FlyGlobespan

broonbear

i accept that fgs took risks with safety but after having their knuckles wrapped they will be under more scrutiny than any other airline imo, and i certainly wouldn't put the lives of my children on the line just to save a few quid

sturll

broonbear wrote: »

i accept that fgs took risks with safety but after having their knuckles wrapped they will be under more scrutiny than any other airline imo, and i certainly wouldn't put the lives of my children on the line just to save a few quid

Thats the point though, passengers should unite in their disgust that an airline would even try and do this. The best way to show how unacceptable their practices were (are?) is to refuse to fly them.

The risk is simply not worth it.

The_One_Who

sturll wrote: »

Thats the point though, passengers should unite in their disgust that an airline would even try and do this. The best way to show how unacceptable their practices were (are?) is to refuse to fly them.

The risk is simply not worth it.

I know, but I can't really afford the £240 flight (with BA) plus extra hotel stays because I can't get a flight that gets me there on time. Going a less direct route would probably end up costing me more too.

I'll take my chance with their safety. At least if anything happens then the majority of my class will go down with me.

T._x

Sturll, I take a very dim view of cutting corners wrt safety, it's how I've been brought up as my father is a Health & Safety Manager and I'm an Engineer in the Oil and Gas Industry. Having read the reports a while ago my opinion is that it was a technical issue not safety critical.

Not that I wish to frighten you but I'd be far more concerned with airport security (JFK last month for me was shocking) and also the number of commercial aircrafts that carry freight (and I don't mean luggage). I also work with a number of ex RAF who say if you saw the maintenance logs of aeroplanes you'd probably never fly

sturll wrote: »

Thats the point though, passengers should unite in their disgust that an airline would even try and do this. The best way to show how unacceptable their practices were (are?) is to refuse to fly them.

The risk is simply not worth it.

sturll

The_One_Who wrote: »

I know, but I can't really afford the £240 flight (with BA) plus extra hotel stays because I can't get a flight that gets me there on time. Going a less direct route would probably end up costing me more too.

I'll take my chance with their safety. At least if anything happens then the majority of my class will go down with me.

I feel for your children with an attitude like that.

sturll

T._x wrote: »

Sturll, I take a very dim view of cutting corners wrt safety, it's how I've been brought up as my father is a Health & Safety Manager and I'm an Engineer in the Oil and Gas Industry. Having read the reports a while ago my opinion is that it was a technical issue not safety critical.

Not that I wish to frighten you but I'd be far more concerned with airport security (JFK last month for me was shocking) and also the number of commercial aircrafts that carry freight (and I don't mean luggage). I also work with a number of ex RAF who say if you saw the maintenance logs of aeroplanes you'd probably never fly

It was a technical issue whereby the policies of the airline manfacturer and the CAA were that it was deemed UNSAFE to fly.

Your comment re JFK is hardly comparable. Tens of thousands of pax must pass through there daily, slightly different to a few hundred people sat in a tube 6 miles above the earth whereby the company that owns it KNOWINGLY are flying it when it has been grounded by both the people who made it and the CAA. That stinks of arrogance and a complete disregard for safety.

My brother is in the RAF and is an aircraft engineer and i have heard all the stories.

T._x

Exactly a technical contravention/breach which deemed it 'illegal'. Being an Aircraft Engineer I'm sure your brother will explain the use and failures of EPRs and how the £2500 fine for each breach was probably approriate. I don't feel that strongly about this case either way but seen as you've posted umpteen times on safety (and we get your view of the airline) your response to my comment on JKF is bemusing. Since when does it matter if one person is at risk/involved or ten thousand?

sturll

T._x wrote: »

Exactly a technical contravention/breach which deemed it 'illegal'. Being an Aircraft Engineer I'm sure your brother will explain the use and failures of EPRs and how the £2500 fine for each breach was probably approriate. I don't feel that strongly about this case either way but seen as you've posted umpteen times on safety (and we get your view of the airline) your response to my comment on JKF is bemusing. Since when does it matter if there is 20 people involved or 20 thousand?

re JFK you missed my point. I was talking about the % chance of being effected.

As far as i am concerned (i know about as much about the technical side of planes as i do flying them - nothing) but all i need to know is that if the CAA deem a plane unsafe to fly - then it is unsafe to fly.

T._x

If focusing on an actual fault, domestically you can have the same technical issues/malfunctions with an aircraft and still be legal to take-off and fly to contiguous countries (or within the UK) that would be deemed illegal under ETOPS for flying routes over a certain distance from airports. Personally I don't think that really makes them any safer.... and if talking percentages/odds the chances of being killed mid air is something like 1 in 11/12 million.

The flight took off with a known problem but globespan believed it was legal - and it had no commercial value. Does that make it right, no... and I'm not fighting their corner but was the problem enough for me to avoid using them, no. If there are issues in future (i.e safety, experience of delays etc) I may change my mind. In the meantime good luck with your crusade.

mymatebob

I used them a couple of times this year and they were excellent. Had a friend who used them - again - no problems. OH has used them numerous times and all has been fine. All the above were European flights, however I had friends who flew across the Atlantic with them and swore never to fly with them anywhere again.

The plane was not as described they didn't get the extra legroom they had booked and all in all it was a most unpleasant experience.

I would use them again