Spirit Airlines Sinks to New Low

It was revealed today that Spirit Airlines plans to ask flight attendants to use aprons emblazoned with beer advertisements during in-flight service. Spirit, which has tried to cut costs and increase ancillary revenues through the sale of advertising, defends the move. But though the company has a history of tasteless promotions, asking flight attendants to actively promote alcohol crosses the line in the view of the Bulletin. If management wants to use sexual innuendos in their marketing campaigns, as unfortunate as that is, it does not place a significant burden on the carrier's employees, since Spirit's marketing hardly impedes job function. But asking flight attendants to promote a product that is not only objectionable in the eyes of many, but is actually a leading cause of in-flight passenger disruptions, not only deprives the dignity of flight attendants, but poses a safety risk to passengers.

Now the question could logically be asked: Booze is still readily available on the plane and most of those who will get intoxicated probably don't need an advertisement to buy it, so why all the fuss? Fair enough. I don't claim to be an expert on the effects of advertising (though anyone who is should feel free to comment!) but I would argue that anything which is bound to exacerbate onboard disruptions needs to be removed. Advertising is designed to spur gratuitous consumption, and spurring excess beer consumption seems inappropriate in an in-flight setting.

If it were up to me, alcohol wouldn't be available on planes, because not only are drunken passengers at risk at hurting themselves or others in a confined cabin environment, but as shown by the US Airways incident two weeks ago, only when passengers are alert and thinking can they move quickly enough to escape during an evacuation. Had someone been blocking the aisle of the aircraft, the outcome of that incident could have been far different. Yet the sale of alcoholic beverages is an important revenue source for airlines, and perhaps a necessary evil, even though it puts added strain on flight attendants to monitor passengers for signs of intoxication.

Airlines have a right to sell advertising, and should seriously consider it as a way to supplement revenues. But advertising that compromises the safety of passengers or the dignity of the cabin crew is despicable. Even the pilots union at Spirit came out today in support of the flight attendants and against the management's use of sexually-suggestive advertising campaigns and its promotion of the beer patch onboard advertising. In a press release, the pilots said "management [should] stop these campaigns and run this company more like an airline than a frat house." That seems to say it all. Spirit really has hit a new low.

US Airways Plane Ditches in Hudson River

Okay, by now you've probably heard that a US Airways jet ditched in the Hudson River on Thursday, with first reports suggesting that the cause of the accident was a bird strike on both engines. Miraculously, all 155 passengers aboard survived. This accident does not appear to be the fault of US Airways, and should not be seen as an indictment of the company or its safety measures. Though this website has serious doubts about the viability of US Airways' business model, that is another discussion. In this case, US Airways seems to have done everything right, and the airline appears to be taking all necessary steps to cooperate with authorities. The pilots and flight attendants should be commended for their work in getting all the passengers out safely.

The only reason that this accident happened to US Airways, and not to another carrier, was because of chance. US Airways, along with Delta, has a sizable operation at LaGuardia, and so obviously, since they had more flights coming in and out of the airport, their planes were more likely to suffer such an accident.

Most commercial aircraft are designed to fly with only half their engines operational as a safety measure in the event that one or more engines fail. In most planes, this means that instead of using two engines, the plane can, if necessary, fly on one, though it is advisable for the pilots to land soon in such a situation to avoid the possibility that the other engine may fail. During a bird strike, the engine that is hit is designed to be shut down. This is done to prevent the engine from catching fire and creating a major safety hazard. However, in this incident, it appears birds were sucked into both engines. When that happens, you're essentially screwed, and a pilot must rapidly decide how to glide his plane to safety. Thankfully, in this case, the pilot acted with good judgment, and nobody was seriously injured as a result.

Although the reports on this incident rightly discuss the inadequate safety measures to prevent bird congregations at the airport, there have been few mentions of a recent incident with very strong parallels to this accident. On November 10, 2008, Ryanair flight 4102 descended into Rome's Ciampino airport. Soon before landing, birds were sucked into one of the plane's two engines. The pilot was instructed by air traffic controllers to do a go-around and make an emergency landing on one engine. During this go-around, birds were sucked into the other engine, and the pilots were forced to glide the plane down onto the runway. Passengers evacuated via slides, and all survived. However, it was a very close call, and it should have been a major red flag to airports and airlines. Of course, this Ryanair incident was not the only other bird strike in recent memory, several other incidents have occurred this decade, mostly in the US and Europe, though arguably, few as serious as the US Airways and Ryanair incidents.

However, although these two events ended well, that should not suggest that bird strikes are a minor safety hazard. Though they are not common, they have the potential to down an aircraft, and had the weather or visibility conditions been worse during either of these incidents, the outcomes could have been much different.

Perhaps most importantly, the message that the general public should take away from this incident is that it's much, much easier to prevent these sorts of incidents than to ensure that a plane safely lands and everyone gets out safely when they do happen. Many air traffic control system improvements and other airport safety measures have sat in a holding pattern for years. While airports have developed measures to prevent bird congregations, they are inadequate, and more funding is needed to help design and implement such projects. It's time for people to realize that if we want a safe air transport system, we have to pay for it. It should be noted that because of the past investments airlines, airports, and the government have made in ensuring safety in air travel, the US has been and continues to be the safest place in the world to fly. Once again, this nation must take the lead in finding new ways to keep air travel as safe as possible.