Comments on: Dump this! 7 things airlines should jettison from their planes now

By: How Google Treats Trusted Sites Differently With Duplicate Content

How Google Treats Trusted Sites Differently With Duplicate Content — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:41:27 +0000

[...] ok here’s a nice example. Back in October Christopher Elliott wrote a nice post entitled Dump this! 7 things airlines should jettison from their planes now. It was a good piece and it made the rounds on the popular social sites. Mr Elliot is also a well [...]

By: How Google Treats Trusted Sites Differently With Duplicate Content

How Google Treats Trusted Sites Differently With Duplicate Content — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:01:51 +0000

[...] in October Christopher Elliott wrote a nice post entitled Dump this! 7 things airlines should jettison from their planes now. It was a good piece and it made the rounds on the popular social sites. Mr Elliot is also a well [...]

By: tripso.com | Why corporate denials are hurting air travelers

tripso.com | Why corporate denials are hurting air travelers — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:33:23 +0000

[...] was a devastating, but not unsurprising, revelation. I’ve suggested elminiating the federal air marshal program in a previous [...]

By: Elle

Elle — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:39:25 +0000

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.

By: P.H.

P.H. — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:25:15 +0000

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.

By: Benny Lewis

Benny Lewis — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:59:57 +0000

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 :)

By: Max

Max — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:29:53 +0000

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.

By: SG

SG — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:21:47 +0000

you had a good point on the flight attendant idea… until you said “why not install a vending machine” lol

By: Kiwi

Kiwi — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:52:15 +0000

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….

By: Robert Davis

Robert Davis — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:06:48 +0000

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

By: Anne Nicolai

Anne Nicolai — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:44:04 +0000

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.

By: Beth Partin

Beth Partin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:54:58 +0000

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.

By: GG

GG — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:16:04 +0000

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.

By: Jasper

Jasper — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:58:50 +0000

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.

By: Drew

Drew — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:03:04 +0000

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…