Comments on: Air Canada Jazz Ditches Life Vests, Who Cares?

By: Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:50:44 +0000

If you do a quick Wiki search… you will find that the chances are surviving a ditching over water are actually quite good. Do you the life vest… just don’t inflate it until you’re outside the plane. As for no water being over the flight path… maybe so… but in an emergency situation… the pilots will look for the closest possible place to land and they’re not going to care about the flight path. So altho’ the plane might not normally fly over water… the pilots might divert to some nearby water if that is their best and only chance.

By: JS

JS — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:37:23 +0000

Ready to eat humble pie yet, given the Flight 1549 emergency water landing?

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:13:54 +0000

In the African crash I think you are referring to (Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961), I think the life vests claimed as many lives as they saved. People panicked and inflated them before touch down – it is pretty hard to escape from from an aircraft that is rapidly filling up with water when your life vest is pushing you up the ceiling. I would definitely take my chances without the vest.

By: QRC

QRC — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:10:48 +0000

I remember that a number of the pax on the flight that downed near the Comoros Islands died precisely because they had inflated their life jackets prior to the water landing, making it impossible for them to swim out when the plane started to sink.

By: Wes

Wes — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0000

The chance of surviving a water crash is very low in most large aircraft with wing mounted engines. Two things could happen – the pilot either forces a stall a few feet above the water to drop like a rock which will rupture your spine, or he attempts to land in which case the engines will act as scoops causing a massive deceleration until they rip clear, which will probably cause massive injuries to most passengers. You do have a good shot at living in a DC-9 or 727 aircraft which can do a clean landing on the water and allow for an evacutation before the plane sinks (5-7 minutes).

By: CF

CF — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:11:14 +0000

Ben – Good call! I didn’t know about that one. Here’s some more background:
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/70-05-02(Antillean).asp

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:09:09 +0000

i disagree with some of the comments made by the writer.i don’t remember the year excacly, but some time in the 1970s an ONA DC-9 ditched after running out of fuel near san juan. out of the 60 on board, 30 survived, and that was down to the fact they had life jackets.

By: CF

CF — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:23:55 +0000

Million Miler – Jazz has said that only two routes in the entire system needed to be adjusted to stay closer to the coast, so the savings made it worthwhile.

But there’s no question that you’re right here. Part of the benefit of these fees is reduced costs for the airlines. Less cleaning/folding/laundry (not that it’s done often) and fewer checked bags are absolutely cost reductions that make it worthwhile. That’s why airlines don’t care if you bring your own food (for now). As long as they don’t supply it, the costs are much lower so they encourage that kind of behavior.

By: Randall Shirley

Randall Shirley — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:03:51 +0000

As a regular flyer in/out of Vancouver YVR — one of Air Canada Jazz’s major hubs — I’m keenly aware that about 50% of take offs and approaches are over the Georgia Straight. There is, indeed, a chance of survival on a water ditching at the relatively slow approach speeds, and frankly, I think I could manage not to inflate the vest until outside the plane. I’m NOT sure, however, that I’d have the ability to swim to shore if I were alive and injured, so the vest might save my life.

But this topic reminds me that all businesses do regular risk assessments. A friend who works in freeway design / engineering once told me that his firm and their clients (usually, various governments) actually have a price tag on human lives — deciding how many lives they’re willing to let go in order to save $$ on things like safer curves. I’m sure some airline bean counter has the same idea.

Now, off to swimming lessons…

By: Million Miler

Million Miler — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:57:32 +0000

interesting post

As to Cranky’s original post about Jazz, I wonder how much fuel they save by pulling off 50 pounds of life vests. Especially if they are really adjusting routing to stay closer to shore as they claim. I think it is a fair assumption that the original routing further off shore represented the shortest distance from point A to point B. I would realy love to ask AC/Jazz to quantify this in hard numbers. There is likely something larger (much larger) than shaving 50 pounds of load involved.

I have become increasingly suspicious that there is a lot more cost cutting go on under the guise of saving fuel/weight reduction than meets the eye. For example by charging for checking bags, are you really recovering fuel cost associated with baggage? Or is the same amount of luggage going on board in the form of carry on (zero net weight/fuel savings) but you don’t have to pay staff to handle it because the passenger is doing all the work for you. In all fairness, truth is probably some of both.

Same for blankets and pillows – are we really saving weight, or are we eliminating laundry costs, reducing the time needed to straighten up the cabin between flights and other maintenance costs, not to mention replacement cost due to theft by crew and passengers. Eliminating pillows and blankets also results in more bin space, further encouraging folks to carry bags on!

Cranky, you could do a great service by starting to challenge your friends on the inside whenever you get press release relating to these types of claims. I have no problem with cost cutting or revenue enhancement, but I would like to see some truth in advertising…

Or maybe I am just more cranky than Cranky!