4 crashes in month / economics versus safety

Pluto777 · Post by **Pluto777** » 17 Aug 2005, 08:32

Frontpage Nieuwsblad 17/08.
Finally the reaction is there !
When I first mentioned my opinion about too many take-offs with (minor ?) malfunctions, a few weeks ago, i got a lot of negativism.
These facts were ment to kept in silence, pilot were afraid for their job.
Thanks to Filip Vanrosum the bubble bursts, bundle your reactions, it is the truth ! For the last period, the pressure from the directions, to make the planes fly (even with malfunctions) is too high !
Let safety never compete with economics, never !

Post by **luchtzak** » 17 Aug 2005, 10:25

Here is a link to the article in Het Nieuwsblad:

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail ... D=G9NH43GI

regi · Post by **regi** » 17 Aug 2005, 11:14

When some birds dropped in Russia, every body was laughing about the old Tupolevs. But hold on, where is the laughing now? One very modern A340, a Boeing 737, a MD-80, and that troup transporting helicopter (Eurocopter?)
Physics are very simple: what goes up must come down again.

L-1011 · Post by **L-1011** » 17 Aug 2005, 12:06

There are different levels of defects and flying with them.

A good example is the fact that certain defects require you to either repair or fly the whole flight at a lower altitude fo example (I'm thinking of airco troubles). But instead some airlines push their pilots to fly like normal, as if there was no problem, because that's cheaper. (lower altitude=more drag = more fuel burned). That is where the problem is. If you follow the rules you are likely not to expierience any problem.

Don't forget that in most cases, plane crashes are due to a pile-up of technical details and human errors, so in the end if something happens it's never just because of one main/root problem.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 17 Aug 2005, 16:12

It's indeed all written in the MEL if you can or not fly with malfunctions, but what Pluto mentioned is that when the MEL requires to ground the plane some airlines tend to make the flight and repair it the night after to gain some time.

What a stupid world we live in

Chris

Sebas · Post by **Sebas** » 17 Aug 2005, 16:24

Let safety never compete with economics, never !

100% correct, but the customer (that is us) is also to blame. If 2 airliners are offering the same route, with one asking 100 Euros for a one way trip, the other asking 0,99 Euro, most customers would choose the latter.

Yet, the first one uses the extra money to make sure that their planes are in safety-top-condition, and also provides some extra service to the customer. The latter chooses economics above safety, and doesn't provide any noteworthy service. Still, most customers are choosing the latter, and are encouraging these practices to continue (until eventually the accident that was waiting to happen happens, kills 180 persons, and the airline declares bankrupty to run away from claims).

The price tag is just one of the most visible aspects of the flight. Safety is not. Until bad things happen. Our skies will not be safe as long as people select an airline based on the cheapest fare instead of safety.

Zorba · Post by **Zorba** » 17 Aug 2005, 16:29

Sebas wrote:The price tag is just one of the most visible aspects of the flight. Safety is not. Until bad things happen. Our skies will not be safe as long as people select an airline based on the cheapest fare instead of safety.

Euhm, not all people have the money to choose the more expensive airline. These people can be happy they at least can go on vacation. You can say what you want, people will always choose the cheapest way. If it's good or not, that's not me too descide ...

Pluto777 · Post by **Pluto777** » 17 Aug 2005, 16:43

I agree with that statement, these facts are originated by the chase of the public for cheaper seats.
The industry provides what customers desire...
The price of a product is a very powerful weapon in modern europe !
I think in the US they have already solved this problem after the value-jet accident...according to a friend of me, crazy ticket prices are no longer easy to find in US , correct ?

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 17 Aug 2005, 16:44

Airbus_fan wrote:
Sebas wrote:The price tag is just one of the most visible aspects of the flight. Safety is not. Until bad things happen. Our skies will not be safe as long as people select an airline based on the cheapest fare instead of safety.
Euhm, not all people have the money to choose the more expensive airline. These people can be happy they at least can go on vacation. You can say what you want, people will always choose the cheapest way. If it's good or not, that's not me too descide ...

Not always.
Like in other business, i will chose the cheapest price for stuffs not directly linked to my safety (food, air travel, medicine....)
For not essentials products, the cheapest is the best.
Don't forget that the soi disant LCC are not the cheapest.
The solution is the best : price/quality(and safety) .

Euhm, not all people have the money to choose the more expensive airline.

Not necessary the most expensive, but the cheapest of the most serious !!

Zorba · Post by **Zorba** » 17 Aug 2005, 16:50

Not always.
Like in other business, i will chose the cheapest price for stuffs not directly linked to my safety (food, air travel, medicine....)
For not essentials products, the cheapest is the best.
Don't forget that the soi disant LCC are not the cheapest.
The solution is the best : price/quality(and safety)

I know (and I fully agree), but I mean that you can't expect that all people choose a more expensive airline

But I fully agree on what you say.

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 17 Aug 2005, 17:00

regi wrote:and that troup transporting helicopter (Eurocopter?)

Yep, twas a Cougar.

Regards

Seb.

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 17 Aug 2005, 17:02

I know (and I fully agree), but I mean that you can't expect that all people choose a more expensive airline But I fully agree on what you say.

And with the serie of accidents in july and august,..... we can see a difference in the choices of the travellers

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 17 Aug 2005, 17:22

If you're talking about cheap=unsafe, then how come low cost carriers have exceptional safety records? I am not someone who would rush to fly with Ryanair or easyJet or their kind, but you cannot ignore the fact that they have unblemished records as far as aircraft loss goes. They have not been involved in any crashes which have caused fatalities. Sloppy maintenance is often to blame, and you can get that with any carrier.

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 17 Aug 2005, 17:50

Comet wrote:If you're talking about cheap=unsafe, then how come low cost carriers have exceptional safety records? I am not someone who would rush to fly with Ryanair or easyJet or their kind, but you cannot ignore the fact that they have unblemished records as far as aircraft loss goes. They have not been involved in any crashes which have caused fatalities. Sloppy maintenance is often to blame, and you can get that with any carrier.

Ok, but LCC is new in Europe. Ryanair in 1999 = max 3 aircrafts. The growth came after 2001-2002. Easyjet earlier.
You must compare the incidents/mileage ratio.
Valuejet, Air Alaska...... you know this one?
Helios also a LCC .
But some LCC are safe, but after the growth, they need to face the classic airliners .... with lower prices. The need to adapt the model and the costs are not so compressible.
Wait and see

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 17 Aug 2005, 18:26

Alaska Airlines lost an MD-82 due to negligence on maintenance, and on that airline you paid a full fare ticket. Cost-cutting is not just something of the Low-Cost carriers, there are a lot of airlines out there that also are in desperate need of money, so following your cost-cutting argument those airlines also could use save on safety to save some cash.*
For example, JAL also had several unfortunate incidents this year, but the media is not crying out loud over that airline. But would you fly on them?
Same goes for Air Transat, the A330 that flew without fuel (gliding) was caused by faulty maintenance. Would you fly Air Transat?

Anyway, I still think it is safe to board most of the airlines from the western world, and off course the big airlines from Asia. Its not like Aeroflot in the early 90's, they had some forty crashed in one-year due to circumstances. And that is not the case with Low-Cost carriers (that every year dozens of them crash), so I'm not afraid to board Low-Cost carriers from Western countries (or Asian).

How many faulty maintenance crashes have their been? Maybe someone can come up with figures about "LCC-crashed/incidents" as opposite to "traditional airlines".

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 18 Aug 2005, 10:55

Southwest of the USA (those of the sandy coloured aircraft) are an established low cost operator who have an excellent record, you don't hear about their aircraft dropping out of the sky all the time. Air France is now a low cost but they do not have a flawless safety record. All I am saying is that low cost carriers have gained excellent safety records.

wImPiE-D · Post by **wImPiE-D** » 18 Aug 2005, 11:28

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail ... D=GM3H4T95

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 18 Aug 2005, 18:10

Comet wrote:Air France is now a low cost but they do not have a flawless safety record.

I didn't know that 8O

!

Regards

Seb.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 18 Aug 2005, 18:20

Comet wrote: Air France is now a low cost but they do not have a flawless safety record.

That's a good one Louise

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 18 Aug 2005, 19:04

Avro wrote:
Comet wrote: Air France is now a low cost but they do not have a flawless safety record.

That's a good one Louise

:dammit: :dammit:

I have an excuse (honest

) I am now a student once again, and the computer I was using in college was the most unresponsive thing I have come across, the keys were "sticky" and the mouse hardly worked. During the daytime I am stuck with that thing, whilst in the evenings and at weekends I can use my own faithful dial-up PC. The broadband at college is OK for a sneaky downloaded video when the tutor is not looking but other than that I don't rate it, the pages don't seem to load up quicker than my 56K dial up connection.

And in my post I meant to say "Air France is not a low cost but they do not have a flawless safety record".