My new theory on airline safety (CI, KE, etc...)
Feb 16th, 2006, 01:48 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My new theory on airline safety (CI, KE, etc...)
As some of you know, some airlines have horrible safety records in the 80's and 90's. I'll use Korean Air and China Airlines as specific examples. Now these are flagship carriers of pretty modern countries - places where educational levels are equal to or even higher than many Western developed countries.
There are many theories and explanation about why these two airlines did so poorly. But the questions that many people have in mind have not been answered:
<b>Neither have a major crash in years. Have they been fixed or are they just lucky?</b>
Yes, both airlines have gone through drastic change in training and organization. CI hired SQ to overhaul their safety, and KE had Delta. But each had also said they'd do things different after previous crashes. So, what's different this time?
Well, I think the fundamental change that has happened in both S. Korea and Taiwan almost simultaneously is that <b>both governments allow competition</b> into the international longhaul markets. The emergence of Asiana and EVA brought real changes to KE and CI that the talking of politicians cannot. Everybody in those old carriers know another high-profile crash or safety problem may mean the end of their carrier and their own jobs. I think that's the reason for the improvement of their safety record, and I think what we see these days is real and not a fluke.
The fact that air safety has also improved in China and Russia are due to the same reasons. Why still state-owned, the three major Chinese airlines actually do compete against each other fierecly domestically and internationally. And Aeroflot has also been broken down somewhat.
Anyways, just a little thought I have recently, and since I read something about China Airlines, I decided to bring it up today. All comments welcomed.
There are many theories and explanation about why these two airlines did so poorly. But the questions that many people have in mind have not been answered:
<b>Neither have a major crash in years. Have they been fixed or are they just lucky?</b>
Yes, both airlines have gone through drastic change in training and organization. CI hired SQ to overhaul their safety, and KE had Delta. But each had also said they'd do things different after previous crashes. So, what's different this time?
Well, I think the fundamental change that has happened in both S. Korea and Taiwan almost simultaneously is that <b>both governments allow competition</b> into the international longhaul markets. The emergence of Asiana and EVA brought real changes to KE and CI that the talking of politicians cannot. Everybody in those old carriers know another high-profile crash or safety problem may mean the end of their carrier and their own jobs. I think that's the reason for the improvement of their safety record, and I think what we see these days is real and not a fluke.
The fact that air safety has also improved in China and Russia are due to the same reasons. Why still state-owned, the three major Chinese airlines actually do compete against each other fierecly domestically and internationally. And Aeroflot has also been broken down somewhat.
Anyways, just a little thought I have recently, and since I read something about China Airlines, I decided to bring it up today. All comments welcomed.
Feb 16th, 2006, 06:42 PM
#2
Interesting. My opinion is that they must have been fixed by the safety consultants. The hiring of the consultants may very well have been based on the looming competition. They realized they had to shape up.
The Korean and Taiwanese politicians can make a lot of noise with no result. Or they could make a lot of noise and pass laws that would put people in jail for safety lapses. In China, the commies could do what they want.
Crashing airplanes is bad for business for an airline company. Unless of course it is a monopoly and the pols don't care.
The Korean and Taiwanese politicians can make a lot of noise with no result. Or they could make a lot of noise and pass laws that would put people in jail for safety lapses. In China, the commies could do what they want.
Crashing airplanes is bad for business for an airline company. Unless of course it is a monopoly and the pols don't care.
Mar 10th, 2006, 04:57 PM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Korean Air in particular, many or most of the safety incidents were attributed to bad "cockpit culture", where it was not considered appropriate for flight officers to correct even obvious mistakes -- even when it was apparent that a crash would result.
The classic example is the MD-11 that crashed in 1999 because the captain twice received confirmation from the first officer that the altitude was supposed to be 1500 feet, not 4500 feet, so he drove the plane into the ground. Cargo plane, only three were killed, plus five on the ground -- the plane crashed into migrant worker housing in Shanghai. This wasn't the only incident, either.
The CEO resigned and the corporate culture was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. KAL underwent a 10-point action plan and their record has been excellent since.
I don't think there's a correlation between competition and safety.
The classic example is the MD-11 that crashed in 1999 because the captain twice received confirmation from the first officer that the altitude was supposed to be 1500 feet, not 4500 feet, so he drove the plane into the ground. Cargo plane, only three were killed, plus five on the ground -- the plane crashed into migrant worker housing in Shanghai. This wasn't the only incident, either.
The CEO resigned and the corporate culture was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. KAL underwent a 10-point action plan and their record has been excellent since.
I don't think there's a correlation between competition and safety.
