the condition by placing safety warnings on tickets or on inflight videos. To some degree, this is obviously a legally inspired manoeuvre designed to attach part of the responsibility for the risk to passengers. The parallels with health warnings on cigarette packets are obvious. Equally, however, it implies that airlines are abdicating their responsibility. By warning of the risks but doing nothing else, the airlines are encouraging the view that passenger safety is not their paramount concern.

The response they should be adopting was outlined by a British House of Lords report released late last year. As well as recommending urgent research, the report urged more leg space, more comfortable seats and better aisle access. Obviously, this would mean fewer rows of seats in aircraft, thereby increasing the space between seat backs. The resulting drop in passenger numbers would probably mean higher fares. Airlines estimated the increase could be about 10 per cent. If such is the case, so be it.

It could be that some airlines may dilute any fare rise by choosing to abandon spending on personal television sets and other more peripheral comforts. Others, however, may follow the lead of Singapore Airlines by making seating comfort and service quality their hallmark.

In a highly competitive environment, many airlines may be loath to take such action without knowing the outcome of pending legal proceedings. They will continue to take comfort in the absence of a confirmed link. By dallying, they run the risk of eventually suffering heightened financial discomfort from compensation claims. More fundamentally, a failure to greet mounting suspicion with a meaningful response sends out a lamentable signal. It suggests airlines are more interested in maximum passenger loads than maximum passenger safety. That is not what airlines should be about.