Jazz removes life vests

[SupersonicMax]

You're still rich though aren't you? You're still earning money for your personal use (not for operations etc as that is deducted before you've earned that profit for your personal enjoyment) Still better money in your pocket than, hmmm let's say, the availbility of lifevests on an aircraft that should happen to be landed in a somewhat survivable condition in the water.

That's what Jazz and their shareholders are saying to me with this decision. Better cash in their pocket, than my safety.

No they don't.  They consider that removing the vests won't impair your safety.  Can you find one accident involving a major airline (ie: not small, single engine operators) in the last 30 years that required the use of the lift vest inside Canada's coasts?  Again, as I said, aviation is a balance between safety and efficiency.  Is the risk big enough to warrant the safety precautions?  Same thing happens with airplane malfunctions.  It's very rare that an airplane takes off with 100% of its systems working.  Why?  Is it worth grounding the airplane for the said system?  Some system yes, some systems no.  Same idea.  We aren't more at risk.  Plus, they did it already without you knowing for years....  It is, indeed, a Transport Canada policy that has been proven over many years and flying hours.

 

[armyvern]

Operating costs are up....profits are down.

Investors only want profits to do one thing......

Airline either cuts operating costs or raises ticket cost to keep profits where they are.

The life vest again.......The airline is operating withing guidlines established by TC....they are not doing something that is illegal.

Just because i made $1 profit doesnt make it a viable buisness. The return has to be worth the investment. $27M is not what i would consider a good return on the money invested.

I never said it was illegal -- I said ... it's unethical. There's a difference.

I'll just say this ... when 27 million isn't enough spare change in your pocket for spending money when compared to my life and the lives of your passengers should we land in water ...

I'll fly Westjet from here on in. They haven't determined that increasing their personal bank account size is worth more than their passengers best chances for survival.

 

[aesop081]

They haven't determined that increasing their personal bank account size is worth more than their passengers best chances for survival.

Not yet.

But dont kid yourself. Wesjet is feeling the same market pressures as AC is. Westjet was in much better shape when the price of fuel started to go through the roof so they can hold out longer but, they too will eventualy start to look for ways to cut operating costs.

You are blowing this far out of proportion.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Vern, 27 M$ shared to how many people?

I don't think you understand you are NOT at greater risk by not flying with life jackets onboard... Far from there.  You are more at risk driving or running to work every morning....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If they were going from zero floatation devices to one we would all be tap-dancin'.......



..and that 27 million doesn't go into one persons pocket, come on Vern, you know better.

This is getting to be like "Listeria hysteria" [ CBC Radio today ;D], you still have more of a chance of dying driving to the store to buy contaminated meats.....

 

[armyvern]

No they don't.  They consider that removing the vests won't impair your safety.  Can you find one accident involving a major airline (ie: not small, single engine operators) in the last 30 years that required the use of the lift vest inside Canada's coasts?  Again, as I said, aviation is a balance between safety and efficiency.  Is the risk big enough to warrant the safety precautions?  Same thing happens with airplane malfunctions.  It's very rare that an airplane takes off with 100% of its systems working.  Why?  Is it worth grounding the airplane for the said system?  Some system yes, some systems no.  Same idea.  We aren't more at risk.  Plus, they did it already without you knowing for years....  It is, indeed, a Transport Canada policy that has been proven over many years and flying hours.

Yes we've been lucky haven't we ... here in Canada. It's only a matter of time.

Google "Air Florida Potomac River" There were people who (because the river was freezing) could not hold on things to float, but there were those who managed to get life jackets on ... they could float, despite being frozen - they watched some of those who could not hold on. 20 minutes they had to float to live. In a river "this" close to shore - let alone 50 nautical miles. Life jackets ... helped many of them do this. Many passengers on this flight also died because they inflated their lifevest INSIDE the plane --- that would seem to be a fault of the instruction given during the flight safety brief ... not due to the vest itself. Those who did inflate outside ... lived to tell their tale. The fact that so many people died due to inflating their vests inside the plane ... caused changes to occur in those flight safety briefings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlDYTp0E3I4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp81QyrmfA8

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/taat2.jpg

I also recall a flight that landed on the water in San Franciso Bay quite a few years ago, where all managed to get into their lifevests and survive.

Also recall another on, a huge airliner, ditched by the pilots offshore in som ocean where many survived. I seem recall that they, thank god, were close to shore as there was video of it. Good thing those survivors weren't a few more miles offshore with o life vests - as Jazz would now have them be. I'm thinking it was a deliberate ditch too ... highjackers?? Anyone else remember it?

 

[George Wallace]

Also recall another on, a huge airliner, ditched by the pilots offshore in som ocean where many survived. I seem recall that they, thank god, were close to shore as there was video of it. Good thing those survivors weren't a few more miles offshore with o life vests - as Jazz would now have them be. I'm thinking it was a deliberate ditch too ... highjackers?? Anyone else remember it?

Madagascar.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Vern, that is a take off emergency.  In a case like that, most people don't survive the crash itself.  If you read the accident report, page 21 in the medical and pathological information it clearly says that out of the 70 passengers that were killed, 69 had fatal injuries during the impact and 1 other guy drowned in his seat.

Of the 70 passengers killed in the crash, 69 suffered severe injuries considered
by the medical examiner to be directly related to the cause of death. One passenger
sustained only minor superficial injuries and death apparently resulted from drowning.
The most predominant fatal injury suffered was to the head, occurring in 36 of the
70 passengers. Nine of the passengers had fatal injuries of the neck. Twenty-nine
passengers sustained injuries to the chest considered to be fatal. There were four fatal
abdominal injuries and one fatal injury of the pelvis. Some passengers suffered more than
one type of fatal injury. Seventeen passengers received injuries not considered to be
immediately fatal. However, except for the person who apparently drowned, all suffered
incapacitating injuries due to secondary impact forces, making escape impossible.

If you can't get out of your seat, nobody will do it for you, and wether you have a jacket or not, you won't make it out.

Flights over the ocean still require life jackets.  The risk is not about how useful the life jacket is.  It's about the possibility of an aircraft crashing in water in continental Canada.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Yup, it was Ethiopian Airlines I believe.  Hijacked. 

 

[armyvern]

Flights over the ocean still require life jackets.  The risk is not about how useful the life jacket is.  It's about the possibility of an aircraft crashing in water in continental Canada.

Really, read some of the passenger statements of those who survived. Who clearly stated that they were too cold to hold on to anything. They floated -- IN their lifejackets - for twenty minutes before being rescued. Their life jackets SAVED their lives ... they say so. They were frozen solid when pulled from the water, but ... they floated thanks to their life vests ... and that's why they survived. That was my point.  You can make like lifevests made no difference, these survivors lived to tell you different. And, it may have been a "take-off" emergency, but the fact remains that they ended up in water mere feet from shore ... and life jackets still managed to be responsible for saving some of their lives. If the same thing happened today (and they were on Jazz of course) ... there'd be more souls lost than were because, of course, Jazz wouldn't have had any lifevests on that particular flight. It's certainly not like this crashing into (let's say ...) a frozen river in Canada off the good Isle of Montreal is a possibility at all. Surely they could all then just swim to shore, injured and frozen. Like I said, we've been lucky here in Canada haven't we? So far.

I'm dreading the thought of thinking back ... Let's say some winter month in Canada, within the 50 mile limit ... say off the coast of Peggy's Cove. You're on a Jazz flight that needs to ditch and manages to do so in a somewhat intact manner. Good luck to you - you're are definitely going to need it because without that lifejacket ... you just won't be able to hold on to that seat cushion for as long as it's going to take those fisherman to get to you ... and they have proven that they can move pretty fast when circumstances require. God bless their souls.

As a side note --- and googling this one some more: Many of them also dispute the coroners findings saying that they saw numerous people who were outside the aircraft lose their grip on what they were holding to slip under the water (that is perhaps due to them dying of their injuries while holding onto an item though and then slipping under the water). Note that the report also talks about those people inside the aircraft who were prevented from escaping due to others who had erroneously inflated their lifejackets inside the plane ... hmmm ... I guess they didn't drown though given the official "1" count even though they "were prevented from escaping due to others" not due to their own injuries. That seems kind of contradictory to me. I must be missing something.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Flights over the ocean still require life jackets.  The risk is not about how useful the life jacket is.  It's about the possibility of an aircraft crashing in water in continental Canada.
[/quote]


This is the wiki results on lakes listed in canada. Plenty of places to call "potential water disasters"

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

 

[SupersonicMax]

From the same report, 1 of the survivor used a flight attendant's life jacket because he was too injured.  The other were unable to use it.  

All but one of the survivors managed to cling to pieces of the floating
wreckage. The one exception was the most seriously injured passenger, and she was kept
afloat by a lifevest’which was inflated by the surviving flight attendant and passed to her
and her traveling companion. Her traveling companion helped her don the lifevest. The
survivors were unable to retrieve other lifevests that were seen floating in the area. They
reported that they experienced extreme difficulty in opening the package which contained
the one lifevest which was retrieved. They stated that the plastic package which
contained the lifevest was finally opened by chewing and tearing at it with their teeth.

To be effective, the life vest must be worn BEFORE the crash.  Otherwise, its hard to access it and put it on in all the comotion.  That makes Take off and Landing crashes in the water very hard to survive.

SNAFU:  I think we mentionned that 10 times already... AIRPLANES WILL ALWAYS BE AT GLIDING DISTANCE FROM SHORE.

 

[aesop081]

This is the wiki results on lakes listed in canada. Plenty of places to call "potential water disasters"

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

: