Dying for a carry-on bag

[nrc]

Not yet (that I know of), but it seems like it's just a matter of time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/crashing-burning-planes-don-t-stop-passengers-from-grabbing-their-luggage

My idea: overhead bins that are centrally locked during take-off and landing.

[WickerBill]

My idea: peer pressure.

If you centrally lock the bins, some idiot will just stand there and tug and tug at the handle.

So, make it more obvious in the pre-flight video or demonstration that THOU SHALT NOT depart with a bag of any sort. Mention fines. Then when someone starts pulling their 22" roller out of the overhead, American disgust takes over: "Leave your bag you idiot!" In that situation, I would be extremely vocal and forceful.

[Elmo T]

It's like when I get lucky enough for the exit row seat. "Are you willing and able to open the door" or whatever they ask. Just means me and the family don't have to climb over any of you idiots grabbing your bags or heading for the front door where you came in.

In all seriousness, it's about not taking fire and danger seriously. I've chased people out of burning grocery stores who didn't want to leave behind their cart of food that they haven't paid for yet. I've watched people come out of their burning house carrying a TV.

[Gnam]

I would be a little more draconian than WB. If a survivor is found with luggage, the fire department should confiscate it and throw it back into the burning aircraft. Or in the absence of fire, smash it under the nearest fire truck.

After Asiana Airlines Flight 214 pancaked into the runway at San Francisco, this is what the main cabin looked like:

https://s32.postimg.org/5zpy6qnkl/18_asiana_airlines_flight.jpg

But, people still left the plane carrying their luggage:

https://s32.postimg.org/5blp1je8l/San_Francisco_plan_2613557b.jpg
https://s32.postimg.org/xczqf8jit/OB_YD645_ntsb10_P_20130711014123.jpg

[Napoleon]

I saw the video on the news last night and I could not help but yell at my TV. In it what I took to be an attendant yells at a person reaching for their luggage to get out.

By the way, I am no engineer but this from the story nrc linked to:


Putting more bags into cargo holds could lessen the problem, but airlines want to decrease the load of each plane to save on fuel, and passengers don't want to pay those fees or leave things at home.

I am going to go way out on a limb and guess that it takes the plane just as much fuel to take a piece of luggage from point A to point B whether it is in the cargo hold or above your head. The writer must think that the passenger compartment is exempt from physics.

[datachicane]

I am going to go way out on a limb and guess that it takes the plane just as much fuel to take a piece of luggage from point A to point B whether it is in the cargo hold or above your head. The writer must think that the passenger compartment is exempt from physics.

It was a badly-written way to point out that passengers have a disincentive to store luggage in the hold, and that airlines fear revenue loss if that optional upcharge service becomes mandatory.

[dando]

I generally roll with a back pack and a day bag that fits under 'seats' for the important stuff </George Carlin>. I rarely use overhead storage, but I have a good duffle bag that I have used for trips to WDW and DL.

[TravelGal]

"The main reasons passengers gave for grabbing their bags was money, wallets, or credit cards, followed by work materials, keys. and medication." I'm always saying, but never doing myself :o , that one should use one of the cloth wallets to keep your valuables close to you. Not for fear of theft, although that is much more common, but to keep the things you need on your person in the event of something like this.

What bothers me even more is why that plane "burst into flames" that destroyed the entire top half. Can you mechanically-oriented people tell me if Emirates is cheaping out on the flame retardant fabrics or wiring insulation? Destruction across the top of the fuselage is not what one normally sees.

[Tifosi24]

Folks are inserting logic into this argument, which is always a problem. After our travels in Asia last fall, the fine argument will only work, especially with certain cultures, if it actually were enforced and the fine is enormous. So, throwing bag into the fire plus $50,000 US fine would probably solve the problem. It is also good advice to carry anything of great important (immigration documents) on your person or in the purse item and make sure to leave the purse behind after you get your immigration documents out!

[cameraman]

What bothers me even more is why that plane "burst into flames" that destroyed the entire top half. Can you mechanically-oriented people tell me if Emirates is cheaping out on the flame retardant fabrics or wiring insulation? Destruction across the top of the fuselage is not what one normally sees.

Seems the plane hit the ground hard without landing gear breaking the right wing spar and shearing off the right engine. A was an attempted go-around where it seems they couldn't get the engines spooled up in time or something along those lines. All the somewhat detailed reporting I've seen is pointing to pilot error. The fire spread from the torn fuel lines and eventually one of the fuel tanks exploded killing a firefighter. After that the plane just completely burned out. The flame-retardant fabrics only help to a point and burning fuel from ruptured tanks is well beyond that point.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rWGn3cnP5mE/V6Hb7Y_LNFI/AAAAAAAAANU/jIxEeUWAWckHV1Jj5LKtUyqmvfhTYgjTACEw/s1600/Emirates%2BPlane%2BCrash%2BLands%2BAt%2BDubai%2BIn ternational%2BAirport1.jpg

Pretty amazing everyone got off the plane uninjured given how hard it hit the ground and how quickly the fire spread.

[Ed_Severson]

I am going to go way out on a limb and guess that it takes the plane just as much fuel to take a piece of luggage from point A to point B whether it is in the cargo hold or above your head. The writer must think that the passenger compartment is exempt from physics.

While not explained well at all, I think there's an underlying assumption there that if airlines move in the direction of storing more bags in the cargo hold and fewer bags in the cabin, people will pack bigger bags and bring more stuff.

[Gnam]

While not explained well at all, I think there's an underlying assumption there that if airlines move in the direction of storing more bags in the cargo hold and fewer bags in the cabin, people will pack bigger bags and bring more stuff.
Also, the airlines don't really care if you die in a fire, the same way FedEx doesn't care if a box gets mangled during shipping.

The insurance payout to your next of kin is small potatoes compared to the price of a new plane or bad PR.
They would bolt seats to the wings if they could.

[JoeBob]

It was a badly-written way to point out that passengers have a disincentive to store luggage in the hold, and that airlines fear revenue loss if that optional upcharge service becomes mandatory.

Airlines are in the Industrial Transport Services business. They carry revenue cargo and revenue passengers. Every square foot of hold space that isn't used for passenger luggage is a square foot of hold space that can be sold to a cargo customer. Like this one:

http://i.imgur.com/8E6lyz5.jpg?1

[Elmo T]

Also, the airlines don't really care if you die in a fire

They do care if and when it becomes expensive.

There are many safety features that could be installed, but aren't because of cost. And the FAA & the airlines know the cost of a human life. It is calculable to someone so inclined. Otherwise we would see things like on-board fire suppression systems (Value Jet 592) and other safety systems. Looking at cost/benefit of the systems or procedures changes, it is cheaper for them to pay when you die in most cases.

ECONOMIC VALUES FOR
FAA INVESTMENT AND REGULATORY DECISIONS (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/050404%20Critical%20Values%20Dec%2031%20Report%200 7Jan05.pdf)

And for general aviation:

Small and dangerous: FAA rules mean new planes with old technology (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-for-flight-part-3/10533813/)



"We actually are waiting for more people to be killed before we can do something that makes sense," said former NTSB chairwoman Deborah Hersman, who became president of the National Safety Council in May. "We don't kill enough people in aviation to merit regulatory changes." Hersman called this "the tyranny of small numbers."

[Tifosi24]

I feel like I am my graduate level Labor Economics course again! We also spent time reading studies and calculating the cost of a human life. My suggestion is to not read those articles because you would be depressed at how little, in economic terms, you are worth.


They do care if and when it becomes expensive.

There are many safety features that could be installed, but aren't because of cost. And the FAA & the airlines know the cost of a human life. It is calculable to someone so inclined. Otherwise we would see things like on-board fire suppression systems (Value Jet 592) and other safety systems. Looking at cost/benefit of the systems or procedures changes, it is cheaper for them to pay when you die in most cases.

ECONOMIC VALUES FOR
FAA INVESTMENT AND REGULATORY DECISIONS (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/050404%20Critical%20Values%20Dec%2031%20Report%200 7Jan05.pdf)

And for general aviation:

Small and dangerous: FAA rules mean new planes with old technology (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/14/unfit-for-flight-part-3/10533813/)