Hi Will
I have to say that in turn I tend to disagree, there are plenty of airlines that have questionable safety records for a variety of reasons... maintenance, age of fleet (however you measure it), quality of crew etc..... to the point that a lot of organisations such as my current and former employers operate 'no fly' lists.... why else would they do this ??
I really think you are doing BA and the flight deck/cabin crew from yesterday a diservice by comparing them with and saying they are no different to some shoddy outfit from a third world carrier.
What you say is fine on paper and in a perfect world...... but we dont live in one [:)]
All IMHO of course.
Cheers
Mark [:D]
Hi Mark!
Carriers all over the world have to meet a standard to be able to fly, otherwise they would not have their operators license. The standard has to be obtained across the board, including maintenance, flight deck crew, cabin crew etc. The a/c of course all have to pass a variety of tests (both with manufacturer and once in service) in order to fly also. And pilots all meet the same objective standard before they are able to fly. Clearly there are good and less good pilots, but as lay people we cannot tell who is a good pilot or who is a less good one. Indeed in all major airlines, it goes without saying, there will be good and less good pilots. Just like there are good and bad people at their jobs in all walks of life. Fleet cycles are also important, but I believe, and Denzil will be able to clarify, but the more cycles the a/c has done the more tests/inspections it is put under thus making it just as safe if not safer than brand new planes.
Of all the carriers that are mentioned on these boards they are all excellent carriers in that regard. The inflight product may not be as good as BA or VS but they are still obtaining the same safety levels in every aspect of an airline otherwise they would not be flying.
The crew of the BA flight did an excellent job yesterday but we should not let the media spin make us believe that a pilot from EK, VS, EZY, FR or any of the other carriers using UK airports (take Transaero for example) would not have done exactly the same. The media seem very good at making us believe that problems happen with airlines due to the airlines themselves. In the majority of cases the problems happen due to a default in the manufacturing of the plane that has not come to light before (as yesterdays problem may prove to be). The most high profile human error incident of recent years would be the SQ 744 that crashed on take off in bad weather at Taipei.
The marketing department of BA/VS would love us to believe that we are less safe in an aircraft from Ryanair, Oman Air or Air China but the fact is, IMHO, we are not and it is a bit of an insult to the staff of those carriers (who often undertake training at BA or VS and of course since 9/11 the majority of First Officers now with airlines like BA and VS have started out with the likes of Easyjet and Ryanair or in the RAF).
As for no fly lists. Is the main criteria safety? I know of a major company in the banking industry whose no fly list is qualified by a number of different factors such as: Value for money, route network, corporate discount, on time performance, reliability and safety. If the main criteria is safety then maybe those airlines who have had major incidents at LHR in the last 10 years are not on the list (thats BA and VS only btw).
The crew of BA38 did an excellent job yesterday and so did the emergency services, who were on the scene within 30 seconds of the slides being deployed. Maybe I am different to the vast majority on here (and that may come from my interest as an aviation fan on the whole) but I see pilots as pilots, I do not see a BA pilot as being better than one from EZY or from Alitalia.
