Black Listed Airlines
 

Just read a thread from a pilot wanting to work for Korean.

SLF of all types on this site and elsewhere are not primarily price driven in the selection of who to fly with. I'm sure you take into serious consideration the airlines you choose to fly with.

What are your Black-Listed, (will never, ever fly with them) airlines?
Top Ten lists please.

edited for format

[This message has been edited by Rollingthunder (edited 17 June 2000).]

Korean, Aeroflot, Malaysian. There are probably others, but these are 3 I would definitely not fly with.

Recently I had to travel to LHR - both QF and SQ were $1400 (Aust) dearer than Malaysian - I still took SQ...

Korean and Aeroflot I can understand. I would add China Airlines to my list. But what's up with Malaysian then? From what I've been reading I wouldn't be any keener to fly with Singapore these days!

BRUpax, the thing with MH is probably be that they arrive at airports with minimum fuel on board.
QF, AN, UA are the only airlines I will never ever fly again with. In my own opinion service does not exist!

I wouldn't go Aeroflot, Korean or any of the Chinese airlines - I think there are about 4 or 5 including the Taiwanese one.

I seem to remember one crash a couple of years ago (I'm pretty sure it was one of the Chinese airlines), where the plane crashed, Boeing or whoever were about to fly out and investigate, and the authorities simply cleared up the mess without waiting for them to get there!

If you look at the Delta/KAL safety report (its on the PPRuNe main page) out of over 200 comments there are 2 positive ones (punctuality seems good and cabin service good ) which unfortunately is all that the average pax would know about, little realising the potentially disasterous flight deck environment

Fishlips I think what you mean is "less than minimum required fuel on board".

Slasher, thank you for correcting me

10 airlines easily come to mind, that I would rather avoid. Having said that, there are many that I love to fly with.
1. Virgin. My one experience of flying with them was bloody. Never again. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
2. Yemenia. It's a very long story.
3. Qantas on internal flights. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
4. Royal Brunei. Bloody awful country: bloody awful airline. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
5. Sabena. The only airline to leave me behind.
6. Nigeria Airways. I shudder at the thought of the name. :mad:
7. Aeroflot, unfortunately I have no choice at times. :rolleyes:
8. Cathay Pacific especially to and from the Middle East.
9. Emirates, the only airline to give me food poisoning. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
10. Iran Air, Again unfortunately I have no choice if I want to go to some places I have to work and visit. :rolleyes:


Wake me up if we get there

Sleeping Pax,

You sometimes have that problem with Virgin, but it is recommended that you try again. Sorry - straight to Jet Blast for me with that one.

Personally I wouldn't want to fly with Aeroflot after they crashed an Airbus because the pilots child knocked the lateral control off the autopilot, while sitting in the left hand seat. Granted you sometimes can't avoid these airlines.

Lefthander,
I'm afraid that Virgin had their chance and they blew it big time :)
Does that send me to Jet Blast too? ;)



------------------
Wake me up when we get there

I could think of a few other airlines which immediately spring to mind as airlines to avoid apart from the almost obligatory Aeroflot / Korean and China Airlines, JAL and ANA domestic (especially when on the 747s!), Indian Airlines and probably most charter carriers (for the legroom that is)

What's the priority here....

...Safety,

...Inflight service,

...or Overall service - from check-in, to baggage collection?

KAptain M,

Peresonally it's a mixture of them all. Safety is and should be paramount. We all want to arrive at our destination! In-flight service less so, but the image presented by the airline is important to whether yo want to fly again. To my mind Virgin lost it completely the time I flew with them (3 Years ago admittedly), with their diabolical overall service I and many others had on a Trans-Atlantic flight. Never again!

------------------
Wake me up when we get there

Kaptin M,

Safety was on my mind as the highest area of concern.
A flight is a complex event in a dangerous environment. Operating a safe airline is equally complex.I
I calculate my risks and a proven track record of unsafe events is worthy of blacklisting.
After that I look for price, ground service, in-flight service and leg room.
Unfortunately most pax seem to pay no more concern for their safety when choosing a carrier than they would when they get on a bus.

Safety is often taken for granted, by most pax [I believe], and isn't usually given a second thought when makng a flight booking, unless there has been an accident in recent times [involving the airline they're considering travelling with] to influence their decision making. I think we all agree that accidents do have a detrimental, and immediate, effect on loadings.

Safety incorporates many facets of the airlines' operations, to list a few: security and loading of check-in baggage; security and loading of pax and carry-on; quality of long and short term maintenance of aircraft; standard of training and checking of tech and cabin crew; accuracy of weather forecasts, and flight planning data; departure, en route, and destination air traffic control, and situational awareness of pilots; weather encountered during the flight, and weather avoidance procedures adopted, if necessary.

So, when one airline appears to consistently experience problems in one facet of flight and/or with one particular type of aircraft, it is time to zero in with the microscope, to find out why. If several airlines are having problems in a common area, it would appear to be a factor outside the airlines' individual operating procedures.

Please understand, each airline has its OWN way of operating the same aircraft type as another airline - often the differences may be relatively minor, whilst at other times staying with the same type, but moving to another company, can give the impression that you are about to embark on the launching of the space shuttle. Crazy you say? Well, needless to say, every company reckons THEY have the best procedures for that type, and can justify WHY they do it this way, instead of that. So check out past history...someone might say "They've only been lucky", but chances are the luck went their way, because the procedures they had in place, had a safety net [or nets] that worked when it was needed.

Once you're happy with the real issues, price/cabin service will probably become the deciding factor.

Goes back to one of my first posts on PAX/SLF about the approach into JED in a blue-and-sand-colour aircraft when the PAPIs (VASIs) were constantly changing from red to white and back again (I remember Slasher telling me the driver was probably just testing them!)

Again, there's not a lot of choice RUH-JED! (But the fare is cheap on a per-mile basis :) )

[This message has been edited by ExSimGuy (edited 24 June 2000).]

In answer to the emails I got asking me to expand on minimum fuel on landing Ill post it here for the benifit of others too.

There are 2 stages: The planning stage and the flight stage.

Planning stage:
---------------
Pilots PLAN to arrive at the beginning of destinations approach with at least enough fuel to do
* one approach
* do a go around,
* proceed to an ALTERNATE airport
* 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).
During the Planning stage it might be that the payload (bums, cargo) dictates the pilot cant carry all that fuel. So what he does is nominate on Enroute airfield where he can land if he needs to pick up extra fuel to continue on. During this planning stage if he goes non-stop he should arrive at his destination with his VR and FR but might be down on fuel to get him to an Alternate airport.

Flight Stage:
-------------
Once airborne we are hoping what we planned to do works out. This is rarely the case so now we keep an eye on our fuel burnoff as the flight progresses and "plan ahead".
Some of the more common things that could lead to landing with less than fuel required are:
* ATC giving an assigned level below the optimum altitude and being stuck there. This increases fuel flow and the problem magnifys the longer your stuck there
* Higher than forecast headwinds or less than forecast tailwinds
* Large diversions off course around big areas of thunderstorms
As we get closer to our destination we get the ACTUAL weather at destination (as against the forecast weather) and if there are any problems at the airport (approach navaids not working, any runway(s) closed etc). If everything is good, provided we are at least one hour from destination, and ATC is aware of whats going on, we can legaly dispense with having to have Alternate airport fuel, and plan to touchdown with our FR and VR.

Heres an example. 747 Singapore - London (which Im amply familiar with)

Planning:
---------
We need a total of 160 tonnes of fuel in our tanks to fly SIN-LHR, do a go around at LHR, proceed to Manchester (MAN) and land. But we are full of bums and cargo so we can only carry 150 tonnes total. We cant use Gatwick as our alternate airport because Gatwick is forecast to be too foggy.
Our nominated enroute airport tonight will be Vienna. As we come overhead Vienna we will replan our fuel as if we are flying VIE-LHR. If we have enough we'll keep going to London. If not we'll duck in to Vienna and top up our gas.
Our optimum altitude is 31,000 feet as far as India and 35,000 feet as far as Turkey. 39,000 feet will be our optimum from then on.
On the Fuel Plan we note (if we dont stop) that we should land with our FR and VR plus an extra 3-4 tonnes of fuel (insufficient to make MAN).

Flight Stage:
-------------
* After TO from Singapore we've been stuck at 26,000 feet as far as Dubai. We diverted around a huge storm area in the Bay of Bengal which cut in to our fuel too. We've climbed now to 31,000 feet but the headwinds are not as strong up here. Our predictions show our fuel over Vienna wont be looking too healthy to proceed to LHR.
* Over Tehran, Speedbird London on HF tells us the new weather forecasts. LHR is still 50-50 but Gatwick is closed due fog. Prestwick is wide open.
* Turkey clears us to 39,000 feet which eases the burden a bit. We'll save 2 tonnes up here than at 31,000 feet.
* Approaching Vienna. ACTUAL weather at LHR is 1000 metres in fog. Gatwick is absolutely fantastic and is expected to be so for the next 2 hours (weather forecaster is surprised! So are we!). Amsterdam is also in excellent weather and will remain so all day.
* Over Vienna. Replan our fuel. We have enough in our tanks VIE-LHR, do an approach, do a go around, and proceed if necessary to our new alternate airport GATWICK. If we divert we should land with our FR and VR but not much else. ATC is advised our nominated diversion airport is Gatwick.
* Uh Oh! Due to traffic we have to enter a holding pattern during our descent! Is LHR still ok? YES says ATC. Its 1,200 metres visibility and expected to improve shortly to 1500 metres. Ok. Since we are within 1 hours flying time AND a landing is assured at LHR, we can dispense with Gatwick fuel, and use it to hold.
* ATC advised that we can only hold for another 10 minutes, otherwise we'll have to go to Amsterdam (which is closer where we are holding than Gatwick). We request priority approach from ATC to save us going to Amsterdam.
* Another hold burns off our VR but we do the approach and touchdown at LHR in 1800 metres vis. Our fuel tanks show 36 minutes fuel.

All this was perfectley safe and legal.

What ifs:
---------
* If the weather over the UK was appalling we would have considered Amsterdam as our nominated alternate, and plan over Vienna accordingly.
* If Amsterdam was also going under, then we wouldve done a whistlestop at Vienna.
* If LHR was good (and ASSURED it will remain so with 100% certainty) and everywhere else was bad, we can proceed cautiously and plan a PNR (Point of No Return or "Equal-Fuel Point") VIE-LHR. At that point we decide wether to return to VIE or go on to LHR. At that stage we'd be damn close to London anyway.
* If any of the wheels failed to extend during our approach, we would do a go around, declare an emergency fuel state to ATC, do the drill to get the gear down, and return immediately for landing wether we were succesful in getting the wheel(s) down or not.
* If the aircraft ahead of us pranged on the runway, we would "sidestep" to the other runway during our approach to land. An airport having 2 independent runways is taken into account on many airlines fuel policys.

Note:
VR is planned NOT to be burnt, but can be burnt to allow for unforecast headwinds or navigation diversions. It equates anywhere from 2-10% of what you plan to burn getting from A to B.

FR (30 mins) is jealously guarded by almost all pilots. It can be used only in emergency situations (gear wont come down on approach, flaps get stuck etc). If any aircraft looks as if it will touchdown with less than 30 minutes fuel on board an emergency MUST be declared to ATC. There are no exceptions!

PS From what Ive gathered, MAS screwed up because they touched down at LHR with less than 30 minutes FR in there tanks and had not declared a low fuel state to ATC earlier. Planning inflight to land with less than the FR without any valid emergency reason (and only for commercial/convenience motivations) is pure utter foolishness. That 30 minutes is a pilots last ditch survival fuel should any !!!!! hit the fan on approach and is why its so carefully guarded by (almost) all of us. What they shouldve done was land enroute much earlier in the flight and topped up the gas. I shudder to think what wouldve happened if that Malaysian flight HAD to go around from the landing for WHATEVER reason.

I just scrolled up to see who posted that very interesting explan - It was you Slash! Thanks mate - from all of us!

Now what was it that MAS did in screwing up? Did they just get "caught" with less than 30 mins fuel? Or was that the cause of a problem?

It's nice to know that, in this dog-eat-dog competitive world where the bean-counters rule supreme, there's still the equivalent of "and an extra couple of tons (or tonnes!) for the Flight Engineer's wife and kids" :)

------------------
Flight Sims, very expensive toys - but real fun to play with!