Comments in another thread about window shades, prompted me to seek others thoughts regarding safety on AA. After a few flights on them in the last couple of months, I have noticed some things, that after being used to the high safety standards of Qantas, that make me wonder.
Firstly, the window shades, certainly not a requirement to have them up for take off and landing.
Secondly on a few flights I've noticed that they are not at all strict about stowing hand luggage on final approach. On QF, they are very strict and make sure it is stowed in the overhead locker or under the seat in front. On AA they seem quite happy for quite large backpacks and handbags to sit freely in the space between seats, even on landing.
Thirdly, the "boy who cried wolf" factor in relation to seat belt signs. Their flight crew seem to be extremely conservative regarding seat belt signs, on several occassions they've been turned on for considerable periods of time (once for about 3 hours) without any evidence of turbulence whatsoever. May seem good from safety view point, but I'd argue the opposite. Trouble is that when on for so long without turbulence, pax ignore it and do get up to use the toilets etc, and also cabin staff don't enforce the sign rules. But how does one pick when the seat belt sign really is required to be on ? (I guess it's in the shaking of the plane)
None of these are that significant, but having been involved in safety in the past (not air safety though), its the culmination of lots of insignificant deviations that add up to a much larger error.
Firstly, the window shades, certainly not a requirement to have them up for take off and landing.
Secondly on a few flights I've noticed that they are not at all strict about stowing hand luggage on final approach. On QF, they are very strict and make sure it is stowed in the overhead locker or under the seat in front. On AA they seem quite happy for quite large backpacks and handbags to sit freely in the space between seats, even on landing.
Thirdly, the "boy who cried wolf" factor in relation to seat belt signs. Their flight crew seem to be extremely conservative regarding seat belt signs, on several occassions they've been turned on for considerable periods of time (once for about 3 hours) without any evidence of turbulence whatsoever. May seem good from safety view point, but I'd argue the opposite. Trouble is that when on for so long without turbulence, pax ignore it and do get up to use the toilets etc, and also cabin staff don't enforce the sign rules. But how does one pick when the seat belt sign really is required to be on ? (I guess it's in the shaking of the plane)
None of these are that significant, but having been involved in safety in the past (not air safety though), its the culmination of lots of insignificant deviations that add up to a much larger error.