"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?

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.

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.

caynine,

Duh.

I read somewhere THY has had a hull loss every 3.5 years!

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...

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???

I thought it was a prudent thing to plan for the worst and pray for the best....

That was what he meant to imply, in the usual "Anything EK does must be bad", even when it just normal, prudent, business practice.

Air France have had so many hull losses they have rebranded as Air Chance

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?

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.

I seem to remember O'Leary said that Ryanair could take 3 hull losses before it would be a major problem.

So 1 down and 2 to go then.

Right here, CAYNINE, and I, too...find your original comment rather odd.:}

Known as such for quite a long time, actually.

IF they were other than a major Euroland aircarrier, they most certainly would be considered for the EU blacklist.

But then again another Lo-Cost founder once said, if you think the cost of training is expensive, you need to see how expensive an accident is...

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.

To be honest they didn't ignore the Melbourne totally. We did get those really useful cockpit service cards as a defense against future catastrophe :hmm:

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.

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...