Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Callum
    • By MSE Callum 16th Mar 17, 7:56 AM
    • 272Posts
    • 33Thanks
    MSE Callum
    0 WOW
    MSE News: Easyjet passengers told they'll have to fly on Latvian airline's planes
    • #1
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:56 AM
    0 WOW
    MSE News: Easyjet passengers told they'll have to fly on Latvian airline's planes 16th Mar 17 at 7:56 AM
    Passengers due to fly with Easyjet this summer may end up flying on aircraft operated by Latvian-based carrier SmartLynx...
    Read the full story:
    'Easyjet passengers with summer bookings told they'll have to fly on Latvian airline's planes - your rights'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
Page 4
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 18th Mar 17, 2:53 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    IAmWales that was never the intention and I took richardw as well able to defend himself. I apologise, Richard, if I misunderstood your 'please delete' which was still there until we worked out this afternoon that was where I had started to misinterpret your intentions. Thank you for deleting it. I have deleted /amended one or two of mine following it and will delete more if you wish to delete your end of the now irrelevant quickfire back and forth we had.

    I would *guess* that the contract between Easy and Smartlynx will include an arrangement where Easy handles line maintenance, so dailies, overnight and minor defect rectification under the authority of SL's CAMO. Copies of the tech log pages and maintenance paperwork will be emailed to Smartlynx CAMO department on a daily basis so that they can maintain the aircraft and engine logs and track the hangar maintenance checks, which are governed by flight hours and calendar intervals.

    Depending on the length of the lease SL might subcontract hangar inputs to Easy as well, or they might prefer to schedule these elsewhere to use cheaper labour rates in Eastern Europe (it's worth mentioning that plenty of base maintenance for UK-registered airlines is carried out at East European providers, too). Basically there'll be regular communications between Easy and SL every day.

    In terms of the regulation, EASA will no doubt be working closely with the newer members to ensure the NAAs are on top of their obligations. The operators are subject to detailed scrutiny before they are awarded e.g. their AOC, maintenance, training, and CAMO approvals, and with ongoing audits and inspections.
    by coffeehound
    coffeehound, thank you for your thoughts on how the CAMO and line maintenance regime might work in this case. I am sorry I missed your post earlier.

    I do wonder about how many "boots on the ground" there actually are, even in the UK CAA for their part, to achieve what you so succinctly describe perhaps as a best case scenario for the sort of regulatory oversight we all might like to think is in place. Have you a view on whether UK CAA might take the lead on ensuring joined up compliance on this one (as Easyjet's presumed main regulator)? With wet-lease, whose AOC is in play? And, just out of idle curiosity, was CKhalvashi right when he said that SL would be using EZY callsigns whilst operating EZY flights?

    I fear there are a lot more British soldier boots on the ground in the Baltic States right now than CAA types.
    Last edited by agarnett; 18-03-2017 at 4:46 PM.
    • coffeehound
    • By coffeehound 19th Mar 17, 11:34 AM
    • 1,074 Posts
    • 1,766 Thanks
    coffeehound
    I do wonder about how many "boots on the ground" there actually are, even in the UK CAA for their part, to achieve what you so succinctly describe perhaps as a best case scenario for the sort of regulatory oversight we all might like to think is in place. Have you a view on whether UK CAA might take the lead on ensuring joined up compliance on this one (as Easyjet's presumed main regulator)? With wet-lease, whose AOC is in play? And, just out of idle curiosity, was CKhalvashi right when he said that SL would be using EZY callsigns whilst operating EZY flights?

    I fear there are a lot more British soldier boots on the ground in the Baltic States right now than CAA types.
    Originally posted by agarnett
    I don't have any experience of wet leasing so was curious enough to have a look on the UKCAA site. It appears UK operators can call-in wet leased aircraft from other EASA community operators with a minimum of fuss for short-term, short duration lease totalling three days (extendable) per 12 month period; see paragraph 3 of this)

    After that:

    Please note the condition to this general approval (see paragraph 5 of ORS4 Number 1053) which limits use of paragraph 3) to a maximum of five days in a calendar month.

    For example, if a UK AOC wet-leases in another Community air carrier for three days without prior specific approval from the UK CAA, it would still have two days available for further wet-leasing in without prior specific approval during the rest of that calendar month.

    After the five days, specific approval must be requested from the CAA Leasing Co-ordinator.

    [Also]

    Recent changes to European Regulations (EASA Air Operations Regulation) and the changing business models of UK operators, has led the CAA to develop a new UK policy and process to assist in the wet leasing-in of aircraft registered and operated from within the Community.

    This new policy reflects the CAA's new strategic approach, including Performance Based Oversight (PBO), and provides UK AOC holders with greater flexibility when wet leasing-in aircraft from within the Community.

    The new process caters for the four principal scenarios foreseen by UK AOC holders: long term WLI and short term WLI - either planned or unplanned. At the heart of process is recognition that the UK AOC holder remains accountable for the safety of its operations when using WLI services and that it must oversee WLI aircraft as part of its own Safety Management System (SMS) to assure the safety of these operations.
    On the AOC question, the definition answers that:

    Wet Leasing is defined under EU regulations as an agreement between air carriers pursuant to which the aircraft is operated under the AOC of the Lessor.
    No clue here about the callsign question.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 19th Mar 17, 12:02 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    Crikey, coffeehound, thanks a million!

    That puts so much more flesh on the bones of previous argument.

    So we might read between the lines that UKCAA have become concerned enough about Wet-Leasing from outside UK to UK to create new rules for it.

    I smiled at the difference between Wet Leasing and 'Damp Leasing', which I'd not heard before

    One item with obvious consumer interests in mind dropped out of my first reading of all that you had so kindly linked to for us:

    UK Operators are reminded of the requirements in Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2111/2005, which requires the air carriage contractor to inform the passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier or carriers. See Article 11 for further information.
    • bagand96
    • By bagand96 19th Mar 17, 12:37 PM
    • 2,699 Posts
    • 1,658 Thanks
    bagand96
    So we might read between the lines that UKCAA have become concerned enough about Wet-Leasing from outside UK to UK to create new rules for it.
    Well you might read it that way. Or you might actually read the quote.... they have introduced it to "assist in the wet leasing in" and "provides UK AOC holders with greater flexibility"

    SmartLynx have operated in and out of the UK for years. With Thomas Cook and Monarch logos on the side of their aircraft as well as operating for others. If the CAA had any problem, those operators and easyJet would not be permitted to use them.
    • coffeehound
    • By coffeehound 19th Mar 17, 12:39 PM
    • 1,074 Posts
    • 1,766 Thanks
    coffeehound
    I wonder how far in advance they have to inform of the identity of the carrier, or does the 'today's EasyJet service is operated by Smartlynx' public address announcement cover it?

    Yes the terminology is bizarrely.. organic

    On the question about boots on the ground, the 'Performance Based Oversight' does, as it sounds, represent a reduction in UKCAA headcount, according to the annual report. Similar to intelligence-based smart policing I suppose.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 19th Mar 17, 2:20 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    Yes the terminology is bizarrely.. organic
    Originally posted by coffeehound
    Yes I very much like your subtle take on it coffeehound.

    And as for notifying the passengers they've found themselves on a different plane, but not to worry because it's going the same way, I question if that's another one that ought to be right up front there in the booking engine as opposed to leaving it till they have a captive audience so to speak! Bit like fees and admin charges, but then again, perhaps not quite, perhaps more like charging to use the toilet
    Last edited by agarnett; 19-03-2017 at 2:24 PM.
    • blindman
    • By blindman 19th Mar 17, 4:03 PM
    • 4,938 Posts
    • 3,981 Thanks
    blindman
    Well you might read it that way. Or you might actually read the quote.... they have introduced it to "assist in the wet leasing in" and "provides UK AOC holders with greater flexibility"

    SmartLynx have operated in and out of the UK for years. With Thomas Cook and Monarch logos on the side of their aircraft as well as operating for others. If the CAA had any problem, those operators and easyJet would not be permitted to use them.
    Originally posted by bagand96
    And the pilots\cabin crew- who fly them -and their Unions would also be up in arms.
    As-unlike the persistent ranter\troll on here-they fly 2-3 times a DAY on wet leased equipment.

    I hope his TV is fixed soon in the Care Home and that the Nurses come round more often with the medication.
    As his
    pretty discerning Googler,
    habit shows he needs distraction.

    Never seen so much BS about a nothing article.
    Last edited by blindman; 19-03-2017 at 4:11 PM.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 19th Mar 17, 8:54 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    I have a feeling blindman that you haven't a flippin' clue about trends in any regulated business let alone aviation.

    But it takes all sorts. Glad you had a good read. Sorry you didn't understand much of it well enough to make a sensible comment

    Yes it is true that your next flight is likely to get you where you want to go, but you'll never understand exactly how, will you? You are not alone. Lot's of people find it easier to deal with that way. Safe trip!
    • blindman
    • By blindman 19th Mar 17, 10:06 PM
    • 4,938 Posts
    • 3,981 Thanks
    blindman
    I have a feeling blindman that you haven't a flippin' clue about trends in any regulated business let alone aviation.

    You have a feeling?
    You know me?


    But it takes all sorts. Glad you had a good read. Sorry you didn't understand much of it well enough to make a sensible comment

    I-as others-can See a TROLL


    Yes it is true that your next flight is likely to get you where you want to go, but you'll never understand exactly how, will you? You are not alone. Lot's of people find it easier to deal with that way. Safe trip!
    Originally posted by agarnett
    Medication has obviously worn off.

    Let the Nurses take you to bed.

    I could tell you how many years I've had in Aviation-but you wouldn't listen

    And Frankly i don't care.

    You are a Sad Troll
    • bagand96
    • By bagand96 19th Mar 17, 10:18 PM
    • 2,699 Posts
    • 1,658 Thanks
    bagand96
    I could tell you how many years I've had in Aviation-but you wouldn't listen
    On the other hand, agarnett's faith in that bastion of aviation excellence, the CAA, suggests to me he/she has had very little, if any, dealings with them
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 20th Mar 17, 12:08 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    I could tell you how many years I've had in Aviation-but you wouldn't listen
    by blindman
    No I don't know you but your online demeanour leads me to ask if you are one of those hundreds of ramp rats who think it is cool to run around in dark glasses in all weathers, ogling the passengers in summertime? Nah never mind, don't answer. The whole business is staffed by ordinary people of all sorts. Being in it doesn't mean you know best or you know it all.

    On the other hand, agarnett's faith in that bastion of aviation excellence, the CAA, suggests to me he/she has had very little, if any, dealings with them
    by bagand96
    My guess is that I was reading (UK) CAA regulatory documentation (maintenance, licensing and flight safety generally) before you were out of short trousers. For the purposes of sensible discussion of course, it doesn't matter whether you were or you weren't - all that's needed there is a sensible inquiring mind and a bit of self-discipline.

    But whether you are suggesting (UK) CAA really still is a bastion of excellence (personally I sort of wonder sometimes given upsets like Shoreham) or whether you are making a play on words for the sake of it, the fact is that UK CAA do seem to have quite recently issued new guidelines to cover the exact scenario which is the subject of this thread. Now if the scenario is so normal and has been going on for years, then what took them so long, or alternatively, what stretching of various envelopes might have caused them to have intervened now?

    All airlines are not the same, and airline practices have definitely not remained the same over the past 15 years or more. The business models have been turned on their heads, and continue to develop. That means the operations continue to develop. When 25 minute turnarounds were introduced, it wasn't even well understood whether it was safe to take off again so soon with brakes possibly still very hot from the previous landing (wheel well fire risk - new rules had to be written). The equipment is light years different in some respects, but not in others. Inflight fire is probably still the risk most aviators fear.

    The financing has become extremely complex. Question is, have the humans in the business kept up, and the overarching question is always 'has the regulation kept up with the practices?' (in this or any other edgy business, like financial services too).
    Last edited by agarnett; 20-03-2017 at 1:20 PM.
    • richardw
    • By richardw 20th Mar 17, 5:27 PM
    • 17,884 Posts
    • 7,299 Thanks
    richardw
    The quick turnaround has been part of the low cost model since it started in the US in the early seventies.
    Ryanair has been operating them since the 90s.
    Ryanair is gigantic, it's lack of accidents is an outstanding record.
    Many airline owners and CEOs know about what happened to ValuJet and the immense costs.
    Last edited by richardw; 20-03-2017 at 6:04 PM.
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 21st Mar 17, 8:02 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    I think I would correct that to say that Southwest was an upstart startup with four aircraft in the early 1970s and less than a handful of routes, and they had to sell one to keep their financial heads above water. That meant they had to get the three remaining aircraft to cover the work of four.

    To do this they apparently introduced a ten minute turnaround time although how the ten minutes was measured is not clear, and anyone who has regularly observed how long it now normally takes for passengers to disembark a full 737 under their own steam once the doors are opened will know that if it took 2 minutes to taxy from landing to apron, the supposed ten minutes will be up before the inbound passengers are clear of the apron i.e. before the outbound passengers are even released from their holding point at the gate or the bus.

    So whether Southwest were queuing outbound passengers next to the steps the moment the doors opened and then shooing out the inbounds almost as fast as an emergency evacuation, and shooing in passengers just as fast as evacuating them, I don't know, but 10 mins sounds unsafe and totally unlikely to me.

    Anyway, it's funny how history gets written especially when a company starts up survives against the odds and breaks a few moulds (as Southwest most definitely did and Ryanair definitely have too). So yes, the 1970s was when it is reported that some company beancounter decided 'quick turnarounds' were required to keep the Southwest business afloat, but the industry accepted standard didn't exactly catch up until much later, and is still catching up.

    Sure, many have said that Southwest is the model that Michael O'Leary of Ryanair picked up and ran with when he was given the reins. Ryanair introduced 25 minute target turnarounds and loosely they can achieve it when the airport and handlers are motivated to work with them, and probably no disabled passengers to embark separately. However, and I kid you not, it took all of 25 minutes after touchdown just for me to let off a Ryanair flight at Stansted the other night because the aircraft was late (as usual for that flight - end of day) and the ramp rats had mostly gone home. The pair that did finally provide the rear steps weren't exactly following the rules either. I was sat in 30A and watched them and felt them as they bumped the stairs lip twice against the fuselage - largely because just one was lugging it manually into position, whilst the other failed to properly stabilise them as I discovered as I went down them. Lessons can be learned every day (and late night). Act in haste, repent at leisure. Safety doesn't stop when the engines are switched off and doors are opened.

    Yes Ryanair is now gigantic, but it wasn't always so.
    Ryanair started small with a few routes. I got close to aviation in the late 80s when Ryanair was an interesting small outfit and definitely Irish. I remember perusing the details of their small fleet at the time. I think it was when they operated some BAC111 aircraft. Noisy bloody things.

    In the early noughties I remember flying with Ryanair on their sometimes less than confidence inspiring 737-200s, also noisy, smokey and smelly.

    When you see water vapour streaming into the cabin under pressure from a pair of twin vents in the ceiling between you and the cockpit, it does make you wonder if that's how it is supposed to be!

    I have since felt much happier on their 737-800s even though many of them are ageing a bit now (troublesome teenaged?) We shall see - we have watched as they expanded very rapidly from 2000 when they launched the website and ordered tens and tens of Boeings at a price that Michael O'Leary famously said he wouldn't even disclose to his priest! I have been flying very frequently with them ever since.

    However, apart from the 737-200s, which they soon dumped in the early noughties, I wonder what their plans for culling some of the older 738s might be. They have probably see more action than most their age, but then again, they will have benefited from a pretty consistently managed operations regime, as opposed to aircraft in smaller fleets which have swapped hands many times since the early noughties.

    Fact remains, when I was taken to reading 737 manuals in the early noughties, the quick-turnaround/hot brake issue was quite "organically" handled, as coffeehound might say, if that's partially what he meant about how regulation evolves after operations have evolved. I recall (possibly incorrectly) a 53 minute rule at one point with earlier model 737 perhaps, that said no take off within 53 minutes of a landing which involved heavy braking or some such.

    But then there was a procedure in the manual for taking off again with hot brakes (if you really must!), retracting the possibly still hot brakes into the wheel well long enough to clean up the trim of the aircraft for initial climb-out, but when the excitement of take-off was done and dusted the written procedure for certain scenarios was to lower the undercarriage again into the breeze for a short period to cool any remaining heat before safely stowing the undercarriage again! I never heard of anyone actually doing it, but I am sure I am not dreaming that it was there in the manual

    There are more recent warnings to be found if you read deeply enough into the subject - unsurprisingly the likely post landing temperature of the brakes varies with how worn they may be - up to 30% higher temperature for worn brakes versus new for example.

    It may sound unlikely to the uninitiated, but hot brakes are a definite hazard in more ways than just fire. Ramp rats and pilots doing walk-around inspections are trained to only approach the wheels of recently landed aircraft from front or back and not from the side to minimise potential injury from any sudden hot tyre burst. It'll be one of the reasons that passengers are always directed round the wing and not under it to get to the back door.

    Valujet 592 was a terrible fire loss of life. It wasn't a wheel well fire. It was a fire that seems to have been caused by some pretty stupid (in hindsight) uncontrolled risk taking by the company itself. If I read the report correctly, some ground staff were tidying some spare parts from a hangar where an important inspection was due to take place and if I read it right, where the parts were not supposed to be, so to get them out of the hangar to be inspected some bright spark decided to send the parts via own transport to the Valujet HQ for them to sort out. There seems to be suggestion that someone or maybe more than one knew they were breaking the rules and that the parts were hazardous to transport. The parts were spare cabin oxygen generators for a different aircraft type on their fleet. They are reckoned to have caused the fire that brought down the aircraft.

    "Company cargo" is so easy NOT to question. I mean its your employer right? They must know what they are doing. Yes, so never mind CEOs. All managers right the way down the line take note. Question everything that raises a doubt.

    There are many potential risks of fire that have to be totally under control every flight. Hot brake/quick-turnaround remains one. It hasn't gone away. It started as an observation of risk in the 70s perhaps or maybe earlier in the military who perhaps have the fastest quick turnarounds . It'll have been designed out to a large extent by now on the latest types. It is now a totally controlled risk we trust on all types, including 15 year old aircraft which may figure more often than marketing blurb admits, especially in smaller fleets carving a niche for themselves, they hope.

    I do agree that Ryanair has a pretty good safety record. Not without incident, but without fatality I believe. However, Michael O'Leary is famous for saying his mind, and one thing he is reported as having once said sticks in my mind. I can't quote it - I'd have to hunt for it online - but it was a cool businessman's opinion of the effect on his business should they now have a crash (probably from the mid noughties when they were about half the size they now are). It'd be interesting to hear his current opinion on it, and his view on comparison between his own business and Easyjet, which I am reminded was the main business subject in the thread

    Your answers are short Richard, and mine are long. All observers are not the same, are they?
    Last edited by agarnett; 21-03-2017 at 8:22 AM.
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 21st Mar 17, 8:29 AM
    • 6,591 Posts
    • 8,096 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    I think I would correct that to say that Southwest was an upstart startup with four aircraft in the early 1970s and less than a handful of routes, and they had to sell one to keep their financial heads above water. That meant they had to get the three remaining aircraft to cover the work of four.

    To do this they apparently introduced a ten minute turnaround time although how the ten minutes was measured is not clear, and anyone who has regularly observed how long it now normally takes for passengers to disembark a full 737 under their own steam once the doors are opened will know that if it took 2 minutes to taxy from landing to apron, the supposed ten minutes will be up before the inbound passengers are clear of the apron i.e. before the outbound passengers are even released from their holding point at the gate or the bus.

    So whether Southwest were queuing outbound passengers next to the steps the moment the doors opened and then shooing out the inbounds almost as fast as an emergency evacuation, and shooing in passengers just as fast as evacuating them, I don't know, but 10 mins sounds unsafe and totally unlikely to me.

    Anyway, it's funny how history gets written especially when a company starts up survives against the odds and breaks a few moulds (as Southwest most definitely did and Ryanair definitely have too). So yes, the 1970s was when it is reported that some company beancounter decided 'quick turnarounds' were required to keep the Southwest business afloat, but the industry accepted standard didn't exactly catch up until much later, and is still catching up.

    Sure, many have said that Southwest is the model that Michael O'Leary of Ryanair picked up and ran with when he was given the reins. Ryanair introduced 25 minute target turnarounds and loosely they can achieve it when the airport and handlers are motivated to work with them, and probably no disabled passengers to embark separately. However, and I kid you not, it took all of 25 minutes after touchdown just for me to let off a Ryanair flight at Stansted the other night because the aircraft was late (as usual for that flight - end of day) and the ramp rats had mostly gone home. The pair that did finally provide the rear steps weren't exactly following the rules either. I was sat in 30A and watched them and felt them as they bumped the stairs lip twice against the fuselage - largely because just one was lugging it manually into position, whilst the other failed to properly stabilise them as I discovered as I went down them. Lessons can be learned every day (and late night). Act in haste, repent at leisure. Safety doesn't stop when the engines are switched off and doors are opened.

    Yes Ryanair is now gigantic, but it wasn't always so.
    Ryanair started small with a few routes. I got close to aviation in the late 80s when Ryanair was an interesting small outfit and definitely Irish. I remember perusing the details of their small fleet at the time. I think it was when they operated some BAC111 aircraft. Noisy bloody things.

    In the early noughties I remember flying with Ryanair on their sometimes less than confidence inspiring 737-200s, also noisy, smokey and smelly.

    When you see water vapour streaming into the cabin under pressure from a pair of twin vents in the ceiling between you and the cockpit, it does make you wonder if that's how it is supposed to be!

    I have since felt much happier on their 737-800s even though many of them are ageing a bit now (troublesome teenaged?) We shall see - we have watched as they expanded very rapidly from 2000 when they launched the website and ordered tens and tens of Boeings at a price that Michael O'Leary famously said he wouldn't even disclose to his priest! I have been flying very frequently with them ever since.

    However, apart from the 737-200s, which they soon dumped in the early noughties, I wonder what their plans for culling some of the older 738s might be. They have probably see more action than most their age, but then again, they will have benefited from a pretty consistently managed operations regime, as opposed to aircraft in smaller fleets which have swapped hands many times since the early noughties.

    Fact remains, when I was taken to reading 737 manuals in the early noughties, the quick-turnaround/hot brake issue was quite "organically" handled, as coffeehound might say, if that's partially what he meant about how regulation evolves after operations have evolved. I recall (possibly incorrectly) a 53 minute rule at one point with earlier model 737 perhaps, that said no take off within 53 minutes of a landing which involved heavy braking or some such.

    But then there was a procedure in the manual for taking off again with hot brakes (if you really must!), retracting the possibly still hot brakes into the wheel well long enough to clean up the trim of the aircraft for initial climb-out, but when the excitement of take-off was done and dusted the written procedure for certain scenarios was to lower the undercarriage again into the breeze for a short period to cool any remaining heat before safely stowing the undercarriage again! I never heard of anyone actually doing it, but I am sure I am not dreaming that it was there in the manual

    There are more recent warnings to be found if you read deeply enough into the subject - unsurprisingly the likely post landing temperature of the brakes varies with how worn they may be - up to 30% higher temperature for worn brakes versus new for example.

    It may sound unlikely to the uninitiated, but hot brakes are a definite hazard in more ways than just fire. Ramp rats and pilots doing walk-around inspections are trained to only approach the wheels of recently landed aircraft from front or back and not from the side to minimise potential injury from any sudden hot tyre burst. It'll be one of the reasons that passengers are always directed round the wing and not under it to get to the back door.

    Valujet 592 was a terrible fire loss of life. It wasn't a wheel well fire. It was a fire that seems to have been caused by some pretty stupid (in hindsight) uncontrolled risk taking by the company itself. If I read the report correctly, some ground staff were tidying some spare parts from a hangar where an important inspection was due to take place and if I read it right, where the parts were not supposed to be, so to get them out of the hangar to be inspected some bright spark decided to send the parts via own transport to the Valujet HQ for them to sort out. There seems to be suggestion that someone or maybe more than one knew they were breaking the rules and that the parts were hazardous to transport. The parts were spare cabin oxygen generators for a different aircraft type on their fleet. They are reckoned to have caused the fire that brought down the aircraft.

    "Company cargo" is so easy NOT to question. I mean its your employer right? They must know what they are doing. Yes, so never mind CEOs. All managers right the way down the line take note. Question everything that raises a doubt.

    There are many potential risks of fire that have to be totally under control every flight. Hot brake/quick-turnaround remains one. It hasn't gone away. It started as an observation of risk in the 70s perhaps or maybe earlier in the military who perhaps have the fastest quick turnarounds . It'll have been designed out to a large extent by now on the latest types. It is now a totally controlled risk we trust on all types, including 15 year old aircraft which may figure more often than marketing blurb admits, especially in smaller fleets carving a niche for themselves, they hope.

    I do agree that Ryanair has a pretty good safety record. Not without incident, but without fatality I believe. However, Michael O'Leary is famous for saying his mind, and one thing he is reported as having once said sticks in my mind. I can't quote it - I'd have to hunt for it online - but it was a cool businessman's opinion of the effect on his business should they now have a crash (probably from the mid noughties when they were about half the size they now are). It'd be interesting to hear his current opinion on it, and his view on comparison between his own business and Easyjet, which I am reminded was the main business subject in the thread

    Your answers are short Richard, and mine are long. All observers are not the same, are they?
    Originally posted by agarnett
    Has anybody read this?
    • jpsartre
    • By jpsartre 21st Mar 17, 8:44 AM
    • 2,626 Posts
    • 1,759 Thanks
    jpsartre
    Has anybody read this?
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    That wouldn't be possible, it's only been up 40 minutes
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 21st Mar 17, 9:11 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    If you don't find it interesting please feel completely free to move on to something less taxing where you feel comfortable making a contribution or just soaking up whatever pleases you.

    It'd take a darn sight longer than 40 minutes to properly analyse a single airline operation, let alone what happens when one small Latvian regulated ACMI interacts with one large UK CAA regulated main brand airline.

    Hell, it might even still take 53 minutes for the brakes to cool before it is safe to approach and inspect them in certain circumstances, but you are welcome to let someone else worry about that - it's their job.
    • richardw
    • By richardw 21st Mar 17, 9:11 AM
    • 17,884 Posts
    • 7,299 Thanks
    richardw
    I've skim read it. It's mainly rambling.
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 21st Mar 17, 9:42 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    OK Richard, rambling it is then. And yours was ... ?

    I might say yours was informative to the extent that I went off and learned about Valujet 592 after I realised that all airline CEOs had it on their mind. I didn't know that, nor the story.

    You did mean 592?

    Didn't it happen in 1996 though, so 20 years after your lo cost quick turnarounds started, eh, and a good four years before my regular quick turnaround experiences started? But an accident that was nothing to do with lo cost quick turnarounds - is that right ?

    It was just an accident caused because airline people who knew better broke the rules for an out of sight out of mind type company inspection expediency and they inadvertently set in train a chain of events which killed 110 people? Is that a fair summation ? Good example of that, and I thank you for the pointer.

    Did you learn anything you didn't already know from mine ?

    Anything you'd rather not have known, or would like detailed further ?
    • richardw
    • By richardw 21st Mar 17, 10:36 AM
    • 17,884 Posts
    • 7,299 Thanks
    richardw
    OK Richard, rambling it is then. And yours was ... ?...
    Originally posted by agarnett
    Succinct, clear comments.

    What is interesting about easyJet is its lack of promotion of its on board economy class offering.

    BA does this https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/travel-classes/economy/euro-traveller

    I can't find anything similar on easyJet.com
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 21st Mar 17, 11:28 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 531 Thanks
    agarnett
    That's a long page of BA rambling, is it not? What are we looking for there?

    Isn't Easyjet an All Economy Airline like Ryanair?

    The Lo-Costs offer a kind of business offer but they really don't pretend to be anything other than All Economy, do they? No silly curtains for them. No special attention from crew during the flight.

    No I thought you were looking for a declaration that ACMI's might be used for some flights?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,956Posts Today

9,061Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin