Photo: slushpupBefore reading any further, come up with an answer to the question of how much an airline would need to pay you to give up your life vest on your next flight. (You would still have your cushion to use as a flotation device, but good luck hanging onto that cushion after the plane crash-lands in the water!)
Canadian airline Jazz Air thinks the answer to that question must be less than 3 cents. The airline recently announced that they were removing life vests from their airplanes in order to save on fuel costs. They can get away with using seat cushions as flotation devices since their flights mostly stay within 50 miles of the shore.
How much will this move save them on fuel costs? The life vests weigh about one pound apiece. I don’t know how long their average flight is. Let’s say it’s 1,000 miles. Based on this online discussion, it seems that the fuel costs to fly one extra pound a distance of 1,000 miles is about 3 cents — so removing the life vests saves the airline 3 cents per seat per flight; not exactly big money.
I’d take the 3 cents. I value my life very highly, but I think that the chance the life vest will save me is vanishingly small.
I suspect, however, that most passengers would pay 3 cents for the life vest — which is why there were probably audible groans in the Jazz headquarters when their choice to remove life vests made headlines.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Flying US domestic flights one does not get a life vest. I would say that most people would not want to give up their life vest just on principle and that measely 3¢. You are asking people to value their lives so it will be always above what is offered.
The question becomes what ~would~ people tolerate going without on planes? If they would eliminate the nasty carpet on planes that could save money- I wouldn’t miss it at all.
One thing I believe will backfire on the airlines is the no-snack or no-meal cost savings as this encourages people to bring far more (and heavier) food on board. The airline saves money on the front end but pays on the backend with higher fuel and trash disposal costs. The only upside to this is since knives are banned, people cannot bring a 10 lb roll of bologna on board to cut up to make sandwiches…
The truth is, I’d do it for free. But if I could get money out of it, I’d try to hold out for the money.
Why free? Consider….
If we crash, the odds of me surviving, first the crash, and then the water pouring in torrents into the broken fuselage, and, escaping all of that, the sharkes and sea…are nil.
Second, being a big guy, I can float for hours without a tube (and when we go tubing on a river, I typically don’t take a tube…I just body surf…I’m that buoyant.
Third, the odds of ACTUALLY CRASHING at all are so samll that you likely have nearly as much chance of winning the lottery as crashing. So maybe it’s not really needed.
Fourth, maybe a life vest is really a PSYCHOLOGICAL thing. That is, the airlines know that in a water crash, you have almost zero chance of surviving, but to give you the appearance of security, they give you these life vests. Maybe it’s really like giving you a Star Trek “beam me up” device…and having the stewardess instruct you, “If we encounter trouble, take out your Star Trek thingy, and say, ‘Beam me up, Scotty,” and you’ll go to a safe, happy place.”
The REAL question is “How much would I need to be paid to give up my young son’s life vest for the flight?” Even though the odds haven’t changed, I imagine I’d want every precaution and NEED the psychological element, as well.
I’ve read that no one has ever used an airline safety vest, anywhere in the world, in the history of commercial aviation. If they were in any way potentially useful, the safety authorities would demand they be left on.
I think this boils down to the psychology of it all. You’ll have people who constantly think that their plane is the next one to go down and if you tell them that the airline is trying to save 3 cents per passenger by getting rid of life vests, I think those kinds of people would start thinking:
“Oh my gosh! If they’re willing to get rid of my life vest over 3 cents, then what other safety measures are they getting rid of to save even more money?!”
For me, I could care less because I think the only thing I could do if my plane was going down would be to put my head between my knees, pucker up, and kiss my butt goodbye.
Give me a 10 dollar discount and I’ll fly the airline without life vests. Give me 100 bucks and I’ll fly without seat belts.
Aside from the additional savings of not having to inspect existing or replace old life jackets company-wide (certainly more savings than simply fuel cost), does one really expect that a 3-cent per passenger savings would actually be passed on to the consumer when airlines are struggling to make a profit?
Not bloody likely.
How much would you pay for a placebo? (Or rather how much would you need to be paid to give up your placebo?) It gives the “safety briefing” something to talk about. Without it, they’d be just about limited to “leave through the nearest exit”, which for nervous fliers might not be adequate.
@blue92 – not to mention that competition here is pretty weak, so they can get away with pocketing the savings.
Interestingly, Canadian airlines still aren’t charging for the first piece of checked luggage.