[dajop]

Comments in another thread (Window Shade Must be Up) about window shades, prompted me to seek others thoughts regarding safety on AA. After a few flights on them in the last couple of months, I have noticed some things, that after being used to the high safety standards of Qantas, that make me wonder.

Firstly, the window shades, certainly not a requirement to have them up for take off and landing.

Secondly on a few flights I've noticed that they are not at all strict about stowing hand luggage on final approach. On QF, they are very strict and make sure it is stowed in the overhead locker or under the seat in front. On AA they seem quite happy for quite large backpacks and handbags to sit freely in the space between seats, even on landing.

Thirdly, the "boy who cried wolf" factor in relation to seat belt signs. Their flight crew seem to be extremely conservative regarding seat belt signs, on several occassions they've been turned on for considerable periods of time (once for about 3 hours) without any evidence of turbulence whatsoever. May seem good from safety view point, but I'd argue the opposite. Trouble is that when on for so long without turbulence, pax ignore it and do get up to use the toilets etc, and also cabin staff don't enforce the sign rules. But how does one pick when the seat belt sign really is required to be on ? (I guess it's in the shaking of the plane)

None of these are that significant, but having been involved in safety in the past (not air safety though), its the culmination of lots of insignificant deviations that add up to a much larger error.

[NM]

Originally Posted by dajop

Thirdly, the "boy who cried wolf" factor in relation to seat belt signs. Their flight crew seem to be extremely conservative regarding seat belt signs, on several occassions they've been turned on for considerable periods of time (once for about 3 hours) without any evidence of turbulence whatsoever. May seem good from safety view point, but I'd argue the opposite. Trouble is that when on for so long without turbulence, pax ignore it and do get up to use the toilets etc, and also cabin staff don't enforce the sign rules. But how does one pick when the seat belt sign really is required to be on ? (I guess it's in the shaking of the plane)

Airlines in the LOTFAP use the seatbelt sign as a security measure rather than just a safety measure. They will generally leave it on until the aircraft has reached cruising altitude and turn it back on at top of decent. They seem to believe this is the most likely time a hijacker is going to try to make their move.

And yes, I have also noticed they tend to leave it on for long periods while cruising. Again this seems to be to try to minimise movement around the cabin rather than due to any expected turbulence.

One time wen rather desperate for a bio-break while the seatbelt sign had been lit for a long time, I asked a flight attendant if I was able to visit the facilities. I was told that would be fine but it was at my own risk since the seatbelt sign was lit. I suggested they would likely prefer me to take my short walk rather than have to deal with the consequences of ongoing compliance with the signage. She nodded and smiled.

[alect]

Surprisingly, I found LH to be even more lax than AA. I was once on an LH flight taking off from LAX and the FA said I could keep my champagne glass (not plastic) and keep drinking - I would have thought having a loose glass object in the cabin is more dangerous than a bag on the floor. And surprising given the german penchant for keeping strictly to rules.

[Kiwi Flyer]

Originally Posted by alect

Surprisingly, I found LH to be even more lax than AA. I was once on an LH flight taking off from LAX and the FA said I could keep my champagne glass (not plastic) and keep drinking - I would have thought having a loose glass object in the cabin is more dangerous than a bag on the floor. And surprising given the german penchant for keeping strictly to rules.

Is that a one-off or regular occurrence? I've had similar one-off experiences of not collecting pre-departure glass on many airlines - off the top of my head QF, NZ, SQ, LH, EK, CX. I'm sure I am forgetting a few. (Note no UA but that is because pre-departure drink is in plastic cup ).

[alect]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer

Is that a one-off or regular occurrence? I've had similar one-off experiences of not collecting pre-departure glass on many airlines - off the top of my head QF, NZ, SQ, LH, EK, CX. I'm sure I am forgetting a few. (Note no UA but that is because pre-departure drink is in plastic cup ).

It was one-off but what surprised me was that it wasn't a matter of forgetting - I went to give them my glass and they told me I should keep it and keep drinking

[Kiwi Flyer]

Originally Posted by alect

It was one-off but what surprised me was that it wasn't a matter of forgetting - I went to give them my glass and they told me I should keep it and keep drinking

so what did you do?

[alect]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer

so what did you do?

I assume that's a rhetorical question

[Kiwi Flyer]

skulled and handed the glass immediately?

[alect]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer

skulled and handed the glass immediately?

kept drinking on my merry way!

[Dave Noble]

The fact that different locales may have different views on what is safe, doesn't mean that what AA does in unsafe.

QF used to be the only carrier I travelled on which had cabin lighting on maximum during take off and landing, whilst all other carriers I used would dim cabin lighting . QF has now switched to dimming lighting; does this mean that all the flights I took before then were unsafe or have they now compromised safety or is there just no absolute on which of the 2 is safer ?

Dave