Are Domestic Arlines Really Getting Worse?

[James331]

I don't know what you are doing. Agreeing that you love EVA and JAL?

Otherwise: posting CFRs doesn't prove that only American domestic airlines follow those regulations.

James, I agree with you--as I'm sure anyone would--that America guarantees a certain level of safety. That doesn't mean that there aren't excellent airlines out there outside of our country. There are, and the are very competitive. The only thing they cannot do, of course, is take over domestic routes.

But I hold to my original statement that there are some fantastic international airlines--many of which do it better than AA, UAL, and Delta, in a lot of cases. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the two domestic airlines which made the top 20 list are "niche" airlines--Hawaiian and Alaska--and not the big three.

You can not guarantee safety as it doesn’t exist in the world of nature or man.

What we do in the US is have pilots who have a wider spread of experience. This is far superior to the Asian and euro model. Again we might not have pretty stews or legroom, but I feel I’m less likely to slam into the sea wall when I fly into SFO

 

[Everskyward]

A long time ago, Southwest determined that 3-4 hours driving time was the "Sweet Spot". Less than that, people tend to drive. In the era of TSA, a more than a 5-6 hour drive is outweighed by the convenience of flying, even if it means a groping.

My sweet spot is far longer than that. I will drive if it's about 8 hours or less. In fact I did, routinely. My employer gave us a choice of flying (airlines) or driving a rental car from Denver to Wichita for training, and I always chose to drive.

 

[spiderweb]

You can not guarantee safety as it doesn’t exist in the world of nature or man.

What we do in the US is have pilots who have a wider spread of experience. This is far superior to the Asian and euro model. Again we might not have pretty stews or legroom, but I feel I’m less likely to slam into the sea wall when I fly into SFO

I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I think you are basing your preference on feelings. Look, I'm proud to be an American, and support my country; but if you know of data to backup the assertion that Asian and European airlines are less safe and have less experience, I'd be happy to avoid those airlines. Until then, here is the list of the top 20 airlines in terms of safety, from JACDEC. Please note, there are only TWO domestic airlines on this list, and there are four Asian airlines.

1 Emirates UAE

United Arab Emirates 93,61 %

2 Norwegian AS NAX

Norway 93.26 %

3 Virgin Atlantic AW VIR

United Kingdom 92,87 %

4 KLM KLM

Netherlands 92,77 %

5 EasyJet EZY

United Kingdom 92,75 %

6 Finnair FIN

Finland 92,67 %

7 Etihad Airways ETD

United Arab Emirates 92,56 %

8 Spirit Airlines NKS

USA 92,18 %

9 Jetstar Airways JST

Australia 92,12 %

10 Air Arabia ABY

United Arab Emirates 92,09 %

11 Vueling Airlines VLG

Spain 92,02 %

12 Cathay Pacific AW CPA

Hong Kong 91,88 %

13 EL AL ELY

Israel 91,84 %

14 Singapore Airlines SIA

Singapore 91,78 %

15 EVA Air EVA

Taiwan 91,55 %

16 Eurowings EWG

Germany 91,41 %

17 jetBlue Airways JBU

USA 91,40 %

18 Capital Airlines CBJ

China 91,36 %

19 Oman Air OMA

Oman 91,28 %

20 Air Canada ACA

Canada 91,20 %
​

[http://www.jacdec.de/airline-safety-ranking-2018/]

Methodology found here: [http://www.jacdec.de/about-safety-ranking/]

 

[spiderweb]

. . . .

Americans have become conditioned to "cheap". . . .

This.

 

[GreatLakesFlying]

Which Chicago airport are you talking about

Both, actually. Free wifi is a recent thing (2018), and it not really free (you have to watch ads), and it is slower than the 2400 kbps modem I had last century. The main wifi infrastructure is a paid service offered by Boingo.

There are restaurants, of course, but with minimal kitchen facilities: in other words, those meals are precooked off-site and just reheated at the airport. But again, I don't go to the airport to charge devices, have a gourmet meal, or buy gifts for home.

The problems that I see at ORD and, to a lesser degree, at MDW are about the basic services: insufficient seating at the gate, for example. While I don't expect lounge comfort there, at least I'd like to be able to sit for 10-15 minutes before boarding. A better PA system wouldn't go amiss. Better slot management so that arriving flights won't have to wait half an hour for a jetway.

I have logged 1.5 million miles out of ORD flying with UA and no matter the deficiencies, I love that airport. It has some of the best and most clear signage I've seen (MDW too). Both ORD and MDW are integrated into the city's urban train system. TSA Precheck checkpoints at both airports are some of the smoothest I've seen.

But at the same time, I am skeptical about the airport's expansion. Unless we add new terminal facilities, we cannot sustain increased traffic. And even with new or expanded terminal facilities, we don't have highway and train capacity to service passengers. The highways leading to the airport are already congested. Will the expansion of the airport serve transit passengers only? I doubt it. If 25% of the additional passengers brought by new runways and terminals exit the airport, where will they go? I-90, I-294, and I-190 are already above capacity. CTA cannot operate any faster than the current schedule because of its own infrastructure problems.

I'd love to see growth at ORD and MDW but it will be a complicated and convoluted process with multiple conflicting interests at play. It would be much much easier to turn MDW and ORD into passenger terminals with super-high-speed trains ferrying travelers to a brand new, modern, large airport at Peotone. Check-in, luggage drop off, and security screening can be done at these converted terminals, then you ride to your gate at 150 mph.

But I digress

 

[Larry in TN]

And this is what airline?

The Asian airlines are fighting a cultural problem that goes back thousands of years. The steps necessary to maintain a safety culture, like we see in western countries, is very difficult for them. Here's the most recent example:

The people mover in IAH makes me laugh every time I see it! It's like an Star Trek prop or something from the old Spaceship Earth ride.

Interesting history. Check out its wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_(George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport)

 

[Everskyward]

The Asian airlines are fighting a cultural problem that goes back thousands of years. The steps necessary to maintain a safety culture, like we see in western countries, is very difficult for them.

I think they're only about 50 years behind us. We have had those problems in the past.

 

[wsuffa]

The Asian airlines are fighting a cultural problem that goes back thousands of years. The steps necessary to maintain a safety culture, like we see in western countries, is very difficult for them.

This.

Having worked with folks from asian cultures over the years, there are roadblocks to developing a good safety culture. It CAN be overcome, but it has to be acknowledged and addressed.

 

[tspear]

When you understand why Wal-Mart, Costco, JB and Sam's Club have succeeded and Nordstrom, Macy's and Sears struggled/failed.
You will understand what happened to airline travel.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[spiderweb]

The Asian airlines are fighting a cultural problem that goes back thousands of years. The steps necessary to maintain a safety culture, like we see in western countries, is very difficult for them. Here's the most recent example:

Interesting history. Check out its wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_(George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport)

I think they're only about 50 years behind us. We have had those problems in the past.

This.

Having worked with folks from asian cultures over the years, there are roadblocks to developing a good safety culture. It CAN be overcome, but it has to be acknowledged and addressed.

I see. So we have decided to ignore data and go with prejudices and anecdotal "evidence" based on cultural assumptions. Well, I can do that too: I've worked with persons in "Asian cultures" (including my wife) and I don't see the problem.

Oh hey! Did anyone bother to click over the the ratings page I provided? It is based on actual evidence and places FOUR (4) Asian airlines in the top twenty, while only two domestic ones make the list.

Sheesh.

 

[spiderweb]

The Asian airlines are fighting a cultural problem that goes back thousands of years. The steps necessary to maintain a safety culture, like we see in western countries, is very difficult for them. Here's the most recent example:

Interesting history. Check out its wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_(George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport)

"Cultural problems?" Wow. What's superior about your culture, Larry?

 

[spiderweb]

I think they're only about 50 years behind us. We have had those problems in the past.

50 Years? At least that's an upgrade from Larry's insinuation that there's been a "cultural problem" with Asians that goes back "thousands of years."

Either that, or he meant that Asian airlines have been around for thousands of years. If so, I'd say that's quite impressive.

 

[Everskyward]

50 Years? At least that's an upgrade from Larry's insinuation that there's been a "cultural problem" with Asians that goes back "thousands of years."

You may not know this, but I am Asian (although I usually decline to state) so yes, there is evidence that the culture plays a role. There is a strong hierarchy, as there was here in the past.

 

[spiderweb]

You may not know this, but I have am Asian ( although I usually decline to state) so yes, there is evidence that the culture plays a role. There is a strong hierarchy in these cultures. As there was here in the past.

Mari, of course I know you are Asian, and I know there may be hierarchical differences in some sectors of Asian society. Painting all Asian airlines as unsafe, however, without any reference to data is the very definition of an anecdotal assumption.

I've provided actual data which not one person has addressed. I've included source and methodology.

I'd hope that pilots, who should care about data, would at least take a look at it. Again, here is the list of the top 20 airlines in terms of safety, from JACDEC. Please note, there are only TWO domestic airlines on this list, and there are four Asian airlines (in red).


1 Emirates UAE

United Arab Emirates 93,61 %

2 Norwegian AS NAX

Norway 93.26 %

3 Virgin Atlantic AW VIR

United Kingdom 92,87 %

4 KLM KLM

Netherlands 92,77 %

5 EasyJet EZY

United Kingdom 92,75 %

6 Finnair FIN

Finland 92,67 %

7 Etihad Airways ETD

United Arab Emirates 92,56 %

8 Spirit Airlines NKS

USA 92,18 %

9 Jetstar Airways JST

Australia 92,12 %

10 Air Arabia ABY

United Arab Emirates 92,09 %

11 Vueling Airlines VLG

Spain 92,02 %

12 Cathay Pacific AW CPA

Hong Kong 91,88 %

13 EL AL ELY

Israel 91,84 %

14 Singapore Airlines SIA

Singapore 91,78 %

15 EVA Air EVA

Taiwan 91,55 %

16 Eurowings EWG

Germany 91,41 %

17 jetBlue Airways JBU

USA 91,40 %

18 Capital Airlines CBJ

China 91,36 %

19 Oman Air OMA

Oman 91,28 %

20 Air Canada ACA

Canada 91,20 %
[http://www.jacdec.de/airline-safety-ranking-2018/]

Methodology found here: [http://www.jacdec.de/about-safety-ranking/]

 

[Everskyward]

Mari, of course I know you are Asian, and I know there may be hierarchical differences in some sectors of Asian society. Painting all Asian airlines as unsafe, however, without any reference to data is the very definition of an anecdotal assumption.

I've provided actual data which not one person has addressed. I've included source and methodology.

I'd hope that pilots, who should care about data, would at least take a look at it. Again, here is the list of the top 20 airlines in terms of safety, from JACDEC. Please note, there are only TWO domestic airlines on this list, and there are four Asian airlines (in red).


1 Emirates UAE

United Arab Emirates 93,61 %

2 Norwegian AS NAX

Norway 93.26 %

3 Virgin Atlantic AW VIR

United Kingdom 92,87 %

4 KLM KLM

Netherlands 92,77 %

5 EasyJet EZY

United Kingdom 92,75 %

6 Finnair FIN

Finland 92,67 %

7 Etihad Airways ETD

United Arab Emirates 92,56 %

8 Spirit Airlines NKS

USA 92,18 %

9 Jetstar Airways JST

Australia 92,12 %

10 Air Arabia ABY

United Arab Emirates 92,09 %

11 Vueling Airlines VLG

Spain 92,02 %

12 Cathay Pacific AW CPA

Hong Kong 91,88 %

13 EL AL ELY

Israel 91,84 %

14 Singapore Airlines SIA

Singapore 91,78 %

15 EVA Air EVA

Taiwan 91,55 %

16 Eurowings EWG

Germany 91,41 %

17 jetBlue Airways JBU

USA 91,40 %

18 Capital Airlines CBJ

China 91,36 %

19 Oman Air OMA

Oman 91,28 %

20 Air Canada ACA

Canada 91,20 %
[http://www.jacdec.de/airline-safety-ranking-2018/]

Methodology found here: [http://www.jacdec.de/about-safety-ranking/]

I didn’t state that all Asian airlines are unsafe, in fact I’m booked on three different Asian airlines for an upcoming trip, including the flight from the mainland.

My viewpoint comes from discussions with instructors in a couple different trading centers that train crews from Asia. There is more of a tendency for the FO to defer to the CA, than in US crews. Note that I used the word “tendency” and not “all”. I also read the SFO Asians accident report where this contributed to the accident.

 

[spiderweb]

If readers prefer lighter reading to data, here are two articles for them:

https://www.travelpulse.com/articles/features/are-asian-airlines-safe.html

"In data compiled by Airline Ratings.com, the major carriers in Asia all rated highly in their respective safety records. According to AirlingRatings, the safety rating for each airline is based on a comprehensive analysis using information from IATA, the world’s aviation governing body and leading association, along with governments and crash data." [emphasis mine]
​

https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2015/02/11/no-worries

"In short: some Asian airlines may be slightly less safe than other Asian airlines, or than North American or European airlines. But they are still incredibly safe." [emphasis mine]​

 

[spiderweb]

I didn’t state that all Asian airlines are unsafe, in fact I’m booked on three different Asian airlines for an upcoming trip, including the flight from the mainland.

Good. I'm sure you'll enjoy your flights, and be quite safe, as well.

My viewpoint comes from discussions with instructors in a couple different trading centers that train crews from Asia. There is more of a tendency for the FO to defer to the CA, than in US crews. Note that I used the word “tendency” and not “all”. I also read the SFO Asians accident report where this contributed to the accident.

Just because there may be a "tendency" to defer to the Captain in a trainee, this does not necessarily equate to an unsafe or unprofessional flying environment. In other words, a cultural difference such as this (which is also found in any military of the world) can be addressed in the training environment--along with hundreds of other "human factor" issues--should it be deemed a problem.

Again, though, the proof (data) is in the pudding.

I suppose it is anyone's right to choose their airline based on emotional criteria, if they like, but the safety data is what matters, when choosing an airline for safety--at least it matters to me.

 

[wsuffa]

I see. So we have decided to ignore data and go with prejudices and anecdotal "evidence" based on cultural assumptions. Well, I can do that too: I've worked with persons in "Asian cultures" (including my wife) and I don't see the problem.

Oh hey! Did anyone bother to click over the the ratings page I provided? It is based on actual evidence and places FOUR (4) Asian airlines in the top twenty, while only two domestic ones make the list.

Sheesh.

Ben, for me, it wasn't stereotypes, it was based on personal observations of a fairly wide subset. And by no means do I intend to include everyone, because there are an awful lot of good, hard-working individuals that do work toward a good safety culture. And I did note that any roadblocks CAN be overcome. And I've personally worked with a bunch of asian teams that HAVE successfully overcome the roadblocks and attained success. That work may or may not be included in the flight training.

I would have *zero* hesitation at getting on the larger international asian carriers... including 3 of the 4 you listed. I find the list a bit suspect (e.g. how did they compile it) given that Spirit airlines is ranked so high given that it doesn't even have an IOSA certificate).

 

[slacktide]

If there was an airline that offered stellar service, no cramped seats, and didn't abuse their customers, even if it cost more (say up to about 25%), I'd gladly pay the higher fare. But I know 99% of other travelers wouldn't. Hence, such an airline will never appear in my lifetime.

You are describing Midwest Express. Flew all DC-9s and MD-80s with 2-2 seating instead of 2-3. Per El Wiki:

Its longtime slogan, "The Best Care in the Air", represented its inflight product. For many years, all flights featured 2-by-2 leather seating (in aircraft usually fitted with 3-2 seating), ample legroom, complimentary gourmet meals, and warm chocolate chip cookies.

People voted with their dollars and they were slapped by the invisible hand. They merged into Frontier and the aircraft got reconfigured as LCC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Airlines

 

[deonb]

If there was an airline that offered stellar service, no cramped seats, and didn't abuse their customers, even if it cost more (say up to about 25%), I'd gladly pay the higher fare. But I know 99% of other travelers wouldn't. Hence, such an airline will never appear in my lifetime.

Literally everybody I know would be willing o pay 25% more for better seats and service.

The problem is that the alternative isn’t 25% extra - it’s 250% extra.

 

[spiderweb]

. . . I find the list a bit suspect (e.g. how did they compile it) given that Spirit airlines is ranked so high given that it doesn't even have an IOSA certificate).

Methodology: http://www.jacdec.de/about-safety-ranking/

Excerpt:

All airlines start with a virtual ideal value of 100%. Then every accident or incident, every dead person, every injured person, every benchmark, every audit and every risk reduced this value by a calculated penalty. The more penalty values an airline collects, the lower (or worse) its risk index will be.


In other words, to reach 100% an airline would have to

• remain free from incidents and accidents of any kind for as long as 30 years,
• only serve long-haul flights,
• operate a young fleet (ideal would be between 3 and 9 years),
• pass all the safety assessments relevant to the airline (IOSA, EU Black List) and the home country (such as USOAP, IASA) with top ratings
• be uninvolved of any systemic operational risks such as seasonal bad weather conditions, topography or many ocean routes, and
• operate in a country whose air safety authorities work transparently enough to report on accident reports on a regular basis.

All parameters combined are 33, which make up the entire Risk Index. ​

 

[spiderweb]

Literally everybody I know would be willing o pay 25% more for better seats and service.

For flights 5 hours and longer, count me in that group.

 

[wsuffa]

You are describing Midwest Express. Flew all DC-9s and MD-80s with 2-2 seating instead of 2-3. Per El Wiki:

Its longtime slogan, "The Best Care in the Air", represented its inflight product. For many years, all flights featured 2-by-2 leather seating (in aircraft usually fitted with 3-2 seating), ample legroom, complimentary gourmet meals, and warm chocolate chip cookies.

People voted with their dollars and they were slapped by the invisible hand. They merged into Frontier and the aircraft got reconfigured as LCC.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Airlines

Some of us flew them. I was "Executive" tier in their frequent flyer program. Great little airline. Food inspired/catered by Mader's. Before they went down, they were operating Boeing 717's.

There was more to the story of demise than you've indicated. They didn't partner with anyone and they had a limited route structure. They did carry a fair amount of government traffic between DC, MKE, and SAT. MCI was a suboptimal hub. Really suboptimal. Planes were comfortable and the prices in-line with other carriers. But without partners it was hard to compete for business traffic on the limited route system (I always hoped they would partner up with the likes of OpenSkies to provide TATL service. That never happened).

When the private equity folks stepped in, it was all over.

 

[wsuffa]

Methodology: http://www.jacdec.de/about-safety-ranking/

Excerpt:

All airlines start with a virtual ideal value of 100%. Then every accident or incident, every dead person, every injured person, every benchmark, every audit and every risk reduced this value by a calculated penalty. The more penalty values an airline collects, the lower (or worse) its risk index will be.


In other words, to reach 100% an airline would have to

• remain free from incidents and accidents of any kind for as long as 30 years,
• only serve long-haul flights,
• operate a young fleet (ideal would be between 3 and 9 years),
• pass all the safety assessments relevant to the airline (IOSA, EU Black List) and the home country (such as USOAP, IASA) with top ratings
• be uninvolved of any systemic operational risks such as seasonal bad weather conditions, topography or many ocean routes, and
• operate in a country whose air safety authorities work transparently enough to report on accident reports on a regular basis.

All parameters combined are 33, which make up the entire Risk Index. ​

And yet this study showed different results - Spirit doesn't appear at all.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/The-worlds-safest-airlines-revealed/

As I noted above, most issues CAN be overcome, and those paired-up with US carriers (ones like Singapore, JAL, KAL, etc.) have had to revamp their training and culture. There's a fair amount of info on KAL given that Delta partnered with them, pulled back because of safety concerns, and then partnered again after they were resolved.
http://www.flight.org/downloads/pdf/korean_airlines_safety_audit_report.pdf

The NTSB findings on the Asiana crash at SFO showed poor cockpit communications & coordination and over-reliance on automation. That's public record.

Heck, in this week's news came word of a flight student in Indonesia attempting to bribe the inspector (getting both of them arrested): http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...mpts-to-bribe-examiner-with-crystal-meth.html

Issues can be corrected, and proper training can overcome them. It's not that hard, but it takes some finesse. Culture is different in Asia than the US, much as it's different in the Middle East, Europe, and elsewhere.

But regardless, I still consider MOST of the big Asian carriers as safe, and I would still fly most larger Asian carriers. Some of the Chinese and Vietnamese carriers I'd probably skip.

Happy to discuss offline where I can provide more detail.

 

[spiderweb]

And yet this study showed different results - Spirit doesn't appear at all.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/The-worlds-safest-airlines-revealed/

As I noted above, most issues CAN be overcome, and those paired-up with US carriers (ones like Singapore, JAL, KAL, etc.) have had to revamp their training and culture. There's a fair amount of info on KAL given that Delta partnered with them, pulled back because of safety concerns, and then partnered again after they were resolved.
http://www.flight.org/downloads/pdf/korean_airlines_safety_audit_report.pdf

The NTSB findings on the Asiana crash at SFO showed poor cockpit communications & coordination and over-reliance on automation. That's public record.

Heck, in this week's news came word of a flight student in Indonesia attempting to bribe the inspector (getting both of them arrested): http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...mpts-to-bribe-examiner-with-crystal-meth.html

Issues can be corrected, and proper training can overcome them. It's not that hard, but it takes some finesse. Culture is different in Asia than the US, much as it's different in the Middle East, Europe, and elsewhere.

But regardless, I still consider MOST of the big Asian carriers as safe, and I would still fly most larger Asian carriers. Some of the Chinese and Vietnamese carriers I'd probably skip.

Happy to discuss offline where I can provide more detail.

I'm glad you consider most Asian carriers safe (since, again, the data support that assertion).

But Bill, again, the Telegraph reference you provide also shows its top 20 have four Asian airlines and only two domestic--just like the JACDEC report. Thus, you've given us more data which further strengthen the fact that Asian airlines are safe.

 

[Ghery]

Delta is a "do not fly except in emergency" airline for me. Why? Because in 40+ years of riding them I have had adequate legroom on them exactly once, and that was because I was in 1st class due to a screw up on their part. Cattle car on DL is a sardine can experience for me. The US domestic carrier equivalent to LH (although I will NEVER complain about LH service after an experience back around 2006). The only thing LH and legroom have in common is that they both start with the letter L.

On the other hand, I have a bit over 1.3 million miles riding on UA, so I am Premier Gold (at a minimum) for life. That means E+ seating at the time of ticketing, with no extra charge. And free checked bags. I also have a fairly good record of getting courtesy upgrades to 1st on domestic flights. That's how you gain loyalty. I haven't ridden AA in a number of years, so I can't comment on their "comfort" these days. Just got back a week ago on a short trip on B6 (JetBlue) where I paid the extra for seats up front and priority boarding. I'm convinced that their legroom surpasses that in E+ on UA. Had to pay to check a bag and it was limited to 50 pounds (70 pounds on UA), but overall I can't complain about B6.

Are domestic flights getting worse? Overall, yes they are. Less room, poorer food (if any) and more treatment as "self loading cargo". Given a choice I'd quit riding any airline, but I'm still active in national and international standards bodies, so travel isn't optional. That, and my wife likes to go to places where riding the airlines is really the only option.

 

[Larry in TN]

50 Years? At least that's an upgrade from Larry's insinuation that there's been a "cultural problem" with Asians that goes back "thousands of years."

That's not what I said.

Asian culture goes back thousands of years. Some aspects of their culture are better than ours. This can be seen in the high levels of consistency they provide in their level of service. Those cultures put a higher value on providing excellent service than does ours. Other aspects of their culture prevent challenges in maintaining a safety culture where anyone feels free to speak up when errors occur and to put safety above saving face. The better Asian airlines have worked hard to address these problems, often by bringing in western safety experts to help them develop the needed culture and procedures. They still have a long way to go.

Literally everybody I know would be willing o pay 25% more for better seats and service.

The problem is that the alternative isn’t 25% extra - it’s 250% extra.

People say that, but most don't follow up with their buying decisions.

There have been many attempts to operate premium service airlines. Midwest Express survived longer than most. Grand Airways was another example. In the 1990s, when load factors were chronically low, AAL reconfigured their fleet with More Room Throughout Coach adding several inches of legroom to every row in economy. It worked okay until travel demand picked up again. When it did, AAL was unable to command a revenue premium equal to the revenue lost on the removed seats so MRTC came to an end. Some are will to pay more but, not enough, and not when taking the premium service option results in a less convenient schedule.

All three of the biggest three US airlines offer economy seating with additional legroom. Unlike AAL's failed MRTC, these sections are limited to only a portion of the economy cabin. Each airline offers these seats free to their customers who have earned status in their frequent flyer programs and offers the seats for sale to everyone else for a relatively low premium which varies based on the desirableness of the seat and the length of the flight. Still, on full flights, the regular economy seats all fill up first with the extra legroom seats still available. Some people buy up, and status members certainly consider the seats a valuable benefit, but most passengers prefer the endure the tighter seats for a few hours in exchange for the cost savings.

Meanwhile, the ultra low-cost carriers, such as Spirit and Frontier, fill up airplanes with very tights seating because many passengers prefer the low cost to more room.

So, here I am, typing this message, in a nearly-full A319 sitting in an Economy Plus aisle seat, next to an empty middle seat, while the entire regular economy cabin is full. My seat, and the empty seat next to me, was available for $40-$60 to everyone of the people back in regular economy and they all chose to save the money instead.

 

[jordane93]

People want greyhound fares and act surprised when they get greyhound service.

 

[SkyDog58]

Wow. I didn't realize how lucky I am to be alive. I've flown not only on a couple of Asian airlines on international flights but also on a few Chinese domestic airlines where I know that both pilots were Chinese.

 

[Larry in TN]

Wow. I didn't realize how lucky I am to be alive. I've flown not only on a couple of Asian airlines on international flights but also on a few Chinese domestic airlines where I know that both pilots were Chinese.

Again, that is not what I said.

https://thediplomat.com/2013/07/asiana-airlines-crash-a-cockpit-culture-problem/

 

[spiderweb]

. . . .

Are domestic flights getting worse? Overall, yes they are. Less room, poorer food (if any) and more treatment as "self loading cargo". Given a choice I'd quit riding any airline, but I'm still active in national and international standards bodies, so travel isn't optional. That, and my wife likes to go to places where riding the airlines is really the only option.

This essentially describes my situation, as well.

 

[spiderweb]

Wow. I didn't realize how lucky I am to be alive. I've flown not only on a couple of Asian airlines on international flights but also on a few Chinese domestic airlines where I know that both pilots were Chinese.

You must have been scared poop-less!

 

[spiderweb]

Again, that is not what I said.

https://thediplomat.com/2013/07/asiana-airlines-crash-a-cockpit-culture-problem/

Larry, I don't think you read the whole article, or at least not to the end. (Note, by the way, that the headline has a question mark at the end of it.) Indeed, the whole premise of the article you provide is that there is NOT a cultural problem.

And here are the salient excerpts:

As Slate notes, “A 2008 assessment by ICAO, the civil aviation branch of the United Nations, ranked Korea's aviation safety standards, including its pilot training standards, as nothing less than the highest in the world, beating out more than 100 other countries."

. . . .

“It's true that authoritarianism existed in the cockpit until the late 1990s (of South Korean flights) but we have now a completely different culture,” said Chang Man-Heui, director of flight standards at the South Korean transportation ministry.

Jung Yun-Sick of Jungwong University, a former Asiana pilot, added, “I assure you that cockpit culture has undergone great changes and become as much democratic as another countries.”

A more likely explanation is that pilots have become too dependent on automated processes at the expense of know-how. According to Thomas W. Brown, a former American employee of a Boeing subsidiary that trains Korean pilots, South Korea lacks a network of small airports to hone young aviators’ flying acumens. As a result, they rely too heavily on automated processes. [emphases mine]
​

At best, the article you provide that there may have been a cultural problem--in the past, but again, with no data to support even this assertion. Thomas Brown thinks that if there is any problem at all, it was an over-reliance on automation (again no data), but again, certainly not a cultural problem.

Hence the article therefore simply adds to the data supporting the excellent safety record of Asian airlines. I find it funny, actually, that both you and Bill inadvertently ended up strengthening the evidence.

I would assume that as objective pilots, we would consider that evidence--just as we all do when we go about our pilot things, like evaluating the data on single-engine safety, safest retract type, or safety of a particular make of aircraft, etc.

Non-pilots often solicit our opinions when it comes to aviation. Perhaps Ron Levy's advice might apply here. In preparation for checkrides, he used to advise: If you don't know the answer, don't make something up. If you do know the answer, better have your source for it.

 

[wsuffa]

I'm glad you consider most Asian carriers safe (since, again, the data support that assertion).

But Bill, again, the Telegraph reference you provide also shows its top 20 have four Asian airlines and only two domestic--just like the JACDEC report. Thus, you've given us more data which further strengthen the fact that Asian airlines are safe.

If you'd carefully read what I wrote originally, you'd note that I never once called any Asian airline "unsafe". Please dont put words in my mouth.

 

[Everskyward]

At best, the article you provide that there may have been a cultural problem--in the past, but again, with no data to support even this assertion. Thomas Brown thinks that if there is any problem at all, it was an over-reliance on automation (again no data), but again, certainly not a cultural problem.

There are others that might disagree with you. Here is a quote from the Chief Executive of Asiana talking about culture and the move to change it at his airline.

“It’s a reality that within our country there is a leaning toward a patriarchal culture and many pilots work and fly within the strict military order,” Chief Executive Kim Soo-cheon told reporters on Monday.

The airline has since September strengthened pilot training, set up out-of-office gatherings and recommended all members of the flight crew address each other with honorifics while working, regardless of rank, Kim said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asiana-culture-idUSBREA1906U20140210

 

[Larry in TN]

Hence the article therefore simply adds to the data supporting the excellent safety record of Asian airlines.

Only if you cherry pick only the positive comments from the article.

The article, and many others, clearly states the problems and discusses attempts to address them. Numerous accidents and incidents, including the recent runway excursion in ORD, demonstrate the continued problems.

The top Asian airlines, JAL, ANA, and Korean Air, have done an excellent job of improving their safety culture. The challenge remains, however, particularly with the difficult they have with recruiting native pilots, and they all employ a significant number of expat pilots from the US and other western countries. I have former co-worker friends who currently fly for all three.

Here's another look into expat flying at a non top-tier airline in chica. https://www92.zippyshare.com/v/rRE4ARC2/file.html

 

[Everskyward]

Methodology: http://www.jacdec.de/about-safety-ranking/

Excerpt:

All airlines start with a virtual ideal value of 100%. Then every accident or incident, every dead person, every injured person, every benchmark, every audit and every risk reduced this value by a calculated penalty. The more penalty values an airline collects, the lower (or worse) its risk index will be.


In other words, to reach 100% an airline would have to

• remain free from incidents and accidents of any kind for as long as 30 years,
• only serve long-haul flights,
• operate a young fleet (ideal would be between 3 and 9 years),
• pass all the safety assessments relevant to the airline (IOSA, EU Black List) and the home country (such as USOAP, IASA) with top ratings
• be uninvolved of any systemic operational risks such as seasonal bad weather conditions, topography or many ocean routes, and
• operate in a country whose air safety authorities work transparently enough to report on accident reports on a regular basis.

All parameters combined are 33, which make up the entire Risk Index. ​

But right above that, the methodology report says...

Boundaries and Limitations

It may dawn on you that even the best kind of Airline Safety Index must be regarded as imperfect because of the complexity of all it takes to minimize the risk of accidents. We would be a phony to deny that. Some essential sectors like the skills of aircrews or maintenance aspects are only superficially covered. Mostly because there still is a lack of a global benchmark or a transparent supranational audit dealing with those sectors.

I wondered why the study didn't mention much about the crew. Human factors are important, but hard to quantify numerically.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I see. So we have decided to ignore data and go with prejudices and anecdotal "evidence" based on cultural assumptions. Well, I can do that too: I've worked with persons in "Asian cultures" (including my wife) and I don't see the problem.

Oh hey! Did anyone bother to click over the the ratings page I provided? It is based on actual evidence and places FOUR (4) Asian airlines in the top twenty, while only two domestic ones make the list.

Sheesh.

The fact that spirit airlines is on the list completely invalidates the document.

 

[spiderweb]

If you'd carefully read what I wrote originally, you'd note that I never once called any Asian airline "unsafe". Please dont put words in my mouth.

I did not. What I said was, "you've given us more data which further strengthen the fact that Asian airlines are safe." And that is true. Your article does further strengthen that fact.

 

[spiderweb]

There are others that might disagree with you. Here is a quote from the Chief Executive of Asiana talking about culture and the move to change it at his airline.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asiana-culture-idUSBREA1906U20140210

Of course others may disagree, but I prefer to look at the preponderance of data which suggests that Asian airlines are safe. Furthermore, I don't see any proof that a military-style respect of rank leads to a lack of safety. If that were true, it would be true in, well, the actual military.