Will this be a trend?

[ChrisVJ]

Air Canada announcing the removal of life jackets (for seat cushions) in their subsidiary Jazz. Adjusting flight paths to compensate.

This may save some gas over a substantial period but personally it always worries me when I get on an over water flight and I am told to hanf g onto my cushion in the event of ditching. 70K out in the ocean on a dark and low vis night but not to worry, I've got a cushion?

N.L. mayor says airline decision to replace life vests unconscionable - Yahoo! Canada News (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080825/national/nl_airline_rights)

[2Planks]

IIRC from my travels in the country just below you this is common practice. I also believe that the number of lives saved by a lifevest are minimal. If they had substituted smokehoods for life vests 50 years ago a lot more lives would have been saved.

[Rainboe]

Very valid decision! They are changing flight paths to compensate for the few occasions a Jazz will actually pass over a substantial body of water. On board the aircraft are numerous seat cushions. Life jackets are a very expensive commodity regularly being removed by passengers. When was the last time you saw airline heads bobbing in water.....anywhere, least of all a largely landlocked country, with short, overwater passages. Not something to lie awake at night about! I agree about smokehoods- a totally sensible comment.

[TightSlot]

If they had substituted smokehoods for life vests 50 years ago a lot more lives would have been saved.

I agree about smokehoods- a totally sensible comment

Those viewing this thread need to be aware that these are personal opinions expressed by the contributors: The CAA and various airlines in the UK have taken a different historical view. The absence of regulation in the UK, USA, or, as far as I'm aware, any other nation in the world mandating the provision of smokehoods for passenger would seem to indicate that there is more than one point of view.

[WHBM]

I can't remember the last time a commercial airliner ditched in any way surviveably into water out of sight of land. It may well be back in prop aircraft days. So the whole thing about life-vests being required beyond 50 miles or whatever seems a bit of a non-sequiteur.

Far more relevant are those runway approaches over or alongside water. For example I always confirm my lifejacket position before both landing into and departing from London City, with the runway surrounded by water. La Guardia the same. And if we ever depart the paved strip for the grass there I'll reach down and have it out and over my head in a flash before any command.

Several aircraft have gone into the water at such locations over time. Did the pax from the Japan Air Lines DC-8 that let down nice and gently into San Francisco Bay don their jackets ?

And yes, I do put mine on when flying single engined across the English Channel.

[apaddyinuk]

I dont think most Jazz flights have too much to worry about with regards time over water. However it must also be noted that sometimes Life Jackets are counter productive. I do not know what the statistics are but I am sure they are out there somewhere regarding the numbers of those who inflate their life jackets before exiting the aircraft. In situations where a ditching has taken place and the ability to safely evacuate is there I am sure that seat cushions are more than adequate as long as the exposure doesnt get you! LOL!