Hi All,
MT, I tend to agree with you on most things, however not with the subject to do with the risks of losing an aircraft. It doesnt matter whether you are using a 747 or a BN Islandhopper, the risk of an accident occurring is statistically greater if you operate into an airport more frequently than other airlines. If you are operating an A320 into KTM twice a day opposed to an A300 once a day, there is a greater chance you will lose an A 320, than an A300. If you want to delve deeper into probability, in theory you would lose 2 A320s for every 1 A300. It's that simple. God forbid the occurance of any accident of course.
Now that that is cleared up, if it was too dangerous to operate into KTM, no airlines would. No airline will operate into an airport if there is a high chance they will lose an aircraft. Look at the old Kai Tak airport. As wanderful as it was, it was a relatively dangerous airport to operate into. Surrounded by high terrain, extremely close to buildings and an awkward arc approach. Weather could change in an instant and yet the airport was flooded with traffic. Movements with aircraft the size of 747s every few minutes, swinging round onto final at extremely close proximity to buildings and at slow speed. Now compare that with KTM. They both had/have their risks, except none were/are seen serious enough to cause loss of life. Therefore the airlines continue to fly there. It is not like QR are using the same crew for all 4 legs on the twice daily trips. They have fresh crew for every run. They are taking the time to give crews extra sim training to keep them in perfect practice for all situations that may arise when operating to and from the airport.
I should also add that have any of you looked into the major accidents that have occured in close proximity to the airport? Most likely cause was controlled flight into terrain. Now, you ask, were the pilots trained sufficiently enough to operate there on a regular basis and in all sorts of conditions? Were the crews kept under close scruitiny in the sim to make sure they remain in practice. By looking into past accidents around KTM, you may find that it is not the airport itself that has given it a dangerous reputation, but the pilots who were flying the aircraft that were lost.
I honestly don't see what the fuss is about. I can tell you this, QR would not risk losing an aircraft. Losing an aircraft means loss of pax and a good reputation. No airline wants to do that, and with the attitude of QR, they definately dont want to do that.
Cheers
CC