AirCanada Jazz ditches life vests to save on fuel

[Justwannafly]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1074955.html
Time to switch to WestJet full time....I've been a loyal AirCanada customer since I was a kid.....not anymore.........Its not the fact that I expect to survive a ditched aircraft its that they are cutting back on safety. & if they are cutting back on an obvious public safety measure, imagine what other safety measures they have dropped or are dropping.

[Howitzer]

It's not as if lifejackets are being removed from flights that require them. Aircraft that have them removed, are noted as so on Flight Plans, and these aircraft are not dispatched on flights needing them. Give your head a shake, when's the last time you needed a life jacket to stay afloat in a wheat field?

[square]

Life jackets on anything with a cruise speed of more than 30 knots are the most idiotic "safety" feature I've ever encountered, and would do nothing to assist in the event of a crash.

At best you'd find limbs and running shoes inside the shredded remains of the life jackest after the jet hits the water at 400-1,000kts and, as in the case of Swissair 111, disintegrates into literally millions of pieces.

Maybe getting rid of the life jackets actually allows them to spend their limited dollars on safety measures that make sense, like maintenance, as opposed to ridiculous window dressings like life jackets.

Are you nuts? I'll assume you don't literally mean 30 knots because surviving the ditch of a small aircraft, for one thing, is hardly any challenge at all. There's no good reason for anyone to die if something like a C210 goes down. The survival rates for it speak for themselves. Using SwissAir is not a relevant example because the reason it went into the water is that the cockpit was engulfed in flames long before they hit -- they barrelled into the ocean in what was probably a steep dive past Vne. It was not a controlled ditch like it would be in the event of engine failures. It would not be doing 400 kts, look at 737s they can slow those down to like a hundred.

I'm not saying a 747 can make a pretty looking ditch, the fuselage will definitely break apart. But many people do survive ditches, there's a decent chance people on a large airliner could survive (though there will be of course fatalities) and even if it takes a million dollars worth of life jackets to save one person it's a bargain.

And besides, isn't it legally required for flight beyond gliding distance from shore? Wait I don't actually think Jazz would ever end up beyond gliding distance from land.

[square]

Found a neat article here though: http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

"Of the 179 ditchings we reviewed, only 22, or 12 percent, resulted in fatalities. Although survival rates vary by time of year and water-body type, the overall general aviation ditching survival rate is 88 percent."

[moreccsplease]

+1

[Justwannafly]

Like I said its a PUBLIC Safety measure that they are cutting, and THAT is what worries me...that they would make safety cuts that will cause them a lot of publicity issues....IF they are cutting those you can bet they have already cut other ones that are less obvious. Also people DO survive ditching...though I didn't realize it was at the numbers square listed. In fact just recently there was a crash in Africa or somewhere in that area, where everyone survived the crash, but then panicked causing people to stampede to the exits causing the exits to clog up & no one getting out (hmm I want a door seat please) In that case people inflated their life jackets B4 exiting & were trapped as they couldn't go down to get out. That is also a great example why floating seat cushions are stupid...There is a reason why aviation life jackets are the manual inflate kind & not the cheaper foam kind.

[square]

Also people DO survive ditching...though I didn't realize it was at the numbers square listed.

Worth noting though that these figures are from general aviation so you don't have any RJ/Boeing stuff in there. Mostly single-engine aircraft and stuff like an Aztec. But t does make a strong case that ditching beats landing on mountains, trees or densely populated areas.

[FOFO LIFE]

Frankly I thought that most Jazz aircraft (if not all) don't or never have had lifejackets onboard.

Ever been on a Dash 8? Look under your seat. You won't find a lifejacket there.

You will find a big ass magazine infront of you. Turn to the back. And you'll find alot of there flights are over alot-o-land. Then you'll sit back and wounder if that magazine weights more that little yellow life vest.


If you have no common sence you'll conclude that AC values add money over safety.

If you DO have common sence you'll smile and try to get some sleep. Afterall its AC - it can't make sence...

[C23flyer]

Long time listener, first time caller.

Air Canada Jazz alone, does roughly 860 flights a day, all over North America. Of those 860 flights, there are two routes in our network that require life jackets for CARs. When one of our 137 aircraft fly one of these routes, and it happens to not be equipped with life jackets, we are filed within 50nm of shoreline automatically by our dispatchers. One example is Boston to Moncton.

Clearly, this article, and this topic, are posted for the sensationalism that is invoked. There is no need to carry lifejackets on board when there is no safety risk posed whatsoever.

I think this closes any discussion on this item. Public safety is NOT an issue.

[Troubleshot]

I too have wondered why airlines have not done this sooner, WestJet and AC might have a few more problems with ETOP issues and scheduling aircraft with life vest versus those with out would surely be a nightmare. Regional carriers around the world will do the same if it is a good cost cutter....good idea!

[Tim Tam]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1074955.html
Time to switch to WestJet full time....I've been a loyal AirCanada customer since I was a kid.....not anymore.........Its not the fact that I expect to survive a ditched aircraft its that they are cutting back on safety. & if they are cutting back on an obvious public safety measure, imagine what other safety measures they have dropped or are dropping.

Why is this news?

If the CARS require them, then they are on board.

If the CARS do not require them, then they are not.

End of story.

This has nothing to do with specific airlines.

[Kelowna Pilot]

Are things really that bad that it's come to ditching the life jackets?

Whether you think life jackets are worth it or not, this is an ominous sign...

[whiteguy]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1074955.html
Time to switch to WestJet full time....I've been a loyal AirCanada customer since I was a kid.....not anymore.........Its not the fact that I expect to survive a ditched aircraft its that they are cutting back on safety. & if they are cutting back on an obvious public safety measure, imagine what other safety measures they have dropped or are dropping.

Bull....! When you find a cheaper fare on AC you'll fly them again.

[Team Firecracker]

I dont think so Tim.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

I would hazard a guess that this flight was planned over the continental US. (reserves the right to be corrected )

said it before, say it again. Saving pennies but losing millions is a futile effort.

Perhaps they should limit skyhag..err...flight attendant weight to under 200.....50-150 lbs
or maybe no hats or epaulettes for the pilots....2-3 lbs,
no charts! they cant remember how to use them anymore any way!...20lbs
no full lavs in flight maybe....you engineer types could design a new fecal ejection system...make millions!...50-100lbs

or hey! lose a few vice presidents and bonuses...100-200 million.....hmmmmm

[whiteguy]

Why is it every airline in this country is allowed to operate within the rules of TC and CARs, except Air Canada. This is just another example of media fear mongering!

[Troubleshot]

I dont think so Tim.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

I would hazard a guess that this flight was planned over the continental US. (reserves the right to be corrected )

said it before, say it again. Saving pennies but losing millions is a futile effort.

Perhaps they should limit skyhag..err...flight attendant weight to under 200.....50-150 lbs
or maybe no hats or epaulettes for the pilots....2-3 lbs,
no charts! they cant remember how to use them anymore any way!...20lbs
no full lavs in flight maybe....you engineer types could design a new fecal ejection system...make millions!...50-100lbs

or hey! lose a few vice presidents and bonuses...100-200 million.....hmmmmm

Sorry Hoss... life-vest would have only pointed out the frozen bodies on that one, hypothermia would have set in long before any rescue efforts would have plucked them out of that frigged water...I see your point none the less, but I will say no one would have gotten there life vests on fast enough anyway if we are talking about on take-off crashes or landing crashes.

[Widow]

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/484113

Air Canada's Jazz tosses life jackets
Aug 23, 2008 04:30 AM
Patti Winsa
Staff Reporter

The race by airlines to shave weight and save fuel is now reaching safety equipment.

Jazz airlines, Air Canada's regional affiliate, recently removed life vests from all of its planes – including those that fly over water – to reduce fuel consumption and save money.

Transport Canada regulations allow carriers that fly within 50 nautical miles of shore to use flotation devices instead of vests. Safety cards in seat pockets will now direct passengers to use the seat cushions, which float.

Jazz planes criss-cross Canada and the U.S., flying over the Great Lakes and up the Eastern seaboard from Halifax to Boston and New York.

"We operate within Transport Canada regulations and in this case we're within their regulations for operations over water," says Jazz spokesperson Debra Williams. A number of east coast routes were adjusted to bring them within the 50-mile boundary.

Commercial-style life vests weigh roughly a half-kilogram each. It's unclear how much Jazz stands to save as a result of the move.

An Air Canada spokesman says the airline has no plans to remove life vests from its planes.

The Jazz decision, which follows surcharges for meals, baggage, pillows and, in the U.S., bottled water, is the latest attempt by airlines to make up for soaring fuel prices, which have almost doubled in recent years.

But the payback has been minimal.

Ask "how much ... those life vests weigh and the answer is not very much," says Tom Hinton, a former director for aviation at Canada's Transportation Safety Board.

"But when you're trying to save every bit of money you can to make the airline more productive, every bit counts."

At the most, the various changes add up to 2 per cent of fuel costs, says Joseph D'Cruz, a professor of strategy at the Rotman School of Management, who has studied the airline industry for 25 years.

Ditching the vests "says to me that the financial circumstances of the airline industry are in such disarray that a 1 per cent cost is being considered worthwhile," says D'Cruz. "I think accumulatively, it's making air travel a relatively unpleasant experience."

Jazz's fleet of Dash 8s and Bombardier jets carry a maximum of 75 people and have always had flotation seat cushions. The cushions have straps that a person must hang on to, while vests are self-righting, keeping the face above water.

Seat cushions that float have "always been a kind of a Plan B," says Hinton. "The person has to hold on to it and the difficulty there is if the water is cold ... you can't hang on very long before your fingers and your hands won't respond."

The cushions are typically secured to the seat pan with Velcro and can be removed by grasping the edges and lifting up.

"It's standard that any airplane has to be evacuated within a couple of minutes and if you've got 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," says Hinton, who consults on aviation safety.

The 50-nautical-mile boundary is an international standard, developed as engine reliability improved. It is the distance from which an aircraft can reach shore even if an engine fails.

Still, says Hinton, "The question becomes how safe is safe. A life vest is designed so that when you wear it, your face is held out of the water ... it's not likely you're going to drown, but the issue is the time spent in the water and how much body heat you lose before you die of hypothermia."

[invertedattitude]

Noticed this as well.

I often wonder if the cost savings for weight, are counteracted by the longer routings they now fly on certain routes?

[square]

Why is Air Canada getting dragged into this anyway? They're two totally separate companies now, I'm sure AC had no voice in this decision.

[C23flyer]

Talk about a bad spin...somebody at AC needs to work on their public relations skills. How does a mundane thing such as removing unnecessary equipment become such a big news story?

[flyinhigh]

Why is Air Canada getting dragged into this anyway? They're two totally separate companies now, I'm sure AC had no voice in this decision.

Yes we are two separate companies, however part of the CPA is that Mainline pays for fuel. They are constantly doing fuel audits and keep saying that we have to bring our consumption down, where it be by not running the APU, single engine taxi's, etc.

So in this case I really would not be surprised if Mainline put the bug in the ear for lower your weight to lower fuel burns more.

However our upper management is pretty well, you guys know

[taylor498]

Pardon the pun, but your logic holds no water.

Life jackets on anything with a cruise speed of more than 30 knots are the most idiotic "safety" feature I've ever encountered, and would do nothing to assist in the event of a crash.

At best you'd find limbs and running shoes inside the shredded remains of the life jackest after the jet hits the water at 400-1,000kts and, as in the case of Swissair 111, disintegrates into literally millions of pieces.

Maybe getting rid of the life jackets actually allows them to spend their limited dollars on safety measures that make sense, like maintenance, as opposed to ridiculous window dressings like life jackets.

Really? Howbout Ethiopian 961??? Last time I checked a 767 is a little faster than 30 knots. They ran out of fuel and had no hydraulics (therefore no flaps) so I'd guess anywhere 160 KIAS+.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_ ... Flight_961

"123 of the 175 passengers and crew members were killed, as well as all three hijackers. Many of the passengers who died survived the crash but they had disregarded or did not hear Abate's warning not to inflate their life jackets inside the aircraft, causing them to be pushed against the ceiling of the fuselage by the inflated life jackets, unable to escape, and drowned. An estimated 60 to 80 passengers, strapped to their seats, presumably drowned."

"National Geographic's series "How to Survive a Plane Crash" covered the crash details of Flight 961, stating that many passengers survived the initial crash of the 767 with the water, but as the captain instructed the passengers to brace and inflate their life jackets after exiting the fuselage which sank immediately upon impacting the water and splitting into 3 sections, many passengers panicked and inflated their life vests, causing them to immediately surface to the roof of the fuselage, trapping them inside as the fuselage sank."
---


Regardless, obviously the vast majority of jazz flight don't need them. But if there is a possibility of them being needed, then absolutely keep them onboard. You never know when they might come in handy.

[F21]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1074955.html
Time to switch to WestJet full time....I've been a loyal AirCanada customer since I was a kid.....not anymore.........Its not the fact that I expect to survive a ditched aircraft its that they are cutting back on safety. & if they are cutting back on an obvious public safety measure, imagine what other safety measures they have dropped or are dropping.

I have never been on a WestJet flight that had life jackets.

[Troubleshot]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1074955.html
Time to switch to WestJet full time....I've been a loyal AirCanada customer since I was a kid.....not anymore.........Its not the fact that I expect to survive a ditched aircraft its that they are cutting back on safety. & if they are cutting back on an obvious public safety measure, imagine what other safety measures they have dropped or are dropping.

I have never been on a WestJet flight that had life jackets.

Then you've never been on a WestJet flight....

[SeptRepair]

Perhaps its been mentioned and I missed reading it, but other than the cost saved by the weight reduction, im sure they must have also calculated the savings from no longer having the annual recertification of the life jackets. As well, the costs of tracking, physically removing and replacing, inventoring, and as well as shipping costs to and from vendor (assuming they dont do it inhouse) must have an affect on the bottom line. I am also assuming these are of course similiar to the jackets we have in our aircraft, nonetheless, im sure there is more to the story than has been reported.