# An Airline I won't be flying on



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

Talk about stupid ways to save money.


----------



## smoke king (Aug 29, 2008)

True that!!!


----------



## Callisto in NC (Aug 29, 2008)

Maybe they should just weigh passangers as they get on to save money too.  That's ridiculous but even worse is that it's an allowed situation under the Canadian guidelines.


----------



## ronjohn55 (Aug 29, 2008)

This strikes me as a bit more of a sensationalistic story than it needs to be. Most domestic (US) aircraft have already gone through this to a degree. 

Case in point, of all the 757s I flew on to Kauai and back on vacation, only 2 - LAX to Lihue and Lihue back to LAX - were listed as "757-Overwater" models. The rest of them were not equipped with the same equipment because they are generally not over water. 

50 miles from shore on a passenger airliner at altitude? You are, for all intents and purposes over land. 

Of course, based on my flight experiences where they are even trying to charge for soft drinks now I can't see myself worry too mych about *any* airline, since odds are I won't be on it. 

I'll agree to pay a couple bucks for a can of Pepsi when they agree that my $1500 ticket will provide enough leg room to keep my knees out of the seat in front of me. And I'm a short guy!


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

ronjohn55 said:


> 50 miles from shore on a passenger airliner at altitude? You are, for all intents and purposes over land.



I disagree. When the plane goes down and lands in the middle of that water it really won't matter that you were at altitude. 

50 miles out with a 3 year old girl and a 1 year old boy with me, neither of whom who can't swim, you had better believe that a life vest would mean more to me than a floating seat cushion.


----------



## Alix (Aug 29, 2008)

GB, you wouldn't fly Jazz anyway. I agree with ronjohn, this is more sensational than it needs to be. Jazz isn't that big a carrier really. If you're going to be flying somewhere over water its a lot more likely to be a true Air Canada flight or Westjet. 

Anyway, this doesn't even tweak my radar. Chances are, if the plane is going down you aren't going to need that life vest anyway.


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

No I won't be flying Jazz, but the point of the story is that the airline is putting cost savings above safety, even if it is just a perception. Like i said, if I am on a plane with my kids and the plane goes into the water and we happen to survive then a floating cushion is not going to do me much good. I live vest will.


----------



## Alix (Aug 29, 2008)

GB, I guess what I am saying is that the flotation device is going to be every bit as effective as the life vest in the situations Jazz would need them for. I'm not defending here, just saying its really not a big deal. I didn't even realize Jazz was still flying to be perfectly honest. Half the time its not because of other financial stupidities. I'm not going to bother getting into them here, but really this is such a minor thing compared to some of the other outrageous stuff the airlines have done here that its not even an issue.


----------



## qmax (Aug 29, 2008)

Alix said:


> Anyway, this doesn't even tweak my radar. Chances are, if the plane is going down you aren't going to need that life vest anyway.



Truth.  I'll bet you can't find more than a couple instances in the last 20 years where life vests on a commercial aircraft were actually used.

I travel transcontinental all the time, and couldn't care less if there are life vests on board.


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

qmax said:


> Truth.  I'll bet you can't find more than a couple instances in the last 20 years where life vests on a commercial aircraft were actually used.
> 
> I travel transcontinental all the time, and couldn't care less if there are life vests on board.


I bet you would if you were one of those couple of instances.


----------



## ronjohn55 (Aug 29, 2008)

GB said:


> I disagree. When the plane goes down and lands in the middle of that water it really won't matter that you were at altitude.
> 
> 50 miles out with a 3 year old girl and a 1 year old boy with me, neither of whom who can't swim, you had better believe that a life vest would mean more to me than a floating seat cushion.



GB, a plane at altitude will take more than 50 miles to land. Which is why I said that you are "for all purposes" over land. On our recent trip we "started our descent" at roughly 250 miles out according to the pilot's announcement. 

In a situation such as TWA 800 where the plane breaks up over water in mid air (or experiences some other malfunction causing to drop that far in less than 50 miles) well... no life vest is going to save someone.  

And as for the the airline putting money over safety, well... yes. But only because the regulators did it first.


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

ronjohn55 said:


> GB, a plane at altitude will take more than 50 miles to *land*. Which is why I said that you are "for all purposes" over land.


Land yes, but it won't take that long to crash. If your plane is going down then it is going to drop to the ground in a lot less than 50 miles.

I will grant you that in most cases if your plane is going down then chances are you are dead no matter what. However if I were lucky enough to survive the decent then I sure as heck would want whatever safety equipment I could have that might keep me alive. 

Getting rid of safety equipment to save money is a poor decision IMO. I would be willing to bet I could find something else to get rid of on the plane instead of the live vests.


----------



## qmax (Aug 29, 2008)

GB said:


> I bet you would if you were one of those couple of instances.



Yeah, but the probability of that happening is up there with winning the Powerball lottery.


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

Apples and oranges qmax. Winning the lottery is not a life or death situation. If you don't win the lottery then that sucks for you, but your life goes on. If you are in a plane that crashes into the water and you do not have a life vest then have fun checking out the bottom of the lake you just landed in.


----------



## TATTRAT (Aug 29, 2008)

Alix said:


> . Chances are, if the plane is going down you aren't going to need that life vest anyway.



QFT

+10000000006

if I am on a plane that is going down, I am not worried about finding the life vest, FIND ME THE BAR CART!


----------



## ronjohn55 (Aug 29, 2008)

GB said:


> Land yes, but it won't take that long to crash. If your plane is going down then it is going to drop to the ground in a lot less than 50 miles.



I disagree. From 30,000 - 34,000 feet (Rough average of what most of my flights seem to cruise around) it will actually take more than 50 miles due to the speed of the aircraft (and a reasonable angle of decent). The whole key is the phrase "at altitude". 

Now, that's barring some catastrophic failure causing you to drop at a far steeper angle, and in that case I agree it's pretty much over no matter what you have on board or where you land. 

Personally, I'd prefer to never have to test any of these theories.

Edit to add: I checked their website and I couldn't find the type of planes they are flying. I'm arguing this point based on the assumption that it's a commercial aircraft and not some little puddle jumper that flies at about 20,000 feet. THat changes the argument quite a bit.


----------



## qmax (Aug 29, 2008)

GB said:


> Apples and oranges qmax. Winning the lottery is not a life or death situation. If you don't win the lottery then that sucks for you, but your life goes on. If you are in a plane that crashes into the water and you do not have a life vest then have fun checking out the bottom of the lake you just landed in.




It's up there with worrying about getting hit by a meteor.  If you are in a plane that crashes in the water, you'll never get the chance to use the vest anyway.

Last instance I can think of with a water-ditch was that Ethiopian 767 that was hijacked and ran out of fuel off of east Africa.  Around 100 people survived but few of them had a chance to put on life vests.

That, BTW, was about a dozen years ago.


----------



## jennyema (Aug 29, 2008)

I was under the impression that most airlines have dispensed with life vests in favor of seat cushions. 

I actually think this is a good idea. The vests were flimsy and hidden under the seat. The cushions are right there under your butt.

As a practial matter your chances of being able to access and use a life vest to save your life in an airplane crash are incredibly miniscule.

There was a plane crash in Boston in the water about 25 years ago but no one could get life vests on then, either.


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

I would still want the option though. If G-d forbid i am ever in that situation with my kids, how am I supposed to keep them afloat on a cushion?

Get rid of the skymall magazine and give me my life vest back.


----------



## qmax (Aug 29, 2008)

Water landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"So the life jackets ... have little purpose other than to make passengers feel better."


----------



## ronjohn55 (Aug 29, 2008)

GB said:


> Get rid of the skymall magazine and give me my life vest back.



But, but... That's 250 pages of stuff I never knew I didn't need!


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

My Father In Law worked for the FAA for many many years. On numerous occasions he even briefed the President of the United States on crashes that had occurred. He was specifically involved with crash investigation and prevention. I spoke with him about this and he agrees that chances of using the vests are very slim BUT it is ridiculous to not have them on board just to save some money.


----------



## jennyema (Aug 29, 2008)

GB said:


> I would still want the option though. If G-d forbid i am ever in that situation with my kids, how am I supposed to keep them afloat on a cushion?
> 
> Get rid of the skymall magazine and give me my life vest back.


 

The cushions have straps on them and are actually very effective flotation devices.  They are widely used on boats, canoes, etc.

If I were ever in that situation I would rather have the cushion than that cheapo life vest that you have to blow up with a straw.

Have you ever seen anyone buy anything out of that magazine?


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

I am very familiar with those cushions as well as water safety. I was a white water canoe instructor for years as well as a water safety instruction. Those cushions have straps, yes, but you can not attach them to your body. if you lose consciousness then you are dead. If the water is cold and you loose feeling in your hands then you are dead. If you break your arm in the crash and cant use your hand to hold onto the strap then you are dead. If you are a child or infant then you are dead. At least with the vests they are a hands free device that will keep you afloat. Not to mention that the vests are designed to flip up face up even if you are unconscious so you will not die from having your face under water.   

My parents were in a boating accident years ago. They had those cushions, but were not wearing live vests. The owner of the boat did not know how to swim. When the boat went down the first thing my dad did was yell to Richard to make such he had a cushion. He yelled back yes as he lifted it above his head to show dad. Yes he went right under the water as he did this.


----------



## pacanis (Aug 29, 2008)

GB said:


> ...Land yes, but it won't take that long to crash. If your plane is going down then it is going to drop to the ground in a lot less than 50 miles...


 
If a commercial airline is at altitude and not in "crash mode", 50 miles is plenty of distance to achieve the proper glide angle to get you back over land and aimed towards an airport or highway.
If it's descent is any faster than that, then I agree a life vest isn't going to do you any good.

However, if you're on that plane that crashed in the Potomac shortly after takeoff, I would rather have the vest, but it would probably be a lot easier to grab a nearby floating cushion than inflating a vest and putting it on once you are in the water.

JMO


----------



## DramaQueen (Aug 29, 2008)

*Your seat is your flotation device and I would think you could use that a lot quicker than a vest.   When the plane is going down like a dart into t**he water, would you have the time or the where-with-all to put on and tie your life vest?  I don't think I would remember where the vest was to begin with.   The Jazz plane they're referring to flies over the Great Lakes and I guess their reasoning is that if the plane were to go into a "water landing"  (I  love that phrase)  then the Coast Guard would be able to reach you in a very short time being only  50 miles from shore.   Your flotation device would hold you til then.   If you're  unconcious, well, you're on your own.    Now, who said to get rid of the skymall magazine????     No!*


----------



## GB (Aug 29, 2008)

DramaQueen said:


> *Your seat is your flotation device and I would think you could use that a lot quicker than a vest.   *


And what about my kids?


----------



## pacanis (Aug 29, 2008)

DramaQueen said:


> *...The Jazz plane they're referring to flies over the Great Lakes and I guess their reasoning is that if the plane were to go into a "water landing" (I love that phrase) then the Coast Guard would be able to reach you in a very short time being only 50 miles from shore...*


 
Are you fifty miles from _any_ shore if you are flying over the great lakes


----------



## jpmcgrew (Aug 29, 2008)

This is all over trying to save a lousy 50# ? Maybe better yet they should make sure everyone goes #1 and # 2, I wonder how many pounds they could save then


----------



## TATTRAT (Aug 29, 2008)

perhaps they will strip everything to the shell, issue earplugs, and call it a MAC flight.


----------



## jpmcgrew (Aug 29, 2008)

TATTRAT said:


> perhaps they will strip everything to the shell, issue earplugs, and call it a MAC flight.


  First class will be aluminum lawn chairs bolted down with a piece of rope for a seat belt.


----------



## TATTRAT (Aug 29, 2008)

hey, that sound better then the 30hour flight accommodations I have had from that type of flying! If I can hear my MP3 player, I WILL pay extra!


----------



## AmericaWestCMH (Aug 29, 2008)

What's the big deal?  Airplanes have pretty amazing glide ratios, but if it just so happens to take a nosedive into water you're fish food anyway.  


Why worry about every once-in-billion "what if?" scenario?


----------



## GB (Aug 30, 2008)

So by that logic you would be fine if they got rid of all safety equipment on a plane? And your stats are way off. Once in a billion might be a saying, but it is not an accurate depiction of how often planes crash. Safer than driving on a highway, yes, but crashes happen all the time and there are survivors sometimes as well. 

Why worry? Because I would like to stay as safe as possible and not die because of a cost cutting measure. But I never said I was worrying. I just said it was a stupid way to save money.


----------



## AmericaWestCMH (Aug 30, 2008)

GB said:


> So by that logic you would be fine if they got rid of all safety equipment on a plane?




Don't be so dramatic.   Flotation devices (seat cushions) are the required equipment in this application, and that is what is being provided.   Nothing illegal or unsafe here.


----------



## GB (Aug 30, 2008)

Ummm I am not being dramatic and I never said that it was illegal. I said it was a stupid way to save money.


----------



## DramaQueen (Aug 30, 2008)

*I'm getting ready to fly back to Las Vegas from Michigan and my first flight to O'Hare in Chicago is over Lake Michigan entirely.  It takes about 40 minutes to fly over the lake so I'm not sure how wide Lake Michigan actually is.   I will, of course, be thinking of this conversation as I fly  over the water.    The rest of the 3 1/2 hour flight is mostly over desert, and mountains.   Doesn't matter where the plane goes down, you're toast.  Flotation devices aren't worth much here.*


----------



## buckytom (Aug 30, 2008)

i'm thinking of putting a couple of mae wests in the back of my truck...  




am-west, prop airplanes have decent glide ratios. 

jets, especially one's with fat people and extra luggage, drop like rocks. but i agree with ronjohn. it depends on the altitude.


----------



## qmax (Aug 30, 2008)

buckytom said:


> i'm thinking of putting a couple of mae wests in the back of my truck...



Isn't that what D. B. Cooper tried?


----------



## AmericaWestCMH (Aug 30, 2008)

buckytom said:


> am-west, prop airplanes have decent glide ratios.
> 
> jets, especially one's with fat people and extra luggage, drop like rocks. but i agree with ronjohn. it depends on the altitude.



A few hundred pounds of luggage and fat makes little difference on a jet weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Jets do just fine and in most cases as well or better than a typical prop; see the 'Gimli Glider' story and the Air Transat flight that had to glide down.  The Gimli Glider (767) managed 12:1, the Cessnas I flew were at best 8 or 9:1.


----------



## buckytom (Aug 30, 2008)

awww, you had to make it personal, didn't ya? you had to bring up maintenance as the bad guys...

(i was only kidding about fat people and luggage. except isn't it true that bigger people have bigger stuff?)


----------



## DramaQueen (Aug 31, 2008)

qmax said:


> Isn't that what D. B. Cooper tried?


 
*He did, but did it work for him?  We'll never know. *


----------



## expatgirl (Sep 1, 2008)

ever sit next to a Genghis Khan descendent?  Or have one sitting behind you?  Your seat will be taken over by half and your feet will be kicked out from beneath you.....so what does a Texas girl do?  Well, you take over the range that is rightfully yours........when I see that GK is sitting next to me I fight for my half of the seat.......I don't move or budge and I push back.... call it the range wars..eventually the hint is taken unless he wants to get real chummy and he doesn't........these borders are not being breached.......now as for the feet I kick back......works for me.....I hate doing it but turning around and giving looks does not work....sorry I don't speak enough Russian that would make the person understand.......yes, it's always the male species.....they do understand a kick however......

ok, I've digressed.........as far as GB is concerned I want the life vests any day esp. if I have children with me.......I got into an argument with my hubby over this exact topic today..........he said the same thing......"what are the chances of?"  and I countered with "what were the chances of the Titanic sinking?  but it did and there were not enough life rafts.......I'll take a life vest over a flotation device but both would be nice to have on hand........hope that none of us are ever in that situation, however


----------

