Comments on: Airline Removed Life Vests to Save Fuel

By: awh

awh — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:23:17 +0000

WTB an airplane that has parachutes. Screw the life jackets.

By: firithlotiel

firithlotiel — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:45:45 +0000

0_0 note to self: do NOT ride their airline...

By: MoonCake

MoonCake — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:30:50 +0000

but joe, airlines don't like people with legs. but yea. this is a good idea because they should have done it a looong time ago. it's one of those things that plane developers could have done without from the beginning. and now they're like "oh we have this GREAT new idea.. let's get rid of this thing that we've never even used before to combat an issue that will never go away! go team!" i'm just wondering how many tiny things they're going to get rid of before they realize the whole market needs to change and not just the few minor details surrounding it.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:35:37 +0000

Makes sense to me. While they're at it, they could remove a couple rows of seats so people with, you know, LEGS could comfortably sit in a Jazz plane.

By: Johnny Cat

Johnny Cat — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:23:44 +0000

Thanks, catskill, for being braver than I to point out that these things are useless weight on any flight. Like Carlin says, "Is it me, or does 'water landing' sound suspiciously close to CRASHING INTO THE OCEAN?" I looked around. The only times life vests were deployed in the last 20 years or so were twice that mattered. One instance was a non water landing, in 1989, and the other was a missing aircraft in 2000. Seriously, if a Boeing or a MD crashes into the ocean, nobody is going to need a floatation device/aka pillow of beer farts!

By: Buzz

Buzz — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:33:16 +0000

This is exactly what southwest does. Big surprise that every airline is emulating SouthWest. FWIW southwest has never had a crash.

By: Moi

Moi — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:41:09 +0000

Since it's a regional carrier for Canada, the planes are mainly flying over land. In a way, it makes sense because an inflatable life vest would be pretty useless on land. At least the safety demonstration will be shorter.

By: SenorMysterioso

SenorMysterioso — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:16:58 +0000

all I need on a flight is a seat and I could go without that if need be

By: Zombie79

Zombie79 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:23:14 +0000

Planes don't land in water anyways .... they really crash. Which makes the idea of walking, er - swimming away from one with the help of a life vest a bit silly.

Why don't they save more fuel by simply cutting the passengers? You know, take the money and give them a ticket, just don't let them board at take-off. Because I swear the airlines want just that. We give them money to not provide a service.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:18:24 +0000

Okay, so it's within regulations. But, uh, how much fuel is there to save by getting rid of them? I mean, let's face it, the things come uninflated and probably don't weigh much anyway.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:50:26 +0000

I agree, most of the time they just end up looking like strawberry jam when they hit the ground.

By: catskill

catskill — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:42:54 +0000

I can only remember one time where a commercial airliner crashed on water and lifejackets were actually needed. In that case, however, many of the passengers inflated them while still in the plane and were then trapped inside and unable to escape. Those who did not inflate them were able to swim down and out of the wreckage. There would have been more survivors if there were not jackets. Bummer.

By: Neatoramawontsendmeapassword

Neatoramawontsendmeapassword — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:59:13 +0000

At first glance, this sounds like a bad idea. But if you look at the route map for Jazz, you'll see that most of their flights are over land.

http://www.flyjazz.ca/english/ourComm/routeMap.asp