Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Are Some Airlines Just Too Dangerous to Fly?

By Richard Korman, Miller-McCune.com. Posted November 4, 2009.


A new study calls for standardizing aircraft maintenance across the globe, but until then, the answer just might be yes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the first days after it fell into the Indian Ocean in late June, Yemenia Airways Flight 626 appeared to be a typical example of slack practices by airlines operated from Africa and the Middle East.

The flight started in Paris on a newer plane but switched to a 19-year-old Airbus A310-324 for the second leg of its journey from Sana'a, Yemen, to Moroni in the Comoros Islands, which the pilot approached in high winds. Out of 153 crew members and passengers only one survived, a teenager named Bahia Bakari, who floated until her rescue by clinging to debris. European officials talked of banning Yemenia after the crash, but the cause remains unknown — the flight's black box hadn't been recovered — and they backed away from the idea in mid-July.

The real problem exposed by the aftermath of Flight 626 — how to make sure old planes are fit to fly by standardizing worldwide aircraft maintenance — has opened a rift in civil aviation as wide as the wings of a 747.

An article in the May edition of the Journal of Business and Economics Research could help close it. Two professors at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., looked at 476 accidents between 2000 and 2007, excluding accidents caused by hurricanes or hijackings but not those linked to pilot error. They found that old planes used for commercial aviation with 19 or more seats have more accidents when operated from Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.

"When you look at the record, on the bottom of the pile are Africa and Asian countries because most of the time they are flying older aircraft," says Bijan Vasigh, an aviation economist and study co-author.

Most of the accidents involve aircraft 15 to 24 years old, report Vasigh and co-author Jorge M. Herrera (who has since left Embry-Riddle). The two excluded accidents caused by weather or terrorism, and divided the accidents according to phases of flight, such as approach and landing, the most dangerous time when the pilot is busiest. Equipment made by McDonnell Douglas (merged with Boeing since 1997) is among the oldest still used around the world and has accidents at the rate of 14 per 1,000 aircraft, or 14 times as often as equipment manufactured by Airbus, a younger company with fewer old planes in use.

(Vasigh says he concentrated on the big three manufacturers, Airbus, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, because their equipment carried more people around the world, rather than include Russian-made jets, which are known for being involved in many accidents but aren't used much outside the developing world. "Most of the Russian aircraft are flying in the Third World where safety practices are poorer and the accidents result from safety lapses, such as exceeding takeoff weight maximums and human error," he says. Focusing on the Russian aircraft "could have really distorted the data.")

Developing nations often assemble jet fleets by leasing or paying cash for clunkers. Oddly, the plane used in Flight 626, according to several media reports, was leased from a subsidiary of AIG, the giant insurer now controlled by the U.S. government. (Yemenia Airways did not respond to questions in phone calls or e-mails.)

Keeping planes up in the air is another way to hold down costs; when it comes to safety, flight cycles and hours of engine operation matter more than chronological age. If old planes are used beyond their designed economic life, as is increasingly the case, they need constant maintenance. Put the plane in countries that interpret transparency differently and where scant resources limit money, training, labor and spare parts, and care may fall short of international standards.

Developed countries aren't immune to aging aircraft problems, but in the U.S. enforcement is stronger. Southwest Airlines, a low-cost U.S.-based carrier, missed some inspections on some older Boeing 737s, and last year subsequent inspections found cracks in six aircraft. This past March, the airline agreed to pay a $7.5-million penalty in a settlement with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Southwest also agreed to enact new maintenance procedures.

Regulators such as the FAA have good model maintenance programs, but there's no clear way to know what countries fail to follow them, write Vasigh and Herrera. "Standardization is difficult because of the element of jurisdiction" among countries and regions of the world, says Vasigh.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: airlines, flying, air safety

Richard Korman is an award-winning journalist, Web site manager and an author. His freelance writing has appeared in Business Week, The New York Times, and Newsday, while the Library Journal selected his biography of inventor Charles Goodyear as one of the best business-related books of 2002.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
U.S. Air falls in this category- terrible service
Posted by: jgrossnas on Nov 4, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Flying home with them from Cape Cod, then grounded the plane mid flight because there were some rattling noises on the wing. I want to be safe but I also wondered why they didn't check the plane before flight. We were booked on another flight and on the plane but then pulled off because 'our bags were too big.' We were finally put on a 3rd flight hours later. Keep that in mind the next time you want to book with U.S. Air

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well
Posted by: teel on Nov 4, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would be more worried about flight crew that are working 12 hour days, pressured on all sides by management and unions. With zero job security, debt up to your ears, your third wife a hair from leaving you because you're never home, a starting salary comparable to that of a janitor, time-zone messing with your sleep. What do you think is on the minds of these people when the ice starts building on the wings and the fuel is running out in some holding pattern somewhere? I see aluminum showers and smoking craters in the future unless these people are treated with respect and fairness.

I don't understand why anyone would want to be a pilot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oldjohn
Posted by: Oldjohn on Nov 4, 2009 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am becoming more and more reluctant to fly on any US airline. Almost all aircraft maintenance is now contracted out to foreign countries like Colombia and Honduras. The workers can't read the maintenance manuals, which are printed in English, and the bosses push them to finish their jobs quickly and without supervision!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oldjohn Posted by: Archie1954
Aircraft Maintenance
Posted by: Doubtom43 on Nov 4, 2009 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally!! A topic on which I'm an expert. After 30 plus years in Aviation Maintenance I can state that flying is always in defiance of gravity and the only way to continue to soar in comfort and relative safety, is to heed certain other inexorable laws of physics which apply to the aircraft doing the flying. Law-Things that go up and down or rotate, will wear out. Ignoring this law, either through ignorance or inability to read foreign language manuals, will lessen your safety and may even make you dead.

It's a shame that the "bottom line" has so much to say about how important Aircraft Maintenance is. Variable maintenance requirements from a variety of nations is a recipe for disaster.
There can be no substitute for a strict adherence to the proper scheduling of the maintenance of an aircraft. Incidents of pilot error are bad enough, without begging for additional problems by stinting on proper maintenance of the aircraft, whatever the stated excuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pilots' pay....
Posted by: morticia on Nov 4, 2009 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michael Moore's new film--"Capitalism, A Love Story"--reveals the frightening facts about how punily pilots are paid. He interviewed one guy who said he made $19,000 a year and had to get food stamps. The fatal crash near Buffalo, NY, last year had a pilot and co-pilot in the cockpit who were critically overworked and disgracefully underpaid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Foreign Outsourced maintenance is also a problem
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Nov 4, 2009 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many USA and EU based airliners are having major maintenance or work done on their or leased aircraft done in counties such as in Central America, the People's Republic of China and so on as much lower in cost, including the fuel and crewing costs to bring them there instead of doing it in-country. That means much less oversight of quality and possibly less qualified mechanics. It also destroys good paying jobs in the USA and EC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Emargo !!
Posted by: kenfiu on Nov 5, 2009 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Safety for the life of ordinary people should come first, and not be put at risk just to prove a political point.
US policy is still preventing the sale of spare parts to maintain the fleet of aircraft that both the EU and US itself has sold to Iran.
It cannot be right to punish the population in general, and putting their lives at risk, simply because our government disagree with the political leaders in that specific country !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gathaiga
Posted by: gathaiga on Nov 5, 2009 6:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a tidbit on United Airlines. When my fiancee and her daughter returned with me from the Philippines I was able to obtain seats for them on my return flight on Cathay Pacific at a cost of $3200 one way. A Cathay rep said that only something over $400 of that was their charge, the rest was for the US domestic carrier, United. We flew United from LA to Denver, had an 11 hour layover, arrived in Oklahoma City without our luggage and had to make 4 return trips to finally get all our luggage...each trip 50 miles one way. AVOID UNITED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gathaiga Posted by: gathaiga
Great Article.
Posted by: batmagoo on Nov 6, 2009 7:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tight, informative; "Just the facts, ma'am..."
Kudos for packing so much useful data in 2 pages.
It's unusual to get such a straight piece of journalism these days, not just on AlterNet.

Of course, it would be a big help if common News Outlet would publish this and more information on a regular basis - Everyone would be the wiser.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement