Legoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3301 posts, RR: 44 Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7691 times:
I am unaware if this has been posted already so if a thread exsists this thread may be deleted by a moderator.
The European Union on Monday banned almost the entire Pakistan International Airlines' (PIA) fleet from flying to the 27-nation bloc, and lifted restrictions on two other carriers that had previously been on the EU's “blacklist”.
Pakistan International Airline (PIA) will acquire aircraft on wet lease to support its operation in the 27-member European bloc which has been badly hampered after the European Union slapped a ban on all but seven Boeing 777 aircraft for the airline’s failure to meet safety standards.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7542 times:
This is so absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a PIA long haul aircraft crashed? When was the last time a terrorist blew one up or used one in an act of terrorism? So ridiculous
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
A3 From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7408 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): When was the last time a PIA long haul aircraft crashed? When was the last time a terrorist blew one up or used one in an act of terrorism?
Date: 17 DEC 2000
Type: Boeing 747
Operator: Pakistan International Airlines - PIA
Passenger with false passport grabbed a butter knife and a fire extinguisher during a routine travel document check during stopover at Dubai. He locked himself in the cockpit and was later overpowered by security officers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 SEP 1992
Time: 14:30
Type: Airbus A.300B4-203
Operator: Pakistan International Airlines - PIA
PIA Flight 268 departed Karachi at 11:13 for a flight to Kathmandu. The en route portion of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft was cleared for a Sierra approach to Kathmandu runway 02. The crew were instructed to maintain 11500 feet and report at 16DME (16 miles from the VOR/DME beacon, which is located 0,6nm short of the runway). The Kathmandu approach is very difficult, since the airport is located in an oval-shaped valley surrounded by mountains as high as 9665 feet. Runway elevation is 4313 feet amsl. The next approach fixes for PIA268 were at 13 DME (at 10500 feet), 10 DME (at 9500 feet) and 8 DME (at 8200 feet). A few seconds after reporting 10 DME, the aircraft was descending through 8200 feet (the altitude for 8 DME!). The Airbus crashed into a steep cloud-covered hillside at approx. 7300 feet amsl., at 9,16 DME.
Don't spend your money on airlines that don't respect your business.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7370 times:
Quoting A3 (Reply 4): Date: 17 DEC 2000
Type: Boeing 747
Operator: Pakistan International Airlines - PIA
Passenger with false passport grabbed a butter knife and a fire extinguisher during a routine travel document check during stopover at Dubai. He locked himself in the cockpit and was later overpowered by security officers.
1) Pre-9/11 2) Security overpowered him.
Quoting A3 (Reply 4): Date: 28 SEP 1992
Time: 14:30
Type: Airbus A.300B4-203
Operator: Pakistan International Airlines - PIA
PIA Flight 268 departed Karachi at 11:13 for a flight to Kathmandu. The en route portion of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft was cleared for a Sierra approach to Kathmandu runway 02. The crew were instructed to maintain 11500 feet and report at 16DME (16 miles from the VOR/DME beacon, which is located 0,6nm short of the runway). The Kathmandu approach is very difficult, since the airport is located in an oval-shaped valley surrounded by mountains as high as 9665 feet. Runway elevation is 4313 feet amsl. The next approach fixes for PIA268 were at 13 DME (at 10500 feet), 10 DME (at 9500 feet) and 8 DME (at 8200 feet). A few seconds after reporting 10 DME, the aircraft was descending through 8200 feet (the altitude for 8 DME!). The Airbus crashed into a steep cloud-covered hillside at approx. 7300 feet amsl., at 9,16 DME.
Not a long haul aircraft, but still, that was 15 years ago.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7339 times:
A3 From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7294 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): When was the last time a terrorist blew one up or used one in an act of terrorism?
Did you make any separation line pre or after 911???
Quoting N1120A (Reply 7): Did you read how I seperated my responses?
It makes no difference if ti was pre or after 911, an incident is an incident no matter what date it was. I am sorry to say that , but pre 911 incidents can not be whipped out just because this date is a turning point for DOMESTIC US aviation safety.
For the rest of the world security was an issue especially after the Lokerby incident.
Don't spend your money on airlines that don't respect your business.
LTU330 From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7188 times:
A3....
A British Airways 747-400 on a flight to or from Africa "pre 9-11" had a person enter the flight deck and attack the crew. The aircraft lost a lot of altitude during the struggle between crew members and the attacker. Then of course previously there was the 747 that almost landed on the hotel alongside the A4, and the 747 that fuel diverted to MAN after flying from LAX on 3 engines. Then there was the British Airtours 737 tragedy at MAN ( B.A subsidiary, and maintained by B.A ). So.....with these incidents, and plenty more, maybe British Airways should be banned from flying within the European Union ? Maybe also ban Air France ? They have had a few accidents over the years. My point is, I have worked on PIA aircraft and they are no worse than a lot of other airlines. Some of the aircraft look old and tired, but then so did aircraft I worked on from quite a few European and North American airlines.
A3 From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7047 times:
Dear LTU330 ,
Facts:
BA fleet , routes and mileage is multiple of PIA fleet , routes and mileage .
British Airways has 70 occupancies starting 1974 .
56 of them concern the Concord (which by the way stopped flying) .
Since 10-SEP-1976 with the HS-121 Trident, never again had any total loss.
If you are satisfied comparing BA safety record with PIA S.R you are free to do so but let me come to a different conclusion then yours.
Rgds
A3
Don't spend your money on airlines that don't respect your business.
Flyboy_se From Switzerland, joined Feb 2000, 745 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6984 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): This is so absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a PIA long haul aircraft crashed? When was the last time a terrorist blew one up or used one in an act of terrorism? So ridiculous
This has nothing to do with terrorism.And would you prefer to see a PIA crash before they can ban their aircrafts??
I think that if there are any concerns about safety, then they have right to ban whatever company they want , and whatever planetype they want.Safety comes first.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9216 posts, RR: 42 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6953 times:
I'm still waiting to hear exactly why the ban is in place. Once we know why, we can decide how fair it is instead of just guessing. Maybe it's for good reason, maybe it's not. So far, all we've got is:
X: "The reasons for the ban are ridiculous!"
Y: "What are the reasons?"
X: "Um... I don't know."
A3 From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6924 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 13): I'm still waiting to hear exactly why the ban is in place. Once we know why, we can decide how fair it is instead of just guessing. Maybe it's for good reason, maybe it's not. So far, all we've got is:
X: "The reasons for the ban are ridiculous!"
Y: "What are the reasons?"
X: "Um... I don't know."
Actually this is a continuation of the below mentioned highly provoking post :
Pakistan Int'l May Get Airbus Jet To Avoid EU Ban (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3290074/)
Still after 166 posts there was no proof whatsoever that EU banned PIA just to sell Airbus to them !!!
Don't spend your money on airlines that don't respect your business.
A3 From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6839 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 15): I assume that wasn't directed at me since I took part in that. Smile
Not specific direction
Quoting David L (Reply 15): Nor any proof that the EU couldn't find a good reason but imposed the ban anyway.
The primary topic was "Pakistan Int'l May Get Airbus Jet To Avoid EU Ban".............
The implemented accusation is that EU did that in order Airbus sells more planes!!!
Please don't forget that he who makes the allegations have to prove them.
Not the accused.
Don't spend your money on airlines that don't respect your business.
Curious From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 236 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6790 times:
Will this be a temporary ban on the fleet until PIA carries out steps to reomove the ban? Surely PIA is not going to leave the aircraft as they are on the ground and without use?
A3 From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6757 times:
Quoting Curious (Reply 17): Will this be a temporary ban on the fleet until PIA carries out steps to reomove the ban? Surely PIA is not going to leave the aircraft as they are on the ground and without use?
I guess that their baned aircraft will be making flights to countries that are not EU.
Don't spend your money on airlines that don't respect your business.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1934 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6735 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): This is so absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a PIA long haul aircraft crashed? When was the last time a terrorist blew one up or used one in an act of terrorism? So ridiculous
Safety concerns are much better before disaster happens. It doesn't matter one squat when or if *anything* has *ever* happened to a PIA airliner.
PIA is not up to EASA standards and has to remidy this, if they wish to be taken off the black-list. I can't imagine you're going to claim to be a better authority on EU safety standards than EASA and that you're going to claim to have a better picture of the safety standards at PIA..
Playing out the emotional card always sits well with Americans when they're defending the impossible. Aviation safety is not run on emotion.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6189 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6687 times:
Some routes going off line for a while.....
"According to reports, services to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Milan and Chicago have been stopped altogether. Flights to destinations including Manchester, New York, Istanbul and Paris will continue, but with reduced frequency."
SandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3382 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6647 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): This is so absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a PIA long haul aircraft crashed? When was the last time a terrorist blew one up or used one in an act of terrorism? So ridiculous
This is not about previous crashes, it's about the safety standard which PIA is in. A safety standard as in this case doesn't have anything to do with how many crashes an airline had or how recent their latest crash is, it's about in what condition their fleet is in. This is obviousely a precautionary measure by the EU and im glad they acted BEFORE an incident occurs, as usually, people tend to react after a disaster rather than before. Again, the EU judged PIA's safety standard by their failure to meet maintenance requirements, and not based on their crash record. So no, it's definately not ridiculous but rather your statement is. Oh and on a sidenote, terrorism doesnt have anything to do with this.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9216 posts, RR: 42 Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6597 times:
Quoting A3 (Reply 16): The primary topic was "Pakistan Int'l May Get Airbus Jet To Avoid EU Ban".............
You're right - I was just pre-empting such remarks that appeared in the previous thread.
25 Oly720man: Possibly because there aren't any safety issues with IR aircraft.
26 ZRH: Age of an aircraft is often no factor. Maintenance is important.
27 CHRISBA777ER: Their MX people are absolutely wonderful - miracle workers. Massive, massive respect to IR.
28 BigOrange: There is no embargo on parts. The embargo does not apply to supplies for humanitarian or safety purposes. July 10 2006 was the last one. http://www.d
29 RoseFlyer: I for one support the EU taking measures to keep safety at the forefront. It is vitally important. It is good that the regulatory body is strict. I wo
30 Curious: Correct me if I am wrong but IR cannot obtain parts openly and if the issue about this not applying for humanitarian or embargo purposes they could a
31 Legoguy: Whopps, I did search but nothing came up. What aircraft type could they possibly lease from the leasing company? One A310 is currently leased from th
32 EYFlyer88: FRA/AMS/MXP completely stopped?? What about the passengers booked on those flights?
33 OA260: Will be re routed or refunded as per normal procedures. I second that !!!! I still would like to know by way of a EU statement what was wrong with PK
34 Detroitflyer: ive got a question that has been on my mind since this whole thing started.... since PIA has not had any recent accidents or incidents with their flee
35 NA: "The EU's concerns focused on maintenance problems and old aircraft, specifically its Boeing 747s and Airbus 310s." A. Only the two 747-200s are old,
36 Legoguy: IIRC they recently had a Fokker F27 crash
37 Khobar: "EU aviation sources said last month that experts had agreed that PIA should be added to the 27-nation bloc's blacklist because of its ageing fleet."
38 A3: As you mention on several posts the reason is safety issues. The reason exists. Its a different story if you (and some others ) think that the reason
39 BuyantUkhaa: You mean that you don't have it. Which doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Please look up the definition of "proof". Someone disputing something does
40 David L: I'm saying we don't know the specific reason(s). Why do I need to prove anything? You're saying you know the specific reason - prove that. I'm saying
41 BigOrange: From http://www.bsaexport.com/aecu/aecu-1999-11.php The Clinton Administration has approved a license to allow Boeing, through a European intermediar
42 Khobar: Age of aircraft is not, in iteself, a safety issue. I said it appears the EU is banning airlines based on age of aircraft rather than actual "safety
43 PIA777: I heard they might shut down ORD flights because of this, is that true? PIA777
44 A3: Correct , age in itself is not , but combined age + lack of proper maintenance and non standard procedures is........ Thats is your assumption , many
45 Imiakhtar: I think PK has a code-share agreement with TK on the FRA-IST route. http://www.piac.com.pk/Schedule/pia-Schedule.asp I just found this revised schedu
46 Solnabo: Why would PIA shut down flights to ORD, they´re flying 777´s. Micke// [Edited 2007-03-09 22:17:43]
47 Solnabo: Reading this site, PIA stating they "have a better safety record than even certain European airlines", why dont they say which airline? http://www.daw
48 Imiakhtar: My guess is that now all aircraft bar the 777 have been banned in the EU, the 777s are being re-scheduled to serve the airports with the higher yield
49 Khobar: I have provided ample documentation from multiple sources including the EU itself that supports my "assumption" and all it's been countered with is "
50 PIA777: To make up for the shortage of aircrat due to the EU ban. PIA777
51 Jacobin777: yes..they have shut down ORD completely until supposedly the 28th of this month...but I'll believe Dick Chaney 1st before I believe PK's Chairman Kir
53 KA501: The following article relates to the PIA ban being related to fire's on 5 seperate occasions at Manchester Airport? Seems strange they have banned B74
54 KA501: Further article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_9_19/ai_n11854778
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3301 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2779 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, 
From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2000, 745 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1934 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
