<p>In an earlier thread, I “joked” that soon the airlines would remove life vests to save on fuel. Well, it’s here!</p>
<p>[Airline</a> removes life vests to save weight and fuel - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20080829/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_canada_airline_life_vests]Airline”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20080829/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_canada_airline_life_vests)</p>
<p>Next, out come the seats…</p>
<p>If preferences: I’d rather stand in It, than sit in It.</p>
<p>OMG, mini - does it mean we’ll not be subjected to the life vest use lecture before takeoffs?</p>
<p>The saving is supposed to be 50lbs! Man overboard!</p>
<p>I guess they will start to weight every passenge next. Anyone with + 2sigma from the mean weight would be charged an extra fee. </p>
<p>That may be a good thing. It would definitely get me lossing some weight.</p>
<p>So if the plane goes down over water, those who can swim (for days on end) will survive, and those who can’t will die. Survival of the fittest. Women, children, and the elderly: Tough!!!</p>
<p>The link says the airline is allowed to do this because it operates within 50 nautical miles of shore. And passengers (rather, evacuees) can use the seat cushions as flotation devices. So I guess you just hold on to the seat cushion with one hand and paddle with the other hand for a maximum of 50 miles, until you reach land. </p>
<p>Sure, I could handle that. :eek:</p>
<p>When was the last time that you heard of someone surviving a plane crash because they had a life jacket?</p>
<p>You don’t hear about that because usually the news reports focus on the people who died. But I suspect there are some.</p>
<p>Any word on whether airliners will be carrying lifeboats from now on?</p>
<p>I hear the oxygen masks will require a credit card swipe on some airlines :D</p>
<p>Why is it that people like to complain about almost everything? We HATE the fact that the airlines raise the fares in answer to increasing fuel prices, but then we complain about every attempt to make the “system” more efficient! </p>
<p>The airlines are not taking those measures to pad a fat bottom line; they are fighting for their survival. As far as I am concerned, it TOTALLY acceptable to impose surcharges on overweight passengers or on people confusing travelling with carryings as much luggage as a clan of gypsies. </p>
<p>Perhaps it was time for the airlines to remove dead weight from planes that never get close to lsrge bodies of water. </p>
<p>Now, could we pray for a drastic reduction of the size and number of carry-ons and limit it to the strict minimum?</p>
<p>^If you were overweight or HAD to travel with anything over the “strict minimum”, I highly doubt you’d be saying that. Why not charge extra to white people, too? Or maybe to people with brown hair?</p>
<p>Maybe the airlines should charge by the pound (body plus luggage weight), just like the grocery store does when I buy a salad from the deli. I can see us all lined up in front of a big scale…</p>
<p>Heaven knows, the fare structure the airlines use is so byzantine as it is. You pay $500 for your seat on the plane; the guy next to you pays $125. </p>
<p>At least if you pay by the pound, you’ll know what your ticket will cost.</p>
<p>HGFM, then they can choose not to fly. Both of those parameters (being overweight relative to your height and body type and the number of carry-ons you bring) can be altered through exercise and a healthy diet or by not bringing your 12 pairs of shoes to a weekend getaway. Transporting more weight costs the airline more money in gas, and transporting more luggage does the same, charging for that is not absurd. Flying is not a right in the United States of America, it is under the control of private corporations than need to turn a profit to stay afloat. Charging more on the basis of race is called… wait for it… racism.</p>
<p>There was a faux advertising campaign in Philly recently, which promoted an airline that charged people by the pound (“the more you weigh, the more you’ll pay”). The airline was “Derrie-Air.” The purpose was (supposedly) to “test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens.”</p>
<p>[Derrie-Air</a> - Pack Less. Weigh Less. Pay Less.](<a href=“http://flyderrie-air.com/]Derrie-Air”>http://flyderrie-air.com/)</p>
<p>[Philly</a> newspapers run ads about fake airline Derrie-Air - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-06-philly-hoax_N.htm]Philly”>http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-06-philly-hoax_N.htm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HisGraceFillsMe, if you were not so determined to find a rebuttal to everything, you might just come up with something sensical every once in a while. </p>
<p>For your information, your whimsical “suggestion” to charge white people or people with brown hair is pure and simple discrimination; charging for EXTRA weight is not. And, fwiw, nobody HAS to travel with anything over the strict minimum, and if they decide to do so, it’s fair to charge them for THEIR decision. </p>
<p>While we may *wish *for a free-for-all system, it is not realistic to EXPECT the airlines to eat the extra expenses without allocating them properly among passengers. And, this is hardly … new:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Derrie-Air…very cute!</p>
<p>The concern I have is that the airlines will try to save money by skimping on training, maintenance and safety. And we won’t even know it until there is some big accident that spotlights the corners they cut.</p>
<p>My 50 pound suitcase AND my personal weight are much less than the average passenger’s total weight (just the person). I wish they would weigh the passenger and bags together and have a total amount under which there is no fee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might follow your own advice now and then.</p>