Life raft positioning

[Quickstatus]

How many life rafts are there on the 737-800 for overwater operations?.

Potentially 175 seats including crew

Ceiling raft carries 56 (overload at 84)
Overhead locker 25

 

[Melburnian1]

The whole thing with the life raft is just ridiculous. Let's call out this post for what it is - another excuse for a certain poster to bash QF. The posters source wasn't even travelling in business, so why would he give two hoots whats stowed in a J locker. It had zero impact on his ability to stow his bags. Dozens of flights a week with that raft there and when it comes to emergency equipment, passengers are pretty understanding about it.

How on earth did you conclude from what I said that '(the passenger) wasn't even travelling in business?'

I didn't say one way or the other in the original post.

My source was in business class, so you're incorrect as you jumped to a conclusion without evidence. The source's concern for late boarding passengers was legitimate.

If CASA or other regulators only require these life rafts for (specified minimum distance) overwater flights, why not remove them when these B738s are rostered for various domestic flights such as the Sydney-Melbourne run? That would be considerate to passengers booked in J who are either typically paying an extremely high fare per kilometre, or redeeming many more FF points than were they doing same for a Y reward.

IIRC not all QFi B738s have this equipment. I recall previous discussion stating it was a minority of the 75 or so.

Having never brought on board more than a backpack that can be easily pushed under the seat in front, I agree all travellers ought not bring 'the kitchen sink'. However if airlines decide not to enforce at the boarding gate the 'seven kilogram bag plus another small carryon like an overcoat or camera' rule, or whatever the stipulation, passengers can hardly be blamed for complaining re a lack of overhead bin space.

 

[Quickstatus]

why not remove them when these B738s are rostered for various domestic flights such as the Sydney-Melbourne run

I can imagine here could be potential issues handling life rafts when not required.
Removing and replacing rafts will mean storage at various airports around the place. Better for it to just sit in the cabin rather than be moved around

 

[Melburnian1]

I can imagine here could be potential issues handling life rafts when not required.
Removing and replacing rafts will mean storage at various airports around the place. Better for it to just sit in the cabin rather than be moved around

(a) if staff are well trained and careful, no. There's a risk to you crossing the major road closest to your residence, but because you've been trained by parents to look both ways and are very careful not to step into traffic, the chance of you being in an accident is minimal. So you go ahead and cross.

(b) removing this non-mandatory equipment means fuel savings, and greater convenience for passengers. The latter are the major reason for a passenger-carrying airline's continued existence (and any net profit). So it's win-win, and as a side-bonus, environmentally friendly.

 

[oz_mark]

Interesting thread. I've certainly seen rafts in the overhead bins before....

 

[Harrison_133]

why not remove them when these B738s are rostered for various domestic flights such as the Sydney-Melbourne run?

Because they’re not just operating domestic flights. Qantas regularly schedule 737s to operate both international and domestic sectors on the day. It would be an incredibly inefficient, time consuming and laborious task to constantly be removing rafts and putting them back in.

 

[Melburnian1]

Because they’re not just operating domestic flights. Qantas regularly schedule 737s to operate both international and domestic sectors on the day. It would be an incredibly inefficient, time consuming and laborious task to constantly be removing rafts and putting them back in.

But operating 'both international and domestic sectors on the (same) day) can be inefficient because at quite a few Oz major airports, it requires the aircraft to transfer between gates that can be some distance from each other. This also consumes time. From observation, it often results in the next rostered flight running late because the transfer process takes longer than the scheduled allowance. Refer to the delays/cancellations thread re QF for quite a few examples.

Plenty of tasks are 'laborious', such as luggage having to be manually loaded by baggage handlers into aircraft, or cabin crew having to check boarding passes to make sure that you and I don't mistakenly try to board a plane other than the flight that we've paid for. But the tasks are still undertaken.

Putting passengers first and centre ought be the aim.

If it was a safety concern, fair enough but given apparently it's not always mandatory to carry these contraptions on board, different story.

 

[Quickstatus]

I don't think the ceiling (large) raft saves much fuel in the big context. It only weighs 43kg. While it weighs more than the apocryphal olive, the airline could same much more fuel by ensuring carryon luggage keep to weight and size limits.

Just leaving it onboard reduces handling and increases the flexibility of the airline to roster aircraft. Obviously not all will need it but it woud be easy enough to calculate with a margin the number required.

 

[Harrison_133]

I’m sorry but I think you’re starting to clutch at straws. I’m not the biggest Qantas fan by any stretch, but I will defend them here.

But operating 'both international and domestic sectors on the (same) day) can be inefficient because at quite a few Oz major airports, it requires the aircraft to transfer between gates that can be some distance from each other.

So? It doesn’t stop Qantas (or Virgin and Jetstar for that matter) from towing aircraft around airfields of every major airport in Australia everyday. There are more variables that go into the allocation of aircraft than just whether they need to be towed between terminals. Sometimes, it’s necessary to swap tails between terminals.

Plenty of tasks are 'laborious', such as luggage having to be manually loaded by baggage handlers into aircraft, or cabin crew having to check boarding passes to make sure that you and I don't mistakenly try to board a plane other than the flight that we've paid for. But the tasks are still undertaken.

These are false equivalences. Manual loading is the only option for the 737 holds. It might be a laborious task, but it has to be done if the airline wants to carry bags. And in Australia at least, boarding passes must be checked upon boarding. Removing rafts just for a domestic sector would be a choice that would yield no discernible benefit. As Quickstatus noted, they would need to be stored somewhere, and I’d wager there would be questions around their certification if they’re constantly being removed and reinstalled. Qantas get plenty of operational flexibility by having all PTV 737s fitted with life rafts, meaning they can operate any route, at any time.

Putting passengers first and centre ought be the aim.

If it was a safety concern, fair enough but given apparently it's not always mandatory to carry these contraptions on board, different story.

To assume that passenger convenience should override the carrying of safety equipment onboard is just odd.

 

[Melburnian1]

To assume that passenger convenience should override the carrying of safety equipment onboard is just odd.

I didn't say that. I was differentiating between passenger convenience for domestic flights only (where apparently there's no need to have this equipment on board) and international flights (where apparently it is a requirement).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I didn't say that. I was differentiating between passenger convenience for domestic flights only (where apparently there's no need to have this equipment on board) and international flights (where apparently it is a requirement).

Even with a raft there’d be 4 overhead bins for 12 pax. That should be enough if they’re following the rules of one bag in the overhead, one underneath.

 

[Captain Halliday]

I think @milehighclub has covered this off, but just in case anyone remains sceptical.. this is from VH-XZG which operated tonight’s QF542 SYD-BNE.



Life raft rated capacity: 25 persons
Overload capacity: 38 persons
Hand luggage stored above 3A/C: 0

There was also a small sign saying this locker was not for passenger use. However it was too hard to get a pic once the locker was open, so you’ll have to take my word for it.

 

[jpp42]

Wouldn't the better solution be to install slide/rafts that can be both ? Are these available on the 737NG (and what about the Max, anyone know)? This seems to be the standard for A32x series in an overwater config, the famous "Miracle on the Hudson" water landing in New York City a number of years back, luckily had these rafts even though it wasn't required for the flight segment in question. This also makes me think that having the rafts on all segments, even if not required, can't really hurt - much flying in Australia is near the coast and ditching in the ocean, while certainly not preferred over a land runway, could be the worst-case scenario even for a coastal flight that doesn't officially require life rafts.

 

[TheInsider]

Wouldn't the better solution be to install slide/rafts that can be both ? Are these available on the 737NG (and what about the Max, anyone know)? This seems to be the standard for A32x series in an overwater config, the famous "Miracle on the Hudson" water landing in New York City a number of years back, luckily had these rafts even though it wasn't required for the flight segment in question. This also makes me think that having the rafts on all segments, even if not required, can't really hurt - much flying in Australia is near the coast and ditching in the ocean, while certainly not preferred over a land runway, could be the worst-case scenario even for a coastal flight that doesn't officially require life rafts.

Extra weight therefore more fuel burn and also taking overhead locker space.

 

[jb747]

Rafts cannot be removed willy nilly by staff. They are safety equipment, and installation, removal, storage, and all handling needs to be documented. What you see as a simple task would be every bit as involved as removing a major item of aircraft equipment. If there was a cheaper way to be doing things, they’d already be doing it.

 

[jb747]

Wouldn't the better solution be to install slide/rafts that can be both ? Are these available on the 737NG (and what about the Max, anyone know)? This seems to be the standard for A32x series in an overwater config, the famous "Miracle on the Hudson" water landing in New York City a number of years back, luckily had these rafts even though it wasn't required for the flight segment in question. This also makes me think that having the rafts on all segments, even if not required, can't really hurt - much flying in Australia is near the coast and ditching in the ocean, while certainly not preferred over a land runway, could be the worst-case scenario even for a coastal flight that doesn't officially require life rafts.

History. The 737 Max largely exists based on the certification of the original 737-100, way back when the Flintstones were state of the art. This is called ‘grandfathering’. The 737 Max would not be certifiable under the current regulations, and the amount of work required would be in the same order of magnitude as designing a new aircraft. That’s the entire reason that Boeing keeps modifying the 737, rather than coming up with a new aircraft. For a start the coughpit, and its mix of ancient and new technology would not be acceptable. The doors simply are not capable of using slide rafts, and the level of modification required would probably push them out of even being able to grandfather. So, yes, slide rafts are a much better solution, and no, you will never see them on a 737.

As an aside, it’s worth noting that not all slides are capable of being used as rafts.

 

[straitman]

Following on from jb747's comments.

We have all flown or flown in aircraft that all you can do is scratch your head when you look at some of the Safety Equipments fitouts and locations. Post #52 above. How useful is having a raft in an overhead locker? (not very)

I flew around Bass Strait for 27 years in aircraft which, in the majority, had liferafts secured inside the passenger cabin including under the seats. In reality the chances of getting them out if needed was almost zero.

 

[RooFlyer]

And Air Canada (and possibly other airlines), flying to Victoria (provincial capital) on Vancouver Island to and from Vancouver do not have lifejackets on board. Passengers can use seat cushions because of the short distances involved. 40 miles port to port, so I guess the furthest you'd be from land on ditching is ~10 miles, although in winter there's probably a bit of ice you could hang on to.