[tssge]

Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.

Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers' luggage in the event of a crash and inform the passengers that they will do so, but that's not how the world works currently.

[wqaatwt]

> liable to replace passengers' luggage

Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability.

Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage.

edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/205.5

[tssge]

In general the airlines just ask you to leave your luggage. If they were legally obliged to replace all your items, they would inform you of such.

On international flights, an airline is liable for up to $1700 per the Montreal Convention. This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance). Now obviously such an event has other priorities than just financial ones, but it's no surprise if people choose to take their luggage with them.

On US domestic flights the amount is somewhat higher, $4700. However even this might not be enough for some. On EU domestic flights it's 1800€.

Airlines however are free to pay any amount they want, but they are not legally required to pay more than the limits set by law. So it is possible you will be reimbursed in full, but you wouldn't know that beforehand.

[michaelt]

> This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance).

If there's no smoke, no visible flames, and you can do so safely without obstructing other passengers' egress? I can see the argument, sure.

Obviously if the cabin is filling with smoke or there are visible flames or other obvious dangers, the financially sensible choice is to evacuate ASAP as funerals often cost more than laptops.

[throw0101c]

> If there's no smoke, no visible flames, and you can do so safely without obstructing other passengers' egress? I can see the argument, sure.

While there are no smoke/flames now or initially, that doesn't mean they won't appear "soon": planes have been completely engulfed with-in 90 seconds.

[varjag]

I don't think a stressed rando inside the plane is in position to evaluate how soon it will combust. Not even the firemen on the outside often have a clue.

[potato3732842]

Eh, I'd defer to them over some rando on the internet who's only seen a video that shows a short snippet of what went on.

The best anyone here can do is screech about not following the default suggested practice of leaving the luggage but the person who took the bag was actually there. Perhaps they had to pick it up because it was on the floor (ceiling) in their way. Not much harm in carrying it if it's something that small anyway.

[hectormalot]

I’ve read a few of these in depth crash analyses: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/

I’ve realized that fires are a way bigger issue than you might imagine after a crash — things can go south really quickly. Multiple stories of planes going from “fire outside” to “people suffocating and burning to death in their seats” in minutes. Here’s one of a 737 in Manchester, taxied of the runway intact, 55 people died: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/fire-on-the-runway-the-m...

I might have taken my laptop bag in such a case out of habit before reading these stories, not so much now.

[tssge]

I'm not arguing it's right. Frankly, I think it's stupid the way things are. But I can understand why some people make such choice.

I guess my argument mainly is that people who take their luggage are not stupid, instead their behavior may be highly rational, however we have the means to change it with by making such choice irrational and I wish we will.

[aziaziazi]

> people who take their luggage are not stupid

I agree with your parent’s post explaining its a sensible financial choice. However as you noted there’s other things One could consider like other’s passagers survival chances or firefighter taking dangerous steps during their work.

Taking your language is financially sensible but socially dumb and selfish. It seems an acceptable choices in the countries that values individual liberties and financial independence, but the other half of the world look very bad at that behavior.

[ryandrake]

If people's response to COVID didn't convince us that selfishness has taken over the world, I don't know what will.

[account42]

> This might cover say half of one's laptop

$3400 is a pretty pricey laptop for someone short on cash.

Also, am I correct in understanding that these requirements are the base requirement for any crash and don't actually absolve the airline of the full liability in case they are found to be responsible for the crash?

[michaelt]

In terms of explaining the passenger's behaviour, though - presumably they didn't know this, and didn't have time to research it on their phone during the crash.

Airline customer service standards are very low; I can see how a person making the decision based on just their experience with airlines would conclude it was better to grab their carry-on if it was safe to do so.

[bolognafairy]

Anyone that disregards explicit instruction by cabin crew, regarding safety, is an idiot, regardless.

I give zero shits if you think you’re going to lose your stuff. And you should give zero shits if I’m going to lose mine.

Don’t act like this is a class / means thing. It isn’t. This is just Americanism.

[ryandrake]

Everyone thinks they are the main character of the story. I should get to keep my bag because I am the protagonist, but everyone else is supposed to leave theirs, so that we can escape faster! The rules don't apply to me specifically because I am the only person in my life that matters.

[potato3732842]

People who interact with the public and work for BigCo routinely bark orders that are non-optimal for the customers individually but convenient for the company.

Customers have been trained to stop and think twice when someone tells them what to do. That's just the reality of the world we live in.

[lazide]

This isn’t an Americanism. It’s a ‘people not explicitly trained for this scenario’ ism.

If you think this is bad, I guarantee you could play out this scenario in roughly 3/4 of the world and it would be worse.

[michaelt]

> I give zero shits if you think you’re going to lose your stuff.

Yeah, last time an airline lost my bag they said pretty much the same thing.

The way I see it, there are two types of idiot:

You're an idiot if you delay the evacuation of a crashed plane. Shit's on fire, yo.

And you're an idiot if you expect an airline will make you whole. Airlines are in the business of delivering the worst customer service they can get away with - they don't even guarantee that a person who has booked a seat on a flight will have a seat on the flight.

[potato3732842]

>Airlines are in the business of delivering the worst customer service they can get away with

The DMV is pure customer service.

Airlines are "applied" customer service since they actually deliver a service there is demand for.

[tacostakohashi]

Not just an idiot, but also a criminal...

[Cthulhu_]

> Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.

One person's means are not more important than the lives of the people on board. Stuff can be replaced; get everyone to safety first, then worry about stuff.

And yeah airlines are liable to replace stuff in the event of a crash and pay for damages if it's their fault. If it's the fault of the airplane manufacturer, they will have to; Boeing paid out billions to all parties involved in accidents and groundings of the 737 max:

> On January 7, 2021, Boeing settled to pay over $2.5 billion after being charged with fraud over the company's hiding of information from safety regulators: a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, $1.77 billion of damages to airline customers, and a $500 million crash-victim beneficiaries fund.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_impact_of_the_Boeing...

[7952]

They might even need clean underwear and have that in mind. Probably the most scary experience of their lives and people act strangely.

[account42]

Still not a rational decision. Poopypants > crispy skin.

[prmoustache]

You really only have to keep your important papers in your pants pockets.

[account42]

Would be easier if airplane seats weren't as cramped.