FWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3175 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5940 times:
A while back, my mom took a flight on NW. She sat in the exit row, and the people sitting next to her were intoxicated. Yet the flight attendant kept serving little airline-size bottles of vodka to them. But what if that whole A319 full of passengers had to evacuate? The intoxicated passengers would probably be blocking the way, unable to open the exit row door.
Based on that experience, I think that airlines need to stop serving alcohol to exit-row passengers. But would there be any drawbacks to such a proposal?
Siege2L From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5878 times:
I believe it is better to be slightly buzzed after impact. If you are completely sober, your body will feel all the pain associated with that trauma, making it harder for you to quickly expedite the deplaning process. If you are buzzed, you feel little pain, open the exit door, evacuate, and then your body can play victim all it wants AFTER everyone has left the aircraft. I can't tell you how many times I have gone to a bar where someone who has been drinking has fallen on the dance floor or off of a stage and quickly gets up. ( I once fell off a treadmill after only 1 cocktail, but I was in no pain, and I left the gym VERY QUICKLY out of sheer embarrassment. )
But no more than 1 drink per 45mins - hour might suffice, I think.
Rushed From Australia, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 244 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5826 times:
I think that this, based on one experience is a little bit of overkill.. regardless of where someone is sitting, if the plane goes down then it goes down... i'd prefer the drunks to be right near the door as they are probably safer there.. just push em out and go.. if they need to stumble down an isle drunk it might be even more dangerous.. but seriously.. i dont think that a few drunks are going to make the slightest difference in an emergency.. they might even be helpful as Siege2L says,... boozed up people dont feel the pain as much and can do some stuff that, if sober they probably wouldnt be able to do.. so yeah.. keep the booze up.. maybe just put a packed of paracetamol under the seat with the life jacket for the unfortunate hangover you get after drinking at 30,000 feet.
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3492 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5730 times:
The answer is simple. In an emergency situation, the intoxicated pax will be moved out of those seats and replaced by qualified, able bodied pax. Not only do the F/A's will make sure that exit row pax are qualified and willing to help at the begining of the flight, but will also reconfirm with the pax when an emergency situation occurs. If the pax changes his/her mind or the F/A determins that the pax is unable to help, then they will change the pax in the exit row.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5707 times:
Studies have shown that when you are very tired, you have reflexes and alertness no better than a drunk.
Studies have also shown that when you first awake, same thing, and it can go on for over an HOUR after waking.
Thus, exit row pax should be both forbidden from sleeping, and be forced to sleep for 8 hours before the flight, then be awake for one full hour, then not have more than one drink, and then swap seats with someone else on a longhaul about halfway through who was forced for the first 1/2, then wake up for an hour.
No, wait, that would be unworkable. Because we live in the real world.
The obvious answer is to eliminate exit row seating, something that seems to be the trend on widebodies. We'll see if the 737RS and A320NG also find a way to eliminate the overwing exit...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
86J From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5658 times:
Well, now that things have gotten to this..... Why not just have a pre-board screening of IQ's? Stupid people need not apply for exit rows. All you have to do to sit in one of these rows is to audibly say "yes" when asked if you understand the situation of sitting there. Even really stupid people can do this. Perhaps when we all get our national ID's and security cards and the government knows completely everything about everyone's personal and professional lives, they will probably have a way to make sure "infidels" don't get to sit in an exit row. Good luck with this one. Meanwhile bonafied terrorists manage to get on commercial aircraft because we are all worried about the guy/lady that has been sitting in an airport bar in La Guardia for five hours waiting for his/her delayed plane because airlines book too many flights at the same time to the same airport in the same 45 to 50 seat jets. (Ok, that rambled a bit, but it is pretty much true!)
Quoting Rushed (Reply 7): i dont think that a few drunks are going to make the slightest difference in an emergency
Quite right, if you ask me. Not trying to defend anyone here, but, please..... Kind of like surviving a water landing in the middle of the Atlantic. You are facing some pretty incredible odds, whether there is a drunk in the way or not. More than likely they would hold you up by trying to tell you some stupid story about "I used to be," "and I used to be so good at,"...."and when I was there for that time"...."and if things had gone different that one time."......... Don't forget the high school sports parts, either. The only thing worse would be if you were actually sitting next to a high school football coach, or they were the same person-the ultimate worst!
Quoting Rushed (Reply 7): the unfortunate hangover you get after drinking at 30,000 feet.
You must have grown up at sea level! Most jets are pressurized to the point where 30,000 feet feels like about 8,000 feet, if I remember correctly. Growing up at 7,000 feet made that pretty much easy for me to get used to having a beer on a plane-as long as someone else is flying it! And if anyone on a plane can get drunk on one beer in 45 minutes of time, then they shouldn't be drinking in the first place! Or they are a really cheap (and sh*tty) date!
"I'm afraid there are no alcohol seats left on this service. Only exit's left. Window or aisle, sir?"
OI Glen, lol, do you in all honesty think that this situation would happen? On any given flight only a few people actually drink. Im sure they could find someone that wouldnt mind the extra legroom. I reckon on a long haul flight it would be a different story, but if your crashed in the middle of the ocean at that point i'd rather be drunk! Cheers!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5572 times:
Quoting 86J (Reply 11): All you have to do to sit in one of these rows is to audibly say "yes" when asked if you understand the situation of sitting there. Even really stupid people can do this.
Actually, stupid people are more likely to say yes when asked a question they don't understand, lest they come across as stupid. I've known many not so smart people who would routinely say yes or agree to a lot of things when you could tell they had no idea what was being asked of them...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
86J From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5311 times:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 15): Wait, not having a drink for a few hours is "suffering" now?
Depends on who you have to sit next to......there have been many people on different planes that have made me want to drink as much as possible, and then some.
Quoting 707lvr (Reply 18): No. But a two-drink minimum should definitely be imposed upon activities considerably more fraught with risk than flying, such as crossing the street, showering, talking on the telephone, etc.
You make it sound like some people can handle drinking and some people can't. Oh wait, you are right.
I didn't know this thread related to being 18 years old.
This seems like just another biased idea. Put some thought into it and, well, I can't think of anything to drastic. (unless you have an actual fix, which I doubt) The Southern Baptist Convention and the Mormons called, and they want their dumb ideas back. (anyone a Mile High Mormon, for what it matters?) Sorry, that was a little much, but....
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5186 times:
Quoting Swiftski (Reply 8): If you're on a flight where you are put in the exit row by default, and want a drink, why should you have to suffer?
I can't imagine someone with and exit row seat who didn't want it not being able to find someone to switch seats with. In the States, FAs are already required to ask several questions of those sitting in exit rows and must move them if they answer No to any question. Adding "Are you willing to refrain from drinking alcohol during the flight?" would not pose any sort of problem.
I would happily give my business to an airline that didn't serve any alcohol onboard at all. Do I sometimes have a glass of wine onboard with dinner? Yes, but I always wish I hadn't.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6288 posts, RR: 23 Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5148 times:
Quoting Georgebush (Reply 4):
Its sometimes easier to just pour them another one, and let the ground staff deal with it when you land.
Doubtless it is, but then that 'easy option' is highly irresponsible. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who have clearly been served far too much alcohol on aircraft. If you're not prepared to say 'no more' to someone as part of your job, then you're just not doing your job properly. There are easy and hard parts of every job - you just have to deal with it. The same goes for people who board people who are drunk even before they fly.
Georgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5131 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 23): Doubtless it is, but then that 'easy option' is highly irresponsible. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who have clearly been served far too much alcohol on aircraft.
Right, but what if you are the F/A if that person is really intoxicated, how do you know what they will do if you refuse them?? That could possibly be a very dangerous situation if you ask me.
Al Gore invented global warming.
25 RussianJet: You don't, and it is potentially dangerous, and not a little scary. However, those are the rules, and the consequences of getting them even more drun
26 Zvezda: In life, the easy option and the right option are rarely the same. That passenger was either intoxicated during boarding in which case the FAs should
27 Bennett123: Perhaps drinks should be reduced before they get drunk. As for exit seats, perhaps realisation of what this entails would induce them to stay sober. D
28 Srbmod: While we're at it, let's just ban alcohol from all of the restaurants and airline clubs in airports as well...... While I can understand what the OP i
29 ConcordeBoy: ...could just leave it there. "suffer"? If you can't make it through a few hours of flight without consuming alcohol, then you've got farrrrr bigger
30 PHKLM: Well you don't have to wait that long, seen the fact the A321 doesn't have over-wing exits. The Boeing 737-900ER does have overwing exits, but Boeing
31 Doug_Or: How does BAC% affect the gag reflex. regds MEL
32 DLPMMM: OOOH, that's just plain funny! I think Mommy should just mind her own business, instead of playing Taliban.
33 86J: Lots and lots of money being lost, that would be the downside. Imagine all of the tax $ lost as well as other revenue lost by people not making this
34 Swiftski: READ READ READ I already said 8 replies earleir that "suffer" was the wrong choice of words, and that I'd made a mistake.
35 TwinOtter: Interesting idea. Should operators of trains and buses allow passengers sitting in the "exit window" row to drink? I would think the same considerati