Meals. Pillows. Blankets. And now, life vests.
Is there anything the airlines haven’t tried to remove from their planes? As a matter of fact, yes.
Airlines are true experts at taking. They started getting serious nearly three years ago, when American Airlines removed its galleys on some planes in order to cram in a few extra seats. Air Canada’s jettisoning of its life vests on its regional carrier, Jazz, in order to save fuel, is just the latest move in a concerted airline industry effort to strip aircraft of everything but the seats.
But they’re not done. Far from it.
Ditching in-flight entertainment systems, magazine racks, potable water — it’s all either being done or will be done.
Don’t believe me? Check out the section on fuel conservation in this presentation (PDF) from the Air Transport Association, the airline trade group. Really, they’ll stop at almost nothing to lighten their planes.
But maybe they’re looking in the wrong place. Here are seven things they should lose from their flights — but probably won’t.
Federal air marshals
Airlines must carry as many air marshals as the TSA tells them — for free. Yet the program is a failure, at least by some measures. A recent study of the Federal Air Marshal Service suggests that it spends $180 million per life saved. “As such, the air marshal program would seem to fail a cost-benefit analysis,” it concludes. Besides, pilots are now packing heat. Isn’t it time to think about grounding the marshals?
Duty-free carts
“They’re totally useless,” says Ed Kummel, an engineer from Sterling, Va. “If the airlines really want to conserve fuel, dump them.” Well, maybe not totally useless — they make airlines a tidy profit, according to one study. But in the sense that they weigh half a ton and are more of an inconvenience to passengers than an amenity, yes — ditch ’em.
In-flight magazines
No offense to my colleagues who work for these publications, but the heavy product they churn out has no place on an aircraft at a time like this. Some airlines are trying to put these magazines on a diet, but why not just get rid of them entirely? I know you’ll miss all those stories about Las Vegas, the unfunny humor columns and the ads for dating services. I certainly will. But think of all the fuel the airline will save.
Flight attendants
Federal rules require a minimum number of flight attendants for every plane — for example, an aircraft with up to 50 seats has to have one attendant, and between 51 and 101 seats, it must have two. On my last flight on a 137-seat plane I counted four flight attendants. Come on. How much money could an airline save by eliminating a crewmember? I mean, they’ve stopped serving food and now we have to pay for drinks. Why not install a vending machine at the back of the plane?
Bathrooms
Not all of them. But considering that on most flights I’ve been on lately, at least one of the restrooms was out of order, I have an idea: Why not just uninstall that nonworking loo? Passengers will wait in the same long line as before. They’ll never miss it. As a matter of fact, there are no rules that say an airline must fly with a certain number of restrooms. There’s no federally mandated passenger-to-toilet ratio, and some smaller aircraft aren’t even required to have a bathroom.
XL passengers
Most airlines look the other way when an oversize passengers boards (though not all — Southwest makes “customers of size” buy an extra seat). If the airlines don’t start charging by weight — which, though disturbing on some levels, is a logical next step — then why not send these big passengers packing? Now before you flame me for being insensitive, let me confess that I am one of these XL passengers. I’m taller than average and I have long arms that tend to sprawl. But airlines already force our carry-on luggage to fit into a template. Why not us, too?
Pilots
I’m only half kidding. But still, it’s worth noting that today’s planes practically fly themselves, or can be piloted remotely as this British test showed. Pilots take up extra space and weigh the plane down. Do we really need them onboard?
I’m not trying to be funny. At some point — probably soon — the airlines will have stripped their planes of so many amenities that it will be a stretch to call it flying, or jetting, or whatever the term du jour is. It will just be a prison sentence.
Where do the cuts end? They end when passengers say “enough” as they recently did when United tried to cut meal service on its international flights. The airline backed down, much to its credit.
It’s not up to the airlines to ask themselves, “How much can we take away and still call it an airline?” They’ve already answered that question, and the sky’s the limit.
No, it’s up to us to tell them.
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Just out of curiosity, I just went through that presentation (VERY interesting, btw!), and didn’t see the section on fuel conservation that you mentioned above… Could it be in another report?
Some of their findings seem a bit flawed, as well. “Ex-Ike, Jet Fuel Price Has Exceeded Gasoline and Diesel” on page 31–based on that graph that they show, with a little bit of an exception in early September, the Jet Fuel price has ALWAYS exceeded that of gas and diesel.
Then, on page 55, they SAY that US Airlines are paying a Transatlantic “Premium” for Jet Fuel…. based on the chart that they show, they pay LESS for it in Europe than they do here… how is that a premium? It would seem that they would WANT to fly transatlantic–fly over there with more expensive US fuel, fill completely up as much as they can with the cheaper European fuel, and then fly back, hopefully keeping some of that fuel in their tanks for some US-based flights.
So, everything doesn’t seem as bad as the Airlines are making it…
The fact that United didn’t skip the meals on flight to Europe is not ‘much to its credit’. It’s slightly less to their disgrace.
You forgot the one thing that the airliens can dump and save the most amount of money: passengers. Hey they dont even have to fly then; imagine all the money they can save on the fuel.
I keep telling people that airlines need to go back to a luxury model, but they seem to be going in the opposite direction. They all seem to lower their prices at once; why can’t they decide to raise them? Oh, wait, there’s the Anti-Trust Act…
Seriously, though, I think the luxury flying COULD work, except that we don’t have a good replacement (such as trains) for the passengers who would be forced out by cost. There are buses, but they have been torture to ride in my limited experience.
I agree with Beth Partin. As recently as 10 years ago, flying was a pleasure. Now it’s a necessary evil. I think airlines ought to bring back human-scale seating (with the ability to recline several inches instead of just one inch), tasty meals, seat-back phones and TV screens, and CLEAN blankets/pillows. (Remember how they also used to give us socks and eye shades?) The sacrifice: frequency of flights. We travelers would have to plan ahead for weekly vs. twice-daily flights to London, Beijing, or L.A. So what? Most of us can conduct our business and personal affairs via computer with Skype and a web-cam anyway. If airlines flew lighter schedules, they’d save on everything from fuel to salaries to food costs. They’d need fewer planes. And ticket prices wouldn’t have to increase astronomically–they might go up a little bit. First Class fares would still provide a decent profit margin. When airlines focus only on cost-cutting, they don’t make customers happy. And if they’re not making their customers happy, they are moving in the wrong direction.
I would be happy to pay extra for a decent sized seat with leg room and width. 4 seats in the space of 6? I loved flying Midwest when I could. I just barely fit into a 737 seat and next time I have to fly one across country I’ll probably buy the extra seat.
BD
I am a recently retired flight attendant for DAL….and we were flying on FAA minimum staffing.
I really don’t think any airline is flying with more. Possibly the “extra” was jump seating. That is flying to work or if there were no empty seats that was the only way he/she could get to where they were going.
On Duty Free, especially on Asia routes, we made up to 20k a leg….so yes, maybe take the Duty Free off of Europe, but not on very profitable routes.
Also, there are rules where pilots and flight attendants get breaks….it is for safety…which is pretty important…so there needs to be the seemingly “extra” flight attendant….
you had a good point on the flight attendant idea… until you said “why not install a vending machine” lol
The pilots thing where you can fly from the comfort of your own home? Definately possible. Is it going to happen in the next 50 years? No way. There’s not an airline that would dare to be the first with this technology since there are TOO many people still afraid of flying. They wouldn’t get onboard with the first airline anymore and therefor it’d be a net loss.
Cutting back on Flight Attendants is also not an option – These ladies and gents are not just there to do the Security Dance and serve you drinks, but they’re there for security in general and to assist in emergencies! They’re trained in handling emergency situations involving the entire plane (Such as evacuations), but also to a certain extent in firefighting and first aid. To say they’re replacable by a vending machine is selling them WAY short.
What you say makes a lot of sense!! Because we aren’t charged per weight on our person, I take gross advantage of this loophole when I fly and bring as much weight as I like on my person!
Sadly dumping pilots and flight attendents would cause so many strikes that the inconveniences due to cancellations etc. would be even more frustrating… I think the whole industry is doomed to being constantly annoying :)
It’s quite apparent that you know nothing about aviation. Let’s take flight attendants – serving you is not the main reason they’re required on every commercial flight. So the idea of replacing them with vending machines – sorry, but it’s garbage.
The same goes for saying that “today’s planes practically fly themselves”. Even “modern” autopilot systems are FAR more primitive than generally thought. They are only able to fly along waypoints, given that all equipment, both in air and on ground, is fully operational. But what if it isn’t? Instead of a great emergency landing (Gimli glider, Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751) you’re gonna crash and die.
Lose a pilot? Are you mental? Automtion is great, but it’s not the answer for everything. Too much reliance on automation can lead to worse problems than no automation. From a human factors standpoint there really does need to be at least two people in the cockpit. Two pilots are much more likely to catch an error than one is. I’d also be leary of cutting FAs down to the bare minimum, they’re a very important part of crew resource management too.