Why I never have, and never will fly a budget airline.

[impulse]

I love this video...at least because I wasn't on that plane!!!!

< snip >

Well at least they made it all the way from China to JFK.

But they were looking for LAX.

[duanebigsby]

He said "farang"" pilots are decent, anyone else is inferior. What about the French, German, Polish, Portuguese, etc farangs.

They have the same language barrier.

Perhaps only RP speakers from southern England should be allowed to pilot. Maybe all the ground crew from around the world should be replaced with Brits as well.

A frog was involved in the crashing of the Air Asia flight.

I'll not board a plane unless I know the pilots are fluent in english.

And how do you establish that?

Do you insist on interviewing the cockpit crew?

If they don't pass your "test" do you leave and insist on another flight?

What is a frog? I'm damned sure not flying with a toad at the controls.

[Don Mega]

He said "farang"" pilots are decent, anyone else is inferior. What about the French, German, Polish, Portuguese, etc farangs.

They have the same language barrier.

Perhaps only RP speakers from southern England should be allowed to pilot. Maybe all the ground crew from around the world should be replaced with Brits as well.

A frog was involved in the crashing of the Air Asia flight.

I'll not board a plane unless I know the pilots are fluent in english.

And how do you establish that?

Do you insist on interviewing the cockpit crew?

If they don't pass your "test" do you leave and insist on another flight?

What is a frog? I'm damned sure not flying with a toad at the controls.

I demand to interview all flight deck staff 24 hours prior to the flight.

[JLCrab]

I love this video...at least because I wasn't on that plane!!!!

< snip >

Well at least they made it all the way from China to JFK.

But they were looking for LAX.

Whatever. My Dad was a WW II Navy air fighter squadron leader and used to say:

Any landing that you can walk away from is a good one.

Edited December 5, 2015 by JLCrab

[impulse]

Well at least they made it all the way from China to JFK.

But they were looking for LAX.

Whatever. My Dad was a WW II Navy air fighter squadron leader and used to say:

Any landing that you can walk away from is a good one.

May be true in a military operation, but in a commercial operation, any flight that costs you more $$$ than it brings in isn't considered a success. Even if everyone walks away unscathed.

[JLCrab]

Well at least they made it all the way from China to JFK.

But they were looking for LAX.

Whatever. My Dad was a WW II Navy air fighter squadron leader and used to say:

Any landing that you can walk away from is a good one.

May be true in a military operation, but in a commercial operation, any flight that costs you more $$$ than it brings in isn't considered a success. Even if everyone walks away unscathed.

I don't know -- I've never had a flight bring me in $$$.

[duanebigsby]

Apropos of this, the decision by the Thai government to prefer education in English by English-speaking Thais in preference to native English-speaking teachers is looking increasingly like a death spiral.

He said "farang"" pilots are decent, anyone else is inferior. What about the French, German, Polish, Portuguese, etc farangs.

They have the same language barrier.

Perhaps only RP speakers from southern England should be allowed to pilot. Maybe all the ground crew from around the world should be replaced with Brits as well.

A frog was involved in the crashing of the Air Asia flight.

I'll not board a plane unless I know the pilots are fluent in english.

I can't believe that you can demand to see all the flight crews credentials.

I'm sure the airline would simply laugh at you.

Edited December 5, 2015 by duanebigsby

[Don Mega]

He said "farang"" pilots are decent, anyone else is inferior. What about the French, German, Polish, Portuguese, etc farangs.

They have the same language barrier.

Perhaps only RP speakers from southern England should be allowed to pilot. Maybe all the ground crew from around the world should be replaced with Brits as well.

A frog was involved in the crashing of the Air Asia flight.

I'll not board a plane unless I know the pilots are fluent in english.

I can't believe that you can demand to see all the flight crews credentials.

I'm sure the airline would simply laugh at you.

I can't believe you did not see the pisstake in my post, like a few others it seems.

[duanebigsby]

He said "farang"" pilots are decent, anyone else is inferior. What about the French, German, Polish, Portuguese, etc farangs.

They have the same language barrier.

Perhaps only RP speakers from southern England should be allowed to pilot. Maybe all the ground crew from around the world should be replaced with Brits as well.

A frog was involved in the crashing of the Air Asia flight.

I'll not board a plane unless I know the pilots are fluent in english.

I can't believe that you can demand to see all the flight crews credentials.

I'm sure the airline would simply laugh at you.

I can't believe you did not see the pisstake in my post, like a few others it seems.

My apologies....sarcasm can be sometimes difficult in typed posts.

Oh and the only reason I knew "pisstake" is that I've a UK buddy. Otherwise Yanks and Canucks, the word goes over our heads.

[cumgranosalum]

There is a mistaken idea that a "cheap" airline is entitled to take certain shortcuts.

If these are in customer service or safety, then as far as possible, I will avoid that airline.

I've avoided air Asia for about 8 years after they left me and a planeful of passengers stranded overnight in Singapore with no explanation and a bowl of noodles. This turned a flight of about 1 hour into over 12!

Any airline that has such a cavalier attitude to its customers is also likely to have a similar attitude when it comes to overall safety and maintenance.

Their philosophy appears to be "Let's see what we can get away with"

Edited December 5, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

As all aviation worldwide is carried out in English, a pilot with poor English skills would definitely be a potential risk.

I'm also quite sure that in some countries, pilots are able to buy certificates that overestimate their proficiency in the language. As it is not something that can be instantly checked it is a safety feature that is potentially open to failure at any time.

Edited December 5, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

I think there is a lot of confusion here about low cost carriers, maintenance, cost cutting, etc.

LCC's are the opposite end of the spectrum to Full Service Airlines. It's a service related issue, from booking, restrictive conditions, no flexibility, through to no cabin service, but available at an exorbitant cos, frequently not using aerobridges. Crew salaries on LCC's are also well below those on full service carriers, but there is no mention of compromising on maintenance.

The manufacturers provide maintenance schedules, created from experience of having aircraft flying over many years. The schedule is the MINIMUM requirement, and many airlines exceed those requirements, based on their own operational experience. I imagine that LCC's would be less likely to do more, but they must still comply with the minimum.

I've flown for both full service and LCC's, and from my perspective, the only differences were salary, catering, and tarmac loading rather than via aerobridges.

LCC's generally have strict closure of checkins, enabling the same checkin staff to scan boarding passes in the gate lounges. Flight attendants do interior aircraft cleaning, unlike full service which have cleaners. LCC's generally have shorter turnaround times, allowing higher utilization. One more sector a day, and the overall operating cost per seat goes down.

So, there are many and myriad differences between LCC's and Full Service Airlines, but from my experience, they don't include wilfully cutting of required maintenance. Where money is involved, I have no doubt that it occurs, but it occurs for both LCC's and FSA's.

Would that were true in reality.

[F4UCorsair]

I think there is a lot of confusion here about low cost carriers, maintenance, cost cutting, etc.

LCC's are the opposite end of the spectrum to Full Service Airlines. It's a service related issue, from booking, restrictive conditions, no flexibility, through to no cabin service, but available at an exorbitant cos, frequently not using aerobridges. Crew salaries on LCC's are also well below those on full service carriers, but there is no mention of compromising on maintenance.

The manufacturers provide maintenance schedules, created from experience of having aircraft flying over many years. The schedule is the MINIMUM requirement, and many airlines exceed those requirements, based on their own operational experience. I imagine that LCC's would be less likely to do more, but they must still comply with the minimum.

I've flown for both full service and LCC's, and from my perspective, the only differences were salary, catering, and tarmac loading rather than via aerobridges.

LCC's generally have strict closure of checkins, enabling the same checkin staff to scan boarding passes in the gate lounges. Flight attendants do interior aircraft cleaning, unlike full service which have cleaners. LCC's generally have shorter turnaround times, allowing higher utilization. One more sector a day, and the overall operating cost per seat goes down.

So, there are many and myriad differences between LCC's and Full Service Airlines, but from my experience, they don't include wilfully cutting of required maintenance. Where money is involved, I have no doubt that it occurs, but it occurs for both LCC's and FSA's.

Would that were true in reality.

Which part?

[F4UCorsair]

As all aviation worldwide is carried out in English, a pilot with poor English skills would definitely be a potential risk.

I'm also quite sure that in some countries, pilots are able to buy certificates that overestimate their proficiency in the language. As it is not something that can be instantly checked it is a safety feature that is potentially open to failure at any time.

They are a risk, but more of a risk when the $hit hits the fan, and there is a major emergency. The pilot doing the communicating with ATC will frequently revert to his native language, because it's so much easier to communicate. That introduces a further problem in that nobody else knows what's happening, and flying relies on situational awareness. Other crews need to know what's happening, as you do, to 'build a picture' in your mind of other aircraft relative locations, etc. Remember that this is all happening at 400 km/hr if under 10,000 feet, and LOT faster if above 10,000 feet.

If a pilot reverts to his own language, but not in his own country, then the incident takes on a whole new dimension!!

[MJCM]

As all aviation worldwide is carried out in English, a pilot with poor English skills would definitely be a potential risk.

I'm also quite sure that in some countries, pilots are able to buy certificates that overestimate their proficiency in the language. As it is not something that can be instantly checked it is a safety feature that is potentially open to failure at any time.

They are a risk, but more of a risk when the $hit hits the fan, and there is a major emergency. The pilot doing the communicating with ATC will frequently revert to his native language, because it's so much easier to communicate. That introduces a further problem in that nobody else knows what's happening, and flying relies on situational awareness. Other crews need to know what's happening, as you do, to 'build a picture' in your mind of other aircraft relative locations, etc. Remember that this is all happening at 400 km/hr if under 10,000 feet, and LOT faster if above 10,000 feet.

If a pilot reverts to his own language, but not in his own country, then the incident takes on a whole new dimension!!

Question, don't Pilots (before they actually get to fly the airplane) get tested in Simulators ? And don't they get tested on Emergencies and if the Pilot would reverts to his own language when communication with the Tower wouldn't that mean a Fail ??

Just wondering

Ps: Maybe a Pilot could comment on this ?

Edited December 6, 2015 by MJCM

[cumgranosalum]

I think there is a lot of confusion here about low cost carriers, maintenance, cost cutting, etc.

LCC's are the opposite end of the spectrum to Full Service Airlines. It's a service related issue, from booking, restrictive conditions, no flexibility, through to no cabin service, but available at an exorbitant cos, frequently not using aerobridges. Crew salaries on LCC's are also well below those on full service carriers, but there is no mention of compromising on maintenance.

The manufacturers provide maintenance schedules, created from experience of having aircraft flying over many years. The schedule is the MINIMUM requirement, and many airlines exceed those requirements, based on their own operational experience. I imagine that LCC's would be less likely to do more, but they must still comply with the minimum.

I've flown for both full service and LCC's, and from my perspective, the only differences were salary, catering, and tarmac loading rather than via aerobridges.

LCC's generally have strict closure of checkins, enabling the same checkin staff to scan boarding passes in the gate lounges. Flight attendants do interior aircraft cleaning, unlike full service which have cleaners. LCC's generally have shorter turnaround times, allowing higher utilization. One more sector a day, and the overall operating cost per seat goes down.

So, there are many and myriad differences between LCC's and Full Service Airlines, but from my experience, they don't include wilfully cutting of required maintenance. Where money is involved, I have no doubt that it occurs, but it occurs for both LCC's and FSA's.

Would that were true in reality.

Which part?

all of it..it sounds like you work for a budget airline.

THe reality is that in countries like Thailand corruption pervades all aspects of life and to assume that airlines are immune from this is just naive.

Edited December 6, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[rakman]

He said "farang"" pilots are decent, anyone else is inferior. What about the French, German, Polish, Portuguese, etc farangs.

They have the same language barrier.

Perhaps only RP speakers from southern England should be allowed to pilot. Maybe all the ground crew from around the world should be replaced with Brits as well.

A frog was involved in the crashing of the Air Asia flight.

I'll not board a plane unless I know the pilots are fluent in english.

And how do you establish that?

Do you insist on interviewing the cockpit crew?

If they don't pass your "test" do you leave and insist on another flight?

What is a frog? I'm damned sure not flying with a toad at the controls.

I demand to interview all flight deck staff 24 hours prior to the flight.

Easy, just go to the bar they hang out in.

[Heng]

Similar to the AF447 crash (in terms of the pilot's inappropriate response to a situation, not the maintenence issue)... although I agree, I stay away from budget airlines as well.

[Heng]

Nowadays I actually also avoid Airbus equipment as much as I can in flight bookings because of the sidestick thing.

[Stocky]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

[ravip]

they struck me as a professional outfit.....who seem to be willing to spend to hire decent pilots.

So? ONLY farang pilots are decent?

[ravip]

Hope i dont jinx it but ive found jetstar asia very reliable....theyre part of qantas.

Every time i board i glance at the cockpit and theres usually a farang fellow behind the wheel.

And your point is?

The point is English is the international language for the airline industry. So having a native English speaking falang at the wheel is preferable from the viewpoint of communication. The Air Asia crash is being partly blamed on an Indonesian pilot who gave a confused instruction in English to the first officer when the aircraft was approaching a stall condition.

Apropos of this, the decision by the Thai government to prefer education in English by English-speaking Thais in preference to native English-speaking teachers is looking increasingly like a death spiral.

having a native English speaker at the wheel doesn't mean the communication with tower/other crafts or whatever goes more smooth,

that will depend on the language abilities of the person at the other end

I think its a fairly common mistake to assume that a native English speaker is better understood (than others) by Thais/Indonesians/Chinese or whatever.

Ever heard a native English speaker with an horrid accent (whatever it is)?

Chinese English could sometimes be more comprehensible.

Try to be more precise before hurling blanket accusations to non English speakers, especially (Thais/Indonesians/Chinese).

(Did I ever hear about racism?)

[Jdiddy]

Just booked with air asia

zero &lt;deleted&gt; given

[Heng]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

The argument is that not all airlines are created or managed equally. Of course it's no contest between regularly scheduled aviation vs. driving around on the ground. I don't think anyone who was unbiased would argue that Ariana Afghan, Yeti Airlines, Lion Air, Aeroflot OR Airasia are in the same safety league as say United or Lufthansa. But sure, they technically can argue Superman's 'statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel' line all the same.

[Heng]

Similar to the AF447 crash (in terms of the pilot's inappropriate response to a situation, not the maintenence issue)... although I agree, I stay away from budget airlines as well.

Went back and reread the AF447 crash report.... take back the maintenence comment. It could have been poor maintenence in both cases.

[duanebigsby]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

The argument is that not all airlines are created or managed equally. Of course it's no contest between regularly scheduled aviation vs. driving around on the ground. I don't think anyone who was unbiased would argue that Ariana Afghan, Yeti Airlines, Lion Air, Aeroflot OR Airasia are in the same safety league as say United or Lufthansa. But sure, they technically can argue Superman's 'statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel' line all the same.

And yet both United and Lufthansa have had accidents related to maintenance issues.

I really don't think you can lump AirAsia in with yeti airways.

I'm comfortable flying with budget airlines as I'm more likely to be hit by a bus anyways.

[cumgranosalum]

I love this video...at least because I wasn't on that plane!!!!

< snip >

Well at least they made it all the way from China to JFK.

But they were looking for LAX.

Whatever. My Dad was a WW II Navy air fighter squadron leader and used to say:

Any landing that you can walk away from is a good one.

...and any landing where you can use the plane again is a VERY good one.

[cumgranosalum]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

This is a hugely facile argument.

Everyone is aware of the comparative risks of modes of transport in general and we realise that we have to manage these risks as best we can.

For instance we don't take a plane form our hotel/house to the airport as this is not a practical option.

The point is that when we fly, whatever the cost or the airline, we don't expect that safety standards will be compromised, whether by cost, corruption or incompetence.

One thing is sure: some airlines are losing the public's confidence through either perceived or actual questionable safety standards.

Edited December 7, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[F4UCorsair]

As all aviation worldwide is carried out in English, a pilot with poor English skills would definitely be a potential risk.

I'm also quite sure that in some countries, pilots are able to buy certificates that overestimate their proficiency in the language. As it is not something that can be instantly checked it is a safety feature that is potentially open to failure at any time.

They are a risk, but more of a risk when the $hit hits the fan, and there is a major emergency. The pilot doing the communicating with ATC will frequently revert to his native language, because it's so much easier to communicate. That introduces a further problem in that nobody else knows what's happening, and flying relies on situational awareness. Other crews need to know what's happening, as you do, to 'build a picture' in your mind of other aircraft relative locations, etc. Remember that this is all happening at 400 km/hr if under 10,000 feet, and LOT faster if above 10,000 feet.

If a pilot reverts to his own language, but not in his own country, then the incident takes on a whole new dimension!!

Question, don't Pilots (before they actually get to fly the airplane) get tested in Simulators ? And don't they get tested on Emergencies and if the Pilot would reverts to his own language when communication with the Tower wouldn't that mean a Fail ??

Just wondering

Ps: Maybe a Pilot could comment on this ?

If it happened in a simulator it may mean a fail, but likely a repeat of the sequence.

Simulators and real aircraft produce different mindsets in pilots. Either can crash, but in a simulator you don't die, so there is not the same element of fear if things start to unwind, so less likely to revert to a native language.

I don't work for a LCC cumgranosalum, although I have in the past, one LCC (2 years) versus three FS (27 years).

Edited December 7, 2015 by F4UCorsair

[Heng]

You have a far greater chance of dying in a traffic accident in Thailand than losing your life flying on Air Asia.

Precisely, the trip to the airport is statistically far more dangerous than the flight.

The argument is that not all airlines are created or managed equally. Of course it's no contest between regularly scheduled aviation vs. driving around on the ground. I don't think anyone who was unbiased would argue that Ariana Afghan, Yeti Airlines, Lion Air, Aeroflot OR Airasia are in the same safety league as say United or Lufthansa. But sure, they technically can argue Superman's 'statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel' line all the same.

And yet both United and Lufthansa have had accidents related to maintenance issues.

I really don't think you can lump AirAsia in with yeti airways.

I'm comfortable flying with budget airlines as I'm more likely to be hit by a bus anyways.

It's not a group, it's a scale, just like in sports where some teams are better than others but absolutely can have a bad day and lose now and then. It doesn't change their underlying qualities. In that lineup, I'd pick Airasia over all those other airlines except United and Lufthansa.... and between the latter two, Lufthansa. And I'd definitely pick Airasia if it was between that and taking say the 999 bus from Morchit or Ekkamai. I'm pointing out the false logic that says LA Galaxy is as good as Arsenal just because they both employ professional athletes.

cc: [email protected]

Edited December 7, 2015 by Heng