Quirky, Inconsistent Safety Rules Between Airlines: What Gives?

Here’s a topic I get questions about every so often, which I think makes for an interesting discussion…

Making sense of airlines and their differing safety policies

The airline industry is heavily regulated across the globe in terms of safety. Many aviation authorities are on the same page when it comes to rules, and there are some minimum safety policies you’ll find across the board.

For example, virtually every airline requires passengers to put their phone in airplane mode while inflight, requires exit row passengers to acknowledge that they’re willing and able to assist in the event of an emergency, requires carry-on bags to be placed underneath the seat in front or in the overhead bin, etc.

But here’s what I find interesting — above and beyond the regulations you’ll find in the United States, you’ll often find that airlines from outside the United States have specific regulations that we don’t see here. Just to give some examples of policies that some non-US carriers have:

  • Disconnecting all electronics from power sources during taxi, takeoff, and landing
  • Opening all window shades for taxi, takeoff, and landing
  • Removing all personal headphones or earbuds during taxi, takeoff, and landing
  • Keeping shoes on during taxi, takeoff, and landing
  • Not using blankets during taxi, takeoff, and landing
  • Not serving hot beverages or soup when the seatbelt sign is on
  • Not placing bags underneath the seats in exit rows

It’s funny, because on my current trip, I’ve experienced five of those policies on various airlines, even though none of those rules apply to airlines in the United States. Ordinarily, I pride myself in being a good airline passenger who instinctively knows what rules I need to follow before being told to do so, though I also sometimes get caught off guard, especially on policies around headphones, blankets, etc.

Some airlines have rules around blanket use during critical phases

What explains the inconsistency in these aviation rules?

Here’s what I find interesting, and what I’d like to briefly discuss. It essentially seems like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sets the basic standard globally for aviation safety, and then we see other countries pile on their own rules, above and beyond what’s required here.

So that brings us to all of these rules. Is the FAA being careless by not having some of the above policies? Are regulators in other countries (or in some situations, airlines independently) just more concerned about safety, taking things a step too far, or how do you justify the disparity in terms of policies?

As I see it, all of the above policies are best practices:

  • It makes sense for window shades to be open during takeoff and landing, since those are the phases of flight where things are most likely to happen, and there’s value in being able to assess the surroundings in the event of an emergency
  • Having electronics plugged into power ports, using blankets, and having bags under seats in exit rows, during takeoff and landing, can cause a tripping hazard in the event of an evacuation
  • Having personal headphones on can make it hard to hear crew instructions in the event of an evacuation
  • Hot beverages could cause a burn if there’s turbulence, and they spill on you, so there’s merit to not serving those if there’s a risk

So I do absolutely think these are all best practices. That being said, aviation is outrageously safe. If you want to absolutely maximize the likelihood of no injuries or negative outcomes, those policies make perfect sense. However, how many lives have been saved as a result of the above policies? Not many, as far as I know.

I think this ultimately comes down to the quirkiness of our relative risk tolerance. We’re happy getting in a car every day without thinking twice, even though it’s exponentially more dangerous than flying even the most unsafe airline in the world (it’s one of the reasons that from a safety perspective, I’m happy to fly just about any airline).

So in the context of maximizing odds of the best possible outcome, these rules make sense. For that matter, that’s what the aviation industry strives for, and that’s a good thing. However, if across billions of annual enplanements we can’t actually point to any saved lives, are these policies strictly necessary? I dunno, I guess it all comes down to how you balance minor inconveniences with best practices.

Again, I’m not meaning to in any way question these policies, as I think they’re logical. I’m just noting how it’s interesting how regulators arrive at different conclusions when it comes to the necessity of the rules.

Some airlines have rules around charging during critical phases

Bottom line

Regulations for airline passengers differ around the world, and what I always find most interesting is the rules that some regulators have above and beyond what the FAA requires. This mostly involves restrictions around behavior during critical phases of flight (taxi, takeoff, and landing), including charging of electronics, use of blankets and headphones, wearing of shoes, placement of carry-on bags, etc.

I know some foreigners who travel to the United States are surprised to find that these rules don’t exist (like restrictions around window shades), and I sometimes get comments from people about that.

What do you make of this inconsistency when it comes to safety regulations?

Conversations (47)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

polarbear Diamond

Window shades open during takeoff/landing rule actually does make a lot of sense: the idea is that passengers' eyes should be used for the light conditions outside. For the same reason most airlines turn off lights during takeoff

0
‼ 0
Azamaraal (diamond) Guest

Back in the mid 80's flew DXB CAI on Egyptair and they ran out of luggage space so offloaded the last 20 rows or so, filled the area with bags and tied a few setbelts over the mess. Off we went. Displaced passengers were not pleased of course.

0
‼ 0
Azamaraal Guest

All of the European or world requirements make emminent sense. Getting the US public to accept them would result in mayhem and fights Fly Asian

0
‼ 0
John Guest

Flying around Australasia and the Pacific islands on numerous airlines, the rule is always to have the window shades up for takeoff and landing. This makes sense: $hit is more likely to happen during those two phases of flight. Then going to America for the first time (and thereafter) and seeing all the window shades down for takeoff. That was a shock at first. Also, not having the FA's check your boarding pass on entry. That was even more shocking.

0
‼ 0
Kendrick Guest

We went to the Galapagos recently, and Avianca insisted that everyone turn off their electronic devices while we were refueling in Guayaquil—and flight attendants actually went around the cabin enforcing this. Meanwhile I've been on several direct but nonstop flights on Southwest (pre-Elliott of course) where this was of course not an issue at all on the layover.

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published