Some media outlets are reporting that the FAA partial shutdown could affect the certification of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the 747-8 Freighter and 747-8 Intercontinental. According to Boeing, as of now, the partial shut down will not affect the certification [...]]]>

The first Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental after landing at Boeing Field after her first flight.

Some media outlets are reporting that the FAA partial shutdown could affect the certification of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the 747-8 Freighter and 747-8 Intercontinental. According to Boeing, as of now, the partial shut down will not affect the certification of the aircraft, but could affect airports looking to be certified to operate the new 747-8.

“The FAA says airplane certification activities will continue– so we don’t expect any impact there,” Boeing spokesperson Doug Alder Jr explained to AirlineReporter.com. “As for airport certification, if furloughed FAA personnel don’t return to work in time to finish the remaining airport approvals for the 747-8, customers wouldn’t be able to fly the airplane into certain airports until that work is complete (SFO, Newark, O’Hare and Houston are the major ones).”

This is just another reason to be angry at the partial FAA shutdown.

While US House leaders start summer recess today, there are still 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees that will remain furloughed [...]]]>

I wanted to find a sad picture that made me feel disapointed. I think this one does nicely. That is an old TWA 707 nose and landing gear located in Tuscon, AZ.

While US House leaders start summer recess today, there are still 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees that will remain furloughed and about 70,000 construction and support workers that will not have jobs until the the recess concludes on September 6th. Of course there are no guarantees that congress can even come to an agreement when they return. Due to the lack of cooperation, the FAA will continue to lose about $30million per day totaling over $1billion during the recess.

According to CNN, representatives continued to argue, ”over an issue they said was the real subject of the dispute — new National Mediation Board rules that make it easier for airlines to unionize. Democrats favor the new rules; Republicans oppose them.”

While the country has been concerned about the raising of the debt ceiling, not as much attention has been given to the funding issues facing the FAA. Not everyone is losing due to the shutdown — at least for the short term. As part of the shut down, FAA taxes are not longer being collected by airlines and some have decided to pass the savings on to passengers, while others decided to keep the additional funds to offset the increase in fuel prices. While it seems that passengers and airlines are celebrating the savings, long-term it will only end up hurting airline infrastructure.

If passengers purchased tickets for travel after July 23rd and paid the taxes, they have the option to request a refund from the IRS. Delta Air Lines is hoping to make the process much easier, by offering the IRS tax refund directly though them.

Part of me wants to support the effort of passengers getting their refunds, since it is the government who messed up and they should be “punished” by having to give tax money back. However, the airline part of me feels that asking for a refund will just further hurt the airline industry and I rather “donate” my taxes I already paid.

This story is extremely angering and is NOT okay. The airline infrastructure and hard working employees should not be suffering while members of our political system go on holiday. I do not think that most politicians realize that their school-yard politics actually affects real people and this inability to work together will have a negative impact that will be felt for a long time.

Image: Telstar Logistics

Since politicians were not able to come to an agreement over extending the operating authority of the FAA as of midnight tonight, about 4,000 people will be out of work and federal airline ticket tax will no longer be collected. The shutdown will not affect airline safety, but it will [...]]]>

The FAA gets dissed.

Since politicians were not able to come to an agreement over extending the operating authority of the FAA as of midnight tonight, about 4,000 people will be out of work and federal airline ticket tax will no longer be collected. The shutdown will not affect airline safety, but it will stop airlines from collecting about $200million per week in ticket taxes that would help to to fund FAA programs. In the short term, passengers might celebrate since they will be able to save money by not paying taxes, but this means that projects will be delayed and costs might end up being higher in the long run.

At this time it seems unclear exactly how this partial shutdown will affect the airline industry. Although confusing, I am willing to bet that Spirit Airlines will come up with some fancy advertising campaign about the FAA shutdown. Although I normally celebrate an airline’s unique advertising campaign, it seems odd to celebrate a failure in politics, which will end up hurting airline-related projects, but I am sure it will happen.

Update 1: looks like Virgin America jumped on the tax-themed sale already.

Update 2: Boeing confirmed via email to AirlineReporter.com that 787 Dreamliner and 747-8 certifications will not be affected by the FAA partial shut down.

Update 3: Alaska Airlines is also advertising (see screen shot) lower fares from the FAA partial shut down on their homepage. Still nothing from Spirit Airlines — guess I was way off on that one.

Here is the direct copy and paste of the FAA’s press release as well as some information from Alaska Airlines how these changes will change their fares…

From the official FAA Press release:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt expressed disappointment today after Congress adjourned for the week without passing a clean FAA reauthorization extension. Because of Congress’ inaction, many states will have to bear a significant economic burden and many airport projects will be halted.

“I’m very disappointed that Congress adjourned today without passing a clean extension of the FAA bill,” said Secretary LaHood. “Because of their inaction, states and airports won’t be able to work on their construction projects, and too many people will have to go without a paycheck. This is no way to run the best aviation system in the world.”

The current FAA reauthorization expires at midnight tonight, Friday, July 22, 2011. Congress has extended the FAA’s authorization 20 separate times without controversy. Without an extension, the FAA will be forced to furlough nearly 4,000 employees and will be unable to move forward on important airport construction projects and other critical airport activities.

While this lapse in FAA’s authorization affects thousands of public and private sector jobs, it is important to note that the safety of the flying public will not be compromised.
“The FAA employees who will be furloughed perform critical work for our nation’s aviation system and our economy,” said FAA Administrator Babbitt. “These are real people with families who do not deserve to be put out of work during these tough economic times.”

The Airport Improvement Program has already stopped processing new airport grants in anticipation of a furlough. The program, which provides construction project grants to airports, will be shut down and unable to provide roughly $2.5 billion for airport projects in all 50 states that could put thousands of people to work in good paying jobs.

For example:
* Orlando International Airport in Orlando, Florida is still waiting on funding to rehabilitate a major taxiway
* St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport in St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida is still waiting on funding to rehabilitate Runway 04/22
* Cambridge Municipal Airport in Cambridge, Ohio is still waiting on funding to acquire snow removal equipment and conduct a survey to develop an instrument approach procedure
* Houghton County Memorial Airport in Hancock, Michigan is still waiting on funding to modify their terminal building and discourage wildlife from entering the active airfield
* Richmond International Airport in Richmond, Virginia is still waiting on funding to proceed with construction of a new apron for terminal concourse A
* Henderson City-County Airport in Henderson, Kentucky is still waiting on funding to rehabilitate Runway 09/27
* Clovis Municipal Airport in Clovis, New Mexico is still waiting on funding to relocate the localizer equipment due to a runway extension construction. This equipment is out of service on the main runway until the project can proceed
* Lubbock International Airport in Lubbock, Texas is still waiting on funding to begin the third phase of a critical runway rehabilitation
* Adams Field in Little Rock, Arkansas is still waiting on funding to begin the rehabilitation of taxiway lighting, construction of a Runway Safety Area, and the installation of Precision Approach Path Indicator

Additionally, the FAA will be forced to withhold money for states and individual airports as a result of the lapse in authorization. For example, Florida airports will not have access to over $40 million in funding and the state of California cannot use nearly $38 million. The FAA also cannot give the state of Ohio over $10 million in airport grant money or the state of Virginia over $16 million for which they are eligible.

Up to 4,000 FAA employees in 35 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico will be furloughed and forced to go without pay. Large numbers of employees in New Jersey, New York, California, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Illinois and the District of Columbia will be affected. This includes many of FAA’s engineers, scientists, research analysts, administrative assistants, computer specialists, program managers and analysts, environmental protection specialists, and community planners.

Specific Details from Alaska Airlines:
For tickets sold on alaskaair.com starting 12 a.m., Saturday, July 23, 2011, the following taxes will not be collected until congress votes to reinstate them:
* The 7.5% tax generally applicable to domestic transportation (as well the7.5% tax on amounts received from the sale of “frequent flier miles”.)
* The $3.70 domestic segment tax.
* The $16.30 international arrival/departure tax.
* The $8.20 departure tax for flights between Alaska/Hawaii and the mainland US.

For example, on Alaska this represents a savings of approximately $44 off a $300 roundtrip ticket, or about 14 percent. All other taxes and fees will continue to apply.

“Sit down, shut up and turn off your electronic devices!” Okay, it is not really that bad, but sometimes I get pretty annoyed when I have to turn off my personal electronic device (PED) during taxi. I am a spoiled American [...]]]>

Cockpit of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Uh oh, is that electronic device authorized?

“Sit down, shut up and turn off your electronic devices!” Okay, it is not really that bad, but sometimes I get pretty annoyed when I have to turn off my personal electronic device (PED) during taxi. I am a spoiled American and if we are delayed on the tarmac for take off, not having access to my precious electronic devices is difficult. So why the heck are you required to turn your devices off anyhow? And can they really bring down a plane?

If something happens to the plane and you are on above 10,000 feet, you have time. Time to try to navigate to an airport, time to put your toys away before landing. When you are below 10,000 feet things need to happen quickly and it is more dangerous.

One of the important reasons you have your devices off, is to make sure you are paying attention. First you need to pay attention to the flight attendants giving their safety announcement (they don’t do it for fun). Secondly, you should be paying attention to your surroundings. If the plane catches on fire while taxiing out, you need to be ready to react, not listening to the newest Justin Bieber song (is he still “cool” — I dunno). You also need to be able to get out of the plane as soon as possible. If there are cords and cables in the way and your neighbor is distracted, that can slow things down, causing people injury or possibly death.

Next are those pesky electronic signals. All electronic devices give off some sort of signal that could interfere with the cockpit. Even the Federal Aviation Administration isn’t too sure how much these signals affect the avionics in an airliner, but are playing it safe. The FAA’s website states site, “there are still unknowns about the radio signals that portable electronic devices and cell phones give off.”

Airplane manufacturers, airlines and the FAA work together to make sure that any electronic equipment that might go into an airplane will not cause it harm. According to Flight Global, recently on board Wi-Fi tests resulted in some Honeywell avionics to react adversely. This goes to show that yes, electronic equipment can affect instruments, but it also shows that rigorous testing by all those involved make sure that these sort of things won’t happen past the testing phase. Currently all those involved are working together to find the cause and a solution.

Yes, it might be annoying to put your devices away, but I think there are some very valid reasons for doing so. Next time you are on a flight and you hear the call to turn off your devices, be a good sport and do as you are told.

For more information and quotes from Boeing, Virgin America and the FAA, check out my story on AOL Travel News.

The Federal Aviation Administration ordered airlines to remove the oxygen tanks located in lavatories in 6000 aircraft across the United States. The FAA determined that someone could use the oxygen tanks to start a fire [...]]]>

Oh noes! Will AvGeeks be safe taking Laviator photos in the future? Taken on Air New Zealands Boeing 777-300ER

The Federal Aviation Administration ordered airlines to remove the oxygen tanks located in lavatories in 6000 aircraft across the United States. The FAA determined that someone could use the oxygen tanks to start a fire or to create a bomb. The Air Worthiness Directive 2011-04-09 stated that airlines had to comply over a 21-day period, ending on March 4th. The entire process was kept a secret to the general public, since the FAA did not want someone to use the information for evil doing.

This means that if cabin pressure is lost mid-flight, there would be no oxygen mask for a passenger in the bathroom. This has some people very upset (and afraid), but really flight attendants are trained to take care of you and although some people think depressurization happens all the time it is a very rare situation — especially when you think about how many flight hours are completed in the US on a daily basis. I would rather take the risk of being in the bathroom during decompression versus someone using the oxygen container for something bad.

So why have the bathroom oxygen tanks been removed, but not the others in the main cabin? I suspect the ones in the lavatories were targeted since passengers have a pretty high level of privacy and could barricade themselves in. The airlines and aircraft manufactures are working on a better solution (I am thinking an alarm to access the oxygen tank?), but there is no word when oxygen will be re-activated in the lavatories.

To learn more, check out my story on AOL Travel News (http://aol.it/ex6xq5).

Not that long ago I wrote a blog talking about Koito falsifying the safety of their seats and about three Eva Air Boeing 777′s sitting at Paine Field with no seats. Well, the story now gets better (or I guess worse).

Mary Kirby on FlightGlobal.com highlights the new [...]]]>

A nice view of Mount Rainier.

Not that long ago I wrote a blog talking about Koito falsifying the safety of their seats and about three Eva Air Boeing 777′s sitting at Paine Field with no seats. Well, the story now gets better (or I guess worse).

Mary Kirby on FlightGlobal.com highlights the new issues facing the Koito seats. Due to Koito’s lack of following proper procedures 150,000 seats flown all over the world could have unknown safety issues and now the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have proposed airworthiness directives (AD) for the seats. The EASA proposal is a bit more strict than the FAA.

“The Japanese airworthiness authority (JCAB) has informed EASA that a review of the safety of passenger seats manufactured by Koito industries has disclosed discrepancies which include falsification of static, dynamic and flammability testing, as well as uncontrolled changes to production data (material and dimensional),” says EASA in its proposed AD.

“In addition JCAB confirmed that Koito records, showing evidence of falsification, could not be deemed complete. Examples include: fictitious dynamic test pulse plots inserted into test reports following failure to meet required certification requirements; flammability test coupons not representative of production parts, for instance by use of alternative adhesive not specified on the approved drawing; and fictitious deformation values entered in test reports when values exceeded the maximum allowed.”

Because of all the issues, the EASA has asked airlines to remove all Koito seats with-in the next two years. However, if additional testing shows the seats are safe, this could be changed to ten years. The FAA’s proposal puts it onto the airlines to test the seat’s safety. If airlines determine the seats are unsafe, they must be removed.

“Because this proposed AD will not require full compliance with every applicable regulation, seats on which the requirements of this proposed AD are completed successfully and are permitted to remain in service are limited in how they can be used. That is, unless they are shown to fully comply with the regulatory requirements, this proposed AD would restrict the installation of such seats and would require specific marking. These seats can be used as a direct spare for the same part number seat. However, any other use of such seats would be considered a new installation approval and would be required to comply with all regulations. Thus, seats not meeting all regulations could not be installed except as noted above, and if removed from an approved arrangement, would have to be destroyed or rendered unusable in some other manner acceptable to the FAA,” says the agency in its proposed AD.

The FAA estimated that its directive would affect 40,365 seats on 278 airplanes in the US with a total estimated cost of $875,000. However, I assume that the cost would be much higher than that.

Flight Global asked the FAA if they are concerned that unfavorable comparisons will be made about the their AD versus the EASA’s. An FAA spokesman explained,  “Clearly the FAA doesn’t operate in a vacuum, but that said what we have to do is look at the safety impact and the safety issue and the proposed solution based on our environment, not the environment that exists in Europe.”

Most of the Koito seats flying in the US are on Continental Airlines aircraft. It looks like they anticipated this direction and have already started testing. “We’ve been working closely with the FAA over the past year in anticipation of the proposed rulemaking and have completed initial testing on the majority of our aircraft,” Julie King with Continental Public Relations explained to me via an email.

I started looking into this story because of the three Eva Air Boeing 777′s sitting at Paine Field, so I wanted to check in with them to see their status. They are still sticking with the, “no comment,” stance, which again, is not surprising.

So, what does this mean to you? Not too much, unless it turns out these seats are unsafe you end up sitting in one during an incident. However, as explained earlier, the chances of being in any airline seat during an accident, is very rare, being in a Koito seat is even less likely.

Last Saturday American Airlines flight 1990 was about to take off from Miami to Orlando, when a passenger noticed a bit of damage to the wing’s right slat. As the flight of the Boeing 757 progressed the passenger, [...]]]>

The rear of the slate is de-laminating on this American Airlines Boeing 757 on flight 1990.

Last Saturday American Airlines flight 1990 was about to take off from Miami to Orlando, when a passenger noticed a bit of damage to the wing’s right slat. As the flight of the Boeing 757 progressed the passenger, who wishes to remain anonymous, noticed the small damage had spread to the width of several feet and he notified one of the flight attendants.

WESH of Orlando spoke with American spokesperson, Tim Smith, and he confirmed that the Boeing 757 did have some de-lamination on the plane’s right wing. He stated the plane was taken out of service and ferried back to Miami to have repairs completed. Smith stated the de-lamination occurred on the rear of one of the wing’s slats, and even if the problem had affected the operation of the slat, the slats simply make the plane more aerodynamic but do not affect the plane’s ability to fly safely.

“I really do want to assure folks that safety wasn’t compromised and no one was in any danger because of this,” he said.

Some others aren’t so sure. Eric Norber of Orlando FAA Safety Team feels that the pilots should have made an emergency landing. At first glance this might look like a serious incident, but I am not so sure.

First off the flight from Miami to Orlando is extremely short and it might have taken longer for the pilot to make an emergency landing back in Miami versus continuing to Orlando. Obviously American felt it was not a safety risk, since the plane was flown back to Miami with no passengers aboard.

Ice or debris on the leading edge of slats can cause a loss of lift and serious issues, however the damage was on the rear of the slats and appears to be mostly cosmetic. While the rear of the slat is make of laminated composite material, the front part is made of alloy and the damage would not been able to spread.

That being said, I will continue to find out more information about this incident, but on the most part, this might just be a non-incident (except for a few interesting photos).

Someone on Airliners.net also posted a very cool image showing how the rear of the slat (this photo is of a Boeing 747, but still similar construction) is to the front.

Thanks Chris S for pointing this story out!

Ah, “Bring Your Kid To Work Day,” is a classic. It is nice  that your children are able to see what mommy and daddy do all day and your co-workers get to meet your little ball of joy you [...]]]>

John F. Kennedy International Airport's control tower with a few jetBlue Airbus A320's in front

Ah, “Bring Your Kid To Work Day,” is a classic. It is nice  that your children are able to see what mommy and daddy do all day and your co-workers get to meet your little ball of joy you talk about so much.

However there are some jobs that it might be best for your child to skip visiting. On the surface it might seem harmless to bring your child to work if you are an air traffic controller. Maybe during your time off you can show him the view, let him see those big radar screens and listen to some of your co-workers in action.

Well, one traffic controller at JFK wanted his kid to get the full experience and let him talk to pilots. On a recording found on Gadling, it is quite clear the child is talking directly to the pilots, being assisted by his parent. The pilots don’t seem too put off by this, but the FAA sure isn’t amused.

An FAA spokesperson stated, “Pending the outcome of our investigation, the employees involved in this incident are not controlling air traffic. This behavior is not acceptable and does not demonstrate the kind of professionalism expected from all FAA employees.”

Sure, this might have been a little more “fun” at a smaller airport directing Cessna 172′s, not at JFK, directing large Boeing 747′s. I know I would feel a bit more comfortable knowing there aren’t children directing my next flight out of JFK.

connect | web | twitter | facebook |

Since the Chinese-made ARJ21 was announced I have wondered if it would ever make it to production. Although there have been quite a few delays (it was supposed to go into service in early 2007), the plane (which is heavily based on the [...]]]>

ARJ21-700 Roll Out in Shanghai December 21, 2007 from Flight Blogger

Since the Chinese-made ARJ21 was announced I have wondered if it would ever make it to production. Although there have been quite a few delays (it was supposed to go into service in early 2007), the plane (which is heavily based on the MD-80) is still on track to succeed.

China has been making aircraft for quite sometime, but only sold them to countries with lax safety regulations. This week the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is going to be checking Civil Aviation Administration of China’s (CAAC) ability to certify the ARJ21.

If the FAA certifies CAAC and CAAC certifies the ARJ21, then the ARJ21 can be sold globally. Currently there are three ARJ21′s in the test fleet, but they are only about 150 flight hours into the 2000 flight hours required to get Chinese certification. They were hoping to have Chinese certification of the aircraft done by the end of 2010, but it looks unlikely that will happen.

Would any US or European start-up airlines would be willing to try out using an all-ARJ21 fleet in the future? Right now I would guess no, but things can change.

More Information:
* Office website of the ARJ21
* A few photos of the ARJ21 from Airliners.net
* Wikipedia write up on the ARJ21

connect | web | twitter | facebook |

Not for those who have a fear of flying, this video showed the 1984 crash test of a Boeing 707. The video has multiple angles of the test, along with commentary on what happened. The goal was to conduct research on improved crash protection and reduce post-crash fire hazards.

The Boeing 707 was remote [...]]]>

Not for those who have a fear of flying, this video showed the 1984 crash test of a Boeing 707. The video has multiple angles of the test, along with commentary on what happened. The goal was to conduct research on improved crash protection and reduce post-crash fire hazards.

The Boeing 707 was remote controlled and the plane was crashed in the middle of a desert outside Edwards Air Force base in California.

follow via | web | twitter | email | rss |

Recently Joe Sharkey, a columnist for the New York Times, had an interesting experience with regulations, the FAA, and seatback pockets on a flight from Denver to Tucson.

While the flight attendants were doing the safety announcements, they stated something new. Passengers could not put any [...]]]>

Seatback pocket with BAD, BAD things in it.

Recently Joe Sharkey, a columnist for the New York Times, had an interesting experience with regulations, the FAA, and seatback pockets on a flight from Denver to Tucson.

While the flight attendants were doing the safety announcements, they stated something new. Passengers could not put any items in the seatback pockets. No water, garbage, newspapers, phones, personal magazines etc. The only items allowed were the airline materials placed in there before the passengers boarded.

At first Sharkey had a difficult time finding out why this was happening. Was it a new rule the airline was enforcing? Did the FAA start regulating seatbacks? What was going on? When he first contacted the FAA, they didn’t seem to know that the rule existed.
In 2007, the FAA wrote a directive on cabin safety that states, “nothing can be stowed in the seat pockets except magazines and passenger information cards.” This was news to Sharkey and to many passengers who have recently heard this new rule.

The Flying Pinto confirmed with the FAA that they aren’t going to regulate items in the seatbacks and airlines have the ability to choose their own policies. As a flight attendant, she is happy that the airline she works for is not enforcing this suggestion. “I am grateful that my airline has not made this a company policy but I wouldn’t go out and buy the organizer just yet,” stated the blogger.

Alright, so this might become more of the standard in the future but why? There doesn’t seem to be many people out there to answer that question. It has been on the books since 2007, so why start regulating now? I can see where it might encourage people to bring more carry-ons and limit the airline’s profits for checked baggage. It could speed up the deboarding process with passengers not having to look in so many places, as well as decrease an airplane’s turnaround time, since there will be less to clean.

But is this really worth the time and effort to regulate? Flight attendants already have a hard enough job trying to keep passengers happy. Is having to nag folks to remove their personal items in the seatback really going to build a positive rapport with the customer? Probably not. Is this a big enough deal for passengers to pick a different airline (and pay more) to have a seatback pocket? Again, probably not.

Alright, so this might become more of the standard in the future but why? There doesn’t seem to be many people out there to answer that question. It has been on the books since 2007, so why start regulating now? I can see where it might encourage people to bring more carry-ons and limit the airline’s profits for checked baggage. It could speed up the deboarding process with passengers not having to look in so many places, as well as decrease an airplane’s turnaround time, since there will be less to clean.

But is this really worth the time and effort to regulate? Flight attendants already have a hard enough job trying to keep passengers happy. Is having to nag folks to remove their personal items in the seatback really going to build a positive rapport with the customer? Probably not. Is this a big enough deal for passengers to pick a different airline (and pay more) to have a seatback pocket? Again, probably not.

For those that have trouble fitting into a standard passenger seat, they will have to prepare to pay double on United Airlines.  They have pretty black and white criteria for those to meet this requirement:

- Unable to fit into a single seat [...]]]>

A Bunch of United Boeing 777 Tails at London Heathrow Airport.

For those that have trouble fitting into a standard passenger seat, they will have to prepare to pay double on United Airlines.  They have pretty black and white criteria for those to meet this requirement:

- Unable to fit into a single seat in the ticketed cabin

- Unable to properly buckle the seatbelt using a single seatbelt extender

- Unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated

A passenger falling under any of these criteria will be relocated or be forced to upgrade to first class or be booted to the next flight.

Of course this is humiliating to those who are in this bracket and no one of course wants that, but it seems to be the only fair solution instead of having to be a full paying passenger and only having half a seat due to someone who is a bit larger next to you.

Ryanair is a little less Politically Correct about the matter and about 1/3 of 100,000 people that voted on their website for “cost-reduction ideas” wanted to impose a “fat tax” for those who can’t fit into a seat.

If you will be flying on an American Airlines 767-300, you might have quite a few empty seats around you. It seems American installed additional business-class seats on 58 767-300′s and now there aren’t enough life vests for all the passengers.

American states that no one was ever [...]]]>

American Airline's Boeing 767 Tail

If you will be flying on an American Airlines 767-300, you might have quite a few empty seats around you. It seems American installed additional business-class seats on 58 767-300′s and now there aren’t enough life vests for all the passengers.

American states that no one was ever in danger since they also have life rafts aboard (personally, not as assuring if you are on a plane going down into water and all those around you have life vests on and you don’t).

Source: Chicago Tribune Image: Van-Murph