Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

I always felt they may also cut corners on maintenance/safety though!

Hope I'm wrong?



http://flowingdata.com/2009/07/16/why-a ... -so-cheap/

I try to avoid the budget airlines, prefer decent service.

Don't worry SH. All carriers that are widely known and fly into Europe have an excellent trackrecord and are being audited by EASA airworthiness officers.

If they inspect an airline operational environment or a maintenance facility, whether it is a LCC or a full service carrier, they all get the same rigorous treatment.

If papers and manuals are not in place according to EASA regulations, the airline gets a warning and need to implement optimization plans to make the EASA officers happy. Second time they are grounded.

Just keep an eye out for the blacklist that is coming. That will contain all airlines that have anomalies in their operations and MRO track record.

But I do remember a report that said there was a corelation between aircraft accidents and economic downturn as airlines are more prone to use planning tactics/margins to defer defects until the scheduled maintenance checks are performed.

Won't be surprising if Low Cost Carriers actually did skip maintenance to cut costs.
If you assess LCC on a global scale especially in Latin America and Asia you'd find that they use really old planes as well. That in itself represents some risk.
And probably owing to shorter distances they tend to take things for granted.

And finally higher seat density. I think they can manage that owing to lower baggage allowances?

Misery Called Life wrote:Won't be surprising if Low Cost Carriers actually did skip maintenance to cut costs.
If you assess LCC on a global scale especially in Latin America and Asia you'd find that they use really old planes as well. That in itself represents some risk.
And probably owing to shorter distances they tend to take things for granted.

And finally higher seat density. I think they can manage that owing to lower baggage allowances?

Indeed, older aircraft fleets are more susceptible to safety risks. Aircraft technology makes sure that every new update or new design is incorporated with the latest innovative solutions.

From a cost perspective though, its wiser for older aircraft to keep the aircraft in good order as this raises the sales value. Also, if an airline tries to lower costs by compromising on engine maintenance (costly) or airframe components and assemblies under influence of wear and tear (like landing gear or flight controls) they will experience more downtime if you refer to research statistics.
And you all know that downtime means loss of revenue. Also a delay longer than 3 hours means that an airline (in Europe for sure) has to pay compensation if the customer files a complaint. So they can't compromise on essential maintenance as those carriers simply shoot themselves in the foot.

As for LCC carriers. I have a feeling their maintenance is actually very good due to the above reasons. Downtime is loss in revenue and the profit margins in LCC airlines are already low. They earn on additional inflight services like drinks, food and some on backseat IFE options.

The trend in MRO maintenance is currently in-house maintenance and I believe this is changing towards outsourcing maintenance to renowned MRO contractors in the future. That are the 'SR Technics' of the world.

If my memory is still correct, then Mubadala Investments Group increased its share in SR Technics recently... Preparing for the future...

@SH: FYI, the blacklist: http://www.aviationnews.us/articles.php ... 23&start=1

Speedhump wrote:I always felt they may also cut corners on maintenance/safety though!

Hope I'm wrong?

How Safe Is Flying: http://www.aviationnews.us/articles.php ... 97&start=1[/quote]

Thanks for all the info Robby, you would be the one to trust with your background indeed.

I remember a long time ago a UK budget airline that used to employ ex British Airways pilots once they reach the BA retirement age (quite young I believe). The public perception of the airline was that low price=poor safety, but they had a fantastic safety record and London underwriters used to queue to write a line for them.

we try not to trash ALL the threads we touch...you know?