Flight Safety - A business benefit ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety - A business benefit ?
I'm trying to establish whether flight safety (or efforts toward) can be used as a competitive advantage in the aerospace business ...
To adhere to the applicable certification standards and guidelines for avionics products for example, is above-and-beyond demonstrations of safety engineering and testing going to win me more business ? Or should I put the (extra) effort to other areas like reducing life cycle costs or better features ?
It seems to many that safety is a given assumption for an airline and customers wouldn't base their choice of airline on it unless it was obviously really bad.
What do others think ?
hugel
To adhere to the applicable certification standards and guidelines for avionics products for example, is above-and-beyond demonstrations of safety engineering and testing going to win me more business ? Or should I put the (extra) effort to other areas like reducing life cycle costs or better features ?
It seems to many that safety is a given assumption for an airline and customers wouldn't base their choice of airline on it unless it was obviously really bad.
What do others think ?
hugel
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think even if safety is something customers expect, you cannot make any good advertising with it. The reason is, that the customers do not want to be referred to safety, because this also would imply that there can be a lack of safety, threats, dangers and so on.
When you look to the automotive business, only little advertisement is made with car safety, even the consequences of improved safety are tremendous: high weight, high gas consumption, less space, declining mortality rates in trafic.
Some companies have a higher, other have a lower level of safety, but normally nobody does mention safety, becaue it always raises negative emotions like the fear of accidents, injuries and so on.
Only a few adverts issued safety and in this cases the adverts are very smart and try to make you laugh. Do you remember the Renault adverts with a baguette crushing against the wall? It was funny. It tried to show that there is a deformation zone, an airbag, stiff structure. Doing the same funny thing with airplanes would not work, because when an aircraft crushes against a wall, you can call the garbage removal.
Some smaller airlines state that they are the most safe airline in the world - until they crash one machine and the airline breaks down. So they have no need to care about such statements, but a large airline cannot make such a statement, because then somebody wants to see the proof.
I think one of the few cases, where an airline could make a statement concerning their safety level is when pointing with their fingers towards another airline which had an accident and there are significant differences in operation between them, for example Air France with "the wrong" pitot tubes (AF447). But this also is connected with a major aircraft desaster and so this strategy also won't deliver any positive reactions among customers. And at last this attitude towards an airline having such an accident also would be not acceptable.
So I don't see a proper way to communicate safety towards customers.
But when you think of taking safety for internal communication within an airline, my opinion is different. I think this can and should be taken for consideration.
When you look to the automotive business, only little advertisement is made with car safety, even the consequences of improved safety are tremendous: high weight, high gas consumption, less space, declining mortality rates in trafic.
Some companies have a higher, other have a lower level of safety, but normally nobody does mention safety, becaue it always raises negative emotions like the fear of accidents, injuries and so on.
Only a few adverts issued safety and in this cases the adverts are very smart and try to make you laugh. Do you remember the Renault adverts with a baguette crushing against the wall? It was funny. It tried to show that there is a deformation zone, an airbag, stiff structure. Doing the same funny thing with airplanes would not work, because when an aircraft crushes against a wall, you can call the garbage removal.
Some smaller airlines state that they are the most safe airline in the world - until they crash one machine and the airline breaks down. So they have no need to care about such statements, but a large airline cannot make such a statement, because then somebody wants to see the proof.
I think one of the few cases, where an airline could make a statement concerning their safety level is when pointing with their fingers towards another airline which had an accident and there are significant differences in operation between them, for example Air France with "the wrong" pitot tubes (AF447). But this also is connected with a major aircraft desaster and so this strategy also won't deliver any positive reactions among customers. And at last this attitude towards an airline having such an accident also would be not acceptable.
So I don't see a proper way to communicate safety towards customers.
But when you think of taking safety for internal communication within an airline, my opinion is different. I think this can and should be taken for consideration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank for your response. I am trying to isolate safety from the equation as a moral issue, and understand what weighting is given to it in a commercial situation.
Assuming that there were five tenders for a new EGPWS. What percentage of the overall marks would be allocated for selection on the basis of safety ?
hugel
Assuming that there were five tenders for a new EGPWS. What percentage of the overall marks would be allocated for selection on the basis of safety ?
hugel
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NONE.
Assuming the spec. meets regulatory requirements, airlines rarely care about anything other than price. Competitive advantage? Have girls with the biggest (naughty word deleted - probably quite true but not necessary in this forum - JT) and lowest tops on your stand at trade shows. When some airlines are thinking of charging people to use the loos, do you really think they care about safety?
PM
Assuming the spec. meets regulatory requirements, airlines rarely care about anything other than price. Competitive advantage? Have girls with the biggest (naughty word deleted - probably quite true but not necessary in this forum - JT) and lowest tops on your stand at trade shows. When some airlines are thinking of charging people to use the loos, do you really think they care about safety?
PM
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight safety a Business benefit, isn’t that covered by the adage “if you think safety is expensive try having an accident”
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the results so far, safety seems to be a high priority for many people in the industry, both a benefit to the Aviation industry but even when the question relates to it as a quantifiable business benefit. Please give me your opinion by answering the (non commercial!) survey.
hugel
hugel
How do you quantify "above and beyond regulatory requirements"?
Fly with us - we're not just safe, we're REALLY safe!
The approach I have seen in the mining industry is that every company basically provides an "exposition" of its capabilities, its manning levels, certifications and so on.
The key certifications you need to be "above and beyond" are to have an audited safety management system for your business BUT airline customers of your electro-widget don't care if your secretaries have shaggers' back from your hard desks and couldn't give a rats if your radio techs have no nerve endings left in their fingertips from all the soldering iron burns.
The buyers of your electro-widget probably want to know you have a system in place to ensure the product's reliability - a Quality Management System.
There are ISO 9001 approval guidelines available to get the three ticks, but be prepared to pay $$$ to get it.
We advertise our CEO's University-level safety qualifications, the mandatory Human factors training level of our pilots, and the fact that other airlines use our Safety Management systems and documentation.
Our Safety Management Policy is everywhere you look, including the website.
You can put as much effort as you like into talking the talk, of course, but ya gotta walk the walk too.
Fly with us - we're not just safe, we're REALLY safe!
The approach I have seen in the mining industry is that every company basically provides an "exposition" of its capabilities, its manning levels, certifications and so on.
The key certifications you need to be "above and beyond" are to have an audited safety management system for your business BUT airline customers of your electro-widget don't care if your secretaries have shaggers' back from your hard desks and couldn't give a rats if your radio techs have no nerve endings left in their fingertips from all the soldering iron burns.
The buyers of your electro-widget probably want to know you have a system in place to ensure the product's reliability - a Quality Management System.
There are ISO 9001 approval guidelines available to get the three ticks, but be prepared to pay $$$ to get it.
We advertise our CEO's University-level safety qualifications, the mandatory Human factors training level of our pilots, and the fact that other airlines use our Safety Management systems and documentation.
Our Safety Management Policy is everywhere you look, including the website.
You can put as much effort as you like into talking the talk, of course, but ya gotta walk the walk too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance premiums should indeed reflect the benefit of additional safety equipment beyond MEL being fitted in the aircraft, but the impression I got from the analysts was that the premiums are assessed on a number of basic factors (% of hull cost, age of aircraft, accident record of type etc) rather than some indepth analysis of potential risk....anyone know any more about premium assessment ?
hugel
hugel
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our engineers being on-fire may indeed be due more to solder-burns than imparting "shaggers back" on the admin staff...
Now I'm thinking the issue establish the equipment's role in building the safety case as a function of profitability....mmmm I'm opening a certification can of worms here I think...
hugel
Now I'm thinking the issue establish the equipment's role in building the safety case as a function of profitability....mmmm I'm opening a certification can of worms here I think...
hugel
I think that safety should be very easy to justify in business terms, but not necessarily in terms of immediate customer perception.
For a start, higher safety (which actually means lower accident and incident rates), should lead to lower insurance premiums, higher workforce and asset availability (what does it cost to lose an aircraft for a few weeks repairs due to a minor ramp accident?, or a licenced engineer due to a minor injury).
Secondly, it is almost impossible to separate safety in aviation from any other "attention to detail" based quality benchmark - for example serviceability of aircraft. The attitudes that foster high safety also generally foster high serviceability (so long as that's achieved honestly, and not through fudging the paperwork anyhow).
Third, whilst the customer may just regard safety as an absolute, the workforce know very well that it's not. And a high degree of personal safety will have some small effect on retention of staff and easy union relations. The cost of recruiting / replacing staff is high and the business impact can be significant, especially in a smaller company. So safety helps keep staff and thus save money.
Fourth, look at the cost of any accident - the real cost to the business, even if insured up to the hilt and nobody was hurt. In this business, it is massive, and not that hard to make a first stab at costing it. Include lost custom, revenue lost due to unavailable assets, cost of purchasing new aircraft compared to the insured value of your 10 year old airframe - and so-on.
Add all that up, and in this business, it is very hard to make any case for NOT having the highest standard of safety reasonably achievable.
G
For a start, higher safety (which actually means lower accident and incident rates), should lead to lower insurance premiums, higher workforce and asset availability (what does it cost to lose an aircraft for a few weeks repairs due to a minor ramp accident?, or a licenced engineer due to a minor injury).
Secondly, it is almost impossible to separate safety in aviation from any other "attention to detail" based quality benchmark - for example serviceability of aircraft. The attitudes that foster high safety also generally foster high serviceability (so long as that's achieved honestly, and not through fudging the paperwork anyhow).
Third, whilst the customer may just regard safety as an absolute, the workforce know very well that it's not. And a high degree of personal safety will have some small effect on retention of staff and easy union relations. The cost of recruiting / replacing staff is high and the business impact can be significant, especially in a smaller company. So safety helps keep staff and thus save money.
Fourth, look at the cost of any accident - the real cost to the business, even if insured up to the hilt and nobody was hurt. In this business, it is massive, and not that hard to make a first stab at costing it. Include lost custom, revenue lost due to unavailable assets, cost of purchasing new aircraft compared to the insured value of your 10 year old airframe - and so-on.
Add all that up, and in this business, it is very hard to make any case for NOT having the highest standard of safety reasonably achievable.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading a list of the factors that airline customer consider when choosing with which airline to fly, if I remember correctly the safety (record) was down at number 7 after punctuality, freq of service and comfy seats....
I think the more regulated the design requirements for assurance (prob of event type/fling hour), the more it is viewed as just a pass/fail scenario for the (airframe) customer that buys the equipment or the airline if they ask for it specifically.
Although my research has shown that many people in the industry think safety is a major factor in the commercial success of avionics equipment, I am still trying to work out exactly how the safety benefit between two equipments, A and B is sold ...
hugel
I think the more regulated the design requirements for assurance (prob of event type/fling hour), the more it is viewed as just a pass/fail scenario for the (airframe) customer that buys the equipment or the airline if they ask for it specifically.
Although my research has shown that many people in the industry think safety is a major factor in the commercial success of avionics equipment, I am still trying to work out exactly how the safety benefit between two equipments, A and B is sold ...
hugel
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha. I have just reread your response and asset-availability due to safety concerns is something that can be directly related to bottom line. It may be a RAM issue, but that still counts in this arguement !
hugel
hugel
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps an interesting article, published right now:
Vogt, Joachim; Leonhardt, Jörg; Köper, Birgit; Pennig, Stefan: Human factors in safety and business management. In: Ergonomics, Vol. 53, p. 149–163.
An Abstract can be found here:
Human factors in safety and business management - Ergonomics
Vogt, Joachim; Leonhardt, Jörg; Köper, Birgit; Pennig, Stefan: Human factors in safety and business management. In: Ergonomics, Vol. 53, p. 149–163.
An Abstract can be found here:
Human factors in safety and business management - Ergonomics
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramp accidents (ramp rash) have the largest effect on costs and is definitely a business issue. It should be remembered that any time you bump into an aircraft it effects the drag and hence fuel burn of that aircraft throughout its life.
