Why are airline seatbelts lap-belt only?

[FlyingRamenMonster]

I've wondered for a while now. What is the reasoning behind this decision? Wouldn't a shoulder belt *and* lap belt be safer? Or do planes fly so fast the shoulder belt would end up cutting through one's torso in the event of a crash, or something equally nasty? Is the suddenly deceleration brought on by smacking into your seatbelt worse than the sudden deceleration from smacking into the seat in front of you?

[Cisco]

#1 - If they were shoulder-belts, no one would wear them, which would defeat their purpose because...

#2 - Airplane seatbelts aren't really intended to do much in the event of a crash. They're mainly to keep your butt planted in the chair in the case of rough turbulence (which is *much* more unpredictable and likely to occur than a crash.) If the plane goes down, what good is being strapped to it going to do you, and how would a shoulder-strap change any of that?

Originally Posted by csharpmajor

Is the suddenly deceleration brought on by smacking into your seatbelt worse than the sudden deceleration from smacking into the seat in front of you?

You're thinking in car terms. Are you expecting to rear-end the plane in front of you or something?

[Cerowyn]

Originally Posted by Cisco

You're thinking in car terms. Are you expecting to rear-end the plane in front of you or something?

Well, it's true that airplane crashes most often involve the plane travelling forward, and therefore one of the largest magnitude vectors of [negative] acceleration is forward for the passenger. Of course, "forward" might also be straight down...

[The Flying Dutchman]

Airline crashes normally come with some warning to give the occupant time to assume the bent over forward position which minimizes the kinetic energy release of the vulnerable head wrt to the immediate surroundings . A shoulder harness would prevent someone from assuming this position.

I would also venture to say that a downward impact on a vertical spinal column would do more damage than if the spinal column was horizontal.

[fortytwo]

Perhaps I shouldn't tell you this but those guys up in the flight deck have the full monty- lap and shoulder straps. So obviously it would be safer, but lap belts are a compromise between safety and worrying the passenger to death about a possible crash. Probably a better idea would be to have the seats facing rearwards, then in the case of a rapid deceleration you would be pushed into the seat back.
All this supposes that the seats stay attached to the seat rails of course which is quite important too.

[Shalmanese]

The "brace" position is much more efficient at keeping you alive than a shoulder belt. Also, it's much easier to escape from wreckage with only a lap belt since you can't get it tangled around your arms.

[Mk VII]

military airliners here - VC10s, don't know what they use now - did have the seats facing rearwards, but their passengers are under orders, and have to take what they are given. Commercial passengers don't like it, and would desert the airline for someone else.
I once travelled in a cab from Edinburgh to Connell Ferry sitting in the rear-facing seats, and got sick as a dog. Once I was in the front-facing seats I was alright.

[Jman]

Like Shalmanese says, the brace position is safer, plus the added safety of being able to easily get out of your belt if you somehow survive the crash. (In most situations, if you die in the crash, it isn't because the seatbelt didn't do it's job). The pilots have shoulder harnesses because they have to fly the plane when coming in hard, and can't assume the 'crash' position, and if they are trying to land in a field, clipping trees might cause them to fly forward, but they still need to be able to do last second ditch efforts, and not be flung head first into the instrument panel.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by Jman

Like Shalmanese says, the brace position is safer, plus the added safety of being able to easily get out of your belt if you somehow survive the crash.

The "brace position" works only in first class and business. For people seated in economy--where sardine compression is the norm--the brace position is impossible to achieve, unless you're Tom Thumb's little brother.

In economy, you're basically pressing your forehead against a flat-panel television monitor, which isn't the best surface.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Shalmanese

The "brace" position is much more efficient at keeping you alive than a shoulder belt.

And what do you base this on?

The brace position, among other things, allows your limbs to flail around, which frequenlty results in broken bones. About the only thing it really does is keep your torso from snapping forwards and causing internal injuries by pre-folding your body.

Also, it's much easier to escape from wreckage with only a lap belt since you can't get it tangled around your arms.

I fly regularly with a four-point harness. I can't recall ever "getting tangled" in it. They are designed so that as soon as you pull the latch the shoulder straps automatically detach from the lap belt and fall free. No fumbling required.

(Which is a good thing, since the arrangement on the airplane I've been flying this summer is supposed to allow you to unbelt and squeeze out the door while burdened with a parachute, all before the airplane wreckage hits the ground. Me, I'm trying hard to not require actual testing of this feature)

Safest seating/belt arrangement would be facing towards the rear with a full four or even five point harness. The general public, however, will not stand for that. My friends among cabin attendants tell me it's hard enough just to get the average tourist to sit down and use a lap belt. A safety ssytem is useless if you can't get people to use it, so the lap-belt-only is a compromise.

[Balthisar]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

The "brace position" works only in first class and business. For people seated in economy--where sardine compression is the norm--the brace position is impossible to achieve, unless you're Tom Thumb's little brother.

And emergency exit rows. Now I'm curious -- whenever I ask for the emergency exit row, do the airline employees understand that at 6'2" those seats are just more comfortable, or are they thinking that I'm a paranoid dork? Or probably not thinking about it at all...

[fortytwo]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

And emergency exit rows. Now I'm curious -- whenever I ask for the emergency exit row, do the airline employees understand that at 6'2" those seats are just more comfortable, or are they thinking that I'm a paranoid dork? Or probably not thinking about it at all...

They do like to have someone fairly able bodied in those seats for obvious reasons.

[racer72]

The reason there are no shoulder harnesses is there is no place to attach them. The seat backs of all airplane seat are designed with what is call a breakover point. This is the amount of force required for the seat back to fold forward. During a crash if you are thrown forward, the back of the seat in front of you will give, hopefully cushioning the impact. To install shoulder belts, the seat back would have to be rigid or additional structure would have to be installed. Both would add weight to an airplane. That would mean fewer passengers and cargo. During the assembly process of the 737, we occasionally breakover a seat back, a quick call to the vendor and they come out and fix the seat for us.

[slaphead]

Personally, I think that safety is not a very important consideration when it comes to laying out the interior of the cabin. Most of the safety features are geared around making sure the plane doesn't crash, and that it stays together if it does.

The seatbelts are cosmetic at best, and the emergency exits are a joke. I'm skinny and would struggle to get through an over-wing exit in a hurry. A larger person would get stuck like a cork in a bottle and prevent anyone behind them getting out. 4 or 5 seat wide blocks in economy would slow you down hugely.
Current arrangements are all about providing whatever safety is available without compromising the economics of the cabin.

As per broomstick and Mk VII, a really safe cabin would have rearward-facing seats with full harnesses. It would probably also have fewer seats further apart, more emergency exits, and those exits would be much wider than they are currently (more like the doors which are actually designed for people to get out of). Since passengers would hate it and airlines couldn't afford it, it's unlikely ever to appear.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

And emergency exit rows. Now I'm curious -- whenever I ask for the emergency exit row, do the airline employees understand that at 6'2" those seats are just more comfortable, or are they thinking that I'm a paranoid dork? Or probably not thinking about it at all...

I'd assume they do realize there's more leg room there. I know I've asked for bulkhead/exit row seats for my 6'4" husband (and I'm only 5'9" but I have the same inseam length that he does, so I appreciate them too), and have never gotten a quizzical look about why that would make a difference.

Originally Posted by Broomstick

The brace position, among other things, allows your limbs to flail around, which frequenlty results in broken bones.

Does the shoulder harness help one avoid this problem, somehow?

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted by slaphead

As per broomstick and Mk VII, a really safe cabin would have rearward-facing seats with full harnesses.

Re: the rearward facing seat idea. Apparently, one of the major airlines or aircraft manufacturers (I think it was Boeing, but my memory is not clear here) did a study about improving safety with rear-facing seats, but it seems they found that such an orientation proved unsatisfactory. I don't recall all the specifics, but the study demonstrated that passengers were disoriented by facing rearward and more easily confused in the event of an emergency; so, rearward-facing seats were abandoned.

[Q.E.D.]

Could find exactly what I was looking for (my recollection is from a Discovery Channel program about airline safety or somesuch), but I did find this excerpt from a UK Select Committee report concerning rearward-facing seats:

The Safety Regulation Group is unable to identify any further research which would be likely to yield new information about the safety benefits and dangers of rearward facing seats. The benefits, such as reduced head injuries for example; and the disbenefits, which include danger to the face from flying objects, and new seats with higher seat backs resulting in impediment to evacuation, are well known. On balance, a clear safety case for rearward-facing seats has not been made.

Nor is there international support for further research on rearward facing seats. An international cabin safety research technical group, comprising cabin safety specialists from the US, the JAA (including Civil Aviation Authority experts), Canada and Japan, were asked to prioritise cabin safety issues and did not identify rear-facing seats as a priority issue. This reinforces the Safety Regulation Groups judgement that passenger safety would better enhanced overall by pursuing options other than rearward facing seats. For example, there is a project, funded by the EC, to develop an aircraft seat with an integral three-point harness which is likely to produce more significant and readily achievable safety benefits, through reduced head injuries.

The Safety Regulation Group recognises that passenger reaction is difficult to gauge. The Trident aircraft had some rearward facing seats which were unpopular with passengers and subsequently removed. In order to test passenger reaction accurately, it would be necessary to let a sample of passengers experience a rear-facing seat in the operational environment. However, it is not clear that any operator would be willing to take the commercial risk inherent in participating in such a trial, especially as there are not overwhelming safety reasons for promoting one.

[Shalmanese]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

And what do you base this on?

The brace position, among other things, allows your limbs to flail around, which frequenlty results in broken bones. About the only thing it really does is keep your torso from snapping forwards and causing internal injuries by pre-folding your body.

I think it might have actually come from an article in one of the inflight magazine, admittedly, not the best of sources .

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

Does the shoulder harness help one avoid this problem, somehow?

Truthfully - no.

You could tuck your hands/arms into the shoulder straps, which could reduce the incidence of busted arms, but your legs will still have a tendency to swing forward and smash themselves on the seat in front of you, which is just one way you can get seriously injured in a crash.

Because the full harness spreads the deacceleration forces over more of your torso (because there is a greater area of strapping) you are less likely to be injured. Instead of the forces being concentrated on your pelvis or, worse yet, your soft underbelly if the belt rides up higher than it should (and that's where the internal injuries really start to happen) your ribcage, shoulders, and so forth take some of the force.

The brace position can also result in your whole upper body flopping around, which can lead to a head injury in economy seating all too easily. The full harness, however, keeps you further away from what's in front of you, which is usually a good thing. It may, however, also leave you more vulnerable to flying objects in the cabin.

Which brings up another point - allowing children under two to be held in a passenger's lap. This is stupid. There is no way a parent could continue to hold onto a child in a crash. The child stands a good chance of either being crushed between the parent and the seat in front of the parent, or becoming one of the flying objects loose in the cabin. But, again, people forced to buy a ticket/seat for the infant and also use and infant seat (pretty much what you'd use in a car) might elect not to fly at all and take to the road instead. Bizarrely enough, the odds of a child dying even while properly restrained in a car are significantly higher than expiring while sitting completely unrestrained in an airplane. So, statiscally the latter is safer than the former, although if you have the misfortune to be on a crashing plane your infant stands a much higher risk of death (almost certain) than you do. Such children are also more likely to be injured or killed in severe turbulence.

As for "where to attach the shoulder straps" - how about the ceiling? Some sort of rail system like what the seats are attached to?

But the public would never go for it.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

As for "where to attach the shoulder straps" - how about the ceiling? Some sort of rail system like what the seats are attached to?

But the public would never go for it.

The public would never go for it, and nor would anyone else. Can you imagine the amount od re-certification that would be needed? Every single seat type/seating configuration/aircraft type would need to be checked. Overhead luggae racks would have to be either eliminated or dratically re-designed (and re-certified). This would cost millions, take years and not yield a great benefit.

[Shagnasty]

I heard someone say once that it was because all the FAA and the airlines really care about is finding your wallet so they can identify you.

[fortytwo]

Originally Posted by Mk VII

military airliners here - VC10s, don't know what they use now - did have the seats facing rearwards, but their passengers are under orders, and have to take what they are given. Commercial passengers don't like it, and would desert the airline for someone else.
I once travelled in a cab from Edinburgh to Connell Ferry sitting in the rear-facing seats, and got sick as a dog. Once I was in the front-facing seats I was alright.

I've flown on one of those military VC10s on a test flight being put through its paces. I didn't have any nausea problems. I think the biggest problem would be overcoming passenger resistance to change as you say.
If the case for better protection hasn't been made (according to the above link) then it's not going to happen.
Perhaps using air bags might be a better idea.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Originally Posted by Vetch

Perhaps using air bags might be a better idea.

Same problem as with three point harnesses. You're going to lose the tray table. Yes, it could be replaced by one in the arm rest, but they cost $$

[RickJay]

If your 767 augers into a cornfield in Nebraska, folks, it doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot what kind of seatbelt you're wearing.

Cisco had it right; their main purpose is keeping you seated during turbulence.

[Xema]

There's also the point that the safety record of scheduled airlines is already pretty good using lap belts only, and the number of additional lives that shoulder belts would save is not obviously very high. Put another way, if there was a widespread public perception that many lives could be saved by adding shoulder belts, the resistance to them would doubtless be a lot less.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Truthfully - no.

Because the full harness spreads the deacceleration forces over more of your torso (because there is a greater area of strapping) you are less likely to be injured.

The full harness, however, keeps you further away from what's in front of you, which is usually a good thing. It may, however, also leave you more vulnerable to flying objects in the cabin.

The harness you're talking about may save lives in the crash of a Cessna at 120 mph, but will not save lives when a 767 spirals in at 450 mph.

[TJdude825]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Which brings up another point - allowing children under two to be held in a passenger's lap. This is stupid. There is no way a parent could continue to hold onto a child in a crash. The child stands a good chance of either being crushed between the parent and the seat in front of the parent, or becoming one of the flying objects loose in the cabin. But, again, people forced to buy a ticket/seat for the infant and also use and infant seat (pretty much what you'd use in a car) might elect not to fly at all and take to the road instead. Bizarrely enough, the odds of a child dying even while properly restrained in a car are significantly higher than expiring while sitting completely unrestrained in an airplane. So, statiscally the latter is safer than the former, although if you have the misfortune to be on a crashing plane your infant stands a much higher risk of death (almost certain) than you do. Such children are also more likely to be injured or killed in severe turbulence.

I don't think the parents are being completely illogical. There are plenty of other reasons for not wanting to fly with kids (it's expensive, it annoys the other passengers if the kid is too noisy, you can't stop and get a bite to eat whenever you want, the kid will get impatient, etc.) and comparing the odds of a car crash (close to zero) to the odds of a plane crash (very close to zero) is not going to sway the decision that much.

Perhaps more of them would fly, if they looked at the statistics. But even if they didn't, there would be some rationality to their choices.

[mks57]

Originally Posted by Mk VII

military airliners here - VC10s, don't know what they use now - did have the seats facing rearwards, but their passengers are under orders, and have to take what they are given. Commercial passengers don't like it, and would desert the airline for someone else.

When I've flown on USAF MAC (Military Airlift Command) C-141 flights, the seats always faced the rear of the aircraft. Nobody asked the passengers for their opinion. It didn't bother me.

[GusNSpot]

1964, MAT, DC-6, Piston engines, { C-118 or 121, I forget what they called it } rear facing seats, across the Pacific, 33½ hours, I stood up the whole way, I don't do backwards well.

( 3 fuel stops so I got to relax and a few hours they let me on the flight deck. )

C-124 Globemaster - sitting sideways ........ Lots of rivets, real loose formation......

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Tapioca Dextrin

The public would never go for it, and nor would anyone else. Can you imagine the amount od re-certification that would be needed? Every single seat type/seating configuration/aircraft type would need to be checked. Overhead luggae racks would have to be either eliminated or dratically re-designed (and re-certified). This would cost millions, take years and not yield a great benefit.

Yeah, actually I can imagine the recertification headache. It's still possible, just not probable

Airlines were quite happy (apparently) to get permission to mount little TV screens in seat backs (and that certainly took some paperwork) but then they thought they'd get a return from their investment.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

The harness you're talking about may save lives in the crash of a Cessna at 120 mph, but will not save lives when a 767 spirals in at 450 mph.

Couple points:

First of all, it is possible to get a small Cessna up near 275-300 mph prior to impact. Not advised, but it's possible, at which point no seatbelt is going to help you. However, that is NOT the typical "impact mode" of a small Cessna.

Which brings me to point number two. The purpose of that seatbelt is not to help you if the airplane flies into the side of a mountain at 500 mph because there's no way any seatbelt or harness is going to help you then. It's to aid survival in less extreme accidents, which, by the way, do occur. Such as that jet in Toronto that slid off a runway earlier this year. Or the Sioux City, Iowa crash where the airplane cartwheeled after touchdown - about 2/3 of the passengers survived and I think seatbelts might have been a factor in some cases there.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by TJdude825

I don't think the parents are being completely illogical. There are plenty of other reasons for not wanting to fly with kids (it's expensive, it annoys the other passengers if the kid is too noisy, you can't stop and get a bite to eat whenever you want, the kid will get impatient, etc.) and comparing the odds of a car crash (close to zero) to the odds of a plane crash (very close to zero) is not going to sway the decision that much.

Sorry if I wasn't entirely clear - the source of that "if we make parents by seats for infants they'll drive instead and a greater number of children will be hurt/killed that way" is a paraphrase of the reason the FAA decided not to require child seats on passenger airplanes. It did not factor in noise levels, food availability, impatience, or anything else, it was an "all else being equal" comparison. The FAA decision was made with an eye to increasing overall travel safety. Apparently, the reasoning is that in a car you put the kid in a special seat and restraints, and in an airplane you rely on not crashing.

[Broomstick]

Well, it figures - the weekend after this thread is started is the very first time I get attacked by an airplane seat belt! Thanks a lot, everyone!

And no, it wasn't a four-point harness, it was a stupid lap-and-shoulder belt what ambushed me.

[Imasquare]

Originally Posted by RickJay

If your 767 augers into a cornfield in Nebraska, folks, it doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot what kind of seatbelt you're wearing.

Cisco had it right; their main purpose is keeping you seated during turbulence.

It is possible to survive a catastrophic crash. One example is a Korean Airlines 747 that crashed in Guam in 1997. There were 26 survivors - I don't know if they were wearing their seatbelts or not.

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...rean+Air+Lines

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

And emergency exit rows. Now I'm curious -- whenever I ask for the emergency exit row, do the airline employees understand that at 6'2" those seats are just more comfortable, or are they thinking that I'm a paranoid dork? Or probably not thinking about it at all...

Originally Posted by Vetch

They do like to have someone fairly able bodied in those seats for obvious reasons.

Really. The last time I flew, the instructions for passengers in the emergency exit row went something like this:

Originally Posted by Preflight safety video, slightly paraphrased

See that emergency door next to you? If we crash, it's your responsibility to open it, Buddy. If you're a 90-year-old geezer or a quadrapalegic or something, then get your butt out of that seat and we'll switch you with someone else who can get the job done.

[slaphead]

Oh yes, and one last thing

Originally Posted by Balthisar

And emergency exit rows. Now I'm curious -- whenever I ask for the emergency exit row, do the airline employees understand that at 6'2" those seats are just more comfortable

Yes, they certainly do. Getting an exit row seat is the next best thing to being bumped up a class. Everybody wants those 'not quite as cramped as all the other people who paid the same price as me' seats and the airline employees have heard every reason that the collective ingeniuety of hundreds of thousands of travellers can concieve as to why exactly they should give them to a particular passenger. Which is why they tend to go on a first-come first-served basis...

[bizzwire]

Regardless of how securely you're strapped into the seat, how securely is the seat attached to the plane?

[fortytwo]

Originally Posted by slaphead

Which is why they tend to go on a first-come first-served basis...

If you had taken the trouble to read the post immediately before your post you would see one reason for your statement to be untrue.

Originally Posted by bizzwire

Regardless of how securely you're strapped into the seat, how securely is the seat attached to the plane?

The seats are attached to two rails which are bolted to the cabin floor. Because the seats have sometimes to be moved for different cofigurations it's possible on rare occasions for the seat by mistake not have been securely attached to the rail. I've seen that happen only once in many years.

[slaphead]

Originally Posted by Vetch

If you had taken the trouble to read the post immediately before your post you would see one reason for your statement to be untrue.

And if you had taken the trouble to read the text you quoted you would have seen I used the qualifier 'tend'. Is this word new to you? I sometimes use it to indicate a general situation which may or may not be true depending on circumstances, but generally is.

"Emergency exit seats are usually allocated on a first-come first-served basis, unless the airline staff have someone they wish to give preference to (such as a high-mileage frequent flier, someone who is unusually tall and would find the normal seats a challenge, someone who has been particularly nice to them) and provided the passenger meets the physical and legal requirements required to occupy the seat (viz. to be an adult and able-bodied to such an extent they would have no more difficulty opening the door than an average person)." That sufficiently prolix for you?

I'm not normally this crabby, but had a bout of insommnia last night. I need a hug and 10 hours sleep.

[fortytwo]

Originally Posted by slaphead

And if you had taken the trouble to read the text you quoted you would have seen I used the qualifier 'tend'. Is this word new to you? I sometimes use it to indicate a general situation which may or may not be true depending on circumstances, but generally is.

"Emergency exit seats are usually allocated on a first-come first-served basis, unless the airline staff have someone they wish to give preference to (such as a high-mileage frequent flier, someone who is unusually tall and would find the normal seats a challenge, someone who has been particularly nice to them) and provided the passenger meets the physical and legal requirements required to occupy the seat (viz. to be an adult and able-bodied to such an extent they would have no more difficulty opening the door than an average person)." That sufficiently prolix for you?

I'm not normally this crabby, but had a bout of insommnia last night. I need a hug and 10 hours sleep.

It's nothing to do with what airlines "tend" to do, there are regulations about passengers and safety exits.
For example:

(b) No certificate holder may seat a person in a seat affected by this section if the certificate holder determines that it is likely that the person would be unable to perform one or more of the applicable functions listed in paragraph (d) of this section because --

(1) The person lacks sufficient mobility, strength, or dexterity in both arms and hands, and both legs:

(i) To reach upward, sideways, and downward to the location of emergency exit and exit-slide operating mechanisms;

(ii) To grasp and push, pull, turn, or otherwise manipulate those mechanisms;

(iii) To push, shove, pull, or otherwise open emergency exits;

(iv) To lift out, hold, deposit on nearby seats, or maneuver over the seatbacks to the next row objects the size and weight of over-wing window exit doors;

(v) To remove obstructions similar in size and weight to over-wing exit doors;

(vi) To reach the emergency exit expeditiously;

(vii) To maintain balance while removing obstructions;

(viii) To exit expeditiously;

(ix) To stabilize an escape slide after deployment; or

(x) To assist others in getting off an escape slide;

(2) The person is less than 15 years of age or lacks the capacity to perform one or more of the applicable functions listed in paragraph (d) of this section without the assistance of an adult companion, parent, or other relative;

(3) The person lacks the ability to read and understand instructions required by this section and related to emergency evacuation provided by the certificate holder in printed or graphic form or the ability to understand oral crew commands.

(4) The person lacks sufficient visual capacity to perform one or more of the applicable functions in paragraph (d) of this section without the assistance of visual aids beyond contact lenses or eyeglasses;

(5) The person lacks sufficient aural capacity to hear and understand instructions shouted by flight attendants, without assistance beyond a hearing aid;

(6) The person lacks the ability adequately to impart information orally to other passengers; or,

You can find the rest of the regulations via the link

Federal Aviation Regulations

[Anaamika]

I don't think I could do rear-facing seats. Granted, I haven't been in a rear-facing airplane so I can't say for sure, but I do know that the only roller-coaster I ever got sick on was a rear-facing one, and it made me miserably sick. It actually frightened me.

I'd prefer not to, really.

[Balthisar]

Vetch, while you're legally correct, just about everyone that flies meets all of those qualifications. The flight attendants always ask these questions to everybody sitting in the these rows (at least in airplanes I've been on). Som, really, it's kind of a gimmee. But what Slaphead means aside from the obvious meeting-the-requirements requirement is that yes, the airlines tend to give them out on a first come, first serve basis. Except, for some reason, the one time I took Northwest the told me they held them out to frequenter fliers and they wouldn't dream of accomodating me until no one requested that seat. Eh, I don't like Northwest much anyway.