On the subject of pax numbers and evacuation, and putting a side for a moment any perceptual as opposed to factual considerations, firstly, the last N Sea accident where escape was a factor was the N Cormorant in 1992. I can't think of an survivable ditchings / crashes where people died from not being able to get out, in the interim? 21 years ago.
This latest could be in that category, but so far we don't know why most got out but some didn't. With the injuries reported, it was clearly a fairly hard impact and perhaps those unfortune ones who didn't make it were incapacitated. Or maybe they froze, gasped water or maybe something else went wrong such as they couldn't unbuckle or inflated their jackets inside. Or maybe the thrust of this debate is correct, they were all in middle seats and their exits were blocked by those at the window seats. We just don't know yet, if we ever will. Therefore I think its far too soon to be talking about reducing pax numbers as a safety initiative.
If we did, we would have to accept that the increased flying rate would require new pilots etc, and would inevitably reduce the time before the next accident. Would it be worth it for 1 accident in 21 years?
We also have to bear in mind that there are not just survivable arrivals in the water, and unsurvivable ones. Its a sliding scale. So you can put a lot of effort into making a copycat of this accident survivable, only to have the next one just a bit worse and hence partially unsurvivable again. You can't win that one.
Alternatively, we could reduce pax numbers, good for
PR, keep them happy, and never mind that the logic and science doesn't add up. In other words, con them. Even though I have been a little disparaging about the Facebook pax, I think we owe them more than that. If we are going to reduce pax numbers, its only for comfort.