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.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
vending machines? do you know what they weigh? in some cases they’d be the same as 2 or 3 attendants…reliability of those machines is not very good so we open up the opportunity for vending rage…bad idea all the way around. eliminate sky marshal’s? wonder how many have been on the many flights I’ve flown this year? who are they? they blend in well in the US…on El Al I could tell who they were because they were already on the jet when I boarded, they (3)were spread around the cabin and they looked like people nobody would ever want to mess with and they wore bullet proof vests under the jackets that concealed their weapons, I’m nearly 6’3″ 230 lbs with broad shoulders, long legs and nowhere near the waist size of some fellow travelers and most coach seats are very uncomfortable…I support extra fares for those who don’t fit into the seat and overflow into my space…how about a price rebate for those on the skinny side? (never happen!)…cut back on bathrooms? YGTBSM! I agree with the cutback in FA’s who have nothing to do once airborne but they are needed for takeoff and landing safety considerations so they’re not expendable. Americans need to review their lust for travel and limit themselves to vacations, business can be done efficiently over the internet thereby reducing business travel
Cutting Air Marshalls and FAs makes a lot of sense. I don’t think the Air Marshall program makes much sense now with the armored doors on the cockpit and gun toting pilots. There does seem to be a lot of FAs on a plane, for most single-aisle aircraft, probably 3 is all that is necessary. I suspect the FA union has negotiated minimum numbers rather than the airlines.
The “fuel conservation” presentation you reference from ATA was very informative. Anyone who thinks the recent runup in fuel prices is purely supply and demand forces is an idiot.
People who take up two seats should pay for two seats!!!! That’s fair.
Considering Americans continue to get heavier and heavier, planes will end up going out half-empty if they eliminate heavier people from the flights. How is that profitable for the airline? If they pay for two seats and weigh the equivalent of two people, the airlines will have saved nothing, and your comment still makes you look like a jackass.
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?
==========================================================
…………….this type of ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
When an airline purchases an aircraft they must complete with the FAA several things. One, a proving run. You take the new aircraft for a flight and the FAA conducts tests with both the pilots and the flight attendants. Operation of all equipment, etc. Secondly, a mini evac. The airline must show to the FAA that it can evacuate the aircraft with passengers under 90 seconds! REMEMBER, the flight attendants are ONBOARD for safety issues. That’s WHY flight attendants are located NEXT TO most of the EXITS. Bother way, the FAA mandates the NUMBER OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS per aircraft, NOT the union, NOT the company. Heck, if the company had their way, there would only be ONE EXIT and one or two F/A’s. Which, is ultimately—> NOT SAFE.
Also, you’re a decade late on this comment. Reducing F/A’s onboard. MOST airlines already removed what they could many years ago. Back in the 70′s and 80′s, most airlines operated with 6 or more F/A’s on, say, the 757. Today, that number is 4. Feel safer now?
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?
========================================================
Like many systems on an aircraft, they require TWO PILOTS onboard for safety reasons. It’s a back up system. One pilot gets sick, goes unconsious, has a heart attack, there’s another one to operate the aircraft. I doubt that pilots will be replaced in the cockpit, what if the computer that lands the plane…..goes down, what’s the back up then?