Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
And If An LCC Crashes Tomorrow?  
User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4808 times:

I don't know if this has been discussed before and if yes, how long ago !

I really hope this doesn't happen but one must always keep in mind the possibility that such a thing can always happen.

What would happen if tomorrow, an FR, U2 , or any other LCC crashes? Wouldn't they be more vulnerable tham full thrills airlines. Not necessarily everybody knows where those airlines save up money so the general public may think they save costs on maintainance.. This could mean huge losses for all these airlines and it could be hard for them to get up again and not have their reputation ruined.

For example, look how ValueJet had to change its name to Air Tran...so that the name ValueJet would not give the airline prejudice.


What's your opinion ?


A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline747400F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4731 times:

I could very well have a very negative consequence if a crash could attributed to maintenance and/or training shortfalls (Like Helios 737 crash near Athens).
But if the cause of a crash (which I presume all hope will not take place) is ruled to be outside of the control of the airline in question (like the SAS MD87 crash in Milan) no bad press should be associated with the airline.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19204 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4698 times:

Safety is the number-one consideration for all airlines. Naive and ignorant people wrongly believe that low-cost carriers compromise safety in reducing their costs. This is not so. Indeed, because low-cost carriers are perceived to be less safe, they must in fact be extra safe. Why? Because a crash could have more repercussions for it than with a ‘normal’ airline because of this perception. If you’re after an example of the consequences of a crash on a low-cost airline, look no further than Valujet.

[Edited 2005-09-09 12:33:32]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Michael O'Leary (Ryanair) has always said that a crash would be one of the few things that could run his airline into the ground.

You have to remember that in many countries the LCCs are not popular with the establishment, and there would certainly be a lot of bad press (whether true or not) about cost cutting, etc being a contributing factor. If the big established traditional carriers saw a chance to play dirty and stir things up, feeding info to the press and the like, they most definitely would.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
Indeed, because low-cost carriers are perceived to be less safe, they must in fact be extra safe.

But they are not "extra safe". You can't tell me LCC do more for safety than legacy carriers.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19204 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 3):
You have to remember that in many countries the LCCs are not popular with the establishment, and there would certainly be a lot of bad press (whether true or not) about cost cutting, etc being a contributing factor. If the big established traditional carriers saw a chance to play dirty and stir things up, feeding info to the press and the like, they most definitely would.

Precisely! Another example of the media being liberal with the truth. Fools.

Quoting Cornish (Reply 3):
Michael O'Leary (Ryanair) has always said that a crash would be one of the few things that could run his airline into the ground.

He said a crash would indeed be one of the three things which would result in the collapse of the airline. I think this is a bit OTT, although it would certainly have bad consequences. Another factor, he said, would be his staff believing all the bullshit he comes out with.  Smile The third, I think, was a very bad natural disaster.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19204 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4638 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 4):
But they are not "extra safe". You can't tell me LCC do more for safety than legacy carriers.

Low-cost airlines must be seen as being extra safe: they have a much greater perception problem than traditional carriers, so the consequences of a fatal crash would be much worse. Neither you nor I know whether they are indeed extra safe - and we won't, unless we have inside information from professionals.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBilly From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 895 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4631 times:

Rootsair,

You are a happy chappie. Is this really worth discussing. I really think that there are serious issues about oversight and airline regualtory competence in some countries, rather than specualting about U2 and FR crashes.


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4630 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 3):
If the big established traditional carriers saw a chance to play dirty and stir things up, feeding info to the press and the like, they most definitely would.

The "press" as you prefer to generalize is not a bunch of naive idots. Just because Britain is famous for many crappy tabloid papers it doesn't mean the media in general would print every BS they are fed.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 5):
Precisely! Another example of the media being liberal with the truth. Fools.

Fools are those who generalize about the media in an ignorant and disrespectful way.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4613 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 6):
Neither you nor I know whether they are indeed extra safe - and we won't, unless we have inside information from professionals.

Exactly, we have no evidence about extra-safety. Therefore I won't believe it until I see it.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineUN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

But I believe LCCs (reputable ones anyway) are EQUIVALENT in safety to the majors. Southwest Airlines hasn't lost a single person since 1978, probably the oldest LCC out there.
-Mr. X



What now?
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 8):
Just because Britain is famous for many crappy tabloid papers it doesn't mean the media in general would print every BS they are fed.

mmm and remind me what country Bild comes from will you  Wink



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineEirjet From Ireland, joined Jul 2005, 330 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 3):
Michael O'Leary (Ryanair) has always said that a crash would be one of the few things that could run his airline into the ground.

Their was an incident in the early days of Ryanair when one of its aircraft landed short of the runway in Cork - Grass and mud was found on the under carraige. MO'L was quoted as saying that that incident showed him how vunerable the airline was at the time, had it being a serious crash with fatalities it would have killed of Ryanair as an airline.

In the early days of LCC the general public were fed media story's of cost cutting on safety etc. I think that a good percentage of the flying public are better informed as to the kind of business models that these airlines run, and that the cost cutting is on complimentary services such as inflight meals, business class lounges and the like.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 6):
Quoting Udo (Reply 4):
But they are not "extra safe". You can't tell me LCC do more for safety than legacy carriers.

Low-cost airlines must be seen as being extra safe: they have a much greater perception problem than traditional carriers, so the consequences of a fatal crash would be much worse. Neither you nor I know whether they are indeed extra safe - and we won't, unless we have inside information from professionals.

Again I must quote a statement that I believe O'Leary made (correct me if i'm wrong) about LCC safety. He basically said that with the savings the airline makes through it service they have more to spend on maintenance. His aircraft fly more rotations daily that Aer Lingus (I believe the quote was in the Irish media using an Irish comparison), therefore his crews are more alert and tuned to procedures and the aircraft are constantly on the move therefore if you will the engine and motor is continuously moving !!!!!



Aviation has a 100% record, we've never left one up there......
User currently offline7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4468 times:

Quoting Billy (Reply 7):
Rootsair,

You are a happy chappie. Is this really worth discussing. I really think that there are serious issues about oversight and airline regualtory competence in some countries, rather than specualting about U2 and FR crashes.

I can understand why the question is asked, but I feel given the amount of fatal crashes recently, it is somewhat inappropriate.

7LBAC11



Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 11):
mmm and remind me what country Bild comes from will you

No educated person takes Bild serious. What are your other examples?

Quoting Eirjet (Reply 12):
He basically said that with the savings the airline makes through it service they have more to spend on maintenance.

Sure, and the low fares are financed by what?

Quoting Eirjet (Reply 12):
His aircraft fly more rotations daily that Aer Lingus (I believe the quote was in the Irish media using an Irish comparison), therefore his crews are more alert and tuned to procedures and the aircraft are constantly on the move therefore if you will the engine and motor is continuously moving !!!!!

Not a good argument by MOL, as often.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19204 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 8):
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 5):
Precisely! Another example of the media being liberal with the truth. Fools.


Fools are those who generalize about the media in an ignorant and disrespectful way.

LOL. Nice that both Cornish and I think that's nonsense.  Smile

Quoting Udo (Reply 9):
Exactly, we have no evidence about extra-safety. Therefore I won't believe it until I see it.

Then why hasn't WN - who have flown over 10 million flights - ever had a fatal crash? A fatal crash will occur, on average, per 2 million flights in the USA. So WN should have had a fair number of 'em by now. But it has not had one. Is this merely a coincidence? I think not. Indeed, WN is known for being exceedingly safety-conscious and thus doing more than what you might expect. I should think that a similar, if not identical, approach is taken by all the major low-cost airlines, for they all have (at least) one thing in common: if a fatal crash happens, the consequences could be worse for them than for 'traditional' carriers. Why? Because people wrongly believe that they are not as safe as 'traditional' carriers. This perception, albeit unfair and wrong, can act as a push: it means that the airline must do whatever it can to ensure that a fatal crash does not happen, i.e. the best training and maintenance, etc. It could act like a gun to your head.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4388 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 14):
No educated person takes Bild serious. What are your other examples?

Exactly but then a lot its readers fly low cost I bet. Remind me of its circulation.....

But my point being is that shock stories often sell newspapers. And a lot of rumours and speculation get in ALL newspapers. look at some of the many confusing things that were suggested about Helios following the crash - some warrented,some unwarrented. It only takes the mere hint of a suggestion that low cost = unsafe and there are certain people who would be scared off. My point being that the established carriers are not beyond a few dirty smear stories leaking out here and there and a few myths being put about, in the UK or any other country.

Edited for typos....

[Edited 2005-09-09 14:27:25]


Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
What would happen if tomorrow, an FR, U2 , or any other LCC crashes?

Then everybody will point the finger and say that they crashed because they were cutting expenditure in terms of safety. A LCC would suffer from a crash much more than a traditional carrier would since people will make a connection with the fares and safety. If BA, LH, OS crash tomorrow... people wouldn't worry about it for as long as they would with a LCC. The scary part though is that LCCs are probably even stricter on maintenance than traditional carriers, yet the majority of people will now aknowledge/realise this.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4353 times:

I think any airline that suffers a crash, better have a plan that they can implement immediately, so that they don't suffer the harsh criticism of the press.

The airline needs to be the one releasing information, quickly and accurately.


User currently offlineBilly From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 895 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

7LBAC111 (just realised it is Air Belfast in your title).

The point I was making is that there are serious concerns about how airlines in countries are regulated and supervised for safety. The crashes have largely occurred with undercapitalised, small fleet airlines based in countries that may have difficulties getting the right people to oversee and apply the safety regime.

I notice that Indonesia is now introducing a ban on older aircraft similar to the one that the UK and now the EU has implemented older aircraft. Even the UAE is introducing such a rule.

However, the debate is not exclusively about aircraft age. I think we are missing the picture if we speculate about a U2/FR crash.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19204 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Quoting Udo (Reply 14):
Sure, and the low fares are financed by what?

You forget that low-cost airlines, if they neglect the all-important issue of safety, will suffer greatly if they have a fatal crash. Therefore, it is absurd to argue that they will willingly cut corners in order to reduce costs, thereby increasing the risk of a fatal crash. They will rightly reduce costs in other areas. This pool of money, plus retained profit plus any other money saved back, will finance such things, as well as future expansion.

[Edited 2005-09-09 14:29:42]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19204 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 17):
Then everybody will point the finger and say that they crashed because they were cutting expenditure in terms of safety. A LCC would suffer from a crash much more than a traditional carrier would since people will make a connection with the fares and safety. If BA, LH, OS crash tomorrow... people wouldn't worry about it for as long as they would with a LCC. The scary part though is that LCCs are probably even stricter on maintenance than traditional carriers, yet the majority of people will now aknowledge/realise this.

Precisely!



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
Then why hasn't WN - who have flown over 10 million flights - ever had a fatal crash?

Good maintenance, well trained pilots and luck.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
A fatal crash will occur, on average, per 2 million flights in the USA. So WN should have had a fair number of 'em by now.

Only if you don't know how to deal with statistics.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
But it has not had one. Is this merely a coincidence? I think not. Indeed, WN is known for being exceedingly safety-conscious and thus doing more than what you might expect.

They do more than, say United or Delta? How do you know?

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
I should think that a similar, if not identical, approach is taken by all the major low-cost airlines

Speculation.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 15):
t means that the airline must do whatever it can to ensure that a fatal crash does not happen, i.e. the best training and maintenance, etc. It could act like a gun to your head.

So you suggest BA, LH or others don't do whatever they can in order to prevent a fatal accident?

Quoting Cornish (Reply 16):
Exactly but then a lot its readers fly low cost I bet. Remind me of its circulation.....

That's true, but you generalized about ALL media, don't forget.

Quoting Cornish (Reply 16):
But my point being is that shock stories often sell newspapers. And a lot of rumours and speculation get in ALL newspapers. look at some of the many confusing things that were suggested about Helios following the crash - some warrented,some unwarrented.

Any evidence maybe? I didn't read crappy reports in FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine), and not even in my regional paper (which gets articles from dpa mainly).

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 17):
The scary part though is that LCCs are probably even stricter on maintenance than traditional carriers, yet the majority of people will now aknowledge/realise this.

Probably. Certain LCC (not the large ones) probably also save costs where they shouldn't.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 20):
Therefore, it is absurd to argue that they will willingly cut corners in order to reduce costs, thereby increasing the risk of a fatal crash.

Attention: I only opposed the comment about savings in service being used for better maintenance. Not offering any service (both on the ground and in the air) is one key aspect for being able to offer low fares - so they cannot just cut service, use all the saved money for maintenance and still offer low fares. Savings in service is the basis for low fares.


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Quoting 7LBAC111 (Reply 13):
I can understand why the question is asked, but I feel given the amount of fatal crashes recently, it is somewhat inappropriate.

well this is exactly why I bring the subject up. I know it may not be on anyone's taste but I wanted to see how differently people would react with a LCC carrier as compared to a legacy carrier

Regards

BM



A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
User currently offlineSkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
For example, look how ValueJet had to change its name to Air Tran

ValueJet didn't just change it's name, they were bought out by Air Tran which was an Orlando airline that flew 737-200s. Airtran isn't ValueJet.


This what airtran was before the ValueJet purchase.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Remi Dallot



25 NASCARAirforce : Actually the opposite happened. Air Tran of Orlando was a very small airline, they couldn't afford to buy out Value Jet. Despite the crash and bad pr
26 BCAL : Source: No Frills: The Truth Behind The Low-Cost Revolution In The Skies by Simon Calder Prominent sign at the Head Office of a major LCC Both the ab
27 Flyboy36y : In the ValuJet crash, the airline was indeed at fault and they looked very bad. I dont think the other LCCs suffered much. Am I the only one who find
28 Arffguy : Why do people assume that scrimping on maintenance comes with the cheaper fare? LCC's save money by paying their workers less, trying to keep the work
29 Post contains links AirportGuy1971 : http://www.frontierairlines.com/news...cle=/general/2005/pr_02042005.news If they are the only airline in America to do this, doesn't that mean that
30 Udo : Great job by F9, but that does not necessarily mean the same for LCCs in general. Regards Udo
31 Runway31 : Going the other direction, are legacy carriers safer, are their safety records better than low cost in either Europe or the USA. Given the numbers of
32 Post contains links Mariner : So here we have the odd situation of an LCC at peace with it's mechs: Airtran Reaches Agreement With Mechs-Big Raise! (by Dl757md Sep 10 2005 in Civil
33 Post contains images LifelinerOne : If LCC cut out on safety, why does easyJet has it's maintenance being done by one of the best, SR Technics? If they wanted to do it cheaper, they bett
34 AirportGuy1971 : But you painted ALL LCC's with the same broad brush. This discussion is imposible to have really. Every situation and every airline, be it legacy or
35 Pilottim747 : Just last week in one of my classes we watched a video clip of the ABC News program Nightline from 1996. It was right after the ValuJet crash and the
36 Udo : No. I simply oppose the view that LCCs in general do more for safety than legacy carriers. That statement does not rule out individial differences be
37 BR715-A1-30 : Who is ValueJet or Value Jet... I have heard of Valujet.. which became AirTran after Valujet bought AirTran Airways. Valujet then became AirTran Airl
38 727LOVER : HA HA...you read my mind.....while we're at it, I'm still looking for this airline called American West
39 Post contains images Mandala499 : That's the public image. Though I do not suspect the safety of the likes of FR, U2 and other leading LCCs, I would like to know how many Hold Items Li
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
MAG: DL To Pull An HP And Become An LCC! posted Sun Jan 2 2005 16:29:28 by ACAfan
What Would Happen If An Aircraft Attempted To.... posted Thu Nov 23 2006 21:30:43 by VirginA346
Baseler, If An Airline Wanted To Buy, We Would Bui posted Sat Sep 16 2006 08:19:37 by Manni
Any Room For An LCC In Alaska? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 23:28:14 by EmSeeEye
What And If Kai Tak Is To Reopen. posted Thu Apr 27 2006 10:48:32 by JumboJim747
Can Stall Alarms Be Tested And If So How? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 04:14:07 by Lenbrazil
LCC's In An Alliance Or An LCC Alliance? posted Fri Sep 16 2005 11:02:09 by RootsAir
Could An LCC Work Out In Central America? posted Tue Jun 21 2005 15:42:06 by RootsAir
Why Not Make Oberpfaffenhofen/MUC An LCC Hub? posted Mon Mar 7 2005 17:46:30 by Mozart
DFW (desperatly) Wants An LCC posted Fri Jan 7 2005 01:10:13 by DfwRevolution