There was an article in the New York Times the other day about some airlines telling people that it’s an FAA regulation that no personal articles can be stored in airline seatback pockets.
The article quotes a “51-page 2007 F.A.A. directive on cabin safety” which says the following (emphasis mine):
C. Proper stowage of carry-on baggage is a major safety issue. Many FAA inspectors and air carrier crewmembers have asked for a definition of proper stowage of baggage. AC 121-29A asks the airlines to include in their carry-on baggage programs, a definition of properly stowed. Ensuring that baggage does not interfere with emergency equipment is an important part of the information about proper stowage. In addition, nothing can be stowed in the seat pockets except magazines and passenger information cards. It is not a good safety practice to stow meals, either brought onto the airplane by passengers or served by the air carrier, in seat back pockets. The FAA considers meals carried on by passengers to be carry-on baggage. Even though meals may be exempt by the air carrier from the number of bags permitted, they still must be stowed in accordance with the regulations pertaining to carry-on baggage. Nothing may be stowed in the lavatories, unless lavatories meet all the requirements for approved cargo stowage areas.
That document is FAA Order 8900.1, “Flight Information Standards Information System (FSIMS),” Volume 3, Chapter 33, entitled “Cabin Safety and Flight Attendant Management.”
The first thing that comes to mind is that it’s not a Federal Aviation Regulation. So an airline isn’t being totally honest in saying “Federal Regulations” require that no personal items be stowed in the seat pocket.
It also quotes an out-of-date Advisory Circular. AC 121-29A was superseded in on 24 July, 2000, by AC 121-29B. (And neither of them even mention seat pockets anyway. Neither does FAR 121.589, which is the Federal Aviation Regulation that specifically addresses carry-on baggage.)
The reason FAA Order 8900.1 quotes that out-of-date AC is because it’s not the first FAA document to contain that paragraph. FAA Order 8400.10, the “Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin for Air Transportation (HBAT)” entitled “Air Carrier Carry-On Baggage Programs” said it in 1998:
C. Proper stowage of carry-on baggage is a major safety issue. Many FAA inspectors and air carrier crewmembers have asked for a definition of proper stowage of baggage. AC 121-29A asks the airlines to include in their carry-on baggage programs, a definition of properly stowed. Ensuring that baggage does not interfere with emergency equipment is an important part of the information about proper stowage. In addition, nothing can be stowed in the seat pockets except magazines and passenger information cards. It is not a good safety practice to stow meals, either brought onto the airplane by passengers or served by the air carrier, in seat back pockets. The FAA considers meals carried on by passengers to be carry-on baggage. Even though meals may be exempt by the air carrier from the number of bags permitted, they still must be stowed in accordance with the regulations pertaining to carry-on baggage. Nothing may be stowed in the lavatories, unless lavatories meet all the requirements for approved cargo stowage areas.
So actually, it’s been a so-called “regulation” since 1998 that nothing can be in the seatback pockets except magazines and passenger information cards. Nothing.
Not even barf bags.
Putting aside the fact that it’s not part of the FARs, the airlines have completely ignored it for eleven years. So why is it suddenly so all-fired urgent that they enforce it now?
The NYTimes article mentioned a couple of possibilities:
Some airline executives, who did not want to be named because they were speculating, said that two recent phenomena might be behind any airline’s decision to enforce such a ban, with F.A.A. approval. One is that new fees on checked bags have created more carryon volume, and some passengers may be overloading seatback pockets — though they said they had not considered this to be a problem.
The other is that airplanes are landing and being turned around for the next flight on tighter schedules. Forbidding passengers to use seatback pockets “saves time for the cleaning crew,” one said.
I have a feeling it’s both.
But what I want to know is why they’re not enforcing the entire “regulation.” Specifically, why are they still putting barf bags in those seat pockets? They’re not allowed. Read the “regulation.” Only magazines and passenger information cards. No barf bags.
Sure, it’s a little nit-picky of me to point this out. And where else are the bags going to be stowed so they can be easily accessed when needed, etc.
But my point is that their sudden selective enforcement of only the element from an 11-year-old document that inconveniences their passengers, while blatantly ignoring the bit that would be inconvenient & costly to the airlines themselves, speaks volumes about the way these airlines regard their passengers.
So, airlines, what are you playing at? If you’re going to enforce a “regulation” so ludicrous, how come you’re not enforcing it completely?
Or would that be too inconvenient for you?
Ah, welcome to the world you’ve made for your passengers, then.
Hi,
Excellent reporting. It is very useful for people to have those links. The operative FAA language, incidentally, is sloppily worded, in that it addresses “magazines and passenger information cards,” which would seem to say you can put your own magazine(s) in there, but not your reading glasses. The order SkyWest says it got specified that only “company-produced materials” could be in there, and the barf bag is company produced. (!) So we’re in Absurdland here. Of course, we’ve been there before with the TSA’s fluid prohibitted items list. Thanks- JS
Bigger, longer, better bridges! That’s what this world needs. And a good 10 cent dime.
You are kinder than I am. I think it’s entirely the turn/around cleaning thing.
Thank you for these helpful links. It’s totally the turnaround thing.
As a flight attendant I can tell you what this is about. First there is a safety issue. During take off and landing you can get involved in wake turbulence. This is severe turbulence that I have been involved in before. In that situation, items placed in seatback pockets can and do come flying out, hitting other passengers in the head. The next issues is that the pockets were not designed to hold any weight. Many use velcro to attach them to the seat. Cramming items in the seatback pocket stretches them out and destroys them, as they were not designed for this purpose. If that happens then no passenger may sit in that seat until it is repaired, as the FAA requires the safety information card to be placed in the seatback pocket for every passenger seat. So, imagine it is a full flight, and a seatback pocket has now given away to the abuse of having items shoved into it over many flights…that means one passenger will not be going and that seat will remain empty. That passenger could be you on your next flight. So have a little respect for this rule, folks.
Jeff, thanks for your comments. If it’s that much of a safety issue, however, then it should have been strictly enforced on every flight on every carrier from 1998 onward, when 8400.10 was first issued. The fact that it was not, and still is not uniformly enforced, speaks volumes.