Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada Jazz - No more life vests.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Air Canada Jazz - No more life vests.

    Airline ditches life vests to save on fuel
    Air Canada Jazz says its planes will now be 25 kilograms lighter...Linky
    Do I agree with this? No. As some people have commented it becomes a confidence issue. Find another way to save weight.
    My Flickr Pictures! Click Me!

  • #2
    Seems like a very good idea to me and there are a few other things they should dispense with as well to lighten the load.

    The one thing that this wonderful idea should do is mark the death knell for JAZZ.....

    If you feel more reassured flying with an airline that provides you with something you have never used and probably will never use either you should make it clear to the airline concerned. Write a letter or email to the CEO of JAZZ, tell him what you think of him and that from now on he will not be getting any more of your hard earned bucks to fly on his glorious airline. Even if this means getting to your destination over land.

    So in short..... if the airline does not meet your requirements, don't fly with them, they won't be around for too long I guess.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cam
      Do I agree with this? No. As some people have commented it becomes a confidence issue. Find another way to save weight.
      How much money will 25Kg save on each flight ?
      It must be imesureably small.

      and this 90Km rule is just silly. 1Km or 500Km off shore makes no diferance. Or in fact I would say that the reverse is true. < 90Km off shore it is far far more likely that a life jacket will save your life >90Km off shore even if you get out and have a life jacket most likely you will die of hypothermia before being rescued.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Quench
        How much money will 25Kg save on each flight ?
        It must be imesureably small.
        I remember hearing a while back that AA calculated the cost (fuel burn) of carrying a cup of coffee into the air at around $25. And that is for something that maybe weighs half a kg. Now, figure out that a life jacket weighs much more and therefore costs that much more. Then, multiply that by the number of aircraft and flights and the savings are huge.

        and this 90Km rule is just silly. 1Km or 500Km off shore makes no diferance. Or in fact I would say that the reverse is true. < 90Km off shore it is far far more likely that a life jacket will save your life >90Km off shore even if you get out and have a life jacket most likely you will die of hypothermia before being rescued.
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind the rule is as follows:
        1) If the aircraft completely loses control and makes an extreme plunge that we usually envision when we think of aircraft crashes, it won't make a difference whether you are over land or water. The opportunity to use the life jackets won't occur.

        2) If the aircraft has a failure (engine, flight controls, etc.), but remains controllable, the aircraft won't just fall out of the sky. Lift will still remain and the aircraft will continue to glide. In all likelihood, the aircraft will be able to glide the 50 miles/90 km to shore.

        Comment


        • #5
          AH well, been counters going nuts again. It'd probably take one reroute due to the requirement per year to use all the fuel they've saved.

          Twits.

          Comment


          • #6
            why!!!

            bad idea by air canada maybe it will save fuel but it can cost lifes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by fsfan1444
              bad idea by air canada maybe it will save fuel but it can cost lifes.
              Many airlines flying only over land routes have long ago dispensed with life vests, and have the seat cushions to be used as 'floatation devices' (I'd be interested to see an evacuation demonstration with everybody clutching a seat cushion in their hands... )

              However if full fairness, I do not recall ANY accident or incident in the past 20 years where lifevests were a lifesaving factor. The only partially survivable ditching of a large airliner was that of the hijacked Ethiopian 767 and the more recent Tunisian ATR, in both cases those who remained uninjured and could get out survived, life vests or no.

              The isssue with life vests is not only weight, but maintenance. They have to be inspected at regular intervals, and eventually replaced. I'm sorry to say, contradicting a few of the comments above, the passengars ARE giving their votes, by and large chosing the airline offering the cheapest tickets. There may be grumbles about service and safety, but the wallet rules. Of course there is a minority for whom service and safety are the choice factors, but they are not enough in numbers to support all of the legacy carriers which (like the one I'm with) are struggling on how to balance the expected service levels of their high end customers with the demand for lower fares from the majority of the market.
              another ADC refugee

              Comment


              • #8
                Only 25 kilos?. No, I don´t agree. It doesn´t matter if the planes flies over land, and it doesn´t matter how marginal is the possibility of using them. It´s not good cuts on safety equipment.

                Even if the plane flies over land, we don´t know in case of an emergency or crash landing, could be forced to land. Probably a river, a dam, or lake.

                No...it´s a bad idea.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by andrasz
                  I'm sorry to say, contradicting a few of the comments above, the passengers ARE giving their votes, by and large choosing the airline offering the cheapest tickets. There may be grumbles about service and safety, but the wallet rules. Of course there is a minority for whom service and safety are the choice factors, but they are not enough in numbers to support all of the legacy carriers which (like the one I'm with) are struggling on how to balance the expected service levels of their high end customers with the demand for lower fares from the majority of the market.
                  OMG (sorry as I get on my soap box again) but it is not you guys we have the problems with, (to do with cheap fares etc) it is with all the add-ons. If we just had to pay a fair fare and some fuel surcharge FINE but we don't. The governments, the travel agents and the airport authorities are all leeching off the airlines and this must STOP. Pax are easy targets and suckers.

                  When you get a bus ride to town you don't pay a fuel surcharge, you don't pay a congestion charge, you don't pay a town regeneration charge, you don't pay a extra baggage charge, you don't get scammed on a credit card surcharge, you don't pay toll charges..... get the picture yet.....

                  The aviation industry HAS to stand up against these leech's and tell them enough is enough. Withdrawing live-vests is like taking the spare tire out of the car because you have never had a puncture and if you do someone will come along and rescue you. Cutting corners does not cost lives it costs livelihoods in the long run. If there was not such a gap between the bosses and the workers, airlines would be dictating to the leech's and welcoming their clients.

                  If an airline wants to save money and remain profitable they should axe a flight not axe parts of an aircraft that were there at the time of delivery... simple maths I say..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cargo Runner
                    If an airline wants to save money and remain profitable they should axe a flight ... simple maths I say..
                    Warning:

                    I concur with most of above, but this is simply wrong. By cutting a flight, you save fuel and airport charges, but all other cost items (capital cost of plane, crew salaries, support staff salaries, etc.) making up about 50% of the cost of a flight remain. Paradoxically the more you fly, the cheaper individual flights are, because the fixed costs can spread over a larger base. Usually all airline survival strategies that involve a drastic cut in network are doomed to fail (unless matched by an equal or even greater downsizing in fleet and staff).
                    another ADC refugee

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Your dead b4 u can even think to put the life vest on. YOur not surviving a water crash in the Canadian wilderness or Atlantic vest or no vest. If you want to use a what if that 1 in a billion possibility of surviving, you would have to remain concious for impact,escape the plane, then survive in frigid waters with a life excpectancy of half an hour or less for several hours. YOur ass is grass, period.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bok269
                        I remember hearing a while back that AA calculated the cost (fuel burn) of carrying a cup of coffee into the air at around $25. And that is for something that maybe weighs half a kg. Now, figure out that a life jacket weighs much more and therefore costs that much more. Then, multiply that by the number of aircraft and flights and the savings are huge.
                        That is probably 25c but you are correct 25Kg would probably make a measurable impact.

                        I did some quick calculations with some 757 numbers

                        116,000Kg max takeoff weight
                        42,000l Jet-A
                        1070$ / 1000Kg for Jet A

                        Gets me 38c / Kg for a full range flight.
                        So you are saving $9.50 / max range flight. If the airline is so desperate that saving 9 bucks a flight is going to help then it is probably best to avoid them alltogether.




                        Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind the rule is as follows:
                        1) If the aircraft completely loses control and makes an extreme plunge that we usually envision when we think of aircraft crashes, it won't make a difference whether you are over land or water. The opportunity to use the life jackets won't occur.

                        2) If the aircraft has a failure (engine, flight controls, etc.), but remains controllable, the aircraft won't just fall out of the sky. Lift will still remain and the aircraft will continue to glide. In all likelihood, the aircraft will be able to glide the 50 miles/90 km to shore.
                        I am sure that that is the logic, in which case the rule should be with in gliding distance of a useable aerodrome.

                        If you are over sea 90Km out and have all engines fail. and you are not in gliding range of an aerodrome. In all probability ditching at sea would be a better bet than landing in a field.

                        So extending the logic even if you are flying down the coast 50Km inland it is still a good idea to have lifejackets because in the event of a forced landing ditching might be the best option.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by andrasz

                          However if full fairness, I do not recall ANY accident or incident in the past 20 years where lifevests were a lifesaving factor. The only partially survivable ditching of a large airliner was that of the hijacked Ethiopian 767 and the more recent Tunisian ATR, in both cases those who remained uninjured and could get out survived, life vests or no.
                          That was the one I had in mind. I did not realise that everyone that exited the aircraft survived lifejacket or no.

                          IIRC a number of passengers drowned because they inflated their lifejackets inside the aircraft and then could not swim down and out

                          hmmm

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Quench
                            That is probably 25c but you are correct 25Kg would probably make a measurable impact.

                            I did some quick calculations with some 757 numbers

                            116,000Kg max takeoff weight
                            42,000l Jet-A
                            1070$ / 1000Kg for Jet A

                            Gets me 38c / Kg for a full range flight.
                            So you are saving $9.50 / max range flight. If the airline is so desperate that saving 9 bucks a flight is going to help then it is probably best to avoid them alltogether.
                            It was $25. And even if it is only $9 a flight, multiply that by the number of flights per year and the savings would be huge.


                            I am sure that that is the logic, in which case the rule should be with in gliding distance of a useable aerodrome.

                            If you are over sea 90Km out and have all engines fail. and you are not in gliding range of an aerodrome. In all probability ditching at sea would be a better bet than landing in a field.

                            So extending the logic even if you are flying down the coast 50Km inland it is still a good idea to have lifejackets because in the event of a forced landing ditching might be the best option.
                            That makes sense. However, keep in mind that it probably wouldn't take too much to be within gliding distance to an aerodome at any one time. Take a look at any sectional and you'll see that any given coast has plenty of strips with sufficient landing distance.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Quench
                              IIRC a number of passengers drowned because they inflated their lifejackets inside the aircraft and then could not swim down and out
                              Correct. That was the ATR accident, where passengers were prepared for the ditching, and had their vests on.
                              another ADC refugee

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X