Ce site est conçu pour les fureteurs compatibles avec les normes web. Il demeure tout de même fonctionnel avec les autres fureteurs.

Accéder au contenu

Better air safety would cost peanuts

Montreal Gazette - August 13, 1997

By Colin Kenny

I am not usually a white knuckle flyer, but let me tell you why I am worried about some of the flights that take off and land at Dorval International Airport every day.

I like to relax on a plane. Like most Canadians, my thoughts turn elsewhere when the flight attendant starts tugging at those cords on the inflatable life preserver, explaining what to do in the case of a mishap. It helps soothe my nerves not to dwell on that stuff.

You know the line of thinking - It ain't gonna happen to me, and if it does, what will it matter even if I know what to do? Planes that fall out of the sky don't offer up many survivors, even among the prudent folk who know the ropes when the oxygen masks start to drop.

Well, stupid me. The truth is that safety in the passenger cabin does matter. Flights don't usually get into trouble thousands of feet in the air. It's those takeoffs and landings that cause problems every now and then. Bad takeoffs or landings are when you want to be able to get out of the plane lickety split. In a calm, orderly way, of course. We all know that panic can kill people.

Which brings me to the question of flight attendants. People who think of flight attendants as nothing more than sky waitresses haven't been watching the TV news.

Remember the L10-11 that overshot the runway at JFK in the summer of 1992? There were nine flight attendants on that one - three over the minimum required. They were all needed - they managed to get 292 passengers out safely.

Remember the Air Ontario flight that took off with ice on the wings and crashed in Dryden in 1989? Of the 69 people aboard, 24 died, including three crew members. Of the two flight attendants, only one - Sonia Hartwick - was able to help evacuate passengers from a darkened plane filling up with toxic smoke.

These attendants are the people who pull us out of our shock, put a lid on our panic, and get us out of the plane if there is a problem. Not the pilot or the co-pilot - those folks have their hands full and they use their own escape hatches in case of an accident.

Which brings me to the next question of planes like the CL-65 CRJs and the Dash 8 300s flown by Air Canada. These planes are configured for 50 passenger seats. They are nice, mid-sized aircraft, convenient fuel-savers. In fact, I was flying on a CL-65 CRJ between Ottawa and Newark a few weeks ago, feeling comfortable enough. Although - it soon occurred to me - a bit neglected.

Then it struck me; there was only one, lonely, overworked flight attendant on board. The service was lousy. I guess one, wild-eyed attendant may try to provide half-decent service on a short flight in a pinch, but not that day, and I suspect not on many others.

It didn't take me long to stop worrying about the service. Before long I was looking at the emergency exits. There are four of them on the aircraft in question: two at the front (which panicking passengers will tend to rush toward) and two closer to the rear (smaller and more difficult to exit, even if you know how to open the little doors).

I have since ordered up videotape of emergency exit drills. The attendants take responsibility for various exits. They get the doors open. They bark orders in a measured, but very firm way. They have 90 seconds to get people off the plane. Why the hurry? Remember the Korean Air 2033 that crashed in 1994? All 152 passengers survived, but the plane exploded seconds after everyone was out of the plane and safe on the tarmac.

Simulated evacuations show that one attendant may be able to get people out on time. If there is no smoke. If there is no panic. If everybody knows how to handle the equipment. If everybody is uninjured and fully conscious, including the attendant trying to run the show.

A few years ago the American airlines pressured the U.S. government into cutting the required ratio of flight attendants from 40 passengers per attendant to 50 passengers per attendant, so the companies could save a few pennies on the flight crews for these smaller and more efficient planes.

Not long afterward, Transport Canada then caved in to the usual argument: if Air Canada wasn't allowed to effect the same savings as the American carriers, the airline would have trouble competing.

Let's skip the argument that offering better safety might actually be a competitive advantage. Let's go right to economics. I think I have more or less figured out what Air Canada saves by skimping on the second flight attendant.

There are 56 Air Canada flights out of Montreal on these mid-sized planes every week. The cabin attendants supervise up to approximately sixteen take-offs and landings a day. Flight attendants now work for about $120 a day. If the plane is full, the per-passenger cost of an extra attendant amounts to the cost of a bag of those cocktail peanuts they used to serve you before they decided pretzels would do the trick.

Think about those sets of emergency doors, and whether there is going to be an attendant anywhere near the one you're trying to scramble out of if anything goes wrong. Think about what will happen - as it did in one case - if the one attendant has to try to deal with smoke coming out of the luggage compartment? Who is up front, telling the passengers what to do next?

A bag of peanuts. You know, I am honestly very happy that Air Canada is flying new, cost-efficient planes, manufactured in Canada, and I hope that helps keep the airline competitive and profitable. The savings on fuel costs alone should go a long way to help make that happen.

But until Air Canada smartens up and starts treating passenger safety with the respect it deserves, they will be flying these planes without me aboard. I will take the bigger, less cost-efficient planes.

And I invite you to join me. The next time you are booking a flight, I suggest that you ask two simple questions: Which kind of plane? How many attendants on board?

They can have their peanuts. I want a fighting chance if things go wrong.

Also published in: Ottawa Citizen - June 12, 1997
"Attending to safety in the skies"
The Fredricton Daily Gleaner
June 5, 1997
"Frequent Flying Senator Sees Safety in Numbers"
The Charlottetown Guardian
May 21, 1997
"Attending to safety in the skies"
The Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal
May 17, 1997
"Attending to safety in the skies isn't peanuts"