low cost airlines

Profile picture for user keltic

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,709

I have wondered how peanuts airlines make proffits, selling seats at bus prices. Everybody know their philosophy: Cost cuts and fully loaded planes. Its clear that the pioneer is the successful Southwest and here in Europe there are several examples which have tried to follow Southwest success. Ryan Air and Easyjet are doing a good job in terms of proffits, Debonair
(one of the finest low cost) went down when they missed the objectives of a low cost and tried to behave like a regular airline in terms of prices but at low cost service standards, Buzz (lovely colours) and the troublesome GO. I am affraid when they cut costs they cuts maintenance and level of safety.
I´ll be flying Easyjet MAD to LPL and I don´t feel really confident despite having paid only 30 pounds return. What do you think of low costs in terms of safety?. Do they use right spare parts of bogus?.

Original post

RE: low cost airlines

Well, think of it. What would happen to a low cost airline, if one of its planes chrashed? That would probably bring a lot of discussion about that low cost airline's safety and the people wouldn't trust that particular airline any more. That would eventually force that airline to cease operations (remember the ValuJet case?). I believe that the low cost airlines don't have any other choice than to maintain their aircraft properly, at least following the manufacturer's lowest demands. In fact, one of the reasons of Southwest's success is the fact that it has had no fatal accidents since its formation in the 70's.

Profile picture for user keltic

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,709

RE: low cost airlines

Good point. You´ve convinced me. In fact Valujet crash wasn´t for faulty maintenance, but incorrect handling of dangerous cargo.
Wishes

RE: low cost airlines

Many times is better to pay a little more I can sure you . This kind of companies (easy jet,etc.) made all kind of cost cuts but not only with you , the client( more seats ,only tourist class , if the plane isn´t full they dont fly...) The principal problem is the revisions that they have to make to their planes.You can´t imagine the price of un overhaul revision of the only one engine.Many several millions dollars , only one engine and the all plane?...this is the problem , the companys sale seats extremely cheap then they have to make only the principal revisions at their engines and planes , they are going to repair their planes in the most cheaper places and they aren´t going to see how only how much...

Member for

20 years

Posts: 269

RE: low cost airlines

If the way the aircraft were maintained and the general safety levels involved were that much of a concern with low cost carriers, I imagine the powers that be (ie CAA/FAA) would not allow the aircraft to fly in the first place. The CAA has been known to ban airlines flying into UK airspace if there was a major safety issue, witness the banning of Nigeria Airways in 1997.

RE: low cost airlines

Ofcourse I haven´t any doubt about the aviation authorities like FAA or CAA . I supouse that you know that un airplane/engine has temporal revisions , the CAA say at the companies that their planes/engines has to pass this revisions. Up to here all is alright but the company say ok. I have to make a revision at one of my engines an I have for example, to replace all the blades of the compresor of the engine but they know that all the compressors has 'tolerances ' and if I replace 50 of the 100 blades of the compressor the CAA say that this is ok and I have spend only the middle of my money . this dont happen only with the compressor , it occurs with the fan , with the turbine , with all the engine . And this is legal but yor engine is flying at the limit of his tolerance. Only the engine imagine what happen with the revisions of the planes . If you don´t win money with the price of the seats ( are too cheap ) you don´t have money for your periodicall revisions...

RE: low cost airlines

The FAA and other bodies around the world may do things differently but if the CAA says it must be done, it is done properly, completely and passes a fully signed inspection or the airplane doesn't fly. PERIOD.

I have NO qualms flying any British, Irish and on most US airlines, full or low cost. Others I treat with caution.

RE: low cost airlines

i´m right with all of your opinions ´Philb´but CAA And FAA arn´t God and i´m sure that you think how can i say this. Well i´m a worker of un airline in Spain and works for others companies like Aireuropa , Olimpic Airways , air Camerun( I can tell you thousen things about this company )etc.and if i said, that this kind of companies made things that aren´t good for the aviation world belive me I see it everyday ... With this is not my intencion to alarm anybody because to fly is the best and security form of travel.but some companies are playing with fire.

RE: low cost airlines

You have amplified my point re airlines other than those under CAA/FAA control. I've been around the industry as an enthusiast since 1955/regular flier since 1962/and provider of aviation conferences since 1982 so I'm aware of most things that go on and I'm very picky with whom I trust my butt.

The original question was about easyJet. I've used them several times and no doubt will do again - Motor de Reaccion Facil I would think hard about using.

RE: low cost airlines

Well I never have flown by easy yet but i have done it by Virgin and this company is other ´world ´in respect of companies like Iberia , Sabena , etc. First of all the treat in bord is diferent , if you pay more for other company ofcourse you have better treat , but the only thing that I drank during all the fly was a baddly orange judge...this kind of companies have cut cost and ofcourse you have to assume it.
And excuseme but i don´t understand wat did you want to say with " Motor a reaccion facil I would think hard about using "

RE: low cost airlines

Motor de reaccion facil is a literal translation of easyJet and was meant to highlight that I would think hard about flying a Spanish based easyJet, particularly in the light of your comments

Member for

20 years

Posts: 2,253

RE: low cost airlines

yes, you're right. However, Valujet didn't go out of business. It suspended operations for a while after the crash, then changed it's name, merging with a smaller Florida based company who'd previously held the name, and are currently introducing new aircraft. It's new name? AirTran (launch customer of the 717)

RE: low cost airlines

WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR AIRLINE, IS THE QUICK 20
MINUTE TURN-ROUNDS, I AM REFERING TO EASYJET, SURELY IF ONE PLANE IS LATE ARRIVING OR DEPARTING OR GOES TECH, THE KNOCK ON EFFECT MUST HIT IT HARDER THAN AN AIRLINE WHO SAY DOES A 40 MINUTE TURNROUND, UNDER THIS KIND OF COMMERCIAL PRESSURE, I FIND IT HARD TO ACCEPT THAT OCCASIONAL SHORT CUTS ARE MADE, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT SAY A 737 HAS DONE 6 FLIGHTS SO FAR IN THE DAY, ITS NOW BACK ON THE GROUND AND IN 20 MINS IT WILL BE BACK IN THE AIR, CAN OIL LEVELS,FLUID LEVELS,TYRE CHECKS ETC ALL BE DONE IN THIS SHORT SPACE OF TIME ?? I FIND 20 MINUTE TURN ROUNDS A BIT TOO MUCH, ITS OK FOR SAY A JETSTREAM 31 OR A DASH 8, BUT NOT A COMPLEX 737. ....ANYONE AGREE ??

RE: low cost airlines

Well the experts are Southwest, acknowledged by all to be world leaders in quick turnarounds, some of which are only 10 minutes, and they are exclusively B737. The amount of work to be done depends on hours accumulated, e.g. it isn't necessary to fuel at every stop and, on short length trips oil top up isn't always necessary. A walkround is mandatory under both CAA and FAA procedures and will show deficiencies not capable of being cockpit monitored.

Knock on effects do happen but the 737 has a 33 year history and is now a very reliable and efficient machine and most delays are due to weather, ATC or non tech reasons. Of course, if there is a tech problem a delay ensues and, these days, they tend to be far longer than any turnround time be it 10, 40 or 60 minutes.

RE: low cost airlines

Well the experts are Southwest, acknowledged by all to be world leaders in quick turnarounds, some of which are only 10 minutes, and they are exclusively B737. The amount of work to be done depends on hours accumulated, e.g. it isn't necessary to fuel at every stop and, on short length trips oil top up isn't always necessary. A walkround is mandatory under both CAA and FAA procedures and will show deficiencies not capable of being cockpit monitored.

Knock on effects do happen but the 737 has a 33 year history and is now a very reliable and efficient machine and most delays are due to weather, ATC or non tech reasons. Of course, if there is a tech problem a delay ensues and, these days, they tend to be far longer than any turnround time be it 10, 40 or 60 minutes.

Profile picture for user keltic

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,709

RE: low cost airlines

Thanks averyone to have answered my question about easyjet.

RE: low cost airlines

Some thoughts about Southwest as a low cost airlines having worked there. On the ramp in temps as low as -20 f. You work your butt off to turn the plane but you are safe as on any airplane for any major carrier. They make there money by keeping the aircraft in the air and turning it as quickly as possible.
They seem to be able to keep aircraft aloft for 10 to 12 hours a day vs other carriers at 8 and under. Faa rules and reg's detrimine mait and everybody tries like heck to follow them.