yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:52 am

Here it is:

Zoom Airlines announces new service from Toronto and Montreal to Paris, France: New Scheduled Service To Paris Charles de Gaulle

OTTAWA/ - Zoom Airlines headquartered in Ottawa, announced today it will offer scheduled transatlantic flights to Paris, France from Toronto and Montreal beginning June 2004. Zoom Airlines will operate two flights a week from Toronto and Montreal to Paris Charles de Gaulle airport using its fleet of Boeing 767-300 aircraft with 268 seats. All flights will include full meal service and in-flight entertainment as well as a cabin configuration with increased seat pitch for economy passengers and a premium economy section with even greater pitch for a superior in-cabin experience.

Zoom Airlines CEO Kristopher Dolinki stated “there is tremendous opportunity for Zoom in this market. Our strategy of providing a scheduled service between Canada and the UK priced competitively with the charter carriers is being well received and we saw demand for providing a similar option to Paris. The choice of the Boeing 767, a modern wide bodied aircraft configured in a comfortable fashion for these long trans-Atlantic flights is also proving to be a strong selling feature.

Zoom Airlines’ scheduled service from Canada to the Paris commences in June 2004. Bookings can be made online at www.flyzoom.com or by phone at 1-866-fly-zoom (1-866-359-9666).

For further information contact: David Clements, Zoom Airlines, Director of Sales and Marketing 613-760-4759

Source: Zoom Airlines


...confirming what Aviationman announced a few weeks ago...
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:02 am

With a total pricing of $474.14 for a round-trip YUL-CDG with Zoom in July and August, TS will feel the heat!
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
Horus
Posts: 5131
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:04 am

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:48 am

Weren't Zoom Airline going to concentrate on developing the UK market first? Apparently there were/are going to make Glasgow their British hub. Have they changed their plans?
EGYPT: A 7,000 Year Old Civilisation
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:54 am

They've recently done a few charters to MCO. Would be nice if they came back at least 1 day a week like back when they started.
 
gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:04 am

This is going to have a big impact on some major carriers around town (yyz). I don't really care how good your product is, a seat is a seat to me personally and if I can fly half price over seas at what the "normal" cost of traveling over seas can be..... pardon the pun but "Zoom Me" there!!

Good to see that there is competition on this route, and it will be interesting to see how AC does react as well AF?

Grant
Drive it like you stole it!
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:20 am

Looks like a good business plan for Zoom and they sure picked the right aircraft. Hope to fly them some time this summer to LGW or CDG. The fares are almost half of what AC/AF are charging during that time.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:11 pm

I still think the classiest way from YYZ to CDG is on AF.

This Zoom capacity also seems to be risky in terms of market flooding.

[Edited 2004-03-25 08:20:17]
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:53 pm

I agree, Air France is THE way to go to Paris. I've flown them 3 times in the past 4 years, and even in Tempo Class, the service is wonderful. Nice touches, such as the warm mini French stick bread served with dinner.
Their PTV product is getting better all the time. One thing though, AF's
Classe Affaires is wonderful, but the seats are somewhat tight. And THAT is the only complaint I have about Air France!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

To me, there will always be something about flying to a European (or other) country on the respective flag carrier. Whenever I step aboard AF, I'm much closer to Paris than by boarding AC.
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:08 am

"using its fleet of Boeing 767-300 aircraft with 268 seats. All flights will include full meal service and in-flight entertainment as well as a cabin configuration with increased seat pitch for economy passengers and a premium economy section with even greater pitch for a superior in-cabin experience."

Okay, can someone explain to me how a B767-300 with seating for 268 pax offers INCREASED seat pitch in economy? For example, Canadi>n's B767-300 aircraft were configurated for 204 pax; 184 pax in economy and 20 in Empress Class. 64 extra seats may not seem much, but that's 9 rows of 2-3-2 + 1 additional seat. And let's face it, "full meal service"....anyone who has flown
sked economy or especially charters in the last 4 or 5 years knows how mediocre the quality and portions are.

How exactly does "Zoom" define superior in-cabin service?
 
GLAGAZ
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:27 am

Don't know about GLA becoming a base, but there is certainly going to be a 763 based at GLA for the Summer and flights will continue via LGW in the Winter.

CDG will be a great route for ZOOM and i'm sure they will be expanding rapidly within the next decade.
Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:00 am

Guys, no one is claiming that Zoom will be PrivatAir or anything like that. Has anyone here experienced their inflight service so that we can have an objective opinion? If their service is similar to what 2T used to offer I'd be perfectly happy. AF may be the classy way to fly, but who cares if Zoom is offering the flights for half price.

As for the seating arrangement, the aircraft into part of this site claims 269 pax is normal for a 763 two-class arrangement. I don't understand how this is possible considering I have felt squished on 763s with lower pax capacities. I wonder if the Zoom aircraft are configured without the centre bulkhead. Anyways, at least they aren't squising pax in 2-4-2 like some British charter carriers... Pissed

 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:22 am

"Guys, no one is claiming that Zoom will be PrivatAir or anything like that. Has anyone here experienced their inflight service so that we can have an objective opinion? If their service is similar to what 2T used to offer I'd be perfectly happy. AF may be the classy way to fly, but who cares if Zoom is offering the flights for half price."

Some of us have more discriminating taste than others, CPDC10-30.
A charter is a charter is a charter. Period. In my world, any company offering "superior" service had better bloody well live up to the claim, and surpass that claim. Although with their clientele base, I'm sure "superior" is further down the food chain.
 
Cessnapimp
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 11:46 am

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:26 am


Hey Canadi>nBoy,

I think part of the answer is the fact that their premium economy seats have a smaller seat pitch than Canadian's upper class. Also, on their '67's there is no mid-galley. I'm sure that Canadian's economy class had better pitch than in Zoom's economy class. 268 is impressive but I think there's a few charters out there that can beat that. 330 is the most I've seen.

Greg

Hey 717... I can't believe you like cheese-eating-surrender monkey Air; they're the mirror image of AC in France, killing airlines at will while sucking its thumb with high overheads and a senior senior staff. The French probably say the same when they come over here. Flew on their 340's when they were 2 months old out of YMX in 93. I asked the F/A (old bitter frenchman) if I could see the cockpit, he told me to piss off (in french). These things linger on in one's mind.
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:40 am

I apologize if my statement above was interpreted as a tad snooty, but after being in this industry for 18 years, and used to (for the past 7 years) sked travel worldwide with my firm - 60% of that travel being in J Class, I have become quite accustomed to that level of service....and before you reply, let me say that when you ride the front....it's VERY hard to go to the back of the bus again. I freely admit I have become quite spoiled by it all and have to remind myself frequently how fortunate I am. I paid my dues in the mid 80's when I started at WG. When I flew TS last May to LGW, I was simply aghast at the cabin and service (but kudos to the great cabin crew who did their very best with what limited resources they had to work with) as I hadn't stepped aboard a charter flight in literally 10 years, but I do understand that there is a demand/market for that "type" of travel. Your tastes, expectations and demands increase with time and age.

330 pax on a B767-300.......Good God.

 
Cessnapimp
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 11:46 am

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:59 am

330 pax on a B767-300.......Good God

Yeah, but keep in mind Easyjet hasn't had a stab at it yet. I'm sure they can remove the overhead bins and nailgun a few more on the ceiling.  Smile
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:10 am

You know, my biggest concern with high density seating on these charter and LCC carriers lies with effective emerg evacuation times. Never mind the fact that Easyjet has 2 extra overwing exits on their A319 aircraft, I still find these pax loads totally unnacceptable from a health and safety perspective. PLUS, in Canada, where M.O.T. wishes to lower the FA to Pax ratio (it was one in 40, now soon to be 1 in 50) this is truly pushing the limit, not so much with service on-board, but again with proper supervision of emerg procedures and
effective execution of said procedures.

I forget which British carrier it was, but a few years back, in Manchester, there was an emerg evac of the cabin while on the taxiway. Several pax died, not from smoke or fire, but from being literally trampled and smothered to death by the high number of pax in the cabin, many of whom were trying to exit the aircraft through the starboard overwing exit. pax later complained that the seating was so tight, they had no choice but to leap over seat tops and avoid the too narrow aisle, which was critically jammed with pax trying to evacuate.


I think of, for example, Skyservice A320's, with a pax load of 180, and I shudder. To hell with the costs, SAFETY should be the primary factor. Period.

Sooner or later, and I'm afraid it's going to be sooner, there is going to be another airline accident/disaster where more lives could have been spared had the cabin pax density been lower.
 
Cessnapimp
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 11:46 am

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:23 am


Currently, it seems to be an acceptable price to pay for an industry that seems to be going the way of bargain stores. The 1 in 50 rule, what can I say, I really hope this doesn't happen but truth is, they'll save lotsa dough; it's win/win for them. Don't get me wrong: I think there are decent charters out there: TS and Zoom for example.
 
lymanm
Posts: 1100
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:30 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:55 am

Canadi>nBoy, your account of the MAN British Airtours 737 accident is a bit off the mark. Suffocation and smoke inhalation was the primary cause of death. Furthermore, the overwing exits were blocked, and people became uncouscious quite rapidly, contributing to the obstruction in the cabin. Overall an accident that should not have happened, and a call to have smoke hoods installed on board, more than anything.

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-bakt28m.shtml
buhh bye
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:00 am

Yes, TS is a well run and organised carrier, no doubt about it. Their cabins may be cramped, the service may be not sked, but as a charter, they're okay with me. TS crew members who I flew with, though, have expressed their extreme displeasure at the new "pay-for-service" on board certain sectors.
The pax are not happy at all with it, for the most part, and unfortunately, these FA's are on the front/firing line. Again, cost savings abound everywhere these days.

The 1 in 50 rule is atrocious. It may be a win/win situation for the co. from a cost savings perspective, but as I stated, it is a figurative time-bomb in terms of pax/crew safety.

As we all know, the civil aviation industry, like every other one, exists amidst cycles and trends. In terms of cycles, the current climate has got to be in my opinion (for several obvious reasons and variables) one of the lowest in decades.
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:02 am

"I think of, for example, Skyservice A320's, with a pax load of 180, and I shudder. To hell with the costs, SAFETY should be the primary factor. Period."

I am not naive nor stupid to believe this will ever be the operating word for the real world of industry. Money talks.....everytime.
 
yow
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:47 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:07 am

Certain aircraft types in Canada are already permitted to use the 1 in 50 rule. These included the DH3, CRJ100/200 and ATR 42 (max pax capacity on this is 48 I believe). There are certain regulations which must be followed in order, most which deal with working equipment on board, for this exemption to be permitted. If an operationally required piece of eqipment is malfunctioning, then the aircraft is load restricted to the 1 in 40 rule.

 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:08 am

Lymann, thank you so much for the link to this disaster and for clarifying my
error in describing the factors involved.

"Furthermore, the overwing exits were blocked, and people became uncouscious quite rapidly, contributing to the obstruction in the cabin. Overall an accident that should not have happened."

Obstruction in the cabin......obstruction in the cabin, meaning, quite simply, too many pax, too many injured and dead, too many seats, too narrow aisle. I'd be curious to know the measurement of the unobstructed area at these emerg exits. When will carriers and tour operators learn......how many more dead pax will it take. Quite a few, I'm afraid. But that's okay, 12 dead.....
62 dead.....262 dead....there will always be more pax with cash and credit cards in hand lining up at ticket offices for future flights, and the tour operators, carriers and the respective governments will allow this appalling viscious and deadly cycle of overcrowded cabins to continue.

 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:11 am

"viscious"......quite difficult to present an argument or make a statement when your spelling is off the mark as well! LOL
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:21 am

"Certain aircraft types in Canada are already permitted to use the 1 in 50 rule. These included the DH3, CRJ100/200 and ATR 42 (max pax capacity on this is 48 I believe). There are certain regulations which must be followed in order, most which deal with working equipment on board, for this exemption to be permitted. If an operationally required piece of eqipment is malfunctioning, then the aircraft is load restricted to the 1 in 40 rule."

The cause for concern here is not with working equipment on-board nor with the proficiency of the cabin crew in knowledge/training/operation of said equipment. The pax loads will remain the same as in the 1 in 40 rule, and most certainly some carriers will increase pax seating capacity in order to reach the ceiling of the 1 in 50 rule. How effective will a less numbered crew be in properly and effectively evacuating a cabin of more pax than they can handle. The answer is that this factor will impede an effective evacuation of the aircraft in question. Remember, every emergency is different, every emergency, whether it be at altitude or on the ground require split second.....split second reaction times to ward off critical consequences.

 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:41 am

"too narrow aisle..."

A 2 inch wider aisle is not going to make the slightest difference in an evacuation. If it did, everyone when flying single aisle aircraft would avoid the "too narrow aisle" 737 and 757 and only fly on the A320 family. And, horrors, the CRJ700 and 900 only have 16" aisles - "deathtraps".
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
yow
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:47 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:03 am

Canadi>n Boy: All I was stating were the 1 in 50 aircraft types permitted to operate by Canadian airlines and the minimum standards needed in order for this to occur. Whether or not it's safe, is up for debate. I've flown CRJs and DH3s lots of times and never worried about there being only 1 F/A onboard. The DH7 would also fit into the 1 in 50 category, ditto for the ERJ145 likely getting the exemption, if it's ever introduced in Canada.
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:06 am

"too narrow aisle..."

"A 2 inch wider aisle is not going to make the slightest difference in an evacuation."

Wanna make a bet? Granted, not a hell of a lot of difference, but you'd be surprised.

What WILL make THE difference? Governments who are willing to wake up, get off their proverbial asses and implement stringent and cohesive air industry safety policies that will ensure the safety of the travelling public and all crew members. God only knows the bloody tour operators and (most) carriers couldn't give a God damn when profits are concerned. What WILL make a difference is for pax/consumers to speak up and challenge their respective governments to create rigid perimeters for the operators and carriers to function within. The public MUST make it emphatically clear that overcrowded cabins are not acceptable, nor are they safe. Canadians especially are docile sheep who lack the balls and aggression to speak up for their own personal safety whilst on board an aircraft. I am sick and tired of hearing "It's the way it is...what can you do?"

Quite a lot, if individual and collective energy was expended in the right direction.......in Canada's case, Parliament Hill. Oh, but perhaps they're too busy right now trying to figure out WHO spent CAD$1 million for a CAD$50,000 awarded contract.
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:12 am

"Canadi>n Boy: All I was stating were the 1 in 50 aircraft types permitted to operate by Canadian airlines and the minimum standards needed in order for this to occur. Whether or not it's safe, is up for debate."

Yow, thank you for your comments and I appreciate what you were trying to communicate. But in my books, when it comes to on-board safety, there is, nor should there ever be room for debates. Debates don't save lives when they run on far too long. Debates today don't save the life of a pax or crew member this afternnoon or tomorrow.

And if anything infuriates me (not by you stating it, Yow) is the term,
"minimum standards". I ask anyone if they would feel safe and secure in flying on an aircraft operated by any carrier that adheres to minimum standards being the rule.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:52 am

"Wanna make a bet? Granted, not a hell of a lot of difference, but you'd be surprised."

Yes. What is the "surprise" difference with a passenger blocking the aisle on a 737 or on an A320? 2 inches makes absolutely no difference - particularly if it is a "standard" male adult!

"The public MUST make it emphatically clear that overcrowded cabins are not acceptable, nor are they safe. Canadians especially are docile sheep who lack the balls and aggression to speak up for their own personal safety whilst on board an aircraft."

What are the safety standards that should be acceptable to Canadian "docile sheep who lack balls"? Surely, with all the criticism you have leveled at the safety standards, you are able to provide some safer alternatives. Just how many more F/A's should there be? How many more, and types, of emergency exits?
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:34 am

"Wanna make a bet? Granted, not a hell of a lot of difference, but you'd be surprised."

"Yes. What is the "surprise" difference with a passenger blocking the aisle on a 737 or on an A320? 2 inches makes absolutely no difference - particularly if it is a "standard" male adult!"

The aisle itself, irregardless of aircraft type, should be wide enough for a "standard adult male", as you put it, be able to freely walk up and down with NO restrictions placed on him which impedes quick movement. There are far too many examples of pax climbing over seat tops to evacuate an aircraft. The debate here is not 2 inches or 2 and three quarter inches. My concern is too narrow aisles, period. Period. Got it? Good.

"What are the safety standards that should be acceptable to Canadian "docile sheep who lack balls"? Surely, with all the criticism you have leveled at the safety standards, you are able to provide some safer alternatives."

Have you ever flown on a civil aircraft lately? If so, have you truly paid attention or studied the surroundings of the cabin in which you travelled?
Have you ever flown as a crew member and are aware of cabin safety improvements that a pax is not?

My main argument for safer cabins has been stated several times above. may I suggest you read? Other examples? They abound. Non-Kapton wiring (Ever heard of Swissair 111?, it may be but one example, but do you feel 229 lives don't warrant my objection?), no C02 extinguishers on-board any aircraft, no "flip-around" FA jumpseats on the Airbus aircraft in the rear galley areas, as they have been known to disengage from their "locks" and have been, in some cases, impossible to lock back in place - As this was a poor initial design from Airbus, this particular one will be difficult to revise/re-design. Mandatory wider legroom at all emergency exit rows on all aircraft types; I have been on several carriers and aircraft type where the overwing exit areas have far too little room for an effective overwing evac.

No glass objects anywhere near an exit door. Lufthansa B747-400's (the ones I have been on) have glass mirrors positioned at exit doors across from the FA jumpseats. These mirrors act as aids to the FA to monitor and assess the cabin in front of them (behind their jumpseat). Any strong impact or internal structural damage sustained by the aircraft could strongly result in these glass mirrors shattering, which in turn would quite possibly tear or deflate an inflated door slide as pax rush to evacuate the aircraft. LH FA's themselves have questioned these mirrors at the exit doors, yet they remain.

One of my biggest concerns (and the one that frightens me the most) is inadequate FA intial and recurrent training methods. I have flown on several flights throughout the years where the cabin crew displayed a shocking lack of knowledge re cabin safety. On one AA flight from ORD to MIA, for example, a female pax passed out and required O2. The FA's, in a panic, and I emphasize the word "panic", could not locate the portable O2 tank with facemask. They both ran to get their manuals, as the female pax was lying in the aisle, and obviously required 02. One went through her manual as the other opened up every overhead bin looking for the 02 tank; she subsequently brought a Halon extinguisher to the pax, thinking it was an 02 tank. You may say, "Oh, but that was only an example with 2 FA's. that is hardly something to worry about or to present in your argument". True, that was one example that I myself witnessed. I also witnessed some disturbing lack of training/knowledge at WG in my 5 years there. How many more incompetent cabin crews are out there, and dear God, will it take an emergency for their shortfalls to be noticed? I hope not. I have many ex-colleagues who fly as FA's today who tell me time and time again they themselves are shocked at the incompetence of many new hires coming on the line in regards to safety knowledge and procedures. You may think it impossible for these new-hires to get through the system, but believe me, they do, and will continue to.

I can tell you first hand that the WG FA recurrent training syllabus and instruction was a joke. Very poor coverage of imperative issues and procedures, the result of which was many FA's were "passed" only to fly on the line for another year not being fully aware or educated re pax/crew safety in all areas.

This lack of safety knowledge is not restricted to new-hires; I have seen on two occasions senior AC FA's who, at take-off with less than full loads, decided to seat themselves not in their assigned jumpseats at their assigned emergency exits, but who in fact sat in the second and second from the last row of pax seats from their respective doors. Both had their eyes closed on take-off roll. Had an emergency occured, and they were somehow prohibited from getting to their assigned doors, then I shudder at what the consequences would have been.

The list, the safety infractions, they go on and on. Many are very "small" in and of themselves, but combined with other factors, could prove critical and dangerous.

Yes, for the most part, aircraft are relatively safe. Most FA's are relatively adequately trained. But there are many many variables which play against these positive figures and factors.

 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:38 am

One more for the list: Adequate crew rest period for all front end and cabin crews. I posted a long post on another thread in regards to adequate and improved legal crew rest periods, and quite frankly do not have the time to repeat myself re arguments.
 
Guest

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:48 am

Improved cabin air recycling methods, equipment and stringent regulations.
Mandatory 100% recycled cabin air for all carriers and equipment.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:40 am

Canadi>anBoy:

"My concern is too narrow aisles, period. Period. Got it? Good."

A "standard adult male" IS "able to freely walk up and down with NO restrictions placed on him which impedes quick movement" in the following aircraft - it happens thousands of times a day:

CRJ900 - 16" aisle
737 - 18" aisle
777 - 19" aisle
A320 - 20" aisle

So, where exactly are the narrow aisles that have you so "concerned"?

Your post, while very interesting (but for the most part related to airline failings - e.g. "senior AC FA's" on take-off), didn't answer my question which was in response to the specific claim you made:

"The public MUST make it emphatically clear that overcrowded cabins are not acceptable, nor are they safe. Canadians especially are docile sheep who lack the balls and aggression to speak up for their own personal safety whilst on board an aircraft."

My unanswered question in reference to the above statement:

"Just how many more F/A's should there be? How many more, and types, of emergency exits?

The above question was also based on your earlier statements:

"You know, my biggest concern with high density seating on these charter and LCC carriers lies with effective emerg evacuation times. Never mind the fact that Easyjet has 2 extra overwing exits on their A319 aircraft, I still find these pax loads totally unnacceptable from a health and safety perspective."

"I think of, for example, Skyservice A320's, with a pax load of 180, and I shudder."

"Sooner or later, and I'm afraid it's going to be sooner, there is going to be another airline accident/disaster where more lives could have been spared had the cabin pax density been lower."

"The 1 in 50 rule is atrocious. It may be a win/win situation for the co. from a cost savings perspective, but as I stated, it is a figurative time-bomb in terms of pax/crew safety."
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:34 am

"You know, my biggest concern with high density seating on these charter and LCC carriers lies with effective emerg evacuation times. Never mind the fact that Easyjet has 2 extra overwing exits on their A319 aircraft, I still find these pax loads totally unnacceptable from a health and safety perspective."

So, if Easyjet's A319 is "totally unacceptable", that makes Air Canada's A319 much worse since, even with a two class cabin, there are still more passengers per emergency exit than Easyjet's A319.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
ASTROJET707
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:39 am

RE: Canada - Zoom Airlines Confirmes YYZ/YUL-CDG

Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:42 am

Yikes!

Just skimmed the replies. What stands out is 268 PAX. Are passengers shrink wrapped and stacked to minimize seat pitch?

ASTROJET707

Who is online