Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Superboi
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:16 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:34 pm

TheWorm123 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
TheWorm123 wrote:
Is the Nigerian CAA willing to pay TK to provide a bigger aircraft for no reason other than their citizens carry way too much crap with them?


Presumably TK takes in plenty of excess baggage fees. A threat of a ban to force a carrier to provide expected services sounds novel.

That’s a good point, the fees should pay for the customers who couldn’t get on the plane due to the excess crap* weight.

Nigeria will suffer from whatever consequence their authority will dream up, it’s probably not a good idea to scare away foreign airlines when you have no national flag carrier and the next biggest airline in Independence Air (to the surprise of no-one) turned out to be a international money laundering scam!


Blah, Blah, Blah.....TK Upgraded to an A330-300 the next flight.....so clearly TK knew it, not Nigeria will sufer the loose
 
Superboi
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:16 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:41 pm

alfa164 wrote:
spdbrd007 wrote:
Sort of works like this. You arrive at the airport and check in luggage. One of two things can happen.
1. You check in, and when you do a Turkish employee explains to you that as of recently, we have been experiencing 15% of passengers luggage arrive late at their destination. With that information passed, if you still want to fly with us, you now know that fact.
2. You check in, you hand your luggage to TK personnel and you continue on to the gate. At no point has it been explained to you that currently loads are high and luggage is being purposely left behind because of aircraft equipment.
I have a gut feeling that has never led me astray, that is saying TK is accepting bookings without letting customers know that they are currently running over capacity on their Nigeria network. At the point TK takes your money & checks in your luggage, you have left all responsibility to the airline to get you, & your luggage safe and on time to the destination.


Maybe that sounds good in theory - but not in practice. If someone is checking in, they obviously already have a ticket; it is a little late for them to decide "I won't go without my extra ten bags!" - and hope to find some other way to get to LOS within their desired time frame. And it is hard to blame Turkish for selling the tickets; they have no way of knowing in advance who will be wanting to bring ten bags and who won't.

TK's best solution is probably to place a limit - two bags, perhaps - on the flights to LOS. Then let the Nigerian government whine about that.


Flights to Lagos have been Operated by A330s for a long while, the problem have been flights mainly to Abuja which is operated with B737NGs. However yesterday flight was operated by an A330-300, TK will be smart to pair ABV/PHC (which they also fly) and operate with an A330 all year round...
 
MeCe
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:19 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:43 pm

TK & Nigeria equals fire and gun powder in my mind.

TK should upgauge, no other comment needed. But Nigerians are far most complicated passengers as far as I can seen. I have seen my own eyes, a Nigerian woman stopped by tk staff at the gate. She thinks can squeeze 3 of at least 24" bags as a cabin baggage. We stopped on purpose and watch what will happen. Staff told she can bring her enormous purse and one plastic shopping bag as a carry on but other huge bag which is already overweight must go down and pay 150 usd. Even they did not understand how tsa allowed that size bag pass thru security. After 10 mins of yelling and real crying station manager showed up order offload her and if she resists call the police. After hearing police she calmed down decide combine her stuff into two bags. At the end she left used plastic grocery bags, a pan, some empty cartons etc. I really did not understand what kind mind put used grocery bags into baggage ?

Sum of, may TK can not handle situation well but pax at that destination not the regular ones.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3796
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:53 pm

According to my sources, the real issue here is the land border closure. Traders that would normally ship the goods from China to Benin and then smuggle them across the border have been showing up at Asian airports and attempting to check 75-90 bags a piece. They waited a few weeks to see if the borders would reopen but now they are desperate to fill their Christmas orders. ET/KQ/EK/QR have been affected as well but it is not as dramatically.
 
Heinkel
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:05 pm

MeCe wrote:
At the end she left used plastic grocery bags, a pan, some empty cartons etc. I really did not understand what kind mind put used grocery bags into baggage ?


In some countries, plastic grocery bags (even used) with well-known international brand printings are a status symbol and a "must have".

Was the same in East Germany (GDR) until 1990.
 
konkret
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:26 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:42 pm

Pardon my ignorance - is the cost of courier/shipping services to Nigeria extremely high? I would assume there is usually a cheaper and more convenient way to ship such items as TV’s than to schlepp them to the airport and than pay excess baggage fees, especially when you have no guarantee they will arrive on the same flight with you.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3796
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:52 pm

konkret wrote:
Pardon my ignorance - is the cost of courier/shipping services to Nigeria extremely high? I would assume there is usually a cheaper and more convenient way to ship such items as TV’s than to schlepp them to the airport and than pay excess baggage fees, especially when you have no guarantee they will arrive on the same flight with you.


It is not the cost, it is the reliability. Unfortunately, there is a good chance port/customs employees will help themselves to your goods so Nigerians greatly prefer to be present when their items enter the country - plus it gives them the ability to "negotiate" any potential duties/taxes.
 
Turkish350XWB
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:23 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:24 pm

A roof luggage rack might be the solution for flights to Nigeria?
 
User avatar
andrefranca
Posts: 904
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:10 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:46 pm

when I worked for copa airlines during high season we could only accept 2 pieces, and pax would sign a doc stating they knew the extra bag could arrive on another flight...
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7284
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:59 pm

AirCanada787 wrote:
Does anyone know how TK gets luggage left behind to the destination? If they are putting it on their next flight than it would seem to me that on the next flight there would potentially be less capacity for that flights passengers as well, therefore creating more or a backlog and domino effect that effects more flights and therefore more passengers.

Airlines slap a "RUSH" tag on it and send it on the next flight. We did that at every airline I've worked with, and a few times in Houston we had over 100 rush bags come off our inbound.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
konkret
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:26 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:22 pm

What is the customs procedure regarding delayed bags?
If the bag is offloaded from your flight and it is delivered to your hotel/place of residence later on, who takes care of declaring the contents to customs?
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3796
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:59 pm

konkret wrote:
What is the customs procedure regarding delayed bags?
If the bag is offloaded from your flight and it is delivered to your hotel/place of residence later on, who takes care of declaring the contents to customs?


There generally is no delivery, pax must return to the airport to pick it up and complete customs formalities.
 
Blerg
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:02 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
konkret wrote:
What is the customs procedure regarding delayed bags?
If the bag is offloaded from your flight and it is delivered to your hotel/place of residence later on, who takes care of declaring the contents to customs?


There generally is no delivery, pax must return to the airport to pick it up and complete customs formalities.


Not necessarily, some airports do have delivery services. I live in Belgrade and if your bag doesn't make it the airport delivers it to your home, usually a day or two after you arrive.
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:07 pm

The most I ever witnessed was one person checking 52 pcs on my Dubai to Kano flight. They don’t trust cargo as said in a previous post.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3796
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:08 pm

Blerg wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
konkret wrote:
What is the customs procedure regarding delayed bags?
If the bag is offloaded from your flight and it is delivered to your hotel/place of residence later on, who takes care of declaring the contents to customs?


There generally is no delivery, pax must return to the airport to pick it up and complete customs formalities.


Not necessarily, some airports do have delivery services. I live in Belgrade and if your bag doesn't make it the airport delivers it to your home, usually a day or two after you arrive.


I was referring to Nigeria specifically. Delivery is the norm in most other countries.
 
asr0dzjq
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:36 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:50 pm

How ironic
R.I.P. Douglas Aircraft Company
Born 22 July 1921 | Died 23 May 2006
You will be missed, but your management will not.
 
Atlwarrior
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:42 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:39 pm

It's not like carriers are beating down the door to serve Nigeria, and I'm sure Nigeria will never try this stunt Delta's Atlanta to Lagos flight.
 
mapletux
Topic Author
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:49 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:59 am

Atlwarrior wrote:
It's not like carriers are beating down the door to serve Nigeria, and I'm sure Nigeria will never try this stunt Delta's Atlanta to Lagos flight.


It seems the JFK-LOS flight was initially not viewed as Delta doing Nigeria a favour when it launched. :stirthepot:

http://saharareporters.com/2015/07/13/n ... old-planes
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:00 am

KFTG wrote:
Didn't they try this stunt with Delta a while back? I want to say they had to fly a 747 on the route to get all the bags out?


Yes, it was done to DL. They started the route with a 767-300ER which i remember was at the edge of payload range and bags were offloaded regularly causing chaos for pax arriving into Lagos (majority of these are connecting pax to other parts of Nigeria).

DL was forced to UG to a 77E for a while after the warnings by the NCAA and eventually settled on a 332 with no payload restrictions.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:12 am

usflyer msp wrote:
According to my sources, the real issue here is the land border closure. Traders that would normally ship the goods from China to Benin and then smuggle them across the border have been showing up at Asian airports and attempting to check 75-90 bags a piece. They waited a few weeks to see if the borders would reopen but now they are desperate to fill their Christmas orders. ET/KQ/EK/QR have been affected as well but it is not as dramatically.


Sorry but this is nonsense. LOS on the 330 has no issues, these fly full with pax, bags and cargo. The problem is on the ABV and PHC flights operated with NB (usually the 738), these are payload/range restricted and thus bags are offloaded regularly.

The double digit % pax not getting their bags should be the first clue. The second clue should be why just TK? Don't other airlines fly to Nigeria too?? How do those airlines manage to not have 15% and more of their pax without their bags on arrival.... :roll:
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:17 am

Atlwarrior wrote:
It's not like carriers are beating down the door to serve Nigeria, and I'm sure Nigeria will never try this stunt Delta's Atlanta to Lagos flight.


8-) you might want to read up on DL's history when the route was started with a 767-300ER and bags were regularly offloaded.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
BN727227Ultra
Posts: 695
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:36 am

mapletux wrote:
Atlwarrior wrote:
It's not like carriers are beating down the door to serve Nigeria, and I'm sure Nigeria will never try this stunt Delta's Atlanta to Lagos flight.


It seems the JFK-LOS flight was initially not viewed as Delta doing Nigeria a favour when it launched. :stirthepot:

http://saharareporters.com/2015/07/13/n ... old-planes


I like that the link shows a photo of a Deltaflot 732! Be careful what you wish for, Nigeria...
 
User avatar
PA110
Posts: 1986
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:30 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:42 am

Superboi wrote:
Excess Luggage is not the issue here, Passengers are not even getting their alloted 23kg?? on arrival. I live in Abuja and have many friends and relations that on arrival do not get any of their items. For what it is what, a day after the threat THY all of a sudden gets a A330 to fly to Abuja....


Excess luggage is PRECISELY the issue. Flights to West Africa have been plagued with this problem for decades. Apparently nothing has changed. 30 years ago, I worked for AF at JFK. We were the handling agents for RK, which at the time flew once weekly JFK-DKR-ABJ on Saturdays. This flight made onward connections throughout the RK route network. While tourists and many business travelers would arrive with their standard 2 piece allowance, many locals would turn up with their allowed 2 pieces, plus 10+ extra bags, each of which was close to the 32kg weight limit (allowances were far more generous back then). In our pre-shift briefing, we would be told how many excess bags we would be able to accommodate per person. Everyone always received their 2 bag allowance. Most nights, we could easily accommodate 2-3 excess bags per person if needed. There were however some times when we were heavy with cargo and did not have the capacity to take more. In those cases, all passengers would get their 2 piece allowance, and any excess bags would be accepted on a space available basis only.

Any passengers on an inbound interline connection would be told at check-in that excess bags would be held upon arrival from the inbound carrier.
Look, it's been swell, but the swelling's gone down.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15214
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:15 am

It isn't just certain African destinations, on some peak season flights to the Caribbean from the USA, there are restrictions where not allowed beyond 2 checked bags. In part it is due to the shift to narrowbody aircraft like A320's or A737's from widebody's many years ago. Such destinations have heavy demand for checked baggage as those with family connections are bringing in gifts, electronics, clothes, even auto parts as unavailable, cheaper, families there cannot afford them or for resale for profit.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3796
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:40 am

waly777 wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
According to my sources, the real issue here is the land border closure. Traders that would normally ship the goods from China to Benin and then smuggle them across the border have been showing up at Asian airports and attempting to check 75-90 bags a piece. They waited a few weeks to see if the borders would reopen but now they are desperate to fill their Christmas orders. ET/KQ/EK/QR have been affected as well but it is not as dramatically.


Sorry but this is nonsense. LOS on the 330 has no issues, these fly full with pax, bags and cargo. The problem is on the ABV and PHC flights operated with NB (usually the 738), these are payload/range restricted and thus bags are offloaded regularly.

The double digit % pax not getting their bags should be the first clue. The second clue should be why just TK? Don't other airlines fly to Nigeria too?? How do those airlines manage to not have 15% and more of their pax without their bags on arrival.... :roll:


The Lagos flights are most certainly having issues. Not as dramatic as the narrow body cities but the IST-LOS flights are packed out and leaving baggage behind.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:52 am

usflyer msp wrote:
waly777 wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
According to my sources, the real issue here is the land border closure. Traders that would normally ship the goods from China to Benin and then smuggle them across the border have been showing up at Asian airports and attempting to check 75-90 bags a piece. They waited a few weeks to see if the borders would reopen but now they are desperate to fill their Christmas orders. ET/KQ/EK/QR have been affected as well but it is not as dramatically.


Sorry but this is nonsense. LOS on the 330 has no issues, these fly full with pax, bags and cargo. The problem is on the ABV and PHC flights operated with NB (usually the 738), these are payload/range restricted and thus bags are offloaded regularly.

The double digit % pax not getting their bags should be the first clue. The second clue should be why just TK? Don't other airlines fly to Nigeria too?? How do those airlines manage to not have 15% and more of their pax without their bags on arrival.... :roll:


The Lagos flights are most certainly having issues. Not as dramatic as the narrow body cities but the IST-LOS flights are packed out and leaving baggage behind.


Simply untrue. Our 332 is able to carry 10tons and more of cargo after pax and bags and it flies approximately an hour longer than from IST. I know as we occasionally ferried extra fuel when LOS had issues with supply and quality.

The issue was never excess bags but payload/range restrictions to PHC and ABV on narrowbodies. These are where the complaints have emanated from for the past few months with seemingly little to no response from TK other than to fly a widebody every few days to carry offloaded bags. PHC was originally scheduled to operate with the 737-8max for a reason.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
BelowTheWing
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:18 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:21 am

To be honest, that's just poor planning on the side of TK. There is no way around it.

The LOS-IST flight should be able to load every single bag. The A332 used on the route accommodates 250 Pax. I've had plenty of Africa bound / incoming flights and the bag trend varied between 1.8 and 2.5 Let us just assume the bag trend is 3.0. That would mean a total of about 750 bags. With 22 LD-3 positions available, you should be able to load about 710 bags in containers, while the remaining 40 bags can be stored in the bulk compartment. And that thing is huge on the A330. If bags are left behind, it's most likely due to high priority cargo and/or mail. If the bag trend is even higher. well, then stop acceppting bags or let the pax sign a liability release. Payload should not be an issue at all.

ABV-IST may be a bit trickier. The TK B739ER accommodates 151 pax. That would, taking the aforementioned bag trend into account, mean about 450 bags. Now, as per my experience, you can fit 400 bags into a B738, so 450 should be doable on the 739. Here comes the tricky part: Bags on ethnic flights are usually bulky. I'm assuming they qualify as ethnic flights as the majority of passengers should be connecting to onward flights in order to visit family, etc. So naturally they'd bring gifts, things from home, and so on.

Payload may also be an issue. Let's take a look. 151 pax at 80kgs is 12080kgs. With that in mind and 450 bags at 23kg we have a total payload of 22430kgs. As the DOW for each aircraft is slightly different, let's take 46400kgs (crew 2/5, 100% potable water). Now we have an EZFW of 68830 KGs. And boom: we already have an issue as the MZFW is 67721kgs. Even if the MZFW would be higher, they'd not be able to take the required fuel. The TK B739ER has a MTOW of 85139 KGs. That would leave room for about 16000 KGs of fuel (keeping about 300 reserve for ZFW increase) - and that should not be sufficient. And even if it would be. You'd still very likely be about the MLW. All in all: Poor choice of equipment. The MAX on the other hand might just be able to pull it off.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:32 am

mapletux wrote:
Atlwarrior wrote:
It's not like carriers are beating down the door to serve Nigeria, and I'm sure Nigeria will never try this stunt Delta's Atlanta to Lagos flight.


It seems the JFK-LOS flight was initially not viewed as Delta doing Nigeria a favour when it launched. :stirthepot:

http://saharareporters.com/2015/07/13/n ... old-planes

The 737-200 in the article really is the cherry on top
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:52 am

BelowTheWing wrote:
To be honest, that's just poor planning on the side of TK. There is no way around it.

The LOS-IST flight should be able to load every single bag. The A332 used on the route accommodates 250 Pax. I've had plenty of Africa bound / incoming flights and the bag trend varied between 1.8 and 2.5 Let us just assume the bag trend is 3.0. That would mean a total of about 750 bags. With 22 LD-3 positions available, you should be able to load about 710 bags in containers, while the remaining 40 bags can be stored in the bulk compartment. And that thing is huge on the A330. If bags are left behind, it's most likely due to high priority cargo and/or mail. If the bag trend is even higher. well, then stop acceppting bags or let the pax sign a liability release. Payload should not be an issue at all.

ABV-IST may be a bit trickier. The TK B739ER accommodates 151 pax. That would, taking the aforementioned bag trend into account, mean about 450 bags. Now, as per my experience, you can fit 400 bags into a B738, so 450 should be doable on the 739. Here comes the tricky part: Bags on ethnic flights are usually bulky. I'm assuming they qualify as ethnic flights as the majority of passengers should be connecting to onward flights in order to visit family, etc. So naturally they'd bring gifts, things from home, and so on.

Payload may also be an issue. Let's take a look. 151 pax at 80kgs is 12080kgs. With that in mind and 450 bags at 23kg we have a total payload of 22430kgs. As the DOW for each aircraft is slightly different, let's take 46400kgs (crew 2/5, 100% potable water). Now we have an EZFW of 68830 KGs. And boom: we already have an issue as the MZFW is 67721kgs. Even if the MZFW would be higher, they'd not be able to take the required fuel. The TK B739ER has a MTOW of 85139 KGs. That would leave room for about 16000 KGs of fuel (keeping about 300 reserve for ZFW increase) - and that should not be sufficient. And even if it would be. You'd still very likely be about the MLW. All in all: Poor choice of equipment. The MAX on the other hand might just be able to pull it off.


Thank you. Someone who gets it.
PHC was originally scheduled on the 737-8max but they've had to use the 737-800 which is really at the edge of it's ability on the route, same applies to ABV on the 737-800/900ER both with roughly 7 hours block time. In addition PHC is 3x a week, I've had friends stranded in PHC for a week, waiting on their bags.

These AC would be fine if these were operated only during the low season and on days with specifically low forecast. Or payload restrictions were applied in advance to prevent the aircraft selling past what could reasonably be uplifted.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
lutfi
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:13 am

At Xmas Cathay used to have 2 bag restrictions on transpacific flights- any excess bags carried on standby basis. This was before the 773ER as the B744 had restrictions. It usually required one or two extra cargo flights to clear the back log (mostly Filipinos and Vietnamese taking lots of gifts back to relatives)
 
Mopilot
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:24 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:39 am

TheWorm123 wrote:
Is the Nigerian CAA willing to pay TK to provide a bigger aircraft for no reason other than their citizens carry way too much crap with them?

TK charges for the excess luggages for sure so definitely they need to assign larger airplane accommodating all the payloads. Or they should accept only what they are capable of transporting! Good move by the NCAA.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11125
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:21 pm

Mopilot wrote:
TheWorm123 wrote:
Is the Nigerian CAA willing to pay TK to provide a bigger aircraft for no reason other than their citizens carry way too much crap with them?

TK charges for the excess luggages for sure so definitely they need to assign larger airplane accommodating all the payloads. Or they should accept only what they are capable of transporting! Good move by the NCAA.


Airlines don't usually upgrade aircraft simply for the requirements on excess luggage. If an airline in this case TK can only regular fill the aircraft with XXX number of passengers lets says 150 well they will operate that route with the appropriate aircraft, operating it with a larger aircraft does not make economic sense. Furthermore no airline guarantees that just because you pay for excess baggage that it will be on the flight with you. It is also apparent to me that many here along with the passengers do not read the Terms and Conditions of Carriage as set out by the individual carrier. In TK's case the following is in their T&C's

The Passenger shall pay a charge for the carriage of Baggage in excess of the Free Baggage Allowance at the rate and in the manner stipulated in the Carrier's Regulations. The Carrier may refuse to carry extra Baggage which exceeds the Free Baggage Allowance due to capacity restrictions or operational requirements. Even if the passenger has paid excess baggage charges, the Carrier holds the right not to carry the excess baggage exceeding the Free Baggage Allowance for operational reasons. In this case, the Carrier will refund the fee paid to the passenger.


https://turkishairlines.ssl.cdn.sdlmedi ... 6554OB.pdf

As a baggage handler myself on our widebody aircraft we set aside so many ULD's (which is usually 7 for an A332) which is inline with what we expect on a regular basis as allowed checked baggage. We work on 40 pieces per ULD however if you start getting excess items, these are just not suitcases but bulky items of which take more space. We have one route that sees a large amount of excess luggage. Virgin Australia runs a 2 weekly service from Perth to Christmas and Coco's Islands. As part of baggage break down we will separate the excess luggage from the checked luggage. This flight runs on an A320 of which we can get 250 bags from 100 passengers. This does not include the additional freight the flight gets. All the passengers using this service are well aware that there is no guarantee that their excess luggage will be put on the flight and is subject to operation requirements. I will also add the bags on here are heavier than the rest of other flights, 250 bags on this flights weights between 4 to 4.5 tonnes, the same amount on our A332's can weigh between 2.7 and 3.2 tonnes, so its not just about quantity but weight as well

It is the same here. The passengers actually need to be accountable as well. If they don't read the terms and conditions when they book their flight how is that TK's fault? The rules are there for a reason. Also I don't think the whole story is being told here. What about dangerous goods (if yes, ultimately the one who makes the final call if they are on the flight is the captain), are bags packed and reasonable condition (to ensure safe carriage), has the excess luggage been loaded onto the flight in originating flight (if connecting in IST and not loaded on the first flight of course it will miss the connecting flight) etc
Forum Moderator
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:14 pm

spdbrd007 wrote:
Good to know we are blaming Nigerians for TK not bringing their baggage on-board.

Quoted from the article:
> Sidi said the incidents had become so bad that most recent Turkish Airlines flights arrived in Nigeria without more than 85 per cent of passengers’ baggage on board.

15% of passengers on average are not arriving with their luggage. Do some bring more? Sure, and that would be on the TK ground staff to make sure they bring only what the passengers are allotted for. If the ground staff are doing as they should, and passengers are within their baggage rights then yes, Turkish needs to fly larger aircraft to the Nigerian market.


It's all the luggage above the allowed 2 bags that seems to be the issue here. So yes it's on the passengers that try to take their house back & forth on a flight.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:05 pm

qf789 wrote:
....
It is the same here. The passengers actually need to be accountable as well. If they don't read the terms and conditions when they book their flight how is that TK's fault? The rules are there for a reason. Also I don't think the whole story is being told here. What about dangerous goods (if yes, ultimately the one who makes the final call if they are on the flight is the captain), are bags packed and reasonable condition (to ensure safe carriage), has the excess luggage been loaded onto the flight in originating flight (if connecting in IST and not loaded on the first flight of course it will miss the connecting flight) etc


You are quite right, the passengers need to be held accountable. And they are -- they pay the excess luggage fees, and the airline accepts them.
Routes to Nigeria are notorious for mountains of stuff that's being checked. It's not news, even lay people (like me) are aware of that, and so are the airlines operating there.

So, by choosing to fly to "luggage-intensive" destinations, airlines accept the risk. And by taking the excess luggage fees, the airlines accept the responsibility of transporting these bags.

There are special destinations in the world, and if you fly there -- you know that there are local quirks. You fly to USA -- expect additional security measures for your pax before boarding. You fly to EU -- expect to be subject to EU261/2004 on pax compensation, not your in-house rules. You fly to Taipei -- expect to be denied China mainland overflight route. You know, all those little things. It goes with the territory. Doesn't mean those things will never change -- but they are what they are.

We can haggle about inequities of route planning, and that airlines generally plan x bags per y passengers, but hard fact is -- airlines, flying to Nigeria, need to be prepared to more luggage, than on many other routes. "Your lack of preparation does not constitute a crisis on my part" -- not my quote, but applies in these circumstances, no?
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2234
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:02 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
qf789 wrote:
.... The passengers actually need to be accountable as well. If they don't read the terms and conditions when they book their flight how is that TK's fault?

You are quite right, the passengers need to be held accountable. And they are -- they pay the excess luggage fees, and the airline accepts them.
Routes to Nigeria are notorious for mountains of stuff that's being checked.

So, by choosing to fly to "luggage-intensive" destinations, airlines accept the risk. And by taking the excess luggage fees, the airlines accept the responsibility of transporting these bags.

"Your lack of preparation does not constitute a crisis on my part"
:checkmark:
Presumably TK are making money on these routes. :scratchchin:
Partly it is revenue derived from putting bums on seats.
At other times it might be a pure cargo flight.
And sometimes it is a combination of pax, cargo, and excess luggage (which also generates revenue)

Surely the name of the game is always to select the optimum size of aircraft for the task. Always!

If the aircraft is too small, you have to turn passengers (or cargo, or excess baggage) away.
Too large, and your operating costs increase.

My three year old son could tell you that. :roll:

TK have three choices
a) Stick with a smaller aircraft, and amend their rules to deny excess excess luggage (and as a result earn less excess luggage fees)
b) Stick with a smaller aircraft, but keep some seats empty (less revenue), thus leaving more space available for excess luggage (more revenue).
c) Use a larger aircraft, accommodating everybody and their luggage, and maximise TK revenue.

And yet it seems as if this is not happening. What am I missing?
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:05 pm

spdbrd007 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
spdbrd007 wrote:
Good to know we are blaming Nigerians for TK not bringing their baggage on-board.


If the majority of pax turn up with lots of excess baggage and it can't all be carried, how is that the airline's fault? :confused:


Airlines, including Turkish, are obligated to carry passengers luggage if it is within operating limits of the particular aircraft being used at that time. If there is a influx of passengers of cargo on a certain sector guess what? You upgrade the equipment to handle the load.

Quoted from the article again
> “Our airport authority has been facing a serious crisis controlling the passengers at the airport whenever they arrive without their baggage. This issue has made passengers to carry out several mob actions at our airports and it is a great threat to our airport facilities.

> “In view of all these, and a series of meetings held with the Turkish Airlines personnel, which did not yield any solution to this problem, the NCAA is therefore left with no option than to direct Turkish Airlines to suspend its operations into Nigeria until such a time when the airline is ready to operate with the right size of aircraft that can transport all passengers with their baggage at the same time.

Seasonal or just more passengers traveling that route, remind me again how this is the passengers fault?


Actually they are required to transport the 2 Allowed bags. Any additional baggage from the passenger side is space available and freight cargo can go first. They need to clamp down on people taking too much luggage on flights to nigeria. They need to do the same US to South America.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:25 pm

spdbrd007 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
spdbrd007 wrote:
Airlines, including Turkish, are obligated to carry passengers luggage if it is within operating limits of the particular aircraft being used at that time.


I'll ask the question again, if lots of passengers turn up at the airport with lots of excess baggage and it can't all be carried, how is that TK's fault?


You keep asking the same question as if this has happened just one one occasion. If repeatably TK has failed to deliver passengers luggage, and they show no signs of change to accommodate paying customers, then the airline will be forced by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority to stop flying to Nigeria.

Sort of works like this. You arrive at the airport and check in luggage.

One of two things can happen.

1. You check in, and when you do a Turkish employee explains to you that as of recently, we have been experiencing 15% of passengers luggage arrive late at their destination. With that information passed, if you still want to fly with us, you now know that fact.

2. You check in, you hand your luggage to TK personnel and you continue on to the gate. At no point has it been explained to you that currently loads are high and luggage is being purposely left behind because of aircraft equipment.

I have a gut feeling that has never led me astray, that is saying TK is accepting bookings without letting customers know that they are currently running over capacity on their Nigeria network.

At the point TK takes your money & checks in your luggage, you have left all responsibility to the airline to get you, & your luggage safe and on time to the destination.



Yes. But how many passengers are told and do not listen as it's not what they want. Then complain about it. I work in reservations and daily get calls to "fix" an issue that they claim we caused by not notifying them. After the recorded call is pulled shows they were informed. (even having the superviser play it back for them.) they still say it's our fault they agreed to something and now want it changed. I would be very surprised if they are not telling them, but when your rushed and trying to check in people tend to not hear what you repeat to them multiple times.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20038
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:15 pm

It sounds like bag fees need to be increased. Eventually supply/demand will be balanced.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
Adipocere
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:35 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:18 pm

Just change policy to send excess baggage to the cargo terminal warehouse for customs & delivery as opposed to the baggage carousel. That will solve the problem.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3796
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:38 pm

I can guaràntee, if TK made a special excess baggage policy for Nigeria, the next thread would be about the Nigerian authorities threatening to suspend TK for discrimination against Nigerians.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:43 pm

stl07 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
spdbrd007 wrote:
Then let the Nigerian government whine about that.

If your airport had riots due to a faulty baggage policy on TK, they are justified in whining


I find it hard to believe it's only TK. I'm betting they notified many airlines and went after them first to scare others into making changes. PR hit jobs are a good way to force your hand. They should just drop the route and see how Nigeria reacts to less service & maybe clamps down on excessive baggage.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26570
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:12 am

Given the excess baggage fees, I'm not seeing how "wasting" a widebody on these routes isn't still profitable. It is certainly better than leaving people or bags off. That said, I also feel for TK. I mean, even with the fees, that number of bags is pretty unreasonable. I suppose they would be better off publishing a restriction.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Superboi
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:16 am

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:24 am

waly777 wrote:
BelowTheWing wrote:
To be honest, that's just poor planning on the side of TK. There is no way around it.

The LOS-IST flight should be able to load every single bag. The A332 used on the route accommodates 250 Pax. I've had plenty of Africa bound / incoming flights and the bag trend varied between 1.8 and 2.5 Let us just assume the bag trend is 3.0. That would mean a total of about 750 bags. With 22 LD-3 positions available, you should be able to load about 710 bags in containers, while the remaining 40 bags can be stored in the bulk compartment. And that thing is huge on the A330. If bags are left behind, it's most likely due to high priority cargo and/or mail. If the bag trend is even higher. well, then stop acceppting bags or let the pax sign a liability release. Payload should not be an issue at all.

ABV-IST may be a bit trickier. The TK B739ER accommodates 151 pax. That would, taking the aforementioned bag trend into account, mean about 450 bags. Now, as per my experience, you can fit 400 bags into a B738, so 450 should be doable on the 739. Here comes the tricky part: Bags on ethnic flights are usually bulky. I'm assuming they qualify as ethnic flights as the majority of passengers should be connecting to onward flights in order to visit family, etc. So naturally they'd bring gifts, things from home, and so on.

Payload may also be an issue. Let's take a look. 151 pax at 80kgs is 12080kgs. With that in mind and 450 bags at 23kg we have a total payload of 22430kgs. As the DOW for each aircraft is slightly different, let's take 46400kgs (crew 2/5, 100% potable water). Now we have an EZFW of 68830 KGs. And boom: we already have an issue as the MZFW is 67721kgs. Even if the MZFW would be higher, they'd not be able to take the required fuel. The TK B739ER has a MTOW of 85139 KGs. That would leave room for about 16000 KGs of fuel (keeping about 300 reserve for ZFW increase) - and that should not be sufficient. And even if it would be. You'd still very likely be about the MLW. All in all: Poor choice of equipment. The MAX on the other hand might just be able to pull it off.


Thank you. Someone who gets it.
PHC was originally scheduled on the 737-8max but they've had to use the 737-800 which is really at the edge of it's ability on the route, same applies to ABV on the 737-800/900ER both with roughly 7 hours block time. In addition PHC is 3x a week, I've had friends stranded in PHC for a week, waiting on their bags.

These AC would be fine if these were operated only during the low season and on days with specifically low forecast. Or payload restrictions were applied in advance to prevent the aircraft selling past what could reasonably be uplifted.

A simple solution should be for TK to tag on their flights ABV/PHC on A330 like LH does. In Fact I know a lot of People in Abuja who don't fly them because of the B737/Luggage Issues
 
skystar767
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:11 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:51 am

Oh please. Maybe they should open an international airline that will carry all the luggage. An airline that the government don’t use has its own personal piggy bank. They did the same thing to delta airline.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:53 am

Superboi wrote:
waly777 wrote:
BelowTheWing wrote:
To be honest, that's just poor planning on the side of TK. There is no way around it.

The LOS-IST flight should be able to load every single bag. The A332 used on the route accommodates 250 Pax. I've had plenty of Africa bound / incoming flights and the bag trend varied between 1.8 and 2.5 Let us just assume the bag trend is 3.0. That would mean a total of about 750 bags. With 22 LD-3 positions available, you should be able to load about 710 bags in containers, while the remaining 40 bags can be stored in the bulk compartment. And that thing is huge on the A330. If bags are left behind, it's most likely due to high priority cargo and/or mail. If the bag trend is even higher. well, then stop acceppting bags or let the pax sign a liability release. Payload should not be an issue at all.

ABV-IST may be a bit trickier. The TK B739ER accommodates 151 pax. That would, taking the aforementioned bag trend into account, mean about 450 bags. Now, as per my experience, you can fit 400 bags into a B738, so 450 should be doable on the 739. Here comes the tricky part: Bags on ethnic flights are usually bulky. I'm assuming they qualify as ethnic flights as the majority of passengers should be connecting to onward flights in order to visit family, etc. So naturally they'd bring gifts, things from home, and so on.

Payload may also be an issue. Let's take a look. 151 pax at 80kgs is 12080kgs. With that in mind and 450 bags at 23kg we have a total payload of 22430kgs. As the DOW for each aircraft is slightly different, let's take 46400kgs (crew 2/5, 100% potable water). Now we have an EZFW of 68830 KGs. And boom: we already have an issue as the MZFW is 67721kgs. Even if the MZFW would be higher, they'd not be able to take the required fuel. The TK B739ER has a MTOW of 85139 KGs. That would leave room for about 16000 KGs of fuel (keeping about 300 reserve for ZFW increase) - and that should not be sufficient. And even if it would be. You'd still very likely be about the MLW. All in all: Poor choice of equipment. The MAX on the other hand might just be able to pull it off.


Thank you. Someone who gets it.
PHC was originally scheduled on the 737-8max but they've had to use the 737-800 which is really at the edge of it's ability on the route, same applies to ABV on the 737-800/900ER both with roughly 7 hours block time. In addition PHC is 3x a week, I've had friends stranded in PHC for a week, waiting on their bags.

These AC would be fine if these were operated only during the low season and on days with specifically low forecast. Or payload restrictions were applied in advance to prevent the aircraft selling past what could reasonably be uplifted.

A simple solution should be for TK to tag on their flights ABV/PHC on A330 like LH does. In Fact I know a lot of People in Abuja who don't fly them because of the B737/Luggage Issues



I think the ABV/PHC flights depart within 30mins of each other to try and capture similar departure banks at IST. But you are right, it would resolve the payload restrictions, if routed in this manner. In the mean time, EK and ET continue to mop up a good chunk of the connecting traffic ex ABV.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
Stickpusher
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:54 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:11 pm

Superboi wrote:
scbriml wrote:
spdbrd007 wrote:
Airlines, including Turkish, are obligated to carry passengers luggage if it is within operating limits of the particular aircraft being used at that time.


I'll ask the question again, if lots of passengers turn up at the airport with lots of excess baggage and it can't all be carried, how is that TK's fault?


Excess Luggage is not the issue here, Passengers are not even getting their alloted 23kg?? on arrival. I live in Abuja and have many friends and relations that on arrival do not get any of their items. For what it is what, a day after the threat THY all of a sudden gets a A330 to fly to Abuja....


Surely it would depend on how pax with excess are treated. If it is "first come, first served" and the carrier takes in the excess as and when it arrives, then later check-ins might find the flight can't take their standard baggage allowance anymore. If the carrier chose to check all the standard baggage first, and then park the pax with excess to one side until all the standard is checked in, that would be fairer overall. Then it's the excess that is taken on a separate round of checking in.

I've seen parties of people at TBIT checking in for Air Tahiti with white goods in tow, TVs, ovens, the lot. I get why they feel they need to do it, but it seems nobody wants to wait for it to go by ship, and the airlines don't want to price excess to discourage the practice.
 
Bhoy
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:50 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:44 pm

N1120A wrote:
Given the excess baggage fees, I'm not seeing how "wasting" a widebody on these routes isn't still profitable. It is certainly better than leaving people or bags off. That said, I also feel for TK. I mean, even with the fees, that number of bags is pretty unreasonable. I suppose they would be better off publishing a restriction.

Have they got spare widebody frames sitting about that couldn't be used more profitably elsewhere on the network?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26570
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:21 pm

Bhoy wrote:
N1120A wrote:
Given the excess baggage fees, I'm not seeing how "wasting" a widebody on these routes isn't still profitable. It is certainly better than leaving people or bags off. That said, I also feel for TK. I mean, even with the fees, that number of bags is pretty unreasonable. I suppose they would be better off publishing a restriction.

Have they got spare widebody frames sitting about that couldn't be used more profitably elsewhere on the network?


That's a good question.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20038
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:58 pm

N1120A wrote:
Given the excess baggage fees, I'm not seeing how "wasting" a widebody on these routes isn't still profitable. It is certainly better than leaving people or bags off. That said, I also feel for TK. I mean, even with the fees, that number of bags is pretty unreasonable. I suppose they would be better off publishing a restriction.

If the excess bags are that much of a problem, increase fees. Eventually people won't add bags. Make this a profit center.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26570
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Nigerian authorities threaten to ban Turkish Airlines

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:42 pm

lightsaber wrote:
N1120A wrote:
Given the excess baggage fees, I'm not seeing how "wasting" a widebody on these routes isn't still profitable. It is certainly better than leaving people or bags off. That said, I also feel for TK. I mean, even with the fees, that number of bags is pretty unreasonable. I suppose they would be better off publishing a restriction.

If the excess bags are that much of a problem, increase fees. Eventually people won't add bags. Make this a profit center.

Lightsaber


It already is a profit center.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos