Low cost and recent incidents!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low cost and recent incidents!
I have just found out about the Venezuelan crash and I thought that except the excellent recent AF escape, the remaining incidents seem to be all maintenance/pilot related: nothing to do with terrorism or weather etc.
We could even speculate that if the AF incident was caused by a pilot error ( I said IF!), the excellent training of the Cabin crew made the escape easy and successful.
Obviously we have to wait for the final result of the official enquiries but we already have some facts:
the ATR72 crash in Sicily, even if this aspect is still unclear, it should be either a pilot or maintenance error, the Helios flight seems to be either a maintenance or pilot issue as well, and the last MD82 possibly pilot error or maintenance problem as well.
Basically I wonder, as a non-expert here, is this a coincidence or the low cost/charter models and safety do not go very well together especially in the medium-long term?
Is it possible to have very low cost airlines with tickets sold at 1 GBP, and to guarantee at the same time an efficient on-going training for pilots and engineers plus a state of the art maintenance organisation.
One question for all the experts here: is it safety first also for the low cost/charter carriers?
Thanks.
We could even speculate that if the AF incident was caused by a pilot error ( I said IF!), the excellent training of the Cabin crew made the escape easy and successful.
Obviously we have to wait for the final result of the official enquiries but we already have some facts:
the ATR72 crash in Sicily, even if this aspect is still unclear, it should be either a pilot or maintenance error, the Helios flight seems to be either a maintenance or pilot issue as well, and the last MD82 possibly pilot error or maintenance problem as well.
Basically I wonder, as a non-expert here, is this a coincidence or the low cost/charter models and safety do not go very well together especially in the medium-long term?
Is it possible to have very low cost airlines with tickets sold at 1 GBP, and to guarantee at the same time an efficient on-going training for pilots and engineers plus a state of the art maintenance organisation.
One question for all the experts here: is it safety first also for the low cost/charter carriers?
Thanks.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have significant experience with both a UK based low-cost carrier and also the UK's "national airline". I can assure you that safety within that particular low-cost organisation is paramount and the degree of focus meets or exceeds that of the 'traditional' carrier.
If anything I would say that the low-cost carrier is well aware of the obvious potential for "low cost means low standards" kind of accusations, and actively goes the extra mile to overcome this.
If anything I would say that the low-cost carrier is well aware of the obvious potential for "low cost means low standards" kind of accusations, and actively goes the extra mile to overcome this.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Downtown
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have posted on the Helios accident thread - The Guardian newspaper has started quoting posts from PPRune and given the web address- perhaps we need to exercise caution in what we speculate on, we don't want people getting the wrong impression of the aviation industry.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed.
ILS27LEFT. Your question is mis-guided and way off the mark.
There is nothing to back up or support what you are hinting at and this thread does run the risk of racing off down an unpleasant path.
ILS27LEFT. Your question is mis-guided and way off the mark.
There is nothing to back up or support what you are hinting at and this thread does run the risk of racing off down an unpleasant path.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would money have anything to do with safety?
Ultimately, if you wanted to make your operation as safe as possible, you would have your pilots do a sim check before every flight, not every six months; your aeroplanes would spend more time in maintainance; crew would not be rostered to legal limits, etc. etc. .....
As it is, most airlines are in the business of making money, so there is a delicate balance between how much is spent on "Safety" weighed against the possible crash.
'but we already have some facts:
the ATR72 crash in Sicily, even if this aspect is still unclear, it should be either a pilot or maintenance error, the Helios flight seems to be either a maintenance or pilot issue as well, and the last MD82 possibly pilot error or maintenance problem as well'.
The above statement may be true, however, nothing in the above is unique to the lo-co model. Lo-co's need pilots and maintenance just as much as the 'mainline' carriers. And by the way you state we have 'facts' yet prefix your assumptions with 'should be, either and possibly' ......
'medium-long term' no idea matey, tell us how long that is, and by what criteria you determine your time-scale.
Is it possible to have very low cost airlines with tickets sold at 1 GBP, and to guarantee at the same time an efficient on-going training for pilots and engineers plus a state of the art maintenance organisation.
YES
I realise you admit to being to not being an 'expert' but I feel you need to do a lot more background research on the Lo-co model. GBP £1.00 seats are a marketing tool, loss leaders, nothing more nothing less.
One question for all the experts here: is it safety first also for the low cost/charter carriers?
Well if you consider me an 'expert', (you'd need to define that for us), however, in my experience the answers,
YES
Does that help?
Oh and that reminds me, seeing your posting history, your licence type, and your web site, is it really that safe to have lots of aeroplanes flying so close to one another, so close to large crowds?
the ATR72 crash in Sicily, even if this aspect is still unclear, it should be either a pilot or maintenance error, the Helios flight seems to be either a maintenance or pilot issue as well, and the last MD82 possibly pilot error or maintenance problem as well'.
The above statement may be true, however, nothing in the above is unique to the lo-co model. Lo-co's need pilots and maintenance just as much as the 'mainline' carriers. And by the way you state we have 'facts' yet prefix your assumptions with 'should be, either and possibly' ......
'medium-long term' no idea matey, tell us how long that is, and by what criteria you determine your time-scale.
Is it possible to have very low cost airlines with tickets sold at 1 GBP, and to guarantee at the same time an efficient on-going training for pilots and engineers plus a state of the art maintenance organisation.
YES
I realise you admit to being to not being an 'expert' but I feel you need to do a lot more background research on the Lo-co model. GBP £1.00 seats are a marketing tool, loss leaders, nothing more nothing less.
One question for all the experts here: is it safety first also for the low cost/charter carriers?
Well if you consider me an 'expert', (you'd need to define that for us), however, in my experience the answers,
YES
Does that help?
Oh and that reminds me, seeing your posting history, your licence type, and your web site, is it really that safe to have lots of aeroplanes flying so close to one another, so close to large crowds?
Last edited by jumpseater; 16th Aug 2005 at 20:11.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the introduction of the LoCo model reduced the general safety in our industry because of less down time on our aircraft, increased working hours for the crew, more pressure on the crew, worse working conditions, poorer relations between crew and management, and in some cases, a rather foggy relationship between the airlines and the overseeing authorities:
YES!
YES!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have posted on the Helios accident thread - The Guardian newspaper has started quoting posts from PPRune and given the web address- perhaps we need to exercise caution in what we speculate on, we don't want people getting the wrong impression of the aviation industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sure hope they all read this, i believe paying passengers have the right to know that at some of these company's the FO is also a paying passenger (paying for his/her TR and experience)making less then the cleaners and the only thing he or she can think about is where to get a JOB after 500 or so hours on type.Since when are financial problems not related to stress/safety?
Try to explain that to the "poeple" .
Some poeple here that claim that there is no safety issue are maybe pilots in the above mentioned experience category,maintenance guys or management of one of these companys.
Try that for your wrong impression
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have posted on the Helios accident thread - The Guardian newspaper has started quoting posts from PPRune and given the web address- perhaps we need to exercise caution in what we speculate on, we don't want people getting the wrong impression of the aviation industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sure hope they all read this, i believe paying passengers have the right to know that at some of these company's the FO is also a paying passenger (paying for his/her TR and experience)making less then the cleaners and the only thing he or she can think about is where to get a JOB after 500 or so hours on type.Since when are financial problems not related to stress/safety?
Try to explain that to the "poeple" .
Some poeple here that claim that there is no safety issue are maybe pilots in the above mentioned experience category,maintenance guys or management of one of these companys.
Try that for your wrong impression
I respectfully draw your attention to reality and the concept of the chain of circumstances leading to an accident, or the "holes in the swiss cheese lining up" model.
It's never just one thing that results in an accident. Nobody can just point the finger and make a direct connection between LCC and safety. There is unlikely to be a direct relationship for which there is discoverable evidence.
However:
- Pressure on crews.
- pressure on maintenance.
- time pressure.
These may well be factors, but the real question is "Are LCC's under more pressure in this regard than other carriers?"
It's never just one thing that results in an accident. Nobody can just point the finger and make a direct connection between LCC and safety. There is unlikely to be a direct relationship for which there is discoverable evidence.
However:
- Pressure on crews.
- pressure on maintenance.
- time pressure.
These may well be factors, but the real question is "Are LCC's under more pressure in this regard than other carriers?"
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Low cost should not affect the integrity or oversight of the appropriate regulatory authority. The legal operating framework for flight operations and maintenance is usually a matter of law, so if an operator is tempted to cut corners, it is a function of the enforcement policy that determines whether or not they get away with it, not whether they are low cost.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These may well be factors, but the real question is "Are LCC's under more pressure in this regard than other carriers?"
That said, all carriers are under that pressure now. This you cannot deny, is as a direct result of increased competition, competition that has increased, with the advent of the LOCOs.
Where does safety stand in such a competetive enviroment?
'Some poeple here that claim that there is no safety issue are maybe pilots in the above mentioned experience category,maintenance guys or management of one of these companys.'
And maybe they're not.
I am working on a project where the Lo-co I work for is possibly way ahead of any of the other airlines. The airports I've visited have welcomed me with real enthusiasm and surprise, because we are the ONLY airline to visit airports to address the specific problem, even though its a world wide safety issue. Even the regulatory authorities are interested in what we're doing, fancy that eh?
And maybe they're not.
I am working on a project where the Lo-co I work for is possibly way ahead of any of the other airlines. The airports I've visited have welcomed me with real enthusiasm and surprise, because we are the ONLY airline to visit airports to address the specific problem, even though its a world wide safety issue. Even the regulatory authorities are interested in what we're doing, fancy that eh?
Paxing All Over The World
Having this number of incidents within a short period of time, is nothing more than chance. They are, almost certainly, unrelated but cause speculation due to the timeframe.
If there were one prang per month for the year, that would produce less speculation than 12 prangs in one month and then nothing for the rest of the year.
Until a calendar year has elapsed and the total figures of hulls and people lost can be compared with previous years - NOTHING can be surmised from the number of incidents.
Also, having several incidents in a short time is good for safety as it sharpens up all folks involved - including pax. That might be unpalatable but it is true.
If there were one prang per month for the year, that would produce less speculation than 12 prangs in one month and then nothing for the rest of the year.
Until a calendar year has elapsed and the total figures of hulls and people lost can be compared with previous years - NOTHING can be surmised from the number of incidents.
Also, having several incidents in a short time is good for safety as it sharpens up all folks involved - including pax. That might be unpalatable but it is true.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, the discussion on this thread is based on a few accidents over a time of frame of only months. To really establish accident rates, a much longer time frame is required. Does anybody have any proof that accident rates have increased since the emergence of low cost carriers? The answer is no.
Secondly, some of the worst accident records of western airlines have been with high cost incumbents such as Delta in the eighties and USair in the nineties while the low cost Southwest remained accident free.
Go figure.
Secondly, some of the worst accident records of western airlines have been with high cost incumbents such as Delta in the eighties and USair in the nineties while the low cost Southwest remained accident free.
Go figure.
What's the world wide fatality rate for air travellers (freight crew included) over the past year compared with the world wide fatality rate in road accidents? (Or for that matter, rail accidents?)
Comparison suggests that if LoCo is a factor, then maybe the road and rail transport industries should be looked at before airlines.
Having said, that will always be the odd black sheep........in any industry
Comparison suggests that if LoCo is a factor, then maybe the road and rail transport industries should be looked at before airlines.
Having said, that will always be the odd black sheep........in any industry