FlyGlobespan

sturll

LES353 wrote: »

Maybe not british airlines but it does happen with other airlines:-

1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposed the record fine because Southwest Airline deliberately failed to conduct mandatory safety inspections of the fuselage on some 46 aircraft.
The planes operated for nearly eight months between 2006 and 2007 - 59,791 flights in total - without meeting an FAA directive to repeatedly inspect areas of the fuselage for possible cracks.
The airline continued to fly the 46 planes for another eight days even once the airline became aware of the lapse. Six of the aircraft were later found to have fuselage fatigue cracks when they were inspected, according to the FAA.

Thats a no then.

mymatebob

sturll wrote: »

Please follow this up, in recent times id certainly be interested to know what other British airlines have had their license revoked and been fined for safety issues?

I don't think the poster said "British airlines" they merely pointed out that other airlines may have had safety issues.

sturll

mymatebob wrote: »

I don't think the poster said "British airlines" they merely pointed out that other airlines may have had safety issues.

I appreciate that, but we were talking about the CAA not the FAA, if the op wanted to he could no doubt have reeled off about 50 African airlines who's planes fall out the sky periodically.

But the issue was a British airline under British Regulations. Who has (and rightly so) some of the strictest regulations in the world - one cannot help but note that a British airliner has not been involved an a fatal accident since the late 80's. That is some achievement and something the CAA should pride themselves on.

Pilot-Bob

Strull,

For the benefit for all reading this particular thread can you please state your training, knowledge and experience of the aviation industry, in particular with the ETOPS (Extended Twin Operations for those not in the know) flights and approval?

Having read all of your posts on this thread, it is rather obvious you have very little knowledge, not only of aviation and ETOPS but of the “illegal” flight to which you mention. You know what they say… a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

I’ll let you know my stand point – I work for the airline in question and am a qualified commercial pilot! I’d hesitate a guess, but I think I can put you straight on the flight in question, the company and hopefully answer the serious questions posed by others.

Firstly – ETOPS and that flight!

The flight was operated, by the crew in the full knowledge of the faults which had occurred and had been advised by a very senior member of operations staff (a post holder who is directly accountable to the CAA) that this aircraft had been cleared to fly, but would require further additional checks and operating requirements in flight.

At no point, was any member of either the crew or passengers on board in danger. Do you honestly think a professional pilot would take such a risk with his own skin, let along his colleagues or passengers?

Due to a misunderstanding, certain elements had not been fully completed and this was established by the US FAA – their CAA. In fact, as I understand, the UK CAA had to be forced by the FAA to take action.

The airline was not grounded as Strull suggests. The suspension of ETOPS operations affected only our North American destinations, with resulting slightly longer flight times and fuel stops – I recall the rolling delay was 8 hours. Not bad when you hear of other airlines…..

Given the fine which was issued by the magistrates court, I think it is clear for all to see that this was viewed in a less serious nature, by qualified professionals, than you allude to sir!

After it was suspended, it was re-instated within, from memory 7 days! Following our own investigation, we established anomalies within our own policies and surrendered our dispensation. ETOPS is not a certificate, nor a license – but a dispensation granted by the authority to operate out with written legislation.

We re-wrote our entire ETOPS policy with extremely close observation from the CAA who approved it! Some operators in the UK with the same types of aircraft as we have, have been trying for years to conduct ETOPS flights – without success! Says a lot about us, as does the MOD contracts we have!


Back to the question in hand – Are we any good?

The One Who - In all honesty, we are a low cost airline who operate to similar business models as Easyjet, Ryanair, Jet2, former airline XL, BMIbaby… the list goes on. All it means is that we do not attach any frills to our operation - no fancy lounges, in-flight meals or entertainment. However, we have to comply without exception, to the very same rules and regulations and the big players – BA, Virgin, BMI, KLM, Lufthansa.

Our on time performance might not be as good as BMI Regional for example, but then we operate to different and further a-far destinations, with their own complications – and nor do we have the luxuries of 1 hour + turn around times to claw back any delay. For what it’s worth, in my time with the company I’d suggest more than 90% of our flights are on time.

Our aircraft fleet, will as of early next year consist, of New Generation Boeing 737’s, Boeing 757 and 767’s. We also have orders for the new Boeing 787’s and will be one of the first operators in the UK with this type. I don’t have the average age of the fleet, but it is one of the youngest within our sector – Have a look at this link Jethros

Are we going to go bust?

Good question and I’m asked that very question now and then. Well, I personally think not. Why? – well unlike XL we carry no debt, they were carrying M£100 or so in their ruck sack, we have a single cash rich owner who has built this business from conception in 1979 and we actively seek and secure lucrative third party contracts.

Two other operators went in to administration last week – European Air Charter who operated to Mallorca exclusively for Palmair and Flightline, a charter operation with non-direct links to BA and Flybe!

It’s a very tough time in the airline industry just now, probably worse than the early ‘90s. BA have announced a serious down size at Gatwick and are slowly pulling out of regional airports. Ryanair are in serious trouble, pulling out of airports all over Europe and forcing unpaid leave upon staff – despite what Michael O’Leary says, trust me selling a seat for a £1 does not make money!

My advice, who ever you fly with be that BA, Qantas, Virgin, Easyjet of Flyglobespan, is always by with a credit card, any credit card and if you can, book a package holiday as that way you are protected by ATOL.

The One Who – if you choose to book with us, I hope you have a great time in Mallorca.

I hope this has helped clear certain aspects of this thread up, but please ask if you think I can help further. – Strull, that includes you…!

Kind regards.

sturll

I admire you willingness to support the airline - which of course is in your interest since they're your employer. And your absolutely right i know nothing about flying planes or about what CAA regulations were breached. But what i DO know is what was widely reported in the news, what i read in the Times and what only a few days ago i read over again on the Independent Online.

These media machines are not biased like you and they report the facts. Whether there was a misunderstanding or some other 'mistake' is neglible. FGS were fined and the plane was grounded by the CAA for flying a plane with pax when it was unfit to fly.

You can try and justify that with as much jargon as you want. But i put it to you - if what you say is true why was the license revoked - why were FGS fined?

Right, Magistrates - i am not sure if that is correct but if they were fined by the magistrates then so be it. But that does not mean it is not serious. Why would the Magistrates pass it onto the Crown court if it could be dealt with in a manner which they are able to do so? Nonetheless to be dealt with and fined by the Magistrates shows a crime was committed. Surely if FGS had a case they would have pushed for Crown Court and fought it out?

As for the rest of your post regarding finances i sincerely hope what you say is true. But im sure thats probably what most airlines would have said. However i think the information you give in regards to booking is good advice and should be taken.
I do thank you for taking the time to put the opinions of fgs across and i welcome good debate but i take an extremely dim view of any airline who has been fined - i wont fly SW either and one or two others.

Best regards

Sturl.

Pilot-Bob

Strull,

An open and healthy debate is good, but it must be based upon facts.

Please, I seek no admiration - but you don’t realise how very small the aviation industry is. Comments such as yours, which have no factual foundation, or those based solely on media comments can and have put airlines out of business.

The media machine is designed to sell news and news papers. They do this by producing large attention grabbing headlines, which are very rarely based close to or anywhere near the facts. The facts are obvious with this case and are readily available in the public domain – I do not mean a news paper!

If you read through my post again, you will note I am not biased. If I had been, I’d have used words such as: great, super, perfect, the best etc…. I didn’t because we aren’t!

I’m not too sure where I used any jargon, I fully understand Aviation to those outside the fence is a deeply complicated industry, which it is. However, as I said previously, we had no license revoked. We continued to operate our entire fleet during the hearing. Why were we fined? I’m not entirely sure nor am I in a position to comment, so I won’t. What I will say, is that the magnitude of the fine of £5k does show that it was not serious.

With regard to other airlines, aircraft all over the world, ever day of the year have technical limitations which do not preclude them from safely flying their freight or passengers to their destinations. We have procedures and training in place to deal with these deficiencies and as professionals do so with extreme care.

All of the major players, to name not exclusively BA and BMI have had very serious accidents over the distant and recent past with some extremely hefty fines to boot. But I’m sure you’ll have flown with them at some point.

What I’d suggest and I’m not trying to teach you how to put your trousers on, but before you make further comment in a world which you do not understand, spend an hour or so on the CAA website – here – and try to grasp an idea of the aviation industry. It’s the most heavily regulated industry in the world – your average brain surgeon doesn’t go through what we have to and I know a couple of them…..!

Best of luck with your travels, but I fear you will never really get to see what a small and truly magnificent planet we are allowed to live in.

Regards.

mymatebob

sturll wrote: »

I admire you willingness to support the airline - which of course is in your interest since they're your employer. And your absolutely right i know nothing about flying planes or about what CAA regulations were breached. But what i DO know is what was widely reported in the news, what i read in the Times and what only a few days ago i read over again on the Independent Online.

These media machines are not biased like you and they report the facts. Whether there was a misunderstanding or some other 'mistake' is neglible. FGS were fined and the plane was grounded by the CAA for flying a plane with pax when it was unfit to fly.

You can try and justify that with as much jargon as you want. But i put it to you - if what you say is true why was the license revoked - why were FGS fined?

Right, Magistrates - i am not sure if that is correct but if they were fined by the magistrates then so be it. But that does not mean it is not serious. Why would the Magistrates pass it onto the Crown court if it could be dealt with in a manner which they are able to do so? Nonetheless to be dealt with and fined by the Magistrates shows a crime was committed. Surely if FGS had a case they would have pushed for Crown Court and fought it out?

As for the rest of your post regarding finances i sincerely hope what you say is true. But im sure thats probably what most airlines would have said. However i think the information you give in regards to booking is good advice and should be taken.
I do thank you for taking the time to put the opinions of fgs across and i welcome good debate but i take an extremely dim view of any airline who has been fined - i wont fly SW either and one or two others.

Best regards

Sturl.

I trust the above comment (emboldened by me) was tongue in cheek.
You don't actually believe that do you?

sturll

mymatebob wrote: »

I trust the above comment (emboldened by me) was tongue in cheek.
You don't actually believe that do you?

The Times and Indy are trusted resources.

Had i said the Sun, or the Mail then fair point...

delwynshd

i must say i cant argue with the pilots comments, after all he does fly the aircraft!!!

mymatebob

sturll wrote: »

The Times and Indy are trusted resources.

Had i said the Sun, or the Mail then fair point...

Fair enough - you are perfectly entitled to think that.