LukeSWCertainly it does.
How frequent, in the fields where single pilots now fly (private planes and small commercial planes) are crashes due to solo pilot illness, as opposed to crashes due to solo pilot being overwhelmed and distracted by flying duties, or making stupid errors that a copilot would have corrected?
Probably only a comparatively small number are due to solo pilot illness I would imagine, but if solo piloting becomes more widespread in the airline industry, the frequency of it happening is of course going to increase.
I’m not sure this would be good PR for airlines that choose to operate single-pilot large aircraft.
The concept of single pilot flying of airliners seems to go against the whole idea of CRM (crew resource management) which, amongst other things, emphasises the cross-checking of crew members’ decisions and the open questioning of each other’s judgement. CRM is said to have become an important part of improving aviation safety. I guess it just depends how far technology can go in making concepts like CRM obsolete..
LukeSWStill, don’t expect a single pilot RJ anytime soon…or even a bizjet above a certain gross weight.
Regulatory authorities are slow to adopt changes brought about by some technological advancements.
Technological advancements won’t do anything to stop pilots from suddenly falling ill, collapsing and even dying while flying. This does happen and so it would never really be safe for widespread commercial flights to be flown with one member of flight crew, regardless of the technology on board.
LukeSWIf they think they can make a profit leasing a few extra aircraft this summer (or longer), maybe increasing schedules or maybe adding a few routes, then why not? As I said earlier, lease prices are probably rock bottom at the moment, but (I am led to believe) low cost holiday travel hasn’t taken a huge hit.
If ACMI prices are low right now, then it makes more sense. Otherwise, ACMI leasing isn’t normally a particularly low-cost way of operating flights. U2 typically generate above industry average profits and like you say, this is because of their low cost base which allows them to sell flights with decent margins despite low fares. Wet leasing is normally more expensive than operating your own flights unless you’re really inefficient, but you could be onto something if you’re right about ACMI’s being cheap right now..
It’s a nice idea, and believe me I would love to see it, but I don’t think they can be testing the water with 757s and 767s. They’re old aircraft now, and using them on a long term basis would be going completely against the low cost stratergy of rotating out aircraft more than a few years old.
Sure, I’m not expecting U2 to start operating 757s and 767s themselves! This certainly wouldn’t be good economically (high mx costs due age, lack of operational commonality with the Airbus fleet etc).. I meant ‘testing the water’ as in expanding their currently tiny A321 fleet. Selling the extra seats on the wet leased 757 will give a real world demonstration to the airline of the levels of yields that they can achieve on their route network with more seats on the inventory. This is something that Flybe did a few years ago when it wet leased some Astraeus 737s.
LukeSWAre these ACMI leased aircraft going to be flying flights that have been already scheduled but for which easyJet don’t have crew capacity, or has the airline planned schedules for these aircraft after deciding to lease them?
If it’s the latter I don’t understand how the benefit of operating one or two extra aircraft can be worth it? Given easyJet’s vast fleet, how does an extra couple of aircraft generate any significant increase in profits? Especially given that ACMI leases are known to be expensive and eJ sales at relatively low-fares..
Clearly it is worth it or the management wouldn’t be doing it, but I’m having a hard time understanding how it can be.
If it’s a case of leasing the aircraft to avoid having to cancel flights with forward bookings, or to test the water with larger capacity aircraft (ie, “should we order more A321s?”) then it makes sense to me, but otherwise I could do with some help understanding this! 🙂
Thanks,
Luke
LukeSWGuys, I don’t think you’ve thought this through. If you purchase your items from the “dinner lady” as she pases by then you only see her once…if you order your drink, then find she’s pretty, then you can order some peanuts later, and then perhaps some pringles, and then perhaps that bar of chocolate..
Haha, exactly.. when you order from the PTV, a flight attendant will still serve your order so it doesn’t make much difference in that way really! That’s unless they adapt the system so that the message is sent to a robot/vending machine trolley which rolls down the aisle, stops at your seat and dispenses your order.. The robot probably wouldn’t be very useful in an emergency evacuation though, or in dealing with pax making ‘bomb jokes’..
LukeSWAn inflight chatroom ? Whatever next, ordering your drinks by e-mail perhaps… how impersonal !
Yep, pretty much – Virgin America uses a system where food and drink is ordered using the PTV, sending the request to a computer in the galley. Not sure if V Australia use the same system. I think it’s quite a good idea myself..
LukeSWGo on, tell me I’m being crazy! 😮
Rationally, yes you’re being crazy. But humans just aren’t completely rational things and I think it’s a completely normal, non-crazy ’emotional’ response! It would probably put me off too even though I know it doesn’t make sense. But then again I’m afraid of (big) spiders which doesn’t make sense either!
LukeSWI think what concerns me more is the general shift toward shand luggage, and in fairness it is seen across all the airlines, not just RYR/EZY. The number of times you get on any flight and find someone struggling with some whopping case trying to lift it into the overhead locker alarms me a lot. I may be making this next bit up and haven’t checked the AAIB report, but from memory I think they highlighted hand luggage as a killer in the Kegworth disaster and recommended limits on this. I would hate to be under one of those heavy bags in an accident if the locker came open (which they do).
Completely agree. People already make compromises when they fly FR.. such as travelling to airports distant from the city centre in many cases, yet the model seems to work successfully so I don’t think this would be a problem commercially. In terms of safety though, the encouragement of filling the cabin with weight unrestricted hand luggage is a step backward.. As well as what is noted in accident reports, from anecdotal evidence (ie forums and chatting to people) it seems that even in routine operations the event of overhead lockers opening seems to be fairly common during heavy landings and heavy turbulence for example..
LukeSWAbout time this issue is addressed by the regulators. Hopefully they will actually do something substantial about it and we will see significant reductions in maximum working hours for pilots (and cabin crew).
Why is it that regulators seem to wait until people die before addressing problems that were very clearly apparent before any accidents happened? The problem with bleed air contamination is an example of an issue that has so far not caused an accident, but has come very close a number of times, and so far regulators are turning a blind eye and just giving it lip service.
Why don’t aviation authorities have any balls?
LukeSWWith a commercial scope I could actually see it being used somewhere. A Western enthusiast believes in Aeroflot with Russian equipment. Because I wrote some, which I meant all btw, nice things about them, which they haven’t picked up. !
Agreed. Definitely a case-study in there. The reply was almost ok I guess, but there was no attempt to react to the positive points which could have been reflected in the reply.
LukeSWI don’t like the livery on it. Very grey and bland. Worse than eurowhite.
LukeSWWhich aircraft type did you fly on? How was it? Is that a nervous stomach ache?! Hope you have a good return flight.
LukeSWWow, that’s amazing co-ordination and utilisation with the apron parking!
There was a feature on this airport in Airports of the World magazine a while ago.
I’m surprised at how so much of the short runway is used for take-off. It’s hard to judge accurately from the video but it looks like the twotter uses about 95%. I thought commercial aircraft had to be able to get airborne and be 30ft above the end of the runway with one engine failure occurring at or after V1. Looks like it only just made it with two engines working! Of course, it is impossible to tell from the video so I’m not suggesting laws are being broken. 😮
LukeSWTrue, but my point is that some (probably most) people will not put the two and two together if they have booked the flight say two or three months in advance, then get a new card a couple of weeks before their flight having completely forgotten about the need to take the payment card to the airport. They may not remember until told at check-in.
I’d expect this to happen since it’s still quite an unusual requirement and not something people easily remember they need to take for a flight. After all, some people even forget to bring their passport for a flight as shown regularly on the TV program ‘Airline’!
Of course, it would be the passenger’s fault for forgetting but the rule is creating a situation which makes it too easy for people to make a simple mistake that will result in them loosing their money and missing their flight.
LukeSWI can’t understand the need to show the payment card either.. It’s sure to cause problems for passengers.
For example, what about the thousands of HSBC customers in the UK who are all in the process of being sent Visa debit cards to replace their old Maestro debit cards? The Visa debit card numbers are completely different to each person’s old Maestro card so if a passenger has paid for a flight with their old card, then get the new card before flying it won’t be recognised at check-in. And most people will probably forget about the need to keep the old card for their flight and destroy it when they get the new visa card (as per HSBC instructions).
Airlines enforcing this policy should at least have a secondary method for processing passengers who don’t bring their payment card with them, even if it involves charging a small ‘administration fee’ for not complying with the airline’s instructions. Giving pax only the options of paying again or not flying is unacceptable! 😮
Sign In
