Low Cost Flights - are they dangerous?

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The article was based on testimonies including one about LCA flight that was taking wrong course to target airport, seemed like the pilots lost the way.

Many years ago an airliner landed at the wrong airport near here. It was intending to land at Manchester International, but actually landed at the British Aerospace factory five miles away (the runway is aligned in much the same direction and was a similar length). This was not a budget airline, but a respected national carrier.

That said, modern navigation equipment would make this virtually impossible today.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I do rather like the idea of 4 engines though.. especially for long overwater flights. I'm booked on a TUI owned Boeing 787 Dreamliner to Mexico in March. A 10 hour flight. Only two engines.. They may be big and powerful.. but there are still only two. I'm reminded of a comment made years ago about the British Navy's 'Multi Role Ships'. "Yep.. they are very capable,.. but they can only be in one place at a time.."

Two engines if fair enough for many purposes I suppose.. but the General Electric (as opposed to Rolls Royce) engines which TUI have, are rated at (I think) 320 minutes 'ETOPS'. I can't recall what ETOPS means officially, but the joke is 'Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim'. This means they can be FIVE HOURS AND TWENTY MINUTES away from a suitable alternative landing place at any point in the flight. I've noticed they fly pretty much straight across the big pond to the Yucatan and I wouldn't much enjoy the prospect of an engine loss in the middle of the Atlantic. If you can lose one...

I remember one former chairman of Rolls Royce, the aero engine manufacturer being asked about his habit of always choosing four engined aircraft to travel on. When asked why this was, he replied "because there are no five engined aircraft".

It should be borne in mind, though, that this was back in the days of the early jets, many aircraft were still piston engined, or early gas turbines. Technology has moved on a bit since then.

 

[stephen bennett]

No, it is a question of ability to hold a job that involves safety of people. I want that the best pros will fly the jet that I am flying in. I don't want that a pilot who was not good enough in one company and therefore was rejected there will fly me in LCA.

Arye

Have you not been following the Brexit debate in the UK?

We’ve apparently had enough of experts. We have unqualified teachers and ministers so why not pilots?

A couple of airfix models completed and a day with a model plane should do it.

Stephen

 

[linnfomaniac83]

I think bad landings not on runways with passengers are referred to as crashes ;-)

Yes indeed... I just had that old saying stuck in my mind “any landing that you can walk away from is a good landing”... implying that a bad landing involves flames and a broken fuselage.

I’ve actually been on a flight which ended in a an emergency landing not long after takeoff in 1994, a fully laden 767, it had to dump fuel before it could land and when it did land, it was scary, touchdown was hard, and it seemed to take forever to come to a stop (because it was still heavier than it would normally be). It didn’t put me off flying though, and surprisingly, that 767 took off again the same day. It was a pressurisation issue. I can’t find any record of it but another B767 recently suffered a pressure relief valve failure flying out of London albeit at a higher altitude and had to make an emergency landing, again, the only casualties were passengers underwear.

 

[cutting42]

The other point is that pilot salaries are a very small part of the cost of delivering an airline service compared to fuel for example.

Why do you think all the LCC have the newest fleet of aeroplanes in the industry? Ryan Air are the lowest of low cost European airlines and yet have 400 of the latest 737-800 planes (which they own, not leased), they have a further 225 on order. They do this as the newest planes are the most fuel efficient efficient.

Oh and another thing, Ryan Air are officially the safest airline in the world with zero, yes zero fatalities in its entire history. That is achieved whilst carrying 356,000 passengers a day, over 1 billion since they started. The next safest is Easyjet, another LCC and until an engine blew up on a Southwest flight recently killing the poor passenger sitting by the window that was damaged they were the safest - oh yes, Southwest were the pioneers of LCC.

So the evidence does not support the sensationalist program you watched. I am sure there are some limited facts in the program but they clearly had an agenda.

 

[Bob McC]

Many years ago an airliner landed at the wrong airport near here. It was intending to land at Manchester International, but actually landed at the British Aerospace factory five miles away (the runway is aligned in much the same direction and was a similar length). This was not a budget airline, but a respected national carrier.

That said, modern navigation equipment would make this virtually impossible today.

He couldn’t do it now.
The runway is now a housing estate.

 

[linnfomaniac83]

The other point is that pilot salaries are a very small part of the cost of delivering an airline service compared to fuel for example.

Why do you think all the LCC have the newest fleet of aeroplanes in the industry? Ryan Air are the lowest of low cost European airlines and yet have 400 of the latest 737-800 planes (which they own, not leased), they have a further 225 on order. They do this as the newest planes are the most fuel efficient efficient.

Oh and another thing, Ryan Air are officially the safest airline in the world with zero, yes zero fatalities in its entire history. That is achieved whilst carrying 356,000 passengers a day, over 1 billion since they started. The next safest is Easyjet, another LCC and until an engine blew up on a Southwest flight recently killing the poor passenger sitting by the window that was damaged they were the safest - oh yes, Southwest were the pioneers of LCC.

So the evidence does not support the sensationalist program you watched. I am sure there are some limited facts in the program but they clearly had an agenda.

A lot of these “documentaries” have very clever editors who have a good knowledge of defamation law/libel, they snip bits of information together very carefully and word things very carefully so as to deliberately mislead their viewers and get away with it. There was a documentary on Ryanair where they snipped parts of interviews together from staff/pilots and showed them completely out of context.

The company my mother works for was also targeted a few years ago, people even made personal comments to my mother about it, other staff experienced the same. There was no truth to it and the producers actually had to issue an apology. I won’t go into that one because it was messy and my mother still works for the company.

With regards to the Ryanair fleet, a new 737-800 isn’t necessarily more fuel efficient than a 15 year old one but the maintenance costs will be lower and it will have less downtime for maintenance... which is one of the greatest costs. A plane isn’t generating any income when it’s on the ground.

The 737-MAX is the latest and most efficient 737 variant but I don’t think we’ll see them takeover their Ryanair’s older fleet overnight because it will require pilots to train for a new type rating, not to mention training of other staff such as maintenance and ground crew. Pilots usually only hold one type rating at a time because it prevents any likelihood of confusion over checklists, especially in an emergency when the pressure is on. Ryanair only operate 737-800s because they want to be able to deploy any crew on any plane on any route as needed.
I suspect we will start to see them when Ryanair’s current fleet ages and start to become more maintenance heavy.

 

[zippy]

The one to avoid used to be PanAm, but thankfully they're not in business anymore.
As perpetuated by 'Rain Man', Qantas is supposed to be the only airline that has had no fatal crashes in the jet aircraft era. I believe that's still the case.

 

[cutting42]

The one to avoid used to be PanAm, but thankfully they're not in business anymore.
As perpetuated by 'Rain Man', Qantas is supposed to be the only airline that has had no fatal crashes in the jet aircraft era. I believe that's still the case.

Qantas have had fatals in the pre jet era and they had a non fatal crash this year and they are not the only airline with no fatals but other than that your statement is correct.

 

[cutting42]

A lot of these “documentaries” have very clever editors who have a good knowledge of defamation law/libel, they snip bits of information together very carefully and word things very carefully so as to deliberately mislead their viewers and get away with it. There was a documentary on Ryanair where they snipped parts of interviews together from staff/pilots and showed them completely out of context.

The company my mother works for was also targeted a few years ago, people even made personal comments to my mother about it, other staff experienced the same. There was no truth to it and the producers actually had to issue an apology. I won’t go into that one because it was messy and my mother still works for the company.

With regards to the Ryanair fleet, a new 737-800 isn’t necessarily more fuel efficient than a 15 year old one but the maintenance costs will be lower and it will have less downtime for maintenance... which is one of the greatest costs. A plane isn’t generating any income when it’s on the ground.

The 737-MAX is the latest and most efficient 737 variant but I don’t think we’ll see them takeover their Ryanair’s older fleet overnight because it will require pilots to train for a new type rating, not to mention training of other staff such as maintenance and ground crew. Pilots usually only hold one type rating at a time because it prevents any likelihood of confusion over checklists, especially in an emergency when the pressure is on. Ryanair only operate 737-800s because they want to be able to deploy any crew on any plane on any route as needed.
I suspect we will start to see them when Ryanair’s current fleet ages and start to become more maintenance heavy.

The planes Ryan air have on order are the MAX variant both 300 and 200. Ryan air were also the first European carrier to standardise on one fleet for the crew training benefits and also the service costs and presumably cutting a deal with Boeing. I believe that Queasyjet do the same with Airbus.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Between the lines the channel was trying to suggest that it is better to fly with El Al but the question is if what they told about pilots is true, I think that it is.
I think that LCF must announce to public if it is using pilots that are paying in order to work.

Arye

Here’s the agenda cutting42. The producers perhaps received assistance from El Al?

 

[ariegur]

Here’s the agenda cutting42. The producers perhaps received assistance from El Al?

Yes.
They interviewed El Al's captains.

Arye

 

[BTC3]

I am a frequent flier, and tend to avoid LCCs like the plague. Nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with comfort and convenience. The CAA/FAA take care of pilots and airframes, so, are of fleet excepted, most airlines are like for like. But when it comes to getting through airports, sorting out issues when there is a problem, I prefer regular carriers: the infrastructure is there to put on another plane, find a re-route, etc.
@Mullardman if you want to try a 747, BA is probably your bet, I think Virgin got rid of all of theirs. BA’s are creaky old beasts, but there is something that I find very special about them. If you’re going to try it, book a premium cabin, otherwise you’re just more people squashed into a tube, and the plane itself makes no odds. Your alternatives are to try from Frankfurt in the 748, or Qantas from Johannesburg, pretty sure they still run 744s on that route. As far as your México trip is concerned, the 787 is a great plane to fly on, The altered pressure in the cabin, and greater humidity make long flights a bit more comfortable.
@ariegur if you want stories or regular airlines having directional issues, I think Korean has an unfortunate record of pilots turning into mountains instead of away from them.
@linnfomaniac83 I thought 737 was a type rating. Moving from classic to no to max should require a refresher, rather than an entire new rating. Given the number of 737s out there, it would be a poor move from Boeing to require a new rating for the new model...

 

[gintonic]

I am a frequent flier, and tend to avoid LCCs like the plague. Nottinghamshire to do with safety, and everything to do with comfort and convenience

When I was a frequent flyer (50-60 flights per year) I had much the same attitude, although at least 50% of my flights were long haul, and all my flights were outside Europe.

Last year I went to Berlin, and we had a choice of carriers, the LCCs who unbundle and a more traditional (which was actually BA). In pricing up the bits I needed from an LCC, it was only £10 cheaper than BA. In fact we chose BA as they used a better located destination airport that the LCC. I have no qualms about the safety record, training or the fleet of the LCCs. In fact as many have said, the fleets of the LCCs are often way newer. The interior and facilities BA are providing on their older aircraft are quite poor. I think BA are one of the last ones left using 747s, and the J-class offering on them is poor.......

 

[misterdog]

The primary thing that I want is the LCAs inform us if they are cutting budget in subjects relating to flying and then I decide if I take the risk.

Far safer than facing the thousands of idiots on the roads.
Not often I get the chance to post a link to the Jerusalem Post.

https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Crash-test-dummies-486885

How many deaths on low cost airlines, and what percentage increase over the previous year ?

 

[Tony Lockhart]

@ariegur

This chart, from Aviation Safety Network, shows no correlation between the boom of the low cost carrier from the 1990s and an increase in casualties.



Now take a look, if you dare, at the risk of becoming a casualty in a car.

On that graph, the 9/11 deaths show as quite a chunk on the 2001 bar. That puts worldwide airline casualties into perspective.

In fact, I'd advise you to not fly at all in an airliner. Hijacking and other terrorist activity might well be a greater risk than pilot error, especially in the Middle East.

 

[Bob McC]

Virgin still fly 747s out of Manchester to Atlanta and New York.

I’m booked on one in March.

 

[BTC3]

Virgin still fly 747s out of Manchester to Atlanta and New York.

I’m booked on one in March.

I stand corrected, sorry!

 

[cutting42]

Regarding 747's, I have flown on them many times and in every class at least once. The best experience was probably sitting in seat 1A in First (only once sadly) but for an overall perfect 747 experience you simply must fly on the top deck in J (business or Club World in BA speak). It is the closest most of us will get to a private jet experience with a small cabin of 20 seats and dedicated flight attendant (used to be 2 of them) and a lovely way to fly. In fact when I got a gate upgrade to first on one occasion I hesitated accepting it as I had a top deck seat that I was looking forward to. I did accept the upgrade of course but I mention it to emphasise how highly I think of the top deck of a Jumbo.

 

[linnfomaniac83]

The planes Ryan air have on order are the MAX variant both 300 and 200. Ryan air were also the first European carrier to standardise on one fleet for the crew training benefits and also the service costs and presumably cutting a deal with Boeing. I believe that Queasyjet do the same with Airbus.

Ah cool, I didn’t know they had orders in on the 737-MAX, I think they still have some 737-800s on order. For all the flak people like to give Ryanair, it won’t put me off. I fly with them at least four times a year and I’ve had no problems... I may be flying on a MAX sooner than I thought!