PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   the ability for low-cost airlines to maintain satisfactory safety standards (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/292720-ability-low-cost-airlines-maintain-satisfactory-safety-standards.html)

Jabawocky 20th Sep 2007 08:59

Cool:ok:

Back to topic.........IS cheaper not as safe? Or whatever the thread started as..............

I'm outa here:)

J

RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo 20th Sep 2007 10:38


I don't know where the writers get their info.But Malaysia Airlines fleet consists of B734s,A330-200/300's,B777-200's & B747-400/400F , while Air Asia uses all new A320's.It's like comparing apples & oranges!
Air Asia have some pretty old 737-300's as well.

VH DSJ 20th Sep 2007 11:44


Originally Posted by RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo (Post 3590039)
Air Asia have some pretty old 737-300's as well.

Soon to be phased out, I believe.

BTW, hate to tell you this, but it's actually India; not Indigo. :}

RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo 20th Sep 2007 12:10


Soon to be phased out, I believe.

BTW, hate to tell you this, but it's actually India; not Indigo.

You dont say :D

Maybe thats the point? Come back to me when you work it out :hmm:

VH DSJ 20th Sep 2007 13:10


Originally Posted by RogerTangoFoxtrotIndigo (Post 3590259)
You dont say :D
Maybe thats the point? Come back to me when you work it out :hmm:

Go on, give us a clue champ. What's your point?

carpe_jugulum 20th Sep 2007 13:26

bloody hell - how can any of you people concentrate long enough to fly an instrument approach, when a thread about LCCs/Safety etc degenerate into a misinformed exchange of 'engineering knowledge' about ABS...

You put the man from Rockwell Automation presenting the Retroincabulator to shame.....:\

404 Titan 20th Sep 2007 14:53

carpe_jugulum

As I have said before, this thread was started as a result of the recent accident in Thailand. I am not going to speculate as to the cause of this accident but a discussion on anti-skid brakes and hence ABS brakes is in line with this topic. And before you tell me ABS on cars is different to anti-skid brakes on aircraft, I know. They are used for different reasons but the concept of how they work is essentially the same. Additionally there is vastly more engineering info to be found on the net regarding ABS which makes it easier to talk about them.

Now if you think there is something I or others have missed on this subject, I suggest you speak up now.

emu787 20th Sep 2007 17:20

LCC crews fly the most so they are the safest!
 
I would rather have a crew that does 900 hours-a-year flying me around than a crew that does 450 hours-a-year.

The 900-hour-a-year crew will be sharp as, switched on and very proficient with a high skill level....unlike the others who probably can't remember what most of the buttons do let alone the systems....I have seen it all before as a line checky.

LCC's are the future....its pure economics...isn't that the reason for the birth of Jet*......

:=404 titan....are you sure of your figures...majority of the worlds full service airlines are right on the brink of going under at anytime of the day or night...unless of course they exist in a monopolistic ripoff environment:ugh:

404 Titan 20th Sep 2007 23:15

emu787

I would rather have a crew that does 900 hours-a-year flying me around than a crew that does 450 hours-a-year.
What a load of sh*t. I do about 850 – 900 hours a year and work for a full service carrier. My mates who work for QF are on similar hours. You’re living in fairy land if you think pilots in full service airlines only do 450 hours a year. You obviously believe your own BS.

404 titan....are you sure of your figures...
Yes. These were figures quoted by IATA back in 2000. There is a world of difference between going broke and being on the verge.

majority of the worlds full service airlines are right on the brink of going under at anytime of the day or night
Rubbish. Apart from a few high profile carriers in the US and Europe, most are very profitable. World wide there is a higher percentage of LCC on the verge of bankruptcy than full service airlines.

There are two types of LCC. Those that are well run, well resourced and have good financial records and those that don’t. The latter tend to infest places like Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa and South America. They start with very little capital and generally operate very old aircraft. To keep costs to a minimum they pay their staff virtually nothing and cut their costs to unsafe levels in training and maintenance. Unfortunately when something does go wrong it is usually because of one or both of the last two. Old aircraft are maintenance intensive and crews need thorough ongoing check and training. Those that are well run generally exist in Europe, North America, and Australasia. They generally operate newer aircraft on short term leases and have a high turnover of aircraft to keep maintenance costs down. While checking and training is generally good, some of the costs tend to be shifted to the employee keeping these costs down. These types of LCC tend to be much larger and hence have a much higher public profile than the other badly run ones mentioned but they are by far in the minority in the LCC stakes.

Bula 20th Sep 2007 23:56

what he said..

blow.n.gasket 30th Sep 2007 11:54

So after all that Titan what sort of LCC is Jetstar?

Sunfish 30th Sep 2007 21:05

I am always amazed at how a thread can drift into regions unknown so fast....:}

My initial reference to ABS was in the context of risk shifting and my observation that as new technology that increases safety is injected into aircraft, management will respond by cutting costs and dumbing down pilots and maintenance so that the overall risk level remains the same.

To put it in pilotspeak, the minute Boeing and Airbus claim "Our new aircraft is so good it can be flown safely by a completely untrained idiot" Qantas and similar Airlines will be hiring "completely untrained idiots" to fly them.

DutchRoll 1st Oct 2007 00:50

Gotta agree with 404 Titan's response to emu787. That initial headline of "low cost crews fly the most so they are the safest!" is either naive, or intentionally misleading. Either way it's bull$hit.

In QF mainline I only dream of doing less hours at the moment.

The 900+hrs (that is a hell of a lot of stick hours in an airline, especially if you're doing shorthaul stuff) a year crew may also be stuck in a semi-permanent state of fatigue, perhaps some of them chronically, may also be having associated family problems, and may be so familiar with the daily flying routine that the bad, slack habits and complacency start creeping in - instead of being highly alert and cautious, they become "ah yeah, what the heck, we've seen this all before, no worries mate" before becoming gruesomely unstuck. This has happened numerous times. I've witnessed it too.

AnQrKa 1st Oct 2007 01:37

“And I suppose that is why 80% of LCC fail within the first five years of operation”

You mean 80% of airlines fail, its not because they are low cost. How many legacy carriers are started these days?

This whole argument is crap. The Orient Thai crash in HKT occurred in a country where the legacy carrier has a spotty safety record too. Its not cos its low cost, its cos its corrupt old “she’ll be right mate” Thailand. TG make a lot of stuffups and a few accidents too but they are so called full service.

Can anybody name a country where an LCC is unsafe compared to its national carrier – within the same country.

I would rather fly Easy than BA, Jetblue than AA and so far, VB than QF, lest I wind up on a golf course.

404 Titan 1st Oct 2007 02:16

blow.n.gasket

What do you think?

AnQrKa

No I meant 80% of LCC fail within the first five years of start-up world wide. That was the official numbers from IATA back in 2000.


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:39.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.