[MichaelGG]

Is there any indication the safety announcements are effective? The fact they dedicate so much time to taking about smoking makes me doubt they are evidence based. United's 787s have a no smoking sign built in to every single seat, at eye level.

I suppose it's possible that they fly places that have such a strong smoking culture that this is an important and useful reminder, but that seems doubtful.

Which makes me call into question the rest of the announcements.

Though, I've found United's new safety video to be so well done, I watch it every time despite having seen it dozens of times already.

[sokoloff]

They are effective in complying with the relevant law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.519 which specifically requires an oral briefing on "when, where, and under what circumstances smoking is prohibited".

Don't fault the airlines for complying with the law.

[MichaelGG]

I'm faulting the actual presentation and behavior, regardless of who is ultimately to blame. If the law requires wasting everyone's time and attention with so much no smoking signs, then it's probable it wastes effort on other things, too.

[ekimekim]

I make a point of tuning in for the actual safety part then switching to my personal music again when they start waffling on about the company slogan and wishing a good flight a dozen times.

[6stringmerc]

Have you noticed a change to include "no vaping" as well? The briefings do change with the times. Before lobbying / tantrum throwing gadget junkies allowed devices to be on non-stop, there were times when they were permitted to be on or off, and that was part of the briefing. As you might be able to tell, I tend to pay attention in spite of having heard them time and again, because thankfully I'm an infrequent flyer these days.

[MichaelGG]

No, and FAs seemed to be of uncertain opinion if vaping was covered, although I only asked on one flight. Probably from a don't-be-rude perspective, it'd not be a good idea. Certainly the risk of fire isn't there.

There's still a fair amount of time dedicated to talking about "airplane mode". Which can simply not be a safety issue, as it'd be a trivial attack vector for malicious passengers to use. Or, if it is a safety factor, it just further illustrates the security theater.

[aleh]

Some people are better at noticing visual signs, some react only to what they are being told. Smoking on board is really dangerous, so why to take risks?

[mixmastamyk]

Hard to believe but it was done heavily on flights until the 70's or 80's or so. Though disgusting, it is unlikely to be that dangerous.

[MichaelGG]

Because there's a cost in attention. What's the rate of people just lighting up to smoke on a flight? What about the rate of people tampering with or disabling smoke detectors? Is there reason to believe that in the last, say, 5 years, there's been any case of that warning preventing someone from disabling a smoke detector?

I'm also not convinced that accidental smoking on board is that dangerous. Because if it were, then we'd be far more interested in stopping people from boarding with such equipment. I'm hoping aircraft today are capable of handling a small fire, the kind that might happen anyways, like from batteries exploding.

Same reasoning for using electronics - if they had been that dangerous, any bad person could just ship a box of phones with a wake up alarm set and watch planes crash.