PDA

View Full Version : safety of charter airlines


Michele Smith
9th Jan 2004, 03:52
The crash of the Flash Airlines 737 last week has really made me wonder about the safety of some of these airlines. On the rumours and news forum this week I read messages by some professional flyers voicing their concerns about airlines such as Flash - saying that you get what you pay for! According to what I read this airline had already been banned not only from Swiss airports but also their airspace for not meeting safety standards and it certainly seems that there were concerns about the state of the aircraft from previous pax. Pilots on the forum were saying that pax should check out who their carrier is. I do agree with this and always do so myself but it isn't always that easy.

A couple of years ago I posted a message on PPrune about the experience that my step-daughter had flying on a package tour to Kefalonia. When she booked the flight she was given the name of the charter carrier, can't remember now but one that was known to her. On arrival at Luton airport they were told that there flight was delayed due to technical problems with the aircraft but that another aircraft was en route. They finally boarded a DC-10 belonging to Electra airlines, a greek registered charter airline - they were horrified by the state of the plane, holes where oxygen masks should have been, broken seats and inefficient surly, cigarette smoking crew. It was a shocking experience cuulminating in a passenge finding one of the pilots and a hostess in a compromising position after landing!! But there's another story!!

At the time I was amazed that such an aircraft could be allowed to land at a British airport and transport British passengers. I rang the CAA who passed the buck to the Dept of Air Transport who neatly passed it back to the CAA. They were not interested.

So this week I decided to look up on the internet Electra Airlines to see if they were still in operation. It seems that they had expanded by buying two 757's and operated them for Air Scotland for flights to Spain in early 2003. That was until a few months later due to massive unpaid landing fees they were no longer allowed to operate from there. In August 2003 the Greek authorities evoked their licence due to them not meeting the required standards and thank god they are no more.

The point of this long message is that if airlines such as these are not paying such things as landing fees are they paying to have their aircraft well maintained?? And what should we as passengers do if we walk out onto the tarmac and find that instead of our expected carrier we have one of these dodgy operators there instead? And finally how come authorites in countries such as England and France don't listen to concerns of either consumers or other countries, e.g Switzerland about the state of these aircraft and carry on letting poor sods fly on them.

cortilla
12th Jan 2004, 08:34
Michele,

Just a quickie, are you a journalist by any chance. I don't mind but some people don't like talking to them here and question like this sometimes entices people out of the woodwork to spout out things that aren't true (and i'm sure i've done it at some point by accident), and some journos take this and run with it.

Now i'll give you my two pence worth. Charters have to comply with the same standards and regulations as any other airline operating. The government doesn't care whether you're scheduled or charter, one rule applies to all. Just look at the UK charter industry, one in particular has only had two crashes (1 fatal) ever. And i don't think there has been an accident in the current low cost carriers operating out of this country. (although some people believe it is only a matter of time)

However when you look at the document released by the government earlier this week you'll se it's not the airline that's the root of the problem but the civil aviation authority of that country. I'm not saying all airlines in one country are bad, some do take safety as one of their top priorities. However when your country is as cash strapped as some of those metioned i think your first priority is feeding your people and lining your own pockets (not neccesserily in that order) and aviation safety will only interest you when something bad happens. It seems to be endemic of many politicians to shut the stable door after the horse has fled to show their people 'that they care and will make sure it will never happen again' atleast not during their political careers. So i suppose the next time you book a flight look at whether you think the country of origin (of the airline) has transport safety in mind or not.

Anyways that was my opinion, and if any cares to disagree i'm all ears.

Michele Smith
12th Jan 2004, 16:53
Oh dear I think that I ought to clrify my job title.

I am not a journalist although my background was in radio. I am a press and pr officer for Bedfordshire county Council who just happens to have an interest in aviation. Therefore my job primarily involves dealing with getting our council out of trouble. I do not write for any publication other than the CC magazine which doesn't really cover aviation - However I can understand other visitors to the forum being cautious and it isn't the first time that I have been questioned.

By the way I am a bit worried about your comment about low cost airlines _ I am flying Ryan Air to Gothenberg in 3 weeks - reassurance please!!!

newswatcher
12th Jan 2004, 17:37
Michelle Smith I have often heard it quoted that you are more likely to be killed in an accident on the way to the airport, than on the subsequent flight! So far, have been unable to prove this, but it seems reasonable.

cortilla
12th Jan 2004, 20:13
Nothing wrong with low cost airlines just the newspapers putting up some hype about the employees working too hard. I've got a mate who works for them and he doesn't come home exhausted. Just some people (jealous maybe??) say they cut corners which i have yet to see proved. Some stats (can't remember where i got them from)

Fatalaties per million kilometres travelled.

Motorcycles: 110
Cars : 70
Trains: 17
Ferries: 5
Aviation: 0.01

So as you can see the most dangerous part of your trip by 7000 times is the trip to and from the airport.

Genghis the Engineer
12th Jan 2004, 20:38
I suspect that you may be asking the wrong question.

The problem, if it exists, is not to do with charter .v. scheduled. If it exists it is more likely to be with state of registry.

A charter or budget airline with aircraft registered in the UK is required to meet the same safety standards as BA, Virgin or anybody else here. If they are cutting costs, it's going to be on admin, salaries, catering, cleaning, etc. - safety isn't optional.

CAA announced the banning of a number of foreign airlines from flying into UK airspace last week, it's noticeable that none of them are using aircraft registered in the UK, or for that matter the US or any European country where the safety standards are broadly similar.

G

Dave Gittins
12th Jan 2004, 20:45
Michelle's original question (before worrying about Mr O'Leary's outfit) was what should she do next time she finds that the anticipated Britannia (Sorry Thomson A/W) or Monarch had been replaced by Outrageous Airways of Outer Ozzbekisteria, flying an IL-62 with bits missing, a purser with a wooden leg and a skipper with a labrador in a harness.

It is difficult to say "no way Jose" and refuse to travel when that is the only way to take the annual holiday, saved for and paid up front. What chance is there of getting a refund because the aeroplane looked dodgy but the DTp, CAA et al refused to comment. - NIL

I guess that we can only look to the relevant UK authorities to keep us safe and hope that if there is anything to the outrageous stories in circulation about Flash Airlines they will look even harder at those in UK airspace and if it is warranted add to the "black list" published last week.

The most obvious outcome will be that if safety standards increase, (and some cheap and nasties are excluded from the UK)so, probably, will costs. No big deal in my book.

cortilla
12th Jan 2004, 22:20
Back to a little point in the original post. As far as i know it isn't the uk and other authorities that aren't listening to the example used here the swiss. It's up to the relevant country to tell the world that they've banned an airline. Maybe they did maybe they didn't i don't know. However the swiss don't have a great record in telling people from other countries information (and i can think of one very good aviation issue not related to flash but leaving the government of a certain european country with a very bloody nose). Like i said if the relevant authority is keeping schtum then we won't find out. I suppose you can't do anything about it then??

SLFguy
12th Jan 2004, 22:35
What cortilla forgot to mention michele was that a plane hit the 110 motorcyclists :hmm:

Tony_EM
13th Jan 2004, 00:01
I'm not suggesting that Cortilla's stats are incorrect, but you have to look at the parameters and qualifications of how they are presented;

Fatalities per million kilometers traveled....is one way which produces the most impressive figures, however;

How about considering the fatalities per trip; if we took as many trips in a plane in one year as we took trips in a car, we would not be able to quote that it was 7000 times safer. If the trip to the airport was over the same distance as the trip in the plane, then that quote of 7000 times safer would be correct.

The point that Cortilla was making still stands; anyway you look at it, the levels of safety are way beyond even the most optimistic predictions of 50, or even 20 years ago.

Personally, my concerns of low cost operations are not about the way that they do business, but the way they are forcing high cost operations to compete and the things that mid level management are getting away with. The low cost outfits know that they are being scrutinised, plus they have designed their operation to perform as required with fewer overheads. For the larger carriers with higher overheads, the irony is that because of terrorist acts/threats and the subsequent thinning of demand, they lack the turnover to survive the competition and most worryingly, some departments of some airlines lack the budget to adhere to regulations or even maintain the premis that safety comes first.

I sincerely hope that the trend of more traffic with less accidents and fatalities continues as it has almost every year, but I fear the low cost aspect of this industry may see this trend peak and even begin to fall, again, not because they themselves are falling out of the sky, which they clearly are not.

cortilla
13th Jan 2004, 02:53
I have to agree with the points tony_em makes on that one.

You splitter
13th Jan 2004, 22:39
Its a tricky one. You arrive on the Tarmac faced with a shoddy aircraft which gives rise to a real uneasy feeling as you walk towards it. What do you do? Forfit your holiday or take a chance?

Personally whenever I book a holiday with a tour operator (sadly not too often these days!) I always ask who aircraft operator will be. Any reputable tour operator these days will have their aircraft operators 'signed' up for the seasons in question. They should also audit these operators as part of a quality system to ensure their suppliers are safe.

If one the day the flight operator cant provide an aircraft for the flight, for whatever reason, they will sub in an alternative. Again any reputable airline these days will only sub work out to a list of approved suppliers, again audited to ensure they meet with all safety requirements under JAR-OPS.

In actual fact JAR-OPS specifies that the charter of other airlines by an AOC holder must meet certain requirements.
One of which is that if the operator is not a JAR operator then permission must be obtained from the authority. In our case the CAA. Of course this applies to an 'aircraft operator' so Im not sure what rules apply to a tour operator and I guess that is the probelm.