Safety on low cost flights.
 

Hello,

am just wondering if some people here feel safer when sitting in the seat of a plane of a "regular" airliner than they do when sitting in a so called low cost flight.

I dont avoid to use low coast flights, but sometimes wonder if it really can be that low turn around times and high work loads under time pressure can really have no effect on safety issues.
Well is just a feeling, not base on facts, but would be great to hear if some people feel the same and why or if not and why not.

This feeling is not based on objective evaluation of facts - well on a Ryanair flight i once experienced a flight attendant who had no clue about the flight destination in her announcement, which did not made a really good impression on me - but somehow I still dont have any safety doubts on "regular" airlines.

So just out of interest: Does anybody feel the same?

Cheers and happy landings!

NO ! If the pilot is happy to fly the plane, I am happy to be a pax.

Remind me - when was the last Ryanair accident?
Easyjet?
Air Berlin?
Wizzair?
Norwegian?
Southwest?
Jetblue?
Air France?

Briefly - air transport in general is subject to incredibly rigorous regulatory oversight and the regulators will come down like a ton of bricks on anybody bending the rules.

Plus for airlines with a very strong cost-control culture, any accident or major incident which even hinted at cutting corners could spell commercial disaster. Anybody remember ValueJet? - in its day the world's most profitable airline - driven out of business by a crash and other safety issues (I know, they survived, sort of).

Happens to crew on BA flights, does that make them less safe?

Happens to me regularly and I'm flying the thing!

I'm with wowzz - the pilot will always be the first to the scene of a crash and we usually want to get home for tea, stickies and beer.

People seem to forget that the most dangerous part about flying is the motorway to and from the airport. Especially in Italy, Turkey and India...there I'm always bloody scared by the taxi drivers!

Not a chance, these guys know their job. Snobbery has no part in flying, only competence.

Ciampino, October 2008, hull loss.

If I remember correctly, the incident was professionally handled by the crew.

Although I will not fly Ryanair my reason is not at all safety related.

There are a number of countries where I would avoid flying on their LCCs as I would on their legacy carrier(s) too.

I would say that the Ciampino event mentioned actually reflects very positively on Ryanair and the crew concerned. I have a high degree of confidence in RYR safety: the aircraft are new, very well maintained, extremely reliable and the initial and recurrent training of the crews is first rate.

Cabin crew forgetting the name of the destination is insignificant. They might visit 30 different airports in a month and so it's quite likely that they might have to pause for thought mid-announcement. In fact some of the juniors I've met take very little interest in their destinations at all. They turn up to the crewroom at the appointed time, do as they're told and work the cabin exactly the same as any other day. The actual destination will not be at the forefront of their minds because to be honest, it almost irrelevent to them.

As long as the flight deck crew know where they're going! That's said I can't pronounce the names of half the Polish destinations, so my PAs are probably the same!

can you substantiate that?

With 34,3 million registered cars in the uk compared with 1010, yes one thousand and ten commercial jets I suspect the true figures look rather different.

This current thread gives some interesting figure!

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...17-2010-a.html

whats interesting in that article? shock horror and clever use of statistics.

Someone once worked out (but I can't remember who) that if air travel was compared with car travel on the basis of number of journeys undertaken,

flying was seven times more dangerous.

So I say again with 34,3 million cars registered in the uk alone and 1,2 million deaths worldwide, the car is looking a pretty safe bet. USA has 250,000,000 + registered cars.

Isn't it strange that statistics describing safety levels between cars and planes rarely use the same yardstick.

I wonder if I'm in some Ryanair parallel universe...?

I have been flying RYR from Stansted nearly every week since August last year. The aircraft are new and appear in good condition. The flight crew are pleasant and inform us as to status and progress in a timely fashion. I honestly can't remember any occasion where anything has gone wrong that can be blamed on the airline. The sales pitches can be irritating at first but one soon tunes out if necessary. The cabin crew are pleasant and efficient. The safety briefings are given quickly in the necessary detail, not patronisingly as with some carriers. The flights are invariably on-time and if you follow the rules, everything goes smoothly.
They're are obviously people on here with horror stories but in 20 or so return flights to Germany averaging £60 all in, I really can't find anything to complain about nor do I feel at any time "unsafe".

No need to "say again"...
 

Here's some info for you:


There are three main statistics which may be used to compare the safety of various forms of travel:

Deaths per billion journey:

Bus: 4.3
Rail: 20
Van: 20
Car: 40
Foot: 40
Water: 90
Air: 117
Bicycle: 170
Motorcycle: 1640

Deaths per billion hours:

Bus: 11.1
Rail: 30
Air: 30.8
Water: 50
Van: 60
Car: 130
Foot: 220
Bicycle: 550
Motorcycle: 4840

Deaths per billion kilometres:

Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9


Lies, damned lies, and statistics. But Deaths per passenger (or kilometre) mile, air travel is safer.

Your quote talks about vehicles that hold, on average, 5 people max as opposed to between 140 and 550 people.

I'll tell you know, even after a "sporty" landing after a 13 hour duty, the 7 miles driving back home are definitely more dangerous.

DW.

There obviously is a need to say it again.

As I have just researched car statistics I know your 3 deaths per billion kilometres is a UK value. It is also not appropriate to compare distance travelled. Cruise is the safest part of the journey and covers the most distance.

Hours is also not really appropriate as most of the time is at cruise.

So that leaves one very telling statistic.

I am 2.925 times more likely to die flying than driving to and from the airport.
The only statistic that interests me is the one relating to my personal actions.

Therefore if I take a billion flights I am going to die 117 times. However if I take the car I will only die 40 times. That is quite clear to me which one is safer. Hours and kilometers are uninteresting.

Deaths per billion journey's:
Car: 40
Air: 117

But if you take a flight for your holidays and occasional business travel, yet commute by car every day of the working week then you are still much more likely to die in your car than in an aircraft!

so now we apply the positive spin to an uncomfortable fact.

That fact is for every billion journeys undertaken 117 people will die flying whilst only 40 will die driving.

Fact is driving is safer.

Another way of looking at it is that worldwide just over 800 people died in aviation accidents in 2010. How many people died in the UK alone last year on the road? (never mind worldwide)

The thing about statistics is, you can always twist them to your own personal
advantage.

Safety Concerns,

The fact is you miss the point entirely, as jb5000 pointed out, you don't jump in your aircraft every day and fly down to the local supermarket to pick up some bread and milk.

As a pilot I am significantly more concerned about being killed in a road accident (most likely due to circumstances beyond my control) than any sort of emergency pertaining to aircraft.

I hope I'm not merely feeding a troll here...