Low cost flights?

Following the tragic accident in Thailand where a low cost carrier crashed and killed 100 many of whom were foreigners I want to ask people here if they have had any bad experiences with the budget airlines. For me personally only one time on an Air-Asia flight from KL to Clark where the plane was tilting alot from side to side during landing and barely made it on one wheel. Most people on the plane were pretty scared. Ater that episode and due to the endless delays and poor customer service I now much prefer an established airline if I can get that.
So you had any safety episodes while flying budget carriers?

Why not wait for the proper authorities to make the pronouncement as to what caused the accident rather than making unfair conclusions like this?

Accidents happen whether you paid cheap or not.

So sorry for those who lost love ones in this tragedy.

condolences to the phuket tragedy.

mortenHS, u scare me a bit, as i'm planning to fly of the same route this nov.

as for leng77, i agree with u.

apparently the plane skidded off the runway in wet conditions

that could happen to any plane

although I have found this

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>One-Two-Go, which is a low-cost subsidiary of Orient Thai Airlines, does not have its safety standards examined because it operates only in Thailand.<hr></blockquote>

Phuket airport is tricky enough in clear & calm conditions due to a big hump in the middle of the runway. Add inclement weather with a possible microburst resulting in a tailwind during a missed (low visibility) approach and you have the ingredients for a disaster. The go-around should have been initiated much earlier, probably the landing should not have been attempted at all. Plenty of alternates available in that region.

#3 i agree. there was a movie on ntv about how it appearently happened, it skidded off the runway into some trees, catched fire and bursted. so far, it was said on ntv that this scenario would be possible to happen to any aircraft.

for Airasia, i had never any uncomfortable feeling at all..other than with indonesian airlines, some give you a better feeling than others..but as a matter of fact none operates under international safety standards. i personally think flying is still the safest option- there are terrible bus/train/ferry-desasters which just don`t make their way up to the news very often..

in late 2004 an Air Asia flight skidded on landing on the runway at KK in wet conditions. No-one was seriously injured, but the airport was closed for a few hours and it made the front page of the Borneo Post.

on about 30 budget airline flights in SEAsia, I've never had any safety concerns/scary moments as posted by the OP.

A budget airline is still the best way to travel. They don't mean they have budget pilots or budget aircraft, it means you won't get the frills that you never needed anyway.

after all.....

any ideas of how to avoid of feeling scared while on board... thus, to make flight trip be more relax?

You have a better chance being killed in the taxi ride to the airport than you do flying with even the worst of airlines. This might help lessen fears of flying... or it may make you nervous about the taxi ride!

Just because this incident happened to a budget airline doesn't mean it has something to do with the fact that it is a budget airline. The media jumped on the fact that it happened to a budget airline, manipulated the irrational fears of the public to stir public discomfort and fear about budget flying.

I'm Chinese. If I am to be knocked down by a car today does it mean all Chinese people have a greater tendency towards car accidents. The connection is ridiculous. The plane involved in the accident belongs to a budget airline, that doesn't mean budget airlines are unsafe. The connection is likewise, equally ridiculous.

Flying is still safer than crossing the street.

a few years ago my flight to manila was rerouted to cebu because a JAL flight skidded off the runway ...it can happen with any airline...

I've used AirAsia many times and they're at least as good as European airlines - though I can't look under the bonnet of course.

Well first of all I did not intend to scare people off...but a number of reasons speak against low cost carriers, I mean I use them for low price also, anyway the planes are older, the pilots fly more hours and since wages are typically lower you can expect that the pilots do not have the standard of more established companies. Moreover bigger planes are usually safer and established companies use those. Safe travel everybody.

>the planes are older

AirAsia's fleet is brand new. I think that on average budget airlines (in Europe at least) have newer planes than the flag carriers. It's a few places like Indonesia that have 2nd-3rd hand fleets.

well, you cant blame people if theyre scared flying on budget airlines due to the recent disaster. Well, first the media is the one to blame with this exxagerated analysis and speculations. But for me,I just booked a 3 baht offer of Nok Air for my Thailand domestic sector on December.This tragic event doesnt generally made me scared to fly budget airlines but more on living my life to the fullest while Im still have that chance. I might one of those who boarded that plane .My heart goes to those who lost their love ones and my prayers for those souls...

The newer flight company set up in China seems to be going to the trend of becoming budget airliners these days, yet the ticket price isn't really cheap.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr> the planes are older, the pilots fly more hours and since wages are typically lower you can expect that the pilots do not have the standard of more established companies. <hr></blockquote>

and which airlines are these again?

Well the pilot on the airline was indonesian. It could have happened to anyone yes, so lets not blame the poor pilot. I agree.

But I am saying that since wages are higher and for example Thai airways there will be higher skilled pilots. this is economics abc.

And if you buy a laptop second hand from some unknown taiwanese brand do you expect it to hold up as well as a IBM thinkpad?

For me budget airlines will now be a minimum. Also because of the general hassle involved.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>But I am saying that since wages are higher and for example Thai airways there will be higher skilled pilots. this is economics abc.<hr></blockquote>

So by way of your logic, we can therefore generalize that TG will never crash right? And we can expect this so-called higher skilled pilots not to make any grave errors that can endanger the lives of the passengers right?
Oh and not to mention, avoid Indonesian pilots.

#19- how kind of you questioning the skills of the late pilot when in fact you or we didnt even know waht is going there when its happen. I always believe and I trust the pilot thats why I love to take planes,no pilot will endanger the life of his passengers let alone himself not unless in a suicidal conditions.Now, you want to know the skills and experience? why dont you get his resume first before you give that conclusion.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>And if you buy a laptop second hand from some unknown taiwanese brand do you expect it to hold up as well as a IBM thinkpad?<hr></blockquote>

and where all IBM thinkpad parts originated??? DO you know , thats its all came from TAIWANNNN...come on.The difference between planes are their paint , the interiors, but they are all made in TAIWAN as your IBM thinkpad does,lol.

Another point is that the difference between 'budget' and 'regular' airlines (whatever those terms may mean) are getting smaller. Many flag carriers own parts of, or even fully control seemingly independent budget model airlines that compete directly with their own flights - aiming to keep control in their market rather than dealing with a newcomer. Then you see that many flag carriers are dropping some of the their prices and services to budget airline levels.

Deregulation and (finally) implementing fairer rules has lead to the uprise of budget airlines, and flag carriers were forced to follow. Budget carriers in themselves are not per se 'dangerous' and I'm sure that in countries with proper regulations they crash just as often or seldom as other airlines. Airline maintenance and pilot training starndards are the same the world over, except in a few dodgy countries that have been exposed by the EU ban (Indonesia, some African countries).

Rather than choosing not to board budget airlines, it would be wiser to avoid flying with local airlines in these countries.

>For me budget airlines will now be a minimum. Also because of the general hassle involved.
If you've ever used airlines like Germanwings or Air Berlin you'll see that they actually offer higher standards (quality, punctuality, friendliness) than BA or KLM, and at bargain prices.

I use Air Asia quite a bit, have never had a scary flight, neither on any other airline. I'll still use them for my SEA connections.

Good good, no I have only flown with asian low budget carriers and apart from the poor customer service I was very satisfied with the pay. But really and I am getting a little irritated here, consider that there will be a difference in the skill level of people involved. Same in any business, pay more expect more qualified people. So if you want to fly budget, then do so, but you cannot deny that established airlines have better trained pilots. And in the case of Ryan Air in Europe pilots where forced to fly non stop for up to 24 hours. Just consider this.

#24

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>And in the case of Ryan Air in Europe pilots where forced to fly non stop for up to 24 hours<hr></blockquote>

now your exagerrating,even a cleaner in an office is not allowed to work 24 hours how much more a pilot?

The majority of aircraft accidents are due to human error. One of the biggest factors is pressure on the flight crew to complete the flight as per the schedule. Persisting with a flight in adverse conditions is possibly the number one cause of accidents.

With a low budget carrier, operating margins are razor thin. Every flight must go according to schedule. Even lengthy taxiing must be avoided in order to save costs. Pressure on pilots to land whatever the conditions are enormous. As long as the airport is open, pilots feel an obligation to attempt a landing.

Having said that, it must be acknowledged that almost without exception established airlines are also operating on a low budget model these days.

Why was Phuket airport open in such atrocious conditions? Who knows, but since both the pilot and copilot are dead, I have no hesitation in predicting that in 12 to 18 months time a board of inquiry will announce that the flight crew were solely to blame for the disaster.

OK #26, let's see. I think one fact that everyone on here who's flown these low cost carriers can agree on is that they're on time performance is pretty bad compared to the larger carriers. If you're plane arrives on time, you've got some pretty good karma going!

So if pressure to keep on schedule is a large factor in safety, or lack there of, wouldn't that "theory" make the major carriers more dangerous? Obviously these budget carriers must not have much pressure to keep on schedule if they're consistantly late!

"Every flight must go according to schedule" If that's so, how are they all still in business?

I always give myself plenty of time for flights on Air (Del)Asia. 90% of the flights I've been on leave late (including early morning ones). I flew Siem Reap- Kuala Lumpur- Surabaya- Jakarta- Kuala Lumpur- Siem Reap last month. Not one flight left on time, the first one to Surabaya arrived three hours late!
As long as the people don't complain (I was the only one) Tony Fernandez won't change a thing. And, of course, he's got lots of money, licenses (and many 'other' things) to operate airlines need to be paid for... A bit of palm greasing seems to be the norm with all airline operations in SEA (Bangkok/Siem Reap Airlines, Bagan Airlines, Air Asia just to name a few).

One thing though I read online that the Thai carrier was owned by Thai Airways and that Thai Airways also crashed on Phuket a couple of years ago. The article suggested to check first which company owns the low cost carrier and then looking at the safety records of that company.

And here is a Times article discussing budget airline safety across Asia - nothing to worry about.

just a thought to that times article..
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>“The important factor is how well maintained an aircraft is – a new aircraft that is poorly maintained is more dangerous than an old one that is properly maintained.”<hr></blockquote>

and i think the maintenance is exactly the problem..IF elderly fleets would be properly maintained. do you believe so? who controls it? and then what is "old"? Garuda has regionally some of the highest standart and these are the aircrafts they use:
B737-500 1997
B737-300 1990
B737-400 1993-1998
A330-200 1997
DC 10 1976-1979
B747-400 1993-1995

i try not to look at position nr. 5! so we hope for no corruption but proper maintenance..

coming back to the OP, Airasia has a some of the newest fleet in the world and has its maintenace done in Singapore if i am not wrong!

Problem is article in #30 states that older olains not necesarrily dangerous but unsteady at landing - DOH???

well bassman, perhaps you should read my post again. My point was that the flight should be completed, point A to point B without incurring additional operating costs. Whether it is late in departure is irrelevant (admittedly the term 'schedule' is ambiguous here). You will also note that I already made the point about the majors.

I reiterate, most airline accidents are due to human error. A major factor is pressure on the crew to operate the flight as economically as possible. Yes this can mean delayed departures for various reasons.