starlight7 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After this latest horror- do you think it is jinxed in some way? Would you re-consider travel plans because of this terrible incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 No I don't think so. It could have been another airline, they aren't the only ones who overfly that area, just bad luck really. We've flown with Malaysian airlines and I though they were good. Long stopovers in KL though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I think I am being irrational, but no, I would not fly with Malaysian now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I won't fly with them. Plus I expect them to go into bankruptcy soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jac2011 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After the first incident, yes definitely. After this, no. And I don't particularly think the airline is at fault. Just the brand is now well known and there is no forgetting these two events. It would take a long time and some extremely cheap prices to tempt me. I noticed the flight centre released an email this morning advising of cheap flights to Australia and the Asian countries so I suspect they are worried that people will stop booking flights. A good time to get a good deal I suppose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Of course they are not jinxed. I have flown with Malaysian a number of times and they were very good. It could have happened to any number of different airlines that regularly fly over that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest51810 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After the first incident, yes definitely. After this, no. And I don't particularly think the airline is at fault. Just the brand is now well known and there is no forgetting these two events. It would take a long time and some extremely cheap prices to tempt me. I noticed the flight centre released an email this morning advising of cheap flights to Australia and the Asian countries so I suspect they are worried that people will stop booking flights. A good time to get a good deal I suppose! I got that same newsletter but I'm sure they advertised it just before it happened, I read the news and the email both when I was in the canteen but I'm not sure which one was first. Tbh I don't think I would use them but maybe that's me being irrational. I'm not a fan of flying to begin with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benthomas010 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I have flown with them, they are excellent. I would happily board a flight with my wife and child on a Malaysia airlines flight this afternoon or any other day for that matter. The sky's were full of planes. This one was just the unfortunate one. Nothing to do with the airline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebo Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After the first incident, yes definitely. After this, no. And I don't particularly think the airline is at fault. Just the brand is now well known and there is no forgetting these two events. It would take a long time and some extremely cheap prices to tempt me. I noticed the flight centre released an email this morning advising of cheap flights to Australia and the Asian countries so I suspect they are worried that people will stop booking flights. A good time to get a good deal I suppose! They've been dealt a terrible hand but they do have a small amount of blame for this one, flying 1,000 feet over the exclusion zone (to save fuel??) when many other airlines are avoiding the area. No, I wouldn't fly with them, and the prevailing sentiment here means PC is correct, they'll likely go bust because of this, unless they are owned by or will be bailed out by their govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I won't fly with them.Plus I expect them to go into bankruptcy soon. That will be a given if everyone reacts like a few posters on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickyb Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Probably the best and safest time statistically to fly with them now . The flight safety record globally it's inconceivable some thing else could go wrong . Unless you believe bad things come in threes ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jac2011 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After the missing plane incident, I argued Malaysia would be the safest to fly with... However, this is obviously not the case! I think all the airlines are at fault for flying just 1000 feet above the black zone but if this is still territory that has been granted as 'safe' then why wouldn't these airlines choose that route to save money, to reduce flight tickets that we all complain are too expensive? Would we all be willing to pay an extra £100 or so per ticket to make airlines far safer? Or are people more interested in a bargain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 You would have thought after the disappearance of the other plane the chances of another disaster were remote. One plane in a year is extraordinary, but two... Well you have to wonder of there are some unsafe practices and a poor risk culture in place here. Until bothinvestigations are concluded, I will not be on this airline and yes, it will probably need its government to intervene to stop bankruptcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peach Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I won't fly with them.Plus I expect them to go into bankruptcy soon. No they're state owned. Not all governments would stand by and do nothing.. I can think of one that would be already telling the press it was none of its business to intervene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benthomas010 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After the missing plane incident, I argued Malaysia would be the safest to fly with... However, this is obviously not the case! I think all the airlines are at fault for flying just 1000 feet above the black zone but if this is still territory that has been granted as 'safe' then why wouldn't these airlines choose that route to save money, to reduce flight tickets that we all complain are too expensive? Would we all be willing to pay an extra £100 or so per ticket to make airlines far safer? Or are people more interested in a bargain? I would assume that the exclusion zone of 31000 feet included a significant safety zone.. ie so the level of safety wasn't just 1000 feet. It was probably assumed to be a lot more than this. And that at 31k you are supposed to be free of any danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I would assume that the exclusion zone of 31000 feet included a significant safety zone.. ie so the level of safety wasn't just 1000 feet. It was probably assumed to be a lot more than this. And that at 31k you are supposed to be free of any danger. Obviously not as it turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKC Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I think so. I am not superstitious, I don't believe that bad things happen in threes or anything like that. It is just a terrible tragedy, that is not the fault of the airline, and could not have been prevented. The airspace above Ukraine had not been declared to be unsafe at that time, and according to reports, four further aircraft from four different carriers flew on the same flightpath shortly after. Any of those aircraft could have just as easily been targeted, and in my opinion it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in conjunction with a group of trigger-happy terrorists who had been provided with equipment beyond their capabilities. The fault for this lies solely with the person/people who shot the plane down. That said, this does make me worry about the possibility that now this has been proven to be possible, that other terrorist groups will take the idea and try to acquire the equipment required in order to carry out such an attack. Flights routinely cross Iraq, Iran, Syrian and Afghanistan airspace, and all it will take is one group of extreme terrorists to do the same to make me think twice about flying the usual route to the UK. If this were to happen, then I would most likely take the longer flight the other way round, via the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Yes, why wouldn't i? Still the safest way to travel by miles regardless of airlines name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Peach, they are not fully state owned and have been in serious financial difficulty even before this. Hopefully their financial problems are not why they chose this route, ie to save fuel. But if people refuse to fly them in sufficient numbers they will go bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I think so. I am not superstitious, I don't believe that bad things happen in threes or anything like that. It is just a terrible tragedy, that is not the fault of the airline, and could not have been prevented. The airspace above Ukraine had not been declared to be unsafe at that time, and according to reports, four further aircraft from four different carriers flew on the same flightpath shortly after. Any of those aircraft could have just as easily been targeted, and in my opinion it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in conjunction with a group of trigger-happy terrorists who had been provided with equipment beyond their capabilities. The fault for this lies solely with the person/people who shot the plane down. That said, this does make me worry about the possibility that now this has been proven to be possible, that other terrorist groups will take the idea and try to acquire the equipment required in order to carry out such an attack. Flights routinely cross Iraq, Iran, Syrian and Afghanistan airspace, and all it will take is one group of extreme terrorists to do the same to make me think twice about flying the usual route to the UK. If this were to happen, then I would most likely take the longer flight the other way round, via the US. The problem is that if anybody is so inclined and equipped, that they can do this in any country, not just those deemed as a risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benthomas010 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Obviously not as it turned out. Clearly. But whoever put that zone in place (CAA? ) obviously made some estimates not knowing the extent of range available to the separatists. The airlines have to be able to trust the relevant authorities not to put them at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul2542 Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I would be as likely to fly with Malaysian Airlines as any other airline. This was just a horrible tragedy, it could have happened to any Airline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKC Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 The problem is that if anybody is so inclined and equipped, that they can do this in any country, not just those deemed as a risk. Absolutely, but I would imagine that the risk is higher in certain places, which are more remote and which are more secretive about their goings-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisella Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I'm not sure I would just yet - even though logic and common sense dictates it was just extremely unfortunate that it happened to be this airline again (although I must admit I haven't read the reports yet regarding whether they selected this route because it was cheapest despite what was going on on the ground so am not basing an opinion on that just yet), from a psychological point of view they have a lot of work to do to gain people's trust again. It is extremely unfortunate for them as this latest crash was of no fault of their own yet people's perception (I accept not all) is bound to be negatively impacted by what's happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slean Wolfhead Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After the missing plane incident, I argued Malaysia would be the safest to fly with... However, this is obviously not the case! I think all the airlines are at fault for flying just 1000 feet above the black zone but if this is still territory that has been granted as 'safe' then why wouldn't these airlines choose that route to save money, to reduce flight tickets that we all complain are too expensive? Would we all be willing to pay an extra £100 or so per ticket to make airlines far safer? Or are people more interested in a bargain? To be fair, when you book your ticket would you check to see what route it takes to explain a cost difference? I flew over Ukraine 3 weeks ago with Singapore, along with Qatar probably the best airline in the world. They weren't the cheapest either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.0ad3ad7bc9a213b8cd17da1aa4ed9c73.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.