Business

At Jazz Airlines, They Don't Need No Stinking Life Vests

MayorBob.

Posted to Business on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Anyone who hasn't noticed the airline industry is in crisis hasn't been paying attention. The increased cost of fuel has only added to the industry's dilemma and has sparked economic decisions. It's now fairly common to have to pay dearly for extra or odd-shaped luggage, the airlines' haute cuisine (or just a snack) and even bumping passengers off flights because they keep cancelling routes. All of these create discomfort and distress for passengers. But, Air Canada Jazz may have gone beyond discomforting passengers into the area of endangering passengers.

The airline, a regional air transport line, announced that they will no longer be carrying life vests aboard their flights. According to the airline, you'll do just fine grabbing the bottom cushion of your seat to use as a floatation device. Jazz says, because all of their flights fly within 50 nautical miles of shore, this cost-savings decision is in line with Transport Canada regulations. Yet, a 2005 letter from Transport Canada indicated inflatable life vests are the best way of avoiding fatalities for survivors of crashes into water. The 50-nautical-mile boundary is an international standard and is usually considered to be the limit an airliner could manage to fly if its engines failed. Jazz flies only to Canadian and US destinations, but its route map shows it does fly over a good number of large bodies of water.

The main link provides a list of other cost savers airlines are employing to avoid red ink. They include stuff like washing planes more often to taxiing on one engine. But, the decision to do away with life vests in favor of seat cushions as floatation devices has some people concerned. Tom Hinton, from Canada's Transportation Safety Board (TSB), says the vests don't weigh "very much" but that, with airlines scrambling to preserve every penny of profit "every bit counts." Joseph D'Cruz, an industry expert, estimates that getting rid of the vests onboard, at best result in fuel savings in the area of two percent. D'Cruz sees this move as a sign of Jazz's desperation that "the financial circumstances of the airline industry are in such disarray that a 1 per cent cost is being considered worthwhile."

The placard, showing passengers how to use the seat cushion, is shown on the main link. Hinton expresses doubt that a ditching in the fairly chilly waters most of Jazz's flights take it to might not turn problematic. He sees this from the standpoint of "everybody standing up in the aisles trying to tear up their seat cushion, and carry it under their arms, and get out a hatch, it's really going to slow things down." He also questions just how much more effective a seat cushion is over a life vest "when you wear it (life vest), your face is held out of the water ... it's not likely you're going to drown." But Hinton does allow that the critical matter is how long it would be before rescue crews could get to survivors to pull them out of the water. Air Canada, Jazz's parent, has announced they have no intention of removing life vests from their flights.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, airliners, safety, life vests, floatation devices, cost savings measure (all tags)

This story: 8 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
3

They Don't Need No Stinking Life Vests

skeptic.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:51:57 AM EST

4.00 (funny)

It's not actually that hard to remain afloat even without a life vest, if you know what you are doing.  However, just to be sure, I am going to wear a full SCUBA outfit the next time I fly on Jazz airlines.  One can never be too careful.

4

^ 3

Re: They Don't Need No Stinking Life Vests

delete me.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

However, just to be sure, I am going to wear a full SCUBA outfit the next time I fly on Jazz airlines

Great idea! And if your plane disintegrates over a burnt-out forest, we can start another urban legend.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

1

Is this a big issue?

pO157.

Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST

none

I used to fly a fair amount a few years ago (enough to get to "Gold" status on one of the major airlines, and now my frequent flier balance is in the mid 6 figures) before this MadMax fuel crisis started. I recall a bunch of the "regional" airliners I used to fly in over land or on quick cross water jaunts did not have a personal flotation device. We were told in the safety briefing to use the seat cushion.

Is this just being brought up by the media now as yet another example of gas causing all kinds of crazy airplane shenanigans? If so, I'll be glad to shake my head sadly and then get back to work.

2

Maybe South Park had it right

joshv.

Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:38 PM EST

none

It's getting so that I actually would prefer using Mr. Garrison's IT machine - a monowheel device that could travel over 200 mph.  Unfortunately riding it required the use of both rectal and lingual control devices.  Despite the discomfort, everybody who tried it declared that it still beat the inconvenience of modern airlines.

5

In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing

profwhat.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:14:59 PM EST

none

Unless your airport is really close to the ocean, isn't any "water landing" likely to be so catastrophically destructive that passengers won't be alive to care whether they have a life vest or a seat cushion?

6

^ 5

Re: In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing

delete me.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST

none

Close to the airport isn't very good, if you just took off. Most of those accidents are highly catastrophic, what with all the fuel on board, and the fact that the crash is a complete surprise.

Coming in for a (crash) landing is much safer; most of the fuel is used up, or has been dumped because of the foreseen emergency. The impact is still a danger, but at least there won't be crispy critters for breakfast. Floating in water that's on fire cant be good, after all.

And then I realized I could just be talking out of my ass, since I really only know about fuel-dumping procedures and why they do it. So here's a link to some purported actual pilot about water crashes being less safe than land crashes, and why they like to keep within gliding distance of land.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

7

^ 6

Re: In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing

profwhat.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST

none

Yeah, I don't know what I am talking about, either; but, I am decent with Wikipedia:

In December 2002, The Economist quoted an expert as claiming that "No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water" in an article that goes on to charge, "So the life jackets ... have little purpose other than to make passengers feel better."[4][5] This claim was repeated in The Economist in September 2006 in an article which claimed that "in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero."[6] This is correct, but incomplete (the one wide-bodied landing was a case of a 767 leaving a runway).

8

^ 7

Re: In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing

port1080.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:32:59 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

The thing is, even if the landing isn't "successful" in water, that doesn't mean you don't have any chance of survival.  There was this case back in 1996 - an Ethiopian 767 that was hijacked and ran out of fuel.  The pilot glided in to a landing just off the coast.  It wasn't a perfect landing and the plane still ended up crashing into the water, but about 1/3 of the passengers survived.  That's not great, but it's not "no survivors" either.

This story: 8 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment