I recently travelled on Ethiopian Airlines, whose safety video is a good mix between the 90s and someone's nephew who know how to edit videos.
It very literally showed everything talked about happening inside an actual airplane. Masks actually deploying and dropping from the ceiling and people putting them on, etc.
What was interesting for me was, it was the first time I saw _where_ under the seat the life jacket is and it made me realize that despite having watched 100s of these videos I actually never knew how to get the life jacket.
My favorite airline safety video of all time is ANA's "Kabuki", which (IMHO) strikes the right elements of being clear, informative, gorgeous, absurd and showcasing Japan all at the same time:
Wow, I can't believe I actually appreciate the direction and overall production value of an airline safety video.
Probably serves its function better for it too! I can't imagine nearly as many people would tune it out or just feign attention, but it's not totally sacrificing the focus on what matters.
In the United video, in many scenes, the more interesting thing is the Rube Goldberg machine distraction, not the actual safety information they're supposed to be conveying.
They even do split-screen to add in distraction, when they're trying to show something visually in the less-interesting window. (Worst lesson ever mis-learned from TikTok.)
Did they consciously decide that most people have heard the instructions many times, and the best the airline can hope for is that passengers pause and look up from their personal devices, and maybe subconsciously reactivate those neurons even the slightest bit... as better than nothing?
Or did the creatives simply get carried away, and no one reined them in?
Wow, that video is way over the top. It's almost creepy that, as the in-video flight attendant is explaining the safety of the seat buckle, the camera is actively panning away from her to focus on the motion of the ball
I've sat through numerous Air New Zealand safety videos over the years and whilst every now and then they hit the spot most of the time they're lame and overly long.
It also seems like a waste of money that presumably finds it way onto ticket prices.
I sort of assumed that Air NZ started this trend because of all the hype surrounding the first ones. There's an article covering the history of these here: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/374709/feature-a-bri... (they claim the first was in 2009, so a couple of years after the earliest one mentioned in tfa).
I find them downright annoying now. The cringe factor makes them uncomfortable to watch which is not what you want from a safety video. It feels as though they jumped the shark.
The article seems to imply that it's not a waste of money which is why it's expanded in use, especially with having partners like tourism agencies chip in.
But the article goes on to say that while it succeeds at being a novel spot for new media partnerships, it ( the style presentation ) performs more poorly at communicating the safety message
In my recent experience, KLM and Swiss are the best - no actors, completely animated and informative. While delta and united were the most cringe - weird actors and special effects and why is she smiling 100% of the time during an emergency?
I have not seen KLM or Swiss, but I'm a fan of Cathay Pacific's video for the same reason. Extremely clear, animated video shows you just what you need to know.
> why is she smiling 100% of the time during an emergency?
I always assumed this was one of those American cultural things, akin to how waiters in the US always are super cheery and excited to serve you. (In an obviously artificial way)
The interesting thing is, in a real emergency something often clicks, and people become more focused and organized than otherwise. The 2009 Hudson ditching is a celebrated example, but there were numerous others over the years. (More recently, the upside-down crash landing at Toronto.) IMO the key is to have well-trained and authoritative cabin crew, but any knowledge of emergency procedures also helps, and that's where safety videos come into play.
The author of the article is a bit of a jittery flier (a go-around was their come-to-Jesus moment? come on), but fine, whatever makes people pay attention to basic safety information. It doesn't need to be much: know where the emergency exits are, how to open them if necessary, and don't take your cabin luggage, and you'll already be ahead of most.
This is the one I remember the best, and it’s been years since I’ve seen it. Put something in a catchy song and my brain will remember it… this is how I learned like 50-some odd digits of Pi[0]
Same here, it was one that captured the vibe of the Virgin America perfectly and the only one I actually recall watching. It was directed by Jon M Chu, who subsequently directed Crazy Rich Asians, In The Heights, Wicked, and more.
All I an say in this section is I was most intrigued when I was travelling across Europe on a long and complicated business journey. Turkish airlines (if I recall right, maroon uniforms) had a sign language video for both Turkish sign language and international sign language. I felt so elated and welcome at that moment. I felt at home. Somebody cared for people like me. I have not come across anybody else who has done the same job.
So what I have to say, yes, the measure of the effort what pretty much sums to entertainment and pseudo-psychology, speaks to the consumer masses who are worried when they jump on a plane filled with other 150~ish strangers.
I don't think the current video format is very good for retention. Putting it in the form of a quiz could help frequent travelers actually memorize the information over time, which could in turn save lives.
I don’t know whether it would be legal, but I 100% agree with your suggestion - a more active form of learning would be more effective. Professor Molesworth (the expert I interviewed for the article) actually suggested that airlines should make passengers count how many seats away from the emergency exit they’re sitting - again, making that a more active process.
There’s also the argument that to improve retention, the regulatory body should decrease the amount of “key safety messages” that need to be included in the videos (which ends up being around 35-45). If you decrease that number, retention of the info you do mention should go up.
Why do you think airlines spend so much money on these safety videos when they're almost exclusively shown to people who are already customers of the airline? The 2m YouTube example you gave is great, but
1. that's probably an exception to most safety videos and
2. the vast majority of safety video views are probably uninterested folks in cramped seats with earphones in.
Do you think that's the best use of marketing dollars? What about making the actual product (flight experience) better?
Good question. I asked myself the same thing. Since airlines are mandated to produce a safety video regardless, the ROI they really have to assess is against that incremental spend on making the video cinematic/entertaining. And if you factor in that potential to go viral and get good PR from it, as well as the fact that they can produce a video once and reuse possibly for X years, the incremental investment doesn’t sound that unappealing. Also: traditional methods of advertising (say renting a billboard) are just as expensive, if not more.
It’s a captive audience which you can directly target for retention. In 3 months when they go to buy another plane ticket they’ll remember the catchy funny video and associate that airline with positive feelings when making a choice.
> Why do you think airlines spend so much money on these safety videos when they're almost exclusively shown to people who are already customers of the airline?
It reinforces the brand. Virgin gets to show it's sexy. ANA that it's fun but sophisticated. United that it has four neurons firing across the enterprise.
I have no special information, but some of these seem targeted at least partially to internal marketing and morale. For instance, I have seen what appear to be employees (probably union members) delivering a lot of these lines.
I would expect it's at least slightly better for morale, recruiting, and retention. I also expect that executives and middle managers move to use these as an opportunity to reinforce corporate values, whatever that means to them.
Good point, yes - the director of the United video (Karim Zariffa) told me that during the shoot the employees were highly invested (they didn’t want to make a mistake on camera) and the whole shoot likely helped boost employee morale.
I truly wonder if there is a phenomenon where companies turning everything into an advertisment eventually backfires due to the pure saturation. It must dilute the effectiveness of ad spend and videos like this. I as a consumer on a commercial flight now expect my display to be full of junk like credit card ads before the flight gets underway so I try to tune it out.
I also wonder if the flight attendants in aisles physically demonstrating and making eye contact with passengers has something of an effect of guilting you into paying attention. There's no guilt in ignoring a screen talking at you in an obnoxious way.
Probably my biggest dislike about these safety videos is when they demonstrate safety features with fake props and "clever" representations of aircraft. If they are going to use visual aids they should try to match your environment so that you know what to look for in a real emergency.
My second biggest dislike about these videos is the cognitive overload. Sure, there's an argument that something catchy will help grab your attention so that you aren't just tuning out the safety information, but on the other hand so many of these videos turn into an incredibly high-stimulation affair. There's more of a focus on jokes and visual gags that it's hard to stay focused on the actual safety instructions on offer.
> flight attendants in aisles physically demonstrating and making eye contact with passengers has something of an effect of guilting you into paying attention.
I certainly felt that guilt the one time years ago I was the only passenger on a 737 on what was effectively a dead leg from ORD to ROC. The flight attendent just came right up to my seat and did the demo staring straight at me. It was very uncomfortable. After she did it though, she was very nice, and told me she wouldn't bother coming through the cabin but that she'd be right up front if I needed anything.
I've been flying Southwest exclusively for about 25 years, save for one international expedition. Their cheeky attitude and the good-natured humor of the flight crew has always pleased me, because flying is so serious and stressful for many of us, that a light-hearted safety briefing really brightens our day and unclenches our butt-cheeks. And they have never forced me to endure a video (unlike churches around here!)
Art was imitating life when SNL dropped this extremely over-the-top parody of a live-action safety briefing, showcasing talents of Luke Null and the seasoned veteran Will Ferrell: https://youtu.be/Ji0TgBy085U?si=3ZHQk9p6wWZB4Oja
Frequent travelers should have the option of replacing the video with a quiz that asks you questions about various aspects of airline safety, and corrects you on any wrong answers. That would boost retention, and give you a chance to see if you're actually mastering important safety information.
They straight up have a "weapons display" showcase of things you shouldn't bring, as if you were looking at a scene where john wick would choose his weapons.
> My 55-minute flight from Geneva to Zurich didn't land on its first attempt.
I know this is not the point of the article but why would you take a flight from Geneva to Zurich? It's less than 3h by train, which if you count the time it takes to get to Geneva airport and go through security, probably becomes a much smaller difference.
Airlines need to offer this as a single ticket option. (They might, I don’t know). Because the average traveller or the business traveller isn’t going to coordinate and book two systems, and the headache associated with one being delayed.
Lufthansa does in Germany. They've cut their flights from a lot of the regional airports to Munich and Frankfurt (I think the government made them if ground transport time is lower than a certain amount), and replaced the former mostly with shuttle buses (Munich airport is not on a major rail line) and the latter with "AiRail" (Frankfurt is, and it's a high speed line) which makes regional hub train stations look like airports to the booking systems.
An obscure, youthful film director known as John Waters filmed a notorious "No Smoking" PSA to be shown in theaters. And show it they did, before Rocky Horror, and before his film festivals, thereby eliciting gales of laughter from the LGBTs, club kids, goths, and straights alike.
In the mid-90s, I attended a live lecture by John Waters at a San Diego university campus, and smoke he did, in a non-smoking building on a tobacco-restricted campus, and he took approximately 2 drags while the thing turned into a long cylinder of ash.
It's been really difficult, and somewhat undesirable, for airlines and other places to eliminate smoking. Especially when there's literally nowhere to take refuge whilst in the air on a long flight.
I've also been incarcerated in mental hospitals where smoking was practically encouraged/required. We would all go "take a break" in an enclosed courtyard, and if you didn't smoke, you definitely got it second-hand, up close and personal.
Although nicotine is generally a stimulant, it's also a laxative and people who can't smoke become extremely anxious and agitated. I suspect that commercial flights today have escalating discipline problems with passengers who become extremely unruly just from hunger or jonesing for nicotine. Flight crews should dole out complimentary transdermals.
So it is generally considered best for psychiatry to allow smokers to smoke, keeping the peace wherever possible. Although the last place in 2023 insisted on providing specially-formulated "House Cigarettes", so psychiatry may also have taken control of cigarette manufacturing to some degree.
I find all of this incredibly dumb and wasteful. Arms races always are.
But I still remember most of the lyrics to the Virgin America safety video, and seeing it on flights made me smile (and pay attention). Man, I miss that airline. Alaska, predictably, made it boring and mediocre.
They are a good opportunity - now that everyone is seated - to stick your head up and verify the locations of the nearest emergency exits. And maybe other people will take notice and do likewise.
I recently travelled on Ethiopian Airlines, whose safety video is a good mix between the 90s and someone's nephew who know how to edit videos.
It very literally showed everything talked about happening inside an actual airplane. Masks actually deploying and dropping from the ceiling and people putting them on, etc.
What was interesting for me was, it was the first time I saw _where_ under the seat the life jacket is and it made me realize that despite having watched 100s of these videos I actually never knew how to get the life jacket.
My favorite airline safety video of all time is ANA's "Kabuki", which (IMHO) strikes the right elements of being clear, informative, gorgeous, absurd and showcasing Japan all at the same time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2IZP5NhaKM
They used to have a really good "behind the scenes" video for it as well, but I can only find this shortened version on online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCJRyHuXo4
Wow, I can't believe I actually appreciate the direction and overall production value of an airline safety video.
Probably serves its function better for it too! I can't imagine nearly as many people would tune it out or just feign attention, but it's not totally sacrificing the focus on what matters.
Found it! Completely wordless, but the sheer attention to detail shown is again very Japanese.
https://youtu.be/7dGnN75oQes?feature=shared
In the United video, in many scenes, the more interesting thing is the Rube Goldberg machine distraction, not the actual safety information they're supposed to be conveying.
They even do split-screen to add in distraction, when they're trying to show something visually in the less-interesting window. (Worst lesson ever mis-learned from TikTok.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jep3RR2yEXA
Did they consciously decide that most people have heard the instructions many times, and the best the airline can hope for is that passengers pause and look up from their personal devices, and maybe subconsciously reactivate those neurons even the slightest bit... as better than nothing?
Or did the creatives simply get carried away, and no one reined them in?
Wow, that video is way over the top. It's almost creepy that, as the in-video flight attendant is explaining the safety of the seat buckle, the camera is actively panning away from her to focus on the motion of the ball
I've sat through numerous Air New Zealand safety videos over the years and whilst every now and then they hit the spot most of the time they're lame and overly long.
It also seems like a waste of money that presumably finds it way onto ticket prices.
Yeah, I've seen my share of those.
I sort of assumed that Air NZ started this trend because of all the hype surrounding the first ones. There's an article covering the history of these here: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/374709/feature-a-bri... (they claim the first was in 2009, so a couple of years after the earliest one mentioned in tfa).
I find them downright annoying now. The cringe factor makes them uncomfortable to watch which is not what you want from a safety video. It feels as though they jumped the shark.
The article seems to imply that it's not a waste of money which is why it's expanded in use, especially with having partners like tourism agencies chip in.
But the article goes on to say that while it succeeds at being a novel spot for new media partnerships, it ( the style presentation ) performs more poorly at communicating the safety message
In my recent experience, KLM and Swiss are the best - no actors, completely animated and informative. While delta and united were the most cringe - weird actors and special effects and why is she smiling 100% of the time during an emergency?
KLM still does the painted tiles animation, right?
As far as I can tell, they use real crew to present the concept, so maybe that doesn't as any actors, but it is definitely not completely animated.
I have not seen KLM or Swiss, but I'm a fan of Cathay Pacific's video for the same reason. Extremely clear, animated video shows you just what you need to know.
Wonder how much of the increase in quality of the safety video is due to the introduction of COS21.
Here is a making of video from the KLM safety video:
https://youtu.be/blybdzAUG9c
>but I'm a fan of Cathay Pacific's video for the same reason. Extremely clear, animated video shows you just what you need to know.
They have the exotic settings that the article mentions, though.
> why is she smiling 100% of the time during an emergency?
I always assumed this was one of those American cultural things, akin to how waiters in the US always are super cheery and excited to serve you. (In an obviously artificial way)
Would you rather they show utter chaos and panic during a emergency situation?
The interesting thing is, in a real emergency something often clicks, and people become more focused and organized than otherwise. The 2009 Hudson ditching is a celebrated example, but there were numerous others over the years. (More recently, the upside-down crash landing at Toronto.) IMO the key is to have well-trained and authoritative cabin crew, but any knowledge of emergency procedures also helps, and that's where safety videos come into play.
The author of the article is a bit of a jittery flier (a go-around was their come-to-Jesus moment? come on), but fine, whatever makes people pay attention to basic safety information. It doesn't need to be much: know where the emergency exits are, how to open them if necessary, and don't take your cabin luggage, and you'll already be ahead of most.
My favorite one isn't listed in the article, it's this one of Virgin America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1A5BtqsaPM
Seriously, a flight safety video has absolutely no right to be this catchy :D
I used to fly Virgin America twice a week. That song would get stuck in my head every time I checked in. I still can sing most of it.
"In the unlikely event we need to get you outside, these exits come equipped with an inflatable slide..."
I've only flown Virgin America once. In 2014. Yet here I am in 2025 posting about it on HN. The selectiveness of my memories is weird.
This is the one I remember the best, and it’s been years since I’ve seen it. Put something in a catchy song and my brain will remember it… this is how I learned like 50-some odd digits of Pi[0]
[0] https://youtu.be/eDiSYp_51iY
Same here, it was one that captured the vibe of the Virgin America perfectly and the only one I actually recall watching. It was directed by Jon M Chu, who subsequently directed Crazy Rich Asians, In The Heights, Wicked, and more.
Yes! I loved that one! I was singing it afterward. ("Thank you for your attention, this robot rap is over")
I'm impressed that they were able to slip in a jab about the ridiculousness of having to tell you how to buckle a seatbelt.
Perfectly said. This one was a banger.
I searched for it in the article's list of videos with greater than 1M views but the author failed to capture it.
This immediately played in my head when I read the headline.
All I an say in this section is I was most intrigued when I was travelling across Europe on a long and complicated business journey. Turkish airlines (if I recall right, maroon uniforms) had a sign language video for both Turkish sign language and international sign language. I felt so elated and welcome at that moment. I felt at home. Somebody cared for people like me. I have not come across anybody else who has done the same job.
So what I have to say, yes, the measure of the effort what pretty much sums to entertainment and pseudo-psychology, speaks to the consumer masses who are worried when they jump on a plane filled with other 150~ish strangers.
Hey I’m the author of the article! Happy to answer any questions :)
Would it be legal for airlines to replace the video with a quiz, for those passengers who opt in? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43608141
I don't think the current video format is very good for retention. Putting it in the form of a quiz could help frequent travelers actually memorize the information over time, which could in turn save lives.
https://www.retrievalpractice.org/
I don’t know whether it would be legal, but I 100% agree with your suggestion - a more active form of learning would be more effective. Professor Molesworth (the expert I interviewed for the article) actually suggested that airlines should make passengers count how many seats away from the emergency exit they’re sitting - again, making that a more active process.
There’s also the argument that to improve retention, the regulatory body should decrease the amount of “key safety messages” that need to be included in the videos (which ends up being around 35-45). If you decrease that number, retention of the info you do mention should go up.
Why do you think airlines spend so much money on these safety videos when they're almost exclusively shown to people who are already customers of the airline? The 2m YouTube example you gave is great, but 1. that's probably an exception to most safety videos and 2. the vast majority of safety video views are probably uninterested folks in cramped seats with earphones in. Do you think that's the best use of marketing dollars? What about making the actual product (flight experience) better?
Good question. I asked myself the same thing. Since airlines are mandated to produce a safety video regardless, the ROI they really have to assess is against that incremental spend on making the video cinematic/entertaining. And if you factor in that potential to go viral and get good PR from it, as well as the fact that they can produce a video once and reuse possibly for X years, the incremental investment doesn’t sound that unappealing. Also: traditional methods of advertising (say renting a billboard) are just as expensive, if not more.
It’s a captive audience which you can directly target for retention. In 3 months when they go to buy another plane ticket they’ll remember the catchy funny video and associate that airline with positive feelings when making a choice.
> Why do you think airlines spend so much money on these safety videos when they're almost exclusively shown to people who are already customers of the airline?
It reinforces the brand. Virgin gets to show it's sexy. ANA that it's fun but sophisticated. United that it has four neurons firing across the enterprise.
I have no special information, but some of these seem targeted at least partially to internal marketing and morale. For instance, I have seen what appear to be employees (probably union members) delivering a lot of these lines.
I would expect it's at least slightly better for morale, recruiting, and retention. I also expect that executives and middle managers move to use these as an opportunity to reinforce corporate values, whatever that means to them.
Good point, yes - the director of the United video (Karim Zariffa) told me that during the shoot the employees were highly invested (they didn’t want to make a mistake on camera) and the whole shoot likely helped boost employee morale.
How did you make the plots? Given the audience (general public) I find the cloudy backgrounds and superimposed images quite engaging.
Thanks! So the plots were designed by one of my editors Zachary Crockett (https://x.com/zzcrockett?lang=en) - I think he uses Photoshop :)
I truly wonder if there is a phenomenon where companies turning everything into an advertisment eventually backfires due to the pure saturation. It must dilute the effectiveness of ad spend and videos like this. I as a consumer on a commercial flight now expect my display to be full of junk like credit card ads before the flight gets underway so I try to tune it out.
I also wonder if the flight attendants in aisles physically demonstrating and making eye contact with passengers has something of an effect of guilting you into paying attention. There's no guilt in ignoring a screen talking at you in an obnoxious way.
Probably my biggest dislike about these safety videos is when they demonstrate safety features with fake props and "clever" representations of aircraft. If they are going to use visual aids they should try to match your environment so that you know what to look for in a real emergency.
My second biggest dislike about these videos is the cognitive overload. Sure, there's an argument that something catchy will help grab your attention so that you aren't just tuning out the safety information, but on the other hand so many of these videos turn into an incredibly high-stimulation affair. There's more of a focus on jokes and visual gags that it's hard to stay focused on the actual safety instructions on offer.
> flight attendants in aisles physically demonstrating and making eye contact with passengers has something of an effect of guilting you into paying attention.
I certainly felt that guilt the one time years ago I was the only passenger on a 737 on what was effectively a dead leg from ORD to ROC. The flight attendent just came right up to my seat and did the demo staring straight at me. It was very uncomfortable. After she did it though, she was very nice, and told me she wouldn't bother coming through the cabin but that she'd be right up front if I needed anything.
I literally don't understand what you are having issues with on these videos. How do you get cognitive overload on tasks designed for a child?
I've been flying Southwest exclusively for about 25 years, save for one international expedition. Their cheeky attitude and the good-natured humor of the flight crew has always pleased me, because flying is so serious and stressful for many of us, that a light-hearted safety briefing really brightens our day and unclenches our butt-cheeks. And they have never forced me to endure a video (unlike churches around here!)
Art was imitating life when SNL dropped this extremely over-the-top parody of a live-action safety briefing, showcasing talents of Luke Null and the seasoned veteran Will Ferrell: https://youtu.be/Ji0TgBy085U?si=3ZHQk9p6wWZB4Oja
Frequent travelers should have the option of replacing the video with a quiz that asks you questions about various aspects of airline safety, and corrects you on any wrong answers. That would boost retention, and give you a chance to see if you're actually mastering important safety information.
I sincerely believe these “cute” style airline safety videos need to be regulated away.
Spending so much on production and the content is actively distracting you from the core message… just totally lost the plot.
I flew Eva air in 2024, and I must say that their "spy thriller" flight safety video really had me hooked. https://youtu.be/kQCtR9K8XT8?si=Fo6yATgH457Pa16b&t=52
They straight up have a "weapons display" showcase of things you shouldn't bring, as if you were looking at a scene where john wick would choose his weapons.
> My 55-minute flight from Geneva to Zurich didn't land on its first attempt.
I know this is not the point of the article but why would you take a flight from Geneva to Zurich? It's less than 3h by train, which if you count the time it takes to get to Geneva airport and go through security, probably becomes a much smaller difference.
And for that, you're emitting ~100kg of CO2 [1]
[1]: https://curb6.com/footprint/flights/geneva-gva/zurich-zrh
As the article says, they were on their way to SFO, and you can't fly there (or most any long-haul destinations) from Geneva.
Right, and GP suggested a better way to accomplish that would be to take a train from Geneva to Zurich, and then fly from Zurich to SFO.
I've actually done that exact route once, and the train experience was much nicer, and took about the same amount of overall time.
Don't ask me why, but airlines will often use nonsensical pricing where the total trip price with one stop can be cheaper than flying directly
That's exactly my point! Take the train to Zurich, then fly out of there and you'll get both a better experience and emit less carbon
Airlines need to offer this as a single ticket option. (They might, I don’t know). Because the average traveller or the business traveller isn’t going to coordinate and book two systems, and the headache associated with one being delayed.
Lufthansa does in Germany. They've cut their flights from a lot of the regional airports to Munich and Frankfurt (I think the government made them if ground transport time is lower than a certain amount), and replaced the former mostly with shuttle buses (Munich airport is not on a major rail line) and the latter with "AiRail" (Frankfurt is, and it's a high speed line) which makes regional hub train stations look like airports to the booking systems.
Smoking, is shakes finger not allowed on any Delta flight.
That was always my favorite one.
An obscure, youthful film director known as John Waters filmed a notorious "No Smoking" PSA to be shown in theaters. And show it they did, before Rocky Horror, and before his film festivals, thereby eliciting gales of laughter from the LGBTs, club kids, goths, and straights alike.
https://youtu.be/-VzSiilYSKs?si=dC_e9NTeiCFz74eN
In the mid-90s, I attended a live lecture by John Waters at a San Diego university campus, and smoke he did, in a non-smoking building on a tobacco-restricted campus, and he took approximately 2 drags while the thing turned into a long cylinder of ash.
It's been really difficult, and somewhat undesirable, for airlines and other places to eliminate smoking. Especially when there's literally nowhere to take refuge whilst in the air on a long flight.
I've also been incarcerated in mental hospitals where smoking was practically encouraged/required. We would all go "take a break" in an enclosed courtyard, and if you didn't smoke, you definitely got it second-hand, up close and personal.
Although nicotine is generally a stimulant, it's also a laxative and people who can't smoke become extremely anxious and agitated. I suspect that commercial flights today have escalating discipline problems with passengers who become extremely unruly just from hunger or jonesing for nicotine. Flight crews should dole out complimentary transdermals.
So it is generally considered best for psychiatry to allow smokers to smoke, keeping the peace wherever possible. Although the last place in 2023 insisted on providing specially-formulated "House Cigarettes", so psychiatry may also have taken control of cigarette manufacturing to some degree.
She (Deltalina, née Katherine Hinton [0]) makes a little cameo in the current iteration, celebrating 100 years of that airline’s service:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mnOLUnExHvw&t=1m42s
[0] https://viewfromthewing.com/delta-rarely-interacts-with-cust...
Deltalina will be hard to beat as a safety mascot any time soon!
That was a charming series of videos.
I find all of this incredibly dumb and wasteful. Arms races always are.
But I still remember most of the lyrics to the Virgin America safety video, and seeing it on flights made me smile (and pay attention). Man, I miss that airline. Alaska, predictably, made it boring and mediocre.
I loved the purple/pink mood lighting when boarding. Their safety video was legit great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1A5BtqsaPM
As a private pilot, I always carefully watch the safety videos on the off-chance they’ll help me avoid dying.
They are a good opportunity - now that everyone is seated - to stick your head up and verify the locations of the nearest emergency exits. And maybe other people will take notice and do likewise.
I definitely noticed this when I travelled with Malaysia Airlines recently - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IRkYV1IxmDs
Huh, I imagined this was because of relaxing regulation.