Black Listed Airlines
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
The carrier I feel most comfortable (safety wise, not physically) is El AL.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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....??
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....??
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.