Lennart Petersen

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > Lennart Petersen writes:
    >> Finnair,Aer Lingus,Austrian,Virgin,Sabena nor Ryanair are small
    >> airlines.
    > They are very small compared to Air France, United, British Airways,
    > American, and the like.
--------------
They're smaller,but definitely not "very small" . All being major airlines
with intercontinental traffic. Just combine a few of them and you've an
Air France , without disasters.

Jim Ley

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:52:17 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Lennart Petersen writes:
    >> Finnair,Aer Lingus,Austrian,Virgin,Sabena nor Ryanair are small airlines.
    >They are very small compared to Air France, United, British Airways,
    >American, and the like.

RyanAir carried 3.2 million passengers in July, Air France/KLM
combined 6.2 million, so I'd say Air France and RyanAir were similar
sized airlines...

Jim.

Jordi

Jim Ley ha escrito:

    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:52:17 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >Lennart Petersen writes:
    > >
    > >> Finnair,Aer Lingus,Austrian,Virgin,Sabena nor Ryanair are small airlines.
    > >
    > >They are very small compared to Air France, United, British Airways,
    > >American, and the like.
    > RyanAir carried 3.2 million passengers in July, Air France/KLM
    > combined 6.2 million, so I'd say Air France and RyanAir were similar
    > sized airlines...

But they fly mostly short hops and their planes are stuffed to the
brim. In terms of miles flown the picture is very different.


J.

Martin

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:12:58 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> Lennart Petersen writes:
    >>> Finnair,Aer Lingus,Austrian,Virgin,Sabena nor Ryanair are small
    >>> airlines.
    >> They are very small compared to Air France, United, British Airways,
    >> American, and the like.
    >--------------
    >They're smaller,but definitely not "very small" . All being major airlines
    >with intercontinental traffic. Just combine a few of them and you've an
    >Air France , without disasters.

Sabena had one - they went bust.

--
Martin

Martin

On 5 Aug 2005 07:05:19 -0700, "Jordi" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jim Ley ha escrito:
    >> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:52:17 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >> >Lennart Petersen writes:
    >> >
    >> >> Finnair,Aer Lingus,Austrian,Virgin,Sabena nor Ryanair are small airlines.
    >> >
    >> >They are very small compared to Air France, United, British Airways,
    >> >American, and the like.
    >> RyanAir carried 3.2 million passengers in July, Air France/KLM
    >> combined 6.2 million, so I'd say Air France and RyanAir were similar
    >> sized airlines...
    >But they fly mostly short hops and their planes are stuffed to the
    >brim. In terms of miles flown the picture is very different.

Most crashes take place during take off and landing. Miles flown is
more or less irrelevant. Chances of another catastrophic accident in
a shuttle is 1:100 flights. However in terms of miles "flown" probably
safer than anything.
--
Martin

Jim Ley

On 5 Aug 2005 07:05:19 -0700, "Jordi" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jim Ley ha escrito:
    >> RyanAir carried 3.2 million passengers in July, Air France/KLM
    >> combined 6.2 million, so I'd say Air France and RyanAir were similar
    >> sized airlines...
    >But they fly mostly short hops and their planes are stuffed to the
    >brim. In terms of miles flown the picture is very different.

Flight movements would be more useful in terms of crashes I'd've
thought, but I couldn't find the stats easily, it's difficult to
compare the airlines all of RyanAir's planes can carry 180 odd
passengers, Some of Air Frances carry 500. AF/KLM have 81.5% load
factor RyanAir whereas RyanAir's is 90%, there's differences for sure,
but in most things they're similar sized, it's certainly not obvious
that FR is tiny compared to AF.

I'd like to see some information on plane movements though, as I think
this is probably closest linked to accidents, rather than passengers
or passenger miles.

Of course all the big airlines are pretty similar in terms of safety
none are statistically significant enough to say they're safe/unsafe.

Jim.

Jordi

Jim Ley ha escrito:

    > On 5 Aug 2005 07:05:19 -0700, "Jordi" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >But they fly mostly short hops and their planes are stuffed to the
    > >brim. In terms of miles flown the picture is very different.
    > Flight movements would be more useful in terms of crashes I'd've
    > thought, but I couldn't find the stats easily, it's difficult to
    > compare the airlines all of RyanAir's planes can carry 180 odd
    > passengers, Some of Air Frances carry 500.

Well, AF also has loads of small regional prop/jets, so on the whole it
will be balanced.

AF/KLM have 81.5% load
    > factor RyanAir whereas RyanAir's is 90%, there's differences for sure,
    > but in most things they're similar sized, it's certainly not obvious
    > that FR is tiny compared to AF.

Not tiny, but certainly very different.

Anyway, as you said later in your post, safety is consistent within
most modern carriers. Nobody can reallistically say that BA or Malev,
just to say two, are cutting funds on safety.


J.

Stanislas de Kertanguy

Jordi <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Jim Ley ha escrito:
    >
    > > On 5 Aug 2005 07:05:19 -0700, "Jordi" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >But they fly mostly short hops and their planes are stuffed to the
    > > >brim. In terms of miles flown the picture is very different.
    > >
    > > Flight movements would be more useful in terms of crashes I'd've
    > > thought, but I couldn't find the stats easily, it's difficult to
    > > compare the airlines all of RyanAir's planes can carry 180 odd
    > > passengers, Some of Air Frances carry 500.
    >
    > Well, AF also has loads of small regional prop/jets, so on the whole it
    > will be balanced.

Just to be pedantic, AF does not operate planes smaller than the A318...
The Fokker 100s, Embraers, ATRs etc... you may see in Air France colors
belong to AF franchises (cometimes subcompanies) such as Brit Air, City
Jet, Régional etc...

S.
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

Martin

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:12:44 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

    >Jordi <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Jim Ley ha escrito:
    >>
    >> > On 5 Aug 2005 07:05:19 -0700, "Jordi" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > >But they fly mostly short hops and their planes are stuffed to the
    >> > >brim. In terms of miles flown the picture is very different.
    >> >
    >> > Flight movements would be more useful in terms of crashes I'd've
    >> > thought, but I couldn't find the stats easily, it's difficult to
    >> > compare the airlines all of RyanAir's planes can carry 180 odd
    >> > passengers, Some of Air Frances carry 500.
    >>
    >> Well, AF also has loads of small regional prop/jets, so on the whole it
    >> will be balanced.
    >Just to be pedantic, AF does not operate planes smaller than the A318...
    >The Fokker 100s, Embraers, ATRs etc... you may see in Air France colors
    >belong to AF franchises (cometimes subcompanies) such as Brit Air, City
    >Jet, Régional etc...

AF also wholly owns KLM and KLM's former subsidiary KLM CityHopper,
which has F100, F70 & F50s
--
Martin

Jordi

Stanislas de Kertanguy ha escrito:

    > Jordi <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Just to be pedantic, AF does not operate planes smaller than the A318...
    > The Fokker 100s, Embraers, ATRs etc... you may see in Air France colors
    > belong to AF franchises (cometimes subcompanies) such as Brit Air, City
    > Jet, Régional etc...

Which are usually fully subsidiaries of AF and count towards its
statistics and safety records.


J.

Luca Logi

Luca Logi <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I still remember a 1989 landing in Pisa on an Interflug (East Germany)
    > charter. There was a terrible storm, no other close airports were
    > available (all were closed due to bad weather) and the pilot managed to
    > land on his third try. Suffice to say that a flight assistant failed and
    > my co-travellers were saying their Hail Marys.

Oh, I forgot that after a week an Ilyushin plane like ours from
Interflug crashed during an approach to Cuba airport. It could be well
have been our plane.

--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)

Gregory Morrow

Luca Logi were:

    > Luca Logi <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > I still remember a 1989 landing in Pisa on an Interflug (East Germany)
    > > charter. There was a terrible storm, no other close airports were
    > > available (all were closed due to bad weather) and the pilot managed to
    > > land on his third try. Suffice to say that a flight assistant failed and
    > > my co-travellers were saying their Hail Marys.
    > Oh, I forgot that after a week an Ilyushin plane like ours from
    > Interflug crashed during an approach to Cuba airport. It could be well
    > have been our plane.


Interflug was a relatively safe airline (they were German after all).
Aeroflot was not, they had a terrible accident record back in the old USSR
days. Aeroflot pilots would sometimes take off with one engine disabled...

I flew in a Czechoslovak Airlines plane back in 1978, it was an Ilysuhin 62.
One of the wierdest things I noticed was that seat backs were NOT secure, no
locking mechanism - if things had to come to a sudden stop all the seats
would have flopped forward!

--
Best
Greg

No Spam

"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:54:48 GMT, "No Spam" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> You really ARE becoming Mixi, you
    >>know. A self-proclaimed expert on a subject you know nothing
    >>about, asking the wrong questions, totally clueless, unable
    >>and completely uninterested in the facts. Mxsmartinmanic.
    > You appear to be going the same way. Be very careful.

On this thread, you don't know what you're talking
about. I do, so you snipped the obvious first four
logical answers to your ill-informed and irrelevant
question. It's definitely NOT TRUE that ALL lights
in ALL aircraft cabins are ALWAYS turned off completely,
seconds before EVERY landing. You can moo and quack
and bleat, and cite evidence that does not support
your point, and relate the tales of both of the flights
you have been on, but none of that changes any of the
facts.

Now, get back in your broom cupboard, and open the
window to let the heat out, Mrtnmanix.

Lennart Petersen

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> skrev i
meddelandet news:[email protected] k.net...
    > Luca Logi were:
    >> Luca Logi <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > I still remember a 1989 landing in Pisa on an Interflug (East Germany)
    >> > charter. There was a terrible storm, no other close airports were
    >> > available (all were closed due to bad weather) and the pilot managed to
    >> > land on his third try. Suffice to say that a flight assistant failed
    >> > and
    >> > my co-travellers were saying their Hail Marys.
    >> Oh, I forgot that after a week an Ilyushin plane like ours from
    >> Interflug crashed during an approach to Cuba airport. It could be well
    >> have been our plane.
    > Interflug was a relatively safe airline (they were German after all).
    > Aeroflot was not, they had a terrible accident record back in the old USSR
    > days. Aeroflot pilots would sometimes take off with one engine
    > disabled...
    > I flew in a Czechoslovak Airlines plane back in 1978, it was an Ilysuhin
    > 62.
    > One of the wierdest things I noticed was that seat backs were NOT secure,
    > no
    > locking mechanism - if things had to come to a sudden stop all the seats
    > would have flopped forward!
    > Best
    > Greg
I've stayed overnight in Aeroflot's hotel in Moscow. Was interesting to
see the pilots drinking habits....... although they had probably a nights
sleep to be sober.

Go Fig

    > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...ada-planecrash.
    > html

ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:24 p.m. August 5, 2005

TORONTO Ð The Air France jet that skidded off the runway and burst into
flames earlier this week landed farther down the runway than it should
have, but it is too soon to know if that was the reason for the crash,
aviation investigators said Friday.
All 309 people on board escaped with their lives after Flight 358 from
Paris crashed at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport
Tuesday afternoon. The flight data and voice recorders were recovered
the next day.

Real Levasseur, chief of the Transportation Safety Board team
investigating the craft, said officials in France who have been
downloading data from the cockpit voice recorders Ð the so-called black
boxes Ð announced Friday most of the indicators from the boxes appeared
intact and were not destroyed in the fire.
"I'm very happy to report we have good, solid data that will allow us
to start removing wreckage from the site much earlier than we would
have anticipated," Levasseur said.
Levasseur said the captain of Flight 358 remained hospitalized Friday,
but that all interviews with the co-pilot Ð whom Air France said was at
the controls during Tuesday's landing Ð and cabin crew were complete.
"These people can now all go home to their families and loved ones, who
I am sure have been very anxious to hold them again in their arms," he
said, praising them again for having evacuated the plane in under two
minutes.
Levasseur said the Airbus 340 landed too far down the 9,000-foot runway
before skidding some 200 yards, landing nose down in a ravine amid
torrential rains and winds.
"We do have some information that the aircraft did land long,"
Levasseur said at a news briefing. "We are still in the process of
gathering all that data to find out what that means."
When pressed on whether landing long would have contributed to the
crash, Levasseur said: "An aircraft like the 340 should land well
toward the back; how long exactly depends on weight, heavy winds, there
are a number of factors," he said. "We will certainly be looking at
information; and if it turns out the aircraft did land further down the
runway ... we will try to determine whether this had a major or
critical effect."
Witnesses and some passengers have said that it appeared that Air
France Flight 358 from Paris was coming in too fast and too long when
it landed at about 4 p.m.
An Air France spokesman in Paris declined to comment, saying the
carrier would wait for the result of a full investigation before
publicly discussing the possible cause of the crash.
Some aviation experts said the aircraft could have been pushed by a
strong cross winds at the same time the aircraft landed on a slick
runway, decreasing tire traction and causing a hydroplaning effect.
"I think they landed a little fast, a little long and probably
hydroplaned," said Capt. Tom Bunn, a retired commercial airline pilot
of 30 years for Pan Am and United Airlines who runs fear-of-flying
courses.
Levasseur on Thursday dismissed questions about whether the east-west
24L runway was long and safe enough, saying it met international
standards.
However, the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 64,000
airline pilots at 41 airlines in Canada and the United States, disputed
this, saying the ravine at the end of the runway may have contributed
to the crash.
In a statement Thursday, the union said the crash occurred "at an
international airport that, unfortunately, does not meet international
standards."
Canada's Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said Friday he had been at
the crash site and spoke with investigators about the ravine that runs
parallel to one of the country's busiest freeways, Highway 401.
"Some people are telling me that if there wasn't a ravine, the plane
would have ended up on the 401 at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and you
would have had more deaths than what you had," he said. "But all of
this is going to be examined."
Levasseur said there was no evidence, meanwhile, that lightning struck
the Airbus A340 as it was landing, as reported by some witnesses. "The
wings and wing tips are in pretty good shape."
He also said investigators have determined that all four engine
thrust-reversers were in operation and working fine, "So that's a good
sign."
The flight data and voice recorders were sent to TSB headquarters in
Quebec. However, Levasseur said Thursday that it would take several
days for special computer equipment to be sent from France to download
the information and that would delay the investigation and removal of
the wreckage.