Please sign in to post.
Posted by
7122 posts

Next cost saving idea will be eliminating the overhead bins to save weight, and thus fuel. You don't really need the drop down air mask. How many times have you used it?

I guess this means no potty breaks for the pilots. No cabin crew to be the 2nd person in the cockpit, nor one to be a deterrent to someone attacking the cockpit while the pilot is transiting.

If the Iceland Air does not announce a reversal in short order, it will not matter. Who will be buying tickets?

Posted by
5538 posts

Well, I remember being on a transcontinental flight on Delta when "meal service" was a bag lunch and a bottle of water you grabbed from a table near the jetway. Pilots could probably manage that.

Posted by
24885 posts

the pilots have a whole array of skills.

I expect that since the aircraft can fly on one engine they will be asked to shut down everything except that one engine immediately after take-off. It will save ever so much fuel and wear-and-tear.

Posted by
1670 posts

I thought this was some sort of joke. It seems like a Monty Python skit.

Maybe they can turn off the engines upon descent and glide in for a landing, or better yet only have one pilot on board and let the automatic pilot do everything.

Posted by
7122 posts

Seems like a Twilight Zone story line for an episode to be titled "The Passengers are Alone " (or Cockpit,cockpit..who's in the cockpit?)

Posted by
12107 posts
Posted by
1670 posts

I've always thought of Icelanders as pragmatic, common sense types, so the idea of them taking such drastic measures didn't make sense to me.

Posted by
9211 posts

It was a bargaining ploy.

When they said pilots would take over the F/A job, they didn't mean the pilot's flying the plane. They would assign pilots to F/A jobs in addition to their flying. The main job of an F/A is safety. The pilots would still have to be trained on safety procedures. Other service would be limited.

And the pilots union would have had to agree to it.

I put this in the same category as when Ryanair said they would charge to use the toilet. More press than reality.

Posted by
24885 posts

see now you're just giving ideas to Ryanair

Posted by
3444 posts

Frank II got it right.

The FAA requires at a minimum 1 flight attendant in the cabin for every 50 passenger seats for any plane flying within or in/out of the US (I'm sure other countries have similar requirements). If they had gone on with the plan, that would have meant pilots who are not flying the plane would be assigned the flight attendant positions. Would the pilots be happy with this? I guess we will never know since that option is not being pursued. But getting paid vs. sitting at home unpaid due to the reduced flight schedule doesn't sound that terrible to me.

I have been on flights with no flight attendants. The small Beechcraft 1800 turboprops used by Silver Airways (they fly the final legs for some United flights in Florida as well as having their own schedule of flights to the Bahamas and other Caribbean spots) only have 18 passenger seats. The copilot does the pre flight seatbelt check and all that. There is no service on the plane, not even a toilet. I guess that means there is a maximum number of passenger seats before the flight attendant rule takes effect.

Posted by
14227 posts

My very first international flight was on Icelandic from JFK. It was the cheapest way to get to Europe. They flew to Luxembourg with a mandatory stop in Reykjavik - they made everyone get off the plane to spend half an hour in the duty free shop. From Luxembourg buses would meet the plane and take passengers to Paris and Frankfurt. Friends gave me chewing gum and rubber bands before the flight to help keep the plane together in an emergency :-) At least there were stewardesses and two meals.. . . and smoking. Ah, the good old days . . .

Posted by
17867 posts

I have been on flights with no flight attendants.

Once in the early eighties, I flew from Greater Pittsburgh Int'l A/P (PIT) to Johnstown, about a 35 minute flight. The plane kind of reminded me of a school bus, a single engine, low wing plane with one open canopy cabin, and with the pilot(s?) just sitting in the first row of seats. No flight attendant (it was only a 35 minute flight).

A friend of mine flew to some small town in Virginia (or NC). He had a connecting flight through Newport News. It was late at night when he got to Newport News, and he went to the gate where the gate attendant took his ticket. He sat there waiting at the gate until, at flight time, the gate attendant walked over, picked up his suitcase, and, while my friend followed, carried it out and put it on the small, single engine plane. He then flew the plane to the destination. He was the gate attendant, baggage handler, and pilot; I suspect he was also the owner (President, CEO, and Janitor) of the airline.

In 1987, I flew from Saarbrücken to Hamburg via Frankfurt. When we left the waiting room to get on the plane (stairs, no jetway) early in the morning, there was a rack by the door with paper sacks on it. Everyone was taking a sack, so I did too. When I got on the plane, I found that it had breakfast in it. I don't remember what was in the sack, probably a Kaiser roll with meat and cheese on it - typical German breakfast). There was no food service on the flight, which as I remember was fairly short.

Posted by
2901 posts

My very first international flight was on Icelandic from JFK. It was the cheapest way to get to Europe. They flew to Luxembourg with a mandatory stop in Reykjavik

I remember that route fondly. For us it was Boston-Reykjavik-Luxembourg City. The nice thing about it was that we got to spend a couple of days in Luxembourg City when it was charming. The second time, maybe 20 years later, it wasn't so charming.

As to this now-discarded plan, when I saw the link I first thought it was either Borowitz or The Onion.

Posted by
3444 posts

and smoking. Ah, the good old days . . .

The one thing I really don't miss about the good old days of flying .. gag. I have actually had smokers tell me they never smoked on planes when it was allowed because all they had to do was inhale and they got all the nicotine they needed from all of the smoke that was already in the air. I do remember that the separation between smoking and non smoking was a laugh. There was no non smoking section when everyone in the smoking section lit up. I guess there was no HEPA filter air treatment on planes in those days.

Posted by
1670 posts

I was watching an episode of Mad Men where they were flying from NYC to LA. Talk about surreal. It wasn't all bad in the good old days. Men actually wore suits on flights, unlike the pajama boy men of today.

Posted by
1127 posts

FYI, Business Insider is mostly clickbait and their founder had his securities license revoked by the SEC. I don’t take them seriously.

Posted by
14227 posts

To clarify - my "smoking" reference was tongue-in-cheek. You could ask for non-smoking and end up in the row immediately in front of the smokers. As one person described it, being in the non-smoking secion of a plane was like being in the non-chlorinated section of a swimming pool.

Posted by
3444 posts

Big Mike, while I am glad that suits and ties for men is no longer mandatory, I would be happier if some men (and I use that term loosely) I have seen on planes were wearing pajamas instead of what they did wear. Some have worn clothes (if you could call what they were wearing that) that would get them thrown out of a gym because the items don't cover enough. T-shirts with arms ripped off and the lower half of the body gone and shorts that let everything see the sun or get enough air to breath. I wear clothes that cover me better to mow my back yard at home. ;-)

Posted by
4410 posts

So I guess pilots won’t be doing the luggage loading and unloading, then, or handling the check-in or boarding announcements? For the latter, they could’ve started with, “This is your Captain. . .”

Posted by
108 posts

Big Mike "the pajama boy men of today." Funny, not sure what you're implying but funny. IMHO, wearing a suit and tie on a plane is utterly ridiculous. Yes, I used to dress up more than I do now but its about comfort. I have seen some interesting outfits on planes but for the most part, everybody is going from here to there in comfort. I think I still have a suit but not sure if it fits...

Posted by
1670 posts

steveh, just kidding around. I was raised by my WWII grandfather who went ashore at Normandy and fought in Bastogne, so that colors my developmental years of what men were (are?) supposed to be. Grandpa would probably be labeled as exhibiting "toxic masculinity" today. Just a different generation of men.

Posted by
2901 posts

T-shirts with arms ripped off and the lower half of the body gone

I think those are considered fashionable and cost more because of the tears. Like "stressed" jeans with holes.

Posted by
2901 posts

I think I still have a suit but not sure if it fits...

I know I have several suits, and I KNOW they don't fit. I dodged a bullet when a neighbor's wedding was downsized due to Covid, but next year a great niece is getting married. Which means I have 2 options: lose weight, or buy a new suit.

Posted by
1670 posts

steve, the Army Air Forces were not the place to be if you wanted to survive the war. That's courage beyond understanding.

"Pajama boy" comes from a health care commercial with a young "man" in pajamas clutching a mug of hot chocolate. It was a sharp contrast to what we used to think of what a man was.

To relate this to travel, the American Cemetery at Omaha Beach choked me up. The crosses and Stars of David seemed to to on forever. So many lost at a very young age.

Posted by
3444 posts

You can always rent a suit or tux. Several options out there. Better cost wise than buying a suit you might only wear once.