MSE News: Easyjet passengers told they'll have to fly on Latvian airline's planes

1235789

Replies

  • edited 18 March 2017 at 4:37PM
    agarnettagarnett
    1.3K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    edited 18 March 2017 at 4:37PM
    richardw, ... my original post here said (having misunderstood your now gone "... please delete" post at #40):

    OK. We can guess which side your bread is buttered ;)


    but I can delete it now, and delete my next one or two (your choice if you also wish to delete your responses to them ... or not ... again your choice :o

    Apologies again for misinterpreting your intention ...
  • richardwrichardw Forumite
    19.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    agarnett wrote: »
    OK. We can guess which side your bread is buttered ;)

    What are you assuming?
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
  • agarnettagarnett
    1.3K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    I am assuming your interests are not best served by consumers questioning aviation industry practice.
  • richardwrichardw Forumite
    19.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have no interests in any airline companies whatsoever.
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
  • agarnettagarnett
    1.3K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    I didn't say you did. But I know for many years you have commented quite knowledgeably on many aviation issues. You don't gain knowledge like yours without some concentrated exposure at some stage in your life. Perhaps your exposure was in the travel industry. Perhaps it was a less direct connection.

    So why exactly do you want to poo poo the broad thrust of this thread? What is so essential about allowing major brand airlines and hanger-on ACMIs to operate the way they do that is of such obvious benefit to consumers that it overrides the potential concerns of or detriments to those same consumers arising from what I think many might wonder is them being 'baited and switched'?
  • edited 17 March 2017 at 7:15PM
    richardwrichardw Forumite
    19.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 17 March 2017 at 7:15PM
    I disagree that this measure is a safety problem.

    My aviation knowledge has been gained as an observer, nothing else.
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
  • agarnettagarnett
    1.3K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    Fine, so in an attempt to reinforce your opinion, can you say:
    • in the case of an AMCI, in what ways are the control of continuing airworthiness particularly assured, despite the relatively less frequent opportunity for sight inspections by the ACMI's CAMO Airworthiness Staff, as compared to
    • the (presumably more frequent and regular) opportunities for sight inspections by the major airline's Airworthiness Staff on their own fleet operating from their own bases?
  • edited 17 March 2017 at 7:40PM
    richardwrichardw Forumite
    19.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 17 March 2017 at 7:40PM
    The respective CAAs, Smartlynx and easyJet.
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
  • edited 18 March 2017 at 3:04AM
    agarnettagarnett
    1.3K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    edited 18 March 2017 at 3:04AM
    Who leads? Can you see UK CAA having much say in it? They regulate Easy, don't they? But what influence do they have over wet-lease arrangements like this where it isn't even Easy crews or engineers working on the aircraft (or is it in the latter case?).

    Have already pointed out I think that the entire Latvia register of aircraft seems only to be 300 aircraft, and the only Airbus on it seem to be Smartlynx. Is Latvia's CAA effective or is it one man and a dog?

    It seems Easyjet have already decided they can afford the reputational hit (if there is one) caused by what I would call substituting a reduced offer to a select minority of their customers. Beyond that, their logo won't be on the aircraft will it?

    So as this seems to be in support of their lo-cost strategy, and the hit was worth it, might they then only be tempted purely to protect their commercial position with tickbox CYA due diligence on the presented paper ?

    Will they, do you think, be offering their own CAMO and base staff to oversee the aircraft as a friendly offer of belt and braces or is that commercially risky because it risks blurring lines of accountability and causing ambiguity? (for example)
  • edited 18 March 2017 at 7:18AM
    fifekenfifeken Forumite
    2.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 18 March 2017 at 7:18AM
    agarnett wrote: »
    . . . .I don't have to be any kind of expert to come here to MSE . . . .

    For the avoidance of doubt, I am not employed as a licensed engineer, nor as licensed commercial pilot, nor have I ever been either . . . .
    You are stating the obvious with this, and a Google expert is no airline operations expert in my mind.

    What you think and what you prefer need have no rational basis (as with us all), and I trust the airline industry and their overseers more than I trust random musings on here.

    Look at you're preferred airlines over the years and you'll likely see similar arrangements abound.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides