![]() |
AC Carry-On example...again
Mods... apologies. I know there are a few carry-on enforcement threads, but I cannot find them. Please merge where you see fit.
For everyone who still thinks carry-on is a good idea... Here is the ultimate example of how stupid human beings are. An emergency evacuation of a burning plane and 25% of the people in this plane decided to grab their CARRY-ON before evacuating. If people don't think that this isn't a reason to ban carry-on...then we need someone to protect ourselves from our own stupidity. Humans are too stupid to leave their belongings on a plane, so no one should. Period. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-airport#img-1 Apologies. Apparently I am unable to post a picture, but if you will follow this link: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-vegas-airport you will clearly see idiotic morons who took the time to grab their carry-on in a real emergency. Wow... |
How is this specific to AC :p
But yes, I absolutely agree. This is 100% stupid. But the occurrence is so rare that it doesn't justify getting rid of carry ons all together. On occasion, a plane crashes. Should we ban flying then? Life's about balancing risk vs convenience. |
Originally Posted by PLeblond
(Post 25396438)
Mods... apologies. I know there are a few carry-on enforcement threads, but I cannot find them. Please merge where you see fit.
For everyone who still thinks carry-on is a good idea... Here is the ultimate example of how stupid human beings are. An emergency evacuation of a burning plane and 25% of the people in this plane decided to grab their CARRY-ON before evacuating. If people don't think that this isn't a reason to ban carry-on...then we need someone to protect ourselves from our own stupidity. Humans are too stupid to leave their belongings on a plane, so no one should. Period. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-airport#img-1 But banning all carry-on is a bit of an overreaction. It would be like banning booze because someone drinks 12 gins or spills booze on himself. |
Originally Posted by Sean Peever
(Post 25396457)
I don't know if banning all carry-on is the solution but I will agree these people are a prime example of what's wrong with humanity. "oh, the plane is on fire, i better grab my carry on"
But banning all carry-on is a bit of an overreaction. It would be like banning booze because someone drinks 12 gins or spills booze on himself. Also: same reason an FAs should cut off passengers after a certain number of drinks. |
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
(Post 25396454)
How is this specific to AC :p
But yes, I absolutely agree. This is 100% stupid. But the occurrence is so rare that it doesn't justify getting rid of carry ons all together. On occasion, a plane crashes. Should we ban flying then? Life's about balancing risk vs convenience. Actually... the carry-on isn't dangerous. Its the (25% of the) idiots who can't live without it who are. Hence... ban carry-on. |
|
Originally Posted by 24left
(Post 25396495)
I was too angered to figure it out. Idiots on a plane..... wow. |
Originally Posted by PLeblond
(Post 25396470)
A drunk guy spilling booze on himself won't impede my evacuation of a burning plane.
Also: same reason an FAs should cut off passengers after a certain number of drinks. Also: There are many reports of FA's cutting off pax, it does happen! But you can't tie it to a certain number. Some people can hold more, some people can hold less (weight, sex, age, race, all makes a difference). Also you have NO idea how much someone drank before boarding - maybe 1 is too many for some people who went to town before boarding. |
Originally Posted by Sean Peever
(Post 25396500)
Respectfully, I disagree. If someone is really really drunk it will impede my evacuation of a burning plane :P.
Also: There are many reports of FA's cutting off pax, it does happen! But you can't tie it to a certain number. Some people can hold more, some people can hold less (weight, sex, age, race, all makes a difference). Also you have NO idea how much someone drank before boarding - maybe 1 is too many for some people who went to town before boarding. we're on the same page. Also, this happened on take off. Passengers could have been drunk on boarding. Very hard to control. Carry-on... very easy. |
Easy answer. Tied to the evacuation slide controls is a button that electronically locks the overhead bins.
|
Originally Posted by PLeblond
(Post 25396533)
I said it was a reason why passengers need to be cut off at a certain point. FAs usually have the time to asses passengers.
we're on the same page. Also, this happened on take off. Passengers could have been drunk on boarding. Very hard to control. Carry-on... very easy. I find this very odd. I know what you enjoy doing as a hobby. THAT is infinitely more risky. We should ban THAT before this!
Originally Posted by yvrgary
(Post 25396575)
Easy answer. Tied to the evacuation slide controls is a button that electronically locks the overhead bins.
|
Originally Posted by yvrgary
(Post 25396575)
Easy answer. Tied to the evacuation slide controls is a button that electronically locks the overhead bins.
|
Jeez, 57% LF probably helped. People grabbing carry-ons gets massively more dangerous on a full flight.
|
These passengers should be charged by US aviation authorities and banned for life from BA. By blocking the aisle to grab bags, they certainly imperiled the lives of those behind them. Shameful.
|
Originally Posted by 24left
(Post 25396495)
I'm not against carry-on bags because that's just not reality but I'm open to becoming very forceful if I see someone reach up to grab a bag (a bag!) in a fire. Idiots!
Originally Posted by yvrgary
(Post 25396575)
Easy answer. Tied to the evacuation slide controls is a button that electronically locks the overhead bins.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:31 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.