SkymonsterA flight can’t be legally dispatched without the minimum number of crew. So if one pilot out of three is unfit to fly and the flight legally required three, then the flight has to be delayed until another crew member is found, or the flight is cancelled. The captain’s absolute first responsibility is to the safety of the flight, the crew and the passengers. But beyond that there is room for compassion – if the problem is recognized and the person involved is prepared to acknowledge the problem and seek help (and subsequently prove that things have changed), then often the industry will give folks a second chance. Bluntly it costs too much to train, qualify and recruit a pilot so if a problem like this can be fixed to the satisfaction of the airline, the regulatory authority and the person involved, often it will be fixed rather than casting out the individual concerned.
Andy
SkymonsterAs for accepting his condition and “allowing him to be a passenger” then the Captain would have been complicit in the act. That’s simply not acceptable is it, or am I just being naive?:confused: 🙁
You can’t just depart without the appropriate number of crew – there were three flight deck crew rostered for a reason. If it had come to the captain’s attention, he should have said “Look bud, you’ve got a problem. You need to take yourself off of the flight and tell the company you have a problem”. That way its likely to be solved through therapy/rehab program. If the guy refuses to do anything, that’s when the captain has to tell the company.
At the end of the day, the guy was found to be over the limit…you can’t claim it was a ‘terrible misjudgment’ and that you’re deeply remorseful when you do something like this, and now sadly it will more than likely cost him his job and be the end of his career in aviation (well certainly flying, that is for sure!).
Alcohol does strange things to peoples judgement – even pilots holding positions of significant safety responsibility.
A rehab program sometimes gets them back again even after incidents like this, but in this case the six jail sentence may prove to be too big a hurdle, if only because some countries decline or revoke visas for people who have been convicted.
Andy
SkymonsterWhy am I not surprised Ryanair is involved in this (Guardian article mentions Ryanair)!
Andy
SkymonsterI think Boeing’s problem is/was more that their design teams have been so tied up with the 787 and 747-8 programs (the 748 program was affected by shortage of design staff still on the 787 program a while ago), that ramping up a program would have been difficult and even now reacting quickly might be a challenge – maybe all that, combined with a bit of denial that the market really wanted and was receptive to a new short-haul airplane as soon as it just has been. I strongly suspect that the giant from Seattle/Chicago hasn’t been totally sleeping and we’ll hear something from them soon, so wake-up call I doubt but the recent interest and sales activity directed towards the A320NEO will surely have been a sharp jab in the ribs for Boeing.
Andy
SkymonsterEI-DAX was ferried to DUB yesterday for painting into OK Air (China) colours
Andy
SkymonsterGiven the nature of the problem identified as a result of the fire, it could be argued that the fire has done Boeing a favour – had the problem been detected in-service, then its possible that the fleet could have been grounded (as were the prototypes) for a significant period.
Andy
SkymonsterI think that the next year or two will be crucial as far as the SSJ is concerned… It looks good, the numbers and performance look good, the order book is reasonably healthy. Now Sukhoi have to prove that the airplane is resiliant, reliable, that it can meet the TBO targets, and that they can support it in service in places as far away as Mexico – these issues have typically been the real problems with Russian jets in the past, and it will be interesting to see whether or not in a year or two’s time there are lines of SSJs parked up on airport backlots waiting for MRO work or AOG parts.
Andy
Skymonster2013 EIS is a dream that Airbus fanyboys have been wetting themselves with on A.net
I agree – Boeing won’t miss this new date by that far. Boeing believe they can get it to the first customer sometime between July and September 2011. However, the devil may yet prove to be in the detail. First delivery and EIS are two rather different things, especially when you’re talking about the very first of a new aircraft – I suspect that push or shove they’ll make the first delivery in Q3 this year, but I have a feeling (based on nothing other than personal intuition) that true EIS might end up taking place in Q4.
What will also be interesting to learn is the position taken by the Feds on ETOPS – there were rumblings that after the fire Boeing might not get the “out of the box” ETOPS it’s aiming for without a lot of proving things are sorted out… We’ll see…
Andy
SkymonsterFrom the information available to us, I actually think Boeing are actually beginning to get this program under control. They may actualy make this deadline.
Ye, beginning to maybe, but Boeing don’t exactly come across as totally confident…
“This revised timeline for first delivery accommodates the work we believe remains to be done to complete testing and certification of the 787,”
(my emphasis in bold to illustrate my point)
Andy
SkymonsterI understand and accept your point of view, Andy, and I know full well Ryanair are less than perfect, but it won’t stop me flying with them should it be convenient to do so. As for “whatever the consequences”, if you choose to be the aviation equivalent of a conscientious objector then feel free but don’t expect others to go along with it. I don’t need to justify my reasons for flying with Ryanair to you or anyone else.
I’m not a conscientious objector, nor do I expect you to justify your flying with Ryanair. But in an open forum I’m entitled to put across a point of view – and that point of view includes what I think of Ryanair and some other low-cos (please note that I’m not against all low-cos and I personally find a lot of what Southwest do to be entirely acceptable), and what I see as the issues with them.
But as Interflu62M says, the proletariat won’t consider the issues or look elsewhere than Ryanair and their likes for air travel unless the regulators force some of the issues – which neatly brings us back to my approval for the decision recently taken in Spain and my hope that the same decision will ultimately be applied throughout the EU. It’s a first step in the right direction, in my opinion.
Andy
SkymonsterSeems like Bath Travel are not paying all of their bills. Whilst its sad to see them go, Astraeus aren’t a charity!
Andy
SkymonsterFrankly if I can fly somewhere so cheaply then I will do
Yeah, whatever the consequences! 😡 Again, that’s a part of the problem.
Skymonsterbut it’s the attitude some people have of almost looking down on those who choose to fly with a certain airline that bugs me a bit
Just as the large supermarkets have used their power to impose very difficult conditions on their suppliers that make it hard for their suppliers to run the business profitably, so to has Ryanair done the same with airports, handling agents, caterers. And in both cases it’s the staff that get the crap and the low wages.
So whilst I do not directly looking down on people who fly with Ryanair, I do believe that they should be aware of the consequences of their choice of travel provider. If they still want to travel with Ryanair – and sadly it won’t surprise me that most will – then I accept that but don’t necessarily respect them for making that choice.
The sooner Ryanair and the likes are FORCED to adopt business practices that provide the passenger with a service at a price that in a meaningful way goes some way to reflecting the cost of provision (again, I accept that occasionally sales and loss-leaders can be offered), and at the same time their operating practices are fair and reflect the true cost of provision (credit card charges, check-in fees) and what they pay for services provided to them is also fair – then that’ll be the day the airline industry becomes a much much better industry for everyone.
Andy
Skymonsteryeah sure we can discuss things but it’s the attitude some people have of almost looking down on those who choose to fly with a certain airline that bugs me a bit. By all means we can discuss opinions on why we dislike an airline but the implication people are in some way wrong for choosing to fly with someone is nonsense
I don’t look down on people who fly Ryanair but I sure do look down on Ryanair. Everything Interflug has said is correct – the way Ryanair mis-represent their charges (yes they do – it DOES NOT cost Ryanair £5 per sector or whatever it is now to allow passengers to pay by credit card, it does not cost Ryanair £40 to print a boarding card), they way Ryanair treat their staff and suppliers, etc. etc. The low-fare sector has done huge damage to some parts of the industry – and it has been particularly at the expense of the staff and other service providers who now have to work or operate under much more severe constrains or reduced levels of payment, all for the sake of a few people jollying off to Dublin or Poland or wherever.
My bank account disagreed on the countless times I’ve flown to Dublin and back for a fiver, or even just for £0.02.
And therein lays much of the problem. These days, I do not believe you should be allowed to fly to Dublin for £0.02 or even for £5.00. Just like the “minimum unit charge” the government is introducing to try to reduce excess alcohol consumption and the problems it causes, so too there should be a minimum charge for flying. These prices do nothing to help aviation’s case – all they do is encourage people to travel unnecessarily, thereby increasing the impact aviation has on the environment. The cost of flying a passenger to Dublin – particularly taking into account taxes etc – vastly exceeds £0.02 or even £5.00, and until passengers are forced to pay a realistic fare and consider why they’re flying, the industry will be damaged by these rediculously cheap fares that play into the hands of environmentalists. Sure, any airline should be allowed to have a “sale” much as other business do, and set their own prices too, but sooner or later we need for aviation’s customer to pay a meaningful contribution to the the real cost of moving themselves about the planet and the impact that has.
I would like to see airlines – all airlines, not just Ryanair –
(1) be forced to pass on taxes such as APD to each passenger rather than absorb them for some passengers in order to offer head-line making rediculously cheap fares
(2) be forced to charge only a meaningful amount that reflects the true cost for “essential” services such as credit cards, airport checkin, baggage etc. And if the “service” is truely essential – checkin has to be done come what may – then airlines should be forced to include those services in the ticket price not charge extra for them even if they’re done at home
(3) be forced to charge all passengers some degree of contribution to the operating costs of the flight, even if that still results in variations of fares, loss leaders, etc.
Andy
Sign In
