• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Jazz removes life vests

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/08/25/jazz-lifevests.html#articlecomments


Jazz removes life vests to save fuel

Air Canada's regional carrier Jazz has removed inflatable life vests from its planes to save weight, a spokeswoman said.

The airline carries both floatation devices (seat cushions) and life vests, and the "Transportation Canada regulation stipulates only one means of floatation is required when we're operating flights within 50 nautical miles from shore," Manon Stuart said Monday.

Life vests for babies have not been removed, she added. Moreover, the airline has adjusted some routes so that the planes remain within the 50-mile (about 90-kilometre) government limit.

The move bothered Woody French, mayor of Conception Bay South, N.L. He has been advocating for an airline passenger bill of rights, and said the removal of the life jackets is a bad idea.

It's not clear how much weight would actually be saved by removing the vests, "but when you're trying to save every bit of money you can to make the airline more productive, every bit counts," Tom Hinton, a former top aviation official at the Transportation Safety Board, told the Toronto Star.

Like other airlines, Jazz is struggling to save money as transportation costs increase. Profit in the second quarter of 2008 fell to $27.4 million from $40.6 million in the comparable quarter of 2007.

Jazz had 137 planes at end 2007, and its website said it has more flights and flies to more Canadian destinations than any other Canadian carrier.





I better get on that treadmill, its only a matter of time before they start charging by the pound.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yes, there are the seat cushions BUT wondering what kind of weight saving there is in removing 50 some odd life vests ?... considering these would be the ones that you have to inflate yourself...

Sounds like a bit of a BS move to me - if anyone is asking but - what do I know ???


 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It might be a BS move but they are following the regulations.  Perhaps the government should change the regulations, but that won't change until a Jazz flight has to ditch and people drown due to the fact that they couldn't hold on to the seat cushions.

Life jackets or no life jackets it really doesn't matter to me, it would have to be a pretty serious situation for a Jazz flight to ditch and in that case my sneakers will do just fine as DNA holding devices.
 

Sheerin

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yeah, it wouldn't worry me. If we're ditching in the water then there's a pretty good chance i won't even be able to put on the life vest...
 

WrenchBender

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
geo said:
Yes, there are the seat cushions BUT wondering what kind of weight saving there is in removing 50 some odd life vests ?... considering these would be the ones that you have to inflate yourself...

Sounds like a bit of a BS move to me - if anyone is asking but - what do I know ???
The weight savings is minor, but there is a savings in maintenance cost to 37 to 75 life jackets per aircraft(depending on type) removal, inspection and re-installation on every C check.

WrenchBender
 
A

aesop081

Guest
geo said:
what kind of weight saving there is in removing 50 some odd life vests ?...

Taken on its own, the weight savings is, as WrenchBencher said, minor. However, put it together with , oh....i dont know.....The airline's new "one bag only " policy and now its just one more thing that helps the airline reduce weight.

Of course , the maintenance costs of the vests has to be a factor here as well, as mentioned.
 

Snafu-Bar

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow, that's a safety device, OHSA should be kicking thier balls in for that.  >:D

What's next they going to remove the seats and reduce everyone to sitting on the deck?  ::)


Cheers.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Snafu-Bar said:
Wow, that's a safety device, OHSA should be kicking thier balls in for that.  >:D

I was afraid you would finaly say something intelligent.......I see i'm fairly safe.

"Transportation Canada regulation stipulates only one means of floatation is required when we're operating flights within 50 nautical miles from shore," Manon Stuart said Monday.
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
CDN Aviator said:
Taken on its own, the weight savings is, as WrenchBencher said, minor. However, put it together with , oh....i dont know.....The airline's new "one bag only " policy and now its just one more thing that helps the airline reduce weight.

Of course , the maintenance costs of the vests has to be a factor here as well, as mentioned.

Nah, that one bag policy serves only to help them increase profit, not save fuel costs - same with the life vests. Let's not kid ourselves. The passenger is paying for every bit of weight on that aircraft. And every bit of maintenance required too, for removing/replacing during C checks etc.

If it were a simple matter of "you can only take one bag because we must reduce weight", then they wouldn't allow you to pay for a second bag to be put on to prevent that weight, but heck - they're quite willing to take extra fees from you to carry that extra "weight". Anyone here honestly think that their plane ticket doesn't already cover the cost of the fuel used during their flights and the weight of that aircraft and all the luggage on board? Sure it does.

Fuel prices may be up and their profits may be down ... but they're still making a pretty penny - off us, the suckers who put up with their BS. And, as they are making a profit ... that means your ticket costs are sufficient to cover their costs with both your seat cushions AND your life jackets on board.

Air Canada second-quarter profit drops 21.3%
Monday August 11, 2008
Air Canada reported second-quarter net income of C$122 million ($116.4 million), down 21.3% from C$155 million in the year-ago period, blaming the earnings drop on a "difficult industry environment created by unrelenting high fuel prices."

They're not losing a cent ... they're still making money off you. I love this shit "high fuel costs are costing us a fortune, therefore we must cut back on the weight" ... Uhmmm no, high fuel costs are costing US (your customer) a fortune on top of that tidy profit you're making for your shareholders. <--- That's much closer to the truth.
 

Snafu-Bar

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
CDN Aviator said:
I was afarid you would finaly say something intelligent.......I see i'm fairly safe.

What happens to a plane ditching in lake ontario? or any other LOCAL body of water...oh right i forgot planes don't crash into lakes in canda  ::)

I guess it's back to flying ANYONE but Air Canaduh.


Cheers.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
490
Points
880
Snafu, you obviously have no idea how air transportation or airplane maintenance work to say such a statement...

When you put equipment in an airplane (ie:  life jackets), it's not just a matter of putting it there.  There are inspections, due dates and things to check as well as acquisition costs and replacement costs (yes, that kind of equipment expires).  It adds up and no, it's not unsafe.  I don't think there is any likelyhood of a Dash 8 or CRJ crashing in a body of water when flying over the prairies.  There is very little chance you'll ditch into a big lake.  Most likely you're (actually I know for a fact that you WILL be), at a gliding distance from shore.  If you're going down so fast that you WILL end up in water, the likelyhood of you surviving the crash are very slim.

Vern:  I would argue that the removal of the life vest as well as the baggage limitations is there to reduce impact it made on their profit.  It's eighter that or our ticket goes up.  Get rid of stuff we don't need...  Who brings 2 pieces of luggage when travelling???

Edit:  BTW that policy is with Jazz, not Air Canada.  Different.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Snafu-Bar said:
What happens to a plane ditching in lake ontario? or any other LOCAL body of water...oh right i forgot planes don't crash into lakes in canda  ::)

They're operating within the rules set by TC. If you disagree with those rules, write your MP.
 

Snafu-Bar

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No need to contact anyone, the power is in having the choice to fly westjet or choosing another form of transportation.  ;)

Cheers.
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
SupersonicMax said:
Vern:  I would argue that the removal of the life vest as well as the baggage limitations is there to reduce impact it made on their profit.  It's eighter that or our ticket goes up.  Get rid of stuff we don't need...  Who brings 2 pieces of luggage when travelling???

Edit:  BTW that policy is with Jazz, not Air Canada.  Different.

Exactly. It reduces their profit for their shareholders.

That's why OUR costs are going up. It isn't costing them a dime more ... it's costing them dimes less in profit. PROFIT does not equal operating costs.

I take two pieces of luggage. Most CF members I know travelling on courses do as well. I pay for those extras -- NOT because they NEED the money to operate their airline as they indicate is the case, but because that ADDS to their profit margin. Just as all those costs you've mentioned above are also paid by us, the consumer, in our ticket prices.  They aren't doing this because they "need" the funds to operate - it is simply a matter of "how do we profit even more than we currently are?"

Get rid of stuff we don't need? WTF?? I think we "need" it ... and our CURRENT ticket prices seemed to have covered the costs of it quite well thank you given that you still made a tidy 122M dollar profit for the quarter. Like I said ... we put up with it. And, that's why they can get away with it.

BTW, I know that policy is with Air Canada ... perhaps you should know that Jazz is the name of Air Canada's regional carrier line.  ;)  And BTW, it would seem that Jazz ... made a tidy little profit too for their big Momma airline ... not too shabby a profit for a little regional carrier line ...

Jazz removes life vests to save fuel
Profit in the second quarter of 2008 fell to $27.4 million
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
490
Points
880
Let's say a private company doesn't make any profit, the investors will bail out and the company will bankrupt.  You need some profit to keep the investors interested in the company. That's the only real way a company can expand and buy new airplanes to replace old ones or keep the old ones safe.  Making less profit comes to the investor as losing money.  Airline travel is fairly cheap when you think about the distance you cover in the time you spend traveling.  You request a service, which is to fly you to destination safely.  It comes with a cost.  And that cost includes profit for the investors.  We have to learn to live with it.

The Air Canada vs Jazz comment was directed at Snafu.  Even if Jazz operates under AC's banner, they are still 2 different companies.
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
SupersonicMax said:
Let's say a private company doesn't make any profit, the investors will bail out and the company will bankrupt.  You need some profit to keep the investors interested in the company. That's the only real way a company can expand and buy new airplanes to replace old ones or keep the old ones safe.  Making less profit comes to the investor as losing money.  Airline travel is fairly cheap when you think about the distance you cover in the time you spend traveling.  You request a service, which is to fly you to destination safely.  It comes with a cost.  And that cost includes profit for the investors.  We have to learn to live with it.

The Air Canada vs Jazz comment was directed at Snafu.  Even if Jazz operates under AC's banner, they are still 2 different companies.

I absolutely agree, but be honest about it. It's the profit you're after ... it's not "that you're (actually) losing money due to increased fuel costs" ... that's the consumer paying for those operating costs, profits etc. It's that you're "not making as much money in profit and that's why we need to do these things."
 
A

aesop081

Guest
ArmyVern said:
it's not "that you're (actually) losing money due to increased fuel costs" ... ................... It's that you're "not making as much money in profit and that's why we need to do these things."

If you are an investor, those 2 sentences are one and the same.
 

Snafu-Bar

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Either way Jazz is putting peoples lives before thier profit margin. The fact someone thought THIS was an acceptable option is just plain stupid.

But hey who am i to be concerned about the aspects of having my life in someone elses hands without having any say in it..... :eek:

As for AC or Jazz, who cares what board is making the decision, it's not the right one, nor is it acceptable to people who care about having a safety device at thier disposal if it should ever be needed.

Better to be prepared than pants down and bent over.

Cheers
 
Top