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

[mogandave]

I worked in maintenance for 20 years and I've been in management for 15. Problems are generally a result of a schedule not being correctly adhered to, not a schedule being extended.

But I'm sure you're right, those rich, evil CEOs don't give a crap if hundreds oh people are killed, and the company loses billions,as long as the get a fat bonus.

[impulse]

From my link on Alaska 261.

The NTSB found that "Alaska Airlines' end play check interval extension should have been, but was not, supported by adequate technical data to demonstrate that the extension would not present a potential hazard.

Google "airline crash extension of maintenance interval" for quite a few more examples.

Perhaps you're too close and personally invested to see it clearly. Forest for the trees. Or perhaps you've spent 20 years with one or two (or 20) companies and they were run differently than the other 200+ airlines you haven't worked for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_passenger_airlines

Nobody expects anyone to die when they cut corners. Just like BP didn't expect the well to blow out. But they structured their incentive programs to reward people for cutting corners and people died as a direct result. It's not deliberate evil. Just poorly aligned incentive programs that reward cutting corners, even if that's not management's intent. (and for the rank and file, just keeping their jobs is the incentive)

[mogandave]

From my link on Alaska 261.

The NTSB found that "Alaska Airlines' end play check interval extension should have been, but was not, supported by adequate technical data to demonstrate that the extension would not present a potential hazard.

Google "airline crash extension of maintenance interval" for quite a few more examples.

Perhaps you're too close and personally invested to see it clearly. Forest for the trees. Or perhaps you've spent 20 years with one or two (or 20) companies and they were run differently than the other 200+ airlines you haven't worked for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_passenger_airlines

Nobody expects anyone to die when they cut corners. Just like BP didn't expect the well to blow out. But they structured their incentive programs to reward people for cutting corners and people died as a direct result. It's not deliberate evil. Just poorly aligned incentive programs that reward cutting corners, even if that's not management's intent. (and for the rank and file, just keeping their jobs is the incentive)

So it's the employees, not the evil, greedy CEOs?

[Heng]

Like all things (and all crashes), it's a lot of factors. Here's another one... number of flight attendants per flight. There are minimums set by various aviation authorities for different countries. But airlines will vary quite a bit on how many they want to be over that minimum for various routes and flights and LCC's and mainline carriers typically (and logically) go in different directions on that one. Which tube would you prefer to be on in an evacuation type situation?

[mogandave]

I think in the US the all use the minimum number they can by law.

Why would they use more?

[Heng]

I think in the US the all use the minimum number they can by law.

Why would they use more?

Better vs. about average service.

Not a big deal for Austin to Dallas, but more noticeable from LAX to Honolulu. It's noticeably different (in terms of number of flight crew you see) and the point is, I'm using an example that people can relate to, still use common logic, and can observe themselves to be true or not on local / regional flights.

All else equal, and assuming the flight crew actually do their job instead of abandoning ship first, it's going to be inherently safer to have extra flight crew around to direct evacuations (and to help keep morons from trying to bring their carry on baggage with them), and all of this is directly related to how management runs their airline, which of course is affected by whether they are working under a low cost or legacy carrier model. And on that note, an airline's financial condition will affect this as well (going broke TG vs. SQ, EVA, Cathay for example).

[mogandave]

I think in the US the all use the minimum number they can by law.

Why would they use more?

Better vs. about average service.

Not a big deal for Austin to Dallas, but more noticeable from LAX to Honolulu. It's noticeably different (in terms of number of flight crew you see) and the point is, I'm using an example that people can relate to, still use common logic, and can observe themselves to be true or not on local / regional flights.

All else equal, and assuming the flight crew actually do their job instead of abandoning ship first, it's going to be inherently safer to have extra flight crew around to direct evacuations (and to help keep morons from trying to bring their carry on baggage with them), and all of this is directly related to how management runs their airline, which of course is affected by whether they are working under a low cost or legacy carrier model. And on that note, an airline's financial condition will affect this as well (going broke TG vs. SQ, EVA, Cathay for example).

I've never understood how an extra staff that earns $30-100k a year has a significant effect on the price of a ticket on a piece of equipment that costs 70 million to half a billion dollars and burns fuel by the truck-load.

In my opinion, any emergency that results in having to evacuate is not that bad.

[Heng]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

[Ricardo]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I was in a window-seat in an exit-row, on a recent Air Asia Thailand flight, despite using a walking-stick ... I always thought they put us slower-to-move old duffers in other rows, for safety ?

But the exit-row directly in-front was left completely empty, nobody at all to operate two over-wing exits, if need be !

All the cabin-crew were sat front-and-back, by the larger main-exits.

So there would have been some avoidable-delay, in opening two of the middle-exits, if anything had happened. I remain slightly surprised that this isn't covered by Thai DCA rules, or that they're not being followed, if it is ?

[mogandave]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I was in a window-seat in an exit-row, on a recent Air Asia Thailand flight, despite using a walking-stick ... I always thought they put us slower-to-move old duffers in other rows, for safety ?

But the exit-row directly in-front was left completely empty, nobody at all to operate two over-wing exits, if need be !

All the cabin-crew were sat front-and-back, by the larger main-exits.

So there would have been some avoidable-delay, in opening two of the middle-exits, if anything had happened. I remain slightly surprised that this isn't covered by Thai DCA rules, or that they're not being followed, if it is ?

I think think they charge extra for the exit rows on Asia.

I don't thing opening the door is that difficult.

[mogandave]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I understand that it saves money, I just don't see it as being that significant, compared to all the other costs.

Saving millions a year at a company with billions in revenue is great, but does it have a significant effect on the price structure?

[Heng]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I was in a window-seat in an exit-row, on a recent Air Asia Thailand flight, despite using a walking-stick ... I always thought they put us slower-to-move old duffers in other rows, for safety ?

But the exit-row directly in-front was left completely empty, nobody at all to operate two over-wing exits, if need be !

All the cabin-crew were sat front-and-back, by the larger main-exits.

So there would have been some avoidable-delay, in opening two of the middle-exits, if anything had happened. I remain slightly surprised that this isn't covered by Thai DCA rules, or that they're not being followed, if it is ?

Now, I'm not purporting to be an expert of any kind, just a regular traveler and someone who reads the aviation (Airliners dot net for example) forums for fun... the 'rules' seem to govern 1 attendant per X seats (and that's not X passengers) per aircraft. So it's probably something like they 'should' have an attendant in that exit row jumpseat, but they aren't 'legally' required to have one there because the 3 they have on board already legally covers the number of seats. And while I like to see two gals sit together in those little red outfits chat and giggle about stuff, it would probably be better if they spread out (seating wise).

I'm not anti AirAsia or LCC or anything, I just don't delude myself into thinking it's the exact same product and service level (behind the scenes issues included). I do fly AirAsia twice a year a least, because the Singapore Airlines schedule doesn't work well for same day there and back trips. The first flight of the day doesn't get there until well after noon. Of course, that opens another can of worms.... does anyone here think security at DMK is the 'same' as at BKK? When there are so many things on the surface seems to be 'half assed'... what reason is there to believe that the same isn't going on behind the scenes where it matters?

Edited December 27, 2015 by Heng

[Heng]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I understand that it saves money, I just don't see it as being that significant, compared to all the other costs.

Saving millions a year at a company with billions in revenue is great, but does it have a significant effect on the price structure?

IMO it's one of those 'for want of a nail' issues. Everything counts and matters.

[mogandave]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I understand that it saves money, I just don't see it as being that significant, compared to all the other costs.

Saving millions a year at a company with billions in revenue is great, but does it have a significant effect on the price structure?

IMO it's one of those 'for want of a nail' issues. Everything counts and matters.

You're right.

[hawker9000]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I understand that it saves money, I just don't see it as being that significant, compared to all the other costs.

Saving millions a year at a company with billions in revenue is great, but does it have a significant effect on the price structure?

IMO it's one of those 'for want of a nail' issues. Everything counts and matters.

.... but passenger conjecture and speculation matter less than most things. We live in an age of data. So show us some data supporting the claim of any actual increased risk of anything besides inconvenience and lack of accommodation.. If you can... Edited December 27, 2015 by hawker9000

[theguyfromanotherforum]

This article explains why an Air Asia flight was doomed. :http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/investigators-rudder-crack-action-led-airasia-crash-article-1.2451126

"

An alarming number of rudder malfunctions caused by a cracked solder joint on the rudder’s electrical card went unchecked 12 months before the deadly crash, investigators revealed.

Investigators found the rudder's computer malfunctioned 23 times. "

Air Asia afficionados have been awfully quiet on this one.

Yermanee

Then by that same logic you shouldn't live in a third world country.

[Ricardo]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I was in a window-seat in an exit-row, on a recent Air Asia Thailand flight, despite using a walking-stick ... I always thought they put us slower-to-move old duffers in other rows, for safety ?

But the exit-row directly in-front was left completely empty, nobody at all to operate two over-wing exits, if need be !

All the cabin-crew were sat front-and-back, by the larger main-exits.

So there would have been some avoidable-delay, in opening two of the middle-exits, if anything had happened. I remain slightly surprised that this isn't covered by Thai DCA rules, or that they're not being followed, if it is ?

I think think they charge extra for the exit rows on Asia.

I don't thing opening the door is that difficult.

I was on a very cheap ticket, and definitely hadn't paid anything extra, to sit there.

Opening a door isn't rocket-science, but not having anyone sat near two out of eight exits on the plane, people would take longer to get there & open it, my point was the safety-aspect of a built-in un-necessary delay.

[yermanee]

This article explains why an Air Asia flight was doomed. :http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/investigators-rudder-crack-action-led-airasia-crash-article-1.2451126

"

An alarming number of rudder malfunctions caused by a cracked solder joint on the rudder’s electrical card went unchecked 12 months before the deadly crash, investigators revealed.

Investigators found the rudder's computer malfunctioned 23 times. "

Air Asia afficionados have been awfully quiet on this one.

Yermanee

Then by that same logic you shouldn't live in a third world country.

Next time before you give such a stupid comment you could first check what a 3rd world country is, and google as much as you like Thailand is not on that list.

Anyway notwithstanding some excellent comments on this topic, I do believe it's run its course.

Yermanee

[theguyfromanotherforum]

OK. By that same logic you shouldn't live in a "budget" country with dubious laws and third world infrastructure.

But you do. Why?

[Heng]

The same way not serving complimentary $6 meals on AirAsia 'saves' them millions each year and charging you $5 (+another $2 if you want to wash it down with a beverage) for meals that cost them $3 makes them millions each year. Having a standard 3 (2 chics and a dude) flight attendant 'crew' on an A320 instead of 4 has the same effect. But it IS one less able body if something goes wrong, it's one less person who might detect that something doesn't sound or smell quite right in the cabin (that's not just engine bleed air, something is on fire...), etc....

I understand that it saves money, I just don't see it as being that significant, compared to all the other costs.

Saving millions a year at a company with billions in revenue is great, but does it have a significant effect on the price structure?

IMO it's one of those 'for want of a nail' issues. Everything counts and matters.

.... but passenger conjecture and speculation matter less than most things. We live in an age of data. So show us some data supporting the claim of any actual increased risk of anything besides inconvenience and lack of accommodation.. If you can...

I cannot. In the same way I cannot prove that I know when I've had too much to drink or that when I feel the urge to have a salad that it's my body telling me I need more fiber. I do know I'd prefer to have a flight attendant open an emergency exit for me, whether I think I could probably open it myself or not... I can't prove with any data that it'd probably be better for the 150 people in line behind who want to get out alive whether they have a greater chance for survival with me trying to open a door that I'd have to read the instructions for before opening vs. a trained flight attendant opening the door.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Heng

[mogandave]

Fortunately, there are not enough incidence of air disaster to make a worthwhile study.

An airline can go from first place to last place with one crash.

[daveAustin]

yermanee

one day we will die whether on the ground,in the sea or up in the air and for whatever reason old age,illness etc. that day is marked somewhere in the future so don,t worry about a triviality as this-next time you travel in any vehicle I suggest you ask to see the maintainance records and give it a thorough inspection yourself........................

Aha here we go. Do not attack the facts but attack the OP.

I'm 79 and fly reputable airlines only, maybe some of my longevity is thanks to that.

Keep flying budget airlines as far as I'm concerned.

Yermanee

You obviously drive a Toyota...?....

Toyota Vios, 9 years and counting, not one glitch except the regular new tires (Bridgestone) and battery.

Got it from my wife for my 70th birthday, but she drives it more than me now.

Yermanee

Got it from your wife with your money? [emoji39]

Guy is right, not worth worrying about. Flag carriers also go down through maint issues. Flown AA numerous occasions and never an issue. Thai AA is also a different martian to the Indo one. If you're already 79, I'd be concerned with more pressing, realistic issues such as avoiding stress and breathing. [emoji6]

[Ricardo]

Am I missing something or is it the position of some that it more cost effective to operate an airline with poorly maintained equipment?

Not really, the one notorious Thai example (which I won't name, for obvious reasons) did have a crash, and their former Thai-domestic operation has virtually disappeared as-a-result. Quite right too.

But there seem to me to be at-least two LCC business-models, to buy large/discounted fleets of brand-new aircraft & use them intensively for several years before trading them away, or to lease much-older/cheaper aircraft and accept that they require much more maintenance which reduces availability and operational-reliability.

You can see both examples flying here, all only IMO, of course.

Most all commercial aircraft is used intensively regardless of age, and maintenance is required daily.

Poor maintenance is generally a result of poor management, not a lack of funding. Well managed maintenance doesn't cost money, it saves money.

At the airline I helped (albeit briefly) manage, we flew twice-as-many block-hours per-month in summer, as we did in the winter. So it can vary considerably.

Winter was when we tried to schedule major-maintenance checks, or dry/wet-lease our aircraft out to airlines in the southern-hemisphere, or develop long-haul winter-sun destinations, to keep them flying as much as possible.

But that was a charter-airline, not a scheduled-airline, which I'm sure makes a difference.

What wasn't different was that, as you say, maintenance was something we didn't try to shave costs on, we were one of the first airlines to do a really-major maintenance on a 20-year-old intensively-used B737-200, and Boeing came to learn how their aircraft were faring under that sort of use !

Modern LCCs like Ryanair & EasyJet do reduce routes & frequencies in winter IME, like anyone else they only want to fly if they're making some contribution to overheads, at least.

I've always been slightly surprised, that Thai LCCs don't boost their hours by using their aircraft more between midnight & 06.00, but this seems to be changing as overnight rotations to China increase. Those are ideal, for keeping planes in-the-air, provided the passengers don't mind leaving/returning-home in the small hours !

[mogandave]

Am I missing something or is it the position of some that it more cost effective to operate an airline with poorly maintained equipment?

Not really, the one notorious Thai example (which I won't name, for obvious reasons) did have a crash, and their former Thai-domestic operation has virtually disappeared as-a-result. Quite right too.

But there seem to me to be at-least two LCC business-models, to buy large/discounted fleets of brand-new aircraft & use them intensively for several years before trading them away, or to lease much-older/cheaper aircraft and accept that they require much more maintenance which reduces availability and operational-reliability.

You can see both examples flying here, all only IMO, of course.

Most all commercial aircraft is used intensively regardless of age, and maintenance is required daily.

Poor maintenance is generally a result of poor management, not a lack of funding. Well managed maintenance doesn't cost money, it saves money.

At the airline I helped (albeit briefly) manage, we flew twice-as-many block-hours per-month in summer, as we did in the winter. So it can vary considerably.

Winter was when we tried to schedule major-maintenance checks, or dry/wet-lease our aircraft out to airlines in the southern-hemisphere, or develop long-haul winter-sun destinations, to keep them flying as much as possible.

But that was a charter-airline, not a scheduled-airline, which I'm sure makes a difference.

What wasn't different was that, as you say, maintenance was something we didn't try to shave costs on, we were one of the first airlines to do a really-major maintenance on a 20-year-old intensively-used B737-200, and Boeing came to learn how their aircraft were faring under that sort of use !

Modern LCCs like Ryanair & EasyJet do reduce routes & frequencies in winter IME, like anyone else they only want to fly if they're making some contribution to overheads, at least.

I've always been slightly surprised, that Thai LCCs don't boost their hours by using their aircraft more between midnight & 06.00, but this seems to be changing as overnight rotations to China increase. Those are ideal, for keeping planes in-the-air, provided the passengers don't mind leaving/returning-home in the small hours !

When the "new" airport was being built there was talk of converting Don M into an international heavy maintenance hub, not sure of why that never happened.

I think most all flag carriers under utilize the aircraft.

[derator01]

Topic closed per request from OP. I also think it's run it's course!