Originally Posted by
Gus2013
A serious incident is not the same as stubbing your toe. If people do not get out in time then they die... understand that airline profit is important, but really?
Anyway you missed the point. The issue is not with removing the flight attendant per se, but with meeting the standard evacuation time in a consistent, objective test. Statements like "who cares if it takes 15 seconds longer" are silly, because the test standard was developed for a reason. If you pass the test then fine, if not then not fine (unless you are in Canada or similar places where you can repeat the test as often as you like and bend the rules if you need to).
I am not sure what constructive input the union rep could possibly have had during the test, but on the other hand specifically prohibiting him from attending gives the impression that someone believes that the Sunwing fiasco will need to be repeated and they fewer witnesses the better.
a) I didn't bring up the 15 seconds. I am not sure where the 15 seconds came from and I don't really believe a 4th or 5th FA on a single aisle plane will increase evacuation speed by a considerable margin. Take AF 358 as an example: 297 passengers evacuated in 90 seconds despite 2 rear port side doors were not opened (due to fire) and a third port side door opening, but the slide didn't inflate. According to the TC report nearly 2/3s of passengers evacuated through the back right door. On top of that the report also says that "A number of passengers [IDIOTS] took their carry-on baggage with them." (Words in square brackets my addition, but I couldn't hold back) My point is that Source:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...2/a05h0002.pdf The point here is that AF uses the 1/40 ratio and everyone got out safely in a real world situation. (Kudoos to the entire crew. Job well done)
b) Is the infinitesimally small possibility that even the most frequent flyer is involved in an incident that requires an emergency evacuation worth the added cost of an additional FA. When it comes to safety, people are often saying that airlines should not cut costs, but there is always a cutoff point. Should they put airbags for every seat? Should passengers have to wear 4 point belts for take off and landing? Should airlines have to carry a doctor on board for all flights? There is always a cost benefit analysis done for every decision and safety is not excluded from this.
If TC forces additional safety measures (and that is what they are there for), then those additional costs will be passed on to the consumer. You will inevitably pay for them, unless you decide to take the a less expensive flight (with BA, AF, LX or US for example) who ALL operate at the lower ratio.