Black Listed Airlines

[Rollingthunder]

Just read a thread from a pilot wanting to work for Korean.

SLF of all types on this site and elsewhere are not primarily price driven in the selection of who to fly with. I'm sure you take into serious consideration the airlines you choose to fly with.

What are your Black-Listed, (will never, ever fly with them) airlines?
Top Ten lists please.

edited for format

[This message has been edited by Rollingthunder (edited 17 June 2000).]

[Grandad Flyer]

Korean, Aeroflot, Malaysian. There are probably others, but these are 3 I would definitely not fly with.

[Lurk R]

Recently I had to travel to LHR - both QF and SQ were $1400 (Aust) dearer than Malaysian - I still took SQ...

[BRUpax]

Korean and Aeroflot I can understand. I would add China Airlines to my list. But what's up with Malaysian then? From what I've been reading I wouldn't be any keener to fly with Singapore these days!

[fishlips]

BRUpax, the thing with MH is probably be that they arrive at airports with minimum fuel on board.
QF, AN, UA are the only airlines I will never ever fly again with. In my own opinion service does not exist!

[I'd rather]

I wouldn't go Aeroflot, Korean or any of the Chinese airlines - I think there are about 4 or 5 including the Taiwanese one.

I seem to remember one crash a couple of years ago (I'm pretty sure it was one of the Chinese airlines), where the plane crashed, Boeing or whoever were about to fly out and investigate, and the authorities simply cleared up the mess without waiting for them to get there!

[Mycroft]

If you look at the Delta/KAL safety report (its on the PPRuNe main page) out of over 200 comments there are 2 positive ones (punctuality seems good and cabin service good ) which unfortunately is all that the average pax would know about, little realising the potentially disasterous flight deck environment

[Slasher]

Fishlips I think what you mean is "less than minimum required fuel on board".

[fishlips]

Slasher, thank you for correcting me

[The Sleeping Pax]

10 airlines easily come to mind, that I would rather avoid. Having said that, there are many that I love to fly with.
1. Virgin. My one experience of flying with them was bloody. Never again. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
2. Yemenia. It's a very long story.
3. Qantas on internal flights. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
4. Royal Brunei. Bloody awful country: bloody awful airline. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
5. Sabena. The only airline to leave me behind.
6. Nigeria Airways. I shudder at the thought of the name. :mad:
7. Aeroflot, unfortunately I have no choice at times. :rolleyes:
8. Cathay Pacific especially to and from the Middle East.
9. Emirates, the only airline to give me food poisoning. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
10. Iran Air, Again unfortunately I have no choice if I want to go to some places I have to work and visit. :rolleyes:


Wake me up if we get there

[leftwingdownabit]

Sleeping Pax,

You sometimes have that problem with Virgin, but it is recommended that you try again. Sorry - straight to Jet Blast for me with that one.

Personally I wouldn't want to fly with Aeroflot after they crashed an Airbus because the pilots child knocked the lateral control off the autopilot, while sitting in the left hand seat. Granted you sometimes can't avoid these airlines.

[The Sleeping Pax]

Lefthander,
I'm afraid that Virgin had their chance and they blew it big time :)
Does that send me to Jet Blast too? ;)



------------------
Wake me up when we get there

[Kobuta]

I could think of a few other airlines which immediately spring to mind as airlines to avoid apart from the almost obligatory Aeroflot / Korean and China Airlines, JAL and ANA domestic (especially when on the 747s!), Indian Airlines and probably most charter carriers (for the legroom that is)

[Kaptin M]

What's the priority here....

...Safety,

...Inflight service,

...or Overall service - from check-in, to baggage collection?

[The Sleeping Pax]

KAptain M,

Peresonally it's a mixture of them all. Safety is and should be paramount. We all want to arrive at our destination! In-flight service less so, but the image presented by the airline is important to whether yo want to fly again. To my mind Virgin lost it completely the time I flew with them (3 Years ago admittedly), with their diabolical overall service I and many others had on a Trans-Atlantic flight. Never again!

------------------
Wake me up when we get there

[Rollingthunder]

Kaptin M,

Safety was on my mind as the highest area of concern.
A flight is a complex event in a dangerous environment. Operating a safe airline is equally complex.I
I calculate my risks and a proven track record of unsafe events is worthy of blacklisting.
After that I look for price, ground service, in-flight service and leg room.
Unfortunately most pax seem to pay no more concern for their safety when choosing a carrier than they would when they get on a bus.

[Kaptin M]

Safety is often taken for granted, by most pax [I believe], and isn't usually given a second thought when makng a flight booking, unless there has been an accident in recent times [involving the airline they're considering travelling with] to influence their decision making. I think we all agree that accidents do have a detrimental, and immediate, effect on loadings.

Safety incorporates many facets of the airlines' operations, to list a few: security and loading of check-in baggage; security and loading of pax and carry-on; quality of long and short term maintenance of aircraft; standard of training and checking of tech and cabin crew; accuracy of weather forecasts, and flight planning data; departure, en route, and destination air traffic control, and situational awareness of pilots; weather encountered during the flight, and weather avoidance procedures adopted, if necessary.

So, when one airline appears to consistently experience problems in one facet of flight and/or with one particular type of aircraft, it is time to zero in with the microscope, to find out why. If several airlines are having problems in a common area, it would appear to be a factor outside the airlines' individual operating procedures.

Please understand, each airline has its OWN way of operating the same aircraft type as another airline - often the differences may be relatively minor, whilst at other times staying with the same type, but moving to another company, can give the impression that you are about to embark on the launching of the space shuttle. Crazy you say? Well, needless to say, every company reckons THEY have the best procedures for that type, and can justify WHY they do it this way, instead of that. So check out past history...someone might say "They've only been lucky", but chances are the luck went their way, because the procedures they had in place, had a safety net [or nets] that worked when it was needed.

Once you're happy with the real issues, price/cabin service will probably become the deciding factor.

[ExSimGuy]

Goes back to one of my first posts on PAX/SLF about the approach into JED in a blue-and-sand-colour aircraft when the PAPIs (VASIs) were constantly changing from red to white and back again (I remember Slasher telling me the driver was probably just testing them!)

Again, there's not a lot of choice RUH-JED! (But the fare is cheap on a per-mile basis :) )

[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 24 June 2000).]

[Slasher]

In answer to the emails I got asking me to expand on minimum fuel on landing Ill post it here for the benifit of others too.

There are 2 stages: The planning stage and the flight stage.

Planning stage:
---------------
Pilots PLAN to arrive at the beginning of destinations approach with at least enough fuel to do
* one approach
* do a go around,
* proceed to an ALTERNATE airport
* touchdown at that alternate airport with no less than 30 minutes of fuel (called Fixed Reserve, FR) plus a bit more (around 2-10% extra. This is called Variable Reserve, VR).
During the Planning stage it might be that the payload (bums, cargo) dictates the pilot cant carry all that fuel. So what he does is nominate on Enroute airfield where he can land if he needs to pick up extra fuel to continue on. During this planning stage if he goes non-stop he should arrive at his destination with his VR and FR but might be down on fuel to get him to an Alternate airport.

Flight Stage:
-------------
Once airborne we are hoping what we planned to do works out. This is rarely the case so now we keep an eye on our fuel burnoff as the flight progresses and "plan ahead".
Some of the more common things that could lead to landing with less than fuel required are:
* ATC giving an assigned level below the optimum altitude and being stuck there. This increases fuel flow and the problem magnifys the longer your stuck there
* Higher than forecast headwinds or less than forecast tailwinds
* Large diversions off course around big areas of thunderstorms
As we get closer to our destination we get the ACTUAL weather at destination (as against the forecast weather) and if there are any problems at the airport (approach navaids not working, any runway(s) closed etc). If everything is good, provided we are at least one hour from destination, and ATC is aware of whats going on, we can legaly dispense with having to have Alternate airport fuel, and plan to touchdown with our FR and VR.

Heres an example. 747 Singapore - London (which Im amply familiar with)

Planning:
---------
We need a total of 160 tonnes of fuel in our tanks to fly SIN-LHR, do a go around at LHR, proceed to Manchester (MAN) and land. But we are full of bums and cargo so we can only carry 150 tonnes total. We cant use Gatwick as our alternate airport because Gatwick is forecast to be too foggy.
Our nominated enroute airport tonight will be Vienna. As we come overhead Vienna we will replan our fuel as if we are flying VIE-LHR. If we have enough we'll keep going to London. If not we'll duck in to Vienna and top up our gas.
Our optimum altitude is 31,000 feet as far as India and 35,000 feet as far as Turkey. 39,000 feet will be our optimum from then on.
On the Fuel Plan we note (if we dont stop) that we should land with our FR and VR plus an extra 3-4 tonnes of fuel (insufficient to make MAN).

Flight Stage:
-------------
* After TO from Singapore we've been stuck at 26,000 feet as far as Dubai. We diverted around a huge storm area in the Bay of Bengal which cut in to our fuel too. We've climbed now to 31,000 feet but the headwinds are not as strong up here. Our predictions show our fuel over Vienna wont be looking too healthy to proceed to LHR.
* Over Tehran, Speedbird London on HF tells us the new weather forecasts. LHR is still 50-50 but Gatwick is closed due fog. Prestwick is wide open.
* Turkey clears us to 39,000 feet which eases the burden a bit. We'll save 2 tonnes up here than at 31,000 feet.
* Approaching Vienna. ACTUAL weather at LHR is 1000 metres in fog. Gatwick is absolutely fantastic and is expected to be so for the next 2 hours (weather forecaster is surprised! So are we!). Amsterdam is also in excellent weather and will remain so all day.
* Over Vienna. Replan our fuel. We have enough in our tanks VIE-LHR, do an approach, do a go around, and proceed if necessary to our new alternate airport GATWICK. If we divert we should land with our FR and VR but not much else. ATC is advised our nominated diversion airport is Gatwick.
* Uh Oh! Due to traffic we have to enter a holding pattern during our descent! Is LHR still ok? YES says ATC. Its 1,200 metres visibility and expected to improve shortly to 1500 metres. Ok. Since we are within 1 hours flying time AND a landing is assured at LHR, we can dispense with Gatwick fuel, and use it to hold.
* ATC advised that we can only hold for another 10 minutes, otherwise we'll have to go to Amsterdam (which is closer where we are holding than Gatwick). We request priority approach from ATC to save us going to Amsterdam.
* Another hold burns off our VR but we do the approach and touchdown at LHR in 1800 metres vis. Our fuel tanks show 36 minutes fuel.

All this was perfectley safe and legal.

What ifs:
---------
* If the weather over the UK was appalling we would have considered Amsterdam as our nominated alternate, and plan over Vienna accordingly.
* If Amsterdam was also going under, then we wouldve done a whistlestop at Vienna.
* If LHR was good (and ASSURED it will remain so with 100% certainty) and everywhere else was bad, we can proceed cautiously and plan a PNR (Point of No Return or "Equal-Fuel Point") VIE-LHR. At that point we decide wether to return to VIE or go on to LHR. At that stage we'd be damn close to London anyway.
* If any of the wheels failed to extend during our approach, we would do a go around, declare an emergency fuel state to ATC, do the drill to get the gear down, and return immediately for landing wether we were succesful in getting the wheel(s) down or not.
* If the aircraft ahead of us pranged on the runway, we would "sidestep" to the other runway during our approach to land. An airport having 2 independent runways is taken into account on many airlines fuel policys.

Note:
VR is planned NOT to be burnt, but can be burnt to allow for unforecast headwinds or navigation diversions. It equates anywhere from 2-10% of what you plan to burn getting from A to B.

FR (30 mins) is jealously guarded by almost all pilots. It can be used only in emergency situations (gear wont come down on approach, flaps get stuck etc). If any aircraft looks as if it will touchdown with less than 30 minutes fuel on board an emergency MUST be declared to ATC. There are no exceptions!

PS From what Ive gathered, MAS screwed up because they touched down at LHR with less than 30 minutes FR in there tanks and had not declared a low fuel state to ATC earlier. Planning inflight to land with less than the FR without any valid emergency reason (and only for commercial/convenience motivations) is pure utter foolishness. That 30 minutes is a pilots last ditch survival fuel should any sh*t hit the fan on approach and is why its so carefully guarded by (almost) all of us. What they shouldve done was land enroute much earlier in the flight and topped up the gas. I shudder to think what wouldve happened if that Malaysian flight HAD to go around from the landing for WHATEVER reason.

[ExSimGuy]

I just scrolled up to see who posted that very interesting explan - It was you Slash! Thanks mate - from all of us!

Now what was it that MAS did in screwing up? Did they just get "caught" with less than 30 mins fuel? Or was that the cause of a problem?

It's nice to know that, in this dog-eat-dog competitive world where the bean-counters rule supreme, there's still the equivalent of "and an extra couple of tons (or tonnes!) for the Flight Engineer's wife and kids" :)

------------------
Flight Sims, very expensive toys - but real fun to play with!

[Self Loading Freight]

Thanks, Slasher. Top post. Answered many questions, some of which I didn't even know I wanted to ask...

R

[Bubbette]

I would never fly AirTran (formerly ValueJet) for safety reasons. I would also never fly Aeroflot, Korean (unless they improve, which maybe they will since Delta has now decided to once again share marketing with them), most of the east European former USSR states' airlines, and most of the Central American airlines. LanChile and Varig I would fly, but not Aerolineas Argentinas or most other South American airlines.

The carrier I feel most comfortable (safety wise, not physically) is El AL.

[BigJETS]

Slasher-- I am glad you posted the in-depth fueling scenario. It was great. Exactly what I read PPRuNE for!

Bubbette--As for Air Tran....I've flown them. I see your view. I was very happy with the AirTran experience I had though. Whoever was responsible for wrong doing in the Valu-jet accident was a bad dog. I'm not sure AirTran has made the needed adjustment but I hope so. I would rate them as a professional airline now. But what do I know.

I am surprised how Alaska Airlines has been going. I hope they get it together again too. It's as though a black cloud has been over them lately. I can't understand it.

------------------
Rotate!

[Slasher]

ExSim I dont know the exact circumstances and the only figure Ive reliably got is that MAS touched down at LHR with 3.5 tonnes of fuel. A 747 even at a light weight would have a FR of around 4.6 tonnes minimum. At average weights it would be around 5 tonnes. Ive seen 7 tonnes on the fuel gages when I was a FO on a 747, while landind at Paris CDG in perfect weather and even that reading made me feel niggley!

I dont want to turn this thread into a MAS-bashing one, but after a lot of digging around I discovered:
* An enroute stopoff for fuel has implications for MAS cabin crew duty-hours limits (company pressure)
* MAS has a "flying-on-fumes" fuel policy introduced a few years ago by a then new flight department chief (company pressure). (Hes since been removed?)
* MASs fanatical insistence on on-time arrivals (commercial pressure)

As to the incident itself no one except MAS knows the mitigating circumstances, but given these pressures I would say a few of the locals would cave in. Im led to believe too that there flight department is run by iron-fisted rule with severe penaltys for any pilot who doesnt follow their orders (including flying on fumes).

This post is not a slur against MAS pilots because I believe most of them (on the widebody fleets anyway) to be professional and level-headed. I think there actions in the 777 engine-oil loss incident out of Kuala Lumpur proves this.

BTW carriers I myself would NEVER fly as pax are (in order of most dangerous)

1. Korean (unless the captain is an expat)

2. China Airlines (ditto)

3. Anything domestic in mainland China (except those based in HKG like CX, Dragonair, etc). If you have no other choice (rail, car, hitchhiking, donkey-cart) then go China Southern. Best of a bad bunch.

4. Garuda Indonesia

5. Indonesian domestic (Merpati Nusantara, Sempati, etc)

I might point out that Indonesia has a very strong religious-fatalism attitude (yeh ExSim heh heh, islam!). Seems poor old allah gets the blame for most aircraft-related deaths, engine failures, mountain crashes, runway excursions, and wether the aeroplane will get there or not.

Safe airlines Ive personaly flown with (as a pax). These ones have the least risk of ever killing you (please note Ive not listed them in any order):

1. KLM

2. BA

3. Japan Airlines

4. Air NZ

5. SAA

6. Cathay Pacific

7. Dragonair

8. Qantas

9. Emirates

10. Delta

Of course there are more equaly safe airlines out there but these are the only ones I can personaly vouch for having flown with them.

[bravo 2-0]

Have to agree with Sleeping Pax re CX flights to and from Middle East from Mumbai.

Twice in four months I have had the joy of being stuck in BOM airport whilst their 777 aircraft have gone 'tech' for more than 18 hours...not the best experience!! Last Thursday pax were screaming blue murder in both BOM and DXB as CX 751 and CX750 both impacted by the problems.....

Suggest CX get better engineering cover if they going to be the only 777 operator through BOM. The BA guys do a good job but cannot be expected to pick up on the problems that CX engineers miss in the home base HKG!

Given the revenue earnt on this sector CX had better get their act together soon befor e they defect elsewhere.

Mind the alternatives are not great AI or EK.. as a non smoker I find the EK policy on smoking a complete joke...!

Maybe I will need to hoof it down the road to AUH and try out GF instead....??

[I'd rather]

Thanks for the list, Slasher. That confirms what I've always thought, but it's reassuring to hear it from a pro!

I'm planning a holiday which might involve an internal flight in Thailand on Bangkok Airlines (I think that's the name; perhaps Bangkok Airways?)

I've never heard of them; does anyone know anything about them? Any info gratefully received.

[The Sleeping Pax]

Slasher, a great couple of posts and very educational to we Pax's as well.

Bravo 2-0, I reccommend GF to BKK and to HKG although they originate each day from either BAH, AUD and even MCT as the whim takes them or so it seems. GF, it has to be said, has to have the worst schedule in the world for Inter-Gulf connections between their hubs. However,they are my prefered choice. I have always had good service and only once have I been delayed and that was a diversion to Kathmandu. The best thing about the flight crew is that they let me sleep, and Slasher, no wailing about some prophets prayer before a journey to annoy you.

I'd Rather, Bangkok Airways, I flown a couple of times. Very basic amenities on board. Since the recession 3 years ago, the number of routes flown has fallen, but they still have quite a few aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Don Muang. I understand that they are rather prone to cancelling flights due to lack of passengers, which is very different to pre-recession times when they would fly with a handful of Pax's. Hope the info abve is of use.

------------------
Wake me up when we get there

[This message has been edited by The Sleeping Pax (edited 26 June 2000).]

[I'd rather]

Thanks SP. Much appreciated.

[Kaptin M]

You've got too much spare time, Slash!!

Enlightening post for our pax...I wonder how many of you were aware that many of the longer, long haul flights depart with less than the required fuel, as described in the SIN-LHR scenario [by Slasher], and do enroute re-calculations, based on remaining fuel, and actual wind. Hence, the traffic, weather, and the controlling, at the destination usually gives us the reason for all our whinging and moaning...5 minutes delay can start to look "interesting", and a go-around - because the preceding aircraft is too slow to clear the runway [landing, or taking off] is guaranteed to have the adrenalin pumping, at the end of a long flight.

But fuel [or lack of] isn't as much a concern, as the standard of flying. Unfortunately, in many of the non-western countries, there is a strong cultural ingraining, that makes it difficult [bad etiquette] for a subordinate to question the captain's decision[s], and for the captain to accept opinions that conflict with his. While everything is "on the rails", and running as planned, it will run like clockwork - but introduce one or more non-routine factors, and the lateral thinking capability will, more often than not, be found lacking. This seems to have been a major factor in Korean Air's, and most of the Chinese airlines' accidents. Garuda's, I feel [the Fukuoka, and Medan accidents], were more a lack of indiscipline, and situational unawareness.

[OO-AOG]

Strangely enough, I have no real black listed airlines, safety side I mean.
Even if some airlines are surely safer than others, chances to have an in/accident are so small that I really don't care. The only thing important to my eyes is quality of service. My favorite is Air France for long-hauls.

[blackadder]

Bangkok Airways; only flew with them on 2 occasions this year, no problems.

[mutt]

Slasher,

Excellent posting, but i would like to ask about one point.

You stated that:

* touchdown at that alternate airport with no less than 30 minutes of fuel (called Fixed Reserve, FR) plus a bit more (around 2-10% extra. This is called Variable Reserve, VR).

Our policy as per the FAR's calls for:
1: Fuel from departure to destination.
2: Fuel from destination to chosen alternate.
3: 30 Minutes holding fuel (FR).
3: 10% Contingency (VR).

If you were having a **** poor day and the planned flight level or winds are not as expected, you can burn the contingency fuel prior to reaching your destination.

At the destination you can make one approach before diverting to your alternate.

As i said its a **** poor day, so you have to hold for 30 minutes at your alternate before landing.

You will therefore land quite legally with almost empty tanks.

Just remembered that I’ve posted in the Passenger Forum, the situation that I described above is theoretical, It can happen, but there is an excellent safety value to prevent the situation from getting that bad, its called the pilots. The one thing that I have learned from them is that there is no such thing as having too much fuel!!

Mutt



[This message has been edited by mutt (edited 29 June 2000).]

[Slasher]

Mutt dont forget I was posting to passengers so I had to keep it uncomplicated while still sticking to the point. I did mention that VR can be burnt enroute. What I said also was that its not PLANNED to be burnt. If its a very good day its not touched.
Yes your right with regard to use of FR for holding at the Alternate, but a declaration of Low Fuel State must be made to ATC (I know its in the Jepps somewhere). But using the 737 & 747 QRH as guides, a low-fuel emergency condition exists when total endurance reaches 15 minutes or less. Cutting into the 30 minutes for any reason amounts to an Incident in many Company policies and Civil regulations. It does in ours too.
Some States allow for a reduction of FR to 20 minutes during Depressurised Ops. That means however you only have a 5 minute buffer from the requirement of having to declare an emergency low fuel state to ATC.

[ShyTorque]

Slasher,

I concur with your post re the fuel, having as a pax personally experienced a diversion for fuel reasons with that airline. This was about 1996, LHR - KL when, during breakfast there was a sudden announcement to the tune of "Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. Sorry to announce that we do not have enough fuel to reach our destination". There was no explanation, surprising as we were out of sight of land at the time... It must have been about ten minutes or so before a further announcement informed us that we were in fact going to Penang instead. By this time some pax were approaching a state of panic and not surprisingly, many breakfasts were left uneaten!! On arrival there was no parking space and after about an hour's delay for fuel, done with pax on board, the crew missed the correct exit back to the runway and we then had to wait for a pushback as we were up a blind taxyway. The guy sitting opposite me was pleased to be at Penang as that is where his business meeting was - unfortunately, of course he was not allowed to disembark there. He suddenly realised that because of the 2 1/2 hr delay meant he was going to miss his flight back from KL to Penang and also his meeting. Therefore he would instead have to go straight back to LHR. Air-rage was imminent!

After our "diversion" I submitted a "CHIRP" report as I thought that it should be brought to the notice of those that matter in UK. My comments were "noted" and I received an abridged explanation along the lines of your post.

[Jorge Newberry]

Bubbette,
What do you reckon is wrong with Aerolineas Argentinas?

[Bubbette]

Jorge,
I just seem to be reading that they are having funding problems, and that makes me nervous. I hear this also from my Argentine friends. It probably got worse after that air crash off the runway a few months ago.

[Jorge Newberry]

You mean, I think, the loss of LAPA 3142 at Aeroparque. A different company altogether.

[Bubbette]

Thanks for clarifying that Jorge. So it just goes back to my Argentine friends complaining about it, and that may have nothing to do with safety.

[Slasher]

ShyTorque the guy did the safe thing and correctly landed at Penang for a gas topup. You cant blame him for that, only that his command of English isnt good. Some airlines do not train there pilots in how to speak to passengers and get the message across effectively without starting a panic. I hear MAS is one of them. Of course the correct address should have been "Ladys and gentleman. Due to headwinds/ATC/whatever we will have to land enroute at Penang airport for fuel. We will land in XX minutes. We apologise for this and will do all we can to minimise our time on the ground there and resume our flight blah blah" or words to that effect. You must remember that a lot of these 3rd world countries (and I live in a bloodey textbook one!) primarily use there own funny dialects and local languages and are not proficient in English. Perhaps he explained it in his own local home-grown lingo fairly well (national carriers very often use there own lingo over the PA first then do the same in English). So were the natives on board paniky too?

If the passenger you mentioned was going to a meeting in Penang then silly him for not giving himself a safety buffer between the ETA and the meeting time itself. Ive got no sympathy for those who plan these things so stupidley. What idiot doesnt build in a buffer (perhaps 24 hours for a longhaul trip) to cover any contingencies that might delay arrival for an important event? Also the flight wouldve been much further delayed from the loaders having to search through 8 tonnes of bags looking for his lordships particular one if he got off in Penang. That would have really p!ssed the other 399 of you off and perhaps encroached in the crews Duty Time limits, exasperating a FURTHER delay due to crew changes.

Unless the full facts and circumstances about the incorrect taxyway are known Im not saying a thing. Taxy cockups can invariabley be caused by absolutely anything or a string of anythings and not necessarily the crews fault. HKG (old Kai Tak) was a bloody nightmare on a bad day.

I hardly think it warranted a CHIRP Shy. A CHIRP is meant for safety-encroachment reporting. Thats where its true value lies. MAS didnt encroach on safety during the event you discribed. All it did was scare the sh!t out of everyone due to ineffective comunication. I wouldve sent you the same reply as the CAA did. A nasty letter to the airline and a "letters to the editor" contribution in a newspaper back home wouldve been enough perhaps?

[justapax]

A few years back, any flight involving Indian Airlines was guaranteed to relax the sphincters. Fortunately, I don't travel in that part of the world anymore. Have they improved?

Impressed indelibly on my memory is a go-around at HYD, conducted at a very low level; at one point the port wing (which I was looking out over with horrified amazement) went "thump". I think it sliced a few centimetres off the top of a tree, or possibly a peasant, the scenery was going past so fast it wasn't possible to see what had happened. I took the train back to Delhi (which took most of a day), and have never flown with IA since. That was February 1988.

Favourite airline? Aer Lingus, on safety, service, in fact every criterion except punctuality. The approach to Sligo has to be the most poetic aviation experience a pax is going to see out of the window, now that Kai Tak is a thing of the past.

[Onions]

Slasher. I hear what you say about planning for a delay but in this day and age how many companies are willing to have employees sat in hotel rooms (or bars for that matter) on the off chance that a flight will be delayed? I'd love to be able to leave plenty of time for missed connections, hangovers etc. but the boss won't pay for it! If nothing else if you do make your connections at least you get to see some of the place you are visiting!

------------------
I want to live forever and so far I'm doing ok!

[Checkboard]

AN missing from your list Slash? Never paxed with them? :)

[Slasher]

Checks er..no I havent. I was ex-Australian (nee TAA). Ive never flown QF domestic since 89 either. I shouldve said "Qantas (mainline international)" on my Safe list. Ive paxed with them a few times into and out of Oz. I have no first hand experience in paxing with either Qandom (post 89) or AN so I cant comment.

[ExSimGuy]

Slasher,

Your post on fuel planning very interesting in the light of the recent happenings with the A310 at Vienna!

------------------
Ah, the VC-10, Wasn't she lovely!

[fishlips]

Because of the racist comment made by one of their staff, AN is on my list on Black Listed airlines. QF is my choice should I fly domestically in Australia

[This message has been edited by fishlips (edited 19 July 2000).]

[Squawk 8888]

Safety-wise all of Canada's carriers are fine so the choice is service. The worst one here is charter carrier Air Transat. Some stories I've lived and/or heard of with them:

1. CDG-YYZ, nine hours late. Okay, it happens, but the kicker is how they handled it. I showed up at Pearson to wait for a passenger, no staff at the counter. Called the airline's flight status info line, got a recording of the status of all arrivals- from 60 days earlier. There was no way to find out if the airline was still in business, never mind the arrivals.

2. Cuba-YYZ, mechanical problems over Florida. Airline only had one shop in FL, but because the plane was coming from Cuba US authorities required them to land at an airport where they didn't have their own facilities. Instead of paying another contractor to do the work, they diverted back to Cuba and made the passengers stay aboard while repairs were carried out (a 10-hour job).

3. YYZ-YUL, they used L1011 taking an hour to load for a 45-minute flight. Aircraft at gate 90 minutes late, when asked for explanation (no announcements about delay) the customer service rep said "charters are subject to change" and walked away.

[unusualAttitude]

Hmmmm... Very interesting. I've paxed quite a bit with MAS--mostly PER-KUL-SIN etc, but also on their World Airways (wet lease) service KL to Johannesburg/Cape Town/Buenos Aires and rtn and I've always enjoyed the service and the flights/aircraft handling etc. Was this only because the tech crews had uneventful flights then? Apart from the World Airways contract (this was in '95/'96 - is it still operating?), I think MAS had a few expat pilots. I've read the above - why do some of you consider MAS to be something of a liability?

Here's something else. It wasn't such a bad flight, but for some reason a Biman Bangladesh experience--Jessore-Dhaka--made me a bit nervous once. Was it the oil leaking from the Port engine nacelle of the ancient F27 (can an F27 be 'ancient'?), or the airforce officer standing on the ramp holding a "ghetto-blaster" in one hand and a microphone in the other as we taxied (was he taping a soundtrack for their training simulator?), or was it my seating companion--a young Bangladeshi Airforce pilot--who refused to confirm whether or not the aircraft I could see lined up across the field were Nanchang CJ-6A's, DID allow that he flew the Mig-25, and DIDN'T know what a C172 was? I don't know. At any rate I was relieved when the short hop was completed.

[BusyB]

From personal experience BA, Cathay, Virgin, KLM, Lufthansa, Britania, Air 2000, Airtours are all safe with KLM offering the best service. BA's service varies from great to awful all depending on the Cabin Cheif. Virgins service has always been great outbound from UK and dreadful inbound so I suspect crew are all feeling second-hand.
The worst airline I have flown with is Aeropostale who regularly operate Air France flights, suitcases and baggage stuffed between the seats, pax left with their seatbelts hanging into the aisle and whats more the staff don't correct anything when its pointed out.