Budget Airlines

[mr_hippo]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

[eek]

eek

Hah, you flying out tomorrow on the morning flight? If so, we are on the same flight biggrin.gif

If i get bored waiting ill play a game of sneakily glancing at the westerners and trying to figure which one you may be. Dont worry about me wishing to hook up though, im a quiet sort and plus for all i know you may be a bit weird laugh.gif

well i am traveling sometime in january. wish it was tomorrow though !

TB

aww well too bad! Ill just need to make up a different game.

[stevenjm]

I fail to see the point of this thread - please explain it to me. Would you have posted the thread two weeks ago? There have been reports of boats capsizing in Thai waters - did you start a poll about them? Or Thai bus crashes?

You mention the age of fleets but supply no data to back it up, what is the average age of the fleet? When you mention 'AirAsia' are you talking about 'AirAsia' - the parent company or the subsidiary company 'Thai AirAsia'?

Because two weeks ago the media was not unfairly whipping up a frenzy about budget airlines. I can't understand all these people who are knee jerking to whats happened and paying out on budget airlines but have no problem in getting a taxi or driving to airport which is more dangerous than any airline.

Personally I would fly in any old piece of crap to save a dollar and have done simply because I know that certain safety rules have to adhered to and that statistically I am probably more likely to fall out of bed and break my neck.

one weather caused incident should not ###### every budget carrier

and I will fly with 12 go no problem if its cheaper than the rest. When 20 budgets drop out of the sky in 1 month from wings snapping off or blatant mechanical failure maybe I will reconsider but until that day I'll consider them as safe as the others.

[think_too_mut]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

It's pretty easy to find the age of all the planes in service.

If the dilemma is "older than other companies' planes" then more research. But doable, 15-20 mins.

[think_too_mut]

Because two weeks ago the media was not unfairly whipping up a frenzy about budget airlines. I can't understand all these people who are knee jerking to whats happened and paying out on budget airlines but have no problem in getting a taxi or driving to airport which is more dangerous than any airline.

Personally I would fly in any old piece of crap to save a dollar and have done simply because I know that certain safety rules have to adhered to and that statistically I am probably more likely to fall out of bed and break my neck.

one weather caused incident should not ###### every budget carrier

and I will fly with 12 go no problem if its cheaper than the rest. When 20 budgets drop out of the sky in 1 month from wings snapping off or blatant mechanical failure maybe I will reconsider but until that day I'll consider them as safe as the others.

That standpoint has been contested: airplanes are the second most dangerous mean of travel after motorbikes.

It's something for a new tread.

[tigerbeer]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

do i really need to answer this?

at this moment of time, a lot of websites would tell you the average fleet age of 1 2 Go.

but please, this thread is about perception of safety on a budget airline as compared to a premium one. no to compare different budget airliners.

TB..

[mr_hippo]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

It's pretty easy to find the age of all the planes in service.

If the dilemma is "older than other companies' planes" then more research. But doable, 15-20 mins.

Yes, I do know how to search but the OP opened the age debate by stating "Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes." I then asked a legitimate question only to be answered with " the poll is a simple one which does not need to be supported by an extensive research of which airliner has an older fleet."

[mr_hippo]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

do i really need to answer this? Yes, seeing that you brought it up

at this moment of time, a lot of websites would tell you the average fleet age of 1 2 Go.

but please, this thread is about perception of safety on a budget airline as compared to a premium one. no to compare different budget airliners. but you are doing "I for one would continue to fly with whether its Nok Air or Air Asia. Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes."

TB..

[think_too_mut]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

It's pretty easy to find the age of all the planes in service.

If the dilemma is "older than other companies' planes" then more research. But doable, 15-20 mins.

Yes, I do know how to search but the OP opened the age debate by stating "Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes." I then asked a legitimate question only to be answered with " the poll is a simple one which does not need to be supported by an extensive research of which airliner has an older fleet."

No, you asked "how do you know the planes were older". Anyone could answer that.

[tigerbeer]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

do i really need to answer this? Yes, seeing that you brought it up

at this moment of time, a lot of websites would tell you the average fleet age of 1 2 Go.

but please, this thread is about perception of safety on a budget airline as compared to a premium one. no to compare different budget airliners. but you are doing "I for one would continue to fly with whether its Nok Air or Air Asia. Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes."

TB..

yes that is correct. so i would continue to fly budget airlines such as nok air and air asia. but not 12 Go cause of their older fleet of planes. i have every right to choose whom i fly with. Perhaps, if they get newer planes in the future.

Was it cause it was an old plane and hence it crashed? I don't know. I'll wait for the expert opinions. Was it because it was a budget airline and hence it crashed? Most probably not. So I'll wait for the experts opinion on that too. But does yesterday's crash stop me from using budget airlines? NO. Thats what i was getting at. Since there is so much emphasis about a "Budget" airline jet that crashed, how does this change the way people think about LCC's?

what you nagging about?

TB..

Edited September 17, 2007 by tigerbeer

[sutnyod]

I voted yes, but would narrow that down to Nok Air. No Air Asia (too many cancelled flights), no 1-2-Go (too old planes) and no, gosh, what is the name? This airline with the logo like Beer Singh? PB or something? I took them once and will never take them again. Had a very bad feeling (cramped, very small planes and old).

[mr_hippo]

No, you asked "how do you know the planes were older". Anyone could answer that.

Feel free to quote me - not misquote me.

[ThaiPauly]

I will still use budget airlines....as I have always done.

[think_too_mut]

No, you asked "how do you know the planes were older". Anyone could answer that.

Feel free to quote me - not misquote me.

Misquote? You said: "How do you know they are older?" - the planes, I would assume.

[stevenjm]

Because two weeks ago the media was not unfairly whipping up a frenzy about budget airlines. I can't understand all these people who are knee jerking to whats happened and paying out on budget airlines but have no problem in getting a taxi or driving to airport which is more dangerous than any airline.

Personally I would fly in any old piece of crap to save a dollar and have done simply because I know that certain safety rules have to adhered to and that statistically I am probably more likely to fall out of bed and break my neck.

one weather caused incident should not ###### every budget carrier

and I will fly with 12 go no problem if its cheaper than the rest. When 20 budgets drop out of the sky in 1 month from wings snapping off or blatant mechanical failure maybe I will reconsider but until that day I'll consider them as safe as the others.

That standpoint has been contested: airplanes are the second most dangerous mean of travel after motorbikes.

It's something for a new tread.

maybe it could go near the bird flu thread.

[think_too_mut]

Because two weeks ago the media was not unfairly whipping up a frenzy about budget airlines. I can't understand all these people who are knee jerking to whats happened and paying out on budget airlines but have no problem in getting a taxi or driving to airport which is more dangerous than any airline.

Personally I would fly in any old piece of crap to save a dollar and have done simply because I know that certain safety rules have to adhered to and that statistically I am probably more likely to fall out of bed and break my neck.

one weather caused incident should not ###### every budget carrier

and I will fly with 12 go no problem if its cheaper than the rest. When 20 budgets drop out of the sky in 1 month from wings snapping off or blatant mechanical failure maybe I will reconsider but until that day I'll consider them as safe as the others.

That standpoint has been contested: airplanes are the second most dangerous mean of travel after motorbikes.

It's something for a new tread.

maybe it could go near the bird flu thread.

Not as naive as that.

[TBWG]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

Hi

Personally I think it is management ethos that matters rather than the age of the equipment.

I recall Stelios whatisname of Easyjet saying if you think safety and insurance are expensive try having an accident.

Problems begin when management have a sloppy attitude to maintenance and operations. Myself I have no problems about using budget airlines combined with a bit of common sense.

TBWG

[Lucifer]

Whether it's a Budget Airline or a Premum Airline, make no difference to the safety aspect of any flight.

The reason they're called 'Budget' is because they remove any 'frills', like food and drinks. Also, their 'turnarounds'

are very quick. Keeping aeroplanes in the air as long as possible is profitable. The maintainance is the same as the big airlines.

The reason you find more budget aeroplanes crash is because they fly more. For every one Thai Airways flight from Bangkok to Phuket,

there's probably ten flights by a budget airline.

[A_Traveller]

Personally I think it is management ethos that matters rather than the age of the equipment

Seconded, question is will the management ethos form part of the review?

Regards

[Zpete]

Never have, and very unlikely to try one because my most common route is SIN-BKK-SIN and on that route the "budget" carriers are no cheaper than the "full service" ones. Supply & demand I guess...

... the thought of no pre-assigned seat also really puts me off!

As one who flys with Air Asia constantly, 12 flights in last 2 months.

I always pay a few Baht/RMs extra for "Priority Boarding"

Usually I get the choice of every seat on the plane.

Love Air Asia.

A flying KIWI......... LOL

Edited September 18, 2007 by Tywais

[Tilokarat]

I feel much safer taking Nok Air in and out of Udon Thani, even though it is more expensive, than I do travelling by bus.

[peter991]

Budget carriers: low cost, high risk?

The crash of Thai budget carrier One-Two-Go is the latest in a line of air disasters involving low cost carriers. According to an article by Asia Sentinel, the crash has raised concerns regarding the ability for low-cost airlines to maintain satisfactory safety standards.

In 2006, the growth of low-cost flights operating to and from Asia increased 666 percent from 2005, according to a report by Business Week. This surge in low cost carriers has undoubtedly fuelled competition on routes traditionally monopolised by flag carriers and lowered airfares for everyday consumers.

However, in many markets across Asia, fares have dropped so low that many are questioning the standard of safety inspection and maintenance procedures. For instance, this month, low-cost carriers AirAsia X and Jetstar are offering promotional flights from Kuala Lumpur to Melbourne for just RM10 (US$2.89).

The increase in flight volume, coupled with low cost pressures has placed increased strain on the entire aviation industry in Asia. The Chinese and Indian aviation sectors alone require some 4,000 new pilots each year. According to Asia Sentinel, out of the 1.2 million pilots in Asia, only 14 percent have qualified for the Professional Airline Pilots License.

No doubt, this has played a contributing factor to the many air safety disasters that have occurred in Asia since 2004. For instance, when Indonesia’s Adam Air reported a missing Boeing 737-400 on New Year’s Day, pieces were later found 300 kilometres offshore. In February, another Adam Air 737 cracked in half when it hit the ground at Surabaya airport. An audit of Indonesia’s airlines revealed that out of the 51 low cost carriers operating in the country, eleven did not fulfil civil aviation requirements and seven others were considered ‘least safe’.

In a study titled “Perspectives on the Development of Low-Cost Airlines in Southeast Asia” by Juliana Kim and Tom Baum at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, it is suggested that low-cost carriers are able to offer low prices because they cut expenses to the bone. For instance, AirAsia has an aircraft turn around time of 22 minutes at Kuala Lumpur International Airport and keeps planes in the air 10 hours a day. Pilots are also taught to burn 770 US gallons of fuel per hour, compared with the 1,100 gallons burnt per hour by Malaysia Airlines. As a result, AirAsia has the lowest costs per average seat per kilometre in the world.

Pilots will also attempt to land under considerably lower tolerances in order to cut costs – much to the detriment of customer safety. According to eyewitness reports, the One-Two-Go crash at Phuket occurred in rain and wind so heavy that trees were bending over. The aircraft only received permission to abort the landing at the last minute, when it skidded off the runway and burst into flames.

While a lower bottom line ensures lower prices for customers, does this discount come at a higher cost later on?

[lazeeboy]

I will continue to use whatever airline flies the route at the time that is most convenient to me. One accident isn't going to put me off UNLESS they ultimately attribute it to poor maintenance or negligence then I'll reconsider.

I used AirAsia a few times on the BKK-KUL route, the planes and flights were fine but what put me off was the LCCT at KLIA.

i'll second that ,regardless of what happened ,its still the safest way to travell..........

[Florin]

Budget carriers: low cost, high risk?

The crash of Thai budget carrier One-Two-Go is the latest in a line of air disasters involving low cost carriers. According to an article by Asia Sentinel, the crash has raised concerns regarding the ability for low-cost airlines to maintain satisfactory safety standards.

In 2006, the growth of low-cost flights operating to and from Asia increased 666 percent from 2005, according to a report by Business Week. This surge in low cost carriers has undoubtedly fuelled competition on routes traditionally monopolised by flag carriers and lowered airfares for everyday consumers.

However, in many markets across Asia, fares have dropped so low that many are questioning the standard of safety inspection and maintenance procedures. For instance, this month, low-cost carriers AirAsia X and Jetstar are offering promotional flights from Kuala Lumpur to Melbourne for just RM10 (US$2.89).

The increase in flight volume, coupled with low cost pressures has placed increased strain on the entire aviation industry in Asia. The Chinese and Indian aviation sectors alone require some 4,000 new pilots each year. According to Asia Sentinel, out of the 1.2 million pilots in Asia, only 14 percent have qualified for the Professional Airline Pilots License.

No doubt, this has played a contributing factor to the many air safety disasters that have occurred in Asia since 2004. For instance, when Indonesia's Adam Air reported a missing Boeing 737-400 on New Year's Day, pieces were later found 300 kilometres offshore. In February, another Adam Air 737 cracked in half when it hit the ground at Surabaya airport. An audit of Indonesia's airlines revealed that out of the 51 low cost carriers operating in the country, eleven did not fulfil civil aviation requirements and seven others were considered 'least safe'.

In a study titled "Perspectives on the Development of Low-Cost Airlines in Southeast Asia" by Juliana Kim and Tom Baum at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, it is suggested that low-cost carriers are able to offer low prices because they cut expenses to the bone. For instance, AirAsia has an aircraft turn around time of 22 minutes at Kuala Lumpur International Airport and keeps planes in the air 10 hours a day. Pilots are also taught to burn 770 US gallons of fuel per hour, compared with the 1,100 gallons burnt per hour by Malaysia Airlines. As a result, AirAsia has the lowest costs per average seat per kilometre in the world.

Pilots will also attempt to land under considerably lower tolerances in order to cut costs – much to the detriment of customer safety. According to eyewitness reports, the One-Two-Go crash at Phuket occurred in rain and wind so heavy that trees were bending over. The aircraft only received permission to abort the landing at the last minute, when it skidded off the runway and burst into flames.

While a lower bottom line ensures lower prices for customers, does this discount come at a higher cost later on?

This article is pure panicky drivel! A lousy airline that doesn't maintain its fleet doesn't need to be low-cost and more often than not isn't. The GOL crash in Brazil was not because of poor maintenance as an LCC, but the incompetence of the airport authorities...Kenya Airways is also NOT a budget carrier, and neither is S7, the Russian airline with several high-profile problems, including the crash in Irkutsk.

Then they come up with crap like 2.89 USD per flight, when it is a well known fact that the actual pricing comes from all the "taxes" and as far as they're concerned they could give the fares away for free, the article is trying to initiate a comparison between a 900 USD traditional airline ticket and a 2.89 ticket! AirAsia X doesn't even fly yet, so how could they have promotions this month??

As for keeping a plane in the air 10 hours a day, that again is ridiculous, because LCCs have a much higher fleet turnover than traditional airlines...what's the difference between 5 hours a day for 10 years or 10 hours a day for 5 years?

"Higher cost later on" my ass...how many times have Southwest, EasyJet, AirAsia, JetStar or Ryanair crashed? And they're all huge operations with hundreds of flights daily...the Indonesian comparison is highly unfair, maintenance on ALL the airlines there is crap and the airports themselves are often hazardous, I would certainly not feel any safer on a Garuda flight as compared to Adam Air & such.

[Sunderland]

Until the arrival of new A320 planes, it appears that Thai Air Asia will continue to use its present fleet of 737's which was mostly built in 1986. That makes those planes 21 years old. Although my wife works up in the sky on Emirates, I am not an expert on aviation and not sure at what age an airplane becomes very much more likely to have problems due to fatigue. Please note that this is a general question, not directly in response to the accident in Phuket which appears to be due to reasons other than the age of the aircraft. Thank you.

http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Thai-...#Fleet_Overview

[cdnvic]

That's not an unusually old aircraft providing it's maintained properly.

[britmaveric]

There are planes still flying from the 70s - age has nought to do with it, when u have proper maintenance.

[Sunderland]

How many planes from the 70's do British Airways, Easyjet and any other carriers in the UK currently use???

Barking up the wrong tree, I think. 30+ year old planes are not being used by any main carriers or low cost carriers as far as I can see, with the possible exception of Air Philippines or Philippines Air (the low cost one). Some planes built more than 20 years ago are still around. Still a minority I would say. Not the average by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, if someone fancies a trip on a 5th hand airplane, then Thai AirAsia is the one to go for.

[ClaytonSeymour]

.... Perhaps not so much with 1 2 Go simply because of their older planes.

How do you know they are older?

Anyone interested in knowing the age of an airlines fleet and individual aircraft should look at this web site.

http://www.airfleets.net/home/

You can check a particular aircrafts entire history. The one that crashed as already been removed from One 2 Go/Orient list. If you want to know its' history, type in a registration search (HS-OMG) or follow the link.

http://www.airfleets.net/recherche/index.php?file=rechregis

[Juzrelax]

I flew back to Australia yesterday with Jetstar, once again no problems. Nice and tidy inside, good staff and pretty close to schedule.

Cost was about $11,200 THB. Will use them again without a doubt, they are as good as, if not better than Thai. I have flown with Garuda before and they are hopeless. Qantas is nice but overpriced.

Jetstar is great value, they got voted best budget airline 2007.

The only down side was is that I was flying OUT of Thailand......but that's not the airlines fault!

I will use them again next year.