Low Cost Airlines, A Safety Risk?

[738Capt]

Alot of talk about various low cost airlines being at high risk of killing pax? I say increase the cost of flights and improve flight safety, by paying L.A.M.E's, flight crew, more. It may cost more but improvements to safety are worth it, how can airlines run boeing 737's at $10 a seat without compromising safety.

Mimimum levels of maintenance are carried out on aircraft carring 150+ people. Not safe.

What do you think is the answer?

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

It is a sweeping generalisation to say that LCCs are charging '$10' per ticket. The power of the Low Cost model is that there are tickets priced at every level and the name of the game is to get in quick before you pay the big bucks! I would also take issue with the statement that minimum maintainance is being carried out on aircraft taking 150+ people. You are stating something as fact that is simply not true.

I can only speak for my own low cost airline (easyJet in the UK) and say that whatever criticisms may be brought against their managment, when it comes to safety there are absolutely no shortcuts being taken. They have brand new aircraft and have excellent maintainance practices. I have never once been asked to carry a snag that should have been sorted and I know of no one within the company who has been asked to do so either. Quite the contrary - my worry would be more making an error that is spotted by the 'spy in the cab' recorders then being called up to head office to account for it. Companies like easyJet know that however expensive safety is, a crash is a whole lot more costly! There is a huge emphasis on adherence to SOPs within a company like ours and as long as you make a safe decision in a situation the company backs you 100%. For example, if you do a go-around for being unstable at 500' you will never hear a word about it because it was safe. If, however, you continue the approach you will certainly hear a lot about it! I personally feel at ease in working in that sort of atmosphere and it is one of the plus points of working for easyJet.

If any criticism could be brought against these types of companies it is that they expect their pilots to fly to their maximum hours. Our particular rostering arrangement of 5 earlies, 2 days off, 5 lates, 4 days off (known not surprisingly as 5/2-5/4!) is highly controversial among the pilots and my own view is that it is very fatiguing. I personally hope that it will be binned in favour of a less tiring system but time will tell.

[KC-10 Driver]

I can only speak for my own low cost airline (easyJet in the UK) and say that whatever criticisms may be brought against their managment, when it comes to safety there are absolutely no shortcuts being taken. They have brand new aircraft and have excellent maintainance practices. I have never once been asked to carry a snag that should have been sorted and I know of no one within the company who has been asked to do so either. Quite the contrary - my worry would be more making an error that is spotted by the 'spy in the cab' recorders then being called up to head office to account for it. Companies like easyJet know that however expensive safety is, a crash is a whole lot more costly! There is an huge emphasis on adherence to SOPs within a company like ours and as long as you make a safe decision in a situation the company backs you 100%. For example, if you do a go-around for being unstable at 500' you will never hear a word about it because it was safe. If, however, you continue the approach you will certainly hear a lot about it! I personally feel at ease in working in that sort of atmosphere and it is one of the plus points of working for easyJet.

You could take the above commentary, replace "easyJet" with "jetBlue", and it would be spot on.

I do not see "minimum levels of maintenance", as you say, being carried out at my company. Nor, do I see it at other LCCs in the U.S. (according to my friends at those companies).

At jetBlue, Safety is the first "value" -- I know it sounds cliche, but it really is true, at least from my perspective. It's even the official corporate position.

That's my opinion of the LCC situation, at least in my country.

[Wizofoz]

As I've said before, the problem is not with low cost airlines, the problem is with low profit airlines.

Airlines that are losing money ( which includes most Major airlines world wiide) are under more pressure to cut costs on things which give no notional return (like maintemance) than profitable airlines, which includes virtually all the larger Low costs.

[Dani]

... and also the statement that LCC pilots get low salary is not justified anymore. The market leaders pay the best salaries in the industry, and soon they will be the only one to pay big salaries (at least in the US), because the others just can't afford it anymore.

[Bokkenrijder]

Completely agree with Norman Stanley Fletcher!

[FlapsOne]

Agree with NSF and Wiz

Successful LCCs do no skimp on safety or standards.

The LCC I work for has the best possible standards of training and maintenance. Never (really, not once!!) have I been asked, or even gently shoved, into doing or accepting anything that would represent anything but the best.

The concern I do have is that, inherrent in the LCC model, is sometimes trying to get too much out of the crews.

Limits should be limits, not targets.

Low profit or serial loss makers are however a big worry.

[philip2004uk]

Even if a company became a loss money maker most good low-cost airline wouldn't take shortcuts. You just have to watch out for the odd low cost carriers in the world that take shortcuts but on the whole our low cost ones are safe.

[barit1]

In this imperfect world, the worst thing you can do to passenger safety is to RAISE fares. This will have the effect of forcing more pax out of air travel and onto surface transport, which is statistically MUCH less safe.

[nightsky]

In my country, the low cost airlines continue to have increasing pay and good schedules. The old style "legacy" and bankrupt carriers are reducing their pilot's pay and benefits and retirements and pushing them to fly more. Think that might be a llittle distracting? It's not the LCC carriers I'd be worrying about.

[PAXboy]

If you take a list of all the hull losses in the past five years (say), then consider how many are LCC / Legacy / 2nd world / 3rd world, you may some patterns. Then repeat for 10 years. The new boys know that they cannot aford a hull loss.

[LGS6753]

The big myth about low-cost airlines is that they are cheap!!

OK a few seats are sold at 2 pence or something silly like that, to get headlines and attract the punters.

In the UK the average fare is around £37 (Ryanair) and £45 (Easy Jet). Taking an average of around £40:

Double it for a return £80

Add taxes and charges of £10-15 per leg depending on airports used £100+

Add revenues earned by the airline from in-flight meals, hotel bookings, car hire, credit card surcharges, wheelchair charges, and you're at £120 at least. That's around the going rate for a UK-Mediterranean IT charter on a seat-only basis.

And the lo-cos are operating modern, fuel-efficient aircraft that they've bought in large numbers.
You don't get a ticket.
They charge for the no-shows
They don't pay travel agents
They utilise aircraft intensively
Generally only operate one aircraft type
They contract-out airport/ground services to the lowest cost provider
They don't over-pay their staff, and they aren't over-manned.

So really, they aren't as cheap as people think. But because people think they are getting a bargain, they fly. Don't knock it!!

:ok:

[rubik101]

738 *** Alot of talk about various low cost airlines being at high risk of killing pax?

Here we go yet again. Let's slag off the low cost carriers even though the subject has been done to death at least once a week on this and many other forums. And all this in spite of the fact that no-one has produced one word of evidence to support such ridiculous claims.

Just where do you get this complete rubbish from? Please quote chapter and verse and then we will discuss this seriously. Until then, go away and think of something sensible to write.

[hobie]

Was talking to a young lady tonight who was telling me about eight flights she had just completed around Europe with 'easyjet' and 'Ryanair' ....... she told me all the crews were great! ...... the Aircraft were great! ...... the Ticket prices were great

She was most impressed :ok:

[A330AV8R]

Its very easy to generalise and say that LCC's are not safe , simply put that is NOT the case .

Being involved with 2 LCC startups myself I have to say safety always comes first , and by the way the LC model ends with the passenger , all crew air and ground get paid and avail what the industry has to offer so there is no compromise on safety , matter of fact the LCC's go the more expensive way I might add by hiring support directly from the manufacturer 9 out of 10 times .

thats your brain telling you Low cost therfore low safety , low everything .. . . .

Certainly not the case my friend

:E

[Ignition Override]

I've only operated "over here", but despite that, the fact that an aircraft and its passengers arrive at its scheduled destination does NOT mean that the flight was maintained, dispatched nor operated in a safe manner. Enjoying the cooperation of one's co-workers and enjoying the routes and schedules does not indicate that the operation is safe. But this is a very common assumption, especially among young, enthusiastic novices-not to mention the recently unemployed.

On a different note, how about lowest-cost freight airlines? Being low or 'zero-profile' among the public, what support can their crews count on?

It is no secret that the US FAA, historically, "allegedly" looked away when reports come in from inspectors who were concerned about serious problems. This happened in the 90s with Valuejet (now named Airtran), which was a passenger carrier, and it was told to the media and in Congressional hearings-but of course, after the crash.

Let's keep in mind that this is just one example.;)

[nnc0]

Some might argue that it is in fact the legacy carriers that pose a more serious concern. The push to save on expenses and meet schedules with less manpower is proving to be extremely stressful with some. In better times the mechanics often went above and beyond to check the work done. Now - not so much. There just simply isn't enough time. Considering that the legacy carriers are generally flying older metal well, .............you draw your own conclusions.

And not to single out Northwest for anything specific or insinuate anything here about their safety record to date, but you must question the quality of the work and their record keeping when you replace 4000 mechanics overnight. I don't care how qualified the replacements are. You can't tell me that the professionalism of any new DC-9 guy just out of the Airforce or from JetsGo has anywhere near the competence or experience of the 20 yr in DC-9 lead they just turfed out the door. How could you not have a few doubts about the safety at that legacy carrier?

[738Capt]

Low cost airlines do cut costs at every corner.

Cheap airlines push for every dollar out of crews/aircraft.

Pressure is applied to pilot re fuel burn.

Airframe/engines are pushed.

Large airlines that charge more can spend more. It is fact that cheap airlines place pressure on crew not to do go-arounds, to use flight idle reverse on landing, only deploy flaps untill on late final approach.