Phuket Air plane at Sharjah case

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 04 Apr 2005, 13:49

Regi linked to the BBC
Passengers let off 'unsafe jet' Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 @ 12:02.
BBC : Last Updated: Monday, 4 April, 2005, 07:01 GMT 08:01 UK
Passengers said the Gatwick-bound flight aborted take-off three times after refuelling while en route from Bangkok.

Who did check on that? I did.

Phuket Airlines ' schedule is as follows: Bangkok - London(Gatwick)
Flight Departure Arrival Date Aircraft
9R 618 23.50 08.30+1 1,3,5 B 747-300

1,3,5 meaning Monday, Wednesday, Friday.
+1 That means also arriving in Sharjah and Gatwick the next day...

Arrivals @ Sharjah for Phuket Airlines
M T W T F S S Origin Time(UTC) Flight Period of Validity
x - x - x - - Bangkok 23:50 VAP 618 04-Feb-05 - 28-Mar-05

Departures @ Sharjah for Phuket Airlines
M T W T F S S Destination Time(UTC) Flight Period of Validity
- x - x - x - London Gatwick 00:50 VAP 618 04-Feb-05 - 28-Mar-05

Here are the arrival at LGW: Monday, 4 April 2005
Scheduled time Flight number Coming from Status Terminal
08.30 CO28 NEWARK-NYC LANDED 1024 S
08.30 EK6302 NEWARK-NYC LANDED 1024 S
08.30 VS3128 NEWARK-NYC LANDED 1024 S
08.30 US98 SAN JUAN VIA PHILADELPHIA LANDED 0958 S

Of course 9R is not foreseen on Mondays: it does not fly.... from Sunday to Monday....

Check also Sharjah Airport Arrival/Departure Information

What is this story about? When did this story happen? Last Friday?
Last PHUKET AIRLINES - 9R 618 Planned Flight Information
Airport Arriving Day Departing Day Meal Elapsed Flying Time
Bangkok Int'l (BKK), Bangkok, Thailand - - 23:50 Friday Yes 7h0min
Sharjah (SHJ), Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 03:50 Saturday 04:50 Saturday Yes 6h40min
Gatwick (LGW), London, United Kingdom 08:30 Saturday

regi · Post by **regi** » 04 Apr 2005, 14:29

This story is just another nail in the coffin of Phuket Air long haul. If you read what is told about Phuket Airlines on the net, well, you must be suicidal to board their old planes.
Look, when I was half year ago in Phuket and I saw those old bangers standing there, I couldn't believe it they would use them as people transporters. Maybe good enough to transport lobsters from Canada to Ostend.
It is no great surprise that the flights Gatwick -Bangkok are cancelled from end of April onwards.
I think that Mr. Udom of Orient Thai will draw his conclusions and will not start an european connection for the time being. +20 year old 747's are no good option to maintain the service.
Let's bet when the Amsterdam-BKK service will be stopped.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 04 Apr 2005, 15:01

Read also my post: Fri Jan 14, 2005 and B737229's Phuket Air starts Amsterdam flights

Yes 26 year old aircraft are not new....

HS-VAA
Boeing 747-206M/EUD; c/n 21848;
ex PH-BUO;
regd 17-Dec-03 to Holiday Airlines Co. Ltd; dd to Don Muang 17-Dec-03; operated by Phuket Airlines Co Ltd [Don Muang];
overhauled & repainted in Jakarta Apr & May-04,
returned to Don Muang by 16-May-04; current

PH-BUO Boeing 747-206B KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 21.09.1979 Correct Info
PH-BUO Boeing 747-206B(SUD) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 01.1985 cvtd -206B Correct Info
HS-VAA Boeing 747-206B(SUD) Phuket Airlines 17.12.2003 cvtd -206B

HS-VAV
Boeing 747-206M/EUD; c/n 21659;
ex N1792B, PH-BUM;
dd to Don Muang 22-Dec-03;
regd 23-Dec-03 to Holiday Airlines Co. Ltd;
operated by Phuket Air [Don Muang];
overhauled & repainted in Jakarta Apr & May-04

PH-BUM Boeing 747-206B(M)(SUD) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 15.05.1979 cvtd -206B Correct Info
HS-VAV Boeing 747-206B(M)(SUD) Phuket Airlines 22.12.2003 lsd, cvtd -206B

HS-
oeing 747-2U3B; c/n; ex PK-GSC;
believed sold to Phuket Air but remained at Jakarta for spares;
noticed there intact & in Garuda scheme Jun-04

Note: Maybe Flying_Dutchman is changing his idea, I suggest he tries QR.

MD-11 · Post by **MD-11** » 04 Apr 2005, 17:16

Yesterday, at EHAM, I saw a Phuket Air 747-300 taking-off.
Never saw so much exhaust fumes coming out of an 747's engines.

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 04 Apr 2005, 21:37

The above discribed incident occured on Sunday.
Phuket Air’s vice chairman Chairat Measukree said yesterday the incident was caused by over-filling the aircraft’s tanks during a stop-over at Sharjah

If that is the fact, there is nothing wrong with the aircraft age...

“We gave the aircraft a technical check immediately and found there was not a big problem” Chairat said.

After a 3-hour wait on the runway while engineers attempted to repair the leak, the passengers forced the pilot to abandon a second attempt at taking off when they saw fuel was still spilling out.

Passengers were stranded at the airport in the United Arab Emirates when they refused to re-board the plane.
Some of them managed to find alternative flights to England.
Others reboarded the Phuket Air flight and continued on to Gatwick after an overnight delay.

Chairat said the Bangkok to London flights on April 22, would cease until October 31 to allow time for maintenance.

May, June, July, August, September, October? That is six months for maintenance..... meanwhile that aircraft is one year older.... see the dates in my earlier contribution.

regi · Post by **regi** » 04 Apr 2005, 21:56

The vice chairman was obliged to make this silly remark. I was waiting to hear such remarks that it is very normal for airplanes to leak fuel, but once they are in the air that the fueltanks close automatically by different airpressure.
Yeah, right for WW2 Junkers.
Phuket Air: stay out of european airspace!

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 05 Apr 2005, 00:02

"Flying over lobster from Canad to Ostend":

if Phuket Air is unsafe for passengers, it's also unsafe for cockpit crew.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 05 Apr 2005, 01:41

HS-KAK : B757-200 : first flight 20/07/1994
HS-KAK : B757-256, cn 26244 / ln 616

HS-KAA : B757-200 : first flight 19/05/1992
HS-KAA : B757-2Q8, cn 25131 / ln 458

HS-VAN : B747-300 : first flight 05/11/1985
HS-VAN : B747-312 cn 23245 / ln 626

HS-VAU : B747-200 : first flight 03/07/1980
HS-VAU : B747-2U3B cn 22247 / ln 459

HS-VAK : B747-200 : first flight 08/08/1980
HS-VAK : B747-2U3B cn 22249 / ln 468

HS-VAO : B747-200 : first flight 12/06/1980
HS-VAO: B747-2U3B cn 22246 / ln 452

HS-VAA : B747-200 : first flight 06/09/1979
HS-VAA : B747-206B(SUD) cn 21848 / ln 397

HS-VAV : B747-200 : first flight 09/04/1979
HS-VAV : B747-206B(M)(SUD) cn 21659 / ln 369

HS-… : B747-300 : first flight 15/09/1983 (stored)
HS-… : B747-306(M) cn 23056 / ln 587 (stored)

Beloxi · Post by **Beloxi** » 05 Apr 2005, 10:18

Regi, so you are saying that old and dangerous cargo planes can come to Ostend? Are you refering to the MK crash in Halifax? If you had followed this case you should have read that the crash in Halifax was a human error. The plane was ok.
Everything that is flying into Ostend is allowed anywhere else in Europe, so there are really no exceptions made for Ostend.

regi · Post by **regi** » 05 Apr 2005, 10:33

Nope, the message is a bit deeper.
Companies with a bad record - you mention MK where the pilot made a mistake, but it is the company that is responsable because they hired that pilot - should be forbidden to fly at all.
MK should not be allowed to fly anymore after their terrible safety record, it is not only the Canada crash.
It is not just the airplane, it is the entire organisation.
I rather sit in a 25 year old DC-10 which is well maintained than in a 1 year old A320 which does so many flights as a charter there is no time to do the necesarry maintenance.

Beloxi · Post by **Beloxi** » 05 Apr 2005, 13:11

well, then they should forbid a lot of companies, e.g. Korean Air. You're almost talking like 'Wiloo' here at Ostend.
I know the company of MK Airlines very well, know a lot of technicians and pilots as well, and I can tell you that maintenance of their airplanes is okay, it's even better than that of certain well known european or american companies.
Before you attack some companies, or blame them of bad maintenance, please make sure you are informed very well, and that you know of what you are talking about.

regi · Post by **regi** » 05 Apr 2005, 14:39

I am not a Wiloo fan. I don't like him. He only gives bad critics.
But your kind isn't better at all. Each time there is a predicted crash - yes , predicted - your kind comes up with the very simple remarks that the airplanes are well maintained or they would not have been allowed in european airspace. The companies follow the regulations or they would not be allowed to work further on. Well, that is crap. Kalitta loses engines, MK crashes, but no problem. Is it that what you mean by "to know where you talk about"?
Since the Times is a trashy gossip newspaper I hardly dare to put here the MK article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 57,00.html

[ text removed by admin luchtzak, please no copy/paste entire articles, only links to articles pls ]

regi · Post by **regi** » 05 Apr 2005, 14:50

Correction: I have to excuse myself to the group.
There has never been a crash of a MK airplane. Kalitta has never lost an engine in flight.
Ostend has never hosted run down russian airliners. No Ilyushin was damaged beyond repair on the runway (oops, next of it).
Rooftiles never get detached of houses in Stene. There are no problems at all at Ostend.
In fact there is a 10 year long waiting list for cargo companies to come to Ostend. The pope is still alive and Elvis plays tonight at the Ostend Casino.

Post by **Bottie** » 05 Apr 2005, 14:59

regi wrote:Correction: I have to excuse myself to the group.
There has never been a crash of a MK airplane. Kalitta has never lost an engine in flight.
Ostend has never hosted run down russian airliners. No Ilyushin was damaged beyond repair on the runway (oops, next of it).
Rooftiles never get detached of houses in Stene. There are no problems at all at Ostend.
In fact there is a 10 year long waiting list for cargo companies to come to Ostend. The pope is still alive and Elvis plays tonight at the Ostend Casino.

And regi has to cool down or this topic will be closed ...

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 05 Apr 2005, 18:19

Phuket Air is owned by Ranong senator Vikrom Aisiri. Also the owner of who owns the luxury Andaman Club Hotel in the Burmese waters off Ranong, the Dusit Island Resort Hotel in Chiang Rai and the wood-trading firm West Group.

Here is a new explanation:
To avoid direct competition with national carrier Thai Airways International, Phuket Air will suspend its London flights effective on April 22. It will also put off the planned Bangkok-Kathmandu route due to political instability in Nepal.

Phuket Air would improve its services, particularly by purchasing three long-haul Boeing 747-400s to serve the London route.

Phuket Air will fly to and from Amsterdam two times a week on B747-300, a round trip ticket for the Bangkok-Amsterdam route will be 21,400 baht all-inclusive for economy class and 65,000 baht for business class.
Phuket Air expects an average load factor of up to 70%, and to break even by the end of this year if the routes to Amsterdam and Moscow prove to be a success.

Note:
THAI used to provide the direct flights to Amsterdam but cancelled the flights during the economic crisis.

Beloxi · Post by **Beloxi** » 05 Apr 2005, 19:39

I will stop discussing here on this topic, cause some people just want understand. I 'm not saying there are, or rather there haven't been any problems at Ostend, but can you name an airport where nothing happens? The Ilyushin that overran the runway, that can happen everywhere. I remember the A340 of Sabena a couple of years ago in Brussels. Rooftiles that are blown away, that happens every week in Brussels and on other airports.
Ok Kalitta lost an engine, that's true, MK had some crashes, that's completely correct, but why do you everytime mention Ostend? MK flies to Brussels and to Luxemburg as well, Kalitta flies to Brussels and to Amsterdam as well.

regi · Post by **regi** » 06 Apr 2005, 09:00

Ostend is a very convenient airport by the way. Some charters use it. And the football club FC Bruges likes it to fly to far away matches. I think e.g. in the Ukrain last year.
But the main subject was Phuket air.
The whole incident is said to be nothing more than mass hysteria by some passengers who couldn't cope with overspilling fuel.
Well, isn't that nice? Case closed.

5Y-KQV · Post by **5Y-KQV** » 06 Apr 2005, 10:59

LX-LGX wrote:"Flying over lobster from Canad to Ostend":

if Phuket Air is unsafe for passengers, it's also unsafe for cockpit crew.

Just towing your line a little further, then Phuket Air is not only unsafe for the cockpit crew, but unsafe for the Lobsters as well

Cheers,

Walter

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 06 Apr 2005, 15:06

agree,

and I hate lobster with a taste of Jet A1-fuel.

Curious · Post by **Curious** » 06 Apr 2005, 15:54

I beleive Iran Air use the same type of 747 for long haul are they any better?

Aviation24.be

Phuket Air plane at Sharjah case

Phuket Air plane at Sharjah case

PHUKET AIR (Suvarnabhumi Airlines)

six months for maintenance.....

Phuket Air will suspend its London flights effective on Apri