Low cost and recent incidents!

[ILS27LEFT]

I have just found out about the Venezuelan crash and I thought that except the excellent recent AF escape, the remaining incidents seem to be all maintenance/pilot related: nothing to do with terrorism or weather etc.
We could even speculate that if the AF incident was caused by a pilot error ( I said IF!), the excellent training of the Cabin crew made the escape easy and successful.
Obviously we have to wait for the final result of the official enquiries but we already have some facts:
the ATR72 crash in Sicily, even if this aspect is still unclear, it should be either a pilot or maintenance error, the Helios flight seems to be either a maintenance or pilot issue as well, and the last MD82 possibly pilot error or maintenance problem as well.
Basically I wonder, as a non-expert here, is this a coincidence or the low cost/charter models and safety do not go very well together especially in the medium-long term?
Is it possible to have very low cost airlines with tickets sold at 1 GBP, and to guarantee at the same time an efficient on-going training for pilots and engineers plus a state of the art maintenance organisation.
One question for all the experts here: is it safety first also for the low cost/charter carriers?


Thanks.
:ouch:

[In trim]

I have significant experience with both a UK based low-cost carrier and also the UK's "national airline". I can assure you that safety within that particular low-cost organisation is paramount and the degree of focus meets or exceeds that of the 'traditional' carrier.

If anything I would say that the low-cost carrier is well aware of the obvious potential for "low cost means low standards" kind of accusations, and actively goes the extra mile to overcome this.

[clearfortheoption]

Someone, ex CEO of one of the major low cost in the uk, once said :" If you think safety is expensive try an accident!".

Enough said

CFTO

[JayeRipley]

As I have posted on the Helios accident thread - The Guardian newspaper has started quoting posts from PPRune and given the web address- perhaps we need to exercise caution in what we speculate on, we don't want people getting the wrong impression of the aviation industry.

[FlapsOne]

Indeed.

ILS27LEFT. Your question is mis-guided and way off the mark.

There is nothing to back up or support what you are hinting at and this thread does run the risk of racing off down an unpleasant path.

[Bigmouth]

Why would money have anything to do with safety?




good grief

[Greek God]

Air France - LoCo ????

[Slickster]

Why would money have anything to do with safety?

Because like everything else, safety costs money.

Ultimately, if you wanted to make your operation as safe as possible, you would have your pilots do a sim check before every flight, not every six months; your aeroplanes would spend more time in maintainance; crew would not be rostered to legal limits, etc. etc. .....

As it is, most airlines are in the business of making money, so there is a delicate balance between how much is spent on "Safety" weighed against the possible crash.

[jumpseater]

'but we already have some facts:
the ATR72 crash in Sicily, even if this aspect is still unclear, it should be either a pilot or maintenance error, the Helios flight seems to be either a maintenance or pilot issue as well, and the last MD82 possibly pilot error or maintenance problem as well'.
The above statement may be true, however, nothing in the above is unique to the lo-co model. Lo-co's need pilots and maintenance just as much as the 'mainline' carriers. And by the way you state we have 'facts' yet prefix your assumptions with 'should be, either and possibly' ......


'medium-long term' no idea matey, tell us how long that is, and by what criteria you determine your time-scale.

Is it possible to have very low cost airlines with tickets sold at 1 GBP, and to guarantee at the same time an efficient on-going training for pilots and engineers plus a state of the art maintenance organisation.
YES


I realise you admit to being to not being an 'expert' but I feel you need to do a lot more background research on the Lo-co model. GBP £1.00 seats are a marketing tool, loss leaders, nothing more nothing less.

One question for all the experts here: is it safety first also for the low cost/charter carriers?
Well if you consider me an 'expert', (you'd need to define that for us), however, in my experience the answers,
YES
Does that help?

Oh and that reminds me, seeing your posting history, your licence type, and your web site, is it really that safe to have lots of aeroplanes flying so close to one another, so close to large crowds?

[ManaAdaSystem]

Have the introduction of the LoCo model reduced the general safety in our industry because of less down time on our aircraft, increased working hours for the crew, more pressure on the crew, worse working conditions, poorer relations between crew and management, and in some cases, a rather foggy relationship between the airlines and the overseeing authorities:

YES!

[sabre 60]

quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have posted on the Helios accident thread - The Guardian newspaper has started quoting posts from PPRune and given the web address- perhaps we need to exercise caution in what we speculate on, we don't want people getting the wrong impression of the aviation industry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sure hope they all read this, i believe paying passengers have the right to know that at some of these company's the FO is also a paying passenger (paying for his/her TR and experience)making less then the cleaners and the only thing he or she can think about is where to get a JOB after 500 or so hours on type.Since when are financial problems not related to stress/safety?
Try to explain that to the "poeple" .

Some poeple here that claim that there is no safety issue are maybe pilots in the above mentioned experience category,maintenance guys or management of one of these companys.

Try that for your wrong impression

[RAFAT]

In simple terms, I have to agree with ManaAdaSystem.

[Sunfish]

I respectfully draw your attention to reality and the concept of the chain of circumstances leading to an accident, or the "holes in the swiss cheese lining up" model.

It's never just one thing that results in an accident. Nobody can just point the finger and make a direct connection between LCC and safety. There is unlikely to be a direct relationship for which there is discoverable evidence.

However:

- Pressure on crews.
- pressure on maintenance.
- time pressure.

These may well be factors, but the real question is "Are LCC's under more pressure in this regard than other carriers?"

[Two's in]

Low cost should not affect the integrity or oversight of the appropriate regulatory authority. The legal operating framework for flight operations and maintenance is usually a matter of law, so if an operator is tempted to cut corners, it is a function of the enforcement policy that determines whether or not they get away with it, not whether they are low cost.

[Slickster]

These may well be factors, but the real question is "Are LCC's under more pressure in this regard than other carriers?"

They are the driving force, so I would imagine they are under more pressure than your established carriers.

That said, all carriers are under that pressure now. This you cannot deny, is as a direct result of increased competition, competition that has increased, with the advent of the LOCOs.

Where does safety stand in such a competetive enviroment?

[jumpseater]

'Some poeple here that claim that there is no safety issue are maybe pilots in the above mentioned experience category,maintenance guys or management of one of these companys.'

And maybe they're not.

I am working on a project where the Lo-co I work for is possibly way ahead of any of the other airlines. The airports I've visited have welcomed me with real enthusiasm and surprise, because we are the ONLY airline to visit airports to address the specific problem, even though its a world wide safety issue. Even the regulatory authorities are interested in what we're doing, fancy that eh?

[PAXboy]

Having this number of incidents within a short period of time, is nothing more than chance. They are, almost certainly, unrelated but cause speculation due to the timeframe.

If there were one prang per month for the year, that would produce less speculation than 12 prangs in one month and then nothing for the rest of the year.

Until a calendar year has elapsed and the total figures of hulls and people lost can be compared with previous years - NOTHING can be surmised from the number of incidents.

Also, having several incidents in a short time is good for safety as it sharpens up all folks involved - including pax. That might be unpalatable but it is true.

[MarkD]

What about the BA EMB145 that went off the end at HAJ? Does that screw up the precious stats?

[oicur12]

Firstly, the discussion on this thread is based on a few accidents over a time of frame of only months. To really establish accident rates, a much longer time frame is required. Does anybody have any proof that accident rates have increased since the emergence of low cost carriers? The answer is no.

Secondly, some of the worst accident records of western airlines have been with high cost incumbents such as Delta in the eighties and USair in the nineties while the low cost Southwest remained accident free.

Go figure.

[radeng]

What's the world wide fatality rate for air travellers (freight crew included) over the past year compared with the world wide fatality rate in road accidents? (Or for that matter, rail accidents?)

Comparison suggests that if LoCo is a factor, then maybe the road and rail transport industries should be looked at before airlines.

Having said, that will always be the odd black sheep........in any industry

[ShortfinalFred]

Anyone who thinks the loco model has not impacted on the level of measures to reduce risk that airlines can make is living in cloud cuckoo land. Even at national carriers sim times are cut to the bone, parts are hard to get as inventories are cut, and training itself is cut to the barest minimum. And STILL airlines in most part can not make an acceptable return on capital.

Equally, anyone who thinks that becuase all airlines are approved by a national authority they all pursue the same level of risk reduction measures is being either wildly or deliberately over-optimistic.

The life is being sucked out of the whole airline business and it is a value destroyer not a value creator.

Expect more terrible accidents at the periphery and more angst about the state of the industry.

For an example of what I am referring to look at the terrible accident to Valuejet in the Florida Everglades as but one case.

There is nothing good to look forward to in the airline business.

[patdavies]

Where does safety stand in such a competetive enviroment?

In short, first and foremost.

Firstly, aircrew may be bloody-minded, stupid or just plain conceited in some cases, but very few are suicidal and therefore unlikely to fly in an aircraft that is not in a safe state.

Secondly, having your airline's aircraft continually falling out of the sky is not good marketing. You tend to sell more tickets if your reputation includes keeping the aircraft in the air between airports.

Thirdly, poor maintenance (and by extrapolation poor safety) causes delays which do not add to your positive marketing image. If you doubt this look at any of the Florida holiday threads that slag off TCD - always complaints about customer services and tech. delays, but no complaints about safety.

[JayeRipley]

Sabre 60 - I did not mean to cause offence. I am not discouraging debate about the issues you have raised. I am only saying that given the fact that the media are quoting posts from PPRuNe, and the average pax isn't going to necessarily examine the minute details of airline ops, but will "prick their ears up" at the mention of safety, as professionals we should exercise caution when starting threads that may ( to the non professional ) suggest that Low Cost always = Unsafe.

[manintheback]

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who thinks the loco model has not impacted on the level of measures to reduce risk that airlines can make is living in cloud cuckoo land. Even at national carriers sim times are cut to the bone, parts are hard to get as inventories are cut, and training itself is cut to the barest minimum. And STILL airlines in most part can not make an acceptable return on capital.

Equally, anyone who thinks that becuase all airlines are approved by a national authority they all pursue the same level of risk reduction measures is being either wildly or deliberately over-optimistic.

The life is being sucked out of the whole airline business and it is a value destroyer not a value creator.

Expect more terrible accidents at the periphery and more angst about the state of the industry.

There is nothing good to look forward to in the airline business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of accidents against the number of aircraft in the air and the numbers of people injured and killed reduced to the lowest ever levels any way one wishes to measure it last year.

As to value being sucked out of the airline industry - I believe it was Warren Buffet who worked through the stars to show that adding up all the profits and losses throughout aviation history pretty much adds up to a big fat zero. There never was any value.

As to nothing to look forward to?. Well the huge increases in PAX flying to destinations on a regularity that was never available before suggest otherwise as does the huge increases in employment within the industry.

[Omaha]

What do they say in the airline industry, something like

If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

[GrahamCurry]

>is it really that safe to have lots of aeroplanes flying so close to one another, so close to large crowds?

Some of the most exciting air displays that I've watched have been 'airliners' (admittedly unladen) being thrown around . I believe there's a Netherlands pilot who displayed an F27, but I've also seen many others (including what is now called a Nimrod) showing their climbing ability and tight-turn handling. Superb! In contrast the Tricolori were tame . . .

[jumpseater]

Graham, the comment was tounge in cheek, check Mr ILS' posting history and you will see a definite pattern, he also holds a licence for a MB! :suspect: With his opening questions in my opinion he is clearly trawling......

I recall vividly the Dutch F27, having seen the display myself. The Tricolori were spectacular too, until Ramstein.....

[rubik101]

"Have the introduction of the LoCo model reduced the general safety in our industry because of less down time on our aircraft, increased working hours for the crew, more pressure on the crew, worse working conditions, poorer relations between crew and management, and in some cases, a rather foggy relationship between the airlines and the overseeing authorities:

YES!"
Less down time?.................almost all of EJ and RYANAIR aircraft are on the ground overnight, giving ample time for maintenance. Most of BA's or any other long-haul carriers aircraft fly on an almost continuous basis between checks. So wrong on that one.
Increased working hours?.............Flight and duty hours at EJ are exactly the same as any other airline in UK, including BA. So wrong again.
More pressure on the crew?.....................How do you quantify pressure? Oh to be at BA right now with all those hungry pax!
worse working conditions?..................my cockpit is pretty much the nicest place to work I can imagine!
poorer relations?.........................again, how do you quantify and justify such a statement. When you've been in the industry as long as I have, you will see that nothing much changes in the long term. The cheese board has gone but so what?
How many times will some ill informed and sensation seeking poster begin yet another thread asking the same dumb question?
Low Cost =Low safety................absolute rubbish.

[Antoninus]

From AFP wire service. August 25th.

NICOSIA, Aug 25, 2005 (AFP) - The Cypriot civil aviation authority failed to carry out mandatory airworthiness checks on Cypriot-registered aircraft for 10 months, a senior manager charged Thursday, in a new blow for public trust in air safety.
The accusation, less than two weeks after a Cypriot airliner crashed outside Athens with the loss of all 121 people on board, sparked a furore with one leading politician demanding "drastic" action to restore faith in the island's aviation industry.
Air transport licensing chief Charalambos Hadjigeorgiou made his allegations in an interview with public radio and said he was speaking out at the risk of losing his job because of his concern after the August 14 crash.
"It was said that all the checks were conducted as they should have been, well I'm here to confirm that for the past 10 months no such flight checks were carried out," Hadjigeorgiou said.
"What this means in relation to the accident is up to the Greek investigators."
Late in the day, the communications ministry put out a statement saying that Hadjigeorgiou's comments were "misleading" and promising a fuller rebuttal by Minister Haris Thrassou on Friday.
"The facts as presented by Mr Hadjigeorgiou create misleading impressions over the whole issue and particularly over the possible causes of the accident," the statement said.
Attorney General Petros Clerides is expected to invite Hadjigeorgiou to testify and provide any documentary evidence he has to substantiate his accusations.
Civil aviation sources questioned whether Hadjigeorgiou meant the civil aviation authority had carried out no checks at all, even engineering checks on the ground, or just that there had no supervised checks in-flight.
Hadjigeorgiou -- who is not responsible for airline safety -- charged that the civil aviation authority had failed to carry out the checks despite billing the airlines for the costs of doing so.
Helios Airways, the island's sole private carrier which operated the Boeing 737 involved in the Greece crash, had paid 64,800 Cypus pounds (138,000 dollars) for the checks valid from April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005.
State owned flag carrier Cyprus Airways had paid 90,900 Cyprus pounds (193,600 dollars) for the checks and its charter arm, Eurocypria, 49,800 Cyprus pounds (106,000 dollars).
"Why this didn't happen, you will have to ask the (communications) ministry and civil aviation for the answer," Hadjigeorgiou said, hitting out at successive Cypriot governments for "hoodwinking" European experts over the authority's shortcomings.
"I consider it an insult that after a long but failed struggle to upgrade the civil aviation department that we hear disinformation and blame coming from official lips," he said.
Hadjigeorgiou's comments sparked a politial storm with many MPs demanding an independent investigation into how civil aviation was being managed.
"This is a shock and after these comments I expect drastic decisions to be taken concerning civil aviation and personnel responsible for flight checks and administrative action," said Yiannakis Omirou, leader of the socialist EDEK party, a junior partner in the governing coalition.
The head of the Greek crash investigation team, Akrivos Tsolakis, is expected in Cyprus next Monday to interview Cypriots officials and airline staff over the Helios disaster.
Two EU experts are on the island to assist with the Cypriot end of investigations at the request of the Cyprus government.
Government officials said they were looking into a report by French newspaper Le Monde which suggested Cyprus was one of 30 countries on an international civil aviation blacklist for not meeting required safety standards.
A Cypriot police investigation is being carried out into Helios to ascertain if the airline was negligent in any way for what happened to flight 522 from Larnaca to Prague via Athens.
The crash was the worst aviation disaster to befall Cyprus or Greece. Those killed were almost all nationals of the island, a close-knit community of less than one million people."

Could it be that an envelope slipped to the people supposed to sign the paperwork comes cheaper than a REAL airworthiness check?
In some countries, the word "corruption" is a familiar one. Remember that..