Would you fly with Malaysian airlines ?

[benthomas010]

And so... It has come out in the news today that they weren't planning to fly that route.... They diverted from their original route due to upcoming thunder clouds / stormy weather.

 

Apparently.... They would have requested a new path due to the poor weather and would have been directed to that region by local air control.

 

More proof of this will come to light when the black box or voice recorders are recovered.

[benthomas010]

Nothing wrong with Malaysian Airlines besides being very unlucky. Look out for some good deals worldwide and fly without a care. I don't think the Malaysian government would allow such a national symbol to collapse.

Absolutely. They won't be allowed to collapse, and international terrorism should never be allowed to bring an airline to its knees.

 

Will loss of custom even effect them financially? In all likelihood the short term loss of customers due to an incident like this will be covered in their insurance claim.

 

I would have no qualms in flying with them. They are on my list of potential airlines for all future flights, if times and prices work out.. then why not.

[Parley]

They were already losing $1M a day even before this so it will only get much much worse.

[benthomas010]

They were already losing $1M a day even before this so it will only get much much worse.

How does that prove they will / or are more likely to take dangerous shortcuts though?

[Parley]

An absolutely ludicrous suggestion. They nor any airline makes these decisions based on cost. Why would they risk a plane and it's passengers and their reputation to save a couple of hundred dollars of fuel?

 

about $16000 to $20000 extra in fuel to go round that area rather than through, I read today.

 

Not much maybe but if you are losing $1M a day, do you really trust the suits in head office to make the right decision.

[benthomas010]

about $16000 to $20000 extra in fuel to go round that area rather than through, I read today.

 

Not much maybe but if you are losing $1M a day, do you really trust the suits in head office to make the right decision.

Seems a lot. Fuel burn rate of a Boeing 777 varies between 6500 and 10500 litres per hour.

 

To achieve a $16k - $20k on cost for a diversion suggests it's a 1 hour diversion.

 

According to a BA pilot on the BBC yesterday the additional time would be 5 - 10 minutes, and minimal fuel cost. A 15 minute diversion at the worst case fuel consumption would add around $7000 of cost.

 

Since the diversions have been in place we haven't seen a great deal of late arrivals at Heathrow on these routes... so suggests it's not massively time consuming, and therefore not massively costly?

[benthomas010]

about $16000 to $20000 extra in fuel to go round that area rather than through, I read today.

 

Not much maybe but if you are losing $1M a day, do you really trust the suits in head office to make the right decision.

Sorry... on the second part of your question. Do I trust the suits to make the correct decision?

 

Yes.

 

And if they didn't, the pilot still has full autonomy to decide on the flight route.

 

The blame can only be apportioned to those who deemed airspace was safe above 31'000 feet. (And those who shot and supplied the weapons of course)

[Pumpkin]

I do not understand why so many posters are already convinced that Malaysian Airlines were not at fault here. Of course the people that pulled the trigger are the ones to blame primarily, but airlines have a duty of care to passengers too. And so far there is not enough evidence to convince me that MAS carried out their duties properly and thoroughly, in particular with respect to risk management.

 

There were a number of airlines that took heed of the warnings that were in place and avoided this area. I am puzzled as to why the airline that lost a plane four months ago was not amongst those airlines that took a zero risk tolerance approach in matters of safety. It raises questions to me about their risk management policy and practice, which need to be answered. I expect they will be forced to do so too and rightly so.

[benthomas010]

I do not understand why so many posters are already convinced that Malaysian Airlines were not at fault here. Of course the people that pulled the trigger are the ones to blame primarily, but airlines have a duty of care to passengers too. And so far there is not enough evidence to convince me that MAS carried out their duties properly and thoroughly, in particular with respect to risk management.

 

There were a number of airlines that took heed of the warnings that were in place and avoided this area. I am puzzled as to why the airline that lost a plane four months ago was not amongst those airlines that took a zero risk tolerance approach in matters of safety. It raises questions to me about their risk management policy and practice, which need to be answered. I expect they will be forced to do so too and rightly so.

And I don't get how people can blame an airline when the international aviation authority declared it safe to fly above 31,000 feet?

 

thus declaring that despite the risk at lower levels... at cruising altitude they would be free of risk.

 

If you can't trust their information who's can you trust?

[annagilda]

In answer to the original question. Yes.

[Quoll]

Yup, no worries if they're going where I want them to go and their price is competitive, why not? However, a close friend has just cancelled her 25/8 flight with them as she is a fearful traveller at the best of times.

[Incata]

I think you are best off going with the really successful and popular airlines- more likely to be well maintained . You hear tales of nepotism with some of the Asian airlines, including the Chinese ones. How to get a job there is not what you know but who you know. Scary.

 

Hmm. Sounds a lot like Perth!

 

I have flown with MAS in the past and as others have said, found them excellent. I would have no hesitation flying with them in the future. However, right now the thought of flying anywhere gives me the collywobbles. If we go anywhere, any time soon, it will be by boat. Less far to fall if someone tries to blow it up.

[Parley]

Seems a lot. Fuel burn rate of a Boeing 777 varies between 6500 and 10500 litres per hour.

 

To achieve a $16k - $20k on cost for a diversion suggests it's a 1 hour diversion.

 

According to a BA pilot on the BBC yesterday the additional time would be 5 - 10 minutes, and minimal fuel cost. A 15 minute diversion at the worst case fuel consumption would add around $7000 of cost.

 

Since the diversions have been in place we haven't seen a great deal of late arrivals at Heathrow on these routes... so suggests it's not massively time consuming, and therefore not massively costly?

 

I don't know where you are coming up with your low numbers from. Can you provide a link ?

 

Everything I have seen indicates an extra $16000 or more and 45 mins to an hour, which would probably result in a small increase in fares to passengers.

People on here who keep saying if the fares are cheap I will take them may not realise that cheap fares can lead to shortcuts.

 

Refer this article which backs up what I have been saying.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/more-each-was-enough-to-bypass-ukraine/story-fno88it0-1226995377756

 

 

IT would have cost Malaysia Airlines about $66 a passenger to *divert around the Ukrainian airspace where it was shot down, sources have told The Australian.

A former flight planner calculated that the diversion would have added up to 45 minutes to the journey, and with the direct operating cost of a Boeing 777-220ER estimated to run at up to $25,000 an hour, this would have added between $14,500 and $18,750 to the overall cost of the flight, or $66 per paying passenger.

Direct operating costs include expenses such as depreciation, insurance, interest, fuel, ground services, flight and cabin crew costs and maintenance.

The calculations highlight why many airlines were still using the heavily trafficked Ukrainian corridor despite the conflict below.

Industry insiders, including *pilots, believe airlines would have diverted had they thought they would have been subject to a missile attack at cruise altitudes.

The incident has raised questions about the level of intelligence to which airlines are privy and the need for an international body, possibly through the International Air Transport Association, to give carriers a better indication of the risks associated with trouble spots.

Avlaw chairman Ron Bartsch, a former head of safety at Qantas, said it was difficult for individual airlines to assess the safety of routes. He proposed a system of categorisation similar to that used for cyclones to give airlines an improved ability to assess risks.

“If IATA were charged with the responsibility of making that assessment, it could be very much like a travel advisory,’’ he said.

Ukrainian and Russian air-traffic controllers had put a 32,000ft minimum altitude on the flight path that MH17 was following, with the Russians citing “combat actions on the territory of the Ukraine near the state border with Russian Federation’’, hours before Flight MH17 took off.

Malaysia said over the weekend that its flight plan had been *approved by European air-*navigation provider Eurocontrol and revealed it had wanted to fly at a higher altitude.

It said it filed a flight plan to fly at 35,000ft through Ukrainian airspace as the optimum altitude but local air-traffic control told it to fly at 33,000ft.

Malaysian Transport Minister Llow Tiong Lai described MH17’s flight path as “a busy major airway” and said 400 commercial flights, including 150 international flights, crossed Ukraine daily prior to the crash.

“The flight and its operators followed the rules,’’ he said.

Some airlines have found themselves in hot water as they try to distance themselves from the route taken over Ukrainian territory by Flight MH17.

Virgin Australia partner Etihad was forced to admit last night that it had been flying in Ukrainian airspace prior to the crash, after initially denying that was the case. The airline said it had now suspended all flights over Ukrainian airspace.

Singapore Airlines also got its fingers burned refusing to comment on whether its flights were over the same route, even though flight-tracking software indicated one of its aircraft was close to MH17 when it was hit by a missile.

 

 

Now obviously it was not expected that a surface to air missile would be fired at the plane, but some other airlines did bypass the trouble spot,

I would worry that an airline which is losing $1M every day may compromise their decision making compared to a more successful airline.

[JULIE RYCROFT]

I flew with them in 2009 form UK to Bali, they are the best Iv ever flown with its a shame they have has this happen twice, Im a bit worried flying with anyone at the moment

[Kapri]

No, I won't fly with them.

 

We still don't know what happened to the first one and until we do they are off my list. It may seem irrational to some but that's my view.

 

I don't blame them for the second one - they were unlucky. Having said that, if other airlines were avoiding the area, I think they should have too.

[Keith and Linda]

I would, the wife won't, so I guess not. (She will have to ply the streets now to get the extra fare money)

[fletchaman]

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.

 

To Be fair noone new the sophistication of weaponry Russia were/are prepared to donate to these Butchers, Bakers and Candlestick makers!!!

[fletchaman]

I would, we flew to Istanbul with them and were fantastic, Singapore Airlines and India Air were both I think 2000 feet above MH17 so could have been a different story they were told to drop to allow these 2 flights above, it was just a matter of being in the right place at the wrong time

[benthomas010]

I don't know where you are coming up with your low numbers from. Can you provide a link ?

 

Everything I have seen indicates an extra $16000 or more and 45 mins to an hour, which would probably result in a small increase in fares to passengers.

People on here who keep saying if the fares are cheap I will take them may not realise that cheap fares can lead to shortcuts.

 

Refer this article which backs up what I have been saying.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/more-each-was-enough-to-bypass-ukraine/story-fno88it0-1226995377756

 

 

IT would have cost Malaysia Airlines about $66 a passenger to *divert around the Ukrainian airspace where it was shot down, sources have told The Australian.

A former flight planner calculated that the diversion would have added up to 45 minutes to the journey, and with the direct operating cost of a Boeing 777-220ER estimated to run at up to $25,000 an hour, this would have added between $14,500 and $18,750 to the overall cost of the flight, or $66 per paying passenger.

Direct operating costs include expenses such as depreciation, insurance, interest, fuel, ground services, flight and cabin crew costs and maintenance.

The calculations highlight why many airlines were still using the heavily trafficked Ukrainian corridor despite the conflict below.

Industry insiders, including *pilots, believe airlines would have diverted had they thought they would have been subject to a missile attack at cruise altitudes.

The incident has raised questions about the level of intelligence to which airlines are privy and the need for an international body, possibly through the International Air Transport Association, to give carriers a better indication of the risks associated with trouble spots.

Avlaw chairman Ron Bartsch, a former head of safety at Qantas, said it was difficult for individual airlines to assess the safety of routes. He proposed a system of categorisation similar to that used for cyclones to give airlines an improved ability to assess risks.

“If IATA were charged with the responsibility of making that assessment, it could be very much like a travel advisory,’’ he said.

Ukrainian and Russian air-traffic controllers had put a 32,000ft minimum altitude on the flight path that MH17 was following, with the Russians citing “combat actions on the territory of the Ukraine near the state border with Russian Federation’’, hours before Flight MH17 took off.

Malaysia said over the weekend that its flight plan had been *approved by European air-*navigation provider Eurocontrol and revealed it had wanted to fly at a higher altitude.

It said it filed a flight plan to fly at 35,000ft through Ukrainian airspace as the optimum altitude but local air-traffic control told it to fly at 33,000ft.

Malaysian Transport Minister Llow Tiong Lai described MH17’s flight path as “a busy major airway” and said 400 commercial flights, including 150 international flights, crossed Ukraine daily prior to the crash.

“The flight and its operators followed the rules,’’ he said.

Some airlines have found themselves in hot water as they try to distance themselves from the route taken over Ukrainian territory by Flight MH17.

Virgin Australia partner Etihad was forced to admit last night that it had been flying in Ukrainian airspace prior to the crash, after initially denying that was the case. The airline said it had now suspended all flights over Ukrainian airspace.

Singapore Airlines also got its fingers burned refusing to comment on whether its flights were over the same route, even though flight-tracking software indicated one of its aircraft was close to MH17 when it was hit by a missile.

 

 

Now obviously it was not expected that a surface to air missile would be fired at the plane, but some other airlines did bypass the trouble spot,

I would worry that an airline which is losing $1M every day may compromise their decision making compared to a more successful airline.

Ok. You said in fuel... reading that fuel is just one of the elements that make up the cost. Which will be part of the reason for differing figures.

 

I still think those figures quoted by the Australian look high.

 

If you think about it... They are saying $66 on cost for a 45 minute diversion. That's $88 per passenger per hour.

 

UK to KL is a 12 hour flight? Roughly.

 

That's $1056 in costs per passenger, per flight. You can get a return ticket for that route for around £500. It doesn't stack up?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the media sensationalise figures a bit. They just don't make sense to me. Although... It might explain why they are losing $1m per day though :-)

 

In regards to my figures, the fuel consumption came from a Boeing aircraft spec online, and the diversion time from a BA pilot on BBC news, so no link as it was TV media rather than printed. I will try to find more info at work tomorrow.

[Parley]

I guess there is more to running an aircraft than just fuel.

[benthomas010]

This source

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698579/Two-cabin-crew-refused-fly-doomed-plane-war-zone-safety-fears-Senior-pilots-cabin-crew-flagged-concerns-flight-path-weeks-tragedy.html

 

Says it would have added 20 minutes. Or rather that it had added 20 minutes flying time for these airlines that were already diverting.

 

Honestly... I think the media have got as much of a clue as you or I to the actual figures.

[Parley]

Never believe anything in the Daily Mail is a good rule of thumb anyway.

[Paul1Perth]

Just heard a spokesman for Malaysian airlines on the radio. Says there is no way they will survive in the current climate beyond the end of this year, they are losing $2million a day. Can't run a business long with those losses.

[jasepom]

As good a the on-board customer service is, they have to be heavily criticised for their lack of management.

 

The first incident they did not respond well following the loss of the aircraft, they were jumping all over the board, and of course there is the fact that they didn't report their aircraft missing for several hours which is incredible.

 

The second incident, there are many reports that say the advice was NOT to fly over that airspace as it was in a war-zone. Why would an airline even risk flying such a route ? Many other airlines, including all US based ones have been avoiding that airspace.

 

If an airline does not care about the safety of its passengers and crew, it should not be in business.

[Parley]

Now they are flying over Syria, despite US refusing to do so.

 

This is the sort of thing that has people so concerned about the decision making of Malaysia Airlines.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/world/malaysia-airlines-diverts-flight-from-ukraine--to-syria-20140721-zvgya.html