Flyerwalk2

Currently, exit rows don't have window shades so you can see if one side of the plane is on fire. Don't laugh, people have died because of this problem. However, if all rows had their window shades open or even half way open, escaping passengers could see ahead of time if one side was burning.

I talked with a FA who agreed that opening the shades during take off and landing is wise, but not required.

I recently sat next to a very militant woman who refused to open the shades when I explained the reason for my request. I even told her that closing them for the main part of the flight was fine.

ctporter

Ive been on a few flights where they did ask that the shades be up for take off and landings, and the FA made a point to tell us to look first before opening the exit door to make sure it was safe to do so. But, not all flights/airlines have done that. As to the passenger that refused to move the shade, were you not aware that rules (common sense, courtesy, etc) do not apply to all? (grin)

Finkface

I was on a red eye last week and the FA specifically asked everyone to lower their shades as 'this is an overnight flight and we are chasing the sun' so by closing them now, no one would get woken up when the sun came up. This was before we pushed back. I was in F and noticed most people put them down immediately. Not a very safe thing to do IMO and she should have waited until we were in the air to make that announcement.

beckoa

Have seen this internationally a few times as a requirement. I like the view anyway

3Cforme

Should the OP compare his credentials as a flight safety expert to those of the FAA?

Flyerwalk2

I have long thought that wearing shorts and flip flops are not recommended, especially from an evacuation standpoint.Experts agree with me. The FAA has no such rule. I am right.

Just because the FAA doesn't have a rule, doesn't mean it's safe.

Flyerwalk2

The FAA does not ban holding of infants in laps even though many have noted it's a safety hazard. Those same people have noted that costs to young parents is an issue.

dgreen12

Before you beat up the OP --- I've lived in a number of cities and have earned lots of miles on CO, US, NW and UA. And now I have lots of miles on AS.

My recollection was when switching over to AS I was surprised they didn't have a policy on raised shades at takeoff/landing.

So other carriers do (or did) have such policies. Whether AS should is another matter. But the OP does have a point.

dave1013

It's a stretch but here goes.

Sometimes - admittedly not often, but sometimes - the way things get done re changes in FAR's, operating manuals, etc., has its genesis with a letter to a Congressman and/or Senator.

I say this as an FAA retiree who answered congressional inquiries during parts of my career.

If you (and others) feel strongly enough about window shade positioning, take the time to reach out to your delegation(s). You shouldn't overlook copying the agency and the airline, either.

As I have stated previously, letters to Congress(wo)men and Senators do get attention. In making this suggestion, I'm not trying to be facetious, snarky, etc., just for the record.

baliktad

You've phrased this question in a highly leading fashion. Safety is not black or white. You can never achieve 100% "safe," and no airline claims to.

What you CAN do is make certain tradeoffs in terms of time, money, convenience, or other costs, in order to achieve a reasonable and acceptable level of safety. For example, ramp workers may be required to wear a uniform with reflective stripes when on the tarmac. Although the reflective material costs more than plain dull work uniforms, it's a reasonable tradeoff to ensure the ramp workers are more easily seen.

But we don't outfit ramp workers with a string of Christmas lights and reflective body paint. Why not? Don't their employers "value safety"? Wouldn't it perhaps be "more safe"? Because the trade-off isn't worth it. The extra value provided wouldn't be worth the additional cost and hassle. We still value the lives of ramp workers and don't desire any harm to come to them, so we've taken reasonable precautions to make sure they have an appropriately safe working environment. Not 100% safe. Not perfectly safe. But appropriately and reasonably safe.

Raised window shades are pretty much in the same category as reflective body paint for ramp workers. Yes, it's something we could do. Yes, perhaps there might be a small benefit. But the cost of doing so (additional FA training and duties, disrupted passengers, etc.) isn't worth the extremely small marginal benefit. Airplane incidents are already extremely rare; it's almost inconceivably unlikely that a raised window shade would be the single deciding factor between a disruptive accident and a fatal one.

So no, it's not policy to raise window shades.
But yes, AS still cares about and values safety.

ANC

how many people in a panic are going to "look" out the window to see if its the right side to evacuate from? Not many if any

LuckyDenver

No offense, but wearing Carhartts and steel-toed boots while flying in order to better protect yourself during an evacuation is living your life in fear.

I believe Alaska values safety and their policy on the position of the window shade is of little import to me when forming that opinion.

ANC

I have never been on an AS flight where they said to open the shades. Only have had FAs ask people to close them upon arriving at the gate on hot sunny days to keep the interior from turning into a greenhouse

aserican

I have never been on any flight on any airline where they said to open the shades.

To the OP, I would suggest that if you feel more comfortable with the shades up, sit in the window seat yourself.

beckoa

Wirelessly posted (beckoa's BB: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9810; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.1.0.694 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

I think LAN mentioned this in the safety briefing last month.