No 'frills' Airlines.

[pipme]

Is it becoming 'you pays your money and takes your chances...'?

To Oz? .... Singapore Airlines or Qantas then BA, once did far east with the latter, crew seemed intent on 'lights out' and literally disappearing, whereas SA crew patrolled quietly and unobtrusively 'being there' throughout the flight.

Why SA? Because at the time no long hauls with aircraft greater than 3 years old .. sold it to me, mind you the stewardesses are quite devastatingly 'yum' too !! Oh, and several pilots are ex SAF jocks which may mean SFA wink .. But then again, at least they have actually flown 'at the edge of the envelope' with discipline !

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1) There are no statistics whatsoever that show a correlation between low-cost airlines and lack of safety.

2) Ex air-force pilots are often temperamentally unsuited to being civilian ones because of attitudes to risk taking and delegation.

 

[Freddie]

I thought all planes had to undergo the same safety tests after so many hours and some jumbo's have been flying for 20 years

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yup - and as even low cost airlines know, "if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident"

 

[pipme]

While ICAO does not require formal psychological testing, leading airlines regard it as essential, said Dr Ciaran O'Boyle, professor of psychology the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Does that suggest non-leading airlines do not?

So, my Air force pilot, having converted with a 'leading airline' is deemed psycho fit to be considered commercially... Also having been chosen and trained as an air force pilot he is 'creative' able to think out of the box...and has probably experienced non-routine maneuvers, not essential, but he will do for me when I am ticking the extra boxes. .. Not that I would get the choice.
What if he qualifies with the non-leading airline, perhaps a low-cost one, then he may be a psycho about to invert the aircraft on the slightest whim..
Low cost and low quality are not strange bedfellows in life.. blow the stats, they only change after the fact.

Young, well established safe aircraft marques must generally be a good bet... quality control improvements, all 'new' unstressed / unworn parts if you are lucky...... And low mileage ... etc.

 

[Freddie]

Reminds me of the record by Alana Morrisette---"Ironic "

 

[pipme]

Just to make you feel more comfy when flying Freddie :-

.....There has also been a history of problems with the 737's rudder systems.
In October 2002 the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States ordered American carriers to replace them after rudder failure was blamed for crashes in Colorado in 1991 and Pennsylvania in 1994 in which a total of 157 people died.
The carriers were given six years to comply with the order and foreign carriers were expected to voluntarily follow suit.

 

[pipme]

So much for the main carriers then ...

14 JUN 1979
Concorde 101 Air France, F-BVFC
While taking off from Washington two tyres on the left hand maingear blew. The gear could not be retracted, so the crew elected to return to Washington. Some circuitry was damaged after having been hit by debris from the tires. Debris also caused a fuel and hydraulic leak.

Of course the 'problem' with brake / wheel / tyres debris damaging wing internals was addressed, following the loss of AFR4590 July 25, 2000. 21 yrs later !

All this from 'top end carriers' ...