Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9 Posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2021 times:
hi! I am just wondering that why people said Qantas is the world's safest airlines with no fatal crashes. But all their incidents would be enough. Examples:
1. B734 engine failure_last year
2. BAe 146 fuel leak_recently
3. B744 BKK overshot
4. B743 Milan or somewhere gear problem
5. and a few that i have forgotten
But overall, Australasia's safety record is rather good.
1. according to airdisaster.com and others, CX has no fatal crashes. But I remember that they crashed some Russians planes they used to have on a website. To clarify, they have any Russian planes before? they crashed some of them? Well, is it one of their L1011 tristars crashed because of bomb detonation back in the 70's?
2. can someone tell me their incidents and/or crashes without claming lives
Conclusion: I think CX is one of the safest airlines in the world!
1. Very sad to mention that the SQ006. the only crash of SQ (not including SilkAir)
2. Can someone tell me more about their incidents and/or non-fatal accidents? I know one SQ A310 overshot rwy. in Kuching, borneo, MALAYSIA.
However, SQ is still one of my fav. airlines. I think the airport CKS is to be blamed. Don't bash at me, just my thoughts.!
AJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2399 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
1. B734 engine failure_last year - at least crews are trained to cope with the inevitable
2. BAe 146 fuel leak_recently - Qantas doesn't operate BAe146s
3. B744 BKK overshot - refer 1
4. B743 Milan or somewhere gear problem - Rome, manufacturing error
5. and a few that i have forgotten - ???
Hkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
As mentioned above, CX has never had Russian planes. One fatal crash due to a bomb longtime ago.
Recent incidents? They had a number of engine shutdowns in their 330s at one time which resulted in the grounding of the 330 fleet for a while. A really cautious move. A 777, just after delivery, had to be evacuated on the runway cos a fire warning light illuminated by mistake. Recently, I think there were some near misses mid-flight, but not due to their fault at all.
Now that SQ has crashed twice in three years (I treat SilkAir as part of SQ), and Qantas is having so many incidents, I think CX is my FIRST choice for safety!
See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
BAVL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1939 times:
Just thougt of something else. Although CX no longer has 747 Classics (i.e. 200 and 300s), I remember that they were once praised for their maintenance standards even on their old planes. Apparently, they had been constantly upgraded with new safety devices (I assume perhaps TCAS etc). New owners of these planes (i.e. Virgin and PIA) are really lucky to have them!
By the way, I read on this page: http://www.bird.ch/bharms/asr_sh00.htm that one of the 747-200s was scrapped (B-HKG). I was quite shocked to read this cos if itwere so well maintained, it should have been quite easy to sell. Anyone has any idea why this happened?
V Jet From Australia, joined May 1999, 719 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
Pls answer me just one question. Do you seriously think that the airlines you mentioned other than Qantas dont have things like engine failures and fuel leaks from time to time? The sweeping generalisations on this forum astound me.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1913 times:
As AJ mentioned, Airlink is NOT QANTAS.
Airlink is a division of National Jet http://www.nationaljet.com.au which is sub-contracted by QANTAS to operate the BAe-146 on regional services. All Airlink aircraft are owned, maintained and operated by National Jet pilots, f/a's, engineers, etc.
It is the same as saying that Comair in South Africa IS British Airways, when the only connection Comair has with British Airways, is that aircraft carry BA colours, and flight numbers. The same as Airlink.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
QANTAS NZ is actually QF's first franchise operation.
The Airlink (National Jet) is a sub-contract operation, whereby QANTAS pay National Jet to provide the Airlink service.
With QANTAS New Zealand, the risk takers are the owners of QANTAS New Zealand (which is South Pacific Airlines isn't it?), and no financial risk is undertaken by QANTAS. Further QF NZ pay QF for the right to operate under the QF banner and flight numbers.
QFTJT From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
Qantas has had it's fair share of incidents over the passed year. Because of this, the Australian Government, audited the Airline to find only a 747-200 training manual out of date! This would have to indicate only bad luck and other variables contributed to the incidents, not mechanical or management problems within Qantas.
OZ777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1870 times:
Just to update the information further.
Qantas has never had a fatal accident involving it's jet fleet, but has lost a number of aircraft and passengers when it was flying piston types.
When Qantas first purchased Australian Airlines the then Chief Executive John Ward stipulated that all subsidiary, franchise and regional operations were to be painted with a red triangle on the vert stab, and only the main stream aircraft were to carry the full QF livery.
The reason was that there was a greater chance of incidents on the smaller aircraft and he did not want the possibility of the QF safety and maintenance record being compromised. That edict was changed when James Strong took the reins.
To say that QF's standards have not slipped is wrong. Prior to the FCO and BKK incidents no major problems had occured with the 742 or 743 fleet, and they were flying more cycles per a/c at that stage. Ask the QF LAME's if the standards have not slipped as a result of cost savings. (That is the ones who are still employed by QF - not the ones they contract in from Forstaff)
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Five fatal accidents in Cathay's history:
July 16, 1948; PBY-5a Catalina; VR-HDT
The Catalina flying from Macau to Hong Kong, and presumably carrying a cache of gold bullions, was hijacked by a group of gunmen. Shots were fired, and apparently the flight crew were hit. The plane went out of control and crashed into the sea. Twenty-two killed and one survived, ironically one of the hijackers.
Feb. 24, 1949; Douglas DC-3 (C-47); VR-HDG
The DC-3 coming in from Manila made a missed approach, flew into a fog bank, and crashed into a hill on Hong Kong Island. All 23 aboard killed.
July 23, 1954; Douglas DC-4 (C-54); VR-HEU
Flying from BKK to HKG, VR-HEU was in international airspace about 90 miles off Hainan Island when it was shot down by Chinese fighters. Eight of the 18 on-board survived. The Chinese government later apologized, paid compensation, and claimed that their fighters mis-identified the DC-4 as one of the C-54's from the Taiwanese Air Force that spied regularly in that region.
November 5, 1967; Convair CV-880M; VR-HFX
Taking off on runway 13 at Kai Tak for BKK, a nose tire exploded around V1 and the plane veered starboard off the runway and into the waters of the harbor. One fatality out of the 127 on-board.
June 15, 1972; Convair CV-880M; VR-HFZ
The aircraft was destroy by a bomb over Pleiku, South Vietnam while flying BKK-HKG. No survivors from the 81 on-board. A Thai policeman was later charged with planting the bomb in his wife's luggage in an attempt to collect the insurance payout. He was never convicted.
Oxygen From Hong Kong, joined Sep 1999, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (14 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
Just for your information, the wife of the Thai Policeman was actually his mistress. He's a very bad person. He told the mistresses to go to Hong kong first and wait for him, and to make her believe he's not lying, he sent his REAL daughter to accompany her.