INDUSTR Y I NSIGHT
RAISING THE STANDARD
FOR USER EXPERIENCE
What is stopping those in the industry
who know the problem of free pitching
very well from making a change? Well,
sometimes designers do decline to free
pitch if it involves significant work, but
airlines should ask themselves if they
want to rule out those companies as
if they are busy, they are also likely to
be successful and diversified.
On the whole, there is also a
macho attitude towards the ‘sport’
of competitive design and a concern
that the established design agencies
have more to lose, as there are plenty
of others willing to take their place.
This brings up the polarising and
rarely discussed topic of standards.
In many other areas of design you
need certain qualifications. Think how
many checks other suppliers face
within aviation, and yet no standards
aircraftinteriorsinternational.com
052 MARCH 2020
are required to design a complex,
high-risk airline seating product.
Whilst there is no direct risk, as the
vendors have to post-rationalise the
designers’ work, there is a very real
risk to project timelines, and therefore
the aircraft delivery. It’s surprising that
aircraft manufacturers don’t take more
notice of this area.
When tier two and three subsuppliers
to cabin hardware
manufacturers have stringent checks,
going way beyond material quality
control, why should design agencies
should get off scot free?
It may seem like just another
industry norm, but it could be different,
and some basic approval standards
could really improve the levels of
service that airlines receive, in turn
elevating the passenger experience.
AIRBUS’S CUSTOMER DEFINITION
CENTRES CAN HELP RISK-AVERSE
AIRLINES SELECT PRODUCTS
they involve spending cold, hard cash. Colleagues in the
industry openly talk about spending several hundred
thousand dollars a year on these so-called ‘free pitches’.
Like any business, this expense is seen as an overhead,
and must therefore be amortised and paid for by the
income from clients. Airlines are in fact indirectly paying
for unpaid pitching through extra costs embedded in the
final fees they pay for their design work. Yes, the reality
is that unpaid pitches are often adding a double-digit
percentage to the cost of aircraft interior design work.
The number of design consultancies invited to
participate varies wildly, but airlines typically state
numbers from 2-20, with an average probably in the
region of 4-6. These figures give you an idea of each
company’s chances of winning. Of course, participation
is optional, and some companies do opt out on a case-bycase
basis, but as the majority of aviation work is ‘won’
through systems similar to this, it’s difficult to avoid.
Most importantly, the process often fails to select the
best design partner, for several reasons. Firstly, unpaid
pitching is a beauty contest that favours those which, at
the moment the invitation arrives (often at short notice),
“ Unpaid pitches often add
a double-digit percentage
to the cost of design work”
If you have
something to say
about pitching or
other industry topics,
submit a blog on
our website
Hopefully, at some point in the future,
unpaid pitching will be seen as an unwise,
and maybe even unethical practice, in the
same way that the hiring of unpaid interns
seems to be heading slowly.
So what is actually happening, and why
is it a problem? Many airlines, and some
vendors, ask for significant amounts of
‘free’ design work from multiple agencies
in order to select a design consultancy.
This practice should be differentiated
from those who are just asking for pitches
based on existing work, and maybe some
high-level resource plans. We’re talking
about pitches that often involve several
hundred hours of effort.
The design work, research and ideas
that agencies provide are far from free –
/aircraftinteriorsinternational.com