"Hull loss" apparently factored into the business plan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Pilot Grinder
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Hull loss" apparently factored into the business plan
Heard recently that our EK local leader stated that "a hull loss is factored into the business plan as a sustainable event".
That is disturbing.......
What in the hell does that actually mean? That it's ok if we lose one or that they expect to lose one, where are we heading!!! This is amazingly scary.
Anyone else add more to this?
That is disturbing.......
What in the hell does that actually mean? That it's ok if we lose one or that they expect to lose one, where are we heading!!! This is amazingly scary.
Anyone else add more to this?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: You Name It.
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not scary at all. Every airline must accept the fact that no matter how hard you work on safety the potential is there for a hull loss. It's therefore reasonable to then analyse the effect this might have on business. I would have been more worried if the statement was along the lines of "we will never have a hull loss". Now that would be grounds for concern.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: sand box
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All airlines the size of Emirates should be able to withstand a hull loss, it would be madness not to plan for that event. I don't see what is so disturbing? I would rather work for an airline that had the resources to cope with the financial implications a hull loss would entail. Air France have had 3 losses in 10 years and they are still moving along quite nicely.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SI
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scary would be NOT to have it accounted as a "survivable" event for a company. If that were the case as soon as one aircraft goes down (could happen to anyone)... whole company goes down, everyone looses his job.
And besides, do you really think that the intention of the comment was that they are OK with a hull loss happening??? That they are expecting it and don't care about it???
A bit more thinking before posting please...
And besides, do you really think that the intention of the comment was that they are OK with a hull loss happening??? That they are expecting it and don't care about it???
A bit more thinking before posting please...
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe what was meant by the original poster is that EK Management are happily screwing down operating conditions to extremes in the knowledge that it is increasing the risk of a hull loss but not worrying about it because it's been factored in as acceptable business risk.
That was my take on what was said, maybe I got it wrong???
That was my take on what was said, maybe I got it wrong???
That was my take on what was said, maybe I got it wrong???
Last edited by Wizofoz; 18th Sep 2010 at 12:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Pilot Grinder
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok ok ... guys I am just tired and frustrated with the fact that I am constantly battling to stay on the ball, the corporate feedback is appreciated, so even if you think all is ok, they really are pushing us don't you think??
But why do you guys always have to make it personal, Kiwi thanks for at least trying to see why I feel a bit depressed with the statement.... the rest well your just the rest I guess.
a411 where are you?
But why do you guys always have to make it personal, Kiwi thanks for at least trying to see why I feel a bit depressed with the statement.... the rest well your just the rest I guess.
a411 where are you?
Yes CAYNINE they are really pushing us. We are working too hard and something has to give.
As such, we need to concentrate on real problems, not invent bogus ones.
If we are seen as simply knee-jerk bitching about everything rather than identifying real problems, it is very easy to write us off as nothing but a group of whinging pilots.
I'll edit my previous post but, seriously, anyone who has been in the industry for a while should recognise this as simple, normal airline planning.
As such, we need to concentrate on real problems, not invent bogus ones.
If we are seen as simply knee-jerk bitching about everything rather than identifying real problems, it is very easy to write us off as nothing but a group of whinging pilots.
I'll edit my previous post but, seriously, anyone who has been in the industry for a while should recognise this as simple, normal airline planning.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a411 where are you?
Air France have had so many hull losses they have rebranded as Air Chance
IF they were other than a major Euroland aircarrier, they most certainly would be considered for the EU blacklist.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prudent business planning is one thing. Cynical disregard for the human side of a major hull loss because you can financially "sustain" it is another.
Observing the arrogant, clueless attitudes constantly demonstrated by the management at EK, it's a pretty big load to swallow that the quote was an innocent statement of "simple, normal airline planning" for an unthinkable event. Given that all limits are treated as targets, why would you believe otherwise?
As someone who has been through an employer's "hull loss", I can assure that the costs go far beyond financial. Especially if it's YOUR colleagues, friends or families on board. But hey, as long as the bottom line can handle it, no worries, MATE!
Guess we'll know where the line is once we cross it. Hope it doesn't affect my profit share too much.
Observing the arrogant, clueless attitudes constantly demonstrated by the management at EK, it's a pretty big load to swallow that the quote was an innocent statement of "simple, normal airline planning" for an unthinkable event. Given that all limits are treated as targets, why would you believe otherwise?
As someone who has been through an employer's "hull loss", I can assure that the costs go far beyond financial. Especially if it's YOUR colleagues, friends or families on board. But hey, as long as the bottom line can handle it, no worries, MATE!
Guess we'll know where the line is once we cross it. Hope it doesn't affect my profit share too much.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jew-Buy Mate
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melbourne & Jo'berg were the wake-up calls that have been ignored.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In the State of Perpetual Confusion
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have worked for a carrier that had a hull loss (with the associated loss of life), 5 in fact. It was horrible to go through and I hope no one ever has to repeat it. What the implication of the original post was is that since it has been accounted for in the business, plan, increased risks are now acceptable to the company. I don't think that they really understand the cost of an accident and I feel very strongly that some of the risks that they have been willing to take with the flight operation border on the immoral.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its not so much being able to sustain the cost of a hull loss that will be a problem for these airlines...it will be more what this "hull loss" brings up to the surface that will be an issue...