Sick Squid,
I didn't say that every ditching would be unsurvivable. My point (which I must be making very badly because no-one seems to understand it) is that in terms of dollars per life saved the evidence I have seen has suggested that the money would be better spent on smoke-hoods rather than lifejackets. Clearly if sufficient money were available it would be best to have both. (And if passengers would accept it, backwards facing seats as well.)
Skypryncess,
As the link I gave previously showed, the Air Accident Investigation Board in the UK has recommended that smoke-hoods be fitted to all UK aircraft. Commercial considerations, in the form of pressure from the airlines on the Civil Aviation Authority which makes the regulations in the UK, meant that it did not happen. However much you may wish it not to be so, money is the determining factor here - smokehoods would have saved dozens if not hundreds of lives over the last 20 years.
Moreover, there are different types of equipment. As I understand it the recommendation in the UK was for smoke-hoods which would enable passengers to get out of the plane quickly without inhaling a load of smoke and toxic fumes. These could take the form of filters which would not have an oxygen source. I believe the PBE for cabin crew have oxygen on the basis that you will need to be in the smoke longer than most passengers.
The function of the headrest clothes is completely news to me - thanks for that - do any airlines actually bother to tell the passengers about this or is it supposed to be a secret?
I'm sorry that you see this as somehow a personal attack - it isn't meant that way. It's a pity also that you seem to regard passengers as "dead wood" in the event of an emergency. Many of the reports I have read on accidents suggest that "clued up" passengers can be a significant help in getting the panickers out of the cabin as quickly as possible.