Is there an airline that you would under no circumstance ever fly? Perhaps it's because of the safety record. Perhaps it's because of terrorism. Perhaps something else.

NK because of how we were treated by the customer service reps and their planes just did not feel right. I know they are newer A-320s, but they just felt like they had been flown pretty hard. At both OAK and LAS, we were made to feel like we were idiots and should be on our hands and knees thanking the check in people. I did not appreciate them at all.

I have heard some bad things about G4 inspection and safety, so I will never fly them.

There is no airline that I would never fly. If you're determined to get to a certain place, you will take that shoddy airline that goes there. There is no real alternative - take an additional day off, rent a car and brave the road conditions? Take a ferry?


David

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1): I know they are newer A-320s, but they just felt like they had been flown pretty hard.

They actually do fly their planes quite hard. I believe they have one of the higher (if not highest) utilization rates in the industry.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 2): There is no airline that I would never fly. If you're determined to get to a certain place, you will take that shoddy airline that goes there. There is no real alternative - take an additional day off, rent a car and brave the road conditions? Take a ferry?

I agree. If only one airline is flying the route, then there's no choice. In that regard, I think I'd fly pretty much every airline. But usually I don't have to, and can fly an airline that I prefer.

I suppose G4, I don't know anything about them other than what I've read on this forum in the past.

And also AF. Might be controversial to some, but if they were from anywhere in the world that's not Europe, they'd be banned from flying in the EU.

6 crashes in a mere 20 years is telling.

AF437
AF422
AF6745
AF4590
AF358
AF447

This doesn't include countless incidents and accidents such as the wing/tail scrape the other day at CDG

The only airline I would not fly is the one where the pilot refuses to fly - if they are satisfied, I will trust their professional opinion.

Of course I understand that maintenance and integrity varies across the globe, but you can't spend your life worrying about every hypothetical possibility.


Dan  

Quoting RRTrent (Reply 4): 6 crashes in a mere 20 years is telling. AF437 AF422 AF6745 AF4590 AF358 AF447

6 is a poor figure. However, I went to read about the crashes and...

AF437 - not a crash, severe turbulence resulting in injuries and 1 death. Plane landed safely
AF422 - wetlease, not operated by AF crew/aircraft
AF6745
AF4590 - caused by runway debris, not a lot the crew could do
AF358
AF447


So i'd say 4 crashes, 3 of which were caused by AF. Still, it's not great, but not worthy of blacklisting!

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 6):

Your right, I should have said accidents. As you mentioned, one was not a crash.

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 6): So i'd say 4 crashes, 3 of which were caused by AF. Still, it's not great, but not worthy of blacklisting!

There are many on it with less.

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 6): not a lot the crew could do

I don't want to derail the thread, but this is not strictly true. Prior to take off the cross feed valves were opened and fuel moved around the wing. These were not closed and the wing tank that was hit ended up full.

Had the valves been closed when they should have been, the tank would not have been full. Because the tank was full, the shock wave went up trough the fuel, had nowhere to dissipate and bounced back down and blew a hole in the bottom of the tank. Its been said, that if there was space between the top of the fuel level, and the tank (which should have been the case) then there would never have been a rupture.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter): Is there an airline that you would under no circumstance ever fly? Perhaps it's because of the safety record. Perhaps it's because of terrorism. Perhaps something else.

I have blacklisted a few airlines for various reasons, mostly having to do with the causes of particular crashes / incidents involving the airline.

My blacklist:

Malaysia Airlines
Air France
Asiana
Egypt Air (already blacklisted before today's A320 loss)
Indonesia Air Asia

Korean Air is very close to making the list.

Once an airline is on my list they are on for good.

Not flying these airlines, ever, will not affect any of my travel plans one bit. There are plenty of other options, both in the air and by other means, to get around just fine avoiding certain airlines.

Now, since you asked the question, do you have a blacklist???

I suppose there are quite a few airlines I have never heard of that I wouldn't fly. If they're blacklisted in Europe, for instance.

I'm not overly dogmatic there, as I am not rich, but I'm currently going out of my way to avoid Swiss (I just find them deeply unpleasant), and I would try to avoid Qatar.

An airline I have flown with and will never do again, no matter how much cheaper it is, is American Airlines. I still can't believe the horrible customer service that airline has!! Will try Delta next time, heard better stuff about them (although many will debate that).

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 8):

Lion Air of Indonesia? I hear they order replacements every week or so.


Given that accidents happen so rarely, it's simply bad luck that one 1st world airline has had more accidents than the other. By counting the number of deaths, the stats are skew(er)ed even more.

What I would do is ranking each accident by "stupidity", i.e. how negligent the airline or its personnel was. For example, the Tenerife disaster (two top-notch airlines were involved!) would rank very high, as the KLM captain took off without a clearance. Asiana 214 would rank a little lower, and the Germanwings crash would rank quite low, as it can be very difficult to detect mentally ill pilots.


David

Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 9): avoid Swiss (I just find them deeply unpleasant)

May I ask why ?

Qatar. - Mr. Al Baker is never ever going to see one of my hard earned pennies...

That's it, really...

However, I'm also avoiding Air Berlin.
While they might not be a bad airline, they're attracting an insanely stupid crowd of
passengers that has so far always managed to bring me close to insanity...

Would fly them though, if the only possible/feasible option to get from A to B

I'd rather walk than fly QR though

NK, G4, and probably FR. Not out of safety concerns, but just because I'd like an assigned seat, and a carry-on bag, and probably a soft drink, and when you add up what they charge for them it just makes more sense to stick to the legacy airlines.

Saying I won't fly them ever is a bit of a stretch. But I avoid NK, FR, G4... and pretty much any of these "ULCC" carriers like the plague.

My family members, for example, flew FLL-LGA on NK. Round trip was $140. DL or AA was $175. I would have just paid the extra $35 and not dealt with being in a sardine can that's usually 45 or more minutes late.

I'm young, but call me old school. Flying is already miserable enough because of the airports themselves. No need to make the actual flight miserable too just to save a few bucks. If the difference is sizeable, maybe, but then again it seldom is.

Besides that, Conviasa. And I can't think of any other airline I'd avoid...

[Edited 2016-05-19 16:14:31]

I forgot to mention Air India in my blacklist. Never would I fly them...

I'm personally done with Southwest. I've flown them twice and both times was treated like they didn't need or want my business. It's no big loss, though, their service from my home airport is severely lacking anyway. Anywhere I want to go requires a 3-4-hour layover at BWI. I can drive to BWI in 4 hours.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 8): I have blacklisted a few airlines for various reasons, mostly having to do with the causes of particular crashes / incidents involving the airline.

Even the least safe airline statistically is probably much safer than driving to/from the airport at each end.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18): Even the least safe airline statistically is probably much safer than driving to/from the airport at each end.

You can remove the word "probably" from that statement.

Driving to and from the airport is always much, much more risky than even flying on the least safest airline.

But that doesn't change my dim view on some airlines that I will never fly.

My main concerns are safety and security.

This means I would avoid MS post MS990. The crash and it's cause are bad enough, but IMO their refusal to accept the cause showed a closed mentality.

I am due to fly from CFU to TXL tomorrow, and to LHR with BA. If I had been aware of AB's financial position, I would have chosen a different route. Watching Anet each day to see 'Air Berlin folds' has added unnecessary stress.

Not sure where I fall on QR. When they become an option, I will decide.

Interesting that I started there thread before hearing about the Egyptair situation (though I started it after the situation was well published).

That said, ever before this recent tragedy, Egyptair is the main carrier I would avoid. Not so much because of a safety record. Rather, because the airline never really came to terms with what happened in 1999.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5): Of course I understand that maintenance and integrity varies across the globe, but you can't spend your life worrying about every hypothetical possibility.

In general I agree -I will fly lot's of airlines that may or may not be safe, including a number already on other's lists like MS.
But I will add Allegiant to my list on product and being too tight ass corner cutting, Spirit on product grounds, Orient Thai on maintenance grounds and Saudia and El Al on moral grounds.

I'm not really worried about safety, sure some airlines' practices might leave a little to be desired, but at the end of the day, flying any airline is still safer than driving. I wouldn't fly SV, QR, or JS on moral grounds. IR doesn't make the no-fly list because: 1.) I would love to fly on a 74S, and 2.) despite the way in which Iran is portrayed by the west, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are far, far worse, they just happen to allow the US to have military bases in their countries. As the saying goes, "they can be a SOB as long as they're our SOB."

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 14): FR. Not out of safety concerns, but just because I'd like an assigned seat, and a carry-on bag,

Worry not, you get those now   you still have to buy your own drink and food though

I have not a single airline I would not be willing to fly. Even the most shoddy Indonesian domestic airline or the worst ULCCs like Wizz and Ryan Air are options for me and in fact I frequently fly the latter because I am a student on a budget.

Safety is not a concern because driving is a gazilion times more unsafe than even the most shoddy airline.

And bad product is also hardly a concern for me. If I am going away for like a week or so, I don't need a checked bag, and yes the small Wizz Air bag is annoyingly small but nothing I can't get over with. I also don't mind a cramped seat for a short flight, and as for not getting food and drink on the airplane - so what? You can bring your own right?

That doesn't mean I dont have preferences, of course. If the difference is only a few 10s of euros then of course I will go for a non-budget carrier, that's a no-brainer, even for the sole fact that I can fly from AMS rather than far-away EIN and thus save that money on the train ticket. And for longer flights I try to avoid Iberia since I hear bad stories about them (no IFE on flights to south america) and prefer to fly TAM, KLM or TAP. And I love flying KLM if they have a competitive price because I am Dutch and the FAs are very spontaneous and friendly and all that.

American Airlines for its disgusting customer service - almost challenged by a male flight attendant who wanted to charge me for a beer after the aircraft was delayed by 3 hours for a toilet issue. The flight from BOS to LHR only had one working toilet.
I questioned the charge after the 3-hour delay and he was itching for me to argue with him so he could have me 'arrested'.
Never again !

Air India for the delays and cancellations. Also for rotten old miserable cabin crew.

Uzbekistan as well. Poor communications and an unannounced stop in Frankfurt to pick up more passengers on a flight from LHR-ATQ.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 8):

May I ask the reason behind your choice of carriers?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):

That sounds exactly like AA's Premium check-in area at LAX.

Quoting fallap (Reply 27): May I ask the reason behind your choice of carriers?

Yes sir!

Malaysia Airlines - MH370 - Their 777 with 239 SOB has been missing for over two years (this isn't 1950!). The way MH as well as the crooked politicians there handled and obfuscated things from the get go was a disgrace. I've flown MH many times and I've been to Malaysia many times but I will never fly MH again and I will never visit Malaysia again.

Air France - AF447 was the icing on the cake. The lack of communication in the cockpit and incompetence of the pilots who belly flopped their A330 was just too much. The AF fanboy crowd can try to defend those pilots as much as they like but I'll never fly AF. I have no faith in their pilots or the decisions they make.

Asiana - Flight 214 - Similar to AF, I have no faith in Asiana pilots. They managed to botch a landing on a clear day into SFO and look at the result. And they try to shift some of the blame away from their pilots towards the 777 computer. Fact: Only an Asiana crew managed to screw up a landing on a clear day with good weather in a 777 and flip the thing!

Egypt Air (already blacklisted before today's A320 loss) - Their mentality towards flight 990 is disturbing at best.

Indonesia Air Asia - Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 - the combination of the maintenance issue with the rudder followed by incompetent flying is enough for me to blacklist this LCC.

Air India - Shoddy maintenance. Douchebag management. But the cannibalizing of planes to get spare parts makes me want to avoid flying around on any of their planes. Who knows how many bolts are holding parts of one plane onto another...

[Edited 2016-05-20 19:35:20]

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 21):

What happend in 1999?

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 30): What happend in 1999?

Egyptair 990. To this day Egyptair and Egypt refuse to accept that it was a pilot suicide (as the NTSB and other agencies ruled).

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 29):

What about Korean Air? You mentioned them being on the verge of your blacklisting?  

Turkish Airlines

Their saftey record speaks for itself. I value proper CRM more than good food and flashy sponsorship deals.
I'm also not sure how their insanely rapid expansion affects safety levels.

I would never fly:

1) Iberia. They have in my opinion the rudest FAs in all similar EU carriers and the most incompetent and disinterested ground ops crew. They also have borderlines racist attitudes on their South American flights. Sure, they have gotten better, but the rotten apples still abound.

2) Aerolineas Argentinas. Same as what I wrote above about IB, but worst.

3) Viva Aerobus. I have seen the 22-25 year old cockpit crewmembers leave an all night party and alcohol binge, and then exit the venue, change into the uniform they have in their trunks and head, intoxicated, to their early morning flying duties. No second hand stories here. I´ve seen them. No way I´m ever getting on that airline.

Quoting fallap (Reply 32): What about Korean Air? You mentioned them being on the verge of your blacklisting?

Too many crashes involving crew / pilot error / toxic culture:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_incidents_and_accidents

Flight 801: "Subsequent investigation found that the captain's failure to adequately brief and execute the non-precision approach and the first officer's and flight engineer's failure to effectively monitor and cross-check the captain's execution of the approach were directly responsible for the crash."

Cargo flight 6316: "Shanghai to Seoul took off despite the Korean co-pilot’s repeated misunderstanding and miscommunication to the pilot of the height given by the tower in meters, while being understood in feet.[23] The aircraft climbed to 4,500 feet and the captain, after receiving two wrong affirmative answers from the first officer that the required altitude should be 1,500 feet, thought that the aircraft was 3,000 feet too high. The captain then pushed the control column abruptly forward causing the aircraft to start a rapid descent. Neither was able to recover from the dive"

And now for the icing on the cake (pathetic communication / culture):

*** Cargo flight 8509: "The crew banked the aircraft into the ground while multiple audible warnings were sounding. Subsequent investigation revealed that the pilots did not respond appropriately to warnings during the climb after takeoff despite prompts from the flight engineer. The commanding pilot maintained a left roll control input, rolling the aircraft to approximately 90 of left bank and there was no control input to correct the pitch attitude throughout the turn. The first officer either did not monitor the aircraft attitude during the climbing turn or, having done so, did not alert the commander to the extreme unsafe attitude that developed and the maintenance activity at London/Stansted was misdirected. Investigators subsequently suggested, among other things, that Korean Air alter training materials and safety education to meet the "unique" Korean culture." ***

IIRC Korean Air hasn't had a fatal accident since but they are hovering around my blacklist. The Heather Cho nut rage incident goes to show that kind of mentality is still around at Korean Air.

Let me also say, Lion Air is also close to making my list - way too many incidents in such a short time frame:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air

No airline I would refuse to fly, as if I had no other choice I would fly with them....

However, due to the poor service, delayed and cancelled flights, and unpleasant staff I have endured, I choose not to make use of American Airlines. I just fly someone else.

Not that I would question safety, and flying aboard unusual aircraft for fun would be great, I simply cannot justify flying joy trip excursions aboard Air Koryo, as the money earned is being used to line the pockets of the government rather than supplying food to the people there.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 12): May I ask why ?

Sure.  

It's hard to explain, though. Every single unpleasant experience I've ever had, I had with them. Overheated aircraft, inedible food, arrogant and unfriendly service, you name it.

I know that loads of people give them great marks and really like them. It just never worked for me. I have family in Switzerland, so I have tried them a few times, but I suppose it was simply my own bad luck.

QR because of AAB and Qatar in general. Maybe any airline that allows chickens in crates or snakes.

If its not in my logbook, I'll fly it.  

Despite my defence against them (or rather, my response to DLs churlishness), QR. Also SV and 4Y.

It wouldn't be hard to guess why.

Who is 4Y?.

And what is wrong with them?.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 41):

Whoops!! I meant LY.

Weekly reminder I'm a bit dyslexic.

Curious combination, QR, SV and LY.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 43): Curious combination, QR, SV and LY.

QR - human rights issues and I'm still pissy about the 2022 World Cup (childish - yes)
SV - human rights issues
LY - I don't want to be treated as a terrorist before I board, and also let's not start a debate about the other things.

Interesting that there seems to be three main / different categories to qualify an airline for one's blacklist:

1) Safety Issues (eg: frequency and type of accidents)
2) Past Experiences (eg: treated badly)
3) Moral Grounds (eg: human rights issues)

Safety is my priority reason for boycotting / blacklisting an airline and my only qualifier at the moment.

I'd rather arrive at my destination safely than be treated like a king just before plowing into the side of a hill.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 45):

Only 2 is a rational reason for not flying with a certain carrier.

Safety is a non-issue. Compared to driving to and from the airport, the risk in even the most unsafe aircraft is laughably small. Even sitting at home or at the hotel in your destination town will probably be a lot more unsafe.
Moral grounds are also a non-issue. Human rights are violated by countries and not by cabin crew or the airline in general. Yes Saudi Arabia is of course horrible but to blame Saudia airlines for that is simply ridiculous. All they do is carry people safely from A to B (and okay play an islamic praryer tune before take off but that's about it).

Quoting sirdanilot (Reply 46): Yes Saudi Arabia is of course horrible but to blame Saudia airlines for that is simply ridiculous

It's a state owned and run carrier so revenue will go to Saudi Arabia's coffers. Therefore to support them supports the tyrannical regime that runs the nation.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 47):

Well okay I suppose that's fair.

But if you were hypothetically going to Saudi Arabia then it wouldn't make a difference anyway since you'll be supporting the state then in any case, so in that case it would only matter for a through-flight with them.

I will never fly AF ever again even if they paid me. Last flight with them was 9 years ago!