Michael O'Leary - seatbelts useless

davet82

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4634019/Ryanair-boss-says-you-dont-need-seatbelts-on-planes.html

CONTROVERSIAL Ryanair chief Michael O'Leary has provoked uproar by claiming seatbelts on aircraft are pointless and will not save passengers in a crash.

I don't like him but he's probably right on this one, i wonder is there any evidence to suggest he is right?

as for putting your head between your legs before impact of a 200 mile an hour aerplane hitting the ground, seems more likely so that you can kiss your arse good-bye than saftey measures me thinks :pac:

Wibbs

If you're ever in a bit of heavy turbulence you'll be grateful you have them.

Wacker The Attacker

Safest option might be not to crash the plane

gobnaitolunacy

Just MO'L acting like a knob again, free publicity as per usual.

Why bother fitting black boxes, radar and navigational equipment and let a bus driver fly the plane?

Onesimus

Has O Leary studied this and proved by measuring other crashes that we do NOT need seatbelts?

SEPT 23 1989

A King amongst men is our Michael

OSiriS

It seems Michael O'Leary, and others do not understand their function, and it is rather disturbing that the head of a major airline would be unfamiliar with aircraft safety. Nothing is going to save your life in a fatal crash, the safety belt and crash position are intended to protect you in cases of survivable incidents. It's like claiming air bags are useless because they will not save your life in a 120kph crash, but they will in slower speed crashes.

gozunda

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

A King amongst men is our Michael

A veritable King of Gobsh1te

jiltloop

I'm sure they are pretty essential in heavy turbulence. I'd say over the years seatbelts in actual crash situation have saved quite a miniscule number of lives but surely that is enough to warrant the cost of them.

Chips Lovell

Michael O'Leary gets media coverage by saying something controversial again.

Ash.J.Williams

gozunda wrote: »

A veritable King of Gobsh1te

why do you think that?

davet82

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Michael O'Leary gets media coverage by saying something controversial again.

true but its good craic

gozunda

He has brought in charging for everything else perhaps he is planning for charging for these to?

Thats a boy Michael! and who ever said it was others that ripped us off?

He really is the epitome of the ol traditional Irish middleman who would skin his mother alive to sell her hide and with all the decency of a rat in a barrel.

who the fug

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

A King amongst men is our Michael

He certainly knows how to push the internet buttons, think marketing colleges will be studying his marketing plan for years


can anyone put an estimate on the free publicity he gets for Ryan Air every year

Cienciano

OSiriS wrote: »

It seems Michael O'Leary, and others do not understand their function, and it is rather disturbing that the head of a major airline would be unfamiliar with aircraft safety. Nothing is going to save your life in a fatal crash, the safety belt and crash position are intended to protect you in cases of survivable incidents. It's like claiming air bags are useless because they will not save your life in a 120kph crash, but they will in slower speed crashes.

On the contrary, I think Michael O'Leary knows exactly how useful seatbelts are, knows a hell of a lot more about airplanes than you'd think and knows exactly what he's doing by saying something like this.

Wacker The Attacker

There was a case a while back of a crash landing where a sizable number of the passengers were hurt and even killed, not from impact, but from their heads hitting the compartments above them. The straps probably would have prevented this.

Iwannahurl

Michael, will you please just belt up.

Theta

Nobody watched "The Plane Crash" on channel 4 then no?

reginald

jiltloop wrote: »

I'm sure they are pretty essential in heavy turbulence. I'd say over the years seatbelts in actual crash situation have saved quite a miniscule number of lives but surely that is enough to warrant the cost of them.

Exactly, i think the point O Leary is making is that they are pretty useless in the majority of airline incidents. Can't understand all the hatred against him, he speaks his mind and runs one of the most succesfull airlines in the world. All the moaners still use Ryanair and expect 1st class service for a budget ticket:rolleyes:. I have used them at least 50 times over the last number of years and have found the service second to none to be fair.

Balmed Out

Remember that Belfast to Cork fligh that crashed a few years ago, didnt it end up upside down? Id be glad of the seatbelt.

Sunnyisland

I would have thought the seatbelts are for the purpose of stopping the bodies being thrown around the plane,You might survive the plane crash and get hit from a flying body.

CatFromHue

I'd view airplanes as buses with wings to a degree too but it's becoming more and more common when travelling long distance on a bus that you have to wear a seat belt. I've just come back from Oz and over there when I got the bus from Brisbane to Melbourne I had to wear a seat belt the whole way.

Dodge

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4634019/Ryanair-boss-says-you-dont-need-seatbelts-on-planes.html



I don't like him but he's probably right on this one, i wonder is there any evidence to suggest he is right?

No! No one has ever performed any kind of test to see if seat belts help save live (or limbs) in case of crashes (or other emergencies)

Those fly by night billion doolar industry types!

ballsymchugh

OSiriS wrote: »

It seems Michael O'Leary, and others do not understand their function, and it is rather disturbing that the head of a major airline would be unfamiliar with aircraft safety. Nothing is going to save your life in a fatal crash, the safety belt and crash position are intended to protect you in cases of survivable incidents. It's like claiming air bags are useless because they will not save your life in a 120kph crash, but they will in slower speed crashes.

actually, crash position won't save you. it will preserve your face in a way that will make identification by dental records easier though :eek:

davet82

ballsymchugh wrote: »

actually, crash position won't save you. it will preserve your face in a way that will make identification by dental records easier though :eek:

nice :pac:

Agricola

Hmmm, in the event of an accident would I rather be tied to the seat and have a small hope of survival, or be turned into a human missile......

davet82

Dodge wrote: »

No! No one has ever performed any kind of test to see if seat belts help save live (or limbs) in case of crashes (or other emergencies)

Those fly by night billion doolar industry types!

feel free to up a link, i'm not saying you're wrong either

Iwannahurl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVR_9vJZ208

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVjQZJM_tpQ

kingtiger

article from 1998

"According to FAA statistics almost 60 people are injured each year during turbulence -- mostly when passengers aren't wearing seat belts"

http://edition.cnn.com/TRAVEL/NEWS/9803/31/seat.belts/index.html

yeah Mickey not necessary at all :rolleyes:

BrensBenz

Michael O'Leary is a genius. He only has to open his mouth and spout twaddle to get international media coverage. I regularly spout twaddle and.......nothing! Not even the Fingal Indo.

Why do WE fall for it?

Run_to_da_hills

kingtiger wrote: »

article from 1998

"According to FAA statistics almost 60 people are injured each year during turbulence -- mostly when passengers aren't wearing seat belts"

http://edition.cnn.com/TRAVEL/NEWS/9803/31/seat.belts/index.html

yeah Mickey not necessary at all :rolleyes:

When you consider the hundreds of millions that are flying each year 60 is a very low figure.

kingtiger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

When you consider the hundreds of millions that are flying each year 60 is a very low figure.

even if it only one, its a safety risk

from the same article

"Last December, a United flight from Tokyo to Honolulu hit what is known as "clear turbulence" -- rough air encountered with no warning in otherwise clear skies -- leaving 83 passengers injured and one dead."


I for one always wear by belt after being hit by turbulence a few years ago over Paris, one woman in front of me hit the overhead rack when the plane lost altitude suddenly, and guess what she didn't have a seatbelt

anyway Mickey is only trolling looking for publicity

ballsymchugh

ballsymchugh wrote: »

actually, crash position won't save you. it will preserve your face in a way that will make identification by dental records easier though :eek:

Actually, the brace position does help. Mythbusters done a segment on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClX2yldxZPw

asherbassad

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4634019/Ryanair-boss-says-you-dont-need-seatbelts-on-planes.html



I don't like him but he's probably right on this one, i wonder is there any evidence to suggest he is right?

as for putting your head between your legs before impact of a 200 mile an hour aerplane hitting the ground, seems more likely so that you can kiss your arse good-bye than saftey measures me thinks :pac:

You crash a car at 40 mph and you're not wearing a seatbelt, you're going to be fcuked up. That plane that emergency landed in the Hudson River in NY was going faster than 40mph. Nobody was badly injured because they were all ordered to secure their seatbelts. O'Leary's a friggin' nutter.

bbam

Wibbs wrote: »

If you're ever in a bit of heavy turbulence you'll be grateful you have them.

Dead right.
It would also depend on the severity of the crash. Once again he's being a sensationalist,, it's all about exposure to him. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.

Auldloon

In the late 90's I worked as a rep for a major Aircraft seat manufacturer. I was told then that waist seat belts are as likely to cut you in half as save you in the event of a serious crash.
Five point harnesses and rear faced seating like on military transporters is much safer but it was found that that commercial passengers didn't like this and would not travel in many cases.
For turbulence, heavy landings and the like the waist seat belt is adequate.

jessiejam

If MO'L deems the seatbelts on airplanes unnecessary or an "extra" on flights, it will justify him charging for their use in the future. Just like the toilets.

keithclancy

Was on a flight to Spain,

Out of nowhere the plane dropped a few thousand feet out of the sky.

Everyone that had a seatbelt on just ended up with their hands in the air.

Everyone without one ended up blowing their head off the roof .

God help the fella taking a scuttery shíte in the jax.

Rasmus

How stupid. If I put on my seatbelt I am not expecting it to save my life, but to protect my head from hitting the ceiling or other passengers during turbulence. More promo for Ryanair with his whacky outbursts.

CruelCoin

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4634019/Ryanair-boss-says-you-dont-need-seatbelts-on-planes.html



I don't like him but he's probably right on this one, i wonder is there any evidence to suggest he is right?

as for putting your head between your legs before impact of a 500 mile an hour aerplane hitting the ground, seems more likely so that you can kiss your arse good-bye than saftey measures me thinks :pac:

FYP

9959

realies wrote: »

I would have thought the seatbelts are for the purpose of stopping the bodies being thrown around the plane,You might survive the plane crash and get hit from a flying body.

Too right. A few years ago I was at a gig near the front of the stage when, to everyone's surprise, Pavarotti - in the middle of 'Nessun Dorma' - decided to leap into the 'mosh pit', 17 people including myself are still wearing orthopaedic shirts.
One can only imagine the carnage if 'Pav' - unencumbered by seatbelt - started 'flying' inside the fuselage of a passenger aircraft.

Sadly the 'big fella' now sings in that great opera house in the sky, otherwise I'd definitely be keeping an eye out for him in the queue of the next Ryanair flight from Dublin to Alicante.

smash

OSiriS wrote: »

the safety belt and crash position are intended to protect you in cases of survivable incidents.

Isn't the crash position designed to snap your neck on impact because it's cheaper to pay out for a death rather than long term injury?

Dodge

smash wrote: »

Isn't the crash position designed to snap your neck on impact because it's cheaper to pay out for a death rather than long term injury?

Well you'd know with that username...

TwoShedsJackson

ballsymchugh wrote: »

actually, crash position won't save you. it will preserve your face in a way that will make identification by dental records easier though :eek:

Ripping off some US stand-up comic I saw years ago: 'if they don't know who you are how the fu<k do they know who your dentist is??'

starbelgrade

RYANAIR ; DUBLIN TO STANSTEAD €2* WINTER SALE!!!



* Additional fees and charges may apply

- Ryanair seat: €2
- Tax : €57
- Credit Card booking charge : €5
- Priority booking fee : €15
- Additional baggage fee : €20
- Hire of seat belt : €900

Total cost of flight : €999 each way

Tefral

I watched a programme recently where they remote controlled an airliner into a type of crash that would happen when a plane is landing. The first ten rows were pretty much un survivable, but the dummies they used showed major destruction when the ones without seatbelts were examined.

The most the other dummies (With seatbelts) got were broken foot and arms..

EDIT: Here is a link about it http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137327/Discovery-Channel-Watch-passenger-jet-crash-land-Mexican-desert-devastating-consequences-documentary.html

norrie rugger

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Michael O'Leary gets media coverage by saying something controversial again.

yeah except this time he is showing a frightening lack of knowledge, regarding the industry that he is a major player in.
Considering the issues, with craft failure, of late; he would be better suited keeping his mouth shut on this

IvyTheTerrible

So I wonder will Ryanair now go easy on passenger who refuse to buckle their seatbelt before takeoff? :rolleyes:

ballsymchugh

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Ripping off some US stand-up comic I saw years ago: 'if they don't know who you are how the fu<k do they know who your dentist is??'

flight list and registration/insurance claims i presume. it's not as hard as it's made out to be.

666irishguy

I wonder is there also an extra cost to the airliner for the maintenance of the seat belt that he doesn't like having to pay. I assume somebody like a safety team has to come in and stress test them after every couple of thousand ours of constant stretching/strain and buckling/un-buckling to make sure they are still safe for emergencies. The only disadvantage to a seat belt that I can see is that you may be badly injured (let's say by chance both arms are broke) and strapped in only for the plane to catch fire as so often happens on say a take off accident. In the confusion you may not get any help to get out and get burned alive.

Capt'n Midnight

Auldloon wrote: »

In the late 90's I worked as a rep for a major Aircraft seat manufacturer. I was told then that waist seat belts are as likely to cut you in half as save you in the event of a serious crash.
Five point harnesses and rear faced seating like on military transporters is much safer but it was found that that commercial passengers didn't like this and would not travel in many cases.
For turbulence, heavy landings and the like the waist seat belt is adequate.

A three point inertial reel harness like in cars would protect your face from being mashed on the seat in front. - it's a good compromise between ease of use and safety.

Just because Americans don't like them doesn't mean the rest of us have to be put at risk.

Yes they will cost the airlines more, (in fuel consumption because of extra weight mainly) probably a lot less fuel than they saved by using less fresh air because of the smoking ban

Five point harness is needed in cases where you can submarine under the four points but in a commercial jet I'd guess the floor would have given way long before then. (IIRC it used to be that the seats on airliners could take about twice as many g's as the floor - go figure)