5 ms·

All passengers are required to have a chair for safety reasons. The chairs absorb a lot of impact in the case of a crash, and obviously they also have seatbelts

All passengers are required to have a chair for safety reasons. The chairs absorb a lot of impact in the case of a crash, and obviously they also have seatbelts which are important for safety.

4ad 10y ago
Fuck somebody else's safety guidelines. I am responsible for determining what level of safety I desire for myself. Nobody is forcing me to stay there, I decide (or not) if the flight conditions are acceptable or not.
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  Good for you. I'd rather not have to try and climb over your dead body when I'm evacuating.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    Then chose a different (more expensive) airline that doesn't take extra people. Market dynamics at work. Personally I would always chose the more expensive option, not because of safety (level of safety is plenty), but because of comfort. Thing is, I afford this comfort, there was a time (not even that long ago) where I could not afford to fly at all, and I would have definitely accepted to stay in the aisle (or a plane without seats). Many, many people are in this scenario. Why shouldn't they be allowed to fly if they are satisfied with the conditions?
    - alexvoda 10y ago
      Market dynamics should not be allowed to jeopardize people by not respecting standard safety procedures. Stupid people would do a lot of stupid things to themselves or others willingly. Some would gladly sell their children into slavery. That doesn't mean this market dynamic should be allowed. Point is, there is some lower limit that should not be crossed and crossing it should be universally considered bad. Also I don't think you will always the more expensive option for an undetermined amount of more comfort. I am sure someone out there will willingly design your own custom one of a kind record size airplane. I doubt you will be willing to pay for it.
      - 4ad 10y ago
        I would bet that people not respecting standard safety procedures in airplanes cause less damage to people around them than the same people driving cars. By your argument we should ban people from driving cars, because they jeopardize people around them.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- i386 10y ago
  Ahh radical libertarianism is so cute. The state religion of "fuck you I've got mine".
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    When one travels to this part of the world, one learns that it's more like, "I have nothing so fuck your rules I'm happy to trade some of my safety for food for my family." We might sniff that such a point of view is short-sighted, but we do so from a position of privilege.
    - FabHK 10y ago
      That is true, and one could argue that one should relax certification requirements for airplanes and airmen and operating rules, and let more people fly more cheaply, and more people die. (Not being flippant here: we make risk trade-offs all the time, could limit cars to 30 km/h or so and reduce traffic deaths, but in that case, we don't.) However, in aviation we do have very high standards now, with concomitant safety, and while it might be fruitful to have that discussion, it's arguably not up to cabin crew to make that decision ad hoc for everyone on the flight.
    - i386 10y ago
      The safety and consideration of others is not privilege nor is this a case of moral relativism. You've got a company bending the rules so they can make money and a member of the Hackernews commentariat who would effectively trade your life and safety because of ideological convinience. So nice try but that argument isn't going to hold water.
- viraptor 10y ago
  You're free to determine your level of safety. But your placement on the plane and how well you're strapped to the seat determines everyone else's level of security - which they have just as much right to. Or in simpler terms, during heavy turbulence, if you're not strapped in you will hit the ceiling and then fall down, potentially onto another person.
- certifiedloud 10y ago
  Except that, due to your lack of consideration or knowledge, you put other people at risk. What happens when the aircraft hits turbulence and you can't hold on? It is very likely that you injure yourself, and worse yet, someone else.
  - klibertp 10y ago
    > you put other people at risk Ok. How big is this risk? I mean, it's not like the risk itself is something wrong, right? I can risk failure in a game even if a chance for success is tiny because I have a quicksave just before. I can risk being hit by lightning by going out on a sunny day without caring at all. It's the level of risk - how probable something is and how severe the consequences when it happens - that's important. > It is very likely that you injure yourself, First how "very" likely it is? The probability of injury and the extent of the harm will depend, in large part, on the individual person ability. You made a claim in absolute terms, but even if we agree to tone it down a little and say that it is more likely to get injured when unseated, the question remains: how much more likely? You risk injury and death every time you fly. You find the risk acceptable because you need to get somewhere fast. The person sitting in the aisle feels similarly, only their "need to get somewhere" is greater than yours (or their risk assessment differs from yours). > and worse yet, someone else. Again, how probable this is? How much of a threat am I to the people next to me? And what's more important, do people around me accept the risk? If they do, what is wrong with my behavior? On what grounds are you assuming that the other passengers were not ok with the extra ones? There's no mention of this in the article. In short: you're simplifying the problem a little too much. Even if something indeed increases some risk, it's not enough to regard that as bad. You need to take things like the degree of risk and the willingness to take the risk in people in a particular situation into account, too.
    - alexvoda 10y ago
      Have you never encountered turbulence while flying? Actually have you ever traveled by plane? The risk of injury, from more "acrobatic" maneuvers, should be rather obvious. To quantify this risk the severity is anywhere from bruises to permanently debilitating injuries + the risk you cause to others and the probability is rather high. Turbulence is not uncommon. And other risks related to extra fuel consumption, extra weight, placement of weight should be easy to understand but more difficult to quantify. Yes, people differ in their ability to evaluate risk, and their willingness to to assume it. But in this case I think, for us as observers, I think it's quite easy to figure out that the personal and collateral risk is significant and bad. Especially since by doing this you are going outside the specs of the plane so you don't know how bad. It is all of the people who do not care for themselves and accept awful conditions that make those conditions acceptable. If the airline can cram 7 people into the aisle next time they will try to cram 8. If the employer sees the employees are ok with less safety, lower wages, less time off, etc. that is the direction things will go because those very it was allowed to happen. It is a downwards spiral.

All passengers are required to have a chair for safety reasons. The chairs absorb a lot of impact in the case of a crash, and obviously they also have seatbelts which are important for safety.

4ad 10y ago

Fuck somebody else's safety guidelines. I am responsible for determining what level of safety I desire for myself. Nobody is forcing me to stay there, I decide (or not) if the flight conditions are acceptable or not.

ajdlinux 10y ago
Good for you. I'd rather not have to try and climb over your dead body when I'm evacuating.
- 4ad 10y ago
  Then chose a different (more expensive) airline that doesn't take extra people. Market dynamics at work. Personally I would always chose the more expensive option, not because of safety (level of safety is plenty), but because of comfort. Thing is, I afford this comfort, there was a time (not even that long ago) where I could not afford to fly at all, and I would have definitely accepted to stay in the aisle (or a plane without seats). Many, many people are in this scenario. Why shouldn't they be allowed to fly if they are satisfied with the conditions?
  - alexvoda 10y ago
    Market dynamics should not be allowed to jeopardize people by not respecting standard safety procedures. Stupid people would do a lot of stupid things to themselves or others willingly. Some would gladly sell their children into slavery. That doesn't mean this market dynamic should be allowed. Point is, there is some lower limit that should not be crossed and crossing it should be universally considered bad. Also I don't think you will always the more expensive option for an undetermined amount of more comfort. I am sure someone out there will willingly design your own custom one of a kind record size airplane. I doubt you will be willing to pay for it.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      I would bet that people not respecting standard safety procedures in airplanes cause less damage to people around them than the same people driving cars. By your argument we should ban people from driving cars, because they jeopardize people around them.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
i386 10y ago
Ahh radical libertarianism is so cute. The state religion of "fuck you I've got mine".
- jessaustin 10y ago
  When one travels to this part of the world, one learns that it's more like, "I have nothing so fuck your rules I'm happy to trade some of my safety for food for my family." We might sniff that such a point of view is short-sighted, but we do so from a position of privilege.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    That is true, and one could argue that one should relax certification requirements for airplanes and airmen and operating rules, and let more people fly more cheaply, and more people die. (Not being flippant here: we make risk trade-offs all the time, could limit cars to 30 km/h or so and reduce traffic deaths, but in that case, we don't.) However, in aviation we do have very high standards now, with concomitant safety, and while it might be fruitful to have that discussion, it's arguably not up to cabin crew to make that decision ad hoc for everyone on the flight.
  - i386 10y ago
    The safety and consideration of others is not privilege nor is this a case of moral relativism. You've got a company bending the rules so they can make money and a member of the Hackernews commentariat who would effectively trade your life and safety because of ideological convinience. So nice try but that argument isn't going to hold water.
viraptor 10y ago
You're free to determine your level of safety. But your placement on the plane and how well you're strapped to the seat determines everyone else's level of security - which they have just as much right to. Or in simpler terms, during heavy turbulence, if you're not strapped in you will hit the ceiling and then fall down, potentially onto another person.
certifiedloud 10y ago
Except that, due to your lack of consideration or knowledge, you put other people at risk. What happens when the aircraft hits turbulence and you can't hold on? It is very likely that you injure yourself, and worse yet, someone else.
- klibertp 10y ago
  > you put other people at risk Ok. How big is this risk? I mean, it's not like the risk itself is something wrong, right? I can risk failure in a game even if a chance for success is tiny because I have a quicksave just before. I can risk being hit by lightning by going out on a sunny day without caring at all. It's the level of risk - how probable something is and how severe the consequences when it happens - that's important. > It is very likely that you injure yourself, First how "very" likely it is? The probability of injury and the extent of the harm will depend, in large part, on the individual person ability. You made a claim in absolute terms, but even if we agree to tone it down a little and say that it is more likely to get injured when unseated, the question remains: how much more likely? You risk injury and death every time you fly. You find the risk acceptable because you need to get somewhere fast. The person sitting in the aisle feels similarly, only their "need to get somewhere" is greater than yours (or their risk assessment differs from yours). > and worse yet, someone else. Again, how probable this is? How much of a threat am I to the people next to me? And what's more important, do people around me accept the risk? If they do, what is wrong with my behavior? On what grounds are you assuming that the other passengers were not ok with the extra ones? There's no mention of this in the article. In short: you're simplifying the problem a little too much. Even if something indeed increases some risk, it's not enough to regard that as bad. You need to take things like the degree of risk and the willingness to take the risk in people in a particular situation into account, too.
  - alexvoda 10y ago
    Have you never encountered turbulence while flying? Actually have you ever traveled by plane? The risk of injury, from more "acrobatic" maneuvers, should be rather obvious. To quantify this risk the severity is anywhere from bruises to permanently debilitating injuries + the risk you cause to others and the probability is rather high. Turbulence is not uncommon. And other risks related to extra fuel consumption, extra weight, placement of weight should be easy to understand but more difficult to quantify. Yes, people differ in their ability to evaluate risk, and their willingness to to assume it. But in this case I think, for us as observers, I think it's quite easy to figure out that the personal and collateral risk is significant and bad. Especially since by doing this you are going outside the specs of the plane so you don't know how bad. It is all of the people who do not care for themselves and accept awful conditions that make those conditions acceptable. If the airline can cram 7 people into the aisle next time they will try to cram 8. If the employer sees the employees are ok with less safety, lower wages, less time off, etc. that is the direction things will go because those very it was allowed to happen. It is a downwards spiral.