One serious question about safety of LCCs

[Alistairbastian]

After the athens crash there is the much asked question how safe is a low cost carrier even though aircrafts are safe vehicles for transport and governing regulations are stringent yet the one concern that arises that in this heated low fare contest is that more lives are not lost

i might be wrong but after the Cypriot Helios Airlines’ 737 safety has become the primary concern
Safety 'top' on low-cost airlines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4152202.stm

After the disastrous crash of Cypriot Helios Airlines’ 737 near Athens last weekend, killing 121 people, tourists wonder how safe they are flying cheap airlines these days. Helios Airlines regularly serves Warsaw taking Polish holidaymakers on package tours of Cyprus
http://www.radio.com.pl/polonia/article ... =26245&j=2

[HorsePower]

I've heard today on the radio that you have x17 more chance to have an accident by taking a charter flight rather a regular airlines (Ryanair and Easyjet are regular airlines, even if they are LC). I'm not sure but I think it is based on the last 20 years.

Regards

Seb.

[Sebas]

The reason I don't trust and don't fly LCC's is just that. The visible cost-cutting measures (regional airports, expensive drinks, many extra's to pay, and particulary for Ryanair being unfair) in my eyes can still be not enough to justify the fares that LCC's are maintaining.

There must be many invisible cost-cutting measures and I'm very very afraid that safety is one of them, since it is one of the most expensive parts of flight operations... I've never got any guarantee from any LCC that safety is *not* part of cost-cutting measures.

I'm willing to pay more to fly with an airline that does respect safety (and I do).

I know that many people don't agree with me, and I still hope that my fears are not justified, but until today I still haven't seen anything proving me wrong. On the contrary, every week, Air Crash Investigation on NatGeo proves that my theory is unfortunately correct and caused once again many losses of innocent people .

[B744skipper]

I know that many people don't agree with me, and I still hope that my fears are not justified, but until today I still haven't seen anything proving me wrong. On the contrary, every week, Air Crash Investigation on NatGeo proves that my theory is unfortunately correct and caused once again many losses of innocent people .

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).

Even if they save on maintenance, aircrafts are sturdy machines, so most of the time everything goes alright. No need to worry too much, but nevertheless safety standards should be enforced on all airlines.

[SN30952]

I fear more the vertically integrated groups than the LCC pure. The so-called 'holiday groups': these integrated groups operate hotels, resorts, cruises and air transport. The big benefits are coming from the financial structure: that is why the financiers are at the helm. These guys see only margins. They will discard the air transport branch as soon it does not fulfill their financial requirements. As soon it gets a little costly they will sell it, it will go to a country where the rules are not strict*. Notice their modus operandi is the same with their hotels.
Countries with low requirements for safety and labour contracts.
On a smaller scale, in Belgium: what tour operator had cheap cheap transport? And that one crashed (remember Tarom) and the same group had also hotel fire in Pattaya, also cheap cheap).
There are no miraculous remedies to make it cheap cheap and sell with considerable margin, believe me, only the customer and the staff will pay for it.

*where else could it go, as they did not put big money in maintenance. Some of the turkish carriers are part of integrated 'holiday groups'.
Only governments and independent inspectors - air police- can protect the customer and the staff.

Expect to see more of these announcements: SR Technics wins $1 bln easyJet maintenance deal.
As pure LCC cannot downgrade their maintenance: their money is in the tool, and nobody will buy it if it failed..

[Alistairbastian]

France is calling for tougher inspections and a blacklist of airlines failing to meet safety norms, following this week's crash in Venezuela.

hmmm now this sounds good will it help
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=T ... -crash.xml

[Alistairbastian]

Brussels is stepping up demands for a blacklist of airlines with unsatisfactory safety records, following crashes this month off Italy, in Greece and in Venezuela that have revived concerns about aircraft safety.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provid ... ID=5050823

[Bowlie]

Nice idea, but wouldn't it be better to find them out before they become a safety concern? Apparently France has inspected West Caribbean Aircraft a number of times without finding any problems. A 'blacklist' wouldn't have prevented the flight that crashed.

Seems to me to be just a lot of hot air by a bunch of politicians who know little, if anything, about the matter - but want to be reelected/reappointed to their annoited positions. Heaven help us against well intentioned politicians.

[HorsePower]

Seems to me to be just a lot of hot air by a bunch of politicians who know little, if anything, about the matter - but want to be reelected/reappointed to their annoited positions. Heaven help us against well intentioned politicians.

It's worth than you imagine. The black list is an european comission idea. As always, some french politics got better idea : the blue label.

Regards

Seb.

[Advisor]

As pure LCC cannot downgrade their maintenance: their money is in the tool, and nobody will buy it if it failed..

Very apt.

[A390]

Dear Horsepower, your statement that you "heard that charters are 17 times more unsafe" needs a reply: first of all, where did you get this figure? I hope not from a journalist... It's indeed "cucumber time".Secondly, charters often go to very challenging destinations. Landing an airliner in f.i. Corfu, Funchal and many other island destinations is much more challenging than making an autoland on Heathrow 27L. This means even that taking a charter flight to easy and well-equipped airports like AMS, BRU CDG...gives you extra safety: their pilots are used to much more difficult situations.Added: the charter companies in belgium, existing and those from the past, never had a crash. This cannot be said of most national carriers in the surrounding countries. It is a question of matching high quality in all domains: quality of maintenance (Belgium has an excellent reputation), competence and training of flightcrew (idem), CRM aspects (idem) and respect for the final decision taken by the commander to accept or not an aircraft before flight: all these elements are fulfilled at our Belgian charter companies. this does not mean immunity for accidents, but it means that at least all possible measures have been taken to prevent them. Your artificial difference between regular and charter flights is not to be applies to Western Europe. Better is it to differentiate between the countries of origin of the companies: although many countries pretend having a good safety oversight of their carriers, all involved know that here are to be found the huge differences. Even some european countries issuing JAR-OPS AOC's just don't apply the rules: issuing a rule is useless if it is not enforced by though audits at the respective airlines. Also here we can say that the Belgian autorities are very strickt for their local airlines and we can only encourage this!

[pee]

You mean Helios is a true LCC? Much doubt about it...

[HorsePower]

Dear Horsepower, your statement that you "heard that charters are 17 times more unsafe" needs a reply: first of all, where did you get this figure? I hope not from a journalist... It's indeed "cucumber time".

Hi A390,

As I said, I heard it on the radio (don't know wich one). To be honest, I found this number (x17) hard to believe myself.

It is a question of matching high quality in all domains: quality of maintenance (Belgium has an excellent reputation), competence and training of flightcrew (idem), CRM aspects (idem) and respect for the final decision taken by the commander to accept or not an aircraft before flight

It depends also about how many hours a pilot/a crew has to fly in a month. Understand that more you're flying, more tired you are. And trust me, it can make the difference between a crash with no fatalities and an other one on wich nobody survived.

Your artificial difference between regular and charter flights is not to be applies to Western Europe.

This number concerns the average of all the airlines around the world, not only Europe. And please understand it isn't "my artificial difference", I'm just the messenger !

I hope a lot about the "black list", perhaps too much?

Nice to see you again on the forum!

Regards

Seb.

[bigjulie]

I don't think that LCC's knowingly skip on safety matters. :shakehead:
After all I don't think they wouild like the publicity that an air craft crash would bring on them!
That's my 5c worth; thanks.

[nwa757]

I have flown on LCCs here in the US four times and I would feel completely comfortable stepping on board an LCC again and taking a flight. The situation may be different in Europe but I still think it is safe. If I am not mistaken neither Ryanair nor Eazyjet have had a fatal accident to this date.

[HorsePower]

Hi A390,

I found this interresting article (in french sorry):

Vols Charters, Un risque 17 fois plus élevé

As you will notice, I was wrong: it was on the lasts 10 years, not the lasts 20! More important, the original source is given: it is a french parlementary report.

Hope you understand french,

Regards

Seb.

[n5528p]

The reason I don't trust and don't fly LCC's is just that. The visible cost-cutting measures (regional airports, expensive drinks, many extra's to pay, and particulary for Ryanair being unfair) in my eyes can still be not enough to justify the fares that LCC's are maintaining.

There must be many invisible cost-cutting measures and I'm very very afraid that safety is one of them, since it is one of the most expensive parts of flight operations... I've never got any guarantee from any LCC that safety is *not* part of cost-cutting measures.

I'm willing to pay more to fly with an airline that does respect safety (and I do).

But who promises me that a full fare - airline does not try to save money in the maintenance department? For one reason they have to match the fares of the LCCs on many routes - another reason would be, that said companies also work to generate money, which means they are under the same pressure.

I appreciate your attitude regarding "being unfair" since I suppose you meant he way they treat their personnel - on the other hand, there are many similar troubles with other carriers since they face the same pressure. Wasn't it Shamrock where a checklist turned up pointing out how to make work as uncomfortable as possible to make people leave?

I absolutely understand your need for safety and professionalism, but I doubt you will find it by checking the price tags.

Regards, Bernhard

[n5528p]

Vols Charters, Un risque 17 fois plus élevé

As you will notice, I was wrong: it was on the lasts 10 years, not the lasts 20! More important, the original source is given: it is a french parlementary report.

I read the same in an Austrian newspaper, so I could only give the german text. Since it is not available online any more and I do not want to violate the forum rules regarding copyright, I will just say that it says more or less the same as the article you posted.

As A390 points out, this does not say anything about the airline. charter flights are not generally conducted by LCCs, many carriers like LH, Os and AF also handle lots of charter flights.

Furthermore, said flights often lead to airports which are operated only during the summer season for example. There are many other factors envolved like worse infrastructure, less experienced people, and so on.

The important part of such studies lies in the detail, not in the headline.

Regards, Bernhard

[TCAS_climb]

Among the factors do not underestimate the following;

a/ aeronautical experience of the management (a.k.a. "bean counters"): sometimes they don't know anything about aircraft operations and they're so focused on making money they will ask you to land a Boeing on a contaminated gravel runway. If your head of operations or chief pilot is not capable of explaining them where lies the red line that noone should cross and stand firmly on his position, man you are in trouble.

b/ lack of resources at the authority: the former vice-president of the NTSB said it recently: "it's not that the FAA is incompentent or that their inspectors are not properly trained or inexperienced, it's just that there are not enough inspectors to check what air carriers do". I believe this remark would also be valid in any country. Over-reliance on quality systems is a trap many authorities fall into

[Airbus330lover]

Vols Charters, Un risque 17 fois plus élevé

As you will notice, I was wrong: it was on the lasts 10 years, not the lasts 20! More important, the original source is given: it is a french parlementary report.

I read the same in an Austrian newspaper, so I could only give the german text. Since it is not available online any more and I do not want to violate the forum rules regarding copyright, I will just say that it says more or less the same as the article you posted.

As A390 points out, this does not say anything about the airline. charter flights are not generally conducted by LCCs, many carriers like LH, Os and AF also handle lots of charter flights.

Furthermore, said flights often lead to airports which are operated only during the summer season for example. There are many other factors envolved like worse infrastructure, less experienced people, and so on.

The important part of such studies lies in the detail, not in the headline.

Regards, Bernhard

Sorry but in the statistics they only count flight operated by charter airlines. Charter flight operated by LH, SN and others are normally not counted