While they're at it, I think they should ditch all sorts of other unnecessary crap as well:

- emergency slides which double as life rafts
- the $8 blanket and pillow packages
- those often-fondled-but-never-read safety pamphlets
- the complimentary "headphones"
- footrests for business class travellers (they can use the backs of the economy-class passengers)
- cans of Molson Canadian beer

@Tmoney02: All I'll say is 5.7% bodyfat, not ideal, but by no means excessive. I never mentioned communisim. If it was communist then we'd all get on the plane and the short skinny people would balance out the taller heaver people alla from each man's ability to everyman's need...

OMG that's how it is now, sniffle, I not a communist, sniffle.

Still, you think customers at the airport are ornery now, try and get every female on the plane to get on a scale and get weighed. Tears, anger, drama, it'll all be there.

"But, but, it's just water gain from my period"

Ya see, men have enough to deal with, we dont need angry spouses going on crash diets because they have to weigh in for a flight next week.

Jazz DOES fly over major water (try getting to/from YVR, YYZ, or YHZ without it). I highly doubt, though, that they do it to a distance of 100 nm, or anywhere outside the vicinity of the above hubs.

Even if they did, in 35 years, Air canada has had one incident of ANY kind involving the aircraft Jazz would use. A pilot overcorrected and there was a bumpy landing. No fatalities. I'm hardly concerned if they leave out equipment that they historically have never needed, that would be of use only in a ridiculously rare circumstance (aircraft incidents almost NEVER happen except on approach or takeoff), and only where there are already SAR teams, Coast Guard, and military support available.

For people asking about the 90km distance welcome to the wonderful world of CARS, Canadian Air Regulations.

@B:
Good luck getting a Dash 8 up to 30000ft anyway =)

My user name approves of the Gimli Glider talk ;)

@Secret Agent Man: I believe there were survivors back in the 80's when a plane hit the 14th street bridge in Washington DC. I think it was Flight 91.

Someone came up with this idea in the Accounting department. They don't travel.

25 kilograms is about 55 pounds. Two people each bringing an extra suitcase on board negates that miniscule weight savings. What's next, weighing the passengers and charging them extra based on their weight?

A good entrepreneur can pick them up for a song then maybe resell them as "flight experienced!!", via shops at the airports ... right beside the flight insurance machines.

/kidding ... I think.

In 1983 a Boeing 767 operated by Air Canada ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet due to a metric conversion error. Unable to reach Winnipeg the pilot (a former glider pilot) diverted to an abandoned airstrip at Gimli and was able to stretch out the glide to a safe landing.

The pilot achieved a 12:1 glide ratio (5,000 ft drop in 10 nautical miles).

So... at 90km (48 nautical miles) out a plane could theoretically glide without power from 24,000 feet to reach land. Having an airport in range is another matter but possible given a typical cruising altitude of 30-40,000 ft.

More on the "Gimli Glider": [en.wikipedia.org]

Another Canadian glider (what's with these guys?) was an Air Transat Airbus330 that ran out fuel over the Atlantic and was able to reach the Azores with a descent rate of about 2000 ft/minute (forward airspeed unknown). [en.wikipedia.org]

This is a regional airline with very few overwater hops. Not sure why them getting rid of life vests is an issue. If anything, it seems to make perfect sense.

1. This can't possibly save much money.
On a Boeing 777, it costs about $0.15 to transport one pound for about 3.5 hours (above and beyond the cost of flying an empty plane). Assuming a smaller plane and a slightly lower average flight time, let's estimate about ten cents per pound per trip. Let's also assume they can eliminate 100 pounds on each plane, a total savings of $10 per flight. Now, multiply that by the number of flights per day (750 average), and 365, and you get a total savings of about $2.7M per year. In reality, this is probably a high estimate, but since you're talking about savings in the millions of dollars, it makes a lot of sense. Not to mention that if they can increase profit margins even slightly, employees get a better profit sharing deal, which results in happier employees, and potentially more sales. Think of what they can save by not providing a few pounds of snacks.

2. Why is the 90km number so magical?
My best guess is that this is the distance a plane under control could glide on water toward land, or get pretty dang close. Assuming it's an emergency landing and the pilot has decent control, he might be able to glide the plane this far (or most of the distance). It would take a Boeing 757 about 5 minutes to glide this difference at cruising speed, which is probably still too much to ask for, but it at least gets the crash in good location of quick coast guard response.

True, survivable water landings don't happen often, but safety devices exist to increase our chances in the event of the unlikely. The argument is presumably that there isn't enough potential for lives saved to justify the expense in this case, but one has to wonder, if the vests aren't really necessary, how did they make the calculation that they WERE sufficiently necessary to be worth buying and putting on planes in the first place?

Canadian Law states that vests are needed for any flights which venture more than 90 KM from shore - so to get around the law Air Canada is modifying it's routes to within 90km to be able to legally drop the vests.

Which begs 2 questions:

What is the difference between 90KM and 91KM out at sea that dictates whether I need to be wearing a vest with emergency flasher device, or clinging to a floating rectangle?

If dumping the vests saves fuel, how does modifying the routes affect mileage?

"In the unlikely event of a water landing... Does this sound suspiciously like CRASHING INTO THE OCEAN?"

RIP Carlin.

How much does the co-pilot weight? What do we need all these goddamn seats for anyways? Get rid of the damn passengers, they weigh far too much!

I'm not arguing that vests have to be carried--there's no evidence they'd have reduced mortality on 5050, for instance--just pointing out how these things have gone.

There's your water landing. Fortunately, with the ice cold water, you'll die of hypothermia before you drown. Or your muscles will seize up and you won't be able to hang on to your seat cushion and you'll drown.

But like that Swiss Air flight whose allegedly Muslim pilot and copilot sent the aircraft into a nosedive into the North Atlantic, you hit the water at high speed, you're dead. Fugedaboudit! Only in the "Airplane" movies of the 1970s did people survive water landings.

The fact of the matter is that the inflatable life vests aren't a big deal if you're not flying over the ocean. Most transcontinential airlines don't keep them around, but that's not the story here. Air Canada decides to do away with something that's only marginally useful on small airplanes and they get hammered for it as though they're all evil.

If you end up ditching anywhere near a coastline, they'll have rescue teams out there in a blink, and the seat cushion still floats just fine.

@Git Em SteveDave displays attention-grabbing vanity: Wouldn't you rather wear the vest and therefore have two hands free to hold the baby on the flotation cushion?

I used to work for a small firm that made parts for commercial and military aircraft and weight was a huge issue. I've always wondered why airlines painted their fleet. Multiple coats of heavy paint seem more frivolous than life vests.

In reference to the issue hey I'm a 6'3 guy and your 270lb weight tells me you are either a serious couch potato or serious body builder, not just "in good shape". Either way your are above average weight wise (most people don't approach 300lbs) and should pay more. Do you complain at the post office about having to pay more to ship your letter/package? Do you call them communists for charging everyone only one price for their priority mail flat rate boxes? (How communist of them!)

One wonders if there is any logic behind the rant or just pure emotional whining that being 270 lbs and carrying everything plus the kitchen sink might cost you personally an extra 100 dollars in a industry based on shipping people and their stuff. (ignoring the fact that if you had a wife you could probably give her all your luggage and only pay the $20 bucks for being a hefty boy.)

This is not a big deal. The crew of the Titanic made a similar decision, and I seem to remember things working out just fine.

Of course, most aircraft accidents happen during take-off and landing, so airports near water might be an issue...

Westjet is definitely a superior airline to Air Canada and they do have life vests. They also have more room in each seat, more comfortable seats and actual service.

On a recent flight some yahoo had stuck gum under the armrest and at one point I brushed against it and had gum stuck to my cotton skirt. They brought me ice to help clean it off, a dry cleaning voucher to pay for the cleaning, and a free drink to make up for the inconvenience. AND your first 2 bags are still free.

@Elcheecho:
The only major bodies would possibly be the great lakes.
I wouldn't be too worried about no life vests.

I hope they keep the inflatable Auto Pilot....

You do know that Air Canada has one of the safest flight records in the world?

[www.aircanada.com]

Yeah, because they don't have to make an approach over Lake Ontario to land in Toronto, or over Flushing Bay to land at NY/LaGuardia.. Looks like jazz has cut it's Toronto-New Orleans flight, but anyone who's landed in New Orleans knows the North/South runway approach is over Lake Pontchartrain.

Crashes happen, most often, on take off and landing and lots of airports are set up on coastlines.

@sean98125: Your shitting me right? I'm 6'3" 270lbs (in good shape), so your're saying that including luggage, you think I should pay an extra $100 each way?

Fascist much? Acutally, no, fascisim is making everyone have the same ideals, I cant control being 6'3", so that would be nazism.

Lets be serious here....
a life vest is most likely to save your life if you have it on and are involved in an accident - and it's inflated... since I am not jumping out of the plane until it is already in the drink, my chief concern is getting out of the plane - NOT grabbing the life vest or seat cushion...
I can always take my pants off and turn them into a make-shift life vest if I REALLY need some assistance staying afloat - or just climb on top of the large gentleman that hogged my armrest the entirely flight.

Their wardrobe isn't heavy, it's just big-boned!

I think the poll is misleading... it asks if it bothers us if they take life-vests off aircraft. However, there are a number of different kinds of flights. Does it bother me in this case? Nope... in fact, they were never REQUIRED to have them on the aircraft for those kinds of regional flights in teh first place.

On the other hand, would it bother me if they removed them from trans-continental flights, or flights that travel a significant distance over water? Uh... yah!

And hey, we're talking about about a pound per seat lighter, so for some planes that's 400 pounds, it's like getting a whole passenger and their luggage off the plane, maybe even two!

...wait, that's a significant change?

I've said it before - the airlines should just charge by the pound for each passenger and all of their luggage. The price of the ticket allows 250 pounds combined passenger and luggage, everything over that is a buck or two a pound.

I can get an inflatable life vest if I'm really that concerned about it. But I'm not going to be too concerned about surviving a water landing between Vancouver and Baffin Bay.

I will channel George Carlin...

"Floating in the North Atlantic on a pillow full of beer farts..."

@cf27: If it's not summer and a plane flying in canada crashes into water, Hypothermia's a real possibility, and life vest or no, being stuck in lake Superior any time from say November-March for more than 30 mins gonna moot the point.
It would indeed be easier to hold your baby if you didn't have to cling to a cushion and the baby, but you'd better hope you're doing it in summer.

@Werrick, completely the case.

@B: no, not really. lakes would be the largest bodies of water to worry about, in my opinion. there are a lot of lakes in canada but most of them are smaller anyways... the life jackets on some routes are completely unnecessary.

@BeeBoo:

ahh, but some do:

www.cirrusdesign.com

I disagree on the principal- sacrificing (perceived) safety to save money. But practically, one would never need thos vests on a Jazz flight.

AHA!

This is okay, actually.

According to the Canadian Avation Regulations (CARs) there is no requirement to carry life-vests for any non-intercontinental flight travelling fewer than 100 nautical miles off-shore. Jazz is a regional airline that carries people between places no greater than a few hundred miles and doesn't travel over any body of water greater than the Great Lakes, and even then rarely.

They're not doing anything wrong or unsafe. And I say that as someone who works for Transport Canada in an operational role, dealing with the regs on a fairly regular basis.

Back in the 1950s there were water landings aplenty. A Boeing 377 Stratocruiser had to ditch in the Pacific enroute to Hawaii (I think everyone made it), a 377 had to ditch in the bay near Seattle after takeoff (some fatalities), and a Constellation on a military charter had to ditch in the Atlantic; I think most of those people made it too. In recent times, they are extremely rare, though a DC-9 did ditch in the middle of the Atlantic around 1976, enroute from near PR to JFK, due to a fuel error; there were a few deaths.

However, that's not to say that life vests are a useful thing in those situations. And don't commercial flights in the U.S. stick to seat flotation in the same situation?

Anyway, pretty common sense approach to saving some weight and I do not recall any crash survivors claiming their vests saved them recently in land crashes.

I remember hearing that there had never been a water landing with any survivors in the history of commercial aviation.

However, I have done no investigation, and that may be entirely false.

It always makes me laugh when I hear the instructions about your seat being used as a flotation device.

Ships need life vests.

What planes need are ***parachutes***, which they don't have, yet nobody hollers about that.

This is a non-issue.

i don't think Jazz flies over than many bodies of water.

"I mean, who comes up with these things?"

Can infants wear vests? I would think you would have the infant on the cushion, and hold onto the cushion, so the baby is out of the water.

so airplanes are cutting back on life vests AND extra fuel to save money?... bad combination

I can't think of the last time a plane crashed into water where there were any survivors. Maybe the 70's

so who really cares if the damn plane has life vests?

btw Vancouver's air port has got to be one of the worst airports I've ever been too. good luck with those Olympics.