Frontline documentary on the problems with regionals

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
tim.... writes:

Why should this require them to reduce ticket prices?

Because passengers pay in part for safety,

Do they?

Do they really?

Do passengers really pay more to fly with Qantas (who have never lost an
airliner) than with e.g United, who have?

Does the safety record really make a difference? I know that people don't
like to fly with airlines from developing countries, who just happen to have
poor safety records, but that is as much because of the service on offer.
Is the safety record of different (in this case US) airlines so different?

tim

On Feb 13, 8:55*pm, "tim...." wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

...

tim.... writes:

Why should this require them to reduce ticket prices?

Because passengers pay in part for safety,

Do they?

Do they really?

Do passengers really pay more to fly with Qantas (who have never lost an
airliner) than with e.g United, who have?

Does the safety record really make a difference? *I know that people don't
like to fly with airlines from developing countries, who just happen to have
poor safety records, but that is as much because of the service on offer.
Is the safety record of different (in this case US) airlines so different?

tim

if they have poor safety records they generally get banned....

Sancho Panza writes:

if they have poor safety records they generally get banned....

The European Union has certainly banned some airlines, but are airlines banned
in the U.S.? I haven't been able to find a list for the U.S., whereas it's
easy to find for Europe. Europe has banned just about every African airline,
and quite a few Asian airlines. It never bans its own airlines, though, as
far as I know (no matter how bad the record of Turkish Airlines might be, if
you truly consider Turkey part of Europe).

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
tim.... writes:

Why should this require them to reduce ticket prices?

Because passengers pay in part for safety,

Do they?

Do they really?

Do passengers really pay more to fly with Qantas (who have never lost an
airliner) than with e.g United, who have?

Does the safety record really make a difference? I know that people don't
like to fly with airlines from developing countries, who just happen to
have poor safety records, but that is as much because of the service on
offer. Is the safety record of different (in this case US) airlines so
different?

Even vaunted Qantas has had its rough patches:

"Qantas loses public trust on safety record
* Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
* From: The Australian
* December 08, 2008 12:00AM

QANTAS is heading into negotiations with British Airways amid new evidence
that public faith in the airline's safety record has taken a hit and that
some Australians no longer view the airline as safe.

Two serious in-flight safety scares at the airline, increased media
attention on lesser incidents and a spate of delays and cancellations appear
to have left passengers worried that the airline's safety standards have
dropped.

A survey by Labor pollsters UMR Research shows two- thirds of Australians
still believe Qantas is a safe airline to fly, but 63 per cent say safety
standards have become worse over the past few years. The online survey of
1000 people conducted between August and late November shows women, younger
Australians and Victorians are more worried about Qantas safety.

Nine out of 10 Australians believe Qantas maintenance should be done in
Australia, rather than overseas. The survey also raises a worrying note for
the airline's new maintenance joint venture with Malaysia Airlines in Kuala
Lumpur, with almost three-quarters of respondents believing the quality of
work done in Malaysia is lower than in Australia.

Related Coverage

* Reader's Comments: Qantas appeals for Australians' support
NEWS.com.au,
* Readers' Comments: Faith lost in Qantas - poll - PerthNow Perth Now,
* Public losing faith in Qantas, poll NEWS.com.au, 8 Dec 2008
* Qantas just unlucky, say mechanics NEWS.com.au, 23 Oct 2008
* Qantas workers considering strike The Australian, 10 Oct 2008

The survey comes as Transport Minister Anthony Albanese yesterday called for
Qantas to remain an Australian-owned airline for security reasons. "There
are national security issues, particularly for an island continent located
on the globe where Australia is, for having a national airline," he said.

The recent unrest in Thailand, which saw the Bangkok international airport
shut down for a week, was a case in point, he said."When Australians were
having difficulty departing from Thailand, I was able to pick up the phone
to the chief executive of Qantas, Alan Joyce, and make the request that
extra flights be put on."

The UMR survey found 73 per cent of men believed Qantas was a safe airline
compared with just 63 per cent of women.And 16 per cent of women and 17 per
cent of people under 30 viewed the airline as unsafe.

Sixteen per cent of people in Victoria, which was the centre of a
maintenance union wage campaign which included claims of safety problems
with offshore maintenance earlier this year, thought Qantas unsafe but this
dropped to 7 per cent for people over 70. High-income earners were less
worried about Qantas safety, with 74 per cent of people earning more than
$80,000 a year considering it safe and just 10 per cent saying it wasn't.

The poll was taken in three tranches, with the first done in the month after
an exploding oxygen cylinder blew a hole in the side of a Qantas jumbo jet
and prompted an emergency descent near Manila and the others conducted in
September and November. The airline suffered a second accident in early
October when an Airbus A330 twice pitched nose-down off the coast of Western
Australia, seriously injuring 14 people. Investigations into both incidents
are continuing but have initially centred on possible manufacturing problems
beyond the airline's control.

Qantas has also vigorously defended its safety record and says the number of
aircraft forced to turn back because of maintenance problems had not risen
despite the media coverage. It said the Qantas Group's rate of 98 turnbacks
for 350,000 flights (including Jetstar) compared favourably with other
airlines.

Chairman Leigh Clifford told the recent annual meeting that safety remained
the airline's No1 priority."

It's also worth noting that Qantas's new Jetstar operation makes much noise
that it charges lower fares.

tim.... writes:

Do they?

Do they really?

Do passengers really pay more to fly with Qantas (who have never lost an
airliner) than with e.g United, who have?

Qantas is not demonstrably safer than United. Regional airlines are
demonstrably worse than the majors.

Does the safety record really make a difference?

For a substantial minority of passengers (a 30-50%, I'd guess), it does make a
difference, if they are made aware of the safety record. Many people have had
it drilled into them that airline travel is completely, totally safe, however,
and probably don't ask themselves any questions today. The problem is that,
while air travel is very safe, it isn't completely safe, and the differences
in safety between a major airline and a regional are real and significant.

I know that people don't
like to fly with airlines from developing countries, who just happen to have
poor safety records, but that is as much because of the service on offer.

Many people don't realize how poor the record is in the Third World, again
because they are constantly told that all airlines are safe.

Is the safety record of different (in this case US) airlines so different?

Airlines and the airline industry deliberately avoid all discussion of safety,
and won't even talk about relative safety. They tell everyone that it's always
110% safe everywhere, with no difference between carriers. But there are
differences.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Does the safety record really make a difference?

For a substantial minority of passengers (a 30-50%, I'd guess), it does make
a
difference, if they are made aware of the safety record. Many people have had
it drilled into them that airline travel is completely, totally safe,
however,
and probably don't ask themselves any questions today. The problem is that,
while air travel is very safe, it isn't completely safe, and the differences
in safety between a major airline and a regional are real and significant.

So, if they care, they would find out who is running the flight and
stay away. Most of the websites I have looked around on tell you at
least the aircraft and mostly the carrier if it is other than the
airline itself. If anyone is interested all they really have to do is
stay on equipment from Boeing or Airbus and they should be with the
"real" airlines.



Airlines and the airline industry deliberately avoid all discussion of
safety,
and won't even talk about relative safety. They tell everyone that it's
always
110% safe everywhere, with no difference between carriers. But there are
differences.
That Dateline, USA Today, the NYT, the AP and a multitude of other
sources point out from time to time.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

Kurt Ullman writes:

So, if they care, they would find out who is running the flight and
stay away.

If they knew that there are substantial safety differences--but they don't.

Most of the websites I have looked around on tell you at
least the aircraft and mostly the carrier if it is other than the
airline itself. If anyone is interested all they really have to do is
stay on equipment from Boeing or Airbus and they should be with the
"real" airlines.

They don't try to look it up because they don't realize that there's a
difference worth checking into.

I agree that staying with Boeing or Airbus aircraft is usually pretty safe.

And yes, I have canceled flights myself after discovering that they would be
flown on regional turboprops, although it wasn't just or primarily because of
doubts about pilot competence.

That Dateline, USA Today, the NYT, the AP and a multitude of other
sources point out from time to time.

They talk about accidents, but not safety.

An accident is the result of an accumulation of many individual errors. Often
these errors were made for a very long time individually until they finally
combined in an unhappy way. The documentary even points this out.

Because of this, you can have two carriers that are vastly different in their
safety levels without any difference in accidents (until the above happens).
One might have very generous safety margins (and will thus avoid accidents),
while the other might have very thin margins (and will thus have an accident
sooner or later). You don't really know until the accidents occur; the best
you can do is infer from what you do know. Deep discounts on tickets are one
sign that there may be shortcuts taken on safety.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

So, if they care, they would find out who is running the flight and
stay away.

If they knew that there are substantial safety differences--but they don't.

If they cared they would know and find out.

They don't try to look it up because they don't realize that there's a
difference worth checking into.

Then they aren't really interested and certainly not paying
attention.

That Dateline, USA Today, the NYT, the AP and a multitude of other
sources point out from time to time.

They talk about accidents, but not safety.

The last Dateline (or maybe the one on CBS, I get them confused)
talked about lousy safety records, poor pilot training and requirements,
long commutes, etc. Same with the last CNN chat about regional airlines
and the last AP article I saw. Much umbrage and angst from the Fourth
Estate recently.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Feb 13, 9:33*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
Kurt Ullman writes:

So, if they care, they would find out who is running the flight and
stay away.

If they knew that there are substantial safety differences--but they don't.

* If they cared they would know and find out.

They don't try to look it up because they don't realize that there's a
difference worth checking into.

* * Then they aren't really interested and certainly not paying
attention.

That Dateline, USA Today, the NYT, the AP and a multitude of other
sources point out from time to time.

They talk about accidents, but not safety.

* *The last Dateline (or maybe the one on CBS, I get them confused)
talked about lousy safety records, poor pilot training and requirements,
long commutes, etc. Same with the last CNN chat about regional airlines
and the last AP article I saw. Much umbrage and angst from the Fourth
Estate recently.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
* * * --Eric Clapton

Recently (1-- 3 years ago) a passenger airliner crashed allegedly from
later determined PILOTS ERRORS near Buffalo:

The pilot's file shows he was apparently unqualified if not
inexperienced

The co-pilot's file apparently ditto

Plus they both were reportedly fatigued

The co-pilot pay for the commuter gigs is something like $26 thousand
a year

I do not fly unless my dear wife pushes, and the above is certainly
plenty of reasons enough

A few months ago we flew in a small passenger commuter plane RT
Atlanta-Gulfport Miss
and do acknowledge the trips went smoothly, except those
Jackson-Hartsfield end of concourse concrete steps, no other
complaint

I am slightly surprised the Buffalo commuter airline has an insurance
underwriter, because I would
expect them to rationally beg off of doing business with such an
alleged certified airline