TG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10 Posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2690 times:
I don't normally indulge in speculation such as this, but would like
to hear your opinions on whether this crash will be the end of CI.
To the best of my knowledge no carrier, past or present, has had
such a terrible safety record. With 5 widebodied aircraft written off
and numerous close-calls (343 at Anchorage, etc) since 1990, surely
the time has come for action.
Do you think any country will have the courage to withdraw CI's landing
rights due to this tragedy? Surely, finally, enough is enough.
Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
I'm not sure will this be the end of CI.
Back in 1998, one of the most devastating crash at Taipei, there were protests against CI at their HQ. They were "egg bashing" CI's HQ building, and demands CI to shut down.
And did it really happens (shut down CI)? NO.
This has become a cycle for CI.
This cycle is:
CI crashed a plane -> people protest shut down CI -> CI offer suicidal price -> people fly CI again because the suicidal price -> CI earns profit -> (4 years after) -> CI crashed again -> people protest......and on and on.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4888 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2577 times:
Its easy to understand people's feelings about CI...even before the 1999 accident in HKG and this one, they had a terrible reputation. Now, as Jimmy is saying, probably the only way they can get customers back again is by offering ridiculously cheap prices, much like Korean used to do. But speaking with a few Taiwanese, they personally would not even take CI before this new accident.
I really hope that Taiwan has a full inquiry into the operations of the airline, this simply cannot continue going on as it has.
Ryanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4771 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2485 times:
After the 94 Airbus crash in Nagoya, the Taiwanese govt did indeed impose some sanctions on CAL by disallowing them to fly on certain routes, as a punishment. However, several crashes / incidents followed after that 94 crash so i wonder what is the govt going to do now?
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
Cch362 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
From what was reported, the crash sounds eerily like TW800 in 1996. Same aircraft type, same 20 minutes after departure, and if mid-air explosion is true, same kind of catastrophe. What does this mean, China Airlines meeting the same fate into oblivion as TWA?
I had been skeptical about the center fuel tank theory with the TWA crash, but now my interest is definitely piqued about what really happened with CI611 today.
It may not be China's fault, but I still would not fly with them. I'm sure most people on this board will agree.
9V-SPK From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 1646 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
I'm really dissapointed at the Taiwan Authorities. How many lifes have the clamied from the crashes? To be honest...1 crash, acceptable if they don't make another one. 2nd crash....needs improvement. 3rd...can't tolerate. Especially when it's a national carrier, representing the country, it's a shame i can say. Also I'm sure that after CI crashed on their "Golden Route", it would a be a long term disaster for them.
Hkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2313 times:
Well Hkgspotter1, they HAVE to apologise to the families, it's the humane thing to do. But what's really pathetic is how they 'sorry' & don't accept the possibility that they could be responsible for the crash.
I just think they're a poorly-run airline. I've never flown CI (and never will) but heard that their service is good. Their safety record is a completely different story though, and reflects the standard of the airline.
Britair From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 933 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2166 times:
How many more crashes do China Airlines have for people not to want to fly them??????
They have given the airline industry a very bad name. They have blemished the record of fanastic aircraft types such as the 747, A300 and MD11 (thru Mandarin) and are a disgrace to the industry. Let me ask you this ....would you get in a car with a drunk driver? That's about as much faith I have in CI, they are irresponsible. They should be shut down.
Sorry if this sounds harsh ..... my first and foremost feeling is of sympathy to victims of all their incidents.
RickB From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 243 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
On UK television this morning, they had an expert from Jane's who claimed that CI's maintenance was much improved and was unlikely to be the reason for the crash, okay speculation - but the important comment he made was that a lot of energy seems to have been spent on improving the maintenance procedure at CI over the last couple of years.
Everyone here blaming CI have a point about their poor record, but are we sure this is to blame, it could be TW800 again. Mind you its at this point someone says the 742's should be grounded until we know what happened, ridiculous yep, but the same was said after the AA A300 crash recently.
Lets find out what really happened before blaming everyone.
Janne From Sweden, joined Sep 2001, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2069 times:
I just heard the news on television and the reporter said that it right now
points to an exploding gas tank, the same thing that brought TWA's 747
down some years back. Hasn't Boeing done something about that?
As I remember the problem was that it could become to hot just under
the main fuel tank.
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3277 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2035 times:
No matter what the cause of the accident the authorities have to do something very stern about CI, they cannot continue going like this at all. Too many people have died in their aircraft, too much sadness and suffering among the myriads who have lost loved ones in their calamities. Above all that is totally unflattering for the Taiwanese government to see its flag carrier named in so many accidents.
I will not speculate on the cause of the crash but, if it were actually centre tank explosion, were there not recommendations made to 747 Classic operators about how to prevent those problems? And if so, did CI follow them?
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
When I read the news in The newspaper today I was completely stuned .CI need to do something, I'm surprised people fly them . The Taiwanese government should thoroughly investigate what the cause of this accident was and if it was something that was avoidable they should sanction CI.
RIP to all of those onboard.
KrisworldB777 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 571 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
I don’t realistically think that the latest crash in the string of nightmare prangs is going to result in China Airlines being shut down by authorities. The major damage is going to be done in the public’s confidence which is quite possibly going to force the carrier into economic ruin. After so many crashes, public confidence will never change. They will always be one of the world’s most dangerous airlines in the eyes of the Taiwanese and also the international travelling public. No matter what China Airlines does, they will have difficulty wooing back the Taiwanese so its more a case of trying to capture the international market. What they are going to need to do is introduce a complete rebranding, changing their name and livery completely. By doing this and initiating an aggressive marketing campaign and high levels of onboard services already seen aboard, I cannot see why they wouldn’t be able to convince the ignorant passenger back, providing that they drastically improve safety. My ideas to do so would firstly to “Internationalize” by employing pilots from around the globe in a bid to make it an International organization, alike what Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific have done because the Asian Airlines have always been regarded as extremely unsafe. More recently, Korean Air started employing expats and their safety record has improved markedly. With the surplus of extremely well qualified pilots from Sabena, Swissair and Ansett left unemployed, now could be the perfect time to snap up some truly exceptional and well trained pilots. As for the rest of the flying contingent, they will yet again need to be sent to Boeing or Airbus for complete and expensive retraining with those who fail loosing their jobs indefinitely – they’re going to need to be extraordinarily ruthless and hard-nosed to protect themselves because with the way things are now, their future is looking very bleak indeed.
JU101 From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 832 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
Why does the Taiwanese government even call its national airline - China Airlines?
Its strage how this seperatist government in Taipei wishes to distance itself from mainland China, yet it uses the name China in its dismal aviation industry. Why not call it Taiwan Airlines, if they are really interested in self-determination as they say they are. It looks like damage control to me.
Farman From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2002, 27 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
The reason for the Taiwanese to use China Airlines as a title is because when the airline was founded in December 1959 by a group of retired Chinese Air Force officers, the nationalist government of Taiwan was the officially recognised member(ie, as China) of the United Nations. It was only after 25th October 1971 that the People's Republic of China became the officially recognised member. Taiwan was automatically expelled from ICAO at the same time.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4579 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1744 times:
JU101 - Remember Taiwan considers itself as the Republic of China (ROC), as opposed to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) i.e. the Mainland Communist China that most people simply refer to as 'China'.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
'longreach' From Australia, joined Jul 2001, 505 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
I once was told that the cost of CI's insurance was near the same amount in total to that of BA's, a larger airline i think( I might have gotten something mixed up)? but anyway, surely they will not be able to afford their insurance premiums due to 9/11 plus their record as well as this latest tragedy?
: FACT: CI has a terrible safety record and barely did anything to improve it, as various crashes prove(some clearly attributed to improper operation/pi
: Ever heard the song "Sorry seems to be the hardest word" In the days of litigations and lawsuits, CI was very generous with the word... Courage, or ho
: Longreach, I read the same thing about CI insurance...at some point they paid the same premium as BA which has 3-4 times the amount of aircraft. As fa